I cannot understand this.....

[Ringer]

From another forum:

2 nm is nothing and it goes negative (resists) before impact for the scratch golfer. The "axis" about which the club head rotates is INCONSEQUENTIAL.

The axis that the clubhead (or clubface) rotates is inconsequential? The argument here is that because the amount required to rotate it is so small that it's inconsequential. To me it is the MOST IMPORTANT torque we could possibly be applying to the club. It is the one that determines where the clubface is aimed at impact. Just because the numerical value is small it seems unreasonable to think it is inconsequential.

 

[footwedge]

From another forum:



The axis that the clubhead (or clubface) rotates is inconsequential? The argument here is that because the amount required to rotate it is so small that it's inconsequential. To me it is the MOST IMPORTANT torque we could possibly be applying to the club. It is the one that determines where the clubface is aimed at impact. Just because the numerical value is small it seems unreasonable to think it is inconsequential.

It's only consequential when your ball is flying all over hell's half acre. but other then that who cares....lol

 

[spktho]

It's only consequential when your ball is flying all over hell's half acre. but other then that who cares....lol

Absolutely. Having struggled with the golf swing for a while after being a decent baseball player, it is easier to control(or keep constant) the clubface, then change the path and other factors controlling ballflight to suit your needs. I never had to control the baseball bat face and didn't figure that out in golf until coming here.

 

[natep]

Ringer,

When the poster says "it goes negative (resists)", does the poster mean that the golfer is using a negative torque to resist the rotation of the club?

 

[dlam]

I find that some describe torque in different ways. Torque as you know is the rotation around an axis. Much like a gear in a transmission. To be clear I perceive positive torque to be the clubshaft moving in a counterclockwise fashion from a right handed golfers perspective. While negative torque the clubshaft is moving in a clockwise direction.

Regardless of the backswing, the FORWARD swing MUST have POSITIVE TORQUE on the shaft in order for any reasonable force.
I think some of the positive rotational forces can be applied linearly as "lag" forces depending on your swing.
I think negative torque (clubshaft rotation clockwise through impact ) is for pitch and chip like shots.

 

[jake2]

From another forum:

The axis that the clubhead (or clubface) rotates is inconsequential? The argument here is that because the amount required to rotate it is so small that it's inconsequential. To me it is the MOST IMPORTANT torque we could possibly be applying to the club. It is the one that determines where the clubface is aimed at impact. Just because the numerical value is small it seems unreasonable to think it is inconsequential.

I have not read the thread, so just some comments that come to mind based on your post.

I agree that the control of the rotational torque can be important for achieving impact alignments.
I've seen this comment about resisting the closing of clubhead (negative torque around the shaft) somewhere before. It makes sense to me that the way the club is constructed it will close without any positive rotational torque (around the shaft) from the player and pivot will also effectively close it, so some players may even resist the rotation around the shaft (negative torque).

Maybe the comment about the axis of rotation refers to whether the correct axisi is around the shaft or on line that goes thorugh grip and sweetspot or somewhere in between. I've tought that the correct axis is the one that goes through sweetspot, but someone might be able to tell better.

 

[Ringer]

I have not read the thread, so just some comments that come to mind based on your post.

I agree that the control of the rotational torque can be important for achieving impact alignments.
I've seen this comment about resisting the closing of clubhead (negative torque around the shaft) somewhere before. It makes sense to me that the way the club is constructed it will close without any positive rotational torque (around the shaft) from the player and pivot will also effectively close it, so some players may even resist the rotation around the shaft (negative torque).

Maybe the comment about the axis of rotation refers to whether the correct axisi is around the shaft or on line that goes thorugh grip and sweetspot or somewhere in between. I've tought that the correct axis is the one that goes through sweetspot, but someone might be able to tell better.

I could only perceive a need to apply negative torque if the grip were strong and we need to resist closing it. Even then it seems a little odd.

Some sort of forearm/upper arm rotation is absolutely required to make the clubface go square unless you have 2x4's for arms that are nailed to your ribcage and they never rotate clockwise as a result. I have not met such a person. Everyone that I have ever watched has had some sort of clockwise and counter clockwise rotation of their arms in the golf swing.

 

[watson08]

Adders & Subtracters

I could only perceive a need to apply negative torque if the grip were strong and we need to resist closing it. Even then it seems a little odd.

Some sort of forearm/upper arm rotation is absolutely required to make the clubface go square unless you have 2x4's for arms that are nailed to your ribcage and they never rotate clockwise as a result. I have not met such a person. Everyone that I have ever watched has had some sort of clockwise and counter clockwise rotation of their arms in the golf swing.

Have you ever heard of the terms "Adders & Subtracters"? Most folks are adders of loft, i.e., they allow what some might call natural CW rotation of the shaft to occur in the downswing. This adds loft/opens the face. Thus, they are adders. Others learn to apply a CCW torque to the shaft coming down and this first resists the opening of the face and then closes it if it's sufficient. This rotation delofts the club, so they are subtracters.

PGAers and good golfers everywhere seem to apply a heck of a lot of this CCW torque to the shaft in the down swing on full shots. Go do a web search and look where PGA player's left hand is when their arms are parallel past impact. The back of their left hand faces the ground. Why? Could it be because they apply CCW arm roation and torque to the shaft throughout the downswing?

While bunker shots, flop shots, and certain chips and pitches need to be played without this torque or even CW torque, I believe CCW torque is a fundamental to ball striking.

 

[jake2]

Have you ever heard of the terms "Adders & Subtracters"? Most folks are adders of loft, i.e., they allow what some might call natural CW rotation of the shaft to occur in the downswing. This adds loft/opens the face. Thus, they are adders. Others learn to apply a CCW torque to the shaft coming down and this first resists the opening of the face and then closes it if it's sufficient. This rotation delofts the club, so they are subtracters.

Club needs to rotate CCW in order for the face to have contact with the ball. I think you are mixing torque and actual rotation.

PGAers and good golfers everywhere seem to apply a heck of a lot of this CCW torque to the shaft in the down swing on full shots. Go do a web search and look where PGA player's left hand is when their arms are parallel past impact. The back of their left hand faces the ground. Why? Could it be because they apply CCW arm roation and torque to the shaft throughout the downswing?

Maybe - mabe not - I do not know. Anyway, I do not think the mechanics are that simple so that that position could be used as reference to what torques happen during the whole downswing.
Unless you have some scientific data on it, I would not make such broad assumptions.

While bunker shots, flop shots, and certain chips and pitches need to be played without this torque or even CW torque, I believe CCW torque is a fundamental to ball striking.

In NSA you apply CCW torque even during backswing, so it's definately not bad.

 

[JON B]

I haven't seen the entire thread so I don't know what the context was, but could it be that the poster meant that the "axis about which the clubhead rotates is inconsequential" to clubhead speed and resulting distance, ie. no effect on compression? I think most of us would agree in that case, but again I don't know the background on the discussion.

 

[SteveT]

The axis that the clubhead (or clubface) rotates is inconsequential? The argument here is that because the amount required to rotate it is so small that it's inconsequential. To me it is the MOST IMPORTANT torque we could possibly be applying to the club. It is the one that determines where the clubface is aimed at impact. Just because the numerical value is small it seems unreasonable to think it is inconsequential.

Do you consciously apply lead arm supination to snap the eccentric clubhead around it's longitudinal axis that goes through the sweet spot? Why would you do that since the club is freewheeling around all axes of the left arm, wrist and hand?

If you think about it, speeding up the axial rotation of the lead forearm to rotate the clubface is useless if not counterproductive. If you hit the ball on the sweet spot, the toe-side of the clubface is rotating into the ball while the heel-side is rotating away from the ball. Surely such corkscrewing of the clubface is wrong..!!!

 

[watson08]

Torque About The Shaft & Clubface Rotation

Club needs to rotate CCW in order for the face to have contact with the ball. I think you are mixing torque and actual rotation.


Maybe - mabe not - I do not know. Anyway, I do not think the mechanics are that simple so that that position could be used as reference to what torques happen during the whole downswing.
Unless you have some scientific data on it, I would not make such broad assumptions.


In NSA you apply CCW torque even during backswing, so it's definately not bad.

Hey Jake. To be sure, I do "feel" like I apply varying amounts of CW/CCW torque about the shaft in backswing/downswing depending on the shot. It is my impression that this "torque" leads to a corresponding rotation of the clubface about the shaft. I can watch it and there it is. Perhaps my understanding and use of the term "torque" is different than yours.