It (not being able to resist deceleration for additional yardage) works something like this:
If you are standing under a concrete overpass, and it starts to fall on you from 50 feet above, you can just say your prayers, or you can resist.
But if you resist, it won't matter much.
The bit that I cannot understand is that you and the concrete will hit each other with an equal amount of force BUT the concrete does not yield whereas you will - result being compression (of self). The concrete is unrelenting in its application of compression, it sustains the line thereof, whilst ever you remain in contact with it.
With Club head likened to concrete and golf ball likened to person; Club head continues in motion imparting impetus on the golf ball, compressing it and continueing in its endeavours to do so whilst remaining in contact with it. The golf ball's attempts at resistance are futile; as in the case of self and concrete.
Another angle on this question. Why are wrecking balls not affixed to rigid swinging arms? (Iron Byron comes to mind)
Would that be because if they were, structural debris would be hit for miles? Whereas, with the ball being attached to a non-resisting (floppy) chain, the ball's forward momentum and ability to add impulse to the structure is thus nullified; the ball and structure being equal in force of collision with no impulse, therefore, being passed on to the structure.
Sustain the line of compression, or at least try to, no matter what
evidence is presented saying it cannot be done.
The concrete does, and the wrecking ball would also if it had a rigid structure supporting its forward momentum from behind.
