Wanna' "see" a Square Plane Line?

[okie]

It did not take much to smoke you out on that one, Daryl! I do not think tracing a straight plane line is up for the compensation of the year award. I do know (experentially) that on an inclined plane DOWN goes with OUT. How can the ball go straight just on the merits of a square to the target face angle when the club head is clearly moving out? Ballflight and Trackman seems to confirm the validity of the d-plane concept. If anything Homer encouraged the separate identities of target line, plane line and stance line. knowing how to utilize the various options seems more like ball striking ability and less like compensation

Thanks for the welcome back! Let my march towards a thousand posts continue!

[Daryl]

I'm glad you're back Okie. You've always been a pleasure to talk with and I'm looking forward to your thoughts.

At the very heart of “Golf Swing” is “What makes the Ball do what it does”. Without this rational, we couldn’t decide how to strike the ball and make it go where we want. As important, we couldn’t “Improve” because we’re unaware of what to do and how doing more or less determines Ball Flight. Currently, there are two theories about “What Causes Spin” and one theory about “what happens” when the Ball Spins.

The science supporting the Golfing Machine concerns Compression”, “Impulse”, etc., and states:

“The ball will respond to non-linear (angular) force exactly the same as to linear forces only if the application produce forces equally linear to the ball but not necessarily linear to anything external to the ball.

Briefly stated, it is necessary to find a way to compress the ball through a particular point along a particular line, and maintain this compression through the same particular point and along this same particular straight line, through the entire arc of the Impact Interval, and with geometrical precision for consistent control. Study 2-K and 2-N.”

Jorgensen theorized:

“Frictional torque comes into play to set the ball spinning. We can only guess at the details of the collision, but we can use some physics to make an educated guess.“

For the most part, this is where Jorgensen’s theorizing ends. His goal was to present a descriptive account of Ball Flight, and the “D-Plane” serves well by predicting the Ball Flight of a “spin producing collision”.

The confusion is not about what happens when the ball spins. Both Homer Kelley and Jorgensen explain Ball Flight by describing that “Lift forces” are perpendicular to the Axis of Rotation of the Ball.

The "Debate" is about what "Caused the Ball to Spin". Jorgensen suggests that it has more to do with the ball sliding up the face of the inclined striker. The Pivot closes the Clubface very evenly while the Clubhead travels its Orbital Path. It is very important to Jorgensen that the Clubface maintains a constant relationship to the Clubhead Orbit because any change in Clubface Alignment will change the amount of spin.

It's "important", in a way, that a location is chosen to take the Clubface Angle and Clubhead Path (Angular force) reading. Impact? Separation? Somewhere in between? In a way, it's not important because as long as the Clubface is closing at a constant rate, the calculation can be adjusted to read before, during or at Separation. Hmm? the math can be done before and after also.

A very significant math problem appears when you treat the Ball as Low-Point with out the Ball being Positioned at Low-Point. I can go into great detail but this post is already becoming boring for readers.

When we think of the Clubhead going Down, out and Forward, it's in relation to the Planes orientation to the ground. The reality is much simpler. The Sweetspot of the Clubhead is an Orbit. It wants to stay on an Orbit.

The Golfing Machine is very different. We know that "Hinging" will cause the Ball to respond to an Angular Force the same as it would respond to a Linear Force.

For an excellent understanding of the purpose and affect of Hinging, please refer to the following post:

http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/s...rcle#post56102

[okie]

I do not think I have a command understanding of hinge action. Jorgenson's book is in the mail. i have experimented with my understanding of D-plane on a Trackman. Understanding what to trace made it a lot easier to zero out the numbers, or produce a particular shape of shot. I have hit too many shots with an unintended draw thinking that all had to do was trace the plane line (that also happened to be the target line...with a stance line that was generally square as well) and see unintended hook spin take the shot off line. I will have to read your post an additional time or two. To me what Jorgensen claims with regard to the so-called new ball flight laws Homer claimed along time ago. What is incompatible between TGM and D-plane? If your previous post was a full answer then I apologize for my density, and respectfully request that you dumb it down a bit for an okie. Perhaps this topic has already been flogged to glue and some digging in the archives is advisable? Has Yoda voiced his opinion on d matter? D-plane has breathed new life into my ball striking...but I have been snookered by siren calls before!

[Daryl]

I don't know if Yoda cares about the D-Plane. His specialty is teaching someone to swing a club. Yoda already knows that when the Golf Ball is properly struck, "The direction of the ball will always be practically at right angles to the Clubface and square to the leading edge of the Clubface at separation, unless there is enough time and speed for the Venturi Effect to alter it when scattered vectors have introduced a non-vertical spin."

It's not a big deal.

The "Old Ball Flight Laws" is an advertising campaign invented by Trackman to sell their machine. They weren't "Laws" at all. The "New Ball Flight Laws" are part of that advertising. They aren't laws either. The first stated that Initial Ball direction was mostly the result of Clubhead Path, and the later claims that initial Ball Direction is more a matter of Clubface orientation.

Earth-shattering? It is for Trackman. This is "Science"? Really? These are "New Ball Flight Laws"? You're kidding me. These are Advertising campaign slogans.

Both sets of these fake-Laws are based on the "False-Assumption" that "virtually-all" of the Ball Spin is created by the Ball rolling up the face of an inclined striker. That may be true for a Hollow Ball, like a Ping Pong Ball, but not for a Solid Golf Ball.

The following values are calculated and are posted as such on the Trackman web site.

Dynamic Loft*
Spin Loft*
Face Angle*

So, the entire Clubface alignment at Impact is calculated from Ball Flight Data.

Here's an written "Test" example: We know the Path of the Clubhead, Clubhead Speed, Ball Path and Spin. "Solve for Face Angle".

I'm not the only one that sees a problem with that.

[KevCarter]

I do not think I have a command understanding of hinge action. Jorgenson's book is in the mail. i have experimented with my understanding of D-plane on a Trackman. Understanding what to trace made it a lot easier to zero out the numbers, or produce a particular shape of shot. I have hit too many shots with an unintended draw thinking that all had to do was trace the plane line (that also happened to be the target line...with a stance line that was generally square as well) and see unintended hook spin take the shot off line. I will have to read your post an additional time or two. To me what Jorgensen claims with regard to the so-called new ball flight laws Homer claimed along time ago. What is incompatible between TGM and D-plane? If your previous post was a full answer then I apologize for my density, and respectfully request that you dumb it down a bit for an okie. Perhaps this topic has already been flogged to glue and some digging in the archives is advisable? Has Yoda voiced his opinion on d matter? D-plane has breathed new life into my ball striking...but I have been snookered by siren calls before!

Hi Okie,

What do you feel was the biggest change you made with your new understanding? Face alignment, alignment of the path, or swing change? Or is it a little of each?

Thanks,
Kevin

[KevCarter]

It's not a big deal.

The "Old Ball Flight Laws" is an advertising campaign invented by Trackman to sell their machine. They weren't "Laws" at all. The "New Ball Flight Laws" are part of that advertising. They aren't laws either. The first stated that Initial Ball direction was mostly the result of Clubhead Path, and the later claims that initial Ball Direction is more a matter of Clubface orientation.

Earth-shattering? It is for Trackman. This is "Science"? Really? These are "New Ball Flight Laws"? You're kidding me. These are Advertising campaign slogans.

Both sets of these fake-Laws are based on the "False-Assumption" that "virtually-all" of the Ball Spin is created by the Ball rolling up the face of an inclined striker. That may be true for a Hollow Ball, like a Ping Pong Ball, but not for a Solid Golf Ball.

The following values are calculated and are posted as such on the Trackman web site.

Dynamic Loft*
Spin Loft*
Face Angle*

So, the entire Clubface alignment at Impact is calculated from Ball Flight Data.

Here's an written "Test" example: We know the Path of the Clubhead, Clubhead Speed, Ball Path and Spin. "Solve for Face Angle".

I'm not the only one that sees a problem with that.

LOL -- Trackman isn't the only one using it as an advertising campaign. The golf swing is ALL about science. That's why the swings of every great player throughout history looks identical.

Kevin

[Amen Corner]

I don't know if Yoda cares about the D-Plane. His specialty is teaching someone to swing a club. Yoda already knows that when the Golf Ball is properly struck, "The direction of the ball will always be practically at right angles to the Clubface and square to the leading edge of the Clubface at separation, unless there is enough time and speed for the Venturi Effect to alter it when scattered vectors have introduced a non-vertical spin."

It's not a big deal.

The "Old Ball Flight Laws" is an advertising campaign invented by Trackman to sell their machine. They weren't "Laws" at all. The "New Ball Flight Laws" are part of that advertising. They aren't laws either. The first stated that Initial Ball direction was mostly the result of Clubhead Path, and the later claims that initial Ball Direction is more a matter of Clubface orientation.

Earth-shattering? It is for Trackman. This is "Science"? Really? These are "New Ball Flight Laws"? You're kidding me. These are Advertising campaign slogans.

Both sets of these fake-Laws are based on the "False-Assumption" that "virtually-all" of the Ball Spin is created by the Ball rolling up the face of an inclined striker. That may be true for a Hollow Ball, like a Ping Pong Ball, but not for a Solid Golf Ball.

The following values are calculated and are posted as such on the Trackman web site.

Dynamic Loft*
Spin Loft*
Face Angle*

So, the entire Clubface alignment at Impact is calculated from Ball Flight Data.

Here's an written "Test" example: We know the Path of the Clubhead, Clubhead Speed, Ball Path and Spin. "Solve for Face Angle".

I'm not the only one that sees a problem with that.

Ok, but let me ask you a couple of Q´s Daryl.

- For an absolute straight shot, fulfilling all requirements of the Geometry of Circle..... Where should the planeline be set up in relation to the targetline? I think that here is one of the big differences.

- Have you been on a TM yourself ? If so, what were your findings?

[Daryl]

Ok, but let me ask you a couple of Q´s Daryl.

- For an absolute straight shot, fulfilling all requirements of the Geometry of Circle..... Where should the planeline be set up in relation to the targetline? I think that here is one of the big differences.

- Have you been on a TM yourself ? If so, what were your findings?

The issue isn't about "Clubface Closing Rates" it's about "Which Plane the Clubface Closing is associated with".

From Release to Both Arms Straight, the Clubface will Close at a very even Rate, regardless whether one uses Angled or Horizontal Hinging. If you want to change the Closing Rate, then change from a Sweep Release to a Snap Release. The Release interval changes the amount of Clubface Closing over a given Clubhead Travel Distance.

Hinging determines whether the Clubface Closes on an Axis perpendicular to the Horizontal Plane or an Axis perpendicular to an Angled Plane.

All of this "Talk" about how much the Clubface needs to close to produce "Straight-Away" Flight Path stems from a lack of understanding of the Hinge Action.

Trackman and D-Plane assume that ALL Closing is performed on an Axis perpendicular to the Angled Plane with the Assumption that the Clubshaft is the Angled Plane. They also assume that the Ball is Low-Point. Hmm? No Divots. They also forgot to include the fact that the Clubface is "Laying Back". They ignore it on the surface but build the effect into their Clubface Angle calculations.

Another Misinterpretation of Hinge Action is that the Clubface needs to close to bring Force in line with the Plane and/or Target Line. The Clubface only needs to close to bring the Force in-line with the Angle of Approach to result in Straight-Away Ball Flight and not tilt the Backspin. A Ball Located 9" behind Low-Point will need about 1/2 degree of closing to bring the Force in-line with the Angle of Approach = the "Push Shot". This 1/2 degree of Closing is a normal amount of Closing and 9" behind Low-Point is about the center of your stance.

If the Ball is Located 1" behind Low-Point the numbers dramatically change. 1/5th of a degree will bring the Angle of Approach in-line with the Plane Line. So, it's not the Amount or Rate of Closing. The Angle of Approach is determined by Ball Location.

But even the "Math" isn't important. All that is important is for the Impact Point to become the Separation Point. "Remember – the Impact Point must become “On Line” at Separation."

I locate the Ball 1" behind Low-Point for all Clubs. I use Horizontal Hinging and Align the Plane and Target Lines Parallel. 90% of my shots are perfectly Straight. Poor execution accounts for the other ten percent.

Trackman will show my numbers to be pretty close to "0" and invent a Clubface number that will explain my straight shots (without fade or draw spin). But I'll know it's because of my Horizontal Hinge.

[KevCarter]

The issue isn't about "Clubface Closing Rates" it's about "Which Plane the Clubface Closing is associated with".

From Release to Both Arms Straight, the Clubface will Close at a very even Rate, regardless whether one uses Angled or Horizontal Hinging. If you want to change the Closing Rate, then change from a Sweep Release to a Snap Release. The Release interval changes the amount of Clubface Closing over a given Clubhead Travel Distance.

Hinging determines whether the Clubface Closes on an Axis perpendicular to the Horizontal Plane or an Axis perpendicular to an Angled Plane.

All of this "Talk" about how much the Clubface needs to close to produce "Straight-Away" Flight Path stems from a lack of understanding of the Hinge Action.

Trackman and D-Plane assume that ALL Closing is performed on an Axis perpendicular to the Angled Plane with the Assumption that the Clubshaft is the Angled Plane. They also assume that the Ball is Low-Point. Hmm? No Divots.

Another Misinterpretation of Hinge Action is that the Clubface needs to close to bring Force in line with the Plane and/or Target Line. The Clubface only needs to close to bring the Force in-line with the Angle of Approach to result in Straight-Away Ball Flight and not tilt the Backspin.

The "Math" will show that a Ball Located 9" behind Low-Point will need about 1/2 degree of closing to bring the Force in-line with the Angle of Approach. The "Push Shot". This 1/2 degree of Closing is a normal amount of Closing and 9" behind Low-Point is about the center of your stance.

If the Ball is Located 1" behind Low-Point the Math numbers dramatically change. 1/5th of a degree. So, it's not the Amount or Rate of Closing.

I locate the Ball 1" behind Low-Point for all Clubs. I use Horizontal Hinging and Align the Plane and Target Lines Parallel. 90% of my shots are perfectly Straight. Poor execution accounts for the other ten percent.

There is an answer I can finally wrap my arms around. Thanks Man!

Basically, the only way the guys promoting TrackMan vs Homer Kelley can really make their science stick, is to eliminate the existence of hinge actions. Hmmm.

Kevin

[Daryl]

There is an answer I can finally wrap my arms around. Thanks Man!

Basically, the only way the guys promoting TrackMan vs Homer Kelley can really make their science stick, is to eliminate the existence of hinge actions. Hmmm.

Kevin

I hope the explanation helps a little.

I'm not against Trackman or D-Plane. As far as illustrating the curved Ball Flight they would be good tools in the hands of a TGM expert. Expert. One that understands it's limitations and contraints.

I want to try Trackman on the putting green. I want to use a Driver and approach the ball at a 45 degree angle. I'll make the 4 foot putt. I just want to see what my Clubface Angle was. What do you think Trackman would report? That's something where Collision "Compression Impact Theory" could explain and "Glancing Blow Theory" cannot.