bio feedback

[Jim Kobylinski]

I had a pro today who was swinging at 103 with a smash factor of 1.43. After 5 minutes he was swinging 99 mph with a smash factor of 1.49-1.50 and hitting the ball 18 yards further.

Sorry, i call BS on this one

103 x 1.43 = 147.29mph of ball speed
99 x 1.50 = 148.50mph of ball speed

148.50 - 147.29 = 1.21mph

An increase of 1.21mph of ball speed will not increase your distance 18 yards. Now could that weak smash factor been in the heel or toe creating poor launch conditions that was limiting the golfer's distance? Yes, but i'd rather have the golfer continue to swing at 103 and help him hit it in the center of the driver face

 

[mandrin]

I Did Press a Scale with the Head of my Driver Held at the Grip End and Put 15#s Torque on it... And Probably Could have Put More Torque on it.... Could You Kindly Translate using Your Equations....A % of Total Speed This 15# Torque Would Produce.... Thanks.....

Oh Bronco Billy, it is really despairing how continuously you seem to totally miss out on things. You reference my webpage, ‘Golf Impact Physics', but I have the impression that you haven’t understood much of it.

You still seem to belief that a golfer can do something about impact with some torque exerted by the hands/wrists. Why don’t you read my web page and than come back with things you don’t agree with or don’t understand.

But assuming, purely for argument’s sake, that it is possible to produce a hands/wrists torque such that it results in a force of 60 N (13.5 lbs) exerted by the shaft onto the clubhead/ball ensemble during impact one could expect an increase of about 0.1 m/s (0.2 mph).

However, I would rather hear what you think of the thread’s subject matter, i.e., the use of bio-feedback in golf which starts coming into vogue, slowly but steadily, instead of beating the same dead horse, of heavy hitting, over and over again.

 

[cjgolf]

close enough:

the highest realistic smash factor is 1.494.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Thanks... I Know Sustained Force Thru Impact etc is a Myth... But..

Oh Bronco Billy, it is really despairing how continuously you seem to totally miss out on things. You reference my webpage, ‘Golf Impact Physics', but I have the impression that you haven’t understood much of it.

You still seem to belief that a golfer can do something about impact with some torque exerted by the hands/wrists. Why don’t you read my web page and than come back with things you don’t agree with or don’t understand.

But assuming, purely for argument’s sake, that it is possible to produce a hands/wrists torque such that it results in a force of 60 N (13.5 lbs) exerted by the shaft onto the clubhead/ball ensemble during impact one could expect an increase of about 0.1 m/s (0.2 mph).

However, I would rather hear what you think of the thread’s subject matter, i.e., the use of bio-feedback in golf which starts coming into vogue, slowly but steadily, instead of beating the same dead horse, of heavy hitting, over and over again.

I Just Have a Hell of a Time Perceptually Accepting it... After All nmgolfer said it was a Myth....

As Far as BioFeed Back etc. is Concerned it is EXACTLY What is Needed and WILL Answer Some Serious Questions about the Golf Swing... Nebits is Just the Start of the Evolution Using this Technique to find the Answers to what is Really Happening in the Golf Swing... I Believe that there Exists ONE and just ONE Ideal Swing Pattern and Bio Feed Back WILL Prove Me Correct.... Once this Ideal Pattern is Revealed... Golf will be Enjoyed by the Masses.... Have a Great Day With Your New Found Knowledge......

 

[Brian Manzella]

This thread is highly illustrative of how you can have folks with their own little agendas, totally ruining it.

Sorry Mandrin, and Sorry Dr. Grober.

 

[Guitar Hero]

Sorry, i call BS on this one

103 x 1.43 = 147.29mph of ball speed
99 x 1.50 = 148.50mph of ball speed

148.50 - 147.29 = 1.21mph

An increase of 1.21mph of ball speed will not increase your distance 18 yards. Now could that weak smash factor been in the heel or toe creating poor launch conditions that was limiting the golfer's distance? Yes, but i'd rather have the golfer continue to swing at 103 and help him hit it in the center of the driver face

It is obvious you have not worked with TrackMan or 3-D. How about going from a negative angle of attack to a positive angle of attack. You might need to do some more research before you call BS.

 

[Guitar Hero]

Guitar Hero,

Thanks for your response. From 'biofeedback' to 'positive transfer training' to 'sweet balance motion training', seems quite an interesting and varied approach over time. You mention 'sweet spot balanced motion'. I always like ideas on which I might perhaps be able to apply some mathematics. But just can't see what it is all about, making so much of a difference. What about explaining some of the basics. It would be greatly appreciated.

I thought a smash factor of 1.5 to be considered near perfect, with weekend players usually perhaps more towards 1.3. What is the highest smash factor you have measured? You have accurate equipment? The '1.49-1.50 pro', do you know perhaps the clubhead mass of the club used for the training/measurement? With maximum permissible CoR value of 0.83 and a clubhead mass of .2 kg, a smash factor of 1.5 is the theoretical limit.

1.53 This golfer is a long drive dude. 137 mph club head with a 225 gram 7 degree driver head 44” shaft. We are doing testing now with a 250, 275 and 305 gram heads with a 43" shaft.

 

[mandrin]

I Just Have a Hell of a Time Perceptually Accepting it... After All nmgolfer said it was a Myth....

As Far as BioFeed Back etc. is Concerned it is EXACTLY What is Needed and WILL Answer Some Serious Questions about the Golf Swing... Nebits is Just the Start of the Evolution Using this Technique to find the Answers to what is Really Happening in the Golf Swing... I Believe that there Exists ONE and just ONE Ideal Swing Pattern and Bio Feed Back WILL Prove Me Correct.... Once this Ideal Pattern is Revealed... Golf will be Enjoyed by the Masses.... Have a Great Day With Your New Found Knowledge......

In a nutshell -

-1- Dr. Steven Nesbit’s work is NOT related to biofeedback.
-2- Human beings are way too complex for one ideal swing pattern to exist.


Bronco Billy,

Better give up on your ‘spiritual master‘ and a start thinking a bit for yourself. Btw, on his new golf forum play ground he has already two strikes against him and is only one little mouse click away from again been rejected from yet another forum. If they only knew what he has written about HK on this forum he would not even have been accepted in the first place. It would have been considered blasphemy.

Since you keep following nm’s ideas like a little pit bull and hence look also up to Dr Steven Nesbit as the only one who knows it all, without understanding a jota of his scientific papers, let me just give you my idea on your newly found scientific high-priest. I do not agree with that idea at all. His work, NOT connected to biofeedback, is indeed very interesting, but rather academic.

Dr Nesbit’s efforts will not significantly contribute to golf instruction. His work done with a complicated full-body computer model of a human coupled to a parametric model of a golf club does not really bring up any significant information that will revolutionize the golf world. His complex model for the golf club, for instance, by his own admission, is not playing a great role. Typical sophisticated science, very complicated, well done, nice ensuing academic papers, but not very practical in the end.

Quite contrasting however are the scientific efforts, such as by Dr Grober, based on biofeedback. This, in my opinion, constitutes much more the future of optimum golf science. Doing solid experimental/theoretical scientific work and coming up with very simply results which reflects all of the research in a very practical way. The charm of biofeedback is indeed that it takes charge of many, many variables and optimizes it via the mysterious but truly fascinating biofeedback action.

 

[tongzilla]

Can someone pls help me...

What is the thesis of this study/thread?

 

[mandrin]

1.53 This golfer is a long drive dude. 137 mph club head with a 225 gram 7 degree driver head 44” shaft. We are doing testing now with a 250, 275 and 305 gram heads with a 43" shaft.

Guitar Hero,

Thanks for the response. I expected indeed the head to be a bit more than 200 gr. It will be interesting to see if the big hitters can get more carry using heavier heads. I assume that you have done research to find out which ball will give you the maximum COR for the higher impact speeds of long drive adepts.

 

[Guitar Hero]

Guitar Hero,

Thanks for the response. I expected indeed the head to be a bit more than 200 gr. It will be interesting to see if the big hitters can get more carry using heavier heads. I assume that you have done research to find out which ball will give you the maximum COR for the higher impact speeds of long drive adepts.

We are testing balls as well. The positive angle of attack is a big key with the heavy heads.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Points Well Taken... But Not Always Agreed With...

In a nutshell -

-1- Dr. Steven Nesbit’s work is NOT related to biofeedback.
-2- Human beings are way too complex for one ideal swing pattern to exist.


Bronco Billy,

Better give up on your ‘spiritual master‘ and a start thinking a bit for yourself. Btw, on his new golf forum play ground he has already two strikes against him and is only one little mouse click away from again been rejected from yet another forum. If they only knew what he has written about HK on this forum he would not even have been accepted in the first place. It would have been considered blasphemy.

Since you keep following nm’s ideas like a little pit bull and hence look also up to Dr Steven Nesbit as the only one who knows it all, without understanding a jota of his scientific papers, let me just give you my idea on your newly found scientific high-priest. I do not agree with that idea at all. His work, NOT connected to biofeedback, is indeed very interesting, but rather academic.

Dr Nesbit’s efforts will not significantly contribute to golf instruction. His work done with a complicated full-body computer model of a human coupled to a parametric model of a golf club does not really bring up any significant information that will revolutionize the golf world. His complex model for the golf club, for instance, by his own admission, is not playing a great role. Typical sophisticated science, very complicated, well done, nice ensuing academic papers, but not very practical in the end.

Quite contrasting however are the scientific efforts, such as by Dr Grober, based on biofeedback. This, in my opinion, constitutes much more the future of optimum golf science. Doing solid experimental/theoretical scientific work and coming up with very simply results which reflects all of the research in a very practical way. The charm of biofeedback is indeed that it takes charge of many, many variables and optimizes it via the mysterious but truly fascinating biofeedback action.

Actually I Formed My Technical Beliefs about the Golf Swing from You and NmGolfer..... You Both Have a Hell of a Lot of Knowledge about the Physics and the Mechanics of the Golf Swing....In my Opinion You Both have Many More Common Beliefs than Different Ones....... The MOST Educational Experiences for Me is when You Two would "Debate" your Differences.....Very Educational and Entertaining....These "Debates" would Force Both of You to State Your Positions in such a way that the "Masses" could Understand what the Hell you All were Talking About.... You Freely Criticize Me, Nm, and Others... Which is Fine with Me..... My Main Criticism of You is that I Believe that on Certain Technical Issues(Which I Will Not State Here) is that You Sell Out Pure Science to Promote the Beliefs of the Company Store.... Have a Great Day....

Ps... Also I find Your Statement about "Too Complex to Simplify" Rather Amusing..... In the Same Vein as "Too Big to Fail"... All of Newtonian Physics can be Derived from F=ma....Einstonian Physics which Describes the Universe can be derived from E=mc**2..... Saying that the Golf Swing can Not be Simplified to one Ideal Model/Pattern is the Epitome of Naivete......

 

[dominicscaife]

dominicscaife,

The ball being launched into space after impact gets all of its momentum/energy from the club head. Therefore, for all golfers, for all their shots and for all clubs, the clubhead has substantial less speed after impact.

Totally agree in the case of perfect ball-club contact. What I wanted the good people of this forum to think about is when some outside agent, grass/turf/mud on ball interferes with the club before impact.

dominicscaife,

Acceleration, deceleration, it does not matter just get an adequate impact velocity and the appropriate 3D impact conditions for the shot at hand. However always mixed in with these discussions is the very legitimate feel aspect of the matter, i.e., feeling as if you want maximum speed beyond ball position.

Would acceleration/deceleration matter if you consider interference of grass/mud/turf between ball and clubhead?

I mentioned my intuition here because I was thinking about the difference in time to slow down a car when your foot is to the floor (accelerating), compared to when you are cruising (no acceleration).

Isn't this analogous to what happens in the rough? (the break/friction is the grass/turf). What will happen to the coefficient of restitution in this case?

My understanding of classical physics says acceleration doesn't effect an objects momentum (mv). But an accelerating mass has a force associated with it. Would this force help in overcoming any resistance of turf/grass on the way to the ball?

I think of this slight acceleration of clubhead at impact to a 'buffer' amount of energy stored in the swing which helps overcome any extra resistance from grass, a none-accelerating clubhead would not have this force, albeit having more kinetic energy. The end-result being that the none-accelerating swing has a much larger variance of distance in shots from rough compared to the accelerating swing.

I apologize if my science is terrible, it's been a while since Physics A-Level and would appreciate corrections from those who know better and can help me sleep peacefully at night once more about this worrisome topic!

dominicscaife,

This feel /real dichotomy is often caused by those who should or even do know better. If I recall correctly even Dr Grober talks in his presentation about maximum velocity beyond impact without any further caution or explanation.

Strange isn't it? My whole thinking on this is basically due to changing my swing to increase my lag. I've noticed that after these changes; occasionally I hit a shot that 'feels' fat but the actual distance is same as expected.
(I check all my yardages with a laser rangefinder.

Cheers,
Dominic

 

[mjstrong]

Ps... Also I find Your Statement about "Too Complex to Simplify" Rather Amusing..... In the Same Vein as "Too Big to Fail"... All of Newtonian Physics can be Derived from F=ma....Einstonian Physics which Describes the Universe can be derived from E=mc**2..... Saying that the Golf Swing can Not be Simplified to one Ideal Model/Pattern is the Epitome of Naivete......

I'm not a physicist, but c'mon. You cannot convince me that two individuals with great differences such as Michelle Wi and Carl Petterson should be swinging the club in the same "model." In addition to the obvious physical differences with range of motion, strength, etc. there is a lot of variety in the differences of coordination ability, timing/rhythm, sequencing ability, and other less tangible aspects of a golfer's talent set.

Unless you are reducing the definition of "model" to simplicities such as what the club is doing from just before to just after impact, I'll bite. But, to say that there is one preferred takeaway, one preferred position at the top, one preferred delivery position, etc.. is tough to buy into.

 

[Bronco Billy]

NO Simplification WhatsoEver...........

I'm not a physicist, but c'mon. You cannot convince me that two individuals with great differences such as Michelle Wi and Carl Petterson should be swinging the club in the same "model." In addition to the obvious physical differences with range of motion, strength, etc. there is a lot of variety in the differences of coordination ability, timing/rhythm, sequencing ability, and other less tangible aspects of a golfer's talent set.

Unless you are reducing the definition of "model" to simplicities such as what the club is doing from just before to just after impact, I'll bite. But, to say that there is one preferred takeaway, one preferred position at the top, one preferred delivery position, etc.. is tough to buy into.

This IDEAL Model/Pattern would be defined from SetUp Thru Follow Thru.... Ie. Start to Finish and EveryThing in Between would Be Clearly Defined.... Wi and Peeterson using this IDEAL Model/Pattern would BOTH be Better Golfers than they are now using their Original Model/Patterns.... Have a Great Day....

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

It is obvious you have not worked with TrackMan or 3-D. How about going from a negative angle of attack to a positive angle of attack. You might need to do some more research before you call BS.

See I'm glad you took the bait, I have done a lot of work on a trackman and other launch monitors before I had access to a trackman and I will ADMIT that you could potentially increase someone's distance that much with a little slower swing speed if the origninal swing was VERY un-optimized. As you said, attack angle plays a huge role as does spin rate and launch angle and shaft choice and finally flex.

However you didn't state that and were trying to lead people to beleive that by simply lowering their swing speed to increase smash factor they are going to gain all kinds of yards and that just isn't true.

It's a combination of slowing them down to consistenty make them hit the sweet spot for optimum smash factor AND gettig their launch conditions better through equiptment and swing changes.

I think I have made my point so I won't reply to this agan.

 

[mjstrong]

This IDEAL Model/Pattern would be defined from SetUp Thru Follow Thru.... Ie. Start to Finish and EveryThing in Between would Be Clearly Defined.... Wi and Peeterson using this IDEAL Model/Pattern would BOTH be Better Golfers than they are now using their Original Model/Patterns.... Have a Great Day....

But are both of those (or all) individuals physically able to achieve this IDEAL pattern?

 

[Bronco Billy]

Some of My Criteria for this IDEAL Pattern Would Be.......

But are both of those (or all) individuals physically able to achieve this IDEAL pattern?

That it would Define a Full Straight Shot for All Clubs... Also This Ideal Pattern Would Be Able to be Used by 90% of the Healthy Population...This Ideal Pattern would Be Able to be Mastered in a "Short" amount of Time and Produce Results Better than Any other Pattern Available.... Also This Ideal Pattern could be Self Taught from EBooks, DVD's etc.. Most Pros would have Very little Trouble Converting to this Ideal Pattern because Most of Their Current Patterns would Already be Part of the Ideal Pattern... Have a Great Day....

 

[mjstrong]

What's the wait?

That it would Define a Full Straight Shot for All Clubs... Also This Ideal Pattern Would Be Able to be Used by 90% of the Healthy Population...This Ideal Pattern would Be Able to be Mastered in a "Short" amount of Time and Produce Results Better than Any other Pattern Available.... Also This Ideal Pattern could be Self Taught from EBooks, DVD's etc.. Most Pros would have Very little Trouble Converting to this Ideal Pattern because Most of Their Current Patterns would Already be Part of the Ideal Pattern... Have a Great Day....

Release this pattern to the masses and make a killing off it then. I'll buy the book or dvd or whatever...

 

[Bronco Billy]

Exactly.....

Release this pattern to the masses and make a killing off it then. I'll buy the book or dvd or whatever...

I Have the Product and No Credentials.... You ALL Have the Credentials and NO Product..... Have a Great Day....