Alignments Vs. Positions
 

What is the difference between alingments and positions? Aren't alingments actually positions too?

I may just be missing the precived image by TGM. Can someone explain the difference?

http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/thread7767-79.html # 784
http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/s...ighlight=pivot

It's better to achieve "Positions" through "Alignments" than "Alignments" through "Positions". If "Alignments" change, then "Positions" change. The reverse is not true.

Well said, Daryl

Sweet, Alignments in Motion... :salut:

Kevin

Once I set my machine, I just try to put it in motion. Indeed, I Align my Machine and move it through the ball.

An alignment describes the relationship of more than one position to a standard of measurement. An alignment takes into account a certain context - the measurement of more than one position in relation to the same standard - maintaining the same relatonship to that standard. When creating the concept for a position one doesn't take into account more than one position and therefore doesn't try to relate two positions (motion) to a common standard of measurement.

To see an alignment as a position you have to drop, forget, ignore the "context" i.e. the standard of measurement being used and the constant relationship to that standard.

what's a Procedure for the class Mr. Farteater?

Aligning Positions
 

Positions are a player's means of executing pre-selected, precision alignments. To that end, alignments require positions.

However, a given 'position' can be executed perfectly -- for example, left elbow down, right elbow in, right arm L-position at the top, roll the wrists through the ball, full shoulder turn, etc. -- and yet the player still can miss the ball.

:salut:

I like mine Plane
 

All the action of the golf club takes place on a flat, inflexible inclined Plane. The clubshaft remains on the face of the Plane. EVERY other Component of the Stroke must be adjusted to comply with that requirement. It is the Heart and Soul of the Sroke.

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.

Positions may or may not be Aligned.

Aligned motion creates the positions we admire. Not vice versa.

To merely copy the positions without the motion or the alignments will no doubt fail to replicate results of the famous golfers whose positions we admire.

Many have copied Mr Hogans positions, for instance but few have achieved his Alignments .......let alone his results. Uh well nobody has actually.

We're all unique physically. Our positions can reflect that uniqueness. Say you had a golfer who could bend his left thumb back to touch his forearm....he'd probably display a pretty acute #2 Angle at Top or End but does that mean that position is the ideal for you or me? NO! I cant do that physically. I love Mr Hogans swing but remember he got his rear end spanked regularly by a guy who didnt cock his left wrist much till he started down and drove his knees at the target .....Lord Byron. We all have unique physical traits , abilities ,strengths , weaknesses , flexibilities etc. Play to your strengths....via alignments. Positions are more resultant. More effect than cause.

Moe Norman....."Dont swing like Moe , swing like you!"

Positions are a moment frozen in time by a camera.......golf is a motion which is best aligned .... to something. I like the plane line. In so doing you display some nice positions.

Wait a minute .........the whole 1st chapter is about the difference between position golf and alignment golf isnt it?

Yoda?

"A Line" in the sand
 

Per 2-F, All the action of the golf club takes place on a flat, inflexible Inclined Plane, which extends well beyond the circumference of the stroke-in every direction. The full length of the clubshaft remains unwaveringly on the face of this Inclined Plane-Waggle to Follow-through. EVERY other Component of the Stroke must be adjusted to comply with that requirement.

While Mike does a nice job of defining what alignments are, the preceding statement defines what is aligned. It may not answer the initial question, but if that were the case this would be a very short thread. That is my story and I am sticking to it. Besides, I need this post to keep my total ahead of Mikey.

Let me begin by covering the important items first:
1) Your post count hasn't gone un-noticed :naughty: - and it's creating a particular pain for me!
2) The fact that I have 2 feet of snow on the ground still - and you're getting ready for the season - also is causing me a particular pain!
3) I've had BamBam block any further posting from you - in this particular thread - to prevent arbitrary posting to jack your post count up further! All of your posts are currently under review - the panel - at it's own discretion will be adjusting your post count accordingly within the next week.

Finally, if NDWolf81 has any other questions regarding this topic - fire away - otherwise we'll assume that we've answered "his/her" question - sufficiently.

Post 1215 .

Post 1216 .

Post 1217 .

P.S. Bambam - that 30 seconds between each post requirement - a real pain in the a..!

May I join in? 1106

Poster Boy
 

You can't stop me from

Air,
Your 4.88 posts per day beats out every forum member - as the number one poster - even smothers Yoda's paltry 3.97:shock:

You also have the longest thread in forum history! :salut:

You have earned the right!

Not sure what you are asking Drew - nothing came through - try again.

Now that was a long post - and I don't think Bam Bam would like the profanity - however when I went to respond it was already taken off by BamBam - you'll need to talk to him - however like I said - you're just not going to be able to post on this thread any longer.

Wow! Now that was a long post! Again, Bam Bam removed it! In fact, he now has banned you from all posting - so you'll be sticking at 1225 and all you can do now is watch my numbers go right by you! RED RUM, RED RUM, RED RUM!

It seems to me

that much of this

is about increasing

your thread counts.

Right into the trap (not a bunker in this case)
 

See Bam Bam. He fell right into our trap. I told you if we just waited a little longer and played his disingenuous, insane game, he would reveal his true nature and also the fact that he is dyslexic. Ignore his cries for "pleh".

Thank you very much. That's generous of you.

:golfcart: :golf:

Stick with us and we will put you on Air Planes
 

Pay no attention to Professor Backwards. He is just trying to lure you into his den of iniquity.