Mechanical Advantage/Simple Swing/Efficient Swing - Page 2 - LynnBlakeGolf Forums

Mechanical Advantage/Simple Swing/Efficient Swing

The Golfing Machine - Basic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-06-2010, 04:39 PM
Daryl's Avatar
Daryl Daryl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,521
Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket View Post
Define "compensations" . . . . compensated would infer a standard.
Compensations may infer a standard "Uncompensated Pattern". But, I think that if we look to the component level, we can compare one procedure to another on the basis of their relative simplicity, reliability, and compatibility with other components.

A good example of this would be to compare 10-18-A to 10-18-B. 10-18-A appears to be the more simple procedure.

Another example is Plane Shifting. Procedurally, Single Shift is more direct than a Double or Triple Shift.
__________________
Daryl
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-07-2010, 12:56 PM
dodger dodger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket View Post
What "alignments in the pivot, hands and clubshaft"? Not trying to be a wiseazz . . . just trying to define terms.
On plane clubshaft, hands aligned to turned shoulder plane to start.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-08-2010, 12:45 PM
12 piece bucket's Avatar
12 piece bucket 12 piece bucket is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Thomasville, NC
Posts: 4,380
Originally Posted by Daryl View Post
Compensations may infer a standard "Uncompensated Pattern". But, I think that if we look to the component level, we can compare one procedure to another on the basis of their relative simplicity, reliability, and compatibility with other components.

A good example of this would be to compare 10-18-A to 10-18-B. 10-18-A appears to be the more simple procedure.

Another example is Plane Shifting. Procedurally, Single Shift is more direct than a Double or Triple Shift.
I would say that a pattern is efficient in how it is complicit to 1-L . . . . rather than a component listing. Much of this starting with selected plane . . . components to match the plane angle to a large degree.
__________________
Aloha Mr. Hand

Behold my hands; reach hither thy hand
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-09-2010, 09:49 AM
EdZ EdZ is offline
Lynn Blake Certified Instructor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: West Linn, OR
Posts: 1,645
I would say the only thing that ultimately matters is the efficient transfer of energy to the desired result.

Chapter 2 really, the line of compression. The impact interval.

There is likely a difference in looking at the efficient line of compression, vs the human input/energy to get a given amount of compression.

You can have a pattern full of compensations, but still have a really efficient line of compression as far as the ball/club.

On the 'human input' side of things, I agree that Stricker is a nice model.

Not so much less motion = efficient

but only "necessary" motion, and no more (which I would agree looks like 1-L)
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"

"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"

Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 PM.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.