|
Post by iacas on May 10, 2012 18:09:42 GMT -5
Keep avoiding proof of the "plenty" that knew. Why waste my time? You've got a fever for Trackman. I simply said that plenty of people understood that the more down you hit the more outward the path would tend to be given the geometry of the bottom of the swing arc. Simple geometry. That's all I've claimed, except the additional part about how people who said "path" never meant "HSP/SD." They meant the "path" just as we use it these days. You have a bad habit of making bold statements without proof in this thread (and others) and then get mad when challenged. Yeah, I'm the "mad" one. You're as bad at putting feelings in my head as you are at putting words in my mouth. Forget the 80s if that makes you happy, there was nothing in the 1990s on this subject and nothing in the 2000s until 2007-2008. I'd check the date on The Physics of Golf. You claim that you don't teach AoA to fix path. I don't believe I did. I guess -7 degree AoA on your Trackman wouldn't be the first thing fixed if the path was way in to out. Bad guess. My point about you only teaching for three years is that you post on this site with such authority and yet you've only been teaching for three years. Pretty difficult to have all of the answers in any job with only three years on the job experience. You aren't that far removed from us amateurs (who've studied the swing/golf as well and have been playing longer). Believe what you want. Have a good evening. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 10, 2012 19:49:48 GMT -5
Iacas -
You sound like Chamblee and it's annoying. If you think the date is the Physics of Golf, who was using this book as teaching book for impact/ballflight and communicating these ideas from the book? Name a couple instructors who were actually teaching this stuff to the masses. (Teeace doesn't count ;D). S&T took awhile to take hold. Mac hides his knowledge. It took 6-7 years for Jurgenson's book to take with instructors (and many still don't know - but this information is now widely known on the web in large part to guys like Richie, Bman, Trackman, Plummer & Bennett).
Don't forget this post you made:
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 11, 2012 5:01:14 GMT -5
You sound like Chamblee and it's annoying. Wow, sure. I'm getting off the crazy train now. Uhm, exactly. At least you quoted it accurately that time.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 11, 2012 5:05:54 GMT -5
You've been on the train for awhile there Ozzy. All puff and fluff. Support your position with some evidence or just admit that your similar to Chamblee and re-invent history.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on May 11, 2012 6:24:14 GMT -5
Theodore Jurgenson coined the term "D plane" in 1999. . 1994
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 11, 2012 8:26:36 GMT -5
Paperback 1999, Hardbound 12/31/1993 according to Amazon. That makes it even longer until this stuff caught on WIDELY in 2007-2008. Don't know if anyone was using the term D-plane in popular golf instruction until Trackman caught on and then it dawned on everyone how correct Jurgenson was regarding this book. What instructor/instruction book/magazine article to the masses was even discussing correct impact and ballflight back in 1993? 1999? 2003? 2005? Not everyone had access to MOG whom I suspect knew the correct impact/ballflight dynamics. I've never seen golf instruction to the masses based upon C&S' book or the Physics of Golf prior to 2007. (I was part of the masses like a lot of other people). Looks like S&T came out in 2007 (although it could be earlier). The internet was invented in the 1950s but it took years for that to catch on (like a lot of other inventions - ex. microwave, fax machine, etc.): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
|
|
|
Post by mchepp on May 11, 2012 12:21:31 GMT -5
Paperback 1999, Hardbound 12/31/1993 according to Amazon. That makes it even longer until this stuff caught on WIDELY in 2007-2008. Don't know if anyone was using the term D-plane in popular golf instruction until Trackman caught on and then it dawned on everyone how correct Jurgenson was regarding this book. What instructor/instruction book/magazine article to the masses was even discussing correct impact and ballflight back in 1993? 1999? 2003? 2005? Not everyone had access to MOG whom I suspect knew the correct impact/ballflight dynamics. I've never seen golf instruction to the masses based upon C&S' book or the Physics of Golf prior to 2007. (I was part of the masses like a lot of other people). Looks like S&T came out in 2007 (although it could be earlier). The internet was invented in the 1950s but it took years for that to catch on (like a lot of other inventions - ex. microwave, fax machine, etc.): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet I don't know cwd, I think the collection of people who know what D-Plane means is still a very small sample size. Saying that Trackman popularized it is going a bit far. I would venture that less than 50% of golfers have ever been on a Trackman and of that 50% less than 25% understand what D-Plane means. I think it is a very small collection of golfers. I first heard of D-Plane on David Orr's site probably around 2006 or so. Nick Clearwater and him were discussing it. One could easily argue that is all under the umbrella of Plummer and Bennett but I wonder who was teaching who, because I think Bennett worked with Orr long before S&T hit the scene. I am a terrible historian (I got D+ in college) so I could have it wrong. I think it makes it tough to decide who taught it to who.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on May 11, 2012 12:39:37 GMT -5
D Plane and the correct ball flight laws are still only known by a very small part of golf. Path still rules to the majority.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 11, 2012 13:12:10 GMT -5
D Plane and the correct ball flight laws are still only known by a very small part of golf. Path still rules to the majority. Well what about the posts to the contrary by Iacas and Tapio? Can't have it both ways. At least this information became available in 2007-2008 in a meaningful fashion to the masses. Finally articles in Golf Magazine, references to Trackman and ballflight in golf articles, many blogs discussing this information, S&T, etc. Nothing like that prior to 2007. I'll gladly say that more work can be done to get this informration out. What I won't do is try to reinvent history and claim that it was widely known. Only a rare few had it right and they weren't sharing in a manner that people could actually use this information. The Physics of Golf? Who taught from that book? C&S did have some following, but even their work was incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 13, 2012 7:49:52 GMT -5
Well what about the posts to the contrary by Iacas and Tapio? Can't have it both ways. Perhaps you'd actually READ the posts, CWD. But you got headed down the wrong path of assuming or reading into what I said, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 13, 2012 15:26:12 GMT -5
Yep. Your posts are full of support! Perhaps you should think about the words you use and their implication on this topic.
Why did you feel the need to post this video on YouTube in January, 2010 if everyone was correct and knew?
Listen carefully at the beginning. He says all of the rules are incorrect!!! This means people were teaching the wrong rules.
People didn't know corrct ballflight/impact and your posts implied they did. You posted this video because you knew most were wrong and yet you fight me on this subject for no reason. You fail to tell about the "plenty" who knew and when. Quit posting on this thread until you post the names of the plenty and when. You're losing credibility as an instructor.
This is just plain wrong:
.
There weren't plenty who knew or even thought this way. It's correct, but there weren't plenty who were sharing. Read my initial post. It's about teaching to the masses, not exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 13, 2012 16:35:45 GMT -5
Why did you feel the need to post this video on YouTube in January, 2010 if everyone was correct and knew? I never said everyone was correct and knew. Listen carefully at the beginning. He says all of the rules are incorrect!!! This means people were teaching the wrong rules. Many were. Your point? Do you think that I believe everything said in that video is 100% true? If so, why? People didn't know corrct ballflight/impact and your posts implied they did. Some did. Most didn't. I've never said any differently, so again, what's your point? Most of the lawyers I know are pretty good at reading.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 13, 2012 17:12:10 GMT -5
My point is you keep claiming everyone knew and yet your boys claim the opposite. Most three year pros like yourself don't keep spouting off without evidence. Where's your proof that people knew? The video you posted proves my point, not yours. Look up the word hypocrisy.
Nobody was talking about AoA affecting path to the masses. You claim they were. Where's your evidence assistant pro?
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 13, 2012 18:27:07 GMT -5
My point is you keep claiming everyone knew and yet your boys claim the opposite. I've never claimed "everyone knew," and I don't have a clue who "my boys" are. Dave and James? You seem to be assuming quite a bit. Most three year pros like yourself don't keep spouting off without evidence. Evidence of what? And why do you continue to be insulting and rude? Where's your proof that people knew? Again, when was The Physics of Golf published? I didn't say "the majority." Proof? Where's your proof that "plenty" of people didn't learn things after reading the book *or* just thinking about the geometry of a circle/arc? My background is in the sciences, specifically chemistry, which is largely about geometry. I might be guilty of assuming that more people understood the book and/or just understood the basic geometry of a circle, but I've never defined "plenty" as "the majority." That'd be a stupid assumption - you and I would agree that the majority *still* don't know this stuff. The video you posted proves my point, not yours. Look up the word hypocrisy. Look up the word "assume." So I posted a video. You think that proves your point? Is everything they say in that video true? No. The fact that they used words like "all" and "everyone" speak to that. So what's your point? Nobody was talking about AoA affecting path to the masses. You claim they were. Where's your evidence assistant pro? Again, when was The Physics of Golf published? Is it your position that NOBODY read it and understand the D-Plane until Trackman came out? Give me a break. You've assumed, misread, misquoted, and been rude throughout this thread. 95%+ golf pros didn't know this stuff ten years ago (maybe 98 or 99%+). 80%+ probably still don't know (maybe 90%+). "Plenty" of the people I talked to know how a circle or an arc works. Go ahead and misread, misquote, assume, and be rude some more. I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on May 13, 2012 19:05:04 GMT -5
D Plane and the correct ball flight laws are still only known by a very small part of golf. Path still rules to the majority. Well what about the posts to the contrary by Iacas and Tapio? Can't have it both ways. At least this information became available in 2007-2008 in a meaningful fashion to the masses. Finally articles in Golf Magazine, references to Trackman and ballflight in golf articles, many blogs discussing this information, S&T, etc. Nothing like that prior to 2007. I'll gladly say that more work can be done to get this informration out. What I won't do is try to reinvent history and claim that it was widely known. Only a rare few had it right and they weren't sharing in a manner that people could actually use this information. The Physics of Golf? Who taught from that book? C&S did have some following, but even their work was incomplete. I can't have what both ways? I am not sure I have made any statements about ball flight in this thread. I will walk over to my club right now, ask every member in the clubhouse about the ball flight of a golf ball, and the D plane and I am telling you no one is going to have the correct answers. Maybe 1-2 out a hundred I bet.
|
|