Effect of Equipement

[Ringer]

quote:Originally posted by hue

quote:Originally posted by Doug

quote:Originally posted by cdog

This is one area i am confused about, i understand if your HITTING, the a stiff shaft flex would be wanted, but if your a swinger, what would it matter?
Example, a whippy, centrifugal force keeps the shaft straight and some pople can crush with them.

Cdog
You are not confused.

The really stiff shafts are for hitting and controlling distance with irons.

I use swinging procedure for tee shots and have a softer shaft in my driver.

So Brian, Doug and Ringer . Do you recommend having a softer flex in the longer swinging clubs? Thanks

No. I believe in having conformity through the whole set. I want the SAME shaft in EVERY club (other than the putter). That way I get the same "feel" from every swing no matter what club I'm swinging. I'm sure you've heard of Frequency Matching.

 

[mb6606]

I don't see how anything I have read that Yoda posted has anything to do with "Practical application of Geometry". It's quite clearly oppinion by HK.

Only Yoda or Homer has the answer. Understanding how meticulous Homer was I would speculate Homer used science not opinion.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Single Frequency and Single Moment of Inertia...fitted to the individual golfer...perfect lie angles....exact head for a shots for the individual.......

Equipment MATTERS...a lot.

 

[Archie Swivel]

Random unorganized thoughts: Isn't the point to have the shaft 'stressed' at impact? I would think that it would easier to stress a more flexible shaft, but because of that ease, you may stress the shaft too soon. Isn't the only way to 'stress' the shaft by acceleration, not speed? So if you can't maintain the acceleration through impact, the shaft won't be stressed at impact? So could it be that the more shaft flex you have, the more clubhead lag you need?

And a question: I was watching The Passion the other night on DVD and I noticed they flogged Jesus with very whippy canes-- why didn't they use sturdy, straight canes?

Arch

 

[Brian Manzella]

Every swing and golfer load and unload the shaft differently....

need to test same spec except for frequency to determine right 'number.'

 

[hue]

quote:Originally posted by brianman

Every swing and golfer load and unload the shaft differently....

need to test same spec except for frequency to determine right 'number.'

Brian: Are you still using Swing Sync shafts http://www.swingsync.com/ i think you said you had got a new deal with Srixon . What are you playing these days ?

 

[Brian Manzella]

I have Swing-Sync shafts and heads in Louisiana, Srixons and conventional shafts in Louisville.

The swing-Sync shafts are MUCH MUCH MUCH better....

 

[Ringer]

WHOA.. Brian and I agree on something.. Alert the authorities.

In fact, now as I think about it.. wouldn't having more flex through impact improve that whole "sustain the line of compression" thingie you folks are always talking about?

 

[mb6606]

Ringer,
Check this thread out http://chuckevansgolf.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=311

 

[Ringer]

I'm not a member of that board and cannot access topics

 

[njmp2]

quote:Originally posted by mb6606

I don't see how anything I have read that Yoda posted has anything to do with "Practical application of Geometry". It's quite clearly oppinion by HK.

Only Yoda or Homer has the answer. Understanding how meticulous Homer was I would speculate Homer used science not opinion.

I agree. Homer didn't invent the wheel, he just used it. I can not for the life of me understand the buffoonish remarks of some that believe Homer used false science, geometery or physics in his work. It is oblivious that the book was never read. Never listen to the comments of anyone that hasn't read the material. How would they know the slightest thing of what they spout? Waste of space.

 

[matt]

quote:Originally posted by Ringer

I'm not a member of that board and cannot access topics

Then sign up.

 

[Ringer]

quote:Originally posted by njmp2

quote:Originally posted by mb6606

I don't see how anything I have read that Yoda posted has anything to do with "Practical application of Geometry". It's quite clearly oppinion by HK.

Only Yoda or Homer has the answer. Understanding how meticulous Homer was I would speculate Homer used science not opinion.

I agree. Homer didn't invent the wheel, he just used it. I can not for the life of me understand the buffoonish remarks of some that believe Homer used false science, geometery or physics in his work. It is oblivious that the book was never read. Never listen to the comments of anyone that hasn't read the material. How would they know the slightest thing of what they spout? Waste of space.

And I don't understand how someone can be so overtly detrimental to their own cause by turning people away from their oppinion due to making continual attacks on others intelligence without provokation.

 

[cdog]

Given the other comments I think there is still a ways to go about what constitutes a torque since like some other golf 'scientistis' Homer chose to create his own 'science'

Speaking of which I thought youd 'like' these from TGM:

2-L. APPLICATION OF FORCE

...No law of force or motion can be annulled...The three courses that can be taken for their control are to (1)avoid, (2)harness or (3)overpower....

I guess 'avoiding' and 'overpowering' are not the same as 'anulling'

Concerning #3 - the "law of equal and opposite reaction" of the ball against the Clubhead can be overpowered to some degree per 2-M-1, and so minimize Clubhead deceleration through Impact.

He proceeds in 2-M-1 to itemize those things that 'contribute resistance to Impact Deceleration'.

Oh well.

Peter

Of the various golf scientists authors only Jorgensen treats/analyzes golf like a true scientists. Mindy Blake, Homer Kelley and JK are, using your expression, creating their own ‘science’.

mandrin

 

[njmp2]

quote:Originally posted by cdog

Given the other comments I think there is still a ways to go about what constitutes a torque since like some other golf 'scientistis' Homer chose to create his own 'science'

Homer did no such thing.

quote:

Speaking of which I thought youd 'like' these from TGM:

2-L. APPLICATION OF FORCE

...No law of force or motion can be annulled...The three courses that can be taken for their control are to (1)avoid, (2)harness or (3)overpower....

I guess 'avoiding' and 'overpowering' are not the same as 'anulling'

Using a force is not anulling a force. The force exists even when avoided inthe stroke and it exists when another force overpowers it. It is still there.

quote:
Concerning #3 - the "law of equal and opposite reaction" of the ball against the Clubhead can be overpowered to some degree per 2-M-1, and so minimize Clubhead deceleration through Impact.

He proceeds in 2-M-1 to itemize those things that 'contribute resistance to Impact Deceleration'.

Oh well.

Oh well dog, you read it wrong. There is nothing itemized in 2-M-1, Homer does refer to power on the clubhead and shaft as well as thrust but that is not what some would call itemizing. You missed a point...'contribute resistance to Impact Deceleration'. That attempt at resistance minimizes Clubhead deceleration through Impact.

quote:
Peter

Of the various golf scientists authors only Jorgensen treats/analyzes golf like a true scientists. Mindy Blake, Homer Kelley and JK are, using your expression, creating their own ‘science’.

mandrin

Jorgensen is riddled with inaccurate information. Homer never created his own science, it has been reviewed and has stood the test of time since it was written.