Seriously good impact video (and a Manzella Still)
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
birly-shirly
New
Sure (although I suspect that the further from the handle that you travel into the body, the harder it is to rotate the clubface quickly). However, that must be a secondary question.
Surely, you'd first want to know HOW MUCH the clubface is rotating, and then HOW MUCH that rate of rotation varies between players.
You might then want to look for whether there's a correlation between rate of rotation (if indeed it varies) and having consistent control of face angle (and of course, there could be outliers with high rates of closure but very consistent, or vice versa).
Only then, I'd suggest, would you want to look for the causes of clubface rotation.
Does that make sense?
Surely, you'd first want to know HOW MUCH the clubface is rotating, and then HOW MUCH that rate of rotation varies between players.
You might then want to look for whether there's a correlation between rate of rotation (if indeed it varies) and having consistent control of face angle (and of course, there could be outliers with high rates of closure but very consistent, or vice versa).
Only then, I'd suggest, would you want to look for the causes of clubface rotation.
Does that make sense?
Todd Dugan
New
No way you can make a case that less clubface rotation, relative to the direction that the clubhead is traveling, allows more "consistency" of clubface-to-path delivery at impact. Hogan rolled the blade open more than 90*.....Annika, the "classic" 90*. Nobody was more accurate than those two.
That "something else" is, as Jack Nicklaus put it, RECIPROCATING arm, hand and wrist movements on the downswing from the backswing.
Here's the way I see things going down........As the golfer transfers the energy from the body through the arms and into the club, the shaft bends forward, the hands slow, and the clubface takes up its position on the plane, and then, about 3 feet from the ball, you can "turn out the lights".....the clubhead begins a planar orbit as a free body. The clubface is stable on that plane, and there ain't a darn thing the golfer could do to change what is about to occur at impact.
But make no mistake....the clubhead is rotating around axes...........so the clubhead trajectory is never linear in this planar phase. But as Finney said, the radius can increase, if only temporarily. One thing that would do that is a slowing or cessation of the bending at the hands. But that doesn't go too well with the "new release" stuff. And that's clearly not what many great players are doing anyway. But in leiu of that, I don't see how the clubhead radius can suddenly "grow" when the axis of the shoulders/arms is stable/fixed.
That "something else" is, as Jack Nicklaus put it, RECIPROCATING arm, hand and wrist movements on the downswing from the backswing.
Here's the way I see things going down........As the golfer transfers the energy from the body through the arms and into the club, the shaft bends forward, the hands slow, and the clubface takes up its position on the plane, and then, about 3 feet from the ball, you can "turn out the lights".....the clubhead begins a planar orbit as a free body. The clubface is stable on that plane, and there ain't a darn thing the golfer could do to change what is about to occur at impact.
But make no mistake....the clubhead is rotating around axes...........so the clubhead trajectory is never linear in this planar phase. But as Finney said, the radius can increase, if only temporarily. One thing that would do that is a slowing or cessation of the bending at the hands. But that doesn't go too well with the "new release" stuff. And that's clearly not what many great players are doing anyway. But in leiu of that, I don't see how the clubhead radius can suddenly "grow" when the axis of the shoulders/arms is stable/fixed.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Left Wrist rotation (pronation-supniation) AT IMPACT on the PGA TOUR : 1236°s -2093°s
THEY ARE ALL CLOSING IT, and it ain't closing slow.
Now all this speed BARLEY moves the clubface....see video and pic in thread starter.
So, basically, worrying about it is barking up the wrong tree.
And, it is all SUBJECT and PATTERN dependent!!!
THEY ARE ALL CLOSING IT, and it ain't closing slow.
Now all this speed BARLEY moves the clubface....see video and pic in thread starter.
So, basically, worrying about it is barking up the wrong tree.
And, it is all SUBJECT and PATTERN dependent!!!
Check your grip.
lia41985
New member
Is this a good answer because of this:
and that in turn to my implies that the geometric center may be somewhere near the grip end of the club when it's positioned at address?
birly-shirly
New
Well, it looks like my maths wasn't too far out then!
Now, I get that this is subject and pattern dependent. But one end of that range is rotating between 1.5 and 2 times faster than the other. Dariusz made a good point that it's rotation relative to the path which really counts - but wouldn't it be an advantage to have a clubface closing through impact only 60% as fast as your competitor?
lia41985
New member
I would think no if you swung on a relatively flatter vertical swing plane and can hit it in the sweetspot (play a lick).
birly-shirly
New
Not sure I understand lia - can you expand on what you're thinking?
Todd Dugan
New
What do these numbers mean? How is the wrist rotation measured?
lia41985
New member
birly,
Sorry, that was very unclear. Let me offer some examples and explain further on what I'm thinking. Take Rickie Fowler:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QluXXHxumuU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
His downswing is on a very shallow plane and those who talk about closure rates and pay close attention to them in their models and analyses would say he has a lot of closure. Now take someone like Jim Furyk, a player who the same analysts would say doesn't have much closure:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nonPCWlWuzY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here are Fowler and Furyk are at address and impact:
Both have "raised the handle"/"stood the club up"/have the club returning at a steeper lie angle at impact than at address which will close the face. If you look at just the appearance of the face in isolation on two-dimensional video without the kinetic data, it looks like there's a difference in closure rates. But the clubface rotation rate, however you want to measure that, is going to depend on the rotation rates of a lot of different body segments and while Furyk's closure seems to be less than Fowler's, that may not be the case. If you're "rotating hard" and keeping the "club face stable" you're not lessening clubface rotation, you're making an effort at synchronizing the acceleration rates of the clubface with the rotation rates of different body segments and that may be complete folly given the different distances and locations the club and the differing body parts have to move. I hope that's more clear.
Sorry, that was very unclear. Let me offer some examples and explain further on what I'm thinking. Take Rickie Fowler:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QluXXHxumuU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
His downswing is on a very shallow plane and those who talk about closure rates and pay close attention to them in their models and analyses would say he has a lot of closure. Now take someone like Jim Furyk, a player who the same analysts would say doesn't have much closure:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nonPCWlWuzY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here are Fowler and Furyk are at address and impact:
Both have "raised the handle"/"stood the club up"/have the club returning at a steeper lie angle at impact than at address which will close the face. If you look at just the appearance of the face in isolation on two-dimensional video without the kinetic data, it looks like there's a difference in closure rates. But the clubface rotation rate, however you want to measure that, is going to depend on the rotation rates of a lot of different body segments and while Furyk's closure seems to be less than Fowler's, that may not be the case. If you're "rotating hard" and keeping the "club face stable" you're not lessening clubface rotation, you're making an effort at synchronizing the acceleration rates of the clubface with the rotation rates of different body segments and that may be complete folly given the different distances and locations the club and the differing body parts have to move. I hope that's more clear.
lia41985
New member
Hence why there's "well-timed release" and why the 10,000 hour rule applies in golf and why you gotta practice, practice, practice. There's no shortcuts, promises from some instructors be damned.
This thread is, like most on this site, extremely interesting to me; however, I am left with the nagging feeling of plus ca change....
It seems that the clubhead can open and close like a screen door in a hurricane, - or not, as the case may be - but as long as you can get your body to get the club to get the ball to where you're aiming on a consistent basis, with all the desirable sub-plots firmly in place, then it really is extraneous: You may as well think about what your earlobes are doing at impact, as think about closure rates.
Love all the chit-chat about it, I really do, but can we grab any practicable use from it? I could very well be wrong and it could be a well-spring, and maybe I'm not smart enough to extrapolate beyond the nascency of it all: (The chances of this being the case are quite high!!
,) but where would we go to from where we are now?
It seems that the clubhead can open and close like a screen door in a hurricane, - or not, as the case may be - but as long as you can get your body to get the club to get the ball to where you're aiming on a consistent basis, with all the desirable sub-plots firmly in place, then it really is extraneous: You may as well think about what your earlobes are doing at impact, as think about closure rates.
Love all the chit-chat about it, I really do, but can we grab any practicable use from it? I could very well be wrong and it could be a well-spring, and maybe I'm not smart enough to extrapolate beyond the nascency of it all: (The chances of this being the case are quite high!!
,) but where would we go to from where we are now?birly-shirly
New
Thanks Lia - I think I understand better what you're driving at. Although isn't a large part of what you're saying really that how something looks on video from certain angles, and measured from certain positions in the swing - can be misleading as to what is actually happening at the ball?
I'm intrigued at the figures that Brian quoted - specifically the range. 12 - 20000 */sec sounds like big numbers, and maybe they are. But it's the issue of the range, which I think is quite broad, that I think is interesting - particularly on the basis that I expect these numbers to have been properly measured, and not just the guesstimate of an announcer.
I agree, if this is part of what you're saying, that a more shallow VSP might DEMAND more clubface rotation (measured relative to the target line).
I still think this is an interesting area. We have a better idea of what causes good shots. I think there's a lot to be done on what causes "typical" bad shots, which factors remain fairly consistent from shot to shot, and which are more variable.
I'm intrigued at the figures that Brian quoted - specifically the range. 12 - 20000 */sec sounds like big numbers, and maybe they are. But it's the issue of the range, which I think is quite broad, that I think is interesting - particularly on the basis that I expect these numbers to have been properly measured, and not just the guesstimate of an announcer.
I agree, if this is part of what you're saying, that a more shallow VSP might DEMAND more clubface rotation (measured relative to the target line).
I still think this is an interesting area. We have a better idea of what causes good shots. I think there's a lot to be done on what causes "typical" bad shots, which factors remain fairly consistent from shot to shot, and which are more variable.
I would agree that grip "might" have something to do with it, but I would also check to see where the handle is pointed at address in relation to your body. On overly forward handle can result in a closed face at impact if you've ever been a handle dragger for a while and you're trying to go normal for the first time.
birly-shirly
New
This thread is, like most on this site, extremely interesting to me; however, I am left with the nagging feeling of plus ca change....
It seems that the clubhead can open and close like a screen door in a hurricane, - or not, as the case may be - but as long as you can get your body to get the club to get the ball to where you're aiming on a consistent basis, with all the desirable sub-plots firmly in place, then it really is extraneous: You may as well think about what your earlobes are doing at impact, as think about closure rates.
Love all the chit-chat about it, I really do, but can we grab any practicable use from it? I could very well be wrong and it could be a well-spring, and maybe I'm not smart enough to extrapolate beyond the nascency of it all: (The chances of this being the case are quite high!!
Oliver - fair comments, but think about this. For all the chat there's been recently about the effect of toe or heel misses, I'm not sure that there have been ANY concrete suggestions for how to control that part of impact (other than monitoring what's really happening with impact tape or a sharpie, and maybe look at clubfitting).
I'd guess that we know far more about why the face opens or closes than we do about why we might clank the occasional one off the toe.
- Status