A HELPING HAND

[Jared Willerson]

Show Me !!

I test everything.

If I would have stuck with my 1994-96 pattern, I would have become a much better player. But—I am a teacher/researcher first. I test EVERYTHING.

I have been hitting balls for the past week and played one round of golf.

I have made the following adjustments:

I am using what I call the "mid-sole" wedge shot, almost exclusively. From teaching David Toms for a whole week the past four straight years, I have learned how he hits these shots. What a JOKE! It works so good it is like cheating.

Using this technique as a jumping board, and Mandin's idea of the DISCONNECTED clubhead, as well as doing what I figured out that 90% of the Tour does with the grip and clubface, I have changed my whole thought process.

Aimed Freewheeling clubhead, and a TOTALLY different loading/throw procedure.

All I can say is this:

I will post some video of my HARD TO BELIEVE ball-stiking in the next few days.



"Resistance to THOUGHT stops progress." —Bentley J. Doyle, PGA, G.S.E.D.

Show me, Show me, Show me!!! I can't wait to see the video

I need a silver bullet.

 

[hcw]

No further discussions needed...

hcw,

Your post is an excellent example why discussions often keep going on for ever on forums. Very reasonable and logic looking arguments and many will indeed agree, hence disuccions will carry on fueled by the various subjective feelings and opinions.

Yes, it is true that the clubhead is not disconnected from the shaft.

Yes, it is true that there can be resistance to impact deceleration.

Yes, it is true that the clubhead ball ensemble, during impact, doesn't constitute a closed system.

But, it is equally true that when you jump you move the earth.

The point above is clear, I hope. What is required is to objectively quantify your arguments and see of they still hold some water. If not they might remain interesting but don’t carry much weight any more.

One has to consider particularly the timescale involved in collisions, such as between clubhead and ball. Moreover, to compare the magnitude of the usually very large impulsive inertial forces inherent in collisions, with any possible applied external force.

This is exactly what I have done in a post quite some time ago. If you don’t agree with my arguments then you can put up your ideas but based on the reality of physics not on what you feel is going on. As in golf be wary of feel as it is often not in agreement with real.

...since you agreed with my statements and therefore must agree that your post was based on a faulty application of conservation of momentum...as for my ideas based on the reality of physics:

F=ma

The point above is clear, I hope.

 

[birdie_man]

You sound excited Brian....

I haven't read this thread...

Your last 2 posts are very interesting...

....

You gotta get us some video man....show us what you've learned. (what you mentioned in your last 2 posts)

 

[mandrin]

Ostrich: One who tries to avoid confrontational situations by refusing to face them.

[SIZE=-1]
No further discussions needed...

...since you agreed with my statements and therefore must agree that your post was based on a faulty application of conservation of momentum...as for my ideas based on the reality of physics:

F=ma

The point above is clear, I hope.[/SIZE]

hcw,

We probably also agree that when you jump you are moving the earth. But this agreement also just leads nowhere.

As stated I used ‘conservation of momentum’ as well as ‘principle of impulse and momentum’. Perhaps this might help in your reflections.

If you don’t understand, tell me exactly where you are having your problems and I will be delighted to lend a helping hand.

Science is not as malleable as the frequent interesting but romantic argumentation on a forum. If serious, put on your ideas quantitatively and we will argue from there.

Newton’s F=ma, is that as far as you go? What about Euler, Lagrange, Kane, etc.? Nevertheless, even applying F=ma will lead to the same conclusion as I posted.

 

[hcw]

Malleable Science

hcw,

....Science is not as malleable as the frequent interesting but romantic argumentation on a forum...

Newton’s F=ma, is that as far as you go? ....

Interesting you should use that phrase as you continue to put forward a thesis for analysis even after you have agreed that it is based on a faulty assumption. And yes, F=ma is as far as I need to go. Since you didn’t seem to get the point, it is that all you need to do to maximize the force you put on the ball is to maximize the acceleration of the clubhead from impact->separation. How, you ask? Well if you “sustain the lag” (maybe you’d recognize it better as “having the hands ahead of the club at impact”) and have a “late release” (maybe you’d recognize that better as “holding the angle”) it helps. Perhaps the problem is that this is just too simple for you? Sorry I’m a simple guy (I’m sure you’ll have fun with that!). Cheers!

-hcw

PS- Ostriches don’t really bury their heads in the sand, but their kick is powerful enough to kill a lion. Be careful out there!

 

[mandrin]

Science and believe sytems, two distinct worlds

hcw,

It is clear from your post that you have espoused literally certain ideas published in a little booklet as being the ultimate truth. Hence you are a lost case for scientific arguments.

I tried to steer you towards a reasonable discussion based on science hence objective reasoning not on romantic wishful thinking and/or a certain believe system.

Just hiding away quietly in a dark corner would you perhaps dare to use your dear F=ma and see for yourself that impact escapes control by the golfer. Not difficult, even for a simple guy.

It is interesting that the words simple and mind are also used together in simple-minded. Do simple guys have simple minds?

 

[hcw]

Trees and Forests

hcw,

It is clear from your post that you have espoused literally certain ideas published in a little booklet as being the ultimate truth. Hence you are a lost case for scientific arguments.

I tried to steer you towards a reasonable discussion based on science hence objective reasoning not on romantic wishful thinking and/or a certain believe system.

Just hiding away quietly in a dark corner would you perhaps dare to use your dear F=ma and see for yourself that impact escapes control by the golfer. Not difficult, even for a simple guy.

It is interesting that the words simple and mind are also used together in simple-minded. Do simple guys have simple minds?

My dear Mandrin,
What is clear is that you so feel the need to disparage any concepts put forth in said publication that you can’t even be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that any of them might actually coincide with some of your own (let alone be correct). As you’ve decided your cause is lost, I won’t even bother to say that I read all publications (including yours) with an open mind. I’m sorry if you find my declination of a scientifically flawed discussion unreasonable, I guess I’m just objectively unromantic. As for enlightenment, just who do you think could possibly control impact besides the golfer? I’ll give you a hint, there is simply no other candidate.

 

[mandrin]

F=ma -- you don’t know, not simple enough, want a helping hand?

hcw,

Just so that things remain transparent and not become some muddying debaters kind of effort, why don’t you succinctly put down, point by point, your arguments.

I will than with pleasure look at them, and analyze your arguments very carefully. But no subjective hanky panky stuff but something based on scientic laws, facts, and figures.

You told me that you are simple but that is no excuse to throw around generously subjective opinions which you can’t back up with any serious scientific argument.

Have you gotten around to use your favorite F=ma or are you perhaps not capable and waiting for me to do it for you? Just for fun, I will leave you try for a little while.

 

[hcw]

Actually, there is something you can help me with…

hcw,

Just so that things remain transparent and not become some muddying debaters kind of effort, why don’t you succinctly put down, point by point, your arguments.

I will than with pleasure look at them, and analyze your arguments very carefully. But no subjective hanky panky stuff but something based on scientic laws, facts, and figures.

You told me that you are simple but that is no excuse to throw around generously subjective opinions which you can’t back up with any serious scientific argument.

Have you gotten around to use your favorite F=ma or are you perhaps not capable and waiting for me to do it for you? Just for fun, I will leave you try for a little while.

…and that is tell me which part of what I’ve said can someone with your self-proclaimed scientific prowess fail to grasp? Maybe try reading again. Oh, and don’t go away mad Mandrin, just…well you know the rest.

 

[golf2much]

OK Boys, let's be nice now

hcw,

Just so that things remain transparent and not become some muddying debaters kind of effort, why don’t you succinctly put down, point by point, your arguments.

I will than with pleasure look at them, and analyze your arguments very carefully. But no subjective hanky panky stuff but something based on scientic laws, facts, and figures.

You told me that you are simple but that is no excuse to throw around generously subjective opinions which you can’t back up with any serious scientific argument.

Have you gotten around to use your favorite F=ma or are you perhaps not capable and waiting for me to do it for you? Just for fun, I will leave you try for a little while.

For the record, I have asked about my earlier posting and the logic contained therein on another site and have not gotten an answer. Without reading anything into the lack of an answer about being right or wrong about what HK said or didn't say, let's look at the impact scenario again.

Taking a 255 gram clubhead moving at 85 MPH (5I), a 45 gram ball, and a 125MPH ball speed, you get a kinetic energy of the clubhead of about 4400 lb(ft^2/sec^2), and a ball kinetic energy of about 1700 lb(ft^2/sec^2) or a difference between the two objects kinetic energy of about 2700 lb(ft^2/sec^2). Solving for post impact clubhead speed, you get a speed loss of about 17 MPH. This would be a maximum loss since there is some energy expended in deforming the ball and not all of the energy diffrence results in post impact clubhead speed.

Now, I've sent Mandrin a high speed photo (which I cannot get to reproduce here, but if Mandrin is able, maybe he can) just slightly post impact, but before the club is reacting to the ground showing a backward bend in the shaft, which can only be a result of the impact collision. To generate a bend such as this, there must be a force at the top of the grip, or the shaft would merely be "displaced" backward, as if there were a free acting hinge at the top of the grip, with no bend. This not being the case, there must be a force at the top of the grip in order for the shaft to bend.

Now to the point... is the force at the top of the grip significant? To get a 5I shaft to bend as in the photo, it takes about 10 lbs of force applied at the grip. Computed at the head, this would be slightly more than 30 ft lbs of force. In comparison to the energy levels involved, 4400, and 2700 lb(ft^2/sec^2) pre and post impact respectively, 30 ft lbs is a very small portion of the total energy involved in the collsion.

So, in summary, can you resist impact deceleration, yes, I think you can. Is the golfers contribution to impact deceleration so small as to be insignificant? Probably so. Does it have any meaninigful contribution to a higher ball speed, better distance or anything else?? I think not. However, the concepts of a heavy impact, resisting impact deceleration, accelerating through impact and to low point are all valuable in that they provide various means of explaining why one should hit through rather than at the ball.

G2M

 

[mandrin]

Close, but no cigar

[size=-1]For the record, I have asked about my earlier posting and the logic contained therein on another site and have not gotten an answer. Without reading anything into the lack of an answer about being right or wrong about what HK said or didn't say, let's look at the impact scenario again.

Taking a 255 gram clubhead moving at 85 MPH (5I), a 45 gram ball, and a 125MPH ball speed, you get a kinetic energy of the clubhead of about 4400 lb(ft^2/sec^2), and a ball kinetic energy of about 1700 lb(ft^2/sec^2) or a difference between the two objects kinetic energy of about 2700 lb(ft^2/sec^2). Solving for post impact clubhead speed, you get a speed loss of about 17 MPH. This would be a maximum loss since there is some energy expended in deforming the ball and not all of the energy diffrence results in post impact clubhead speed.

Now, I've sent Mandrin a high speed photo (which I cannot get to reproduce here, but if Mandrin is able, maybe he can) just slightly post impact, but before the club is reacting to the ground showing a backward bend in the shaft, which can only be a result of the impact collision. To generate a bend such as this, there must be a force at the top of the grip, or the shaft would merely be "displaced" backward, as if there were a free acting hinge at the top of the grip, with no bend. This not being the case, there must be a force at the top of the grip in order for the shaft to bend.

Now to the point... is the force at the top of the grip significant? To get a 5I shaft to bend as in the photo, it takes about 10 lbs of force applied at the grip. Computed at the head, this would be slightly more than 30 ft lbs of force. In comparison to the energy levels involved, 4400, and 2700 lb(ft^2/sec^2) pre and post impact respectively, 30 ft lbs is a very small portion of the total energy involved in the collsion.

So, in summary, can you resist impact deceleration, yes, I think you can. Is the golfers contribution to impact deceleration so small as to be insignificant? Probably so. Does it have any meaninigful contribution to a higher ball speed, better distance or anything else?? I think not. However, the concepts of a heavy impact, resisting impact deceleration, accelerating through impact and to low point are all valuable in that they provide various means of explaining why one should hit through rather than at the ball.

G2M[/size]

G2M, above the high speed photo you wanted me to show.

golf2much, playing the role of a scientist on a forum implies assuming a certain responsibility. People rely on you for giving valid information. I had to correct basic errors in some of your posts before and will do it again for your last post.

Inelastic collisions are not analyzed with ‘conservation of energy’ since kinetic energy is not preserved in such collisions

½ m1 V^2 = ½ m1 V’^2 + ½ m2 U’ ^2 + unknown energy losses,

but rather using ‘conservation of momentum’ and coefficient of restitution,

m1 V = m1 V’ + m2 U’

c = (U’-V’) / (V-U)

resulting in:

V’ = [(m1- c m2) / (m1 + m2)] * V

U’ = [(1 + c) m1 / (m1 + m2)] * V

With V = 85 mph, e = 0.73, m1 = 255 gram and m2 =45 gram, gives for the decrease in clubhead speed, (V -V’) = 22.1 mph.


There are further some basic errors in your post as shown below.

“10 lbs of force applied at the grip” - A torque is applied at the grip, not a force.

“30 ft lbs of force” – Incorrect, ft lbs stands for torque not force. (lb-ft normally used for torque)

Instead you should have said something quite different: A torque of 30 lb-ft applied through the hands results in a force of about 10 lb acting through the shaft onto the clubhead.

“30 ft lbs is a very small portion of the total energy” – Incorrect, ft lbs does indicate torque here not kinetic energy.

In comparison to the energy levels involved, “4400 and 2700 lb(ft^2/sec^2) pre and post impact respectively, 30 ft lbs is a very small portion of the total energy involved in the collision” . - Incorrect statement. It has no meaning. One can not equate kinetic energy to torque, they are incompatible not having the same dimensions.

Instead, the value of [size=+1]0.63[/size] ft-lb of work, expended by your 10 lb force acting over ¾ inch during impact, should have been compared with your estimated kinetic energy levels involved, [size=+1]4400[/size] and [size=+1]2700[/size] lb(ft^2/sec^2) , showing even much more dramatically the negligible influence of the golfer’s efforts during impact.

G2M, you did not pass your exams. Try again.

PS. : I doubt your estimated value of 10 lb for a 5I, my estimate is only 4 lb.

 

[mandrin]

Deprogramming

[size=-1]…and that is tell me which part of what I’ve said can someone with your self-proclaimed scientific prowess fail to grasp? Maybe try reading again. Oh, and don’t go away mad Mandrin, just…well you know the rest.[/size]

hcw,

I feel it is time to stop trying to help you since ‘deprogramming’ is indeed a very fastidious task.

Be happy with your believes, live is short, keep on trucking, you have my blessings.

 

[golf2much]

Defense Rests

G2M, above the high speed photo you wanted me to show.

golf2much, playing the role of a scientist on a forum implies assuming a certain responsibility. People rely on you for giving valid information. I had to correct basic errors in some of your posts before and will do it again for your last post.

Inelastic collisions are not analyzed with ‘conservation of energy’ since kinetic energy is not preserved in such collisions

½ m1 V^2 = ½ m1 V’^2 + ½ m2 U’ ^2 + unknown energy losses,

but rather using ‘conservation of momentum’ and coefficient of restitution,

m1 V = m1 V’ + m2 U’

c = (U’-V’) / (V-U)

resulting in:

V’ = [(m1- c m2) / (m1 + m2)] * V

U’ = [(1 + c) m1 / (m1 + m2)] * V

With V = 85 mph, e = 0.73, m1 = 255 gram and m2 =45 gram, gives for the decrease in clubhead speed, (V -V’) = 22.1 mph.


There are further some basic errors in your post as shown below.

“10 lbs of force applied at the grip” - A torque is applied at the grip, not a force.

“30 ft lbs of force” – Incorrect, ft lbs stands for torque not force. (lb-ft normally used for torque)

Instead you should have said something quite different: A torque of 30 lb-ft applied through the hands results in a force of about 10 lb acting through the shaft onto the clubhead.

“30 ft lbs is a very small portion of the total energy” – Incorrect, ft lbs does indicate torque here not kinetic energy.

In comparison to the energy levels involved, “4400 and 2700 lb(ft^2/sec^2) pre and post impact respectively, 30 ft lbs is a very small portion of the total energy involved in the collision” . - Incorrect statement. It has no meaning. One can not equate kinetic energy to torque, they are incompatible not having the same dimensions.

Instead the 0.63 ft-lb of work expended by your 10 lb force acting over ¾ inch during impact, should have been compared with your values 4400 and 2700 lb(ft^2/sec^2) showing even much more dramatically the negligible influence of the golfer’s efforts during impact.

G2M, you did not pass your exams. Try again.

PS. : I doubt your estimated value of 10 lb for a 5I, my estimate is only 4 lb.

In my best Joe Pesci (My Cousin Vinny) voice... "Thank You Mandrin, you've been a lovely, lovely witness"

Now to the point of the thread. You CAN resist impact deceleration. Insignificantly with respect to an influence on ball speed agreed, but most folks can tell when they have a 10 lb (or 4 lbs if you don't like my 10 lbs)weight in their hands.

PS... So maybe my interpretation of 2E is accurate, maybe not, but then again maybe HK thought the feeling of weight in the golfers hands was significant in that it was something they could feel.

G2M

 

[mandrin]

static vs dynamic

[size=-1]In my best Joe Pesci (My Cousin Vinny) voice... "Thank You Mandrin, you've been a lovely, lovely witness"

Now to the point of the thread. You CAN resist impact deceleration. Insignificantly with respect to an influence on ball speed agreed, but most folks can tell when they have a 10 lb (or 4 lbs if you don't like my 10 lbs)weight in their hands.

PS... So maybe my interpretation of 2E is accurate, maybe not, but then again maybe HK thought the feeling of weight in the golfers hands was significant in that it was something they could feel.

G2M[/size]

golf2much,

There is obviously an enormous resistance to have your intuition come to par with reason. On one hand you agree that a golfer’s influence on deceleration is insignificant but on the other hand you still maintain that 4 or 10 lbs are being definitely felt. You are making here a simple and fundamental error of appreciation.

It is actually quite simple – static is not the same as dynamic. In a swing with a driver one can have an enormous force, well over 100lb, pulling on the shaft. Tell me do you feel that force? No you don’t. For the simple reason it is there only for a tiny fleeting moment of time and the brain has not the time to really process and make it a consicous feel.

Now think again about your 10 lb, as well as your thoughts about HK’s ideas in 2E, in light of above. It is essentially a matter of time scale. The time scale governing impact phenomena put things into a world beyond our normal sensory perception capacity.

HK, no doubt believed in his ideas as written. With all his emphasis on inviolable laws, science, geometry, and so forth and so forth, he is definitely not the type to tell riddles and entertain paradoxes. Hence he definitely believed in resisting impact deceleration. Text is clear. That’s it, that’s all.

There is nothing shameful about this. It was, still is, and likely will be common believe in the kingdom of golf, for which your own resistance to accept, even being a well educated engineer, seems to be a good indication. Don’t forget, HK was an autodidact with no formal scientific education.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Yikes!! MAnzella to the rescue!

Thankfully there is yours truly to make sense out of all this mess...

There was once a young boy named David.
There was once a mighty GIANT name Goliath.

The post-game summary was brief: David kicked Goliath's arse.

How? With a rock tied to a string. The $1500 Matrix Ozik shaft hadn't been invented yet. I don't think it would have helped David.

The point to the above is simple: Can you hit the crap out of something with a heavy hard object that acts as if it is disconnected to the person wielding the object at impact?

I answer this way: Would you like to stand 10 yards from a Jamarcus Russell fastball and get hit in the belly with the point of the Nike Football?

Ouch.

I am an Authorized Instructor of The Golfing Machine. I am also a Catholic. I don't blindly follow Seattle, Beaverton, Rome or Walmsey Drive. I listen, ask questions, do my own research and go from there.

I have been a STAUNCH believer in "resistance to deceleration." Made sense to me. I played Safety in my football days, and I can tell you, how HARD I hit someone was only HALF the equation. The other half was where my arse was at contact. Those two very separate items determined where I was going after the "hit." Either face first on them as they landed on their backs, or on my back with them trash-talking my flattened Italian 165lbs.

So, in golf, us "Golfing Machiners" have been sold/told that if we resist impact "decel" with proper alignments and lag pressure, we would hit it farther.

The "heavy hit."

So, does it really exist?

Well, where is the proof? Remember: "Empirical Knowledge is worse than useless." I can give you 100 stories about a "heavy hit" and zero factual proof.

If the proof exists---and trust me, True Temper, Ping, Titleist and Taylor Made know---I STILL haven't seen it.

What does all of this mean?

Simple.

It means you have to ask "What if"?

What if Mandrin (and others) are right? Do some research on your own. I have.

Here is what I think at this point in time:

There is some effect the shaft stability, resistance to torque, etc, has on the impact interval and therefore ball-flight. How much? Probably a little more than a little.

How much effect the golfer has on #1? Zero

Can the golfer, armed with a boat-load of “Lag Pressure,” good alignments and the strength and mass of Tom Bartlett effect the impact interval in a way that with EXACTLY the same GOLF CLUB alignments of my 115 lb star-girl pupil can’t??

Probably some, but absolutely not as much as we TGMers think, and maybe a little as ZERO.

Does this mean, as someone asked, that we have no control over impact?

Hell no!

If you could ask David, he might be able to tell you what plane he was on, what loading action he employed and whether it was a wrist throw or an arm throw.

Point is, David aimed the rock. David generated the PIVOT FORCES to propel his arm and wrist and the string that propeled the rock.

That's a LOT of control.

And a lot of teaching for me to do for you.

This is where the REAL HARD EARNED DATA comes into play, and more importantly, where your REAL HARD EARNED MONEY and HARD EARNED GOLF GAME comes into play.

Do you want to spend your money with a teacher that resists new ideas and findings, and the real-world experience of someone who tests everything?

Or one that just says: “Because I or someone else says so” or “It’s in the book?”

 

[golf2much]

I guess it's a question of when, not if

golf2much,

There is obviously an enormous resistance to have your intuition come to par with reason. On one hand you agree that a golfer’s influence on deceleration is insignificant but on the other hand you still maintain that 4 or 10 lbs are being definitely felt. You are making here a simple and fundamental error of appreciation.

It is actually quite simple – static is not the same as dynamic. In a swing with a driver one can have an enormous force, well over 100lb, pulling on the shaft. Tell me do you feel that force? No you don’t. For the simple reason it is there only for a tiny fleeting moment of time and the brain has not the time to really process and make it a consicous feel.

Now think again about your 10 lb, as well as your thoughts about HK’s ideas in 2E, in light of above. It is essentially a matter of time scale. The time scale governing impact phenomena put things into a world beyond our normal sensory perception capacity.

HK, no doubt believed in his ideas as written. With all his emphasis on inviolable laws, science, geometry, and so forth and so forth, he is definitely not the type to tell riddles and entertain paradoxes. Hence he definitely believed in resisting impact deceleration. Text is clear. That’s it, that’s all.

There is nothing shameful about this. It was, still is, and likely will be common believe in the kingdom of golf, for which your own resistance to accept, even being a well educated engineer, seems to be a good indication. Don’t forget, HK was an autodidact with no formal scientific education.

OK, I think we're done with the math, but now I think we are in the realm of a feel vs real discussion. I agree completely with the science and the math we have debated for some time now.

Do I know that I can't significantly alter impact by doing anything during the impact interval? Certainly. I know the force vs time interval is tiny, but exerted before, and after per the photo, it must have been present during the tiny interval between contact and separation.

So, I guess in my mind it is not a question of if I feel the 10 lbs of force to bend the shaft, but when I feel it. Real says there isn't enough time to feel it during the actual impact interval and I can accept that. At some point during or shortly after impact, the forces of impact resonate up the shaft, to my hands and to my brain. Yes, the ball is long gone, and out of my influence, but, this is the feeling I strive for in a well struck shot, a specific feeling. Just like you can tell whether you have hit it pure or off the toe. This feeling is what the golfer associates with impact, "even though the ball is long gone" (HK - 2E).



G2M

 

[Brian Manzella]

The answer. Again.

Thankfully there is yours truly to make sense out of all this mess...

There was once a young boy named David.
There was once a mighty GIANT name Goliath.

The post-game summary was brief: David kicked Goliath's arse.

How? With a rock tied to a string. The $1500 Matrix Ozik shaft hadn't been invented yet. I don't think it would have helped David.

The point to the above is simple: Can you hit the crap out of something with a heavy hard object that acts as if it is disconnected to the person wielding the object at impact?

I answer this way: Would you like to stand 10 yards from a Jamarcus Russell fastball and get hit in the belly with the point of the Nike Football?

Ouch.

I am an Authorized Instructor of The Golfing Machine. I am also a Catholic. I don't blindly follow Seattle, Beaverton, Rome or Walmsey Drive. I listen, ask questions, do my own research and go from there.

I have been a STAUNCH believer in "resistance to deceleration." Made sense to me. I played Safety in my football days, and I can tell you, how HARD I hit someone was only HALF the equation. The other half was where my arse was at contact. Those two very separate items determined where I was going after the "hit." Either face first on them as they landed on their backs, or on my back with them trash-talking my flattened Italian 165lbs.

So, in golf, us "Golfing Machiners" have been sold/told that if we resist impact "decel" with proper alignments and lag pressure, we would hit it farther.

The "heavy hit."

So, does it really exist?

Well, where is the proof? Remember: "Empirical Knowledge is worse than useless." I can give you 100 stories about a "heavy hit" and zero factual proof.

If the proof exists---and trust me, True Temper, Ping, Titleist and Taylor Made know---I STILL haven't seen it.

What does all of this mean?

Simple.

It means you have to ask "What if"?

What if Mandrin (and others) are right? Do some research on your own. I have.

Here is what I think at this point in time:

There is some effect the shaft stability, resistance to torque, etc, has on the impact interval and therefore ball-flight. How much? Probably a little more than a little.

How much effect the golfer has on #1? Zero

Can the golfer, armed with a boat-load of “Lag Pressure,” good alignments and the strength and mass of Tom Bartlett effect the impact interval in a way that with EXACTLY the same GOLF CLUB alignments of my 115 lb star-girl pupil can’t??

Probably some, but absolutely not as much as we TGMers think, and maybe a little as ZERO.

Does this mean, as someone asked, that we have no control over impact?

Hell no!

If you could ask David, he might be able to tell you what plane he was on, what loading action he employed and whether it was a wrist throw or an arm throw.

Point is, David aimed the rock. David generated the PIVOT FORCES to propel his arm and wrist and the string that propeled the rock.

That's a LOT of control.

And a lot of teaching for me to do for you.

This is where the REAL HARD EARNED DATA comes into play, and more importantly, where your REAL HARD EARNED MONEY and HARD EARNED GOLF GAME comes into play.

Do you want to spend your money with a teacher that resists new ideas and findings, and the real-world experience of someone who tests everything?

Or one that just says: “Because I or someone else says so” or “It’s in the book?”

 

[golf2much]

Brian;

I'm curious; What would you change about your teaching in light of your new knowledge? Would you add a new concept, or replace something you currently teach? More importantly, you alluded the other day about much improved ball striking related to your experimentation... What did you do?

G2M

 

[Brian Manzella]

What would you change about your teaching in light of your new knowledge?

I wouldn't call it new knowledge, since in my pre-TGM days this is "disconnection" is what I thought and my teaching then was more closely aligned with this.

My post above speaks for itself, as far as what I think, which includes HOW MUCH--if any--I subscribe to Mandrin's philosophy.

Would you add a new concept, or replace something you currently teach?

I ain't tellin.

It will be a part of Do It Right! 2.0 - $29.95

More importantly, you alluded the other day about much improved ball striking related to your experimentation... What did you do?

I gave WAY TO MUCH of this away the other day.

Like I said then, I will post some video "evidence."

It is simply UNBELIE VABLE!!!

 

[hcw]

not such a good grade yourself

....but rather using ‘conservation of momentum’ and coefficient of restitution....

still trying to use consevation of linear momentum in a system where you have admitted (post #99) it is not valid...

...does indicate torque here not kinetic energy. ...It has no meaning. One can not equate kinetic energy to torque, they are incompatible not having the same dimensions...

actually torque, energy, and work all have the same units (dimensions)...