Hinge Action, Rate of Closure, and what you SHOULD do with the clubface (p9 pic)

[Jim Kobylinski]

Has Tuxen verified this with a Casio?

LITERALLY made me LOL, awesome post.

 

[art]

With an impact duration of 0.0004 seconds and mid-impact would then be 0,0002 seconds with an 0.4° rotation = 2000°/sec

Your face rotation (http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...preliminary-enso-findings-brian-manzella.html) 2771°/sec so that was to fast?......

Dear Frans@France,

Bonjour, and thanks for this important observation.

In the 'systems' world of statistics considering the events around impact, we have the path uncertainty, the club face position uncertainty, and now the Rate of Closuere (RoC) and its angular rate uncertainty during the time the ball is in contact with the club face.

I believe scientists schooled in this type of multi-variate condition would ALL agree that the alpha torque is predominantly responsible for this RoC, and all the variables are sufficiently independent to simply be able to combine their contributions STATISTICALLY' to determine the overall effect on the angular uncertainty at the time of 'launch' off of the club face.

So without presenting the analytical details, there has been solid Trackman data presented by Brian and others that I think we can all agree results in a one degree of angular 'dispersion' for repeated swings by the same 'elite' player with the same club.

From your work above Fran@France, we now get to 'statistically' add the RoC uncertainty which IMO certainly is less than 2000 degress a second plus or minus 500 degrees a second, or simply 1500 to 2500 degrees per second. For the total impact time of .0004 seconds, this 500 degrees a second statistical uncertainty results in an angular uncertainty of plus or minus 0.2 degrees.

So combining things statistically, we simply add the o.2 degrees to the 1.0 degrees of uncertainty from the performance of the golfer on Trackman and get a TOTAL expected angular uncertainty of 1.02 degrees, versus the 1.0 degrees without the RoC uncertainty, not much of an impact worth fighting over IMO.

What do you think ???

Regards,
art

 

[birly-shirly]

I repeat.

Shouldn't the theory of EVERY theorist who claims " the rate of closure as the amount one had to close the club face from say the club parallel position (P6), or just past it, to impact." and therefore help you control the ball better PRODUCE A LOWER NUMBER AT IMPACT?

Shouldn't it?

Shouldn't it?

SHOULDN'T THIS PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO NUMBER at IMPACT????

SHOULDN'T THIS PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO NUMBER at IMPACT????

In the Tuxen example, the gear effect is a slight fade spin, which perfectly offsets a slightly closed face and a slightly in to out path - with the result of a perfectly straight shot, no?

So, the gear effect due to rate of closure is a compensation, for what would otherwise be draw/hook alignments.

So, in Brian's follow-up example where everything else is equal except for a lower rate of closure, the reason for the draw flight isn't that the lower rate of closure creates greater "sidespin" or curvature. The lower rate of closure REDUCES the gear effect, and reduces the fade compensation for hook impact alignments.

That's my understanding at any rate. Lower RoC = lower gear effect.

Having said that, I'm not aware of anyone who has argued that this is the primary or even a significant benefit of a lower RoC.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Enso-pro measures anything you want.

It does't work like the example you gave. It will give you measurement at any point in time.

Should be enough. What are chances of running such researches with a representative set of players for slow and fast RoCs ?

Shouldn't your theory, and the theory of EVERY theorist who claims this will help you control the ball better PRODUCE A LOWER NUMBER AT IMPACT?

Shouldn't it?

Shouldn't it?


Otherwise it is just a bunch of fluff.

Yes, it should, of course. But why does it seem so important for you in the debate ? Everyone knows (or should know) that the most natural ball flight in a neutral position is slight draw because the hitting element acts from the inside. Do I miss something ?

Cheers

P.S. I would have written the same 5 mins after your post if only I was not sleeping already, FYI. As I said, I am not afraid of truth even if it is against me -- not this case until now though.

 

[Brian Manzella]

In the Tuxen example, the gear effect is a slight fade spin, which perfectly offsets a slightly closed face and a slightly in to out path - with the result of a perfectly straight shot, no?

Yes.

...why does it seem so important for you in the debate ? Everyone knows (or should know) that the most natural ball flight in a neutral position is slight draw because the hitting element acts from the inside. Do I miss something ?

I really don't buy that at all.

Another zero research guess.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Maybe if I post this 101 times, someone will answer it....

Shouldn't the theory of EVERY theorist who claims " the rate of closure as the amount one had to close the club face from say the club parallel position (P6), or just past it, to impact." and therefore help you control the ball better PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO CLUBFACE ROTATION NUMBER AT IMPACT?

Shouldn't it?

SHOULDN'T THIS PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO CLUBFACE ROTATION NUMBER at IMPACT????

———————————————————————————————————

So, on the Facebook thread, Phil Cheetham taught about different numbers for Ernie Els (higher) and Jim Furyk (Lower)....but apparently folks don't realize that he was NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CLUBFACE ROTATION....he was using a marker just under the grip, on a much lower resolution (hertz) 3D system.

The whole reason for developing Enso-pro was to be able to get numbers that machine like the AMM machine COULDN'T GET.

Since Alex Dee of Fujikura, the Enso-pro guy at the company that developed it, has said that the general range of clubface rotation numbers at impact is 2400°-3000° per second. I'm sure there are outliers.

So, let's say that Furyk is at the extreme low end, and Els is at the extreme high end. (btw this is just a guess and just to frame my argument)

Els stands further from the ball, and swings the club through impact on a lower VSP. He had more lag, and plenty more clubhead speed than Furyk.

All of these things would make a swing that had otherwise similar characteristics, have a big difference in measure clubface rotation numbers.

So, isn't this kind of a silly comparison?

The point I am making is ON ONE SINGLE GOLFER who already makes a decent pass at the ball.

This "one single golfer" probably is not going to change their swing from Els to Furyk.

What I am arguing is simple: take a golfer with a normal swing, and get them to do all sorts of MANIPULATIONS of less LOOK of rotation—and then they do it.

How much does it move the only number that matters—the measured Enso-pro clubface rotation number at impact?

I don't know for sure and NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER.

But I'm betting on DAMN LITTLE.

 

[ZAP]

And here we find yet another golf concept I have thought was the exact opposite. Eyes opened? Check.

 

[DCgolf]

There seems to be something built into the DNA of every swing. Very often i find it is the rate of closure, or lack of it, from last parallel to impact. Therefore that is the move to build the swing around. To me this was Mr Hogan's secret. Look I can't seem to control slamming it shut, so why beat my had against the wall trying? What if I just seriously open it coming down (or bend my clubs open) then go ahead and slam the sh t of it. Golf ball doesn't know rate, or last parallel...just impact.

 

[Brian Manzella]

There seems to be something built into the DNA of every swing. Very often i find it is the rate of closure, or lack of it, from last parallel to impact. Therefore that is the move to build the swing around. To me this was Mr Hogan's secret. Look I can't seem to control slamming it shut, so why beat my had against the wall trying? What if I just seriously open it coming down (or bend my clubs open) then go ahead and slam the sh t of it. Golf ball doesn't know rate, or last parallel...just impact.

Another Classic, Hall of fame post by DC.


Having said that, I can ABSOLUTELY change the look of someone's RoC....ah.....but how much will the impact number change?

 

[gmbtempe]

Maybe if I post this 101 times, someone will answer it....

Shouldn't the theory of EVERY theorist who claims " the rate of closure as the amount one had to close the club face from say the club parallel position (P6), or just past it, to impact." and therefore help you control the ball better PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO CLUBFACE ROTATION NUMBER AT IMPACT?

Shouldn't it?

SHOULDN'T THIS PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO CLUBFACE ROTATION NUMBER at IMPACT????

———————————————————————————————————

So, on the Facebook thread, Phil Cheetham taught about different numbers for Ernie Els (higher) and Jim Furyk (Lower)....but apparently folks don't realize that he was NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CLUBFACE ROTATION....he was using a marker just under the grip, on a much lower resolution (hertz) 3D system.

The whole reason for developing Enso-pro was to be able to get numbers that machine like the AMM machine COULDN'T GET.

Since Alex Dee of Fujikura, the Enso-pro guy at the company that developed it, has said that the general range of clubface rotation numbers at impact is 2400°-3000° per second. I'm sure there are outliers.

So, let's say that Furyk is at the extreme low end, and Els is at the extreme high end. (btw this is just a guess and just to frame my argument)

Els stands further from the ball, and swings the club through impact on a lower VSP. He had more lag, and plenty more clubhead speed than Furyk.

All of these things would make a swing that had otherwise similar characteristics, have a big difference in measure clubface rotation numbers.

So, isn't this kind of a silly comparison?

The point I am making is ON ONE SINGLE GOLFER who already makes a decent pass at the ball.

This "one single golfer" probably is not going to change their swing from Els to Furyk.

What I am arguing is simple: take a golfer with a normal swing, and get them to do all sorts of MANIPULATIONS of less LOOK of rotation—and then they do it.

How much does it move the only number that matters—the measured Enso-pro clubface rotation number at impact?

I don't know for sure and NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER.

But I'm betting on DAMN LITTLE.

So would you say Cheethams theory is wrong and based on invalid information?

Axial shaft velocity does not have a link to clubface rotation, or at least not in the sense/proportion that Cheetham is stating?

Here is the whole quote for context. I am all for the best information to verify/refute his statements. I think his statements have aligned with my visual conclusions from videos (okay, let the blasting commence)

 

[mgranato]

Another good paced discussion that has to abruptly swerve to avoid the 2D short bus puttering along taking pictures in the fast lane.

Let's take a 3 dimensional action (that happens quicker than the blink of an eye and can only be accurately measured by literally a couple of machines on the planet), and put it under the all seeing eye of $100 cameras, line programs, and animated gifs. I mean really... the more advanced the topic, the more some people keep regressing back to insanely inaccurate ways of "measurement". And by "measurement" I mean a middle-aged man sitting at his computer animating stills and comparing looks.

Oddly enough, the people who are obsessing over of the "key to golf", aka rate of closure, and reducing it arbitrarily from 3,000 to 2,000/per sec. are the same ones who find no use for measuring face angle, path, or AoA. In the order of things to get right, why not put a pin in RoC, and worry about how to stop confusing toe hits as a case study in obtaining a "stable face"... people are starting to laugh.

 

[drewyallop]

"2d short bus ..." another gem from the Georgia peach.

Church says ... "Sun revolves around the Earth"

Copernicus says ... "Earth revolves around the sun" (Please Darius, no comment required)

Church says ... "Heresy"

Galileo says: "But wait, I got this thing called a telescope here ..."

 

[ekennedy]

How effective is minimal rate of closure on an actual golf shot? Address a ball with a putter that is one inch from your left toe and try to hit an 80 foot, dead straight, level putt with zero face rotation.

How did you do?

Seriously folks, if you want to swing a club like that, do it. Be my guest.

 

[natep]

I think the ENSO can provide the better numbers on what the actual clubface is doing, as opposed to sensors at the top of the grip, although those can provide some info as well.

I also find it humorous that you're citing Cheetham, when you guys' campaign over the last few months has been built on the premise that Cheetham is incompetent, clueless, and FOS.

 

[gmbtempe]

I think the ENSO can provide the better numbers on what the actual clubface is doing, as opposed to sensors at the top of the grip, although those can provide some info as well.

I also find it humorous that you're citing Cheetham, when you guys' campaign over the last few months has been built on the premise that Cheetham is incompetent, clueless, and FOS.

I have never said that, and not part of any "you guys", your post is a total generalization. Isn't Cheetham a stack and tilt guy? I honestly only know he has some youtube videos with 3d motion capture and seen his name referenced here or there.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Cheetham is the 3D body guy. NOT a S&Ter.

Works for the Olympic team. NOT a club dynamics guy. Not.

See video below for more on that....


In the meantime, here is a pic that accurately depicts the NO parallax 3D view from overhead of the Mat-T system tour composite.

The circle is the left shoulder:

 

[Brian Manzella]

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/41926558" width="500" height="375" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[Michael Finney]

I also find it humorous that you're citing Cheetham, when you guys' campaign over the last few months has been built on the premise that Cheetham is incompetent, clueless, and FOS.

a-friggin-men

they are a conflicted lot

 

[Brian Manzella]

Just talked to Michael Bentley to confirm my assertions.

They were confirmed.

 

[Michael Finney]

This years TrackMan clubhead mph numbers for Furyk (109) and Els (113) - don't know when AMM captured their swings but I would assume that it has been at least a couple years....