Recent issue of JAGR.

[drewyallop]

If you have not subscribed to the "Journal of Golf Research" and are interested in the latest developments in golf science, then do so.

Excellent stuff and explodes many of the myths that have held us back. A few examples:

1. Shaft fitting is largely useless (with some qualifications).
2. Review of the book "Golf Anatomy". Stop obssesing over clubs, shafts, balls. planes etc. until you have read this book and tried a few of the excercises. The real source of your swing problems may become immediately evident
3. Good analysis of some problems in the book "The Perfect Golf Swing"
4. Grober on putting aiming point. Interesting technique but may be too slow in actual play
5. Many clues as to how and why the thinking in the BM organisation evolves.

I see in this forum many questions and debates on subjects that science has already investigated. I sense a reluctance to engage with the science and rely instead on anecdote, personal opinion and outdated theories. More fun but of little value in my view.

Drew

 

[finncox]

I'm most interested in # 1. What exactly do they mean by shaft fitting being "useless" ??

 

[dannyc]

I'm most interested in # 1. What exactly do they mean by shaft fitting being "useless" ??

me too

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I would imagine we need to subscribe and read.

 

[JDMAC]

#2 - guys who wrote it work with Sean Foley. Core Golf Academy I believe is his Jr. Academy in FLA.

 

[natep]

Link to said journal?

 

[willgolfer]

Link to said journal?

The Journal of Applied Golf Research - The Future of Golf


Subscribe link here --> The Journal of Applied Golf Research - The Future of Golf

 

[drewyallop]

Link

The Journal of Applied Golf Research - The Future of Golf

Regarding shafts, "useless" is too strong. Trying to get your attention. But the paper makes it clear that only minor speed gains result in tailoring a shaft to a swing.

As Jim implies you will have to subscribe to get the full picture.

Drew

 

[drewyallop]

#2 - guys who wrote it work with Sean Foley. Core Golf Academy I believe is his Jr. Academy in FLA.

Don't know about this. But the book has turned my head around. I thought I was in pretty good shape what with yoga and weights. Wrong. An hour trying some of the exercises revealed four areas where my golf mobility was crap. Humiliating but now I know what I need to work on.

Point is if you want to develop a consistent, injury free swing there really is no alternative to putting in significant conditioning time especially if you are old. This book shows you how to do it.

Drew

 

[dannyc]

Regarding shafts, "useless" is too strong. Trying to get your attention. But the paper makes it clear that only minor speed gains result in tailoring a shaft to a swing.

Drew

But there are other benefits to shaft fitting than "speed"

 

[drewyallop]

But there are other benefits to shaft fitting than "speed"

Yes. The research does not rule out subjective benefits from things like different feel, timing and so on. Point is why change shafts if there is no significant improvement in clubhead velocity (barring that it just feels better)?

Drew

 

[natep]

Yes. The research does not rule out subjective benefits from things like different feel, timing and so on. Point is why change shafts if there is no significant improvement in clubhead velocity (barring that it just feels better)?

Drew

Trajectory

 

[Frans@France]

The paper is not a research as such but is the development of a dynamic model. It has some weird assumptions and as such I have trouble accepting the findings of its model. IMHO some of the assumptions are completely wrong and he should have done more research in the literature.

 

[mjstrong]

"With respect to the execution of a golf drive, spin rate is primarily a function of club head loft (including dynamic loft), while launch angle is a function of both club head loft and club head path (Winfield & Tan, 1994)."

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with everything in that paper (see above), but do think there's a bunch of good info in there.

 

[drewyallop]

The paper is not a research as such but is the development of a dynamic model. It has some weird assumptions and as such I have trouble accepting the findings of its model. IMHO some of the assumptions are completely wrong and he should have done more research in the literature.

Frans,

Why don't you write JAGR with your criticisms. I am sure the author would be happy to respond.

With respect to dynamic swing models, Zick has developed a model as well. I think that model may have provided a number of insights for the Manzella group e.g. force across the shaft.

Point is I don't think that developing a model disqualifies the work as research, especially if the model correlates well with experiment, as I believe Zick's does.

As a matter of interest, what assumptions do you not agree with?
Drew