And:

Poor execution is not a component variation.

Threadjacka
 

Sure Drewitgolf will deny it - defend his actions as right, sound, just - however, let it be known that he has been reported for "threadjacking" - a serious forum crime! :naughty: - leading to suspension of posting, banishment and in extreme cases - DEATH &D: &B: :hang: :eyes: Other forum members you have been warned! Daryl - a mere felony for aiding and abetting - shame on you!

A Jack of All Trades
 

Threadjacking is like me telling the story of you telling me that your grandmother's last words were, "what are you doing, Mike?"

BTW, everything is Aligned to the Plane.

Alignments
 

First you need a definition of the movement concepts: alignment and position (Post#7). To expand on that post - a photo can show a position. One photo cannot show an alignment - To show an alignment:
1)you need two "sequenced" photos - i.e. you need motion,
and
2)you need a standard of measurement,
and
3)thirdly you need the same relationship to that standard during each photo (two) sequence - to create the movement concept - ALIGNMENT.

Unless you have another valid definition of alignment - then "everything" is not aligned to the plane. Given my definition - using the plane as the standard of measurement - then you would have 1) the clubshaft aligned to the plane, 2) per the Golfing Machine you would have the right shoulder during start down aligned to the plane, and 3) you could have an alignment for angled hinging to the plane (vertical to), 4) a hand motion to the plane alignment, 5) forearm motion through impact- and that's it - five items aligned to the plane (assuming I didn't leave any out) - NOT EVERYTHING. Quite the contrary - if you took a photo of a golfer at some point in the swing - or many sequenced photos of a golfer in relation to a plane - "Everything" would have a position in relation to the plane.


The intial question was essentially - What's the difference between a position and an alignment - in the context of movement. Saying that everything is aligned to the plane - doesn't clarify the answer - it further clouds it.

I'll now go back to my cave - send out a couple mindless posts now and then - and work on destroying Bucket.

We could simply try to understand what HK meant by:

Understanding
 

And that is exactly what we are doing Daryl - and you'll need my two posts to do it.

For more Homer Kelley quotes see Chapter 12 page 222 7th edition it relates to this area of discussion (I've quoted it below).

"In executing your Stroke Pattern, remember it is not Component location or position, but the alignments and relationships of their Motions and Actions that are central to this System and those who fail to squelch any compulsion to have it otherwise are, thereby, simply excluded because this System is based on Law and laws do not bend to fit intentions (9-0). You should not only be doing it "correctly" but also for the right reasons or its inconsistency will plague you endlessly. Garbage in - garbage out. Replace any inclination toward "Component Position and Location Feel" with "Component Alignment and Relationship Feel."

Thank you. :)

It took you 3 posts. :laughing9

Living on the Planes
 

Let me re-word this for you Mike. In an Uncompensated Stroke, all 24 Component Motions and Alignments should not do anything which makes an off Plane Motion, unless for psychological need.

Before I bite any further, would you be so kind as to define "right reasons" and "Component Alignment and Relationship Feels" in your last post?

I'm considering adding you to my Bucket list - not a good list to be on - other members will be contacting you on our decision.:salut:

That's the quote from the book - not my words - however I'll throw out a couple of quick thoughts:

You should not only be doing it "correctly" but also for the right reasons or its inconsistency will plague you endlessly. Garbage in - garbage out. Replace any inclination toward "Component Position and Location Feel" with "Component Alignment and Relationship Feel."

1) That paragraph really goes with and supports the 2nd paragraph in the preface of the 7th edition (page XI) or likewise the 1st paragraph in the 6th edition (page VII)
2) "Right Reasons" - I included the quote above - it's important to understand the context in which it is written. He's saying you have to be a thinker, understand the context, the relationships, the alignment of something - you can't just not think, get into a position and "see if it works" - without considering the other factors involved. It's a thinking man's game. In contrast if you don't understand the nature, relationships, causes of the position and merely "copy" it without thinking, understanding it - you will be plagued with inconsistency.
3) "Component Alignment and Relationship Feel" - Again, he's comparing it to "Component Position and Location Feel" - In the one you are thinking of the context, the relationships, understanding the individual item but also understanding it's relationship to the whole, to it's neighbors, to the "web", the motion. As opposed to the non-thinker, isolating a position and that feel - without understanding it's nature, the relationship to itself and others. The Thinker wants to know - what are it's causes, what influences it, what is it's nature, how is it influenced. The non- thinker doesn't want to expend the effort.

Finally, I'm not saying you can't define a broader perspective of "component alignments" - you probably could - however I'm not sure it would the best-clearest answer to the question that started this post and it wouldn't invalidate my definitions - rather mine would be underneath the umbrella of a wider application/definition. Love to learn - if you have any different perspectives.