| |
Main
Date: 08 Jan 2007 15:37:50
From: cr113
Subject: Swing trainers
|
The way I understand it, there are 2 main factors in your swing. The
path of the clubhead (inside-out or outside-in) and how closed or open
the clubhead is at impact. Of course hitting the ball close to the
middle of your club face is obviously important but that's not what I'm
worried about.
Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 12:13:36
From: cr113
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On Jan 10, 10:34 am, "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> You'd be much better off signing up for a series of lessons. If
> weather
> is an issue, you might find a pro that teaches indoors. I highly
> reccomend GolfTec, although they are not cheap.
I took a lesson last weekend that included video swing analysis. He
taped my swing from the back and side and compared it frame by frame
with a pro's swing. It was amazing. I highly recommend it.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 06:40:39
From: cr113
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
tin Levac wrote:
> http://www.golftoday.co.uk/proshop/tuition/index.html
>
> The above is a complete lesson on the golf swing. Take what you need.
That's a really good tutorial.
Thanks!
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 12:51:47
From: cr113
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
tin Levac wrote:
> "cr113" <cr113@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168299469.527858.190240@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The way I understand it, there are 2 main factors in your swing. The
> > path of the clubhead (inside-out or outside-in) and how closed or open
> > the clubhead is at impact. Of course hitting the ball close to the
> > middle of your club face is obviously important but that's not what I'm
> > worried about.
> >
> > Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
> > work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
> > balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
> > watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
> Now, the way you understand contact, you want to disregard the most
> important aspect of it: Location of contact on the face. I don't understand
> why you'd want to do that. I mean, the closer to dead center you make
> contact with the ball, the more momentum you transfer to the ball, the
> farther the ball goes but most importantly, the more acurately the ball
> goes. Not to mention that the higher the efficiency of transfer of momentum,
> the less effort you have to put into the swing for the same result. That's
> what we mean by effortless power. Also, the less pain you feel because we
> all know how painful it is to strike the ball off center on a full swing
> with a stiff shaft with a blade.
The way I figure it, if I need to correct my swing plane or clubface
angle, I need to change my technique. On the other hand I think that
making center contact is more of a matter of practice. Plus it's fairly
easy to tell if you don't hit it dead center. It's harder to know that
your swing is not on plane.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 18:42:15
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
"cr113" <cr113@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168548707.568182.82850@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> tin Levac wrote:
>> "cr113" <cr113@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168299469.527858.190240@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > The way I understand it, there are 2 main factors in your swing. The
>> > path of the clubhead (inside-out or outside-in) and how closed or open
>> > the clubhead is at impact. Of course hitting the ball close to the
>> > middle of your club face is obviously important but that's not what I'm
>> > worried about.
>> >
>> > Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
>> > work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
>> > balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
>> > watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
>
>> Now, the way you understand contact, you want to disregard the most
>> important aspect of it: Location of contact on the face. I don't
>> understand
>> why you'd want to do that. I mean, the closer to dead center you make
>> contact with the ball, the more momentum you transfer to the ball, the
>> farther the ball goes but most importantly, the more acurately the ball
>> goes. Not to mention that the higher the efficiency of transfer of
>> momentum,
>> the less effort you have to put into the swing for the same result.
>> That's
>> what we mean by effortless power. Also, the less pain you feel because we
>> all know how painful it is to strike the ball off center on a full swing
>> with a stiff shaft with a blade.
>
> The way I figure it, if I need to correct my swing plane or clubface
> angle, I need to change my technique. On the other hand I think that
> making center contact is more of a matter of practice. Plus it's fairly
> easy to tell if you don't hit it dead center. It's harder to know that
> your swing is not on plane.
>
http://www.golftoday.co.uk/proshop/tuition/index.html
The above is a complete lesson on the golf swing. Take what you need.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 09:41:02
From:
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
David Laville wrote:
> Direction of motion relative to the ground or gravity is the angle of
> attack. Direction of motion relative to the target line, ie.
> inside/out or outside/in is angle of approach. So there are two
> separate but distinctive names for two planes of motion. This is why
> knowledge is power and proper terminology is the power to communicate.
>
But isn't it easier to just say that the 6 degrees of motion define
everything you ever want to know, 3 spatial (x,y,z) and 3 rotational
(roll, pitch yaw, or in golf terms, lie,loft,face angle), and that is
the end of it? A bad golf shot has to be a result of one or more of
these 6 being wrong.
Well I suppose time is needed too, the above parameters need to be
known during the entire impact time, but nothing else comes into the
equation.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 09:23:41
From:
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
David Laville wrote:
> Direction of motion relative to the ground or gravity is the angle of
> attack. Direction of motion relative to the target line, ie.
> inside/out or outside/in is angle of approach. So there are two
> separate but distinctive names for two planes of motion. This is why
> knowledge is power and proper terminology is the power to communicate.
>
But isn't it easier to just say that the 6 degrees of motion define
everything you ever want to know, 3 spatial (x,y,z) and 3 rotational
(roll, pitch yaw, or in golf terms, lie,loft,face angle), and that is
the end of it? A bad golf shot has to be a result of one or more of
these 6 being wrong.
Well I suppose time is needed too, the above parameters need to be
known during the entire impact time, but nothing else comes into the
equation.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 08:34:32
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On Jan 8, 5:37 pm, "cr113" <c...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> The way I understand it, there are 2 main factors in your swing. The
> path of the clubhead (inside-out or outside-in) and how closed or open
> the clubhead is at impact. Of course hitting the ball close to the
> middle of your club face is obviously important but that's not what I'm
> worried about.
>
> Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
> work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
> balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
> watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
You'd be much better off signing up for a series of lessons. If
weather
is an issue, you might find a pro that teaches indoors. I highly
reccomend GolfTec, although they are not cheap.
If you are set on doing it on your own, probably the best swing trainer
is a video camera, but you have to know what to look for when you
look at the video.
When you work on your swing, the first thing you need to work on
after the fundamentals (grip, stance, posture, alignment, ball
position)
is the motion of your body.
The details of impact (which you seem to be focused on) are actually
secondary and can be worked out easily (relatively speaking) once
you've worked out the correct way to move your body.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 01:54:59
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On 8 Jan 2007 15:37:50 -0800, "cr113" <cr113@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
>work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
>balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
>watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
If you want to destroy your swing practice hitting those foam or
plastic whiffle balls. They don't react like a normal ball and you
can't discriminate your swing flaws. I have a friend who I begged not
to practice with them and if you ever saw him swing a club, well all I
can say is it's painful to watch.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 17:20:10
From: larry
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On 8 Jan 2007 15:37:50 -0800, "cr113" <cr113@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>The way I understand it, there are 2 main factors in your swing. The
>path of the clubhead (inside-out or outside-in) and how closed or open
>the clubhead is at impact. Of course hitting the ball close to the
>middle of your club face is obviously important but that's not what I'm
>worried about.
>
>Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
>work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
>balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
>watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
There are three really worth while swing training devices. First,
Leadbetter's "SwingSetter" is just super for developing several
vitally important skills, first among them the full wrist set on top.
You must swing it up fast enough to allow momentum to set your wrists.
If you don't fully set your wrists the entire golf swing is faulty.
Secondly the SwingSetter develops the ability to delay the fastest
portion of the downswing until the club reaches the ball position--no
casting. The combination of these two skills will add 10 to 20 MPH to
your effective clubhead speed---as measured by a Speedstik, another
handy device. Measure yourself before and after. You'll be amazed.
The Whippy TempoMaster helps the golfer avoid excessive hand action--
which is necessary if you are going to avoid casting and OTT. Long
drive competitors train with the Whippy driver. If you can hit them
straight with a Whippy, you can hit fairways and greens.
And the Speedstik is handy to measure your progress learning with the
first two.
larry
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 05:57:50
From: KnighT
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
cr113 wrote:
> The way I understand it, there are 2 main factors in your swing. The
> path of the clubhead (inside-out or outside-in) and how closed or open
> the clubhead is at impact. Of course hitting the ball close to the
> middle of your club face is obviously important but that's not what I'm
> worried about.
>
> Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
> work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
> balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
> watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
www.rovergolf.com
Pure swing is what you want. Power Angle Pro is top notch. These
leave no guessing to your golf swing.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:35:11
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
"cr113" <cr113@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168299469.527858.190240@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
> The way I understand it, there are 2 main factors in your swing. The
> path of the clubhead (inside-out or outside-in) and how closed or open
> the clubhead is at impact. Of course hitting the ball close to the
> middle of your club face is obviously important but that's not what I'm
> worried about.
>
> Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
> work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
> balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
> watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
>
Proper contact has three aspects, location of contact on the clubface,
direction of motion of the clubface, angle of attack of the clubface.
If you look up angle of attack, you will find that it relates to the angle
of a wing in relation to its direction of motion. It can be directly
extrapolated to the golf swing but for some fucked up reason, some genius
doesn't want to.
Some genius wants us to believe that angle of attack means:
The direction of motion of the clubface relative to the ground or relative
to gravity. You know, to hit down on the ball.
Well, I'm not a genius and I can tell you that angle of attack means exactly
the same in golf as it does in aviation:
The angle of attack is the angle of the wing relative to its direction of
motion.
So
The angle of attack is the angle of the clubface relative to its direction
of motion. Angle of attack includes loft and square and open and closed. It
also includes upright and flat.
Direction of motion is the direction of motion of the clubface relative to
the ground or relative to gravity or relative to the target line or a
combination or all three. Up or down or sideways left or right or straight.
Location of contact is where on the clubface the ball is struck. It's either
dead center or it is off center. Center in this case means directly over the
center of gravity, not center of the face. In a club that has been swing
weighted heavier, it could be a little closer to the hosel than otherwise
because the weight has been inserted inside the hosel to adjust the
clubhead's weight. Off center means anywhere but dead center.
Now, the way you understand contact, you want to disregard the most
important aspect of it: Location of contact on the face. I don't understand
why you'd want to do that. I mean, the closer to dead center you make
contact with the ball, the more momentum you transfer to the ball, the
farther the ball goes but most importantly, the more acurately the ball
goes. Not to mention that the higher the efficiency of transfer of momentum,
the less effort you have to put into the swing for the same result. That's
what we mean by effortless power. Also, the less pain you feel because we
all know how painful it is to strike the ball off center on a full swing
with a stiff shaft with a blade.
Hey, what do you know, less pain and less effort for more gain. That's
fucked up.
Then at some point in your golf career, you'll realise that it doesn't pay
to go all out. Instead, you'll learn that as you focus on making contact
dead center, you'll automatically adjust the other aspects because you'll
then be able to control the stupid club because you aren't swinging it so
fucking hard anymore.
That's the way I understand proper contact. Practice that 500 times per
practice session at the range and at some point you'll improve.
Have a nice day.
tin Levac
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 02:01:13
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:35:11 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>Well, I'm not a genius and I can tell you that angle of attack means exactly
>the same in golf as it does in aviation:
And you still don't understand that.
>The angle of attack is the angle of the wing relative to its direction of
>motion.
On the "pitch" axis which is also on the vertical plane of motion.
Yaw axis in the horizontal plane and roll axis is exactly that, roll.
>The angle of attack is the angle of the clubface relative to its direction
>of motion.
Angle of attack, like the aviation definition, is the approach of the
clubhead on a vertical plane. This would mean how steep or shallow
you approach the ball.
>Angle of attack includes loft and square and open and closed. It
>also includes upright and flat.
So if you were giving a lesson and told someone his angle of approach
was the problem how would be know which one you were talking about if
you give 3 different planes of motion the same name?
This is why ignorance of a subject is dangerous, especially when it
comes from a troll.
>Direction of motion is the direction of motion of the clubface relative to
>the ground or relative to gravity or relative to the target line or a
>combination or all three. Up or down or sideways left or right or straight.
Direction of motion relative to the ground or gravity is the angle of
attack. Direction of motion relative to the target line, ie.
inside/out or outside/in is angle of approach. So there are two
separate but distinctive names for two planes of motion. This is why
knowledge is power and proper terminology is the power to communicate.
>Now, the way you understand contact, you want to disregard the most
>important aspect of it: Location of contact on the face. I don't understand
>why you'd want to do that. I mean, the closer to dead center you make
>contact with the ball, the more momentum you transfer to the ball, the
>farther the ball goes but most importantly, the more acurately the ball
>goes. Not to mention that the higher the efficiency of transfer of momentum,
>the less effort you have to put into the swing for the same result. That's
>what we mean by effortless power.
Effortless power is putting mechanics over muscular effort rather than
muscular effort over mechanics.
Knowledge is power, troll.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 01:09:47
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:eph8q21ggs3spge86jv29s4usmfbjnq3oo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:35:11 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I'm not a genius and I can tell you that angle of attack means
>>exactly
>>the same in golf as it does in aviation:
>
> And you still don't understand that.
>
>>The angle of attack is the angle of the wing relative to its direction of
>>motion.
>
> On the "pitch" axis which is also on the vertical plane of motion.
> Yaw axis in the horizontal plane and roll axis is exactly that, roll.
>
>>The angle of attack is the angle of the clubface relative to its direction
>>of motion.
>
> Angle of attack, like the aviation definition, is the approach of the
> clubhead on a vertical plane. This would mean how steep or shallow
> you approach the ball.
>
>>Angle of attack includes loft and square and open and closed. It
>>also includes upright and flat.
>
> So if you were giving a lesson and told someone his angle of approach
> was the problem how would be know which one you were talking about if
> you give 3 different planes of motion the same name?
>
> This is why ignorance of a subject is dangerous, especially when it
> comes from a troll.
>
>>Direction of motion is the direction of motion of the clubface relative to
>>the ground or relative to gravity or relative to the target line or a
>>combination or all three. Up or down or sideways left or right or
>>straight.
>
> Direction of motion relative to the ground or gravity is the angle of
> attack. Direction of motion relative to the target line, ie.
> inside/out or outside/in is angle of approach. So there are two
> separate but distinctive names for two planes of motion. This is why
> knowledge is power and proper terminology is the power to communicate.
>
>>Now, the way you understand contact, you want to disregard the most
>>important aspect of it: Location of contact on the face. I don't
>>understand
>>why you'd want to do that. I mean, the closer to dead center you make
>>contact with the ball, the more momentum you transfer to the ball, the
>>farther the ball goes but most importantly, the more acurately the ball
>>goes. Not to mention that the higher the efficiency of transfer of
>>momentum,
>>the less effort you have to put into the swing for the same result. That's
>>what we mean by effortless power.
>
> Effortless power is putting mechanics over muscular effort rather than
> muscular effort over mechanics.
>
> Knowledge is power, troll.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
Knowledge is power.
The ability to transmit this knowledge is greater power.
The ability to use this knowledge is greater power still.
You have the first. I have the first and second.
You prove this time after time. I prove this time after time.
There is hope, you can still learn how to transmit the knowledge you have.
All you have to do is devise a method by which you provoque a person to
swing the club properly by speaking to this person and by demonstrating how
to swing the club properly yourself. It must be simple, it must be quick, it
must work the first time and every time after that but most important, it
must be repeatable at will by the person you teach it to.
The method you must devise is a method that must reproduce itself: You must
make a teacher out of your student by teaching the method itself. Like a
circle holds the secret of its own geometry, the method must hold the secret
of its own method of transmission from person to person as well as teach how
to swing a club properly.
I'm sorry, David Laville but your posts lead me to conclude that you lack
this knowledge.
tin Levac
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 17:57:48
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
Hello, Genius.
"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:eph8q21ggs3spge86jv29s4usmfbjnq3oo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:35:11 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I'm not a genius and I can tell you that angle of attack means
>>exactly
>>the same in golf as it does in aviation:
>
> And you still don't understand that.
>
>>The angle of attack is the angle of the wing relative to its direction of
>>motion.
>
> On the "pitch" axis which is also on the vertical plane of motion.
> Yaw axis in the horizontal plane and roll axis is exactly that, roll.
>
>>The angle of attack is the angle of the clubface relative to its direction
>>of motion.
>
> Angle of attack, like the aviation definition, is the approach of the
> clubhead on a vertical plane. This would mean how steep or shallow
> you approach the ball.
That's exactly what I meant by genius. No, David Laville, you have it wrong,
angle of attack in aviation is the angle of the wing relative to its
direction of motion. Therefore, angle of attack in golf is the angle of the
clubface relative to its direction of motion. It's really fucking simple.
>
>>Angle of attack includes loft and square and open and closed. It
>>also includes upright and flat.
>
> So if you were giving a lesson and told someone his angle of approach
> was the problem how would be know which one you were talking about if
> you give 3 different planes of motion the same name?
>
> This is why ignorance of a subject is dangerous, especially when it
> comes from a troll.
Angle of approach? Don't you mean direction of motion relative to the
ground? It's confusing when you use angle of approach and angle of attack in
the same sentence, I think that's why angle of approach in aviation is
applied to the whole plane and not just the wing. I think that's why you
have a hard time conveying your thoughts to us. It's even more confusing
when you write angle of approach when you want to reply to and refer to
angle of attack.
Don't bring your bias towards me in this discussion, just stick to the
subject, Genius.
>
>>Direction of motion is the direction of motion of the clubface relative to
>>the ground or relative to gravity or relative to the target line or a
>>combination or all three. Up or down or sideways left or right or
>>straight.
>
> Direction of motion relative to the ground or gravity is the angle of
> attack. Direction of motion relative to the target line, ie.
> inside/out or outside/in is angle of approach. So there are two
> separate but distinctive names for two planes of motion. This is why
> knowledge is power and proper terminology is the power to communicate.
>
>>Now, the way you understand contact, you want to disregard the most
>>important aspect of it: Location of contact on the face. I don't
>>understand
>>why you'd want to do that. I mean, the closer to dead center you make
>>contact with the ball, the more momentum you transfer to the ball, the
>>farther the ball goes but most importantly, the more acurately the ball
>>goes. Not to mention that the higher the efficiency of transfer of
>>momentum,
>>the less effort you have to put into the swing for the same result. That's
>>what we mean by effortless power.
>
> Effortless power is putting mechanics over muscular effort rather than
> muscular effort over mechanics.
>
> Knowledge is power, troll.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
David Laville, it has occured to me that once you enter a discussion, it
goes to hell. Had you not replied, it would still be comprehensible. What
with the personal attacks, the misinformation, the wrong definitions, the
confusion, the highly technical lies, etc. David Laville, you bring this
unto yourself, it's all your responsibility.
David Laville, the power to comunicate is not lost on me. I know exactly
what you wish to comunicate to me about me and so does the whole world by
now and it's not pretty. I know how much you resent something but I just
don't know what it is that you resent. Don't take it out on me, don't take
your failure out on me. I did nothing to you. I don't hate you. I don't know
you.
Yet you persist.
Fuck that, it's free for all. Give it your best shot, I'll give it mine. I
promise that I will look even more intelligent if I begin to insult you and
to make personal attacks: I'm a fucking genius when it comes to insults and
personal attacks.
Let the games begin, motherfucker, I'm ready for a fight to the last word.
But I suggest we do this in our own thread dedicated to this endeavor out of
respect for the original poster of this thread. Afterall, he just wanted to
get some answers, he did nothing to us.
tin Levac
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 03:02:14
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:57:48 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>David Laville, it has occured to me that once you enter a discussion, it
>goes to hell.
tin Levac, it has occurred to me you're a troll.
>David Laville, the power to comunicate is not lost on me.
tin Levac, you are a troll.
>Let the games begin, motherfucker, I'm ready for a fight to the last word.
>But I suggest we do this in our own thread dedicated to this endeavor out of
>respect for the original poster of this thread.
Translated = lets see how big of a thread I can get going trolling
people.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 20:27:49
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:57:48 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Let the games begin, motherfucker, I'm ready for a fight to the last word.
>>But I suggest we do this in our own thread dedicated to this endeavor out
>>of
>>respect for the original poster of this thread.
>
> Translated = lets see how big of a thread I can get going trolling
> people.
Dude
If you wish to discuss the golf swing with David, then discuss the golf
swing.
Your name calling doesn't cut it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 19:50:00
From:
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:57:48 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>Hello, Genius.
>snip parts of a discussion I had no intention of joining>
>David Laville, it has occured to me that once you enter a discussion, it
>goes to hell. Had you not replied, it would still be comprehensible.
Sorry, ty, but I couldn't let this one slide. Your contribution (a
word I use in this situation very loosely; looser than Britney Spears'
panties) was one of the most incomprehensible posts I have read, or
tried to read, since, well, another of your posts.
You either have an over-inflated ego, or you are a simple troll.
Craig
<snip more migraine fertilizer >
>
>tin Levac
>
"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 03:02:19
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:50:00 -0600, zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net
wrote:
>Sorry, ty, but I couldn't let this one slide. Your contribution (a
>word I use in this situation very loosely; looser than Britney Spears'
>panties) was one of the most incomprehensible posts I have read, or
>tried to read, since, well, another of your posts.
>
>You either have an over-inflated ego, or you are a simple troll.
He's a troll and I can point to 3 post where he has admitted it.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 00:11:55
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
"cr113" <cr113@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168299469.527858.190240@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
> The way I understand it, there are 2 main factors in your swing. The
> path of the clubhead (inside-out or outside-in) and how closed or open
> the clubhead is at impact. Of course hitting the ball close to the
> middle of your club face is obviously important but that's not what I'm
> worried about.
>
> Are there any gizmos that can tell you these two factors that would
> work in my backyard? What about a low tech approach, those foam golf
> balls or the plastic ones with holes. Can you tell what's going on from
> watching the flight and spin of those practice balls?
>
If you have the room those solid plastic balls that are common (the ones
that pretty much look like golf balls) tend to behave like regular golf
balls from a ball flight perspective (unless it is windy). But be aware of
the fact that they go about twice as far as those whiffles with the holes in
them (which kinda' hook and slice, but not as well as the solid plastic
ones).
dave
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 01:06:38
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Swing trainers
|
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:11:55 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>If you have the room those solid plastic balls that are common (the ones
>that pretty much look like golf balls) tend to behave like regular golf
>balls from a ball flight perspective (unless it is windy). But be aware of
>the fact that they go about twice as far as those whiffles with the holes in
>them (which kinda' hook and slice, but not as well as the solid plastic
>ones).
Goggle Cayman Island balls. And then play with them on a par-3 golf
course.
|
|
