Another possible urban legend debunked?

[shortgamer]

I was thinking about how it's now been proven that you can't sustain the line of compression while watching golf and a commentator said something to the effect that in the U.S. Open Tiger has an advantage of being strong out of the rough. I was thinking if you can't sustain the line of compression than could you really hold the club so tight that you resist the the toe closing when the hosel makes first contact with the rough? As far as strength to dig the ball out of the rough the findings I think would prove it's all just a matter of clubhead speed but resisting twisting I don't know.

 

[shortgamer]

145 looks and no answer? My thinking is if you don't have time to sustain compression you wouldn't have time to resist twisting. Anybody here setup with the club a little open when in the rough?

 

[thefuture37]

You aren't getting responses because your question doesn't have relevance to 99% of the people that look at this forum.

 

[pecky987]

145 looks and no answer? My thinking is if you don't have time to sustain compression you wouldn't have time to resist twisting. Anybody here setup with the club a little open when in the rough?

i do

 

[shortgamer]

You aren't getting responses because your question doesn't have relevance to 99% of the people that look at this forum.

Only 1 percent of golfers play courses with heavy rough?

 

[thefuture37]

I'd assume that most people here play municipal courses primarily. How many muni's have you seen that have heavy rough?

 

[mb6606]

I was thinking about how it's now been proven that you can't sustain the line of compression

Can anyone point me to where I can read the proof ?

 

[shortgamer]

I'd assume that most people here play municipal courses primarily. How many muni's have you seen that have heavy rough?

Good point, I guess I just think about my homecourse. We get a lot of tournament play so I always have to deal with rough and I'd like to think there's a lot of tournament golfers here.

 

[mpro]

Brian,

Honest question here.

to test drivers for cor, I beleive they shoot balls at a club face that's held motionless and measure the bounce back. About sustaining the line and the heavy hit. if the grip was held in a vise rather than the head we could shoot a ball at the club face in a similar fashion. Now, if the grip were clamped very tightly, ie lots of pressure on the shaft, the ball would rebound a certain amount. then if we loosened the clamp pressure, would it not rebound less, and finally, what if the grip were on a string?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Remember, I'm not all that smart, just trying to do the best I can.

Thanks!

John Dunigan

 

[Brian Manzella]

For the last time...(hopefully)

It (not being able to resist deceleration for additional yardage) works something like this:

If you are standing under a concrete overpass, and it starts to fall on you from 50 feet above, you can just say your prayers, or you can resist.

But if you resist, it won't matter much.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

It (not being able to resist deceleration for additional yardage) works something like this:

If you are standing under a concrete overpass, and it starts to fall on you from 50 feet above, you can just say your prayers, or you can resist.

But if you resist, it won't matter much.

LOL, nice.

 

[Burner]

It (not being able to resist deceleration for additional yardage) works something like this:

If you are standing under a concrete overpass, and it starts to fall on you from 50 feet above, you can just say your prayers, or you can resist.

But if you resist, it won't matter much.

The bit that I cannot understand is that you and the concrete will hit each other with an equal amount of force BUT the concrete does not yield whereas you will - result being compression (of self). The concrete is unrelenting in its application of compression, it sustains the line thereof, whilst ever you remain in contact with it.

With Club head likened to concrete and golf ball likened to person; Club head continues in motion imparting impetus on the golf ball, compressing it and continueing in its endeavours to do so whilst remaining in contact with it. The golf ball's attempts at resistance are futile; as in the case of self and concrete.

Another angle on this question. Why are wrecking balls not affixed to rigid swinging arms? (Iron Byron comes to mind)

Would that be because if they were, structural debris would be hit for miles? Whereas, with the ball being attached to a non-resisting (floppy) chain, the ball's forward momentum and ability to add impulse to the structure is thus nullified; the ball and structure being equal in force of collision with no impulse, therefore, being passed on to the structure.

Sustain the line of compression, or at least try to, no matter what evidence is presented saying it cannot be done.

The concrete does, and the wrecking ball would also if it had a rigid structure supporting its forward momentum from behind.

 

[mjstrong]

T
Another angle on this question. Why are wrecking balls not affixed to rigid swinging arms? (Iron Byron comes to mind)

Would that be because if they were, structural debris would be hit for miles? Whereas, with the ball being attached to a non-resisting (floppy) chain, the ball's forward momentum and ability to add impulse to the structure is thus nullified; the ball and structure being equal in force of collision with no impulse, therefore, being passed on to the structure.

My guess is that the stress put on the rigid swinging arm would be so great that it (the arm) would damage easily (and costly)? If the force is the same with a flail or a solid arm, why spend the extra dough to construct an arm?

Also, sometimes the wrecking ball loses the collision (doesn't smash right through). Imagine the force put on you and your clubshaft if that were to happen. With a wrecking ball you are dealing with such high forces compared to the collision in a golf shot. I'm just thinking out loud here...

 

[Brian Manzella]

The Math, Burner, The Math!

The bit that I cannot understand is that you and the concrete will hit each other with an equal amount of force BUT the concrete does not yield whereas you will - result being compression (of self). The concrete is unrelenting in its application of compression, it sustains the line thereof, whilst ever you remain in contact with it.

With Club head likened to concrete and golf ball likened to person; Club head continues in motion imparting impetus on the golf ball, compressing it and continueing in its endeavours to do so whilst remaining in contact with it. The golf ball's attempts at resistance are futile; as in the case of self and concrete.

Another angle on this question. Why are wrecking balls not affixed to rigid swinging arms? (Iron Byron comes to mind)

Would that be because if they were, structural debris would be hit for miles? Whereas, with the ball being attached to a non-resisting (floppy) chain, the ball's forward momentum and ability to add impulse to the structure is thus nullified; the ball and structure being equal in force of collision with no impulse, therefore, being passed on to the structure.

Sustain the line of compression, or at least try to, no matter what evidence is presented saying it cannot be done.

The concrete does, and the wrecking ball would also if it had a rigid structure supporting its forward momentum from behind.

Ian,

The math has been done.

Learn. Adjust. Improve.

 

[golfbulldog]

it also seems that the clubhead - ball collision is of a different quality to ...

- fist and face
- ball and concrete

etc...

It is too fleeting in golf... at least that is how I remember Mandrin explaining it.

 

[Perfect Impact]

There is no way to sustain compression with meaningful results during the impact interval (5/10,000 of a sec.) Don't calculations show a small fraction of 1% difference in clubhead speed at separation between a stressed shaft and a piece of string holding the clubhead?

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

There is no way to sustain compression with meaningful results during the impact interval (5/10,000 of a sec.) Don't calculations show a small fraction of 1% difference in clubhead speed at separation between a stressed shaft and a piece of string holding the clubhead?

Exactly Perfect Impact. Whether or not anyone is going to take Brian's analogy and try and disprove it, it's just an ANALOGY that is comparing what Perfect Impact is saying above.

 

[mandrin]

The bit that I cannot understand is that you and the concrete will hit each other with an equal amount of force BUT the concrete does not yield whereas you will - result being compression (of self). The concrete is unrelenting in its application of compression, it sustains the line thereof, whilst ever you remain in contact with it.

With Club head likened to concrete and golf ball likened to person; Club head continues in motion imparting impetus on the golf ball, compressing it and continueing in its endeavours to do so whilst remaining in contact with it. The golf ball's attempts at resistance are futile; as in the case of self and concrete.

Another angle on this question. Why are wrecking balls not affixed to rigid swinging arms? (Iron Byron comes to mind)

Would that be because if they were, structural debris would be hit for miles? Whereas, with the ball being attached to a non-resisting (floppy) chain, the ball's forward momentum and ability to add impulse to the structure is thus nullified; the ball and structure being equal in force of collision with no impulse, therefore, being passed on to the structure.

Sustain the line of compression, or at least try to, no matter what evidence is presented saying it cannot be done.

The concrete does, and the wrecking ball would also if it had a rigid structure supporting its forward momentum from behind.

Burner,

Intriguing seeing you resist so valiantly your cherished ideas about impact being discarded by science.

In golf feel and real are not always a happy couple but in science feel and real are since long separated.

 

[Burner]

My guess is that the stress put on the rigid swinging arm would be so great that it (the arm) would damage easily (and costly)? If the force is the same with a flail or a solid arm, why spend the extra dough to construct an arm?

Also, sometimes the wrecking ball loses the collision (doesn't smash right through). Imagine the force put on you and your clubshaft if that were to happen. With a wrecking ball you are dealing with such high forces compared to the collision in a golf shot. I'm just thinking out loud here...

MJ,

I was hypothesising, in golfing vein, in order to try and communicate the nature of my dilemma.

Your practical view is, nevertheless, appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Burner]

Ian,

The math has been done.

Learn. Adjust. Improve.

Brian,

If I could even get within touching distance of the Math I fear that I would still struggle with this concept.

Trying to learn and adjust. Improvement is becoming a more realistic prospect with your help, though.

Thanks a bunch.