Efficiency....

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ReefBoy

New
Brian Manzella said:
Does anybody here realize this is an EXERCISE.....

Very easy concept.
Click to expand...

It is very cruel to put the cat in amongst the pigeons Brian. ;-)

The thing you left out of that presentation from what I saw on the video, was that Dr Nesbit was focused on the shoulder girdle, arms and hands. I believe he also said that he didn't know how much the body pivot contributed to the swing, but I would have to go back and re watch it to confirm. So letting people get sidetracked into talking about about pivot again.......?

I do think that Dr Nesbit's focus is also right as I see the movement of the body as not contributing much to the power in the swing, and is mostly about placing the club in a position to deliver the work produced by the shoulder girdle, arms and hands to the ball. The harder you can swing the arms and hands(which is strength related) the more you speed you can generate.

As far as efficiency goes, a power leek in this situation is referring to something in the shoulder girdle, arms and hands in transferring the force to the ball. An example would be hitting a ball with completely floppy wrists. As the structural integrity of the connection to the club is compromised the force can not move through the wrists to the club, which in turn slows the club head down and bad things happen to the ball. Another real world example is sound waves passing through wall insulation. As the sound hits the insulation it requires more work for the sound to pass through the insulation then the air and so the volume is lessened on the other side. What I think Dr Nesbit was meaning is that as long as a golfer is holding onto the club with the intention of maximizing the impact to the ball, they will all be roughly as efficient as each other at transferring the generated force to the ball regardless of handicap level.

The difference between the pro and the hacker is the pro will do more work(swing harder) at the right time in the swing and therefore have a greater club head speed.

Christopher
 
O

OLIVER1

New
Brian Manzella said:
Figuring out how bad swings are just as efficient....
Click to expand...
So a guy flapping his arms around like an hysterical owl, clubshaft all at sixes and sevens, clubhead moving a country mile and serving up a shot that barely gets out of his shadow has a swing that's just as efficient as a guy purring through the gears and hitting it 300 yards with the minimum of fuss?
I'm not trying to be a contrarian, a polemic or whatever, I just really, really need to know how this can be.
I've a strong feeling that I'm going to be made to look very stupid shortly after you've served up the answer, and that's OK. But this one vexes me no end.
Thanks...
 
Last edited:
R

ReefBoy

New
Oliver in this situation the efficiency is about how the work(muscle action) is being transferred into the ball. If a golfer grips a club and swings the club on a path to the ball, the way the force is transferred into the club head from the shoulder girdle, arms and hands is about the same as the pro. I think the confusion is in understanding how the work(muscle action) is wasted. In the example you have described, providing the hacker was intending to really hit the ball, the efficiency is similar to the pro but the work has been squandered in wasteful club motion, so only the amount of muscle action(work) as a short putt was actually transferred into the ball.

Another example is a pitch shot where a golfer quits on the shot half way into the downswing. The efficiency of the swing is the same for a good pitch and the quited pitch, but the big difference is the work(muscle action) is vastly different. So the shots results are very different.

Christopher
 
dschultz6072

dschultz6072

New
OLIVER1 said:
So a guy flapping his arms around like an hysterical owl, clubshaft all at sixes and sevens, clubhead moving a country mile and serving up a shot that barely gets out of his shadow has a swing that's just as efficient as a guy purring through the gears and hitting it 300 yards with the minimum of fuss?
I'm not trying to be a contrarian, a polemic or whatever, I just really, really need to know how this can be.
I've a strong feeling that I'm going to be made to look very stupid shortly after you've served up the answer, and that's OK. But this one vexes me no end.
Thanks...
Click to expand...
I thought dudes like Freddie and Ernie *were* going at it pretty hard. They just didn't have the wild appearance of someone like Bubba Watson or Arnold Palmer, or even Tiger. You don't get 120 mph doing a "nice and easy" grandpa move. It takes some work. Some people just make it look a little easier than it appears.
 
Frans@France

Frans@France

New
There is a lot of information to be found on efficiency in sport.
eff10.jpg


Look at the difference in output in watt (Lance : 675 watt!) and the small margin in efficienty!
 
B

birly-shirly

New
Frans@France said:
There is a lot of information to be found on efficiency in sport.
eff10.jpg


Look at the difference in output in watt (Lance : 675 watt!) and the small margin in efficienty!
Click to expand...

Yes - although if you're interested, here's a link that discusses the variation seen in efficiency in a group of elite athletes. VO2 max and Cyclists: Important or Irrelevant « PEAK CENTRE

One of the points made is that high V02 Max/low efficiency and low VO2Max/high efficiency tend to pair up (obviously in the restricted circumstances of a very highly trained, high performing group). Lance has, I believe, a relatively high VO2 max even for a pro cyclist - other pros are likely to have higher efficiency figures, just to keep up.

As a thought experiment, what proportion of all golfers do you think have a driver clubhead speed in the range 90 - 115mph?

Even if that difference were ENTIRELY down to efficiency, and nothing to do with either physical strength, speed or effort, you could be talking about a % difference of 28%. That's equivalent to a range in swing efficiency of 19% - 25%. And any physical differences will shrink that range further. Maybe that doesn't sound like much. Maybe 60 yards isn't a big distance. It doesn't seem like it when you're travelling at 100mph.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
When the white-belt crowd uses the word "efficient" to talk about a golf swing, they are not really talking about "efficiency" in the scientific realm. They are talking about "LESS MOVING PARTS." As in less shift, less lag, less shoulder complex movement, less plane shifts.

Less swing almost never means more distance with the same exertion.

You can make a more efficient swing—no doubt about it—and the how is something that really has not be studied yet.

But it is NOT more lag—some people hit it further with less.

It is NOT super 77ing your upper arms to the body—See Bubba Watson.

It is not HANDLE DRAGGING FOR SPEED—some folks hit it further thinking "move the clubhead fast" like Jon Byrd.
 
O

OLIVER1

New
Brian Manzella said:
When the white-belt crowd uses the word "efficient" to talk about a golf swing, they are not really talking about "efficiency" in the scientific realm. They are talking about "LESS MOVING PARTS." As in less shift, less lag, less shoulder complex movement, less plane shifts.

Less swing almost never means more distance with the same exertion.

You can make a more efficient swing—no doubt about it—and the how is something that really has not be studied yet.

But it is NOT more lag—some people hit it further with less.

It is NOT super 77ing your upper arms to the body—See Bubba Watson.

It is not HANDLE DRAGGING FOR SPEED—some folks hit it further thinking "move the clubhead fast" like Jon Byrd.
Click to expand...
A-ha! That's something I can definitely hang my visor on....Thankyou.
 
M

ms1170

New
I admit I don't know what 77ing is. If it's a typo, I still can't figure it out. Not trying to be a smart aleck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top