Release

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the record... I could care less if someone wants to swing their golf club like a "girly man". If they want to slow their hands prior to impact that fine by me... just so long as the don't want to always be teeing off from the ladies tee too. There is a reason Tiger is #1. He's the picture of fitness. I seriously doubt he has slowing hands. As for some of the others though... How those tubs of lard are even able to make it through a round is beyond me. I bet they've got slowing hands.... especially by the end of the day. Whatever... its not the end of the world if someone does. Just one of the (many) details that separates the good from the well... not so good.

Maybe we can tell if the hands slow by this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyB1efobZZA
 
Brian, Mandrin, et al,

Photographic evidence exists to prove that the hands, indeed, slow down just prior to and thru impact. In Chapter 7 of Joe Dante's book, "The Four Magic Moves to Winning Golf", there are two multiflash photographs taken by Harold F. Edgerfon that show without any doubt that the hands do slow down thru impact. Difficult to argue with pictures. If it weren't for fear of copyright violations, I would be glad to post them here. Barring that, here is a link to said photos.

http://www.newgolfswing.com/newgolfswing08.php
Just scroll down about half way to find the refereced photos.
 
Last edited:

nmgolfer

New member
Again...

The fact that one (or more) golfer's hands happen to slow down does not in anyway shape or form prove all golfer's hands can do or SHOULD slow down. Indeed credible test results PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt to all but the most afflicted of cognitive dissonance sufferers that NOT ALL golfer's hands slow down (see previous discussion).

I have said many times if not on this forum elsewhere that (I consider) Dante's book one of the best. However... that does not mean it is without error. The COAM theory has been thuroughly debunked here and elsewhere as has: slowing hands. That stuff's bath water, but you don't throw the baby out with. Same logic applies to the late Ted Jorgenson's efforts.

Its an issue of judgement.... knowing what can and cannot be discerned from any given modeling/analysis approach. I do not believe Ted Jorgensen stepped over the line drawing "leaps of logic" conclusions from what he surely realized was a simplistic math model. Its this judgement that separates the autodidactic from the professional.

Lastly the issue of "constant effort".... It should be obvious to all golfers that the amount of effort they expended varies radically at different stages of the downswing. The best golfer's expend more effort and closer to impact (see Nesbit). Nevertheless some will continue to disagree with these conclusions because this common sense evidence is not consistent with their simple minded math model. For them there is no hope. Stick a fork in them because in this life as soon as you stop learning you're done.

Twain said it best:

"It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that just ain't so."
 
Those Nesbit graphs are out of whack. If the hands' acceleration was as shown in the F5.htm link, there is no way the slope of the hands' velocity in the F4.htm graph would be linear (which is what is shown from about -0.15 seconds to about zero).
dbl,

I reread the paper to verify, since scientists don't make such obvious errors. There is perhaps use of a misleading term, but there is definitely no error.

Referring both to linear speed and linear acceleration one is perhaps inclined to take them to operate in the same direction.

Nesbit is not referring to a tangential acceleration along the trajectory but to the total linear acceleration acting at the hands.

This is a vector and it changes considerably in direction throughout the swing. At impact it is directed virtually perpendicular to the trajectory of the hands.

Hence there is a tangential and a normal component to the linear acceleration. At impact it is the normal, the centrifugal acceleration which largely dominates.
 
Oh... one more thing...

Jmessner go here:

http://www.jssm.org/search.php

and search on "nesbit". Start with 3D Kinematics ... then read the Work and Power paper. Its great stuff for the technically inclined.
jmessner,

If you read the paper don’t forget to ponder what Nesbit possibly meant when writing:

“While the club head moves away from the body, the action of the external linear force becomes less directed at speeding up the club and more toward controlling the path of the grip point.”

I have mentioned the same idea in various posts, distinguishing a power phase followed by a control phase. Michael Jacobs uses this approach with his students.

Also very interesting:

-1-
“About the time the club becomes vertical in the down swing, positive gamma torque work is initiated to square up the club head for impact, and positive beta torque work is applied to pitch the club forward. From this position up until the club is roughly parallel with the ground, all the torque work components increase smoothly

-2-
“From the parallel position to impact, which coincides with the uncocking of the wrists, the torque components rapidly decrease. All the torque components pass through zero before impact causing the rotational work to be maximized then decrease by impact. It is at this point that the wrists approximate a “free hinge” configuration as the golfer merely holds on to the club as its momentum carries it to impact.”
(highlighting by mandrin)

In a nutshell:

(-1-) efforts early on in the down swing and

(-2-) a free ride into and through impact

I quite readily agree with Nesbit’s ideas. Some however don’t have much reading skills. :D

BTW, also have a peek at the other paper by Nesbitt, “A Three Dimensional Kinermatic And Kinetic Study Of The Golf Swing”. Nesbit refers in it to the centrifugal acceleration pulling the club outward and through impact. Rather interesting to read. ;)
 

nmgolfer

New member
:) :)

Its nice to see Nesbit finally get his due respect. I've said many times nobody has done a better job analyzing the golf swing than he and his crew (grunt students do most of work).

BTW Acceleration is not Force.

Clearly Nesbit is using the term centrifugal as an adjective which is perfectly acceptable although probably adding to the confusion. Now read Work and Power... Learn what separates the scratch golfer from the rest. It has to with when in the downswing he unleashes his force generators (muscles) ... explains why his hands don't slow down like a girly-man golfers.
 

nmgolfer

New member
Thanks for the advice Brian but I can tell you that ain't gonna happen. Not now not ever (different priorities ... you understand). Say why don't you do one of your utubes and try making your point that way? What exactly is it I just don't get? :) Just a suggestion.
 
Thanks for the advice Brian but I can tell you that ain't gonna happen. Not now not ever (different priorities ... you understand). Say, why don't you do one of your utubes and try making your point that way? What exactly is it I just don't get? :) Just a suggestion.

Great idea
 
Its (almost) impossible to measure hand speed any other way than Nesbit did.

V = (Vx^2 + Vy^2 +Vz^2)^1/2

You cannot get or estimate all three of those components of velocity from a single piece of video footage. Its impossible. Also what were you looking at? Was it an all out driver swing or some little 100 yrd pitch? It does matter. Max club-head speed only matter's with the driver (and perhaps 3 wood). Everything else is a precision shot.

Tiger's swing footage was a full on driver swing.

So, Vx,Vy,Vz are measured at what point exactly? Left Wrist, Left Thumb, Right Pinky, or a modeled connection point? I'm not sure it fully matters, but I was curious.

I mentioned "approximation" because it was just that. The left arm angular rotation speed is what I think most people look at when they say the hand/arm speed slows down at impact. The fact that the best golfer in the world shows this slowdown which is evidently(or is it?) contrary to Nesbit's findings might bother some folks but could be just real world vs theoretical.

Oh... one more thing...

Jmessner go here:

http://www.jssm.org/search.php

and search on "nesbit". Start with 3D Kinematics ... then read the Work and Power paper. Its great stuff for the technically inclined.
Well, I'm technically inclined - I'll have to check this out at some point, but will it make me play better golf? ;)
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
You don't get it???

Thanks for the advice Brian but I can tell you that ain't gonna happen. Not now not ever (different priorities ... you understand). Say why don't you do one of your utubes and try making your point that way? What exactly is it I just don't get? :) Just a suggestion.

The 3D machines can measure hand speed.

They slow for EVERY GOLFER WHO CAN HIT IT A LICK.

If you spent a day or two or several—as I have—on a 3D machine, you'd know that the hands are going to slow.

That's why I have the forum.
 

dbl

New
dbl,

I reread the paper to verify, since scientists don't make such obvious errors. There is perhaps use of a misleading term, but there is definitely no error.

Referring both to linear speed and linear acceleration one is perhaps inclined to take them to operate in the same direction. Nesbit is not referring to a tangential acceleration along the trajectory but to the total linear acceleration acting at the hands.

Mighty fair of you to review the paper to investigate, and then report back. I understand vectors, it's just odd (to me) to have the magnitude (only) presented that way.

So back to the matter at "hand", it seems possible possible that Nesbitt's paper supports offlplane acceleration of the hands increasing near impact while the hands might be slowing tangentially.
 

Bronco Billy

New member
It's All How You Look at it.......

Mighty fair of you to review the paper to investigate, and then report back. I understand vectors, it's just odd (to me) to have the magnitude (only) presented that way.

So back to the matter at "hand", it seems possible possible that Nesbitt's paper supports offlplane acceleration of the hands increasing near impact while the hands might be slowing tangentially.

Interesting.......I'd like to see Someone expand Upon This......ie. offlplane acceleration of the hands increasing near impact while the hands might be slowing tangentially.... Does this Imply that different Views of the Event Yields Different Results....Of Course it Does..... Now Which View/Views Most Represents a REAL Golfer?????:confused:
 

lia41985

New member
I don't understand why this is still debatable?

It would be if the only thing we had to go by were the incongruent views of two technically inclined guys like mandrin and nmgolfer.

However, Brian's spent time in the real world on machines that measure this stuff and his finding support mandrin's theory.

Theory + real-world application = end of this debate

No?
 

Bronco Billy

New member
PITW......

I don't understand why this is still debatable?

It would be if the only thing we had to go by were the incongruent views of two technically inclined guys like mandrin and nmgolfer.

However, Brian's spent time in the real world on machines that measure this stuff and his finding support mandrin's theory.

Theory + real-world application = end of this debate

No?

Well That Settles That...... Enough of this PITW......
 
Mandrin~
*My perspective is that technical papers should have a peer review
*I do not expect a peer review on this forum
*I appreciate how you present information
*While I read and respect other member’s comments, considering the above I focus on the continuity of your posts
*Thanks for your efforts
*Your posts are educational
*Your posts are appreciated.
 
Last edited:
mandrin, how it is going? Are your efforts stirring up some interesting discussions? After all this forum is getting sooooo large, there are certainly at least one or two true aficionados around.

mandrin, surprisingly, the facts are somewhat different. In a nutshell, only Darius showed some genuine interest but tongzilla tells me that my stuff is just old and presents nothing new, birdie_man says it looks interesting but also admits that he really has not read much of it and Brian assures me that, notwithstanding the impression, everybody is fully awake. That’s about it.

mandrin, I seem to remember that not that long ago this forum was quite often hustling and bustling with interesting and vigorous discussions?

mandrin, you might be quite right. But that was before ‘discussions’ and ‘questions’ were merged with the result that any potential subject for discussion is quickly lost, swamped by an incessant stampede of questions, nobody has really the time to answer. The archives are going to be some confusing source of tidbits of information before long.

mandrin, what are you going to do with this thread? You were busy developing some interesting new ideas about the release mechanism in the down stroke.

mandrin, probably just keep them for myself.

mandrin, what do you make of this obvious lack of interest?

mandrin, nowadays people are just out for intellectual fast food, wanting things instantaneously, for free, and without expending much effort. I feel that golfers seem to be in general a rather gullible lot. It explains perhaps partly why golf, intellectually, is such a stagnant business. Year in year out the same subjects - how to definitely cure you slice, or, how to develop true power, etc., etc.. Yet it is all sold readily, this continuous recycling of more of the same, year in year out, ad vitam aeternam.

The audience/users of the forums has changed. It could by cyclical, it might be for good. Either way that's your first hurdle. The second (basically an extension of the first) is that nobody goes to the lesson tee tomorrow better prepared to play golf after reviewing the information.

I'm really on the fence about this level of detail in the golf swing. It's certainly interesting but at some point it has diminishing returns.
 
Mandrin~
*My perspective is that technical papers should have a peer review
*I do not expect a peer review on this forum
*I appreciate how you present information
*While I read and respect other member’s comments, considering the above I focus on the continuity of your posts
*Thanks for your efforts
*Your posts are educational
*Your posts are appreciated.
DOCW3,

It intrigues me that as a golf instructor one can get away with almost anything.
Just throw in the right amount of salesman ship and you will have a gullible clientele.
There is little golf science around and not easily accessible for the average layman.
However, trying to present it in a way many can fathom and peer review is claimed. :rolleyes:
I have no interest or hidden agenda other that simply sharing some of my ideas, but
As long as there is some interaction/appreciation from only a few makes my day.
Thanks indeed for your interesting and intelligent comments and your appreciation.
 
Last edited:
How does it have diminishing returns mongoose???

I'm sure you will be able to hit a golf ball tomorrow, no? (snow aside BTW :))

Regardless, the people who aren't interested will not read it anyway I figure.
 
The audience/users of the forums has changed. It could by cyclical, it might be for good. Either way that's your first hurdle. The second (basically an extension of the first) is that nobody goes to the lesson tee tomorrow better prepared to play golf after reviewing the information.

I'm really on the fence about this level of detail in the golf swing. It's certainly interesting but at some point it has diminishing returns.
2mongoose,

Many often use a computer and frequently drive a car.
Yet, not all want to know what makes them go or tick. :p
Knowledge is a basic corner stone of any descent civilization.
Golf is part of the overall scheme and worthy of consideration. :cool:
Those who are only interested in ready made information, nevertheless,
Depend on those few individuals willing to spend time to develop it. ;)
Brian, on several occasions, mentioned he is becoming a better teacher,
For the simple reason of having access to correct scientific information. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top