Efficiency....

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Golf swings are pretty much only 25% efficient according to an expert on the subject, Dr Steven Nesbit.

I asked him this question at AS2: "Doc, are the better swings more efficient that the not so good ones."

His answer: "No, all swings are pretty much the same as far as efficiency. The good players just learn to do more work."

Ah.......

So, that means......

Fred Couples swing is better than Steve Elkington as far as OUTPUT.

Get it?


Neat and tidy = looks pretty
 
O

OLIVER1

New
25%!?!?! That's a staggeringly small number.
Given the confines of the anatomy and its relative range of motion, where does Dr. Nesbit feel the efficiency slips away?
 
O

OLIVER1

New
birly-shirly said:
Tell that to a light bulb...
Click to expand...
LOL birly. Very droll.
So the hotter the golfer, the less efficient he/she is?
If Heidi Klum ever takes up the game, she could have the perfect swing and hit it about six feet!!
Seriously, though, I'd love to know where alot of that leakage is coming from...
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
Also depends what criteria are taken into account. There certainly are better and worse motion patterns from biokinetical point of view, depending on a goal.

Cheers
 
T

Tophdad

New
OLIVER1 said:
LOL birly. Very droll.
So the hotter the golfer, the less efficient he/she is?
If Heidi Klum ever takes up the game, she could have the perfect swing and hit it about six feet!!
Seriously, though, I'd love to know where alot of that leakage is coming from...
Click to expand...

Part of the "leakage" in my case, I think, is a high angle of attack and high dynamic loft.

Real world example: in a lesson I was swinging a seven iron mid nineties; Brian swung it mid-high eighties - his ball went further and straighter. His swing did more work.
 
magicmarker

magicmarker

New
would love some hints as to where most of the leakage occurs.

Is some of it in the equipment regulations?

Should we only look for ways to do 'more work' or still try and develop a 'more efficient' golf swing. Is iron byron near the same percent with regards to leakage.
 
S

savydan

New
Put it this way, moving the weight of your pancreas around in the swing goes into the 75%, not the 25%.

As Brian would say, get it?

99% of the energy in the gasoline did not go into getting YOU to the store yesterday. It went into getting your CAR to the store.

Any motion that does not DIRECTLY go into making the clubhead move, goes into the 75%. And that's a ton of things too numerous to even attempt to describe.

No, Dr. N was not talking about rules and regulations. :)
 
Last edited:
hp12c

hp12c

New
Brian Manzella said:
Golf swings are pretty much only 25% efficient according to an expert on the subject, Dr Steven Nesbit.

I asked him this question at AS2: "Doc, are the better swings more efficient that the not so good ones."

His answer: "No, all swings are pretty much the same as far as efficiency. The good players just learn to do more work."



Ah.......

So, that means......

Fred Couples swing is better than Steve Elkington as far as OUTPUT.

Get it?


Neat and tidy = looks pretty
Click to expand...

25% really! wow! So let me see if I get it. My swing and all golfers swings are 25% efficient, so 75% goes into other places instead of the ball! Yet those golfers that get that little ball to go far are doing more work. Bmanz where is this more work at so I can get that little ball to go far too! Oh wait thats what you do right, get the golfer to do more work. Somehow I gotta go see u.
 
O

OLIVER1

New
savydan said:
Put it this way, moving the weight of your pancreas around in the swing goes into the 75%, not the 25%.

As Brian would say, get it?

99% of the energy in the gasoline did not go into getting YOU to the store yesterday. It went into getting your CAR to the store.

Any motion that does not DIRECTLY go into making the clubhead move, goes into the 75%. And that's a ton of things too numerous to even attempt to describe.

No, Dr. N was not talking about rules and regulations. :)
Click to expand...
savydan, Maybe I was thinking a little too prosaically. I didn't realize we were also talking about energy consumption when vital organs crash around during a swing. My God, my heart is thumping so much over a 3 footer that my efficiency value must be in the low single digits!!
But I have to say that if the pancreas, etc. must jostle about during a swing, then it is a sine qua non of making a swing, and therefore must be placed in the 25%, or am I totally barking up the wrong tree here? Moreover, I'd love to know if Dr. Nesbit was really alluding to this internal anatomical havoc when he made mention of this to Brian. Otherwise the comment would seem to have little practical value, and I can't believe Brian would bother to post it.
Like I said, I could be baying at the moon here - hope not, but prepared to concede I could be...
 
magicmarker

magicmarker

New
but some balls will fly farther than others against the same swing. I would think there could be more energy lost there than in the amount of energy released from my pancreas in motion, maybe I'm wrong or just looking at it differently.
 
S

savydan

New
Toooo funny....he's puttin' numbers behind Nicklaus' roll back the ball mantra....LMAO.....Context is everything...

Slightly more "seriously"....I think he's alluding to the inherent inefficiencies of "single purpose" machines.....like you might want to focus on what actually puts energy into the clubhead. Most of what you think is adding clubhead speed is just....well....moving your body parts around.

You may be right, though, he could have a subliminal message to the USGA to roll back the ball.....:)
 
O

OLIVER1

New
savydan said:
Slightly more "seriously"....I think he's alluding to the inherent inefficiencies of "single purpose" machines.....like you might want to focus on what actually puts energy into the clubhead. Most of what you think is adding clubhead speed is just....well....moving your body parts around.
Click to expand...

That was what I was thinking originally. It just seems amazing to me that top-class tour pros would have a huge percentage of their body motions classed as extraneous. Oh well, I guess you live and learn...
 
Steve Greffen

Steve Greffen

New
The smaller not as strong player that is able to have a large range of motion from being flexible has an opportunity to have more room to sustain forces and torques on the downswing and is more likely to gain club head speed compared to a strong person who has a strong force early but can't sustain it. Paraphrasing from Nesbit.

I wouldn't get caught up on the 25% thing since its pretty similar from a better player to a high handicap. More important to figure out what to do with the body to create more energy to the club.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top