S&T, MORAD & SLICE

[Siteseer2]

Tilt: Look you started this whole thread jack by accusing me of "[b]acting like an authority on MORAD[/b]"... which is typical punk speak from you...


I pointed out that I know bits and pieces (and have worked with a MORAD instructor), and asked that you show me where I ACTED like an authority...

You then post a thread where [b]far from acting like an "authority"[/b] I indeed INQUIRED from Moradman about the hand path parameters of S&T... so your whole premise is incorrect, and your accusations are full of BSpit.

So quit the backstroking... and I'm not going to address your nonsense again... you want to add something I'd like to hear it... because I know anything you say is parroted from Lake and at least I'll get a proxy for what he thinks... although based on your level of reading comprehension maybe that's a stretch,too...

[Tiltswing]

[quote name='Siteseer2' post='1947167' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:36 PM']Tilt: Look you started this whole thread jack by accusing me of "[b]acting like an authority on MORAD[/b]"... which is typical punk speak from you...


I pointed out that I know bits and pieces (and have worked with a MORAD instructor), and asked that you show me where I ACTED like an authority...

You then post a thread where [b]far from acting like an "authority"[/b] I indeed INQUIRED from Moradman about the hand path parameters of S&T... so your whole premise is incorrect, and your accusations are full of BSpit.

So quit the backstroking... and I'm not going to address your nonsense again... you want to add something I'd like to hear it... because I know anything you say is parroted from Lake and at least I'll get a proxy for what he thinks... although based on your level of reading comprehension maybe that's a stretch,too...[/quote]

The "authority" comment was not meant to start trouble. You have said things about MORAD CP (like mid-body hands) that are false and were presented as being true. This is the part of your quote I'm speaking about specifically: [b]"At what point do you start bending the plane?" [/b]By asking about the point in the swing at which the plane should start to bend, you implied that you believed there was a bend, and were asking for clarification on when it happens, not if it exists. The "parroted" comment is ridiculous hypocrisy, as I know that your information is largely, if not entirely, taken from SF, MORAD, S&T, TGM etc.

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='Tiltswing' post='1947191' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:55 PM'][quote name='Siteseer2' post='1947167' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:36 PM']Tilt: Look you started this whole thread jack by accusing me of "[b]acting like an authority on MORAD[/b]"... which is typical punk speak from you...


I pointed out that I know bits and pieces (and have worked with a MORAD instructor), and asked that you show me where I ACTED like an authority...

You then post a thread where [b]far from acting like an "authority"[/b] I indeed INQUIRED from Moradman about the hand path parameters of S&T... so your whole premise is incorrect, and your accusations are full of BSpit.

So quit the backstroking... and I'm not going to address your nonsense again... you want to add something I'd like to hear it... because I know anything you say is parroted from Lake and at least I'll get a proxy for what he thinks... although based on your level of reading comprehension maybe that's a stretch,too...[/quote]

The "authority" comment was not meant to start trouble. You have said things about MORAD CP (like mid-body hands) that are false and were presented as being true. This is the part of your quote I'm speaking about specifically: [b]"At what point do you start bending the plane?" [/b]By asking about the point in the swing at which the plane should start to bend, you implied that you believed there was a bend, and were asking for clarification on when it happens, not if it exists. The "parroted" comment is ridiculous hypocrisy, as I know that your information is largely taken from SF, MORAD, S&T, TGM etc.
[/quote]
I'm going to retract my earlier promise, long enough to retort that my information didn't come from being wet-nursed by Lake...

[Tiltswing]

[quote name='Siteseer2' post='1947197' date='Sep 12 2009, 07:04 PM'][quote name='Tiltswing' post='1947191' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:55 PM'][quote name='Siteseer2' post='1947167' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:36 PM']Tilt: Look you started this whole thread jack by accusing me of "[b]acting like an authority on MORAD[/b]"... which is typical punk speak from you...


I pointed out that I know bits and pieces (and have worked with a MORAD instructor), and asked that you show me where I ACTED like an authority...

You then post a thread where [b]far from acting like an "authority"[/b] I indeed INQUIRED from Moradman about the hand path parameters of S&T... so your whole premise is incorrect, and your accusations are full of BSpit.

So quit the backstroking... and I'm not going to address your nonsense again... you want to add something I'd like to hear it... because I know anything you say is parroted from Lake and at least I'll get a proxy for what he thinks... although based on your level of reading comprehension maybe that's a stretch,too...[/quote]

The "authority" comment was not meant to start trouble. You have said things about MORAD CP (like mid-body hands) that are false and were presented as being true. This is the part of your quote I'm speaking about specifically: [b]"At what point do you start bending the plane?" [/b]By asking about the point in the swing at which the plane should start to bend, you implied that you believed there was a bend, and were asking for clarification on when it happens, not if it exists. The "parroted" comment is ridiculous hypocrisy, as I know that your information is largely taken from SF, MORAD, S&T, TGM etc.
[/quote]
I'm going to retract my earlier promise, long enough to retort that my information didn't come from being wet-nursed by Lake...
[/quote]

Well, that's a nice cop-out to avoid responding to my post. Lake wasn't my first golf instructor, and certainly isn't my only source of information. How you can think that your comments about me are accurate, as if you know me personally, is pretty absurd.

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='Siteseer2' post='1947141' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:19 PM'][quote name='Tiltswing' post='1947127' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:13 PM'][quote name='Siteseer2' post='1947111' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:04 PM']Don't see ANY comment from me... its all MORADMAN responding to [b]my[/b] question about S&T hand path parameters...

..and Slice's cp is nowhere a part of the discussion...

And I'll let Slice or Dan (DFW) or Hoganfan answer for Slice, as they know it like Slice himself... but WHEN have you ever spoken to Slice, met with Slice, or been instructed by Slice?? NEVER.... Don't think he advocates left arm in at p5... he likes it more in-line... likes to keep the hands more mid sternum, and not get them "behind your a$$" as only he can say... but hey I've only spent about 30 hours with him personally... so what would i know...[/quote]

I never said you didn't understand SF CP. I was referring to MORAD CP. Based on the videos of SF's students (like this one: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3C2psBHS5o&feature=channel_page"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3C2psBHS5o...re=channel_page[/url] ) I can see the left arm inside the baseline at P5. I would think SF would want that as Hogan's left arm was inside the baseline at P5. My argument is that true MORAD CP looks like Hogan, and I assumed that is what SF teaches. However, you would certainly know more than I do about SF's method. This statement was written by you: [b]"Moradman... good stuff... Question about Left Arm/Right Arm spectrum (handpath)... S&T is 20 degrees at p3, 20 degrees at p8 which would trap it somewhere between cp/cf? What would cp be 0/20? And, cf 20/0? At what point do you start bending the plane?" [/b]That post indicated to me that you believe the plane line should bend with MORAD CP. BTW, I communicate with SF regularly and was talking with him yesterday, so I have a general idea of what he teaches. Ask him yourself if you don't believe me.
[/quote]
Tilt you like to start controversy, I believe... but rather than crap all over this thread why don't you add something substantive... if you know MORAD, (and btw, your in great hands with Lake) than add something substantive to the points I raised and which Logan addressed...
[/quote]
ok Tilt... mea culpa... lets pick it up from where you said "Great Post"...

How do you negotiate higher ballflight windows and negative loft occassioned by cp in the MORAD model... particularly in the longer clubs?

Logan noted some S&T fundies... why don't you add to the mix...

Spine tilt? Extension from p7-9? Shift the baseline a bit? Other thoughts...Lets take it from there...

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='Tiltswing' post='1947220' date='Sep 12 2009, 07:26 PM'][quote]ok Tilt... mea culpa... lets pick it up from where you said "Great Post"...

How do you negotiate higher ballflight windows and negative loft occassioned by cp in the MORAD model... particularly in the longer clubs?

Logan noted some S&T fundies... why don't you add to the mix...

Spine tilt? Extension from p7-9? Shift the baseline a bit? Other thoughts...Lets take it from there...[/quote]


I can explain through PM, but not here unfortunately.
[/quote]
HUH... is this part of the deal with Morad secret stuff that Logan alluded to... and its okay if you don't want to respond

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='Tiltswing' post='1947228' date='Sep 12 2009, 07:35 PM'][quote name='Siteseer2' post='1947223' date='Sep 12 2009, 07:32 PM'][quote name='Tiltswing' post='1947220' date='Sep 12 2009, 07:26 PM'][quote]ok Tilt... mea culpa... lets pick it up from where you said "Great Post"...

How do you negotiate higher ballflight windows and negative loft occassioned by cp in the MORAD model... particularly in the longer clubs?

Logan noted some S&T fundies... why don't you add to the mix...

Spine tilt? Extension from p7-9? Shift the baseline a bit? Other thoughts...Lets take it from there...[/quote]


I can explain through PM, but not here unfortunately.
[/quote]
HUH... is this part of the deal with Morad secret stuff that Logan alluded to... and its okay if you don't want to respond

[/quote]


I want to respond. Just give me a chance to explain with the PMs. I don't want it to be like this (secretive), but it is unfortunately.
[/quote]
I mean no offense to you, and derivatively to Lake and others... but where's the MANKIND part of MORAD, then...

[moradman]

Answer me this.

So morad CP is a Hogan Pattern... But hogan had his left arm in some degrees compared to Mac shifting it to 0* at 5?

Also, if you have seen players hit the highest windows with 1 and 2 irons using CP, then what is the need for CF?

Just enquiring asnd not starting wars. If you see it necessary to PM me, then so be it but i think it is in the best interest of enquiring bodies on here.
MM

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='moradman' post='1947230' date='Sep 12 2009, 07:38 PM']Answer me this.

So morad CP is a Hogan Pattern... But hogan had his left arm in some degrees compared to Mac shifting it to 0* at 5?

Also, if you have seen players hit the highest windows with 1 and 2 irons using CP, then what is the need for CF?

Just enquiring asnd not starting wars. If you see it necessary to PM me, then so be it but i think it is in the best interest of enquiring bodies on here.
MM[/quote]
Very succinct and to the point MM... can you attempt an answer based on what you know... and maybe we'll get some further info...

[dana dahlquist]

Lets just keep this simple any deal can change ball placements and handle locations.
One is 2-J-3 (Mac's personal pattern)
the other is Angle based 2-J-2

So pick what suits you. I really like S&T pattern because its easy for folks to hit it higher and farther. I still do hit some CP stuff.

This is kinda a silly thread to be honest.

[Lake]

All three camps will help you understand why you do what you do and what it takes to adjust... the information is always best from the source as it is their definitions.... but I can attest that CP/CF is not a bent plane line per the model.... but the human models do bend it from time to time As far as calling something online... I would reserve that term for when the baseline of the plane line chosen.... CP/CF is also the target line.... otherwise the plane line is either open/closed to the target and the player is preparing for a curve ....where the initial start line is away from the target and its d-plane is hopefully curving back w/o crossing the hole

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='dana dahlquist' post='1947450' date='Sep 12 2009, 09:51 PM']Lets just keep this simple any deal can change ball placements and handle locations.
One is 2-J-3 (Mac's personal pattern)
the other is Angle based 2-J-2

So pick what suits you. I really like S&T pattern because its easy for folks to hit it higher and farther. I still do hit some CP stuff.

This is kinda a silly thread to be honest.[/quote]
Dana... your one of the best...

Silly in what way... as in an exercise in futility..

Or silly as in not worthy of your undertaking...

I got alot of pms from folks saying for the first time they understand a little better about S&T... Logan provided a cogent response to the whole "tilt" misconception.... probably borne from the GolfDigest pics showing a dramatic lean to the left...

The centerpiece of S&T is swing centers (stacked) and where you are on the circle...yes??

And yet MORAD and others appear to not place so much emphasis on this, allowing for varying degrees of spine tilt at set-up and dynamically secondary to the pivot...

something seems to get lost in translation... especially since S&T and MORAD are cousins of sorts..

[gmbtempe]

[quote name='dana dahlquist' post='1947450' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:51 PM']Lets just keep this simple any deal can change ball placements and handle locations.
One is 2-J-3 (Mac's personal pattern)
the other is Angle based 2-J-2

So pick what suits you. I really like S&T pattern because its easy for folks to hit it higher and farther. I still do hit some CP stuff.

This is kinda a silly thread to be honest.[/quote]

What do you mean by 2-J-3, do you mean A or B?

I dont understand 2-J-3-A, what is meant by "blur of the clubhead", its very easy to understand 2-J-3-B.

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='gmbtempe' post='1947690' date='Sep 13 2009, 12:22 AM'][quote name='dana dahlquist' post='1947450' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:51 PM']Lets just keep this simple any deal can change ball placements and handle locations.
One is 2-J-3 (Mac's personal pattern)
the other is Angle based 2-J-2

So pick what suits you. I really like S&T pattern because its easy for folks to hit it higher and farther. I still do hit some CP stuff.

This is kinda a silly thread to be honest.[/quote]

What do you mean by 2-J-3, do you mean A or B?

I dont understand 2-J-3-A, what is meant by "blur of the clubhead", its very easy to understand 2-J-3-B.
[/quote]
You see... this is the kind of baloney that turns folks off... comes off as intelligentsia...

You start talking cross line thrusts and most are done...

[12 piece bucket]

[quote name='gmbtempe' post='1947690' date='Sep 13 2009, 12:22 AM'][quote name='dana dahlquist' post='1947450' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:51 PM']Lets just keep this simple any deal can change ball placements and handle locations.
One is 2-J-3 (Mac's personal pattern)
the other is Angle based 2-J-2

So pick what suits you. I really like S&T pattern because its easy for folks to hit it higher and farther. I still do hit some CP stuff.

This is kinda a silly thread to be honest.[/quote]

What do you mean by 2-J-3, do you mean A or B?

I dont understand 2-J-3-A, what is meant by "blur of the clubhead", its very easy to understand 2-J-3-B.
[/quote]

For anybody that cares . . . . or wants to go from shooting 70 to shooting like 130 . . .

2-J-3 has evolved or maybe even regressed through the various editions. But the basics of 2-J-3 are Impact Geometry. So you have the "original" or true geometric plane line. Then you have the Delivery Paths . . . PATH is for the HANDS and Delivery Lines . . . . LINES are for the CLUB. So according to Homer you have options here . . . ALL based on the Impact Geometry of the true geometric plane line. That geometry is based on two points 1. the Impact Point 2. Low Point. So you have two Plane Lines that you can identify from the original Plane . . . Impact Plane Line is above ground . . . Low Point Plane line is below ground . . . so you can see the implications of moving the ball up or back in the stance . . . the distance between the Impact Plane Line and the Low Point Plane Line varies based on the position of the ball up-Plane or down-Plane . . . but the points and the lines ALL lay on the face of the Plane.

So to your question 2-J-3-A is the Arc of Approach . . . is just an Arc (circle or curve whatever) that connects the Impact Point and Low Point . . . the arc actually lies on the face of the Plane . . . but when views from above you can imagine it on the ground like the ninja stick set up that P&B use. They are essentially showing you an Arc of Approach procedure . . . of the two sets of ninja sticks . . the ones closest to your feets are the Delivery Path (Path=Hands) and the set of sticks closest to the ball are for the Delivery Line (in this case Arc. . . Line=Clubhead). But all that stuff is a visual equivalent to the original true geometric plane line . . . so you can uses it as a substitute to tracing the original Plane Line . . .

2-J-3-B is a different animal . . . but it is derived from the original Plane and Plane Line . . . you essentially use a line that connects the Impact Point and Low Point . . . this LINE would run from the ball to Low Point out to right fields if you extended it out . . . this is the Angle of Approach . . . In the 4th Edition, Homer said you could approximate this line by getting into Impact Fix (body hands arms mimicking Impact) with your Right Forearm on-plane with the shaft . . . from their you can see that your Right Forearm is pointing out to right field . . . you can imagine a line on the ground parallel to your on-plane Right Forearm going thru the ball out to right field as well. That is an approximation of the Angle of Approach . . .

All Planes have an Angle of Approach because you always have an Impact Point and a Low Point. But 2-J-3-B is the Angle of Approach PROCEDURE . . . with the Angle of Approach PROCEDURE . . .you are actually now TRACING the Angle of Approach as the NEW Plane Line (which is derived from the geometric Plane Line) . . . so your Deliver Path . . . is your hands going "out-to-right field" . . . but your club COVERS the Angle of Approach (stays right on top of it). So basically you've shifted everything out to the right . . .

Many out here I'm sure could give a ratzazz about this . . . which is probably a good thing . . . but you axed . . . so that is the answer basically . . .

now y'all can get back to your regularly scheduled program . . . whatever that was.

[Siteseer2]

12 piece... you continually amaze me...

But you about summed it up in your introduction:

[b]For anybody that cares . . . . or wants to go from shooting 70 to shooting like 130 . . .[/b]

...and Dana was going to "keep it simple"...

[Callaway Ken]

Jeeezzzz man... WTF!!!

It's no wonder that people are struggling with their golf swing. I mean, I know what I'm doing and have NO idea what you guys are talking about sometimes.

[glcoach]

The only thing I can't get my head around in either arc or angle is the location of the sweetspot through all of this

Is the sweetspot the "face of the plane"?

Working with a vision track has shown me that swinging out to right field with the hands does not get the sweetspot working out to right field. When the sweetspot works out to right field, getting it airborne is a challenge

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='lake' post='1947494' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:19 PM']All three camps will help you understand why you do what you do and what it takes to adjust... the information is always best from the source as it is their definitions.... but I can attest that CP/CF is not a bent plane line per the model.... but the human models do bend it from time to time As far as calling something online... I would reserve that term for when the baseline of the plane line chosen.... CP/CF is also the target line.... otherwise the plane line is either open/closed to the target and the player is preparing for a curve ....where the initial start line is away from the target and its d-plane is hopefully curving back w/o crossing the hole [/quote]
Great post Doc. I view CP as inline (though many tend to bend it left when learning it) and have heard from several sources that anywhere from 20º-0º is ok at P5. I have certainly seen swings of Mac where he is around 10º or more in at P5 and not swinging across the ball with straight away ball flight. I personally think a lot of it is semantics and there are a lot of similarities. I do find it easier to use CF and the ball goes higher and further but I respect that both are a way to play the game at a high level. Find what works for you and go with it. I am sure Logan would agree, even though he obviously prefers the S&T model, that both(Morad and S&T) would help people improve and Morad is certainly an option especially when using CF with longer clubs and because we strike the ball before low point impact is still inside out in both the CP and CF model. It's all about options and thankfully for us there are many educated people here to learn those options from.

[Siteseer2]

Teach... how about adding to what Dana said... arc of approach and angle of approach stuff...

[gmbtempe]

[quote name='Siteseer2' post='1947732' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:15 PM'][quote name='gmbtempe' post='1947690' date='Sep 13 2009, 12:22 AM'][quote name='dana dahlquist' post='1947450' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:51 PM']Lets just keep this simple any deal can change ball placements and handle locations.
One is 2-J-3 (Mac's personal pattern)
the other is Angle based 2-J-2

So pick what suits you. I really like S&T pattern because its easy for folks to hit it higher and farther. I still do hit some CP stuff.

This is kinda a silly thread to be honest.[/quote]

What do you mean by 2-J-3, do you mean A or B?

I dont understand 2-J-3-A, what is meant by "blur of the clubhead", its very easy to understand 2-J-3-B.
[/quote]
You see... this is the kind of baloney that turns folks off... comes off as intelligentsia...

You start talking cross line thrusts and most are done...
[/quote]

did I quote you, no I quoted Dana, who knows, and its a question I have.

I really dont care if think its baloney.

[gmbtempe]

[quote name='12 piece bucket' post='1947740' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:30 PM'][quote name='gmbtempe' post='1947690' date='Sep 13 2009, 12:22 AM'][quote name='dana dahlquist' post='1947450' date='Sep 12 2009, 06:51 PM']Lets just keep this simple any deal can change ball placements and handle locations.
One is 2-J-3 (Mac's personal pattern)
the other is Angle based 2-J-2

So pick what suits you. I really like S&T pattern because its easy for folks to hit it higher and farther. I still do hit some CP stuff.

This is kinda a silly thread to be honest.[/quote]

What do you mean by 2-J-3, do you mean A or B?

I dont understand 2-J-3-A, what is meant by "blur of the clubhead", its very easy to understand 2-J-3-B.
[/quote]

For anybody that cares . . . . or wants to go from shooting 70 to shooting like 130 . . .

2-J-3 has evolved or maybe even regressed through the various editions. But the basics of 2-J-3 are Impact Geometry. So you have the "original" or true geometric plane line. Then you have the Delivery Paths . . . PATH is for the HANDS and Delivery Lines . . . . LINES are for the CLUB. So according to Homer you have options here . . . ALL based on the Impact Geometry of the true geometric plane line. That geometry is based on two points 1. the Impact Point 2. Low Point. So you have two Plane Lines that you can identify from the original Plane . . . Impact Plane Line is above ground . . . Low Point Plane line is below ground . . . so you can see the implications of moving the ball up or back in the stance . . . the distance between the Impact Plane Line and the Low Point Plane Line varies based on the position of the ball up-Plane or down-Plane . . . but the points and the lines ALL lay on the face of the Plane.

So to your question 2-J-3-A is the Arc of Approach . . . is just an Arc (circle or curve whatever) that connects the Impact Point and Low Point . . . the arc actually lies on the face of the Plane . . . but when views from above you can imagine it on the ground like the ninja stick set up that P&B use. They are essentially showing you an Arc of Approach procedure . . . of the two sets of ninja sticks . . the ones closest to your feets are the Delivery Path (Path=Hands) and the set of sticks closest to the ball are for the Delivery Line (in this case Arc. . . Line=Clubhead). But all that stuff is a visual equivalent to the original true geometric plane line . . . so you can uses it as a substitute to tracing the original Plane Line . . .

2-J-3-B is a different animal . . . but it is derived from the original Plane and Plane Line . . . you essentially use a line that connects the Impact Point and Low Point . . . this LINE would run from the ball to Low Point out to right fields if you extended it out . . . this is the Angle of Approach . . . In the 4th Edition, Homer said you could approximate this line by getting into Impact Fix (body hands arms mimicking Impact) with your Right Forearm on-plane with the shaft . . . from their you can see that your Right Forearm is pointing out to right field . . . you can imagine a line on the ground parallel to your on-plane Right Forearm going thru the ball out to right field as well. That is an approximation of the Angle of Approach . . .

All Planes have an Angle of Approach because you always have an Impact Point and a Low Point. But 2-J-3-B is the Angle of Approach PROCEDURE . . . with the Angle of Approach PROCEDURE . . .you are actually now TRACING the Angle of Approach as the NEW Plane Line (which is derived from the geometric Plane Line) . . . so your Deliver Path . . . is your hands going "out-to-right field" . . . but your club COVERS the Angle of Approach (stays right on top of it). So basically you've shifted everything out to the right . . .

Many out here I'm sure could give a ratzazz about this . . . which is probably a good thing . . . but you axed . . . so that is the answer basically . . .

now y'all can get back to your regularly scheduled program . . . whatever that was.
[/quote]

thanks that is exactly what I was looking for, it does seem much easier to use the Angle of Approach but thats a "hitting" procedure.

[eightiron]

[quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948016' date='Sep 13 2009, 10:02 AM'][quote name='lake' post='1947494' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:19 PM']All three camps will help you understand why you do what you do and what it takes to adjust... the information is always best from the source as it is their definitions.... but I can attest that CP/CF is not a bent plane line per the model.... but the human models do bend it from time to time As far as calling something online... I would reserve that term for when the baseline of the plane line chosen.... CP/CF is also the target line.... otherwise the plane line is either open/closed to the target and the player is preparing for a curve ....where the initial start line is away from the target and its d-plane is hopefully curving back w/o crossing the hole [/quote]
Great post Doc. I view CP as inline (though many tend to bend it left when learning it) and have heard from several sources that anywhere from 20º-0º is ok at P5. I have certainly seen swings of Mac where he is around 10º or more in at P5 and not swinging across the ball with straight away ball flight. I personally think a lot of it is semantics and there are a lot of similarities. I do find it easier to use CF and the ball goes higher and further but I respect that both are a way to play the game at a high level. Find what works for you and go with it. I am sure Logan would agree, even though he obviously prefers the S&T model, that both(Morad and S&T) would help people improve and Morad is certainly an option especially when using CF with longer clubs and because we strike the ball before low point impact is still inside out in both the CP and CF model. It's all about options and thankfully for us there are many educated people here to learn those options from.
[/quote]


I thought it was bent left negative loft blah blah stuff the other week , by next week it will be right field positive loft ...soon 20 pressure points under the feet, 12 under the arms and 10 in the hands....by then you can be inline and just keep holing every shot from the fairway

[mystic]

Thanks for posting 8. I'm glad we can keep things on track and have a positive learning experience here without anyone coming in like Johnny Raincloud.

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='eightiron' post='1948069' date='Sep 13 2009, 11:54 AM'][quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948016' date='Sep 13 2009, 10:02 AM'][quote name='lake' post='1947494' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:19 PM']All three camps will help you understand why you do what you do and what it takes to adjust... the information is always best from the source as it is their definitions.... but I can attest that CP/CF is not a bent plane line per the model.... but the human models do bend it from time to time As far as calling something online... I would reserve that term for when the baseline of the plane line chosen.... CP/CF is also the target line.... otherwise the plane line is either open/closed to the target and the player is preparing for a curve ....where the initial start line is away from the target and its d-plane is hopefully curving back w/o crossing the hole [/quote]
Great post Doc. I view CP as inline (though many tend to bend it left when learning it) and have heard from several sources that anywhere from 20º-0º is ok at P5. I have certainly seen swings of Mac where he is around 10º or more in at P5 and not swinging across the ball with straight away ball flight. I personally think a lot of it is semantics and there are a lot of similarities. I do find it easier to use CF and the ball goes higher and further but I respect that both are a way to play the game at a high level. Find what works for you and go with it. I am sure Logan would agree, even though he obviously prefers the S&T model, that both(Morad and S&T) would help people improve and Morad is certainly an option especially when using CF with longer clubs and because we strike the ball before low point impact is still inside out in both the CP and CF model. It's all about options and thankfully for us there are many educated people here to learn those options from.
[/quote]


I thought it was bent left negative loft blah blah stuff the other week , by next week it will be right field positive loft ...soon 20 pressure points under the feet, 12 under the arms and 10 in the hands....by then you can be inline and just keep holing every shot from the fairway
[/quote]
...hard to get good info on MORAD, eight

Still trying to figure out why they go cf with the longer clubs...

How they overcome the negative loft of cp... or maybe its overblown

S&T and MORAD sure have some major differences of philosophy, IMO ...similar but different... hand path... spine tilt/upper swing centers......extension... just to name a few...

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='eightiron' post='1948069' date='Sep 13 2009, 11:54 AM'][quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948016' date='Sep 13 2009, 10:02 AM'][quote name='lake' post='1947494' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:19 PM']All three camps will help you understand why you do what you do and what it takes to adjust... the information is always best from the source as it is their definitions.... but I can attest that CP/CF is not a bent plane line per the model.... but the human models do bend it from time to time As far as calling something online... I would reserve that term for when the baseline of the plane line chosen.... CP/CF is also the target line.... otherwise the plane line is either open/closed to the target and the player is preparing for a curve ....where the initial start line is away from the target and its d-plane is hopefully curving back w/o crossing the hole [/quote]
Great post Doc. I view CP as inline (though many tend to bend it left when learning it) and have heard from several sources that anywhere from 20º-0º is ok at P5. I have certainly seen swings of Mac where he is around 10º or more in at P5 and not swinging across the ball with straight away ball flight. I personally think a lot of it is semantics and there are a lot of similarities. I do find it easier to use CF and the ball goes higher and further but I respect that both are a way to play the game at a high level. Find what works for you and go with it. I am sure Logan would agree, even though he obviously prefers the S&T model, that both(Morad and S&T) would help people improve and Morad is certainly an option especially when using CF with longer clubs and because we strike the ball before low point impact is still inside out in both the CP and CF model. It's all about options and thankfully for us there are many educated people here to learn those options from.
[/quote]


I thought it was bent left negative loft blah blah stuff the other week , by next week it will be right field positive loft ...soon 20 pressure points under the feet, 12 under the arms and 10 in the hands....by then you can be inline and just keep holing every shot from the fairway
[/quote]
I said CP was inline to slightly left. The model is inline but a lot of people shift it or bend it left. I do believe there is negative loft when shifted left which is why I said it is easier for me to go CF with longer clubs to hit the ball higher. Some guys hit it plenty high going cp and that is why I said it is a viable option, just not for me. The easiest way for people to hit the ball the highest and furthest is to go inline to CF. Most people already struggle swinging across the ball and shifting out doesn't make this easier. Good players can do it but 85% of the people I teach shoot 80-100 and I believe to go with the simplest approach for them.

[glcoach]

The more shift out the more the handle has to raise in which case wearing out the toe of the club instead of the sweetspot becomes the norm

[eightiron]

[quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948098' date='Sep 13 2009, 11:19 AM'][quote name='eightiron' post='1948069' date='Sep 13 2009, 11:54 AM'][quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948016' date='Sep 13 2009, 10:02 AM'][quote name='lake' post='1947494' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:19 PM']All three camps will help you understand why you do what you do and what it takes to adjust... the information is always best from the source as it is their definitions.... but I can attest that CP/CF is not a bent plane line per the model.... but the human models do bend it from time to time As far as calling something online... I would reserve that term for when the baseline of the plane line chosen.... CP/CF is also the target line.... otherwise the plane line is either open/closed to the target and the player is preparing for a curve ....where the initial start line is away from the target and its d-plane is hopefully curving back w/o crossing the hole [/quote]
Great post Doc. I view CP as inline (though many tend to bend it left when learning it) and have heard from several sources that anywhere from 20º-0º is ok at P5. I have certainly seen swings of Mac where he is around 10º or more in at P5 and not swinging across the ball with straight away ball flight. I personally think a lot of it is semantics and there are a lot of similarities. I do find it easier to use CF and the ball goes higher and further but I respect that both are a way to play the game at a high level. Find what works for you and go with it. I am sure Logan would agree, even though he obviously prefers the S&T model, that both(Morad and S&T) would help people improve and Morad is certainly an option especially when using CF with longer clubs and because we strike the ball before low point impact is still inside out in both the CP and CF model. It's all about options and thankfully for us there are many educated people here to learn those options from.
[/quote]


I thought it was bent left negative loft blah blah stuff the other week , by next week it will be right field positive loft ...soon 20 pressure points under the feet, 12 under the arms and 10 in the hands....by then you can be inline and just keep holing every shot from the fairway
[/quote]
I said CP was inline to slightly left. The model is inline but a lot of people shift it or bend it left. I do believe there is negative loft when shifted left which is why I said it is easier for me to go CF with longer clubs to hit the ball higher. Some guys hit it plenty high going cp and that is why I said it is a viable option, just not for me. The easiest way for people to hit the ball the highest and furthest is to go inline to CF. Most people already struggle swinging across the ball and shifting out doesn't make this easier. Good players can do it but 85% of the people I teach shoot 80-100 and I believe to go with the simplest approach for them.
[/quote]

just pulling your chain maestro....one thing I read you hit the ball high on the clubface, how do you correlate this to cf/inline/cp? picky type impact?

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='eightiron' post='1948116' date='Sep 13 2009, 12:33 PM'][quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948098' date='Sep 13 2009, 11:19 AM'][quote name='eightiron' post='1948069' date='Sep 13 2009, 11:54 AM'][quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948016' date='Sep 13 2009, 10:02 AM'][quote name='lake' post='1947494' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:19 PM']All three camps will help you understand why you do what you do and what it takes to adjust... the information is always best from the source as it is their definitions.... but I can attest that CP/CF is not a bent plane line per the model.... but the human models do bend it from time to time As far as calling something online... I would reserve that term for when the baseline of the plane line chosen.... CP/CF is also the target line.... otherwise the plane line is either open/closed to the target and the player is preparing for a curve ....where the initial start line is away from the target and its d-plane is hopefully curving back w/o crossing the hole [/quote]
Great post Doc. I view CP as inline (though many tend to bend it left when learning it) and have heard from several sources that anywhere from 20º-0º is ok at P5. I have certainly seen swings of Mac where he is around 10º or more in at P5 and not swinging across the ball with straight away ball flight. I personally think a lot of it is semantics and there are a lot of similarities. I do find it easier to use CF and the ball goes higher and further but I respect that both are a way to play the game at a high level. Find what works for you and go with it. I am sure Logan would agree, even though he obviously prefers the S&T model, that both(Morad and S&T) would help people improve and Morad is certainly an option especially when using CF with longer clubs and because we strike the ball before low point impact is still inside out in both the CP and CF model. It's all about options and thankfully for us there are many educated people here to learn those options from.
[/quote]
I thought it was bent left negative loft blah blah stuff the other week , by next week it will be right field positive loft ...soon 20 pressure points under the feet, 12 under the arms and 10 in the hands....by then you can be inline and just keep holing every shot from the fairway
[/quote]
I said CP was inline to slightly left. The model is inline but a lot of people shift it or bend it left. I do believe there is negative loft when shifted left which is why I said it is easier for me to go CF with longer clubs to hit the ball higher. Some guys hit it plenty high going cp and that is why I said it is a viable option, just not for me. The easiest way for people to hit the ball the highest and furthest is to go inline to CF. Most people already struggle swinging across the ball and shifting out doesn't make this easier. Good players can do it but 85% of the people I teach shoot 80-100 and I believe to go with the simplest approach for them.
[/quote]

just pulling your chain maestro....one thing I read you hit the ball high on the clubface, how do you correlate this to cf/inline/cp? picky type impact?
[/quote]
I think it has more to do with how much shaft lean I have which is why I hit the ball on the lower side. Been working on releasing accumulators faster and having less exaggerated shaft lean to hit higher windows without having to shift the baseline right. Right now I'm only hitting the ball high on the face with my 5 and 4 iron and the most I'm shifting the baseline is about 3º right which is better than it was. I am inline up to 6 iron and I'd say 1-3º out right with 5 iron - driver.

[eightiron]

[quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948155' date='Sep 13 2009, 12:02 PM'][quote name='eightiron' post='1948116' date='Sep 13 2009, 12:33 PM'][quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948098' date='Sep 13 2009, 11:19 AM'][quote name='eightiron' post='1948069' date='Sep 13 2009, 11:54 AM'][quote name='iteachgolf ' post='1948016' date='Sep 13 2009, 10:02 AM'][quote name='lake' post='1947494' date='Sep 12 2009, 10:19 PM']All three camps will help you understand why you do what you do and what it takes to adjust... the information is always best from the source as it is their definitions.... but I can attest that CP/CF is not a bent plane line per the model.... but the human models do bend it from time to time As far as calling something online... I would reserve that term for when the baseline of the plane line chosen.... CP/CF is also the target line.... otherwise the plane line is either open/closed to the target and the player is preparing for a curve ....where the initial start line is away from the target and its d-plane is hopefully curving back w/o crossing the hole [/quote]
Great post Doc. I view CP as inline (though many tend to bend it left when learning it) and have heard from several sources that anywhere from 20º-0º is ok at P5. I have certainly seen swings of Mac where he is around 10º or more in at P5 and not swinging across the ball with straight away ball flight. I personally think a lot of it is semantics and there are a lot of similarities. I do find it easier to use CF and the ball goes higher and further but I respect that both are a way to play the game at a high level. Find what works for you and go with it. I am sure Logan would agree, even though he obviously prefers the S&T model, that both(Morad and S&T) would help people improve and Morad is certainly an option especially when using CF with longer clubs and because we strike the ball before low point impact is still inside out in both the CP and CF model. It's all about options and thankfully for us there are many educated people here to learn those options from.
[/quote]
I thought it was bent left negative loft blah blah stuff the other week , by next week it will be right field positive loft ...soon 20 pressure points under the feet, 12 under the arms and 10 in the hands....by then you can be inline and just keep holing every shot from the fairway
[/quote]
I said CP was inline to slightly left. The model is inline but a lot of people shift it or bend it left. I do believe there is negative loft when shifted left which is why I said it is easier for me to go CF with longer clubs to hit the ball higher. Some guys hit it plenty high going cp and that is why I said it is a viable option, just not for me. The easiest way for people to hit the ball the highest and furthest is to go inline to CF. Most people already struggle swinging across the ball and shifting out doesn't make this easier. Good players can do it but 85% of the people I teach shoot 80-100 and I believe to go with the simplest approach for them.
[/quote]

just pulling your chain maestro....one thing I read you hit the ball high on the clubface, how do you correlate this to cf/inline/cp? picky type impact?
[/quote]
I think it has more to do with how much shaft lean I have which is why I hit the ball on the lower side. Been working on releasing accumulators faster and having less exaggerated shaft lean to hit higher windows without having to shift the baseline right. Right now I'm only hitting the ball high on the face with my 5 and 4 iron and the most I'm shifting the baseline is about 3º right which is better than it was. I am inline up to 6 iron and I'd say 1-3º out right with 5 iron - driver.
[/quote]

So the longer the club, more cf , more toey draws...the modern equipment must be a help not needing the 2 and 3 iron or for that matter the sweetspot