You wrote-: "I suggest you and Jeff get together and create your own site and stay off this one. I for one would enjoy being a part of it more."
I can appreciate the fact that you don't enjoy my posts and that you don't find them instructive.
However, I cannot understand why you would enjoy LBG's website more if this "Golf by Jeff" forum didn't exist. You are not compelled to visit this forum section of Yoda's website if it disturbs your mental state of equanimity. Why must a poster's opinions conform to your personal need to avoid mental/emotional disccomfort? Why don't you just avoid reading their opinions?
Jeff.
First of all, I try to look at things through a someone else's perspective, mainly a new visitor or someone who frequents this site on a casual basis. Through this lens I see more than you can imagine. I even communicate with other members who share my view. Because you have nothing better to do than spend hours every day wrting useless posts, the only thing that comes up on the unread posts area are yours. I try to stay current on eveything on this site. Because I have a life and a job, I am not able to contribute as much as I would like. There are many things you have posted that are incorrect, argumentative, and boorish. I can also tell you that posts like yours drive others like myself away, but no more.
Trust me, I do not need anyone's personal opinions to conform to my own. I usally give my opinion, try to back it up with facts and move on. I can't tolerate arguments over MY OPINIONS. If I express something as fact then by all means prove it wrong. But when you argue opinions nobody wins.
As many on this site who have ever met me can tell you, I care little about what others think about me. However, I care passionately about protecting the "team", this includes Ted, Lynn, and the many others who make a "positive" contribution to this site. Even though you have your own area, in my opinion you are not part of this team.
When you were posting about "switting" and I tried to explain that there is no such word on this site you argued that fact. When I tried to defend a great teacher and personal friend, once again you come back with statements about "my opinions" that you have no clue about. All you seem to do is use big words and technical terms that very few on this site comprehend or care about. This site is about learning to play golf better. There is plenty of information to help everyone do just that. Try not to confuse everyone with your own personal agenda.
Who knows where the camera is, but it looks like it's within a few miles of being On Plane. The Sweet Spot is ON Plane in all three pictures. The hosel is not On Plane at Impact.
In the first picture, the hosel looks like it's very close to the Sweet Spot Plane.
In the second picture, the hosel is not on the Sweet Spot Plane.
In the last picture, the hosel is approaching the Sweet Spot Plane, again. I'd prefer to have the next frame, but Tiger would be blocking the view.
"The second example refers to the MOI of the clubhead about the shaft axis. Little is spoken about this MOI in equipment marketing, but it is an important head design factor that can affect the accuracy of the shot, not the distance. The bigger the head or the more weight that is placed far out on the toe of the clubhead, the higher the MOI of the head will be about the shaft's axis. The smaller the head or the more weight that is positioned in the heel area of the head, the lower the MOI of the head will be about the shaft's axis. The higher the clubhead MOI around the shaft, the more tendency there is for a golfer to leave the face open at impact. The lower the clubhead MOI around the shaft, the more tendency there is for a golfer to rotate the face more closed at impact."
Now, it seems that the closer is the sweetspot to the hosel, the easier is to rotate the whole clubhead, and viceversa. Going further, it seems that it would be the easiest for a golfer to a center-shafted club. OTOH, it would be more difficult to close the face of a very long-nosed club with a lot of weight on the toe part.
It got me thinking if:
- one could ever play with a center-shafted club and full swings without risking of a premature closure of the clubface;
- depending on a weight distribution it is possible to find a unique solution that would guarantee an automatic closure of the clubface while maintaining neutral torque in the arms the whole swing.
- lastly - it proves the theory that somehow the clubhead does not turn around the hosel, neither around the sweetspot (because the sweetspot depends on where the CoG of the clubhead is located), but rather around an imaginary line coming trough the MOI axis of the total club as NM Golfer suggested (that can come also through the sweetspot of the clubhead in many cases and maybe such clubs are "the best").
I cannot fathom why you presented the last three photos of Tiger Woods.
You have drawn a red line through the ball at impact and stated that the hosel is not on that plane line. Of course it cannot be on that plane line if the sweetspot is on that plane line. At impact, the hosel and sweetspot cannot possibly be on the same plane.
However, they are on the same plane at the extremes of the impact zone.
What can one conclude other than the fact that there is only a very small difference between the clubshaft plane and the sweetspot plane within the vicinity of the ball (roughly within 1 foot of the ball) while there is virtually no difference as one gets closer to the third and fourth parallels? Also, the difference between the clubshaft plane line at impact and the sweetspot plane line at impact is very small and of no apparent practical significance.
If I drew the red line from PP#3 to the hosel, I would be able to demonstrate that the hosel is also very close to that red line when the clubshaft is near the third and fourth parallels. I personally don't think that my demonstration would help to clarify matters.
You have stated nothing of relevance, other than express your personal sentiments.
I am using this Yoda-provided forum to explore/discuss golf swing issues. If you think that the questions that I pose, and the opinions that I express, are not of interest to you, then do not visit this forum.
You also don't have to be so pretentious and infer that you are very concerned about the quality of this "LBG-website" while inferring that I am not equally concerned. We simply use different measuring sticks and I personally think that I am doing everything possible to make my forum a serious intellectual forum devoted to exploring golf swing issues while simultaneously discouraging unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
I cannot fathom why you presented the last three photos of Tiger Woods.
You have drawn a red line through the ball at impact and stated that the hosel is not on that plane line. Of course it cannot be on that plane line if the sweetspot is on that plane line. At impact, the hosel and sweetspot cannot possibly be on the same plane.
However, they are on the same plane at the extremes of the impact zone.
What can one conclude other than the fact that there is only a very small difference between the clubshaft plane and the sweetspot plane within the vicinity of the ball (roughly within 1 foot of the ball) while there is virtually no difference as one gets closer to the third and fourth parallels? Also, the difference between the clubshaft plane line at impact and the sweetspot plane line at impact is very small and of no apparent practical significance.
If I drew the red line from PP#3 to the hosel, I would be able to demonstrate that the hosel is also very close to that red line when the clubshaft is near the third and fourth parallels. I personally don't think that my demonstration would help to clarify matters.
Jeff.
I thought I'd be the first in this thread to post a relevant picture from a decent camera angle.
You have stated nothing of relevance, other than express your personal sentiments.
I am using this Yoda-provided forum to explore/discuss golf swing issues. If you think that the questions that I pose, and the opinions that I express, are not of interest to you, then do not visit this forum.
You also don't have to be so pretentious and infer that you are very concerned about the quality of this "LBG-website" while inferring that I am not equally concerned. We simply use different measuring sticks and I personally think that I am doing everything possible to make my forum a serious intellectual forum devoted to exploring golf swing issues while simultaneously discouraging unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
Jeff.
Equally concerned, maybe. Equally qualified, not even close. Check with others on this site if I bring "relevance" to it. Check with Lynn if I bring "relevance" to the many schools I do with he and Ted. Ask any of my students or professionals I work with if I bring "relevance" to the lesson tee. You may also find out if I am "relevant" when I step onto the first tee of a tournament. I have earned the right to voice my concerns on this site, you have been banned from everywhere but this little corner of golf cyberspace. Why do you think that is?
As I stated quite clearly before, you simply can't argue opinions which is clearly what you have done once again. If I present something that is factually incorrect then prove it wrong, otherwise accept the same treatment that you give others.
Powerdraw's post soliciting help for his shanking and subsequent responding posts -- including Golfgnome's explicit prescriptions -- were inappropriate to this thread. These posts have now been moved to a new thread under his name in the forum The Golfing Machine -- Basic. Same thing with O.B. Left's post regarding center-shafted clubs.
And now, please continue, but be aware of the ever-present threat of threadjack. We have many forums on this site. Please post appropriately. Thanks.
When I use the term "relevance" it has nothing to do with your opinions regarding the golf swing. Your opinions regarding the golf swing are as relevant as any other forum member's opinions.
What I find irrelevant are all your opinions regarding my attitude and motives (eg. allegations of arrogance or boorsishness or secret/unwholesome agendas). They may have relevance to you, but they have no relevance to golf swing issues. I never question the motives/attitudes of other forum members - I simply argue passionately about golf swing issues. If I disagree with another forum member who passionately argues on behalf of his personal opinion, I don't accuse him of arrogance or boorishness because he relentlessly pursues his argument. He is entitled to harbor strong personal opinions with as much intensity as I harbor personal opinions.
You also stated-: "As I stated quite clearly before, you simply can't argue opinions which is clearly what you have done once again. If I present something that is factually incorrect then prove it wrong, otherwise accept the same treatment that you give others."
This is bizarre. I only argue about opinions and not facts. If something is known to be factually correct, then I wouldn't waste my time arguing about that point. I only bother to argue about "opinions", which I think are not factually correct. I have never complained about other forum members treating my personal opinions in the same way. I expect other forum members to question the legitimacy of all my opinions regarding the golf swing, and I never resent them questioning my personal "opinions".
"Equally qualified". I find that concept meaningless. I judge a forum member's opinion based on the quality of his argument and not on the basis of whether he is supposedly qualified to harbor an opinion. I don't disqualify any forum member from expressing an opinion in this forum, and I don't judge the legitimacy of their opinion based on their "status", but solely on the logical strength of their argument.
The main reason why I have been banned on other golf forums is because I unhesitatingly question every forum member's expressed opinion - irrespective of their "expert" status. I was banned from GolfWRX because I unceasingly questioned the legitimacy of Jim McLean's X-factor theory. I was banned from iseekgolfguru.com for unceasingly questioning an "expert"'s opinion to the dismay of other forum members who didn't like my constant questioning of Lagpressure's opinions (eg. questioning the legitimacy of Lagpressure's belief that one can reactivate PA#4 after impact and questioning his belief in a 5th power accumulator or questioning his belief that one should pull a club out of its orbit post-impact). I was banned from Brian Manzella's website because I questioned his authority. I have no regrets for unceasingly questioning the legitimacy of other forum members' expressed "opinions" regarding the golf swing. I think that the constant questioning, and requestioning, of all forum members opinions (without fear of consequences and without indulging in overt ad hominem attacks) is what a good golf discussion forum is all about - and that belief about an "open forum" that is free of restrictive rules doesn't only apply to me; it applies equally to all forum members who participate in the forum.
Do you think you were banned because you questioned opinions or because of the way you go about questioning opinions and presenting your case?
I enjoy a good debate on all things golf, and I have my own opinions on a lot of matters, but there is a time to 'agree to disagree'. That said I don't think I have ever properly understood any post you have ever made.
Linear Mode
