Hinge Action, Rate of Closure, and what you SHOULD do with the clubface (p9 pic)
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
Brian has previously shown not much closing (appearance wise) just prior to impact. Post 179 mentions it's closing, but doesn't appear so.
So I decided let's see what the numbers might say
105 mph clubhead
5” before impact
105X5280X12 = 6652800 inches
per hour
=1848 inches per second
so 5 inches in .0027056 seconds
if 2000 deg/sec
that is 5 degrees of closing
SO: can we see that? - possibly with the right equipment. Honestly I was expecting it to be less than 2 degrees and would brush off that anyone can visually see it. Could be a measurement or "line drawing/placement" error.
But no way can a low speed video systems or set of eyeballs capture that.
Admittedly: Above I assume the 2000 deg/sec is happening constantly in that interval. I do not expect anyone to get to 3500 degree/sec and then slow it down to 1200 degree/sec in a few thousandths of a second. Scientific inquiry will yet reveal I'm sure...
ETA: I wonder if anyone could design a robot golfer to do some of these stunts? A hundred years from now, if we are traversing golf courses with a robot hitting for us...how would we design the movements of the clubhead in the impact interval?
So I decided let's see what the numbers might say
105 mph clubhead
5” before impact
105X5280X12 = 6652800 inches
per hour
=1848 inches per second
so 5 inches in .0027056 seconds
if 2000 deg/sec
that is 5 degrees of closing
SO: can we see that? - possibly with the right equipment. Honestly I was expecting it to be less than 2 degrees and would brush off that anyone can visually see it. Could be a measurement or "line drawing/placement" error.
But no way can a low speed video systems or set of eyeballs capture that.
Admittedly: Above I assume the 2000 deg/sec is happening constantly in that interval. I do not expect anyone to get to 3500 degree/sec and then slow it down to 1200 degree/sec in a few thousandths of a second. Scientific inquiry will yet reveal I'm sure...
ETA: I wonder if anyone could design a robot golfer to do some of these stunts? A hundred years from now, if we are traversing golf courses with a robot hitting for us...how would we design the movements of the clubhead in the impact interval?
Last edited:
drewyallop
New
@BM,
Don't you think the strength of the player is a factor here? If a player is used to using a tiny #3 and he's releasing mainly #2 or using mainly velocity power, he is going to max out his clubhead speed with this, lets say 100mph.
If he suddenly changes his #3, makes it as big as possible, and changes his release to a method more consistent with a big #3 which is releasing #3 thru roll or rotational power, don't you think he will find a hard time releasing it because his strength is not yet up to it? So, research will say the bigger #3 will slow down his clubhead speed, say to 90mph.
HOWEVER, the stronger he gets, the more his clubhead speed increases in direct proportion...so he will eventually surpass the 100mph mark with even potential to increase it further...unlike a tiny #3 where increase in strength will not increase clubhead speed proportionately, so you are stuck to 100mph.
#3 works like a gear you know...when you shift to a higher gear (bigger #3), your engine gotta be stronger, correct? But the stronger it gets the more max speed you can achieve. When you shift to a lower gear (smaller #3), your max speed has a limit that is slower...same thing I described above...
So IMO maybe the research is being unfair to a bigger #3?...lol
Last edited:
BM? Any violent comments?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
#1. Since the straightening right wrist would be #5, and Gamma would be #6, where does that leave #3?
#2. Not a big proponent of a big #3 per se. Only really use it when #3 roll is too strong.
Doesn't all that sound like alphabet soup and make Nesbit's Alpha, Beta, and Gamma sound so much easier.
Yup, makes sense.
But ain't there a way to preserve the big #3 despite firing #1? Hate #5, would prefer #1 and #6 while keeping PP#1-4.
#3 is like gamma, so not sure about preserving - a golfer definitely uses it. #1 is a part of alpha, if anything but was defined differently, and #5 was never denied as a motion just not made a power source. Then again LOTs of actual power sources were not included besides these.
As far as "preserve the big #3 despite firing #1": Video from Brian a few days ago showed how early gamma helped the alpha. So, imo, you need to get beyond the idea of a sequence of "independent" and, beg pardon, poorly conceived power sources.
As far as "preserve the big #3 despite firing #1": Video from Brian a few days ago showed how early gamma helped the alpha. So, imo, you need to get beyond the idea of a sequence of "independent" and, beg pardon, poorly conceived power sources.
Thanks. The way I see it now, the more #3, hence more gamma, the less you can close the face and, in itself, doesn't increase clubhead speed at all. However, because sweetspot closes less or becomes harder to close, the more you can give it all you've got from all possible power sources without worrying about closing the sweetspot. So, overall, more gamma is better, though not in itself.
Last edited:
I think your summary may be about right, but I'm not an expert. I can point out that there is a scientific paper saying automatic closing can occur through offplane vectors.
Not sure what you mean in first sentence that more #3 and gamma means you can't close the face. In my view, face closing is 1 to 1 with gamma...of course closing/opening can occur through bending wrists etc, but the main deal is gamma. Btw, Brian's twistaway is an attempt to prevent gamma (or keep it low) and the consequent face opening. And if open at top and doing twistaway on the way down is to get face closed/square.
His "hold the twist" in the downswing sounds a little like what you are saying in the first 1-2 sentences, but I do not totally get your sweetspot idea...but in theory "resistance" from an optimal lineup sounds good.
Not sure what you mean in first sentence that more #3 and gamma means you can't close the face. In my view, face closing is 1 to 1 with gamma...of course closing/opening can occur through bending wrists etc, but the main deal is gamma. Btw, Brian's twistaway is an attempt to prevent gamma (or keep it low) and the consequent face opening. And if open at top and doing twistaway on the way down is to get face closed/square.
His "hold the twist" in the downswing sounds a little like what you are saying in the first 1-2 sentences, but I do not totally get your sweetspot idea...but in theory "resistance" from an optimal lineup sounds good.
Last edited:
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Ok....
Have you ever look ed some good 6DoF 3d?
You hate right wrist straightening?
YOU CAN'T PLAY A LICK WITHOUT IT.
Period.
#3 is NOT like gamma.
It is NOT gamma.
Gamma is a TWIST, #3 is NOT twist.
TWIST is OMITTED in TGM.
Ans so is right wrist straightening.
oy vey
Dariusz J.
New member
Yep. I always wondered how strong must be one's agenda to omit deliberately the strongest and most natural power "accumulator". Try to hit anything strong without a dominant wrist straightening. Wrist flexion gives an enormous RoM which means enormous angular velocity for a held object.
Cheers
I know what gamma is, but may be off on #3, and my cheat sheet says angle formed by left arm...oh..now I see it's not rotation, though there can be turning and rolling. Anyway, I'm totally good with not using that system. never gave a hoot about it other than twas "some" explanation - just didn't fit reality.
eta: being corrected by BM is good, but I disavow knowing #3 well enough. If it is mainly left wrist cock, then I'd say now it is more a part of alpha. But since that whole system is caput for "today's thinkers" it's not an issue I care to dwell on any further. thanks all.
By the way brianid, a while back Brian had a thread on his experiments comparing swings on a 3D machine and by holding and releasing the right wrist...this would be in alpha...and using an agressive alpha added considerably to clubhead speed.
http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...preliminary-enso-findings-brian-manzella.html
eta: being corrected by BM is good, but I disavow knowing #3 well enough. If it is mainly left wrist cock, then I'd say now it is more a part of alpha. But since that whole system is caput for "today's thinkers" it's not an issue I care to dwell on any further. thanks all.
By the way brianid, a while back Brian had a thread on his experiments comparing swings on a 3D machine and by holding and releasing the right wrist...this would be in alpha...and using an agressive alpha added considerably to clubhead speed.
http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...preliminary-enso-findings-brian-manzella.html
Last edited:
Yup, I know R wrist straightening always happens. But intentionally? I'm just saying I hate to intentionally straighten #5.
But don't you think #1 is better while keeping the R wrist bent? This way I believe #4 can continue, #3 can work 100% without power leakage, with #1 adding a LOT of power.
But I understand your point on #5 and gamma. Works side by side? You think gamma can be non-automatic? You think gamma can be non-auto AT THE SAME TIME #5 being non-auto as well? How?
- Status