Compression?

[O.B.Left]

I am talking about the loft of the face increasing during the impact. In every one of those irons shots, it is quite visible that the face is delofting upon impact (even the lob shot). Sure a bunch are miss hit and they also rotate.

Because the ball is going up, the face must be going down.

Where in 2-c-* is the CG of club head mentioned?

I can't find it.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying hinge action can't happen.

Saying that the clubface is adding loft during impact is all I am discussing.

Interesting point but does that necessarily discount the net variances? Layback only vs closing only given the delofting you mention. There must still be a difference no?

[John Graham]

Interesting point but does that necessarily discount the net variances? Layback only vs closing only given the delofting you mention. There must still be a difference no?

The difference would come from club head speed and impact location.

I continue to be reminded to look at the picture in 2-C-2 and every time I do I see more questions.

For example, in 2-C-2 #2 and #3 it clearly shows a leaning forward shaft at impact and a vertical shaft at separation.

Surely, we can all agree that is an inaccurate representation of what happens in the time frame while the ball is on the face as depicted in these pictures.

I certainly agree with everyone, that vertical hinge action can be a wonderful teaching tool in the real world.

Am I the only one that see's this and has a desire to question it and learn more about it.

Is the picture an exaggeration?

If it is, is the whole thing an exaggeration or just the shaft depiction?

How would I know if just reading the book?

Should this picture be changed in the 8th edition?

[HungryBear]

The difference would come from club head speed and impact location.

I continue to be reminded to look at the picture in 2-C-2 and every time I do I see more questions.

For example, in 2-C-2 #2 and #3 it clearly shows a leaning forward shaft at impact and a vertical shaft at separation.

Surely, we can all agree that is an inaccurate representation of what happens in the time frame while the ball is on the face as depicted in these pictures.

I certainly agree with everyone, that vertical hinge action can be a wonderful teaching tool in the real world.

Am I the only one that see's this and has a desire to question it and learn more about it.

Is the picture an exaggeration?

If it is, is the whole thing an exaggeration or just the shaft depiction?

How would I know if just reading the book?

Should this picture be changed in the 8th edition?

The problem seems that you are asking for Left Brain answers to Right brain questions drawn from left brain information. Or vise-verse. Or maybe I have it wrong. BUT I understand the represtation on the sketches. I would appreciate seeing your re-do of the informatin in those sketches to also include your suggested scaleing and drafting. Please post or link so it can be seen.

Take a ball and mark some "equators" on the ball so that you can watch rotation. Now, place the ball against the palm of your right hand and move your hand through the three hinge motions. Note the rotation of the ball for each. now in your mind realizing that the rotation is the same even for a very short contact interval reduce the contact to a differential interval(very small for the non technical) and accept the fact that the information transmitted to the ball is the same. You should note that the rotational information is unique to the hinge action employed. Therefore the ball flight characteristics will be different. That is good compression. You are carrying the ball on the original contact point to separation. It is hardest to do with vertical hinging or flipping the clubhead at the ball in a non lagging manner and it is sometimes amplified with a very lofted club like a 64 wedge (can almost hit that back over your shoulder with no compression) Play around with it for a while and you will feel these things- Have an epiphany so to speak.
Thanks.

The Bear

[John Graham]

The Bear,

Could you please give me your understanding on what is being represented by these pictures?

I am looking at a picture that depicts a possible impact as described in the book?

Does it represent an idea or a reality?

If an idea, then that changes my perception of it. If a reality, then it leads me to these questions.


Maybe, it's not supposed to represent a real impact.

It says quite clearly (SHOWN WITH IMPACT INTERVAL EXTENDED TO LOW POINT) and I thought low point should be in front of the ball for an iron shot per the geometry of the circle.

Because now as I look at, the club is carrying the ball from impact on a tee down to low point(per 2-c-1 #1 and 2-c-2#1) and I thought the ball rolled up the face. Should the ball actually go down after it's hit? What if it was on the ground and not on a tee? That would be troubling would it not?

I think I keep confusing myself and can't keep it all straight in my head. I'll go back to the book and keep reading.

If I knew what the exact correct image was, I wouldn't be here asking if this was the correct image.

Just because someone questions something doesn't mean they don't believe it.

As it holds up to questioning, one's belief in it will grow.

In order for that to happen, answers to questions need to take place.

When the questions don't get answered, that's when I start to wonder why didn't it get answered.

Did I ask a bad question?

Was my question specious as Lynn has stated?

Have I not researched enough to merit a question of this magnitude?

Maybe the questions aren't answerable or proovable and thus require an amount of faith. Nothing wrong with that.

[HungryBear]

The Bear,

Could you please give me your understanding on what is being represented by these pictures?

I am looking at a picture that depicts a possible impact as described in the book?

Does it represent an idea or a reality?

If an idea, then that changes my perception of it. If a reality, then it leads me to these questions.


Maybe, it's not supposed to represent a real impact.

It says quite clearly (SHOWN WITH IMPACT INTERVAL EXTENDED TO LOW POINT) and I thought low point should be in front of the ball for an iron shot per the geometry of the circle.

Because now as I look at, the club is carrying the ball from impact on a tee down to low point(per 2-c-1 #1 and 2-c-2#1) and I thought the ball rolled up the face. Should the ball actually go down after it's hit? What if it was on the ground and not on a tee? That would be troubling would it not?

I think I keep confusing myself and can't keep it all straight in my head. I'll go back to the book and keep reading.

If I knew what the exact correct image was, I wouldn't be here asking if this was the correct image.

Just because someone questions something doesn't mean they don't believe it.

As it holds up to questioning, one's belief in it will grow.

In order for that to happen, answers to questions need to take place.

When the questions don't get answered, that's when I start to wonder why didn't it get answered.

Did I ask a bad question?

Was my question specious as Lynn has stated?

Have I not researched enough to merit a question of this magnitude?

Maybe the questions aren't answerable or proovable and thus require an amount of faith. Nothing wrong with that.

These are vector diagrams. The club sketches are likely placed to aid the reader in visualizing the environment where the vectors are generated. When the club moves from one position to the next it is dynamic and in many cases incremental. The drawings, of necessity to be functional, sometimes foreshorten over emphasize angular or linear changes for YOUR-the readers- convenience.
visualize- "hand fly" the dynamics

I do not mean to intrude or interpret homers intentions or meanings- This is my understanding and how I read and understand what is writen. I will take my lumps if I am off-base.

The Bear

[Daryl]

It says quite clearly (SHOWN WITH IMPACT INTERVAL EXTENDED TO LOW POINT) and I thought low point should be in front of the ball for an iron shot per the geometry of the circle.

Because now as I look at, the club is carrying the ball from impact on a tee down to low point(per 2-c-1 #1 and 2-c-2#1) and I thought the ball rolled up the face. Should the ball actually go down after it's hit? What if it was on the ground and not on a tee? That would be troubling would it not?

Without the Impact Interval extended to Low-Point, the illustrations below indicate that a Ball traveling with the Clubface from Impact to Low-point, that separation occurs before the Ball lowers 1/6" which would be maximum for a wedge with a Steep Angle of Attack.

What do the Pro's mean when they say that they "Trapped the Ball"?

[John Graham]

daryl,

Thanks for the wonderful drawings.

Should I consider these replacements of the drawing in 2-c-* because they are accurate?

JG

[Daryl]

daryl,

Thanks for the wonderful drawings.

Should I consider these replacements of the drawing in 2-c-* because they are accurate?

JG

Not a replacement. They're not as "Complete" as Homers because they don't illustrate his complete intention. I consider them to further illustrate by enlarging one dimension, that the Angle of Approach is a line extending through Impact Point and Low Point.

All of my illustrations are subject to the approval of "Mike O". So until he grants them acceptability, they're just a waste of computer memory. We may wait a few months while he completes shock therapy at the Mental Health Hospital. 12 Pc Bucket visits Mike from time to time to cut his hair, so maybe Bucket can tell us when Mike O will review the Drawings.

He hasn't finished reviewing my plane line rotation drawings for draws and fades so it may be awhile.

[Yoda]

When the questions don't get answered, that's when I start to wonder why didn't it get answered.

Did I ask a bad question?

Was my question specious as Lynn has stated?

Have I not researched enough to merit a question of this magnitude?

Maybe the questions aren't answerable or proovable and thus require an amount of faith.

John,

With regards to your need for immediate answers . . .

It ain't necessarily about your asking a question that is "bad" or "specious" or even of such "magnitude" that we at Oracle LBG find it "unanswerable" and thus requiring a leap of 'faith" into our purple Kool-Aid (a metaphor preening others have found convenient).

There are (at least) two other reasons why readers don't immediately jump through your hoops:

1. They don't know the answer.

2. They know the answer -- or, at least, think they do or feel they can 'add value' and spur the discussion along the way -- but, they don't have the time or the inclination to respond.

At least, not now.

Where the desire is strong enough, maybe later.

In my case . . .

Later.

[O.B.Left]

Just reading all this. John, re Homers drawings of 2-C.

- they are not to scale. Not even close. The ball is about the size of a tennis ball for instance, vis a vis the club. I assume Homer did this to make the underlying geometry more obvious to the reader. To make the drawings more illustrative.

-the "ideal application" or 2-C-1 represents the ideal of total compression and therefor, per 2-C-0, assumes the point of contact between ball and face stay together, intact "as if welded together" throughout the impact interval. So if impact is prior to low point this mandates that the point of contact will go down plane all the way to it low point position (assuming the clubhead completes its orbit).

-separation is assumed to be at low point, so the shaft will therefor be vertical given a flat left wrist. You could also therefore deduce that Homer assumed a flat left wrist.

-if impact is made prior to low point there will be some shaft lean.

-shots that see the ball roll on the face even if it is solely a result of loft are not examples of "total compression". We golfers know this intuitively.....we dont tee up a driver on a 120 yard par 3 for instance. We choose a more lofted club for its inherent loss of compression. Why did Homer draw a somewhat lofted club in 2-C-1 2A then? I assume for illustrative purposes again. To highlight some of the vectors directions.


See 2-C-0 its an interesting read and concludes with:

"The Ball leaves the Clubface with a force proportional to the compression produced by Impact. Then the ideal result of the above procedures is maximum compression. But any clubface imprecision during Impact will permit compression to leak away. Lost compression cannot be re-covered. Between the precision Impact of 2-C-1#3 and the total loss of compression in 2-C-3#3 , there can be every degree of Compression Leakage--some intentional (Back Spin) but mostly unintentional. Your main lines of defense are the Flat Left Wrist, Hinge Action and a Three Dimensional Downstroke----that is DOWNward (Attack Angle) AND OUTward (Plane Angle) AND FORward (Approach Angle) per 2-C1#2 A/B. Study 2-H, 2-N and 7-3. "

He then goes on to list Newtons first three laws.

You'll notice a relationship between the drawings of 2-C and Steering. Intentional compression loss vs. unintentional compression loss due to a common conceptual problem.

Can you see these things in slow mo? Id say yes, you can see Steering....guys verticaling a driver say... But impact is violent and distorts all of the parties to it: ball, clubface , clubshaft and clubhead. So you have to look before and after impact to see what going on.