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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
Brian Manzella said:
Dariusz...

I just KNEW you couldn't be for the strong grip, manipulation swing.


It's not MY fault you wanted to call it "rate of closure."

We cool.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's OK.
I called it RoC because it is a RoC for the very ball; the ball "does not know" if someone holds the rotation off deliberately or just delays crossover because of great pivot. That's why the RoC in case of Furyk's ball is better than Els's ;)

Cheers
 
gmbtempe

gmbtempe

New
Brian Manzella said:
Dariusz...

I just KNEW you couldn't be for the strong grip, manipulation swing.


It's not MY fault you wanted to call it "rate of closure."

We cool.
Click to expand...

This is a complete straw man statement, if your trying to swing like Dustin Johnson or Robert Garrigas I am not sure you would have a "manipulation" swing. If its slower because its happening later doesn't that mean, between the same parallels, the club face is turning different amounts, thus the word "rate" seems to make a lot of sense to me?
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
welshdentist said:
Better in what way? Genuine question.....

Better to hit it straighter but shorter?

Straighter and longer?
Click to expand...

We did not start to speak about length vs. accuracy in this thread, didn't we ? I said better RoC in the sense slower RoC which is obvious in 4-D world. Do not ask why, think yourself.

Cheers
 
gmbtempe

gmbtempe

New
welshdentist said:
Better in what way? Genuine question.....

Better to hit it straighter but shorter?

Straighter and longer?
Click to expand...

I would argue the reason why Furyk is a bit shorter than Els, and I think they are similar in age, might be Ernie is a beast, like 6-4, 240. And of course Furyk is much straighter.

The slower rate of closure, IMO, does not mean you will lose any distance.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Greg....

You lose distance with less rate of closure, you lose distance with handle-dragging, you lose distance with a leftward shifting backswing pivot, you lose distance with a low angle from the left arm to the club (#3 accumulator angle).
 
gmbtempe

gmbtempe

New
Brian Manzella said:
Greg....

You lose distance with less rate of closure, you lose distance with handle-dragging, you lose distance with a leftward shifting backswing pivot, you lose distance with a low angle from the left arm to the club (#3 accumulator angle).
Click to expand...

So your saying that Dustin Johnson is losing distance with the swing, he probably has less roll than anyone on tour?

 
S

spktho

New
A higher swing speed automatically results in a higher "rate of closure" of the club face.

So......

The easiest way to decrease the "rate of closure" is to decrease your swing speed.:cool:
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
I agree Mike....


Wouldn't like to see the ENSO-pro numbers on these two?? Line drawing MUST lie....


fowlervsdustin.jpg
 
G

GeoffDickson

New
Brian Manzella said:
Let's see if ANYONE gets the point I am trying to make with this pic.....
Click to expand...

This RoC conversation is all about nothing and that there are hundreds of more important aspects of the golf swing that we should be trying to understand and implement. If too much RoC or not enough RoC really is your biggest golf problem in golf, then you have very little, maybe even nothing to worry about.
 
D

dbl

New
But...Heard two different instructors on two consecutive shows tonight on GC say to hold off closing the face for certain shots, like knockdowns etc....even eliminate ANY closing of the face...

In the first case discussed, the player was closing the face too much, so it wasn't necessary IMO to redo their whole swing 10 different ways (as they did) but just change the face position at the top (or in the grip...)...and let them close as they had been.
 
Last edited:
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
Again, we need to separate slower RoC achieved deliberately from an unintentional one linked to delay of crossover.
I can bet that in the first case there is a noticeable loss of SS (similar to handle dragging or another conscious manipulation of this type) and I agree fully with Brian.
OTOH, even if we conclude that the zenith of SS occurs in the middle of crossover of forearms, in the latter case the SS loss is microscopic. Surely not worth mentioning in view of obvious advantages a strongly pivot-subdued swing ensures.

Cheers
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
GeoffDickson said:
This RoC conversation is all about nothing and that there are hundreds of more important aspects of the golf swing that we should be trying to understand and implement. If too much RoC or not enough RoC really is your biggest golf problem in golf, then you have very little, maybe even nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

I think you do not understand the merits of the discussion or you look into them only through prism of conscious slowing down of some natural biophysical processes. If it is scientifically prooved that pivot-subdued swings ensure slower RoC naturally and that the slower RoC in the impact zone is the more consistent are results (what I am almost certain of having no scientific proofs) -- it would be a great asset for the whole golf instruction.

Cheers
 
gmbtempe

gmbtempe

New
GeoffDickson said:
This RoC conversation is all about nothing and that there are hundreds of more important aspects of the golf swing that we should be trying to understand and implement. If too much RoC or not enough RoC really is your biggest golf problem in golf, then you have very little, maybe even nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

again, its a theory/mechanics discussion, why not talk about golf swing theory in a thread about a golf swing theory?
 
natep

natep

New
Damn, I thought we might have moved this "stalling" discussion forward at least a half an inch forward in the last month but apparently not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top