Free-wheeling through impact

[wallywonga]

I agree with what you say about Hebron, although I have never met the guy I have studied all his work and can say he has had a huge influence on the way in which I teach and the references in his book led me toward TGM

The transfer he speaks of is the transfer of momentum. Again to quote his book. The swings energy at impact is controlled mostly by what is called a transfer of momentum.

(The club head being the last link in the kinetic chain).

At impact, ideally there should no energy expanded or stored. It should have been spent - gone into the ball. This paragrpah immediatley preceeded the above quote.

From there the club heads inertia (resistance to being moved, Newtons first law) Is more than enough to resist the balls attempts to slow down the head (see the report from C&S above).

I think that makes sense if not please feel free to correct me I am here to learn!

wally

 

[MizunoJoe]

"the freewheeling head is more than capable of setting the ball on its way." Yes, but not as far as if there is a stressed shaft attached to it, which will resist the ball weight. The separation speed will be less. This was proven by C&S. This is analogous to a powerless arm punching club boxer vs a championship KO puncher who punches from the ground up.

 

[wallywonga]

Hhmmm 215 yds as compared to 220 yards whats that equate to a couple of % difference.

Not quite fitting with the boxing analogy, dont ya think.

Wally.

 

[MizunoJoe]

What's NOT fitting is 220 yds with a 2 wood, even with the balls back then. I'd be interested in seeing the experiment performed by someone who we KNOW really stresses the shaft - say any one of the card carrying tour players.

 

[Ringer]

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

Ringer,

Are you saying that when the whippy is correctly used, it doesn't bend AT ALL before impact?

No, it was asserted before by Brian that the stressed shaft is critical to the LOC... yet with the whippy, if the shaft were fully stressed the hands would be about 2 feet in front of the ball at minimum.

 

[David Alford]

Ringer, I mentioned the Whippy earlier because it prooves the shaft does not have to be full stressed at impact. It's very close to swinging the clubhead with a string.

However, I would be very interested in seeing clear pics of the clubface's reaction using a Whippy compared with a stressed shaft. Does it rebound more?

 

[6bee1dee]

Herbon did not attend the Pine Needles workshop. He might have been out of town.

 

[rundmc]

quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

Herbon did not attend the Pine Needles workshop. He might have been out of town.

Is he pretty well versed on TGM? In my lesson with him, he had me doing some things to get "on plane." Also, he had me hit some right arm only pitches just bending the elbow. He however did not mention or stress a LEVEL right wrist or not cocking the right wrist. ECox demonstrated the WEDGES to me. Didn't get this from Hebron. So I didn't know if he had been schooled on it or not. He has moved away from a highly technical approach to teaching. He suggested that I read the new Chuck Hogan books. I'm just not sure that you can get technique through osmosis.

It was a very good and interesting lesson. And above that he was a heck of a nice guy.

 

[EdStraker]

Hebron is well-versed in TGM. One of his books, Golf Swing Secrets ... And Lies has a chapter that explains some of the TGM concepts.

I'm not positive but I think he received some training from Ben Doyle.

 

[6bee1dee]

quote:Originally posted by rundmc

quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

Herbon did not attend the Pine Needles workshop. He might have been out of town.

Is he pretty well versed on TGM? In my lesson with him, he had me doing some things to get "on plane." Also, he had me hit some right arm only pitches just bending the elbow. He however did not mention or stress a LEVEL right wrist or not cocking the right wrist. ECox demonstrated the WEDGES to me. Didn't get this from Hebron. So I didn't know if he had been schooled on it or not. He has moved away from a highly technical approach to teaching. He suggested that I read the new Chuck Hogan books. I'm just not sure that you can get technique through osmosis.

It was a very good and interesting lesson. And above that he was a heck of a nice guy.

I never met Hebron and only know of him through his books and web site. I don't know if Eddie visited Hebron down in Pine Needles but I am sure the Flying Wedges came from Holenone. Nobody in TGM teaches the Flying Wedges like Holenone does or even realizes the treasure it is.
If Eddie did pick-up the wedges from Mike - I tip my hat to him.

 

[rundmc]

quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

quote:Originally posted by rundmc

quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

Herbon did not attend the Pine Needles workshop. He might have been out of town.

Is he pretty well versed on TGM? In my lesson with him, he had me doing some things to get "on plane." Also, he had me hit some right arm only pitches just bending the elbow. He however did not mention or stress a LEVEL right wrist or not cocking the right wrist. ECox demonstrated the WEDGES to me. Didn't get this from Hebron. So I didn't know if he had been schooled on it or not. He has moved away from a highly technical approach to teaching. He suggested that I read the new Chuck Hogan books. I'm just not sure that you can get technique through osmosis.

It was a very good and interesting lesson. And above that he was a heck of a nice guy.

I never met Hebron and only know of him through his books and web site. I don't know if Eddie visited Hebron down in Pine Needles but I am sure the Flying Wedges came from Holenone. Nobody in TGM teaches the Flying Wedges like Holenone does or even realizes the treasure it is.
If Eddie did pick-up the wedges from Mike - I tip my hat to him.

Oh no! Sorry I misled you. Hebron didn't show me the wedges. That was Eddie. Hebron said zip nothing nada about wedges. Eddie on the other hand can teach the wedges like nobody's biddness. And Yoda advised me to see Eddie because he's just down the road from me. I'm lucky as heck too! E is a phenomenal teacher. I have seen him 4 times and each time I come away with at least 2 valuable thoughts/changes. He knows it and can teach it.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. Also this was not to dis Hebron. just didn't know if he was from the Yoda School or the Ben School so to speak.

 

[6bee1dee]

No problem and if you remember my first post to you over on Chuck's when I saw where you from was to .... go see Edge. I'm glad you did.

 

[rundmc]

quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

No problem and if you remember my first post to you over on Chuck's when I saw where you from was to .... go see Edge. I'm glad you did.

Actually I remember that one and several others, which all have been helpful. Thanks!

 

[Ringer]

Still waiting.

 

[wallywonga]

Mizjoe, firstly I will apologise in advance for the high probability of errors in my response, it was the works Christmas bash last night and I am to say least struggling to tie my laces let alone offer a creditable response.

I'm pretty much convinced by now that you are convinced that Homer is right and I plus the scientific community are wrong.

But consider this, Homer in chapter 2 (and like a hung-over numpty I left TGM at home so can't reference all that well) mentions the fact that the club head will slow down by 70% due to the violent collision with the ball.

He states that we can offset this slow down by way of centrifugal force and a pre stressed shaft.

Ok that sounds reasonable but if we remove the shaft and fire a club head at the ball independent of the shaft we, if we use the C&S results can expect to loose at most 5 yds. That is hardly game wrecking stuff.

The way it is described in the book you would expect almost total loss of compression or that is how I interpreted it any how.

You also say in your response to Mandrin that he should have his paper reviewed and validated to make it creditable. Who reviewed and validated Homers claims? I would be very interested to know the answer to that one so please find out.

The C&S study plus the Centrifugal Force and the Planar Golf Swing study - B. Lowe and I.H. Fairweather - Melbourne Australia have both been conducted under accepted test conditions, verified and left open to pier scrutiny.

Please show me who where and when Homers assumption were.

As a coach, and one who has been awarded and recognised by the PGA as a top 10 graduate of the PGA training programme, not quite to Brians standards I know but I am 26 and working on it. I see the benefit in Homers intent, plus prior to my finding to the contrary it was a powerful image to convey to the student.

Imagery in teaching is far more powerful a tool than description alone.

Look at it in this light. I have on many occasions debated the subject of what influences the starting direction of the ball, path of club face. To back up my corner I have sighted the findings of Bob Bush, Homer, C&S, professor Donald Beasley and PGA independently commissioned studies. They all state that the face of the club has the greater influence of the starting direction of the ball. The response I normally get is, yes but John Jacobs says in his book that the opposite happens and why is it that when I swing to the right the ball starts there and curves left. Well yes the fact was that the ball did do that, but what you thought created it was a little different o your intuitive assumption.

The fact that being in a certain position at impact will improve the compression of the ball has never been in doubt, the image that Homer conveyed has I’m sure helped many. But as it sits in the statement of principal section of the book, the area which claims to be based on scientific fact should it not be correct?

Any way all this thinking is adding to my already sore head.

Regards

Wally

 

[MizunoJoe]

wallyw,

Homer doesn't state that the ball collision causes the clubhead to slow down by 70%. He says that the ball gets only 70% of the Impact speed of the clubhead. And he says two more significant things - the BEST you can do for a separation clubhead speed is 80% of the Impact speed and that the ball gets 100% of this separation speed. The highest possible separation speed is realized with a stressed shaft to resist the ball weight and a flat left wrist which prevents the handle from backing up.

 

[wallywonga]

Morning joe, nice to see you up early and posting.

Apologise for the innacuracies in my post you are of course correct in what you said.

Lets say the 5yds difference in the C&S study was due to a pre stressed shaft. And as this equates to about 2.5% difference. Would you not agree that Homer felt a pre stressed shaft had more of an affect at impact than this?

Thats cetainly the way I read it.

Why also does the head attached with a free moving hinge not move backward in the photos to accompany the study. If the ball was really going to deflect the shaft this much why does the head not get flung back?

Out of curiosity have you got SPS? If so perhaps you could take a look at the pictures and the report.

I shall once again right their conclusion and leave at that for now.

At any rate the experiment proved, to the satisfaction of the scientists, the point which theory had strongly suggested: during impact the clubhead acts as though quite disconnected from the player.

Regards

Wally

 

[rundmc]

quote:Originally posted by wallywonga



I shall once again right their conclusion and leave at that for now.

At any rate the experiment proved, to the satisfaction of the scientists, the point which theory had strongly suggested: during impact the clubhead acts as though quite disconnected from the player.

Regards

Wally

Wally,

Thanks for your post. I'm trying to get my brain around this.

How are we defining "impact?" Is it the precise moment that the club collides with the ball? Or from "release" to impact to seperation?

Through impact the clubhead acts as though disconnected from the player. So for the very precise moment in time regardless of how we define impact, the player has no control. BUT does the player have control PRIOR to impact? Can the player manipulate force, CF, energy or whatever prior to impact to be sure that impact is precise and the ball as a result is controlled? If the player can control force prior to impact via manipulating the forces that will act on the clubhead and the shaft, through what means can he do this? Hands? Shoulder? Butt? Liver?

Are we saying here that you could strike a golf ball just as effectively with a clubhead tied to a rope? Is the clubhead due to the way it is attached to the shaft not also a lever? Would the properties of the the shaft not be instrumental in controlling how this lever is used? I'm pretty sure that the clubhead rotates around the sweet spot and this rotation is an additional multiplier in ball seperation velocity.

Heck if I know.

Where can you find the Bob Bush studies?

Thanks man!

Regards,

R

 

[MizunoJoe]

wallyw,

I don't have C&S, but was quoting the statement by mandrin that hinge HARDLY slanted back. "Hardly" means it DID move back according to him. Again, Homer didn't quantify the benefit of resisting the ball with a stressed shaft, and I don't read it the way you do. I think of it exactly as I do about bending the left wrist through Impact - a tiny bit is NOT acceptable. I'm not familiar with "SPS".

By the way, I do have the John Jacobs book. He teaches to move the arms down independently of the right shoulder from the top, which throws away #4 accumulator.

 

[wallywonga]

Well Joe, it looks like we finally agree on something

I dont like that move by JJ either.

I have seen him in action though and he does do some remarkable things.

If you saw the pictures you would really understand what hardly is. I had to really look hard to notice any change from frame to frame. It must be somwhere in the region of 2/8 of an inch.

Wally.