A golfing machine.........

[Todd Dugan]

No, not that one...................but imagine a constructed machine to swing a club...........a rod that swings in-plane about a central, fixed hub...........and a club around a hinge between the two with a "stop" preventing more than a right angle hinge. Now, as the "upper" lever is swung about its hub, the "lower" lever will hinge both forward and back,
if it is allowed to. What allows this is the clamping pressure at the hinge. What determines the hinging action for any particular clamp pressure is the acceleration of the "upper" lever. These are the only two factors that will affect the hinging action between the two levers.

In case you didn't know, this means that the cocking and uncocking of the wrists by the human golfer can be 100% passive, controlled entirely by the acceleration of the hands around the body and grip pressure.

What a beautiful way to swing all 14 clubs!

 

[Brian Manzella]

No, not that one.

Thanks...

...imagine a constructed machine to swing a club...........a rod that swings in-plane about a central, fixed hub.

Imagine a forum where this kind of stuff never comes up....

...and a club around a hinge between the two with a "stop" preventing more than a right angle hinge. Now, as the "upper" lever is swung about its hub, the "lower" lever will hinge both forward and back,
if it is allowed to. What allows this is the clamping pressure at the hinge. What determines the hinging action for any particular clamp pressure is the acceleration of the "upper" lever. These are the only two factors that will affect the hinging action between the two levers.

It wouldn't work.

What a beautiful way to swing all 14 clubs!

No.

A complete waste of time.

What about the shafts, the droop, the lead, the acceleration profiles??????

In others words—WHAT ABOUT GOLF?

 

[StevePratt]

The problem with 'golf machines' is that they have no human component. The human body has mechanical advantages and limitations vs. golf machines. A machine has replaceable parts. A human can shift weight from foot to foot.

Attempting to swing like a machine is a bad idea. I suppose a machine can hit the ball pretty good off a tee from a flat lie, but like Mr. Manzella said, what happens when you have to hit golf shots with it?

 

[Todd Dugan]

Brian, how does the Ping-Man machine "work"? Is there a force applied at the hinge between the "main arm" and the club, or is the club "allowed" to unhinge freely in the downswing?

 

[Ringer]

You know what I'm waiting for?

Someone to make a machine that ACTUALLY swings a club like a human, and not like a simple machine. The guy(s) that make it would know more about the mechanics of the golf swing than anyone in the world.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Brian, how does the Ping-Man machine "work"? Is there a force applied at the hinge between the "main arm" and the club, or is the club "allowed" to unhinge freely in the downswing?

PINGMAN has a free hinge in the UN-cocking plane, and a gear in the roll.

But!

The acceleration profiles of the rotor is what makes the thing not whiff, shank, slice crazy or anything else silly.

 

[faux_maestro]

The whole point of this thread is goofy because the last time I checked Pingman has one arm and I have two, Pingman has no arm or wrist muscles and I do, Pingman has no shoulders to turn and I do (even if I don't turn them effectively). As of now a machine can't replicate a human body so why even consider or try to compare what a machine does?

 

[Matt Bryda]

Make the club work like a Club

 

[magicmarker]

A golfing machine? It sounds more like a contraption to me...

I will bravely take down any of these 'machines' over 18 holes of stroke play.

 

[leon]

Make the club work like a Club

Isn't that the entire point of a golf 'robot', for use by club and ball manufacturers and to a lesser degree researchers, to provide repeatable impact conditions which match, as closely as possible, those produced by real golfers (of all levels). The fact they don't look liked people is irrelevant, as long as the club is moving in the correct manner at impact. Whether it does this is another question.

At Loughborough many years ago we had a robot which had a simple mechanical geared arm, and a new (at the time) one which had independent motors at each joint and could be programmed, in theory, to produce any impact condition imaginable. I never used it but it looked expensive!

 

[Todd Dugan]

The whole point of this thread is goofy because the last time I checked Pingman has one arm and I have two, Pingman has no arm or wrist muscles and I do, Pingman has no shoulders to turn and I do (even if I don't turn them effectively). As of now a machine can't replicate a human body so why even consider or try to compare what a machine does?

Many of you are missing the point..................First of all, any noteworthy scientist who has researched the swing has used the two-lever model, either physically or mathematically, or both. They have all extolled its benefits in understanding the human golfer and his "problems". But the point here is that the club will "release" around the hinge with NO force applied at the hinge. This is true whether you're a human or a hunk of metal........................its science. The machine "model" was inroduced to prove this point, which it does quite nicely, as any good scientist would note.

 

[birly-shirly]

I think I get the point of the model - but it's still a simplification. I'm sure there was a model for how to win WW1 without massive loss of life - but shit happens when you take your model out and get it dirty.

Years ago I got the point intellectually that it should be possible to swing the grip end of the club and have the head release "passively". For me, it wasn't such a bad idea on full swings - but sudden death in the short game.

The other issue I have is that, once you start down the road of imagining the golf swing as a machine, you almost inevitably end up with some people frightened to move their heads or shift their weight, and ignorant of balance, tempo and rhythm.

 

[Todd Dugan]

I think I get the point of the model - but it's still a simplification. I'm sure there was a model for how to win WW1 without massive loss of life - but shit happens when you take your model out and get it dirty.

Years ago I got the point intellectually that it should be possible to swing the grip end of the club and have the head release "passively". For me, it wasn't such a bad idea on full swings - but sudden death in the short game.

The other issue I have is that, once you start down the road of imagining the golf swing as a machine, you almost inevitably end up with some people frightened to move their heads or shift their weight, and ignorant of balance, tempo and rhythm.

For me...............its never been more simple or clear.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Many of you are missing the point..................First of all, any noteworthy scientist who has researched the swing has used the two-lever model, either physically or mathematically, or both. They have all extolled its benefits in understanding the human golfer and his "problems". But the point here is that the club will "release" around the hinge with NO force applied at the hinge. This is true whether you're a human or a hunk of metal........................its science. The machine "model" was inroduced to prove this point, which it does quite nicely, as any good scientist would note.

For me...............its never been more simple or clear.

YOU HAVE TO PUT TORQUE ON THE CLUB AT THE GRIP TO BE A GOOD BALL-STRIKER.

Next.

 

[ZAP]

I really need to order the Anti Summit II video.

 

[Todd Dugan]

YOU HAVE TO PUT TORQUE ON THE CLUB AT THE GRIP TO BE A GOOD BALL-STRIKER.

Next.

No question that the torque is present and can be measured. But how do you determine whether the torque at the hinge is a passive response to the force on the upper lever versus actively applied by the golfer? Its not active on the PingMan, and he's a hell of a ball-striker! Next, indeed.

 

[natep]

wow

 

[mgranato]

As of now a machine can't replicate a human body so why even consider or try to compare what a machine does?

What about this machine?

 

[Matt Bryda]

I really need to order the Anti Summit II video.

Um, yes you do

 

[Brian Manzella]

No question that the torque is present and can be measured. But how do you determine whether the torque at the hinge is a passive response to the force on the upper lever versus actively applied by the golfer?

It's called math, and we have scientists for that.

"How far would the ball go if all the golfer did is hold on and pivot?"

"Not far" was the answer.