Hinge Action, Rate of Closure, and what you SHOULD do with the clubface (p9 pic)

[JThompson]

Ok. So back to the OPs post.

The gear effect of a lower Rate of Closure can impart hook spin on a golf ball? The lower the rate of closure at impact the more hook spin?

This information is fascinating but I doubt it is usable for most golfers. Unless you are a golfer capable of some silly consistency on trackman you probably aren't the golfer who will notice the added hook spin from a lower rate of closure. Obviously, if you have a face angle consistency rating of +-1.5 degrees and a path that is similarly inconsistent you have much bigger fish to fry.

It would be interesting to know if the really really consistent golfers (world class consistency) have subconsciously built this into their game. If this is something that they use on a feel basis.

 

[birly-shirly]

What causes the gear effect in FD's example?

Is the (slight) fade spin the result of the clubface rotation whilst in contact with the ball?

 

[bcoak]

Darius,
What part of the body is the only thing touching the club?

 

[mgranato]

Ok. So back to the OPs post.

The gear effect of a lower Rate of Closure can impart hook spin on a golf ball? The lower the rate of closure at impact the more hook spin?

This information is fascinating but I doubt it is usable for most golfers. Unless you are a golfer capable of some silly consistency on trackman you probably aren't the golfer who will notice the added hook spin from a lower rate of closure. Obviously, if you have a face angle consistency rating of +-1.5 degrees and a path that is similarly inconsistent you have much bigger fish to fry.

It would be interesting to know if the really really consistent golfers (world class consistency) have subconsciously built this into their game. If this is something that they use on a feel basis.

Ahhh, you must not be aware of a very small, but very talented group of elite high handicappers who can release the face closed to open on command?

 

[gmbtempe]

Less closure during impact MORE HOOK SPIN.

Great news.

Awesome.

We win again.

And again.

and again....

At impact? Thats confusing to me in terms of the bigger picture discussion

I had always related the rate of closure as the amount one had to close the club face from say the club parallel position (P6), or just past it, to impact.

Your analysis seems to be focusing mostly on the actual impact interval when the ball is in contact with the face, or there a bouts.

It seems to me the earlier in the swing you can start squaring the club face the less you will have to have it closing very late to get it square, thus the the rate the face is closing being slower when the club is moving the fastest (nearer impact).

 

[drewyallop]

Has Tuxen verified this with a Casio?

Or by gazing at the entrails of a goat humper?

 

[Frans@France]

On an normal shot with about 0.8° of face closure during the entire impact interval, that would mean the club would have first contact with the ball with the face AT 0.0° so that halfway through the interval, the clubface would be 0.4° closed.....
And all of the "less face rotation crowd" might get MORE HOOKS!!!

With an impact duration of 0.0004 seconds and mid-impact would then be 0,0002 seconds with an 0.4° rotation = 2000°/sec

Your face rotation (http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...preliminary-enso-findings-brian-manzella.html) 2771°/sec so that was to fast?......

 

[mjstrong]

The real world effects of this will be very minor but, conceptually, it is very interesting; the more the face closes during the impact interval, the more fade gear effect (which comes from the face rolling closed, normally on a heel strike) we'd expect. It makes sense.

 

[spktho]

Ahhh, you must not be aware of a very small, but very talented group of elite high handicappers who can release the face closed to open on command?

And, Dariusz and gmb, isn't the club moving the fastest from last parallel to jsut past impact? If so, that would mean it would be near impossible to manipulate the face angle away from a movement that had already started. Once a movement to close or to open the face is started before this point, there is no time to change that movement. So, and I don't know if the Enso #'s reflect it, wouldn't the face rotation (RoC) be essentially the same from last parallel to just past the ball(not including the effect the collision of the ball and ground may have on face rotation) as it would during any point on that arc including the impact interval?

Yes gmb, it would then seem to make sense that you need to be doing the correct movements affecting the clubface for squaring at impact very soon in the downswing.

 

[Dariusz J.]

At impact? Thats confusing to me in terms of the bigger picture discussion

I had always related the rate of closure as the amount one had to close the club face from say the club parallel position (P6), or just past it, to impact.

Your analysis seems to be focusing mostly on the actual impact interval when the ball is in contact with the face, or there a bouts.

It seems to me the earlier in the swing you can start squaring the club face the less you will have to have it closing very late to get it square, thus the the rate the face is closing being slower when the club is moving the fastest (nearer impact).

At least one person who understands what I have been talking from the very beginning correctly.

Darius,
What part of the body is the only thing touching the club?

Rhetorical question -- hands. And this is their main task.

And, Dariusz and gmb, isn't the club moving the fastest from last parallel to jsut past impact? If so, that would mean it would be near impossible to manipulate the face angle away from a movement that had already started. Once a movement to close or to open the face is started before this point, there is no time to change that movement. So, and I don't know if the Enso #'s reflect it, wouldn't the face rotation (RoC) be essentially the same from last parallel to just past the ball(not including the effect the collision of the ball and ground may have on face rotation) as it would during any point on that arc including the impact interval?

That is exactly the point. But a crossover release player INTENDS to manipulate the club in the impact zone and, therefore, creates a lot of danger in the fastest part of the downswing. As said many times before -- if anyone is capable to time the pivot stall thanks to some automatism, even crossover release can be less dangerous. The problem I see is that there are no mechanical way to automate pivot stall (that would start automatically the next event in the queue, i.e. throwing arms forward) because it is in the middle of reaching biolimits in the hard structure. I could think, hypothetically, of one -- setting the lead foot angled seriously inward but this is just theoretical divagation.

Cheers

 

[spktho]

That is exactly the point. But a crossover release player INTENDS to manipulate the club in the impact zone and, therefore, creates a lot of danger in the fastest part of the downswing. As said many times before -- if anyone is capable to time the pivot stall thanks to some automatism, even crossover release can be less dangerous. The problem I see is that there are no mechanical way to automate pivot stall (that would start automatically the next event in the queue, i.e. throwing arms forward) because it is in the middle of reaching biolimits in the hard structure. I could think, hypothetically, of one -- setting the lead foot angled seriously inward but this is just theoretical divagation.

Cheers

I think you missed the point. It was actually a very simple question. You said you were not concerned with RoC at the impact interval. What if the impact interval RoC was the same as the RoC from last parallel to just past impact regardless of the type of release? Would the measurement of RoC then be useful?

 

[Dariusz J.]

I think you missed the point. It was actually a very simple question. You said you were not concerned with RoC at the impact interval. What if the impact interval RoC was the same as the RoC from last parallel to just past impact regardless of the type of release? Would the measurement of RoC then be useful?

Now I got it. If we assume this scenario - no, the measurement of RoC would not be useful. But it is rather improbable scenario, don't you think ?

Cheers

 

[Burner]

Has Tuxen verified this with a Casio?

Nah! He got it in an intimate, after the event, conversation with a Goat.

 

[spktho]

Now I got it. If we assume this scenario - no, the measurement of RoC would not be useful. But it is rather improbable scenario, don't you think ?

Cheers

I think it may be very close. Need the Enso data from a large sample of swings.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Less closure during impact MORE HOOK SPIN.

Great news.

Awesome.

We win again.

And again.

and again....

I am talking about TGM hinge action theory here, NOTHING else.

Ask Tuxen, please, if he is capable to measure and analyze the RoC, say, from last parralel before impact to first parallel after impact.

Enso-pro measures anything you want.

It does't work like the example you gave. It will give you measurement at any point in time.

I am really losing patience -- how many times should I say that it is of no friggin importance what is the RoC during the very impact ? What is important about RoC is how long is the part of the circle path when clubface is square to it, how early it becomes square and how late it stops to be square.

Shouldn't your theory, and the theory of EVERY theorist who claims this will help you control the ball better PRODUCE A LOWER NUMBER AT IMPACT?

Shouldn't it?

Shouldn't it?


Otherwise it is just a bunch of fluff.

What causes the gear effect in FD's example?

Is the (slight) fade spin the result of the clubface rotation whilst in contact with the ball?

YES.

At impact? Thats confusing to me in terms of the bigger picture discussion

I had always related the rate of closure as the amount one had to close the club face from say the club parallel position (P6), or just past it, to impact.

Your analysis seems to be focusing mostly on the actual impact interval when the ball is in contact with the face, or there a bouts.

It seems to me the earlier in the swing you can start squaring the club face the less you will have to have it closing very late to get it square, thus the the rate the face is closing being slower when the club is moving the fastest (nearer impact).

I repeat.

Shouldn't the theory of EVERY theorist who claims " the rate of closure as the amount one had to close the club face from say the club parallel position (P6), or just past it, to impact." and therefore help you control the ball better PRODUCE A LOWER NUMBER AT IMPACT?

Shouldn't it?

Shouldn't it?

SHOULDN'T THIS PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO NUMBER at IMPACT????

SHOULDN'T THIS PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO NUMBER at IMPACT????

 

[cwdlaw223]

It should Brian. If Enso starts showing faster closure rates (measured prior to maximum compression - 3', 2', 1' and 4" before impact??) for swings on video that appear to have a slower rate of closer, that would cause a lot of people to re-think their position.

Hopefully this information will come out sooner rather than later. I don't know which way it will turn out but am very curious. You're going to need to put video swings up with Enso numbers for people to believe that what looks like a closure rate on video is actually a faster rate compared to another swing that looks like a faster closure rate but the number is actually lower. I suspect you'll also need to get the same swing speeds to compare rates vs. rates. The faster the speed the faster the rate no matter what.

Timing the clubface is very very difficult which is why it takes 10,000 hours to become a master even at golf. Path is easy to fix and control. Face? That takes a ton of practice.

BTW - Was the gear effect in your example a result impact itself from an off-center hit? If was an on center hit how could there be any gear effect (unless it's at a microscopic level)?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Clay,

No "gear effect" per se.

Just the fact that if the clubface is closing, the ball picks up some fade spin.

 

[cwdlaw223]

Clay,

No "gear effect" per se.

Just the face that if the club is closing, the ball picks up some fade spin.

Don't understand that one unless the face was closing and yet still open to the path at maximum compression. How could the ball have "fade spin" with the face closed to the path and the face causing gear effect as opposed to an off center hit? I don't get it.

 

[Brian Manzella]

As the toe turns toward the ball (closing face) the ball rolls toward the toe, tilting the spin axis slightly.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Maybe if I post this 100 times, someone will answer it....

Shouldn't the theory of EVERY theorist who claims " the rate of closure as the amount one had to close the club face from say the club parallel position (P6), or just past it, to impact." and therefore help you control the ball better PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO CLUBFACE ROTATION NUMBER AT IMPACT?

Shouldn't it?

SHOULDN'T THIS PRODUCE A LOWER ENSO CLUBFACE ROTATION NUMBER at IMPACT????

And if it don't, then what....???

Ball four?