It makes sense to me to align a NBP to the COG, since this should contribute the least amount of oscillation of the club head/shaft. I was originally thinking that the spine should be here so that the least amount of bending of the shaft would happen at the bottom of the downswing, but that would result in the most amount of oscillation.
Scott,
I'm sorry, but you lost me. Why would there be more oscillation with the spine aligned with the CG than NBP-CG? Here's my take on it; please tell me where I'm wrong:
If you align either the NBP or the spine with the CG, then any force arising from bending at the bottom of the swing will be in the plane of the shaft and the CG. Any other alignment will have forces outside that plane, which could cause bending (and perhaps oscillation) in other planes as well.
Then I read about FLO alignment where it is stated that alignment should be along the target line (see "SPINE FINDING AND WHAT TO DO WITH THEM AFTER YOU FIND THEM"). Am I correct that these orientations would be close to 90� out of phase in a 3 iron (but not nearly that much for a driver or sand wedge)? It seems to me that aligning the NBP(s) along the target line would not maximally dampen the oscillations, but would keep whatever oscillations are present going parallel to the target line (so you should hit closest to the sweet spot). Is that the essence of FLO alignment?
Again, I'm confused by your statement. In particular, I don't have a clue what would cause damping of oscillations to be different in the different planes. I can see a difference in the creation of oscillations and their size, but I see no difference in how the oscillations would be damped.
Thanks in advance, DaveT
