Debating the existence, and usefulness, of the 5th PA

Hi John,

I have accepted your invitation to debate issues in your forum.

I would like to debate the issue of the existence, and usefulness, of the 5th power accumulator.

If you are willing to debate the issue, could you please precisely define what’s a 5th power accumulator, and how it helps a golfer to hit the ball further and/or straighter.



Welcome here Jeffman…

I’m glad you found your way over here…

To start of this explanation…
are you familiar with what we call P3 P4 and PV5?

club parallel to the ground before impact, after impact, and then when the shaft would be vertical into the finish… before it would swivel behind your head.

let’s make sure we are clear there…

Also… TGM does not have a protocol for a swing plane that actually on plane from P3 to P4 if a golfer is swinging the club what would be called an elbow plane or lower… (Arms packed upon the body, right elbow remaining bent through impact and not driving or being pulled straight by CF)

Homer apparently didn’t like this move, or understand it enough to include a component variation in TGM for this… even though it is used by many of the greatest ball strikers of all time. I find that odd.

How would you like to proceed?


I can understand your definitions of P3, P4 and PV5.

Please proceed with your description of power accumulator #5.

By the way, it is my understanding that Homer Kelley implied that the club could swing on-plane between P3 and P4 as long as that inclined plane was between the hand plane and the turned shoulder plane.

Here is a photo showing those planes.

See -

The club can be on-plane in the impact zone (between P3 and P4) as long as it is no shallower than the red plane (hand plane) or steeper than the violet plane (TSP). It is an individual choice as to which plane a golfer wants to be on in the impact zone (between P3 and P4).


ok… good…

lets first clean up more swing plane definitions…

If in that photo… say we go with the hands plane… what would you call that plane if you dropped the right elbow down so that it was on the same plane as the hands plane?

In other words… we don’t change the inclined angled of the plane, we just lower the right elbow so that it sits on the plane, not above the plane?

Would that be hands plane still, elbow plane? or both?


Welcome Jeffman
If you remeber I am the doctor from Edmoton, Canada. I am indebted to you because my journey to understand the golfswing began with your website. I also appreciate your unlimited appetite for enquiry and seeking the truth. I believe I also have a tendency to question to the extent of being skeptical. I have been working with Lag’s modules since March of this year. And recently I spent 10 days in San Francisco working very closely with him and playing a couple of rounds of golf with him. I have yet to prove him wrong on anything he says or does.
His stuff looks very counterintutive for the forst six months or so but do stick around and the truth will reveal itself.

Warning: The guy is into Hippy music and frequents Ameoba on Haight-Ashbury.

Disclaimer: I have no shared financial intrest with Lag. :laughing:


Many golfers have their right elbow and right forearm/hand on the hand plane at impact. Examples would include Ben Hogan and Lee Trevino and Hunter Mahan.

Here is a link to Hunter Mahan’s swing at impact, and through the followthrough.

See -

Note that his clubshaft is on the hand plane at impact - it points at his belt-buckle (image 1). His right forearm and right elbow are on the same hand plane.

That shallow impact plane causes his hands to “appear” to swing left very soon after impact.


p.s. I cannot insert the image in the post - I receive this message when I try - “It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image.”


so do you want to call this (Hunter) hands plane or elbow plane?

I don’t really like Homers definition all that much because this could be “either”… depending upon if the right elbow is up, or lowered at address.

Did Hogan swing on a hands plane or an elbow plane? hands plane if you use address for a reference, and elbow plane if you use impact…

which do you want to use for definition?


It gets unnecessarily complicated if one uses the position of the right elbow at impact to define a plane.

I prefer using the address position photo - which I originally posted - as a general reference, because it is not dependent on a golfer’s postural alignment at impact.

The hand plane - the clubshaft points at the belt buckle, and an imaginary line from the butt end of the club exits the lower back.

The elbow plane - an imaginary line from the butt end of the club exits the mid-back, and it is roughly intermediate in steepness between the hand plane and the TSP.

Hunter Mahan is on the hand plane at impact.


Then I like the hands plane best… for the simple reason that the hands plane offers the shallowest flattest entry into the impact arena.

The flatter you can swing… (on plane) through impact, the easier it is to hit the ball straight.

This is very much at the core of my beliefs about 5th accumulator action.

Do you know why I feel so strongly about swinging flat?


No - I do not know why you believe that a golfer can hit the ball straighter when having a flatter “on-plane” clubshaft angle.

Please provide an explanation.

I am also still waiting for you to define what’s a 5th power accumulator.




with all due respect, I know you are a very calculating meticulous analytical thinker… so there is no sense in me describing the 5th accumulator until you understand “the why” behind “the need”.

This has everything to do with flat entry or flat swing planes…


Let’s try this…

Jeffman… if I were to bend you club that was extremely upright, let’s say 80 degrees… just enough lie angle that you would have room to place your feet next to the ball.


Now, this club will also have very little loft, let’s say 5 degrees…

If we can agree that our human body is not a rigid lifeless machine… but a flexible biomechanical one, that has all kinds of swiveling sockets that are not bolted down with screws or bolts… meaning just as we are…

Now… if you Jeffman, address this golf ball… from this very upright position with a club of little loft… how far left could you pull the ball?

In other words… if you come straight over the top… at what angle could you hit the ball offline left?


I cannot imagine hitting a golf club that is angled 80 degrees to the ground in a biomechanically natural manner. I believe that human biomechanical limitations mean that we have to ensure that clubshaft is less steep at impact - roughly “somewhere” between the TSP and the hand plane.

I also don’t know how much left the ball can be pulled if the clubshaft angle is that steep. What’s the point of this question?


The point is… if you actually want to understand my rationalization… you must answer the question the best you can…

To understand the concept, we must first explore the outer parameters of swing plane possibilities… We start our exploration on the fringe of “uprightness”

How severe could you pull the golf ball left? with a poor or very poor over the top golf swing?

How about a putter with no loft?

Sure… a putter would be fine to make my point…

I suspect Jeffman will choose to not answer the question…

anyone else?

How far left…?
could you actually hit it between your legs or feet?


It is not matter of choosing to answer, or not answer, the question. I don’t have any ulterior reason not to answer your question. I cannot rationally answer your question because I cannot mentally picture the golfer’s arm/clubshaft movements when the clubshaft angle is 80 degrees to the ground. It would seem to me that the more vertical the clubshaft angle at impact, the less easy it is to pull the ball left.


I will assume this is a typo…

Do you really think it is more difficult to come OTT from an upright swing plane?


I have now read your 9-page thread on “Upright vs Flat plane”.

I can now see where you are heading.

I agree that a golfer will less likely come OTT with a flat swing. However, the flatness of the swing is only one factor involved in hitting the ball straight.

I think that Moe Norman was the greatest golfer when it comes to hitting the ball consistently straight - and not because he had a flat swing (clubshaft on the hand plane at impact). He swung along a much steeper clubshaft angle through impact.

I think that he hit the ball straight because i) he eliminated PA#3 be getting his clubshaft and left arm into a straight line; ii) he had a near-zero plane shift swing; iii) he used his arms to power the swing and he eliminated the pivot action as a power source (dog swings the tail concept) and v) because he was a right arm hitter who didn’t depend on the timing involved in a CF-release action.

I suspect that you believe that Moe was a swinger, and not a hitter, but I would need to examine your “evidence” if you actually harbor that belief.

By the way, I am not against a flat swing. I actually very much favor a flat swing. Your swing style is superb and I highly recommend it as role model.

But, I am really interested in learning what you mean by PA#5.


Well, I don’t know whether it would be possible to send the ball through the legs with a square clubface but definitely I think you could hit the left leg.

Let’s save Moe for a different thread…


So we can agree that the steeper swing plane opens up the pandora’s box of pulled golf shots greatly increasing the chances of that happening, and even more so… the severity of such actions.


I assume so…


Let’s observe clubface angle…

In our hypothetical perfectly upright swing plane… even if the shaft moves through impact “on plane”… a clubface rotated “any number of degrees” clockwise or counterclockwise … will send the golf ball off line approximately that same # of degrees…

However… on a hypothetically perfectly flat swing plane… any rotation of the shaft (causing a rotation of the clubface) will in fact have little or no effect on direction… but it would affect trajectory…

Is this clear?