Downswing (WITH AUDIO)
- Thread starter ferrispgm
- Start date
- Status
birdie_man
New
Vaako...check at 5:30 on Brian's Video "Confessions of a Former Flipper" if you have it.
Um...it might be better for me to say "With a ball that is at or slightly behind the left shoulder at impact...the golfer's hands are hitting down...it only seems like up because of axis tilt away from the target at impact."
This is from Brian...and I think he's right personally.
You could still argue this point I guess but I dunno man...
Um...it might be better for me to say "With a ball that is at or slightly behind the left shoulder at impact...the golfer's hands are hitting down...it only seems like up because of axis tilt away from the target at impact."
This is from Brian...and I think he's right personally.
You could still argue this point I guess but I dunno man...
tbarbertab
New
Brian,
Tried to listen to your audio answer from the beginning of this thread - only hear the first second or so. Is there something I need to do?
Thanks
Tried to listen to your audio answer from the beginning of this thread - only hear the first second or so. Is there something I need to do?
Thanks
Jim, check the angle on that video again. it's in front of him, toward the target, Ernie does NOT tee up his driver rear of the middle of his stance. it makes it look like he's hitting down when it's just moving left. And for the record, I just went through it clicking frame by frame like 6 times and between the camera angle, poor quality, low frame rate, and the shadows, you can't see enough to make any sort of determination that's unbiased. Most TV footage is infact offset forward like that. (Edit: I just saw the insert at the end. It looks dead level to me. just look at the space between the bottom of the club and the bottom of the frame between impact and seperation...the relationship doesn't change.)
I'm still the only one with digital information recording the path of the clubhead. We can both show pictures of players that look like they're doing either this or that, but get me solid data and I'd be more impressed.
--------
A readers digest version of the physics of the arguement (and they really can not be argued) - hitting down is shorter, but more accurate (the accuracy increase is from the increase in backspin, which lessens the effect of sidespin). Hitting up is longer, but less accurate (again due to the decreased backspin).
The way the game is played at the highest level is simply hit it as far as possible, leave yourself the shortest approach possible, put it on the green, 8 iron from the rough is better than 6 iron from the fairway...and thus it is advantageous for them to hit up.
At the more common level, people generally NEED MORE backspin. Both to keep the ball more on line and to keep in in the air longer, and thus most amateurs would be better off hitting down. It'll cost them a few yards, but they'd be in less trouble more often
I hope we can all agree on the last 3 paragraphs.
-----
Birdie Man -
I haven't been nearly as clear about my feelings on a flat left wrist on this thread as I was on another. Simply put, I don't beleive a flat left wrist is important in proper ballstriking, it is ESSENTIAL...THE essential to ballstriking. Important just doesn't quite cover it. Compression leakage is bad. That being said, ALL spin is a form of compression leakage, as it is the result of a glancing blow. Now due to the aerodynamic effect of a golfball, you need spin to keep the ball in the air longer, not nearly as much as some people think though. Why would you choose to increase spin beyond optimal numbers and take away ballspeed by hitting down? And make no mistake, the more glancing a blow, the less ballspeed (it's the reason why a +1" 7 iron will have less ballspeed than a standard length 5 iron). I hope that clears up my arguement for you.
I really believe CHIII HAS to be atleast hitting level, if not up in that picture. Look at the height of the clubhead vs the equator of the ball. If he keeps going down from there, he'll be putting a horrible skymark on the crown of his driver. Either way. Can we agree that static pictures, or even TV footage, doesn't provide the necessary framerate to truly judge the angle of attack? That Konica Minolta Swingvision camera is the only thing that comes close.
I like your post, it was suprisingly well thought out. That being said, NONE of you have addressed any of my points. Here they are one more time:
1. The Shaft on that MATT reading was NOT kicked forward, as proven (see earlier post for explanation) by the effective clubhead loft at impact and clubhead angle.
2. Forward shaft lean and downward angle are NOT the same thing, as shown by the earlier experiment
3. Hitting up produces longer drives (it's a fact of physics, an object will accelerate in the direction in which force is applied to it - please oh please let someone mention Newton's third law to try to refute that...I'm begging you, anyone)
4. PGA Tour pros are exibiting an average 3 degrees ascending blow into impact, according to the Titleist Tour dept.
Anyone catch the Konica Minolta swingvision of Tiger yesterday?? definitely hitting up.
Also, Isaac Newton DID invent classical physics and DID invent calculus. While both have been expanded upon advanced and improved since that time, he is the father of both. Our knowledge of this world and the universe was advanced more by Isaac Newton than by any other person.
I'm sorry, but what are your qualifications? The fact remains that as Newton was inventing classical physics, Newton had no way to formulate mechanics with the mathematics available to him at the time. He invented calculus to explain mechanics.
You are probably thinking of Leibnitz as the guy who claimed to have invented calculus. The fact remains that he merely took Newtons work and created a different notation for it. He admitted to this in a posthumous letter.
There is no arguement that he invented integral calculus, and I may be willing to grant the Leibnitz had some input into differential calculus (though I would say primarily it was his notation), but that was mainly of Newton's design as well.
Is that good enough for you?????? Like I said, this isn't a physics/math forum. If you want to say that I'm wrong with no support simply to look smart, that's your problem, but can we please leave this arguement and get back to the ACTUAL subject matter?
What would you like me to say?
Newton didn't invent physics, like you claimed in a post loaded with condescension, which - by the way - works only when you get your facts straight.
Next try was classical physics, wrong again. Granted, you are moving towards the right answer.
And you are still stuck w/ calculus.
Reading your post I see all the right words, but rolled into a cute little mess. Which raises a question: Are you really this lacking in the intelligence department - or - are you just too lazy to do your homework thinking we would be impressed by a few lame lines?
And since when where qualifications a requirement in these debates? I tought a big mouth was all that was needed. [
]Vaako "Having a feeling I've met this dude before he changed his name"
P.S. I guess you didn't notice it - nobody is really intrested in this stale old subject anymore.
Well, "Physics" is a word that's up for debate. The greeks/romans beleived in things like natural motions, objects naturally being stationary until you move them. I don't consider it a science until Newton came along and set up mathematical principles, formaulae, laws of motion, etc.quote:Originally posted by Vaako
What would you like me to say?
Newton didn't invent physics, like you claimed in a post loaded with condescension, which - by the way - works only when you get your facts straight.
Next try was classical physics, wrong again. Granted, you are moving towards the right answer.
And you are still stuck w/ calculus.
Reading your post I see all the right words, but rolled into a cute little mess. Which raises a question: Are you really this lacking in the intelligence department - or - are you just too lazy to do your homework thinking we would be impressed by a few lame lines?
And since when where qualifications a requirement in these debates? I tought a big mouth was all that was needed. [
Vaako "Having a feeling I've met this dude before he changed his name"
P.S. I guess you didn't notice it - nobody is really intrested in this stale old subject anymore.
If you consider the Greek/Roman "physics" to really be physics, than of course you would dissagree with me. I, most physics professors, and most people familiar with the matter at hand wouldn't agree with you though. Newton, while fundamentally wrong, described the world in a way that's 99.9999999999% accurate 99.99% of the time. It's stil taught and used today because of its accuracy. The Greeks weren't very close, and their version is rarely is ever discussed (and then only to describe how wrong they were), and thus I don't beleive it is really physics as a science. They also beleived the Earth was the center of the universe. Newton is the reason that physics is what it is now.
Newton absolutely did invent what's known as classical physics. I don't understand how you can dissagree with me there. There is no arguement.
What is your arguement btw?? Who would you say invented classical physics? how about calculus? If you have a different opinion, let's hear it! But all you are doing now is being nitpicky and saying that I'm wrong without ANY support.
I'm not lacking in intelligence, beleive me. Why is do you think people have stopped arguing with me?? they can't prove that I'm wrong (it's really hard to do...I'm quite right).
Slimply saying "no" or "you're wrong" isn't a valid arguement or debate. If you dissagree with me, go ahead, but tell me what the correct answer would be in your eyes. THAT's how a debate works. If anyone else had something intelligent to say, maybe I wouldn't be so condescending.
btw, I've graduated college and am now an analyst. I've never been on this board with a different name either. I have a different name on other boards, but not two on any board.
birdie_man
New
God damn...
Ur making it hard. You're right, I stopped arguing with you because mainly, I don't think I'm "qualified" to argue a lot of the points anymore...I just don't know enough and I don't like preaching things to ppl that might be complete bullsh!t.
...I also am kinda sick of this debate and don't really care enough to go on with it personally. It would be interesting to see where it goes but I'm still not even close to being fully convinced.
You're doin good so far Stumper, I admit...but I hope Brian takes over at some point (he's prolly 10x more sick of debating over this topic by now...it keeps coming up).
-Paul
Ur making it hard. You're right, I stopped arguing with you because mainly, I don't think I'm "qualified" to argue a lot of the points anymore...I just don't know enough and I don't like preaching things to ppl that might be complete bullsh!t.
...I also am kinda sick of this debate and don't really care enough to go on with it personally. It would be interesting to see where it goes but I'm still not even close to being fully convinced.
You're doin good so far Stumper, I admit...but I hope Brian takes over at some point (he's prolly 10x more sick of debating over this topic by now...it keeps coming up).
-Paul
birdie_man
New
BTW...there is NO WAY that CHIII is going to hit up in that picture.
AND...you might want to sacrifice a wee bit of ballspeed for more accuracy...
AND...you might want to sacrifice a wee bit of ballspeed for more accuracy...
You're right on both points. I do take this a bit seriously and proably took it a bit too far. I didn't mean to insult you in that last post, or Jim, or most of the people involved with this debate. I think Brian's a great teacher and that Homer Kelley was a really smart guy who wrote a great book. I don't think he wrote a perfect book though. We're all human, it's impossible to be perfect.
Here's the thing though: I saw you guys had run other people out of town who tried to have this debate in a civilized fashion, and that's how I started. It's tough to remain civil when you have 15 people searching for typos and ways to read your post that make it sound like to don't know what you're talking about.
As I've been trying to argue, hitting up is about distance, down is about accuracy. I think Joe 27 HCP might be better off hitting down, and would quite certianly be better off THINKING hit down.
Either way I know that it makes a difference, the question is: how much? I really can't tell you.
http://www.golfdigest.com/search/index.ssf?/instruction/gd200311loftangle.html
Apparently, is was about 10 yards in a golfdigest test at 90mph. I don't agree iwth their illustrations or their "swing tendencies", but the results make sense.
I found this when searching for that article: http://www.golfdigest.com/search/index.ssf?/instruction/gd200311kuehneloft.html
And one last thing: if you can hit up on the ball with your hands going down (by forward deflection) then you're still hitting up. I care more about what the clubhead is doing than I do why. I still promise you that downward angle and forward lean are not the same thing.
birdie_man
New
!&^@!&%!$# I had a whole fricken response written up...then my browser went "back" somehow...god.
Anyway...it seems I can't help but get drawn back into this...
We've brought that up a few times already and I think that's one of the main issues with this, um......issue. You're right, they aren't the same thing. But I get the idea that the fact that the hands hit down is the most important issue.
It seems to me (and this is only a *GUESS*), that you should not be telling people to hit up on a driver...and I don't know how good it it for them to put a backward-leaning shaft in this pic: http://www.golfdigest.com/search/index.ssf?/instruction/gd200311loftangle.html
Sure a pro's clubhead may move upward slightly at impact...but he still hits down with his right hand (forward shaft lean)...again, I believe the clubhead moves up because of axis tilt.
Amateurs are gonna break down that left wrist like crazy if they TRY to hit up.
The other issue would seem to be the distance/accuracy tradeoff/advantages between the two methods and which one is more significant.
BTW...you've offended no one...most are somewhat tired of this debate being brought up, not tired of you. I think any new info. should be a welcome thing and the aquiring of this info. should be pursued. I'm not so sure myself whether this debate is still a viable one...that's why it would be good if someone who knew more would step in...
[EDIT] I just read this:
...prolly a good statement. Still not sure how all this should apply to the better golfer.
I don't want to dig much more into a lot of this because I'm only 1/2 sure of what I'm talking about a lot of the time.
[EDIT 2]
Another good statement. Their pics are crap. I thought of so many exceptions while reading their "tendencies" it made me sick to read it.
Anyway...it seems I can't help but get drawn back into this
...We've brought that up a few times already and I think that's one of the main issues with this, um......issue. You're right, they aren't the same thing. But I get the idea that the fact that the hands hit down is the most important issue.
It seems to me (and this is only a *GUESS*), that you should not be telling people to hit up on a driver...and I don't know how good it it for them to put a backward-leaning shaft in this pic: http://www.golfdigest.com/search/index.ssf?/instruction/gd200311loftangle.html
Sure a pro's clubhead may move upward slightly at impact...but he still hits down with his right hand (forward shaft lean)...again, I believe the clubhead moves up because of axis tilt.
Amateurs are gonna break down that left wrist like crazy if they TRY to hit up.
The other issue would seem to be the distance/accuracy tradeoff/advantages between the two methods and which one is more significant.
BTW...you've offended no one...most are somewhat tired of this debate being brought up, not tired of you. I think any new info. should be a welcome thing and the aquiring of this info. should be pursued. I'm not so sure myself whether this debate is still a viable one...that's why it would be good if someone who knew more would step in...
[EDIT] I just read this:
...prolly a good statement. Still not sure how all this should apply to the better golfer.
I don't want to dig much more into a lot of this because I'm only 1/2 sure of what I'm talking about a lot of the time.
[EDIT 2]
Another good statement. Their pics are crap. I thought of so many exceptions while reading their "tendencies" it made me sick to read it.
I don't know what the difference is between someone who's moving their hands down and hits up and seomone who's hands are moving up and hits up, but once again I'm going to say that just because a shaft is leaning forward, it doesn't mean the club is moving down. To me, that's the biggest misconception inherent in TGM.quote:Originally posted by birdie_man
!&^@!&%!$# I had a whole fricken response written up...then my browser went "back" somehow...god.
Anyway...it seems I can't help but get drawn back into this
We've brought that up a few times already and I think that's one of the main issues with this, um......issue. You're right, they aren't the same thing. But I get the idea that the fact that the hands hit down is the most important issue.
It seems to me (and this is only a *GUESS*), that you should not be telling people to hit up on a driver...and I don't know how good it it for them to put a backward-leaning shaft in this pic: http://www.golfdigest.com/search/index.ssf?/instruction/gd200311loftangle.html
Sure a pro's clubhead may move upward slightly at impact...but he still hits down with his right hand (forward shaft lean)...again, I believe the clubhead moves up because of axis tilt.
Amateurs are gonna break down that left wrist like crazy if they TRY to hit up.
The other issue would seem to be the distance/accuracy tradeoff/advantages between the two methods and which one is more significant.
BTW...you've offended no one...most are somewhat tired of this debate being brought up, not tired of you. I think any new info. should be a welcome thing and the aquiring of this info. should be pursued. I'm not so sure myself whether this debate is still a viable one...that's why it would be good if someone who knew more would step in...
[EDIT] I just read this:
...prolly a good statement. Still not sure how all this should apply to the better golfer.
I don't want to dig much more into a lot of this because I'm only 1/2 sure of what I'm talking about a lot of the time.
[EDIT 2]
Another good statement. Their pics are crap. I thought of so many exceptions while reading their "tendencies" it made me sick to read it.
We can agree on this though - backward leaning shaft is BAD. I have never and will never instruct someone to hit a golfball like this. I put rulers and pencils in their golve to keep that wrist flat. It NEEDS to stay flat. My point is that there is a way to hit up without breaking that left wrist. Don't forget, amateurs still try to hit up with their irons, which we ALL agree need to be struck downplane.
I beleive that the hands actually have a BETTER chance of moving up into impact with a flat or arched left wrist than with a bent one. the longer you dleay impact, the more your hands will be moving up.
Don't forget, most pros don't hit at all, unless it's a short shot. With a ball position even with the left shoulder and your hands leading the clubhead, your hands actually will be moving up at impact. it's a consequence of geometry. argue that all you want, but your own criteria are what make my arguement.
I'll be honest, I've had a couple, abd may not be 100% right now, but I'll check this in the morning.
Yes there is - Newton is listed as the inventor of Newtonian Mechanics a.k.a. Classical Mechanics for a reason. That's what his direct contribution was. A lot of places sugercoat Newton's achievements with unneeded yada-yada about classical physics - but this is misdirected hero worship. Classical Physics is - more or less - defined as physics before Quantum Theory. All branches included. Did Newton invent Classical Physics - no.quote:Originally posted by Stumper
Well, "Physics" is a word that's up for debate. The greeks/romans beleived in things like natural motions, objects naturally being stationary until you move them. I don't consider it a science until Newton came along and set up mathematical principles, formaulae, laws of motion, etc.quote:Originally posted by Vaako
What would you like me to say?
Newton didn't invent physics, like you claimed in a post loaded with condescension, which - by the way - works only when you get your facts straight.
Next try was classical physics, wrong again. Granted, you are moving towards the right answer.
And you are still stuck w/ calculus.
Reading your post I see all the right words, but rolled into a cute little mess. Which raises a question: Are you really this lacking in the intelligence department - or - are you just too lazy to do your homework thinking we would be impressed by a few lame lines?
And since when where qualifications a requirement in these debates? I tought a big mouth was all that was needed. [
Vaako "Having a feeling I've met this dude before he changed his name"
P.S. I guess you didn't notice it - nobody is really intrested in this stale old subject anymore.
If you consider the Greek/Roman "physics" to really be physics, than of course you would dissagree with me. I, most physics professors, and most people familiar with the matter at hand wouldn't agree with you though. Newton, while fundamentally wrong, described the world in a way that's 99.9999999999% accurate 99.99% of the time. It's stil taught and used today because of its accuracy. The Greeks weren't very close, and their version is rarely is ever discussed (and then only to describe how wrong they were), and thus I don't beleive it is really physics as a science. They also beleived the Earth was the center of the universe. Newton is the reason that physics is what it is now.
Newton absolutely did invent what's known as classical physics. I don't understand how you can dissagree with me there. There is no arguement.
Firstly, there are the works of several people on celestial mechanics before him. All done to certain standard of scientific methodology paving way for Newton. Standing between Greco/Romans and Newton - part of Classical Physics and progenitors of Newtonian Mechanics.
Secondly, we have the real fly in the ointment: Sir Robert Boyle. He published Boyle's law in 1662. This creates a lineage from 1662 Boyle to a branche of Classical physics known as Thermodynamics. Newton published his motion laws in 1687. All hail Boyle?
Thirdly - this sorta sucks, but I'll include for completness's sake - it's a very thin line from Newtonian Mechanics to some other branches of Classical Physics. Claiming scientific lineage would be totally arbitrary decision.
Glue all this and previous stuff togeather and what do we have?
Your first iteration that Newton invented Physics is silly. No way escaping this one. BTW - I still don't get the leap into Greco/Romans trying to stay afloat w/ this one.
Your second try Newton invented Classical Physics is - like I said - a move into a right direction, but doesn't really hold water. This is Physics 101 or Readers Digest stuff.
What can I say? You don't understand, just ask me.
The reason most of the requlars stop arquing w/ you is that most see you as a genre troll. Talking to you would be a waste of time.
You do sound familiar - thou.
Vaako
palmreader
New
Hi All,
I am not sure if you have seen CBS Swingvision pictures of woods (iron shot), Vijay, Els (driver) Baird (iron), and Darren Clarke shanking (Chip shot) during the British Open. Pretty cool. What striked me is that it appears (I said "appears", Forgive me if I am wrong) that Els and Vj's shaft at strike is leaning backward. Take a look:
http://grouchygolf.blogspot.com/2004/07/cbs-swingvision-rules.html
Palmreader
I am not sure if you have seen CBS Swingvision pictures of woods (iron shot), Vijay, Els (driver) Baird (iron), and Darren Clarke shanking (Chip shot) during the British Open. Pretty cool. What striked me is that it appears (I said "appears", Forgive me if I am wrong) that Els and Vj's shaft at strike is leaning backward. Take a look:
http://grouchygolf.blogspot.com/2004/07/cbs-swingvision-rules.html
Palmreader
palmreader
New
Just a correction. Clarke's chip shot is 2004 Royal Troon. Sorry.
- Status