|
Post by tomdavis76 on Oct 18, 2013 0:00:20 GMT -5
Ray and Jeff- You two are missing the point: Hogan's hands are not "very high at address", period. That's a myth, and it doesn't matter where Moe's hands are. You two are the ones that are "high". Jeff
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 18, 2013 0:29:35 GMT -5
Jeffy,
I never stated that Hogan's are "high". I have implied that they are low - because they are on the hand plane at address (line drawn from the ball through his hands hits his belt buckle and exits his lower lumbar spine).
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Oct 18, 2013 3:12:16 GMT -5
Depends on the club Hogan was using.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Oct 18, 2013 3:24:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 18, 2013 9:36:46 GMT -5
Chipitin,
ZJ and MOG really had low hands at address. The butt end of their club points well below their belt buckle. By comparison, Hogan had higher hands at address (although his hands were low when compared to Moe Norman).
In terms of accumulator #3 angle, the relationship is inverse - MN had the least, BH was intermediate and MOG had the largest.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Oct 18, 2013 9:49:32 GMT -5
Ray-
Zach has less ulnar deviation at address than Hogan; is that your "PA#3" angle? What gibberish. Mac flexes more at the knees and hips than Hogan, which, of course, lowers his entire body, including his hands.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 18, 2013 10:15:48 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: "Zach has less ulnar deviation at address than Hogan; is that your "PA#3" angle? What gibberish."
If Jeffy understood more about TGM gibberish then he wouldn't ask ridiculous questions. The magnitude of the accumulator #3 angle has an inverse relationship to the degree of left wrist deviation in an ulnar direction.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Oct 18, 2013 10:23:15 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: " Zach has less ulnar deviation at address than Hogan; is that your "PA#3" angle? What gibberish." If Jeffy understood more about TGM gibberish then he wouldn't ask ridiculous questions. The magnitude of the accumulator #3 angle has an inverse relationship to the degree of left wrist deviation in an ulnar direction.Jeff. And why is knowing that ("the magnitude of accumulator #3 angle") important? And why is that piece of jargon necessary? Why not just say a player has more or less ulnar deviation at address? Jeff
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 18, 2013 10:56:58 GMT -5
The TGM jargon term of "accumulator #3 angle" isn't absolutely necessary. It is just a TGM term that refers to the magnitude of the left arm-clubshaft angle at address/impact. You (or KM) could invent any term to refer to that "angle".
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Oct 18, 2013 11:04:06 GMT -5
The TGM jargon term of "accumulator #3 angle" isn't absolutely necessary. It is just a TGM term that refers to the magnitude of the left arm-clubshaft angle at address/impact. You (or KM) could invent any term to refer to that "angle".
Jeff. Well, we're not in the business of making up new terminology when universal terms already exist. Perhaps Homer's biggest mistake. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Oct 18, 2013 12:10:07 GMT -5
The TGM jargon term of "accumulator #3 angle" isn't absolutely necessary. It is just a TGM term that refers to the magnitude of the left arm-clubshaft angle at address/impact. You (or KM) could invent any term to refer to that "angle". Jeff. How about we just call it "The angle formed between the left arm and clubshaft at address?" It's been used effectively forever, it's very descriptive and extremely easy to understand. Ask a hundred people at a local driving range what the "accumulator #3 angle" is and not one will know the correct answer. Another good reason to keep TGM on the book shelf where it belongs.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Oct 18, 2013 12:15:25 GMT -5
Chipitin, ZJ and MOG really had low hands at address. The butt end of their club points well below their belt buckle. By comparison, Hogan had higher hands at address (although his hands were low when compared to Moe Norman). In terms of accumulator #3 angle, the relationship is inverse - MN had the least, BH was intermediate and MOG had the largest. Jeff. Yes I know.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Oct 18, 2013 12:20:00 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: " Zach has less ulnar deviation at address than Hogan; is that your "PA#3" angle? What gibberish." If Jeffy understood more about TGM gibberish then he wouldn't ask ridiculous questions. The magnitude of the accumulator #3 angle has an inverse relationship to the degree of left wrist deviation in an ulnar direction.Jeff. And why is knowing that ("the magnitude of accumulator #3 angle") important? And why is that piece of jargon necessary? Why not just say a player has more or less ulnar deviation at address? Jeff How it affects your swing is a reason to know it's importance. but you could not know it and still play good golf. Some people just like to know and micro manage their swings....right?
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Oct 18, 2013 12:22:08 GMT -5
Chipitin, ZJ and MOG really had low hands at address. The butt end of their club points well below their belt buckle. By comparison, Hogan had higher hands at address (although his hands were low when compared to Moe Norman). In terms of accumulator #3 angle, the relationship is inverse - MN had the least, BH was intermediate and MOG had the largest. Jeff. Yes I know. Really? I wonder since you said this-- Hogan had very high hands at address. Yes I know
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Oct 18, 2013 12:25:43 GMT -5
Ray- Zach has less ulnar deviation at address than Hogan; is that your "PA#3" angle? What gibberish. Mac flexes more at the knees and hips than Hogan, which, of course, lowers his entire body, including his hands. Jeff It's not my PA 3 angle, it's a TGM term. Quit acting dumb, you know what it means. And it can't be gibberish, it can only be not known till someone asks what is it and then they get the answer. Finnish is gibberish to me until I learn it. ;D
|
|