Aligning the Clubface

[Mike O]

HB,
As the thread winds down - the quote below of my defintiion of "Manipulation" with your comment in between (blue) provided me with the most interest in responding.

My definition: "Hand Manipulation requires one to identify the lead hand condition (For example Flat, Level and Vertical)
MY problem here- only FLAT- Because level is controled by the shaft on the plane and vertical is a function of hinging (the vertical would then be to the associated plane)
and the corresponding clubface alignment intended for impact via impact fix AND then if one has some intent, focus, awareness to return to that lead hand location to control the clubface alignment at impact"

OK - when you say MY problem here - I'm assuming you are taking on your frame of reference and not the Golfing Machine frame of reference. However, I wasn't sure if MY problem here - was MY problem based on my understanding of the Golfing Machine or MY problem here from my theory.

As I stated before - it's tough enough for someone to follow me in understanding the Golfing Machine concepts - if I added my personal theory, thoughts - it would really be confusing. So I stay on the Golfing Machine Frame of Reference when posting.

1) Although I could have put in - any grip type in my defintion as an example- Homer preferred grip was Flat, Level and Vertical - because all of those are visually identifiable with precision - as opposed to a curved line or angles which are not- without using measurement instruments.

2) Regardless of lie angle - he would always want the grip taken with LEVEL lead hand position.

3) Regardless of hinge action employed he would always want you taking the grip at impact fix with the a Vertical Lead Hand position and returning to impact with it Vertical - hinging takes place after that (during impact).

4) If you define your face and hand positions at impact fix - and then when you arrived at impact, if you changed the shaft angle or arrived at a different location than vertical then you would have changed the clubface alignment.

[HungryBear]

HB,
As the thread winds down - the quote below of my defintiion of "Manipulation" with your comment in between (blue) provided me with the most interest in responding.

My definition: "Hand Manipulation requires one to identify the lead hand condition (For example Flat, Level and Vertical)
MY problem here- only FLAT- Because level is controled by the shaft on the plane and vertical is a function of hinging (the vertical would then be to the associated plane)
and the corresponding clubface alignment intended for impact via impact fix AND then if one has some intent, focus, awareness to return to that lead hand location to control the clubface alignment at impact"

OK - when you say MY problem here - I'm assuming you are taking on your frame of reference and not the Golfing Machine frame of reference. However, I wasn't sure if MY problem here - was MY problem based on my understanding of the Golfing Machine or MY problem here from my theory.

As I stated before - it's tough enough for someone to follow me in understanding the Golfing Machine concepts - if I added my personal theory, thoughts - it would really be confusing. So I stay on the Golfing Machine Frame of Reference when posting.

1) Although I could have put in - any grip type in my defintion as an example- Homer preferred grip was Flat, Level and Vertical - because all of those are visually identifiable with precision - as opposed to a curved line or angles which are not- without using measurement instruments.

2) Regardless of lie angle - he would always want the grip taken with LEVEL lead hand position.

3) Regardless of hinge action employed he would always want you taking the grip at impact fix with the a Vertical Lead Hand position and returning to impact with it Vertical - hinging takes place after that (during impact).

4) If you define your face and hand positions at impact fix - and then when you arrived at impact, if you changed the shaft angle or arrived at a different location than vertical then you would have changed the clubface alignment.

When I say "my" I mean what is going on between MY ears.
I have been rethinking. therefore I shall retract "SOME" of my thoughts. Since I am still thinking, I am not sure what is no-good anymore.
I am convinced that what we are doing with 7-2 has a lot to do with clubface alignment but little to do with the CF theory of clubface alignment.

My biggest current thought is.-when we think ball flight vs position- "should we be saying "true" swingers and hitters or should we be saying HORIZONTAL and ANGLED hingers?

I will continue to think this through.

HB

[HungryBear]

Now that the thread is done- almost done - :

Did the original , Bumpy, questions get answered?

Was there anything discussed that gave you an Ah-Ha moment?

Looking back-the thread has almost 100 post over a period of 10 days- what can we take from all those posts? (looking for that executive summary if U have one)

HB

[MizunoJoe]

Now that the thread is done- almost done - :

Looking back-the thread has almost 100 post over a period of 10 days- what can we take from all those posts? (looking for that executive summary if U have one)

HB

1. A way of name-calling without technically violating the forum rule against it.

2. Nothing of substance concerning clubface alignment. The fact is that you can do anything you wish, statically or dynamically, to influence face alignment as long as impact alignments are maintained and you do not interfere with the free-wheeling shaft through the release interval.

[Bumpy]

Now that the thread is done- almost done - :

1. Did the original , Bumpy, questions get answered?

2. Was there anything discussed that gave you an Ah-Ha moment?

3. Looking back-the thread has almost 100 post over a period of 10 days- what can we take from all those posts? (looking for that executive summary if U have one)



HB

My comments/notations in blue.
1. Yes.

2. Yes, several.

3. Scrambled eggs don't incubate.

Bumpy

[HungryBear]

Bumpy-
you edited my post within the quote. That is WRONG. Even when U are answering the post. It confuses the reader because U do not state what U are doing. Then You add an outside the quote reply.
HB

[Mike O]

Bumpy-
you edited my post within the quote. That is WRONG. Even when U are answering the post. It confuses the reader because U do not state what U are doing. Then You add an outside the quote reply.
HB

HB,
I understand your concern - for what it's worth - given that Bumpy put his comments in blue - it was clear to me that those were not your comments. (Assuming I'm correct on that and the intent of your post)

[HungryBear]

HB,
I understand your concern - for what it's worth - given that Bumpy put his comments in blue - it was clear to me that those were not your comments. (Assuming I'm correct on that and the intent of your post)

Your right- My Bad- Of all the posters I should be the last to comment on such minor things.

HB

[Bumpy]

HB,
I understand your concern - for what it's worth - given that Bumpy put his comments in blue - it was clear to me that those were not your comments. (Assuming I'm correct on that and the intent of your post)

Your right- My Bad- Of all the posters I should be the last to comment on such minor things.

HB

That post has been edited.

Bumpy