Release
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
Brian, Mandrin, et al,
Photographic evidence exists to prove that the hands, indeed, slow down just prior to and thru impact. In Chapter 7 of Joe Dante's book, "The Four Magic Moves to Winning Golf", there are two multiflash photographs taken by Harold F. Edgerfon that show without any doubt that the hands do slow down thru impact. Difficult to argue with pictures. If it weren't for fear of copyright violations, I would be glad to post them here. Barring that, here is a link to said photos.
http://www.newgolfswing.com/newgolfswing08.php
Just scroll down about half way to find the refereced photos.
Photographic evidence exists to prove that the hands, indeed, slow down just prior to and thru impact. In Chapter 7 of Joe Dante's book, "The Four Magic Moves to Winning Golf", there are two multiflash photographs taken by Harold F. Edgerfon that show without any doubt that the hands do slow down thru impact. Difficult to argue with pictures. If it weren't for fear of copyright violations, I would be glad to post them here. Barring that, here is a link to said photos.
http://www.newgolfswing.com/newgolfswing08.php
Just scroll down about half way to find the refereced photos.
Last edited:
Again...
The fact that one (or more) golfer's hands happen to slow down does not in anyway shape or form prove all golfer's hands can do or SHOULD slow down. Indeed credible test results PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt to all but the most afflicted of cognitive dissonance sufferers that NOT ALL golfer's hands slow down (see previous discussion).
I have said many times if not on this forum elsewhere that (I consider) Dante's book one of the best. However... that does not mean it is without error. The COAM theory has been thuroughly debunked here and elsewhere as has: slowing hands. That stuff's bath water, but you don't throw the baby out with. Same logic applies to the late Ted Jorgenson's efforts.
Its an issue of judgement.... knowing what can and cannot be discerned from any given modeling/analysis approach. I do not believe Ted Jorgensen stepped over the line drawing "leaps of logic" conclusions from what he surely realized was a simplistic math model. Its this judgement that separates the autodidactic from the professional.
Lastly the issue of "constant effort".... It should be obvious to all golfers that the amount of effort they expended varies radically at different stages of the downswing. The best golfer's expend more effort and closer to impact (see Nesbit). Nevertheless some will continue to disagree with these conclusions because this common sense evidence is not consistent with their simple minded math model. For them there is no hope. Stick a fork in them because in this life as soon as you stop learning you're done.
Twain said it best:
"It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that just ain't so."
The fact that one (or more) golfer's hands happen to slow down does not in anyway shape or form prove all golfer's hands can do or SHOULD slow down. Indeed credible test results PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt to all but the most afflicted of cognitive dissonance sufferers that NOT ALL golfer's hands slow down (see previous discussion).
I have said many times if not on this forum elsewhere that (I consider) Dante's book one of the best. However... that does not mean it is without error. The COAM theory has been thuroughly debunked here and elsewhere as has: slowing hands. That stuff's bath water, but you don't throw the baby out with. Same logic applies to the late Ted Jorgenson's efforts.
Its an issue of judgement.... knowing what can and cannot be discerned from any given modeling/analysis approach. I do not believe Ted Jorgensen stepped over the line drawing "leaps of logic" conclusions from what he surely realized was a simplistic math model. Its this judgement that separates the autodidactic from the professional.
Lastly the issue of "constant effort".... It should be obvious to all golfers that the amount of effort they expended varies radically at different stages of the downswing. The best golfer's expend more effort and closer to impact (see Nesbit). Nevertheless some will continue to disagree with these conclusions because this common sense evidence is not consistent with their simple minded math model. For them there is no hope. Stick a fork in them because in this life as soon as you stop learning you're done.
Twain said it best:
"It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that just ain't so."
mandrin
New
dbl,
I reread the paper to verify, since scientists don't make such obvious errors. There is perhaps use of a misleading term, but there is definitely no error.
Referring both to linear speed and linear acceleration one is perhaps inclined to take them to operate in the same direction.
Nesbit is not referring to a tangential acceleration along the trajectory but to the total linear acceleration acting at the hands.
This is a vector and it changes considerably in direction throughout the swing. At impact it is directed virtually perpendicular to the trajectory of the hands.
Hence there is a tangential and a normal component to the linear acceleration. At impact it is the normal, the centrifugal acceleration which largely dominates.
mandrin
New
jmessner,
If you read the paper don’t forget to ponder what Nesbit possibly meant when writing:
“While the club head moves away from the body, the action of the external linear force becomes less directed at speeding up the club and more toward controlling the path of the grip point.”
I have mentioned the same idea in various posts, distinguishing a power phase followed by a control phase. Michael Jacobs uses this approach with his students.
Also very interesting:
-1-
“About the time the club becomes vertical in the down swing, positive gamma torque work is initiated to square up the club head for impact, and positive beta torque work is applied to pitch the club forward. From this position up until the club is roughly parallel with the ground, all the torque work components increase smoothly”
-2-
“From the parallel position to impact, which coincides with the uncocking of the wrists, the torque components rapidly decrease. All the torque components pass through zero before impact causing the rotational work to be maximized then decrease by impact. It is at this point that the wrists approximate a “free hinge” configuration as the golfer merely holds on to the club as its momentum carries it to impact.” (highlighting by mandrin)
In a nutshell:
(-1-) efforts early on in the down swing and
(-2-) a free ride into and through impact
I quite readily agree with Nesbit’s ideas. Some however don’t have much reading skills.
BTW, also have a peek at the other paper by Nesbitt, “A Three Dimensional Kinermatic And Kinetic Study Of The Golf Swing”. Nesbit refers in it to the centrifugal acceleration pulling the club outward and through impact. Rather interesting to read.
Its nice to see Nesbit finally get his due respect. I've said many times nobody has done a better job analyzing the golf swing than he and his crew (grunt students do most of work).
BTW Acceleration is not Force.
Clearly Nesbit is using the term centrifugal as an adjective which is perfectly acceptable although probably adding to the confusion. Now read Work and Power... Learn what separates the scratch golfer from the rest. It has to with when in the downswing he unleashes his force generators (muscles) ... explains why his hands don't slow down like a girly-man golfers.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
NMGolfer
You desparately need to spend a day with someone who has a good 3 d machine, and a few really good ball strikers.
Desperately.
You desparately need to spend a day with someone who has a good 3 d machine, and a few really good ball strikers.
Desperately.
Thanks for the advice Brian but I can tell you that ain't gonna happen. Not now not ever (different priorities ... you understand). Say, why don't you do one of your utubes and try making your point that way? What exactly is it I just don't get?
Great idea
Tiger's swing footage was a full on driver swing.
So, Vx,Vy,Vz are measured at what point exactly? Left Wrist, Left Thumb, Right Pinky, or a modeled connection point? I'm not sure it fully matters, but I was curious.
I mentioned "approximation" because it was just that. The left arm angular rotation speed is what I think most people look at when they say the hand/arm speed slows down at impact. The fact that the best golfer in the world shows this slowdown which is evidently(or is it?) contrary to Nesbit's findings might bother some folks but could be just real world vs theoretical.
Well, I'm technically inclined - I'll have to check this out at some point, but will it make me play better golf?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
You don't get it???
The 3D machines can measure hand speed.
They slow for EVERY GOLFER WHO CAN HIT IT A LICK.
If you spent a day or two or several—as I have—on a 3D machine, you'd know that the hands are going to slow.
That's why I have the forum.
Thanks for the advice Brian but I can tell you that ain't gonna happen. Not now not ever (different priorities ... you understand). Say why don't you do one of your utubes and try making your point that way? What exactly is it I just don't get?
The 3D machines can measure hand speed.
They slow for EVERY GOLFER WHO CAN HIT IT A LICK.
If you spent a day or two or several—as I have—on a 3D machine, you'd know that the hands are going to slow.
That's why I have the forum.
Mighty fair of you to review the paper to investigate, and then report back. I understand vectors, it's just odd (to me) to have the magnitude (only) presented that way.
So back to the matter at "hand", it seems possible possible that Nesbitt's paper supports offlplane acceleration of the hands increasing near impact while the hands might be slowing tangentially.
Bronco Billy
New member
It's All How You Look at it.......
Interesting.......I'd like to see Someone expand Upon This......ie. offlplane acceleration of the hands increasing near impact while the hands might be slowing tangentially.... Does this Imply that different Views of the Event Yields Different Results....Of Course it Does..... Now Which View/Views Most Represents a REAL Golfer?????
Interesting.......I'd like to see Someone expand Upon This......ie. offlplane acceleration of the hands increasing near impact while the hands might be slowing tangentially.... Does this Imply that different Views of the Event Yields Different Results....Of Course it Does..... Now Which View/Views Most Represents a REAL Golfer?????
lia41985
New member
I don't understand why this is still debatable?
It would be if the only thing we had to go by were the incongruent views of two technically inclined guys like mandrin and nmgolfer.
However, Brian's spent time in the real world on machines that measure this stuff and his finding support mandrin's theory.
Theory + real-world application = end of this debate
No?
It would be if the only thing we had to go by were the incongruent views of two technically inclined guys like mandrin and nmgolfer.
However, Brian's spent time in the real world on machines that measure this stuff and his finding support mandrin's theory.
Theory + real-world application = end of this debate
No?
Bronco Billy
New member
Mandrin~
*My perspective is that technical papers should have a peer review
*I do not expect a peer review on this forum
*I appreciate how you present information
*While I read and respect other member’s comments, considering the above I focus on the continuity of your posts
*Thanks for your efforts
*Your posts are educational
*Your posts are appreciated.
*My perspective is that technical papers should have a peer review
*I do not expect a peer review on this forum
*I appreciate how you present information
*While I read and respect other member’s comments, considering the above I focus on the continuity of your posts
*Thanks for your efforts
*Your posts are educational
*Your posts are appreciated.
Last edited:
2mongoose
New
The audience/users of the forums has changed. It could by cyclical, it might be for good. Either way that's your first hurdle. The second (basically an extension of the first) is that nobody goes to the lesson tee tomorrow better prepared to play golf after reviewing the information.
I'm really on the fence about this level of detail in the golf swing. It's certainly interesting but at some point it has diminishing returns.
mandrin
New
DOCW3,
It intrigues me that as a golf instructor one can get away with almost anything.
Just throw in the right amount of salesman ship and you will have a gullible clientele.
There is little golf science around and not easily accessible for the average layman.
However, trying to present it in a way many can fathom and peer review is claimed.
I have no interest or hidden agenda other that simply sharing some of my ideas, but
As long as there is some interaction/appreciation from only a few makes my day.
Thanks indeed for your interesting and intelligent comments and your appreciation.
Last edited:
birdie_man
New
How does it have diminishing returns mongoose???
I'm sure you will be able to hit a golf ball tomorrow, no? (snow aside BTW)
Regardless, the people who aren't interested will not read it anyway I figure.
I'm sure you will be able to hit a golf ball tomorrow, no? (snow aside BTW
)Regardless, the people who aren't interested will not read it anyway I figure.
mandrin
New
2mongoose,
Many often use a computer and frequently drive a car.
Yet, not all want to know what makes them go or tick.
Knowledge is a basic corner stone of any descent civilization.
Golf is part of the overall scheme and worthy of consideration.
Those who are only interested in ready made information, nevertheless,
Depend on those few individuals willing to spend time to develop it.
Brian, on several occasions, mentioned he is becoming a better teacher,
For the simple reason of having access to correct scientific information.
- Status