Thin Ice
 

Please don't, chbkk. The point under discussion is Clubshaft rotation about the Sweetspot (or vice versa), not Ted's swing.

Suddenly, I feel my legendary patience wearing very thin.

Pardon my English
 

Jeff,

English is not my native language. I know the word stubborn has a negative connotation but I could not find another better word at the time. The nagativeness is not intended at all. I have read and followed the work in your website and you have all my respect. Insistence is probably a better word but may not be sufficiently colorful.:salut:

My look at Yodasluke demonstration
 

I have no problem with Yodasluke backswing for the sweet spot to be off the sweetspot plane for it is during a low energy stage. Yodasluke's plane maintenance is amazing to me and I will try to copy that in my never-ending swing revision.

On the downswing, the clubhead behaves exactly as predicted by Newton's Laws.

What I take from the swing is that at the vicinity of impact, the center of the centripetal pull or the center of your so called instantaneous curvature lies near pp#4 that is Yodasluke in counterbalancing the enormous dynamic weight of the clubhead with his torso or the whole body-- he must. If that is the case then, I have no qualm for pp#2 not on the sweetspot plane.

Forget windmills how bout tilting at trees, they being more common
 

I'd like to second that.

How can such an intelligent man have so much trouble understanding the many, at times all most spoon fed, explanations of things on the other side of HIS debate points? An intentional deaf ear perhaps?

Jeff I actually like your debates but enough is enough. The juice from this fruit is long since gone.

Respectfully

OB

OB left

The concept of "who" is tilting at windmills is a personal opinion.

Telling a person that he must not express his opinion because "enough is enough" is equivalent to censorship.

I don't censor anybody in this forum as long as they express their opinions decorously in their post. I expect to be treated in a like manner.

I agree with Yoda when he states that a golfer swings the clubhead. I will even partially accept the idea that he specifically swings the sweetspot of the clubhead. However, where I differ from the majority viewpoint is that I believe that a golfer must swing the clubhead along the clubshaft plane, and not sweetspot plane 2, in order to get the sole of the club to be parallel to the ground, and along the surface of the ground, at impact. Yodas Luke's demonstration with a big club provides experimental proof that supports my belief.

In the backswing, he took his clubshaft up the clubshaft plane (not sweetspot plane 2) and during the downswing he took his clubshaft down the clubshaft plane (and not the sweetspot 2 plane). From its address position on the sweetspot plane to its end-backswing position on the clubshaft plane, the sweetspot rotated away from sweetspot plane 2 to get to the clubshaft plane by the end of his backswing. From the delivery position to impact, the sweetspot rotated away from the clubshaft plane to get to the sweetspot plane 2 by impact.

This exactly what I predicted when I wrote in post #165 that a golfer would always have to swing his clubshaft along the clubshaft plane, but he would have to make an accomodation for a greater hosel-sweetspot distance not by altering his on-plane swing (as he would perform it with a clubshaft that lacked a clubhead), but by simply standing the appropriate distance away from the ball.

In other words, I believe that the experimental evidence from Yodas Luke's demonstration swing with a big club supports my belief that the sweetspot rotates away from, and to, the clubshaft plane - and that the hosel doesn't rotate away from, and to, the sweetspot plane.

You are free to disagree with me, and harbor a contrary belief, but you have no "right" to attempt to censor my opinion (by stating "enough is enough") because my opinion conflicts with your opinion.

Jeff.

Point counter point
 

Jeff

I now feel that winning you over from the dark side is my challenge. Unless Yoda kicks both of us out of his forum before long..

Please consider my response. Your statements are in quotations, each followed by my opinion or question.

"I agree with Yoda when he states that a golfer swings the clubhead."

What do you exactly mean by "swings the clubhead"?



"I will even partially accept the idea that he specifically swings the sweetspot of the clubhead."

My own statement would be to swing the clubhead and to keep the COM of the clubhead on a plane.


"However, where I differ from the majority viewpoint is that I believe that a golfer must swing the clubhead along the clubshaft plane, and not sweetspot plane 2, in order to get the sole of the club to be parallel to the ground, and along the surface of the ground, at impact."

1) So in your mental image, the clubshaft plane is the plane board and by swing the clubhead along the clubshaft plane, you mean to have the clubhead including the hosel touch the plane board at all time regardless of the clubhead orientation? Then the clubhead rotation must now be restricted to the rotation around the hosel with its COM moving in and out of the plane board which I find hard to accept.
2) “Swinging clubhead along the clubshaft plane” is not the necessary and sufficient condition to get the sole of the club to be parallel to the ground and along the surface of the ground at impact.

You can see from the example in my post #154 Experiment 2, that we can setup the swing machine to swing the COM of the clubhead along the pp#2 to COM axis and still get the sole of the club to be parallel to the ground and along the surface of the ground at impact.

"Yodas Luke's demonstration with a big club provides experimental proof that supports my belief."

Not at all! Quite the contrary in my opinion.

"In the backswing, he took his clubshaft up the clubshaft plane (not sweetspot plane 2)"

OK, there is a plane shift from backswing to the downswing probably exaggerated by the parallax effect. Yodasluke is not a robot. Or is he? His swing is the most precised I have observe of any human. The backswing stage is of low energy and it does not matter much that you need to keep the sweetspot on plane during a backswing. But he sure keeps the sweetspot on plane during the downswing.

"... and during the downswing he took his clubshaft down the clubshaft plane (and not the sweetspot 2 plane)."

Jeff. Either you need a new pair of glasses or we need to agree on some common terms and definitions. Can you illustrate your statement here in the images?


"From its address position on the sweetspot plane to its end-backswing position on the clubshaft plane, the sweetspot rotated away from sweetspot plane 2 to get to the clubshaft plane by the end of his backswing. From the delivery position to impact, the sweetspot rotated away from the clubshaft plane to get to the sweetspot plane 2 by impact."

I see the hosel dragging the clubhead and the sweetspot down along the sweetspot plane until the swivel moves the hosel away from the sweetspot plane and squares up the clubface for impact. Meanwhile, the sweetspot stays very precisely on plane.


"This exactly what I predicted when I wrote in post #165 that a golfer would always have to swing his clubshaft along the clubshaft plane, but he would have to make an accomodation for a greater hosel-sweetspot distance not by altering his on-plane swing (as he would perform it with a clubshaft that lacked a clubhead), but by simply standing the appropriate distance away from the ball"

Any golf club must have a clubhead.
The dowel that you swing should represent the line segment from pp#2 to the COM of the clubhead, not the clubshaft.
The flashlight that you use to trace the SPL should represent this line segment too, not the clubshaft.
A golfer must prepare his posture and his muscles differently for different hosel-sweetspot distance to centripetal-pull along this line segment with varying direction from different location of the COM of the clubhead. Can you please explain, as an expert in human anatomy, how one must have different posture for different direction of pull?

"In other words, I believe that the experimental evidence from Yodas Luke's demonstration swing with a big club supports my belief that the sweetspot rotates away from, and to, the clubshaft plane - and that the hosel doesn't rotate away from, and to, the sweetspot plane"

A big NO, Jeff. We still have major disagreement.

Jeff, I think you are missing the big picture of the phenomenon and concentrate on details.
Look at this from this perspective: the lead forearm clockwise turn in the backswing makes the hosel cover the sweetspot and it remains this way until the anticlockwise forearm rotation happens in the downswing. If the clubhead rotates around the shaft/hosel it would mean that both the hosel as well as the sweetspot goes out of plane together with forearm rotation back.
Observe carefully your takeaway and you will see that the club rotates around the sweetspot (precisely, as NMGolfer said, around the club's CoG).
The same must happen in the downswing phase.
The scenario when the club rotates around the shaft/hosel is possible only when the club's CoG is in line with the shaft - as in case of theoretical center-shafted clubs.

As per YodasLuke pictures - I think the most misleading is the pic no.2; in this position the hosel and the sweetspot should ideally be on the higher inclined line that signifies the sweetspot at address.

Cheers

Dariusz

You wrote-: "Look at this from this perspective: the lead forearm clockwise turn in the backswing makes the hosel cover the sweetspot and it remains this way until the anticlockwise forearm rotation happens in the downswing. If the clubhead rotates around the shaft/hosel it would mean that both the hosel as well as the sweetspot goes out of plane together with forearm rotation back."

You do not understand my viewpoint. I have never stated that the clubhead rotates around the hosel. I have repeatedly stated that there is no rotation around the Z axis (between PP#3 and the sweetspot) and therefore the clubhead sweetspot cannot rotate around the hosel (or vica versa). I have also repeatedly stated that that the clubface sweetspot and hosel have a fixed relationship with the back of the flat left wrist/hand and that they both rotate to exactly the same degree as the left hand. I have also previously stated that the sweetspot is on an extension from the end of the clubshaft (= clubhead) that is fixedly at roughly a 90 degree angle relative to the clubshaft. The fact that the extension is at roughly a right angle to the clubshaft means that it will change its position when the left hand rotates, and it will move from one plane to another plane even if the clubshaft remains on the same plane. During that movement from one plane to another plane, the sweetspot is not rotating around the clubshaft - because there is no rotation around the Z axis.

So, consider again this photo series of Yoda Luke' swing.



Image 1

At address, the clubshaft is on the elbow plane. The sweetspot in on sweetspot plane 2. The back of the left hand faces the target.

Image 2

Note what has happened to the left hand - it has rotated about 135 degrees from its address position (due to internal rotation of the left humerus and a small amount of left forearm pronation) and it it lies on the clubshaft plane at the end of an abbreviated backswing and the back of the flat left wrist/hand is parallel to the clubshaft plane, and also on the clubshaft plane. The clubshaft's hosel and clubface sweetspot have no choice - they also have to undergo that 135 degrees of rotation in unity with the back of the flat left wrist/hand. Because the hosel is in a straight line relationship with the clubshaft it doesn't shift planes during the backswing, so it remains on the elbow plane with the clubshaft. However, the sweetspot is on an extension that is a roughly at a 90 degree angle to the clubshaft. Therefore, the sweetspot rotates from sweetspot plane 2 (at address) to the clubshaft plane (by the end of the abbreviated backswing). When doing so, the sweetspot didn't rotate around the hosel - because there was no rotation around the Z axis. The sweetspot merely shifted positions from one plane to another plane because the flat left wrist/hand rotated about 135 degrees.

When the flat left wrist/hand is on the inclined plane (whatever the steepness of the inclined plane) at any time point between the top of the backswing and the third parallel, then the clubshaft and clubface must also be on that same plane. If the clubface sweetspot was on any other plane, then the clubshaft is off-plane.

From Yodas Luke's end-backswing position, the downswing should be a mirror image reversal of the backswing process. The biomechanical events causing the movement of the left hand from its end-backswing position to its impact position are the reverse of the backswing movement - they are external rotation of the left humerus and a small amount of left forearm supination. During this process the flat left wrist/hand undergoes a 135 degree rotation so that the back of the FLW/hand faces the target at impact. The clubshaft and clubface sweetspot must also undergo this rotation without there being any rotation about the Z axis. In this process, if the left hand is on the elbow plane at a point near the delivery position (because it was simply coming down the same inclined plane) and it is on the elbow plane at impact, then there was no plane shift when the clubshaft moved from the delivery position to impact. Therefore, the hosel will remain on that elbow plane during the release swivel phase. However, the clubface sweetspot has to rotate back to sweetspot plane 2 during its 135 degrees of rotation because the clubhead extension has a fixed near-right angle relationship to the end of the clubshaft. When the clubface sweetspot rotates from the elbow plane to sweetspot plane 2 during the release swivel phase of the downswing, it doesn't rotate around the hosel - because the sweetspot, hosel and left hand are all rotating at the same rpm.

You regard photo 2 as misleading because you thought that the hosel and sweetspot should be on the higher plane. Why did you think that it should happen if the flat left wrist/hand stayed on the lower plane? If the hosel and sweetspot were on the higher plane, then that would represent an off-plane motion of the clubshaft. Yodas Luke was not shifting planes during his backswing, so why should his clubshaft hosel and sweetspot shift planes?

Jeff.

Jeff - what you describe is angled hinge action, an 'uncentered' motion that by the laws of physics (see chapter 2) is not as efficient as the ideal application, horizontal hinge and is, again, based on the laws of physics and the clubs design, at some level, controled steering. A fade is the natural result.

Why did Yodas Luke temporarily shift planes during the early downswing?
 

Consider this series of capture images of Yodas Luke's swing.




During the backswing, he didn't shift planes. He stayed on the elbow plane during his entire backswing. Therefore, if gets back to the same elbow plane by impact, then there should be no plane shift during the downswing.

However, he did shift planes temporarily. Note that his left hand (and therefore clubshaft) moved to a higher plane (sweetspot plane 2) in the early downswing - see image 3 - before he moved his left hand back down to the elbow plane by impact. That shifting of planes to a higher (steeper) plane and then back down to a lower (shallower) plane normally never happens in a "real" golf swing. That is equivalent to having a slight up-loop during the downswing. A golfer who has a plane shift in the downswing always shifts planes from a higher (steeper) plane to a lower (shallower) plane - and never the other way around.

So, why did it happen? I have a theory.

Normally, a good TGM-golfer directs PP#3 towards the ball-target line (base of the sweetspot plane) during the downswing - because he is trained to think that he must direct the orbiting sweetspot towards the ball-target line (base of the sweetspot plane). I think that Yodas Luke was thinking along those lines when he started his downswing - and the red arrow in image 2 represents the direction that he intended to direct PP#3. That caused his hands/clubshaft/sweetpot to go OTT - because they were directed at the base of the sweetspot plane. If he continued on that path then he would have hit the ball near the hosel of the club. He therefore had to make a "corrective" looping move a moment later to get the clubshaft back to the elbow plane by impact. Under usual circumstances this OTT problem doesn't happen. However, it becomes a "real" problem when the base of the clubshaft's inclined plane at impact is 9" away from the base of the sweetspot plane (because the actual distance between the hosel and the sweetspot is 9"), and a golfer aims his PP#3 at the sweetspot plane at the start of the downswing.

Jeff.

Ed

I cannot understand your viewpoint.

I think that hinging actions only apply to the followthrough phase of the swing and that they do not apply to the takeaway swivel action and the release swivel action. The flat left wrist/hand's swivel movement during the release swivel phase of the golf swing (its approximately 90 degree rotation between the 3rd parallel and impact) is always approximately 90 degrees in a swinger, and it is a mirror image of the degree of left hand swivel action employed during the takeaway swivel action.

Why do you regard its being an off-center motion if the back of the flat left wrist/hand and clubface both rotate to square by impact? If the clubface becomes square to the ball-target line at the exact moment of ball-clubface separation, because the flat left wrist/hand rotates to square during the release swivel phase, why is that an off-center motion?

Jeff.

chbkk

We have major differences in understanding this topic.

I have addressed many of your issues in my post to Dariusz.

I am only going to comment on this statement that you made in your last post.

""In the backswing, he took his clubshaft up the clubshaft plane (not sweetspot plane 2)"

OK, there is a plane shift from backswing to the downswing probably exaggerated by the parallax effect. Yodasluke is not a robot. Or is he? His swing is the most precised I have observe of any human. The backswing stage is of low energy and it does not matter much that you need to keep the sweetspot on plane during a backswing. But he sure keeps the sweetspot on plane during the downswing."

Homer's definition of "on-plane" refers to the end of the clusbhaft and not sweetspot. See last paragraph of 2-F. Normally the sweetspot can be used as being equivalent to the end of the clubshaft - because it is roughly equivalent to the end of the clubshaft when the clubhead width is <4", but it will not work if the clubhead width is 18" and the hosel-to-sweetspot distance is 9". If one directs PP#3 (which you believe senses the COG of the clubhead) towards the base of the sweetspot plane at the start of the downswing when using a clubhead width of 18" (like Yodas Luke's big club) then it will result in an looped downswing action - as described in a recent post.

You wrote-" "The backswing stage is of low energy and it does not matter much that you need to keep the sweetspot on plane during a backswing."

My understanding of the sweetspot being "on plane" during the backswing (between the first parallel and the top of the backswing) is that it must be on the same plane as the back of the flat left wrist/hand. Yodas Luke successfully achieved that goal during his backswing by rotating the sweespot from sweetplane 2 to the elbow plane during his backswing.

Jeff.

Jeff

Its just that sometimes I think it is debate not golf that is your real sport.

When in your first post above you asked "Do you agree, or disagree?" Im thinking you would have gladly debated either side of a persons answer.

This is all very educational for you and some of the readers, my self included, but only to a point. Like I said I like these threads.

But we are still dealing with your first sentence above!

As for censorship, I only appeal for brevity in light of the fact these debates have no proper structure or moderator. Even Kennedy Nixon went off the air at one point. Was that censorship too?

Debates do end, normally. Although Im sure some parties could go on and on if given the chance.

Lets do 1-L-16 next. Thats a good one. Seriously, no joke. Id like it. Was Jack wrong in regard to how to hit a fade? Face angle or club head path as the determining factor in initial ball flight.

ob

Jeff - Ted's demonstration of horizontal hinge action is basically perfect.

Very few people ever stay on "the" plane as well as Ted, hitting or swinging.

Cognitive dissonance is in full effect for you. You are very stuck viewing the SHAFT as the plane. Per Homer the shaft is NOT THE PLANE. Even the text you quote, the shaft staying on "A" plane, you are not understanding. It isn't in reference to THE plane.

There is no 'loop or OTT' in Ted's demonstration.

Ed

One small correction. I realise that Homer was talking about one PLANE with respect to the orbiting sweetspot and that's the sweetspot plane. However, I also talk of the clubshaft plane. You may not understand the relevance of talking about a "clubshaft plane" (which is dictated by the rotational movement of the back of the flat left wrist/hand), but I think that you have to understand the relationship between the clubshaft plane and the sweetspot plane to really understand what is happening in the golf swing. I guess that my 'belief' in an orbiting sweetspot's plane and also a clubshaft plane represents my state of cognitive dissonance!

Jeff.

Homer defines "the" plane as the hands (pressure points) and sweetspot. Not shaft. You may not understand the relevance of the physics, in fact, you clearly don't (nor do you understand the bold section above).

I suggest you suspend your current perspective and re-read all of the posts in this thread, and chapter 2. I'm done trying to get through to you, as you've shown little sign of incubating new perspectives so far.

Jeff, and why not ? The clubhead and the hand are so relatively distal things from each other that it does not change practically anything in the hands relation to the clubhead. If we assume that the club rotates around an imaginary axis coming through its CoG (assuming it comes through sweetspot as well) it is natural to suspect that the sweetspot remains on the same inclined plane all the time forcing the shaft and the hosel change its original plane to a slightly higher one. It is very logical for me.

Cheers

Dariusz

Here is photo of Tiger Woods and Adam Scott in mid-downswing.



Note that the back of their flat left wrist/hand is against the inclined plane. Note that their clubshaft hosel and clubface sweetspot is also along the same plane.

Now, you stated "why not" - which means that you can imagine that the cluface sweetspot can be on a different plane than the back of the left wrist/hand at this time point.

To me, that means that you really do not understand the relationship between left hand movements and the clubface. If the clubface was not on the same plane as the back of the left wrist/hand at this time point, then the left wrist/hand cannot be flat - it would have to be bent. In my mental universe, the left wrist/hand must always remain flat throughout the entire swing. If the left wrist/hand always remains flat and the clubface is always exactly in a straight line relationship with the back of the flat left wrist/hand, then the clubface must always rotate at the same rpm as the back of the flat left wrist/hand.

Jeff.

Ed

You wrote-: "Homer defines "the" plane as the hands (pressure points) and sweetspot. Not shaft. You may not understand the relevance of the physics, in fact, you clearly don't (nor do you understand the bold section above)."

I clearly do understand that point. The orbiting sweetspot travels on the imaginary sweetspot plane and it is directed by PP#3 acting through the sweetspot of the clubhead. A golfer doesn't have to ever think of the clubshaft in this scenario because the only important relationship is between PP#3 and the sweetspot. During the downswing, PP#3 aims/directs the sweetspot at the base of the sweetspot plane. The ball sits on the base of the sweetspot plane, so the sweetspot is precisely directed towards the ball at its ground location on the ball-target line (which is the base of the sweetspot's inclined plane).

However, I personally think that you need to better understand the relationship between the sweetspot plane and the clubshaft plane if you want to efficiently swing Yodas Luke's big club.

Jeff.

very true post. At times I wonder if Jeff would argue that night is day!

Jeff, you are right, I don't understand what trigonometric influence on wrist flatness can make an inch of distance between the hosel and the sweetspot when comparing to 40 inches distance between the wrist and the clubhead.
Enlight me, please, but I still think you are missing the big picture while concentrating on not important details that usually darken this picture.

Cheers

I suspect that Jeff argues with his own Echo!:laughing9

Houston, We Have a Problem
 

Jeff,

This is the first of your posts I've read today, and there's no telling what else I've missed. As usual, though, I didn't have to read far before I found an absurd misrepresentation of TGM.

'First instance' misrepresentations -- I view those as misinterpretations -- I can handle. It is the repeat offenses that really get under my skin. Your quote above is a perfect example. Homer Kelley's operative definition of 'On Plane' references the Sweet Spot (Longitudinal Center of Gravity), not the Clubshaft. Read the first three sentences of the second paragraph in 2-F. Or just re-read my post #155 (68 posts ago) where I not only explained that fact, I actually took the time and trouble to write it out for you verbatim. Further, the last sentence of that paragraph explains precisely when the Clubshaft is an acceptable visual equivalent for both Planes. And now you come up with this drivel that once again compels me to respond.

I can draw only three conclusions regarding your persistently obnoxious behavior:

1. You don't read the replies to your tomes.

2. You read them, but choose to ignore them.

3. You read them, but when confronted with the truth, you continue to state otherwise to suit your own purposes.

Your incessant, argumentative responses and use of quotes indicate that you at least read the replies. However, you have made items #2 and #3 an artform.

Here's the problem I've got with you, Jeff . . .

I am the proprietor of this site. I pay for it every month. I have dedicated volunteers who help me deliver its content 24/7. And we have a mission, part of which is to deliver accurate information regarding Homer Kelley and his book, The Golfing Machine. Now, this may come as a surprise, but I have absolutely no problem with those who question his ideas. If that were the case, you'd have been gone a long time ago. What I do have a problem with -- a very big problem -- is someone coming along and continuing to attribute ideas to the book that are either (a) simply not there, or more often, (b) dead wrong in their interpretation.

I've lately been on the receiving end of plenty of advice from people I respect and whose opinions I value. And what they tell me is that, despite my disclaimer on the Forum Home Page (where I state that your opinions are definitely your own and not those of LBG), your presence here implies my tacit approval of the information you deliver. For better or worse, I have come to agree with them. Else, why would I waste so many hours setting things right? Only to find in the very next hour that you've come back and whacked things upside down again.

I thought I could just set up a dedicated Forum for you, leave you be and let you wander through your wonderland alone. I thought you would attract a small but interested following, and you guys could enjoy each other while the rest of us were out working, playing golf or posting quasi-normally. Sadly, I was wrong.

To the contrary, every time I come in I find instances where, as happened tonight, I simply must set the record straight. Usually, I let these recurring opportunities go: I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into pissing contests with you. But, as you can see from this and prior posts in this thread and others, I sometimes must respond, especially to the more agregious affronts to TGM. Or else be viewed as a passive constituent in your efforts. Which, to some degree, I would be, because I'm funding your operation and making it visible to the world.

We gotta do something, Jeff. I'm not sure what. You present your misrepresentations of TGM as facts, and it is taking far too much of my time to correct things. And it burns my soul when I have to let your misstatements stand unanswered because I actually have other, more valuable work to do. Which, by the way, often means writing a post in another forum that I feel will help my students and readers play a better game of golf, a situtation I believe rarely occurs when I spend my time -- no, waste my time (as I have here) -- replying to you.

You have certain redeeming qualities, Jeff, and as I've said before, I applaud your seeking nature. However, you cannot be allowed to sabatoge my mission. You have your own web site, and I am becoming more and more inclined to encourage you to pursue your activities there and not on LBG. Set up your own Forums. I promise I won't go there -- it will be out of site and out of mind -- and you'll have the whole playground to yourself. On the other hand, it takes a long time and a whole lot of effort to get 6,000+ members, so I don't blame you for wanting to hang out here. It gets pretty lonely pretty quick over at your place.

I do not want to ban you, and this exclusive Forum is the ultimate evidence of that fact. But I'm running out of alternatives. Given the obvious incongruity between your persistant attacks and my own personal mission, you may have left me no other choice.

:(

Eviction Warning
 

Jeff,

I know you directed your post at O.B. Left, but he was only seconding the headline in my own post; namely, So Stop Already. You didn't confront me with the issue, but you did with him. Hence, this post and more time wasted for me.

My objective is not to censure your opinion. My objective is to deliver value to our readers. You've pecked on this now not-so-shiny hubcap long enough. You've been told that the only bird there is you. And yet you continue to peck.

This ain't a democracy, Jeff. It is a benevolent dictatorship. And you've just about drained my benevolence reservoir dry.

As landlord and bill-payer around here, I have neither the right nor the desire to censor your opinion. I do have the right to evict you from this building, and I will if you persist in this anti-TGM (and hence anti-LBG) behavior.

Heed my warning, Jeff, or you'll be pecking to your heart's content on your own site. Then perhaps you'll be able to answer the age-old question:

"If a tree falls in the forest when no one's around to hear, does it make a sound?"

&B

Cool Hand Luke
 

Yoda,
please have mercy.
Jeff is alone.
Others are not misled by him. They are learning from seeing him pounded, I think?


Jeff,

You do not need a new pair of glasses. Your vision is probably a lot better than mine. The problems lie behind your cameras, there are bugs in your computer! I am so glad that we think we can identify the locations of the particular problems. As a physician, you know well that correct diagnosis is a major step in fixing the problems.

Problem 1: Jeff’s failure to perceive rotation around the Z axis

Symptoms:
1. He is vehemently against AJ Bonar method of swinging.
2. The meshed gears in the mechanical wrist joint of the swing machine caught him off guard, he thought it was a universal joint.
3. He frequently claims the turning of the left hand without the corresponding rotation of the lower lever around the Z axis
Root causes:
Jeff is a physician who is used to articulated bone joints. Although he is very analytical, he was neither trained as a mathematician nor a physicist.
Treatment:
Consult nmgolfer or the lurking mandrin.


Problem 2: Jeff’s fixation on the clubshaft plane
Symptoms:
1. He frequently states that the only way to return the club to the position at address effectively is to swing the clubshaft on the clubshaft plane.
2. He refuses to fully accept the method of swinging the clubhead by keeping the sweetspot on the sweetspot plane.
Root causes:
Jeff’s over reliance on gadgets: plane boards, dowels, flashlights.
Treatment:
Consult any GSED

Why is it when reading this thread I am reminded of the Mythbusters quote :

"I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own"

Jeff, it seems you are looking to prove you are right rather than learn.

Try something for me if you could. Run a dowel from the clubhead sweetspot to PP3 as you grip the club. Keep this dowel on a plane board (will have to be a sort of inverted plane board) as you swing. (short swings)

Report back with results.

Yoda,

I think that it is best if you close down this "Golf by Jeff" forum.

You are trying to reconcile two conflicting desires without obvious success.

Your first desire is to teach TGM using Homer's work as the "final answer" and the "final decider" of the "truth" regarding the golf swing.

Your second desire is to create an aura that you are less autocratic, and more open-minded, than many TGM-golf website fourm owners and that you are willing to entertain alternative opinions - even if they contradict your personal opinions.

However, you, and the majority of your forum members, place a very high value on the fundamental idea of orthodoxy, and you/they do not like anybody to question the wisdom of Homer's work. For example, you get easily slighted when you think that I am misrepresenting Homer's work. You are also overly concerned that my misinterpretations are somehow damaging to your reputation and your website. If that is your major concern, then it makes no sense to allow me to express my opinions freely on your website.

I actually believe that my personal opinions expressed in this "Golf by Jeff M" forum, even if totally wrong, can never be damaging to true students of the golf swing. I believe that "truths" regarding the golf swing can never be damaged by "untruths". I, as forum moderator of this forum, have constantly expressed my belief that this forum should be "open" to all opinions - no matter how ridiculous or how contrarian. It is based on my sincere belief in the wisdom of Karl Popper's "falsification principle" and his idea that a theory becomes more true if it can constantly/successfully withstand all attempts at falsification. Regarding TGM theory, in the light of KP's "falsification principle", I believe that it becomes increasingly strengthened as a valid golf swing theory if it can withstand rigorous intellectual attacks.

I think that Homer would have been very sympathetic to my intellectual position as forum moderator and as a forum participant. If Homer had died after he wrote his first edition of TGM, then TGM-disciples would have regarded the first edition as the ultimate "orthodoxy" regarding golf swing theory. Then, we would have not have acquired new insights regarding the golf swing, that came with Homer's further insights, and further revisions of his TGM book. For all we know, if Homer had lived another 20 years, we could now be reading the 10th edition of TGM and we would have gained even more insights into "truths" regarding golf swing mechanics. physics and geometry. It is even theoretically possible that he may have revised his 2-F section to clarify certain points, based on further research and further thinking. I am certain that Homer would have wanted his followers to think deeply about the golf swing and come up new ideas and new revisions to his original TGM-ideas. I believe that you are actually sympathetic to the basic idea that Homer would have wanted people to question his ideas and expand on them, but I think that you cannot tolerate the "messiness" that accompanies the uncensored rigorous intellectual exploration of Homer's golf swing theories. You also have a strong autocratic streak that is in conflict with the idea of hosting an uncensored/open forum on your personal golf website. In that sense, you are in a "catch 22" situation, and your life will be much easier if you close down this forum.

I appreciate your temporary hosting of this "Golf by Jeff" forum. I have gained a great deal by reading criticisms of my personal opinions, because it has forced me to rethink my position, and revise/modulate my counterarguments. I understand golf swing theory issues much better when faced with a barrage of criticism, even when I think that the criticism is invalid, because it gives me greater insights into alternative ways of thinking about golf mechanics and golf biomechanics. My own knowledge reagrding the golf swing has been enhanced by participating in this forum and subjecting my personal opinions to "uncensored falsification attacks". I thank all those forum members who relentlessly questioned my personal opinions, because they forced to me to think more rigorously about the golf swing. I will certainly miss the intellectual challenge that their counterarguments presented.

Jeff.

Bluebirds and Springtime
 

Thanks, Jeff . . . you've done the right thing.

I sincerely appreciate your many positive contributions. Unfortunately, your stifling, adversarial approach with its Karl Popper "falsification principle" tactics strains our resources and diverts us from our mission. Hence, our inherent conflict and agreement that it is time for you to move on. The LBG bus has taken you as far as it can, and your end destination awaits. From here, you'll need another connecting line . . . maybe even your own.

:salut:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ8Hkc24kZw