dschultz6072
New
Focus on the clubhead moving fast.
Efficiency....
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
Richard the Nerd
New
I could be completely off base here....but two fairly broad descriptions have been given...Duval (later line-up) vs. Payne Stewart (earlier line-up).... so maybe efficiency isn't the right term....but are certain "components", "plane angles" that make it easier or work better for "late line-uppers" vs. "early line-uppers"?.....
birly-shirly
New
I am really struggling to wrap my head around this one.
Efficiency of movement, or economy, is a known and measurable differentiator between elite performers in endurance sports, such as running or cycling.
If you can take a group of high-level athletes and find different levels of efficiency in a movement like running, or pedalling - then I'm just amazed that you wouldn't find significant differences in a more complex movement like a golfswing. As for saying that elite and mediocre swings also operate at similar levels of efficiency? ...Wow...
Can anyone point me towards the explanation for this? Would like to better understand just what is being claimed.
Like birly, I've read, re-read and read again the original quote from Brian and I just can't figure out how it works. I'm not mathematically inclined, but I just wanna be able to grab onto something here.
magicmarker
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.
Got it... But the questions are about the leakage. If you ride the whole way there with the AC blasting that energy is obviously wasted and not used to get you (or your car) to the store.
Explaining a figure as high as 75% energy loss with the motion of the pancreas is laughable to me, I need more to get it. The golf swing is clearly limited in it's ability to transfer energy from body to ball more efficiently. Looking for a summary of the leakage, not a mere example. Thanks
I do understand that better golfers do more work, not work more efficiently. The concepts discussed around here would further back that up. It's more work to bring the coupling point down and up before impact than just down, the jump seen in many long hitters = more work......and so on.
Last edited:
What birly-shirly said!
I'm a bit confused on this one as well. I always believed that swings that were relatively "on-plane" throughout the entire movement were more "efficient" and as a result were producing more power for the same amount of work as a swing in which the clubhead was moving more "off-plane" throughout the swing. I think MJ talks about the club's CG wanting to flee outward as you get midway into the downswing, so it would seem like we're trying to add energy to the club without creating "interference". Think Furyk vs Toms.
drewyallop
New
Birly,
Have you seen Nesbit's presentation in the ASII video. Might help to clarify work vs efficiency.
Steve Greffen
New
Efficiency and total output are not the same. Couples has more output (energy) than Elkington because he produced more clubhead speed because he had more work that produced more power. Does not mean his movements were more efficient than Elks.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
HOORAY!!!
Geez, there is hope in the world.
On a separate note, we are talking about clubhead speed.
Ball Speed relative to Clubhead Speed is pretty easy: the hottest face possible, the lowest spin loft possible, to create desired ball flight, landing angle and spin.
magicmarker
New
If everyone is operating around 25% work efficiency output. And better players are just doing more work to produce more output, without being any more efficient. It would seem to follow that any more work done will increase output by 25%. It seems to me like the efficiency numbers have to vary SOMEWHAT. If not then pivoting like crazy isn't crazy, it would only be 75% crazy, the other 25% would make it to the clubhead, no?
Bloody hell, I'm feeling suicidally stupid here. So, if Couples' work rate is 10% higher than Elkingtons and he receives a commensurate boost in power (output), his efficiency levels are still the same, relatively speaking, to Elkingtons? A less-than-commensurate power boost would drop his efficiency
Please tell me I'm on the scent here before I decide to take a bath with my toaster oven...
BertramSterling
New
Is the point that 25% is around the best case output? There is always the possibility of more work in a useless fashion..I am sure we could all think of some pointless extra movement we could make that would have zero effect on the club.
So then I expect the handle dragging, aggressive pivot swing is less than 25% efficient, because the energy is transferred to the club head after the ball has gone.
So...I suppose the implication of this is that if you are around the 25% mark now, there is no magic 'Hoganesque' move that will give more distance with the same (or less) effort. Extra distance would require more work, so either hit the gym or swing harder!
Kind of disagrees with those internet ads promising another 30 yards though...
So then I expect the handle dragging, aggressive pivot swing is less than 25% efficient, because the energy is transferred to the club head after the ball has gone.
So...I suppose the implication of this is that if you are around the 25% mark now, there is no magic 'Hoganesque' move that will give more distance with the same (or less) effort. Extra distance would require more work, so either hit the gym or swing harder!
Kind of disagrees with those internet ads promising another 30 yards though...
birly-shirly
New
cheers drew - information-rich stuff, I prefer to read rather than watch or listen. My own dumb choice, I know....
I think I'm okay with the terminology though. I think I understand what's being claimed, it just baffles me that it could be true. If, as BertramStirling suggests, 25% is the upper limit on turning the body's work into clubhead speed - then that would be a lot more intuitively acceptable to me than the idea that good swings and bad are ALL operating at the same efficiency level.
Last edited:
mandrin
New
The way a golfer is made up, can one generalize and state that maximum club speed is resulting from maximum efficiency ? I wonder if this has been researched by someone.
If you know the forces/torques and the motions of the major body parts you can derive the work done. Change in kinetic energy is equal to the work done. Theoretically, maximum efficiency would be obtained if all motion has stopped except for the club through impact. But is that even partially possible in a real golf swing and resulting in optimum clubhead speed ?
In a proper sequence some of the energy/momentum of each part is transmitted to the next moving part, and as a consequence slowing down somewhat. However if you purposely try to make parts slow down you waste energy doing so.
Also some other aspects has to be taken into consideration. Suppose an aggressive A type male character. He would not feel comfortable with an ample smooth free flowing efficient golf swing. Most likely wanting to feel in control and instinctively preferring a compact controlled type hitter's swing.
The latter might perhaps be less efficient but giving this golfer quite likely more distance and better control. A golfer has to combine substantial force with precise control and his personal makeup is playing here an important role. Unlike a golf robot a golfer is made up of a complicated mix of brain, muscles and emotions.
If you know the forces/torques and the motions of the major body parts you can derive the work done. Change in kinetic energy is equal to the work done. Theoretically, maximum efficiency would be obtained if all motion has stopped except for the club through impact. But is that even partially possible in a real golf swing and resulting in optimum clubhead speed ?
In a proper sequence some of the energy/momentum of each part is transmitted to the next moving part, and as a consequence slowing down somewhat. However if you purposely try to make parts slow down you waste energy doing so.
Also some other aspects has to be taken into consideration. Suppose an aggressive A type male character. He would not feel comfortable with an ample smooth free flowing efficient golf swing. Most likely wanting to feel in control and instinctively preferring a compact controlled type hitter's swing.
The latter might perhaps be less efficient but giving this golfer quite likely more distance and better control. A golfer has to combine substantial force with precise control and his personal makeup is playing here an important role. Unlike a golf robot a golfer is made up of a complicated mix of brain, muscles and emotions.
mjstrong
New
Toaster ovens are big and clunky; it might be more efficient to just use a hairdryer or small radio...
LOL Nice to know someone cares enough to offer free advice. Thanks mj!!
So, would it be safe to say that when a teacher is trying to "quiet the lower body" of a particular player, a quote from the telecast this evening pertaining to Steve Marino's golf swing, that he would be trying to limit extraneous motion that either leads to inconsistency or doesn't aid in the creation of clubhead speed but has no effect on the player's efficiency?
Teacher's LOVE to limit or take away motion, often times because it "looks" better on video.
Teacher's LOVE to limit or take away motion, often times because it "looks" better on video.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Does anybody here realize this is an EXERCISE.....
Very easy concept.
Very easy concept.
- Status