This is an interesting topic and something that needs to be kept in mind. The CAD models used to determine the dual angle methods were done with a thumb hole in mind, I believe. The idea is that the smaller VAL angles cause the thumb hole to be drilled more into the side of the core, thereby making it taller relative to its width, thereby raising the differential of the drilled ball. The bigger VAL angles have the opposite effect, drilling the fingers into the top of the core and the thumb less into the side, reducing the height relative to its width, thereby reducing the diff of the ball.EricHartwell wrote: It is not about where the palm is. The ball doesn't know or care if your palm is anywhere or if even you have a palm or not, examples Throbot or E.A.R.L.
It is about the PAP and the initial track.
The grip center is basically the center of removed mass. This the ball does know and care about because it is affecting the physical properties of the ball.
So with the above information in mind, placing the pin several inches above the fingers will be putting holes in the side of the core, and is probably increasing the diff. This is where a typical drilling would have the thumb hole placed. I would think that placing the pin near the fingers is not advisable, as you wouldn't be able to reliably predict where the Low RG axis moves. I do, however, see that Mo's recommended no thumb layouts does have layouts with the pin near the fingers, so there's likely something I'm missing.
I would expect the Low RG to move away from the fingers. All of the example layouts have the pin up and to the right of the fingers, and in those cases I would expect the Low RG to move up and to the right, lowering the drilling PAP to low RG and thereby the expected flare. Knowing Mo, he factored that into his suggestions.