Elbow plane definition

[imperfectgolfer]

Here is the Swing Engineer's definition of the elbow plane.

www.theswingengineer.com/elbow_plane.html

Here is the image from his website



I think that his definition is totally wrong. That line is drawn through the hands and it represents the hand plane. The elbow plane is drawn through the right elbow - and the only meaningful debate is deciding whether is should be the "right elbow at address" or "right elbow at impact".

The SE constantly misinterprets basic TGM terminology/ideology.

Jeff.

[jack]

If you read the book, 10-6-A, it states that it is "where the Right Elbow touches the waist". Swing Eng is absolutely right!

[imperfectgolfer]

Jack,

You are correctly quoting the TGM book when you state that it is "where the right elbow touches the waist". However, the line has to be drawn through the right elbow when it is at at waist level at address as demonstrated in the following image.



Note that there is a clear distinction between the hand plane and the elbow plane.

Jeff.

[jack]

Jeff,
Homer Kelley is very precise. Its where the elbow "TOUCHES" the waist. The elbow is never going to touch where you have drawn it. Also, Homer doesn't say anything about waist level at address, where did you get that from?

Jack

[imperfectgolfer]

Jack,

You are free to interpret the TGM book in any way that you want, but there are repercussions that result from your subjective interpretation.

If the elbow plane is really where the blue line is drawn in the SE-image, then the blue line goes through the belt buckle and exits the lower back region. That blue line going through the belt buckle is identical to the hand plane line in the Manzella-produced image that I presented. What would be the practical utility of having the hand plane line and the elbow plane line being at the same angle? One would then not be able to show the magnitude of any plane shifts that occur during the golf swing when the clubshaft moves between the hand plane and the elbow plane. By contrast, if one uses the Manzella-image as the baseline, then there is a clear distinction between the elbow plane and the hand plane.

Secondly, do you have any evidence that the most famous TGM instructors working today (eg. Lynn Blake, Joe Daniels and Chuck Evans) are using your subjective perception of the position of the elbow plane line?

Thirdly, at what time point during the golf swing action does the right elbow actually touch the waist?

Jeff.

[tgminstructor]

Nov 7, 2015 10:26:38 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

None of you are close, Jack is the closes and who ever drew this image is totally clueless.  The 10-6-A Elbow plane is the location of the elbow DURING IMPACT.  Since right forearm tracing is vital through impact why would you want to determine the elbow plane at address if it's not there during impact (unless you set up to with the right forearm\clubshaft in line to use a 10-7-A Zero plane shift)?

[imperfectgolfer]

Apr 17, 2017 20:29:53 GMT -5 tgminstructor said:

Nov 7, 2015 10:26:38 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

None of you are close, Jack is the closes and who ever drew this image is totally clueless.  The 10-6-A Elbow plane is the location of the elbow DURING IMPACT.  Since right forearm tracing is vital through impact why would you want to determine the elbow plane at address if it's not there during impact (unless you set up to with the right forearm\clubshaft in line to use a 10-7-A Zero plane shift)?

You are obviously a TGM literalist. I have long since rejected the idea of measuring the elbow plane at impact rather than at address, because certain golfers have their right elbow in a different position at impact than at address, and that creates too much variability in standardising the steepness of the elbow plane as a reference plane that is different to the hand plane or TSP.

For example, Bryson DeChambeau has a zero plane shift golf swing so his right elbow is nearly on the same plane at impact as it was at address.



Image 1 is at address, and image 5 is at impact. The steepness of the elbow plane would be roughly the same (and only slightly shallower at impact) if measured both at address or at impact.

However, consider the position of the right elbow at impact in these 5 pro golfers.



Alvaro Quiros (image 1) and JB Holmes (image 2) have their right forearm on the clubshaft plane at impact, so their right elbow is on the same plane as the clubshaft.

However, Phil Mickelson (image 3) has his rear forearm on a much steeper plane than his clubshaft and it is closer to the TSP, so measuring his elbow plane at impact would produce very little difference between the elbow plane and the TSP.

By contrast, Hunter Mahan (image 4) and Keegan Bradley (image 5) have their right forearm on a much shallower plane than the clubshaft at impact. Measuring their elbow plane at impact would produce a line that is too close to the hand plane.

I much prefer to measure the elbow plane at address (as shown in the Manzella image) because it produces three distinctly variable planes in terms of steepness (hand plane, elbow plane, TSP) that can better act as reference planes for measuring the steepness of the clubshaft.

By the way, I reject the mandatory TGM concept of having the right forearm on the same plane as the clubshaft at impact - see this review paper perfectgolfswingreview.net/VP13.html if you are interested in my contrary opinions

Jeff.

[tgminstructor]

Apr 18, 2017 9:29:30 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

Apr 17, 2017 20:29:53 GMT -5 tgminstructor said:

None of you are close, Jack is the closes and who ever drew this image is totally clueless.  The 10-6-A Elbow plane is the location of the elbow DURING IMPACT.  Since right forearm tracing is vital through impact why would you want to determine the elbow plane at address if it's not there during impact (unless you set up to with the right forearm\clubshaft in line to use a 10-7-A Zero plane shift)?

You are obviously a TGM literalist. I have long since rejected the idea of measuring the elbow plane at impact rather than at address, because certain golfers have their right elbow in a different position at impact than at address, and that creates too much variability in standardising the steepness of the elbow plane as a reference plane that is different to the hand plane or TSP.

For example, Bryson DeChambeau has a zero plane shift golf swing so his right elbow is nearly on the same plane at impact as it was at address.



Image 1 is at address, and image 5 is at impact. The steepness of the elbow plane would be roughly the same (and only slightly shallower at impact) if measured both at address or at impact.

However, consider the position of the right elbow at impact in these 5 pro golfers.



Alvaro Quiros (image 1) and JB Holmes (image 2) have their right forearm on the clubshaft plane at impact, so their right elbow is on the same plane as the clubshaft.

However, Phil Mickelson (image 3) has his rear forearm on a much steeper plane than his clubshaft and it is closer to the TSP, so measuring his elbow plane at impact would produce very little difference between the elbow plane and the TSP.

By contrast, Hunter Mahan (image 4) and Keegan Bradley (image 5) have their right forearm on a much shallower plane than the clubshaft at impact. Measuring their elbow plane at impact would produce a line that is too close to the hand plane.

I much prefer to measure the elbow plane at address (as shown in the Manzella image) because it produces three distinctly variable planes in terms of steepness (hand plane, elbow plane, TSP) that can better act as reference planes for measuring the steepness of the clubshaft.

By the way, I reject the mandatory TGM concept of having the right forearm on the same plane as the clubshaft at impact - see this review paper perfectgolfswingreview.net/VP13.html if you are interested in my contrary opinions

Jeff.

Dude, you're all over the place.  First you argue about why you use the elbow at address and then support it with pictures of golfers at impact.  Try this, post pictures of those same 5 golfers at address and than show how they use the same elbow plane they way you say you establish it at impact.

And for the clubshaft\right forearm alignment, it's the sweet spot that aligns with the right forearm.  Get in your address position and using just your right arm swing a towel back and forth. Does centrifugal force try to align the towel with your right forearm?  The same thing happens in the golf swing, it's not exempt from the laws of physics.  This is why the right forearm and sweet spot seek an in-line relationship.  If you reject this mandatory TGM concept than you reject the laws of physics.

[imperfectgolfer]

Apr 18, 2017 20:06:42 GMT -5 tgminstructor said:

Apr 18, 2017 9:29:30 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

You are obviously a TGM literalist. I have long since rejected the idea of measuring the elbow plane at impact rather than at address, because certain golfers have their right elbow in a different position at impact than at address, and that creates too much variability in standardising the steepness of the elbow plane as a reference plane that is different to the hand plane or TSP.

For example, Bryson DeChambeau has a zero plane shift golf swing so his right elbow is nearly on the same plane at impact as it was at address.



Image 1 is at address, and image 5 is at impact. The steepness of the elbow plane would be roughly the same (and only slightly shallower at impact) if measured both at address or at impact.

However, consider the position of the right elbow at impact in these 5 pro golfers.



Alvaro Quiros (image 1) and JB Holmes (image 2) have their right forearm on the clubshaft plane at impact, so their right elbow is on the same plane as the clubshaft.

However, Phil Mickelson (image 3) has his rear forearm on a much steeper plane than his clubshaft and it is closer to the TSP, so measuring his elbow plane at impact would produce very little difference between the elbow plane and the TSP.

By contrast, Hunter Mahan (image 4) and Keegan Bradley (image 5) have their right forearm on a much shallower plane than the clubshaft at impact. Measuring their elbow plane at impact would produce a line that is too close to the hand plane.

I much prefer to measure the elbow plane at address (as shown in the Manzella image) because it produces three distinctly variable planes in terms of steepness (hand plane, elbow plane, TSP) that can better act as reference planes for measuring the steepness of the clubshaft.

By the way, I reject the mandatory TGM concept of having the right forearm on the same plane as the clubshaft at impact - see this review paper perfectgolfswingreview.net/VP13.html if you are interested in my contrary opinions

Jeff.

Dude, you're all over the place.  First you argue about why you use the elbow at address and then support it with pictures of golfers at impact.  Try this, post pictures of those same 5 golfers at address and than show how they use the same elbow plane they way you say you establish it at impact.

And for the clubshaft\right forearm alignment, it's the sweet spot that aligns with the right forearm.  Get in your address position and using just your right arm swing a towel back and forth. Does centrifugal force try to align the towel with your right forearm?  The same thing happens in the golf swing, it's not exempt from the laws of physics.  This is why the right forearm and sweet spot seek an in-line relationship.  If you reject this mandatory TGM concept than you reject the laws of physics.

You wrote-: "Try this, post pictures of those same 5 golfers at address and than show how they use the same elbow plane they way you say you establish it at impact."

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I am only interested in defining variable planes of steepness as rough reference points so that any golfer can roughly picture a specific plane of steepness when I talk about the hand plane, elbow plane and the TSP. I like Manzella's image because it shows three distinct levels of planar steepness - the hand plane exits the back through the lower lumbar spine area; the elbow plane exits the back through the mid-back area; and the TSP exits the back through the upper thoracic spine area. I am not at all interested in whether my personal elbow reference plane is compatible with Homer Kelley's original definition based on the position of the right elbow at impact.

You also wrote-: "And for the clubshaft\right forearm alignment, it's the sweet spot that aligns with the right forearm.  Get in your address position and using just your right arm swing a towel back and forth. Does centrifugal force try to align the towel with your right forearm?  The same thing happens in the golf swing, it's not exempt from the laws of physics.  This is why the right forearm and sweet spot seek an in-line relationship.  If you reject this mandatory TGM concept than you reject the laws of physics."

I regard your opinion as being totally irrational. The right wrist joint is not being subjected to the centrifugal pull of the golf club in a TGM swinger's action, and it is only the left wrist joint that is being subjected to that outward pulling force. Secondly, a golfer can independently control the relationship of the right forearm relative to the clubshaft based on a multiplicity of interacting biomechanical factors - such as i) the particular position of the right shoulder along its downplane path, ii) the degree of right lateral bend present; iii) the specific position of the right elbow between P6 and impact, iv) the specific degree of straightening of the right elbow between P6 and impact and v) finally whether the right wrist is kept neutral or whether it becomes radially deviated (as seen in Sergio Garcia's swing) or ulnarly deviated (as seen in Hunter Mahan's and Keegan Bradley's swing) in the later downswing.

Jeff.