Should have engaged his spine engine...

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
What I love is if someone said they're playing great and the reason was pulling away and getting the arms off the chest the misfits would still have something to say. It's priceless and never ending entertainment.
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
He's a direct question for Richie. We'll see if his hatred of Manzella is greater than his fear of Jeffy. Do you think it's logical or totally misinformed to use my Open Sectional results as something to use against Brian Manzella as an indictment against anything he or I teach? A 42 year old teaching pro on no practice rounds on two Open setups in high winds shoots 70 on a course where I think 5 guys broke par? Is it a good stance to take or is he out of his mind. Are those results so bad that whatever Brian Manzella teaches must be totally inferior to Lordosis?
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
OK - I read it.

Let's start…..

"statisticians" is the correct spelling….

Club manufacturers often make the areas of the club face surrounding the "sweet spot" less thick to create the desired trampoline effect - not the other way around….this nullifies about 1/4 of the entire 30,000 word article...

Screen protractors on top of phantom video (one camera angle phantom video, mind you) is GOLF "RESEARCH" MALPRACTICE

Just because a company cites "max compression" as a point where measurement/calculations are made doesn't make it gospel…..the max deformation point is a convenient mid point in a dynamic collision that a golf teacher/researcher can use to help people understand the complex event……it is my belief that the 450 microseconds of impact create 450 separate but very related D plane wedges that, when considered in their entirety, will give you an accurate idea where ball flight will occur……all of the repeated blather in the article is accounted for in these 450 D plane wedges…..

"Closed to open" full golf swings do not exist - once again the author confuses the reader by not explaining his frame of reference…..this piggyback's Mike Duffey's initial comment about impact's deflection of the club's COM on negative and positive angles of attack…..this also happens with regard to horizontal face closure….the rate of closure is either slowed or sped up by contact point in relation to path and pre impact ROC…..

The entire "Revisiting the Gear Effect study" focused on some high speed stills of a toe hit drive…..he seemed to get excited that the club face actually closed during the interval in spite of the eventual opening it would experience after the ball had completely launched….

Kelvin, your understanding of acceleration is evidently limited - the club face is closing at a certain rate, a force (in this instance the ball is exerting a force back onto the face) is introduced that slows this closure rate……the toe contact DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY reverse the closing….it slows it at a certain rate, stops it completely at some point, and then reverses it by the time the ball is launching from the face….

This is the EXACT same problem you had with the angular velocity slowing of the pelvis with 2D video…..you have a fundamental problem with gerunds….. acceleratING, deceleratING….c'mon
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
Direct quote from the village idiot's teacher:

"The edges of your driver head are designed to be denser than the center in order to create the higher coefficient of restitution."

Exact opposite, Krakatoa.....

Kelvin's incorrect premise (the top of the face and its hard edge somehow is denser than the middle of the face) leads Kelvin to another one of his incorrect conclusions - watch the first 2:20 seconds to watch it unfold.

 
Frans@France

Frans@France

New
quote from Tom Wishon
High COR and really good off center hit performance do not tend to go hand in hand together. High COR is determined by getting the CENTER of the face to flex inward to the limit. Good off center hit performance is determined by getting the outer areas of the face to flex inward as much as possible while keeping the center face flexing within the COR limit.

Of course having a higher MOI Izz for the head is helpful for off center hit performance as well. But high MOI is really not that much of a helper with fwy woods and hybrids because these heads are so much smaller than a driver head, and from that, you just cannot push the MOI up very high on such smaller size heads.

<b>From my experience, making the face to be variable thickness (thicker center with thinner perimeter) is the number one way to make the outer areas of the face flex more while keeping the center face flexing within the COR limits.</b>

But here again, the fact that fwy woods and hybrids are so much smaller in face area than a driver puts some limits on how much you can do with a variable thickness face for making the off center face areas flex inward more.

It's actually a little easier to get a variable thickness face design to work on IRON face than on a fwy wood face. The reason is because fwy wood faces are much more shallow and wide while irons tend to be a little taller and not as wide. This all gets into what is considered to be the perfect face shape for a variable thickness face - symmetrically round like a circle versus short and elongated.
Click to expand...
 
Frans@France

Frans@France

New
How Does COR Affect Your Golf Game? | Tom Wishon Golf Technology
The COR rule also became known as the “spring face rule.” This was a little unfortunate because in fact, a higher COR clubface does not really act like a spring. When you think of spring face, it is easy to think that the ball causes the clubface to flex inward, and upon flexing back out the ball is propelled as in the manner of a trampoline sling shotting a gymnast up.

Actually, higher COR faces work like this. In the collision of the clubface and the ball, there is always some energy lost. This is because the face flexes inward and the ball is compressed against the face. Both actions result in a loss of energy. Of the two, the ball loses by far the most energy when a shot is hit because it can squash as much as 30% of its diameter against the face of the driver. In a normal shot hit with an old thick face stainless steel metal wood, scientists estimate that 80% of the energy loss in such an impact came from the ball while the balance of 20% came from the clubhead.

<b>The idea of a higher COR face design, whether done for a driver or any other clubhead, is to allow the face to flex inward a little more so that the ball is not compressed as much against the face. When that happens, the face loses a tiny bit more energy because of its increase in face flexing. But the ball then loses a lot less energy than before because it is compressed so much less because of the slight increase in face flexing.</b>

The net result? The ball takes off at a higher velocity and flies farther for the same clubhead speed and same loft angle on the clubface. Hence high COR means more distance regardless of your clubhead speed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Frans@France

Frans@France

New
wulsy said:
Why don't we just play with harder balls then?
Click to expand...
The real compression rate of the balls nowadays is much higher then ever. This is achieved by using much harder cores. So we do already play with harder balls. Most agree that the real distance gain is from those harder balls...

Please note that all this is only important when you are able to hit it at a minimum of 109mph. The reason is the way the old COR test was designed and how the face inserts where tuned\tweaked around this test procedure.
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
Berdykov continues: "After we collected all the data, we weren't satisfied with the image quality, so we never completed, let alone published, the detailed analyses we had intended, except for a couple of preliminary ones. Our goal is to eventually get two edgertronics and 3D software."

Your goal should be to find unbiased, no agenda biomechanists…every one you run into seems to have some bias against your methods, data, and conclusions….keep searching, Berdykov - someone has to be out there - like an expert witness….someone is always willing to agree with you for the right amount of cash.
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
Do you think that a spokesperson from a publicly traded company is going to go on record about a gambling wager in an email back to a nut job? C'mon, you're not that stupid, are you, Berdykov?
 
W

wulsy

New
Frans@France said:
The real compression rate of the balls nowadays is much higher then ever. This is achieved by using much harder cores. So we do already play with harder balls. Most agree that the real distance gain is from those harder balls...

Please note that all this is only important when you are able to hit it at a minimum of 109mph. The reason is the way the old COR test was designed and how the face inserts where tuned\tweaked around this test procedure.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Frans, very interesting. By "compression rate" do you mean "hardness of elasticity" or in other words "how long it stays compressed"?

I have noticed some funny ball flights when I use maybe a ball I have found in the rough that is aimed at Joe Hacker or has maybe been lying there a while soaking up dampness etc. My CH speed is about 112mph. Would it be fair to assume I should only be using the hardest balls, which is again a total contradiction of the old adage that better players should be using softer balls for more control? What ball do you think is the hardest, and are the guys on tour like Bubba and Phil really using the same balls (ProV1) as we buy in the Pro Shop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top