From the ground up???

[dschultz6072]

Where are you going with this jeffy? There's a reason why people can hit the ball further with both feet on the ground than in a chair. Call it using the ground, swinging from the ground up, shear forces, fig newtons, whatever the hell you want to call it that helps you understand it, it happens. Everything these guys are doing with their lower body is how their body activates those muscles and puts them into action to support the swing.

I tell you what, I know I'm "new" to this whole thing, but I have to tell you when I try to give the clubhead some juice my legs and hips go crazy. All I'm trying to do is "stay level" and not spin out with my shoulders early. In reality, my head drops considerably and my hips fire like crazy. I don't see or feel it but I ask my pro buddy if my lower body is acting any differently and he says "Hell yes it is. It's actually 'working'"

 

[footwedge]

It's simple ,there's nothing coming out of the ground or from the ground, we are the initiators, end of story.

 

[Dariusz J.]

It's simple ,there's nothing coming out of the ground or from the ground, we are the initiators, end of story.

...and the ground forces are just reactionary to forces our bodies generate through their mass + gravity as well as through dynamic actions - which does not mean that they do not exist; think Newton's 3rd rule.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Yep,

Walking versus running. Running beats walking even though the runner has both feet in the air most of the time.

Exactly.

Cheers

 

[wulsy]

...and the ground forces are just reactionary to forces our bodies generate through their mass + gravity as well as through dynamic actions - which does not mean that they do not exist; think Newton's 3rd rule.

Cheers

Ah, so they do exist after all.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Jeff.

Are you saying you don't think (or maybe its Kevin that does't think—doesn't matter) that a golfer uses the ground to help generate force in the golf swing?

Sheesh, I hope you dont mean me here!!

 

[Frans@France]

Not in this swing:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sFVoT9-AmIU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Doesn't Rickie know about "using the ground" and "shear forces"???

I see his right feet turning in before he start moving his pelvis etc.... so from the groundup yes.

 

[Jared Willerson]

Sheesh, I hope you dont mean me here!!

Nope..another Kevin.

 

[golfdad]

Nothing wrong with asking this question by the original youtube user or Jeffy, but in a way, it invites replies of contention that is not based on facts.

Facts to me means having a golfer of interest to stand on some pressure measuring board and then swing and record and analyse. It is not too much to ask, really.

One way to avoid sliding off a slippery slope is not to get on it in the first place.

In fact, Jeffy, I wonder if you can try this yourself one time:

Find a par 5 and tee up a driver inside a fluffy fairway bunker, then repeat the same tee shot on the nearby fairway.

 

[Brian Manzella]

No, they are standing on the ground and massively using their lower bodies. The ground is just sitting there, providing resistance. They aren't "using" it to "help them". Without the body movements, nothing would happen. The ground wouldn't provide any "help" at all.

Ah....you are just jumping on the term—not the action.

"Posting on the left leg" couldn't be further from what these guys are doing. None are rotating around the left leg axis.

When the heck have I ever said that??

All I said in The Release thread was the golfer was going to recruit everything in their body to "go normal" with the force.

NO WAY you could "go normal" as well from the left leg.

NO WAY.

I'm all for differing opinions but Jeffy is just a parrot. C'mon man.

Which is dead against the rules around here. But Jeff is a pal of ours and we bent them. Probably should't have, because NOTHING is being actually SAID different than what we talked about in THE RELEASE THREAD.

Polly wants a cracker!

Droll...

"Help" does not mean "to bear the weight of, especially from below", which is the definition of support you are referring to. The synonymous definition of "support" for "help" is "to strengthen".

The ground does "support" the golf swing by "bearing the weight from below". It does not "help" the golf swing by providing assistance or strengthening the golf swing. It doesn't have independent power. That is why the phrase "using ground forces to help the swing" is wrong-headed.

It is a term.

Turns out, we were right again.

I was just following the flow of the conversation, I didn't direct it in any particular direction. Brian said that "These folks are all MASSIVELY USING the ground to help them." (post 45).

I see absolutely no visual evidence that Fowler begins the downswing from the "ground up". As I said earlier, you are just making it up. Nor do I see any evidence that he "posts up on the front leg" to create a "shear force" that will rotate the body around the front leg powered by a pushing motion from the back leg. That is complete nonsense.

3D my broth. 3D.....

Sheesh, I hope you dont mean me here!!

Heck no.

I see his right feet turning in before he start moving his pelvis etc.... so from the groundup yes.

Obviously.


Listen, Jeff and Kevin M, we now are FIRM BELIEVERS that golfer moves the club and the body reacts.

Right again.

 

[footwedge]

...and the ground forces are just reactionary to forces our bodies generate through their mass + gravity as well as through dynamic actions - which does not mean that they do not exist; think Newton's 3rd rule.

Cheers

I think I said that.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Sorry if I doubled you words then, mate.

Cheers

 

[footwedge]

Sorry if I doubled you words then, mate.

Cheers

No problemo.

 

[mandrin]

When one refers to efficient use of ground forces one implicitly assumes also there to be an inefficient use of these ground forces. This feels very much as if there is some force out there which we can learn to use to our advantage. However ground forces are generated by the golfer himself.

The confusion about ground forces is perhaps a bit similar to that surrounding centripetal and centrifugal forces. They have in common to be inertial reaction forces, often simply referred to in text books as fictitious forces, hence creating the impression not to be real.

Ground forces are mainly inertial reaction forces, i.e., forces coming into being due to any motion executed by the golfer. Any motion by the golfer such as swinging his arms, squatting, generates its corresponding counterpart of ground force/torque. With no motion there remains always the reaction force equal to the weight of the golfer due to gravity.

For some it might be of interest to look at an analysis I did of a simple vertical jump, a while ago. At that time its purpose was primarily to convince someone that a person doing a vertical jump could not be taken as a closed system.

 

[Dariusz J.]

When one refers to efficient use of ground forces one implicitly assumes also there to be an inefficient use of these ground forces. This feels very much as if there is some force out there which we can learn to use to our advantage. However ground forces are generated by the golfer himself.

The confusion about ground forces is perhaps a bit similar to that surrounding centripetal and centrifugal forces. They have in common to be inertial reaction forces, often simply referred to in text books as fictitious forces, hence creating the impression not to be real.

Ground forces are mainly inertial reaction forces, i.e., forces coming into being due to any motion executed by the golfer. Any motion by the golfer such as swinging his arms, squatting, generates its corresponding counterpart of ground force/torque. With no motion there remains always the reaction force equal to the weight of the golfer due to gravity.

For some it might be of interest to look at an analysis I did of a simple vertical jump, a while ago. At that time its purpose was primarily to convince someone that a person doing a vertical jump could not be taken as a closed system.

Glad a true scientist like you mentioned inertia forces, Mandrin. These forces are huge. Imagine lead side accelerate by shortening the radius (say, parametric although I hate the word) while any rear side distal parts, especially when extending because of gravity and anatomy, must gain so much inertial momentum that even Hogan could feel it as something special while keeping his humerus close to his rotating body. I am not an expert, but you should expand the topic widely. Many are blind here, Professor.

Cheers

 

[footwedge]

I can see, I can see...lol.

 

[Burner]

Ah, so they do exist after all.

No they do not exist. They are not "forces" - self generated. According to Newton's 3rd, they are reactions to forces applied.
End of.

Game, set and match to Jeffy.

 

[Dariusz J.]

No they do not exist. They are not "forces" - self generated. According to Newton's 3rd, they are reactions to forces applied.
End of.

Game, set and match to Jeffy.

What a joke:

The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

Go and study the subject before you say something. Geez.

 

[wulsy]

The Third Law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[30][31] and thus that there is no such thing as a unidirectional force or a force that acts on only one body. Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.

Sorry Burner, they're all forces. They DO exist. End of. Game set and match to no-one. lol

 

[wulsy]

Well said Dari!