Sustaining the line of compression
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
Tom Bartlett
Administrator
If these two sites both typoed 1/200 for 1/2000 and .005 for .0005 then there you go. I do retract my comment that you got the numbers wrong. Old saying...Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see.
That's a curious comment for scientists, since there is no way for the clubhead to accelerate or stay constant through impact due to ball collision. It MUST slow down. The important thing is how much it slows through impact. It slows a MINIMUM of 20% due to the energy losses of ball collision. But scientific measurements(which mandrin calls "wacky") show that the best players lose about 30% of the impact velo by separation. Where does that extra 10% go? Cushioning of the ball by the clubhead. The more cushioning, the less compression, and a distance loss. How do you minimize the cushioning? - by making a firm connection between the clubhead and the ground.
golfbulldog
New
Thank you for this wonderful soap opera. I enjoy your content Mandrin - although it would have much greater impact, albeit at the cost of "drama", if you, and others, were less sneering toward eachother.
Please can you tell me how your understanding of impact influences your golf swing. The TGM people have their STLOC, flat left wrist etc. based on their understanding of impact. What are the practical applications of your understanding of impact?
Thanks and keep up the emoticon stuff. Pure text can be so "dry" otherwise.
Please can you tell me how your understanding of impact influences your golf swing. The TGM people have their STLOC, flat left wrist etc. based on their understanding of impact. What are the practical applications of your understanding of impact?
Thanks and keep up the emoticon stuff. Pure text can be so "dry" otherwise.
MizunoJoe,
You must live in the "Little Dixie" part of Ok. I live in Duncan and have never heard that saying you quoted.
Tom,
You quoted a USGA source that said a pro with a swingspeed of about 100 mph could deliver a ball speed of about 170 mph. That isn't possible is it? Isn't the max smash factor with today's legal equipment suppose to be 1.47? And could that 1.47 fiqure make us question Homer's calculation about ball/clubface separation speeds that MizunoJoe mentioned?
You must live in the "Little Dixie" part of Ok. I live in Duncan and have never heard that saying you quoted.
Tom,
You quoted a USGA source that said a pro with a swingspeed of about 100 mph could deliver a ball speed of about 170 mph. That isn't possible is it? Isn't the max smash factor with today's legal equipment suppose to be 1.47? And could that 1.47 fiqure make us question Homer's calculation about ball/clubface separation speeds that MizunoJoe mentioned?
mandrin
New
MizunoJoe, you must be desperate and you are an good example of many posters here. They are not there to learn but simply to discredit those who don’t think like their master.
Your attitude is very similar to that of Tom, hurriedly going to the battle ground holding on to any straw to discredit. But like Tom you are making a total fool of yourself.
Thanks Biffer for setting this little trap for MJ, allowing me this precious pleasure, first Tom and now MizunoJoe.
The few lines paraphrased by Biffer have been judiciously chosen, completely out of context, to create a wanted impression. Indeed exactly the opposite of the author’s intention.
There are many pages upon pages with clear cut precise arguments with are exactly opposite the impression Biffer maliciously wants to create.
But let’s just look only at the exact lines including those just before and after. Red emphasizing corresponds to Biffer’s paraphrased line. It is an interesting example of deliberate misinformation.
“An important consequence of the inability of the player to exert any positive influence on the ball during impact, is this: the only dynamic factor that matters in producing distance is clubhead speed. A given clubhead making square contact with the ball at 100 miles per hour will send it the same distance wether it is accelerating, slowing down, or moving at constant speed. It may conceivably help your game to feel you are accelerating through impact, in so far as it may prevent the common fault of reaching maximum clubhead speed too soon; ... But what is certainly not true is that acceleration of the clubhead into impact will produce any effect whatsoever on the ball beyond that produced by the pure speed at which it is traveling; and furthermore, in any full shot, acceleration through impact is a sure sign of wasted effort which could have been used to produce greater speed if it had been expended earlier.”
So it is clear that ‘Biffer’s line’ (red) is very clearly implying, in context, that whatever you are doing with the clubhead prior to impact, it is only the speed which count at the moment of impact.
I can assure that those clever English scientists are very much aware that the clubhead decelerates during impact. Perhaps you should purchase the book. Quite interesting research and experiments.
MJ I hope you realize that you are covering yourself self with ridicule. Golf is so much fun. But for some it has become a pseudo-religion with all the associated rectitude and crippling of free spirit.
It is somewhat strange that the only golf method mentioning mechanics, geometry, etc., hence tending towards a scientific system attracts so many which are heavily into science bashing. Quite a paradox.
Tom Bartlett
Administrator
mandrin
I said they were wrong. All the sites I saw said .005. I have no problem saying someone is right when they are. But, I still haven't gotten a good answer with the example of my niece and Mark McGuire hitting a baseball. I see a bat and club as the same thing, just one has a funny looking end.
And mandrin, you are banned from this site. JUST KIDDING! No matter how people get along or don't on this site no one gets the boot. That's what makes this place so good.
I said they were wrong. All the sites I saw said .005. I have no problem saying someone is right when they are. But, I still haven't gotten a good answer with the example of my niece and Mark McGuire hitting a baseball. I see a bat and club as the same thing, just one has a funny looking end.
And mandrin, you are banned from this site. JUST KIDDING! No matter how people get along or don't on this site no one gets the boot. That's what makes this place so good.
mandrin
New
Golfbulldog, this is just between you and me. Brian is going to pay me for the entertainment produced, pro rata with the quite heavy traffic created.
Why not ask TGMer’s how knowing that the swing is subject to gyroscopic forces helps them to be better golfers? [}
]It is an innate universal desire of mankind to try to understand their environment? Understanding something allows progress. Some prefer stagnation. More comfortable. [|)]
Thanks for your post, it shows there are still some normal people hanging around on this forum who appreciate my humble but time consuming efforts. [:I]
Love this debate. Has anyone actually come across any truly scientific research on this subject?, ie how much does ball compression contribute to distance seems to be what all the harping is about. I have a Johhny Miller tape where he relates his experience beta testing new Callaway drivers in Carlsbad. Clubhead speed 115 mph, average 260 yard drives. Realizes something is "off" in his swing, that he lacks his usual amount of upper arm to chest connection, does a few drills to ingrain that piece, hits drivers - they go farther, 10-15 yards? -
I dont remember exactly how much farther, SAME 115 mph clubhead speed. Possibly the braced/connnected body position, in this case upper arm connection, creates more ball compression by absorbing some of the rebound/shock of the collision force? I dont know the answer, it seems like a good starting point for further research though.
I do believe that sometimes TGM advocates place too much emphasis on compression though. There are other parts of the golf swing that are of equal or even more importance. Perhaps Mr. Kelley himself at one time suffered from flipping - like most mortal human golfers - and learned the solution to it as STLOC and hit the ball so much better that he himself overdid it's importance in the overall scheme of things. We all as teachers have a natural human tendency to place too much emphasis on that one key thing that has helped us the most.
There are many really good teachers who know about compression but dont begin with that as a First Principle. Some use clubface control, some tempo, some balance, some pivot,etc.
Good Golf is after all about hitting your target consistently, and while compressing a golf ball does allow you to achieve a very high rate of consistency due to its superior effects over trajectory, accuracy, spin and some degree of increased distance, my question is this - how much more does a high degree of ball compression contribute
to those things compared to a small degree of STLOC? I think it is a very important question to ask and I dont know the answer. I can make a guess though that for anyone other than very advanced players, it is probably not a very significant difference.
I know a lot of people who are pretty decent players who dont compress it very much. They have at least a moderate degree of clubhead speed so they hit it moderately long, enough to score pretty good. Most LPGA players dont sound to me like they compress it very much. The only women golfer I have ever heard - in person - compress it is Michelle Wie. Having said that, however, for anyone suffering from a bad case of clubhead throwaway, striving for more STLOC is a very good remedy.
But being a tiny bit flipped during impact for the average amateur is not such a bad thing. Its a cost/benefit thing. Which will lower a 4 handicap's score more who is a little flipped - working on the flip, or his short game, or putting or mental game? I think the answer is obvious.
I dont remember exactly how much farther, SAME 115 mph clubhead speed. Possibly the braced/connnected body position, in this case upper arm connection, creates more ball compression by absorbing some of the rebound/shock of the collision force? I dont know the answer, it seems like a good starting point for further research though.
I do believe that sometimes TGM advocates place too much emphasis on compression though. There are other parts of the golf swing that are of equal or even more importance. Perhaps Mr. Kelley himself at one time suffered from flipping - like most mortal human golfers - and learned the solution to it as STLOC and hit the ball so much better that he himself overdid it's importance in the overall scheme of things. We all as teachers have a natural human tendency to place too much emphasis on that one key thing that has helped us the most.
There are many really good teachers who know about compression but dont begin with that as a First Principle. Some use clubface control, some tempo, some balance, some pivot,etc.
Good Golf is after all about hitting your target consistently, and while compressing a golf ball does allow you to achieve a very high rate of consistency due to its superior effects over trajectory, accuracy, spin and some degree of increased distance, my question is this - how much more does a high degree of ball compression contribute
to those things compared to a small degree of STLOC? I think it is a very important question to ask and I dont know the answer. I can make a guess though that for anyone other than very advanced players, it is probably not a very significant difference.
I know a lot of people who are pretty decent players who dont compress it very much. They have at least a moderate degree of clubhead speed so they hit it moderately long, enough to score pretty good. Most LPGA players dont sound to me like they compress it very much. The only women golfer I have ever heard - in person - compress it is Michelle Wie. Having said that, however, for anyone suffering from a bad case of clubhead throwaway, striving for more STLOC is a very good remedy.
But being a tiny bit flipped during impact for the average amateur is not such a bad thing. Its a cost/benefit thing. Which will lower a 4 handicap's score more who is a little flipped - working on the flip, or his short game, or putting or mental game? I think the answer is obvious.
Mandrin, I wasn't trying to deceive anyone with my post referencing SFTPS. I was just trying to provide info, which I thought actually bolstered your side of the argument. I try to refrain from publishing exactly from someone else's work and I was also trying to be concise. I can see, however, how you would reach the conclusion you did. As far as the acceleration part goes, the whole point of swinging the golf club is to achieve velocity and in order to do that it's necessary to accelerate. I believe that what C&S were actually trying to convey is that it is useless to try to accelerate once the club contacts the ball, not before. It would be nearly impossible to time such an action. If the golf swing is performed properly, the golf club should be accelerating all the way until it impacts the ball, at which point it begins to slow. Maybe I missed the point of this entire discussion, but that's how I see it. I have enjoyed reading your posts, they are very informative and educational. As others have mentioned, the tone has been somewhat contentious and I would like to see all parties settle down and work together in a more congenial manner. As BM says, this is the best golf forum on the web and it should only get better as time goes bye.
I forgot one more point. I was at a MORAD school years ago, and the guy htting next to me remarked to me with the kind of snobbish tone in his voice that only the True Believers of any religion can muster: "You dont sound like you're compressing the ball very much". I said "true, thats partly why I'm here, but golf is about hitting the target, not compressing the ball." He began to argue with me so I said: "Look, I'm hitting 8 iron to that skinny palm tree out there about 140 yards away. What club do you hit 140? He said PW. I said really? Thats a hell of a long yardage for a PW.
So, I challenged him to a contest. Closest to the target out of 10 balls. I hit the base of the tree once on the fly and once on the first bounce, the rest were within a few yards of the tree. He hit two out of ten about 3 yards away and the rest were missed by at least 5-8 yards. All of his shots sounded like pretty good compression to me, my shots could not compare to his sound of solid contact. Yet I won the contest. Yet, If it had been a long drive contest, I humbly concede I would not have stood a chance in hell of winning!
So, I challenged him to a contest. Closest to the target out of 10 balls. I hit the base of the tree once on the fly and once on the first bounce, the rest were within a few yards of the tree. He hit two out of ten about 3 yards away and the rest were missed by at least 5-8 yards. All of his shots sounded like pretty good compression to me, my shots could not compare to his sound of solid contact. Yet I won the contest. Yet, If it had been a long drive contest, I humbly concede I would not have stood a chance in hell of winning!
golfbulldog
New
I agree with your point about desire for an understanding of our world. Remember that many, if not all, people are drawn to TGM because it tries harder than almost all other instruction manuals to undrstand the swing in an objective way. TGM people want to understand the world too!! Keep asking and answering the questions and we will all understand more. Remember that the people that come to TGM have a curious and open mind and we should always try to keep it open !! All the members that you are "jousting" with at the moment have been, and may still be, far more open-minded than most golfers!!
I love the "search for the Perfect swing" (SFTPS)because it sets out to describe its findings from experimental study and then draws its conclusions. I feel that it is only fair that members who do not have the SFTPS book are aware of some of the facts of this experiment.
See page 144-147 "Search for the perfect swing"
The experiment involves a 2 wood "with hinge in the shaft just above the head. At impact the hinge can give way completely, and the ball is hit only by the clubhead.
In the test, this club was used to hit 30 shots, which were then compared in length with 30 hit by a similar 2 wood with a normal shaft. The shots hit by the hinged club averaged at 215 yards - only 5 yards shorter than the average with the ordinary club."
The authors then continue to propose that the small difference in distance is unlikely to have arisen from the effect of the hinge on impact , rather the slightly reduced clubhead speed caused either by the extra head weight due to hinge, or "by the rather wobbly feel of the club which may have made the golfers who tested it 'go easy' when swinging"
What is NOT stated is :-
whether the same golfers swung both clubs?
how many shots were taken by each golfer?
the mean distance for each club differed by only 5 yards but did this take into account any outlying distances which may have contributed to wide standard deviation and altered the mean for either club?
accuracy of impact on clubface for each wood?
wind conditions similar for the 2 test clubs?
etc.
All TGM teachings begin around impact and aligning ones body to maximise force applied to the ball. Impact is important! Why can't somebody set out to repeat this experiment in controlled conditions and give us every last drop of impact information.
PS Mandarin - you are still holding out on the info about how your understanding of impact influences your swing. My guess is that you do not differ much from any other TGM person in execution of the physics/maths...? just in your impression of the physics of impact?
Tom Bartlett
Administrator
Tom Bartlett
Administrator
Here's another. Second to last paragraph.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/EmilyAccamando.shtml
Also found some which stated the same about a slap shot.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/EmilyAccamando.shtml
Also found some which stated the same about a slap shot.
mandrin
New
Tom, thanks for the information.
You did however some selective reading. On this particular web page it is mentioned twice to be 0.5 millisec and only once 1/200 sec.
You however choose to pick 1/200 sec as information.
Somebody should tell the PGA people to update their ‘scientific’ information. It is seemingly a source of information and people are inclined to trust those who are supposed to know.
- Status