Sustaining the line of compression

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by Biffer

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.

Biffer, what a pleasure to read your post, such civilized tone. I get sometimes worried that society is getting less and less civilized and tolerant.

But it is probably like anywhere else, most shy away from conflictual situations and hence that what appears, is not really true reality.

 

[diggerdog]

Mandrin,
Has TGM helped your game?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Mandin,

Tom has raised a very good point.

On PURE SCIENCE—with references only—debunk him or agree with him.

Thanks, BM

 

[Tom Bartlett]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

quote:Originally posted by Tom Bartlett

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.

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.

No selective reading, there were more sites. I saw them (the .5 millisecond references). But, because they (the other sites) had the same wrong info, I assumed the .5 millisecond reference was "The Typo".

 

[Ryan Smither]

Very, very interesting thread.

Mandrin--

Could you please explain the English "hinge" experiment further?

Do you find any problems with it?

Is there a better way to test your "theory"?

 

[MizunoJoe]

mandrin,

One more time - How is it that Mickelson has a 14 mph slower impact velo than Kuehne, yet at separation, his clubhead is moving 3 mph faster, using the same ball and drivers with the same COR and head weight?

 

[Garth]

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

mandrin,

One more time - How is it that Mickelson has a 14 mph slower impact velo than Kuehne, yet at separation, his clubhead is moving 3 mph faster, using the same ball and drivers with the same COR and head weight?

Isn't it obvious? Boobage-power! [|)]

 

[armourall]

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

mandrin,

One more time - How is it that Mickelson has a 14 mph slower impact velo than Kuehne, yet at separation, his clubhead is moving 3 mph faster, using the same ball and drivers with the same COR and head weight?

Joe,

Just curious, did you compare spin rates? I have to think that would have at least some effect. If Phil gets more backspin (and I'm guessing he does), his blow would be more "glancing" and his clubhead wouldn't be slowed down as much by impact.

 

[ej20]

quote:Originally posted by armourall

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

mandrin,

One more time - How is it that Mickelson has a 14 mph slower impact velo than Kuehne, yet at separation, his clubhead is moving 3 mph faster, using the same ball and drivers with the same COR and head weight?

Joe,

Just curious, did you compare spin rates? I have to think that would have at least some effect. If Phil gets more backspin (and I'm guessing he does), his blow would be more "glancing" and his clubhead wouldn't be slowed down as much by impact.

That's a good point armourall.I thought that a greater slow down of the clubhead after impact means a more solid hit with greater transfer of momentum,not the other way around.The more the clubhead slows down after impact,the greater the ball would be compressed(deformed) if my physic classes memory serves me correct.

 

[birdie_man]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin
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]

Humble!, he says.

 

[Brian Manzella]

IT sure SEEMS that if you 'resist' impact better, you'll hit it better.

And this goes for shots out of rough, sand, etc.

Even the 1960's test rum by the SFTPS chaps said it mattered some.

Here at the Brian Manzella Golf Academy, we will continue to teach speed and resistance to decelaration, becuase, in my little spot in the Real-World of golf, it helps.

Next.

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by brianman

IT sure SEEMS that if you 'resist' impact better, you'll hit it better.

And this goes for shots out of rough, sand, etc.

Even the 1960's test rum by the SFTPS chaps said it mattered some.

Here at the Brian Manzella Golf Academy, we will continue to teach speed and resistance to decelaration, becuase, in my little spot in the Real-World of golf, it helps.

Next.

Brian, I will make it crystal clear to avoid creating any possible misunderstanding.

The science one can possible apply to golf, and than only modestly, is one thing.

Executing or teaching a golf swing is something totally and completely different.

For me it is perfectly possible to teach golf with scientifically wrong principles.

There is not the slightest trace of contradiction in this statement for me.

The human body/mind ensemble is an extremely complex machinery and

Anything, even completely disagreeing with science, is valid if it helps learning golf.

It comes back always to the same thing - feel versus real, they don’t usually match.

Feel is kingdom for golfers and teachers alike whereas real is a playground for scientists

Amen

 

[MizunoJoe]

quote:Originally posted by armourall

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

mandrin,

One more time - How is it that Mickelson has a 14 mph slower impact velo than Kuehne, yet at separation, his clubhead is moving 3 mph faster, using the same ball and drivers with the same COR and head weight?

Joe,

Just curious, did you compare spin rates? I have to think that would have at least some effect. If Phil gets more backspin (and I'm guessing he does), his blow would be more "glancing" and his clubhead wouldn't be slowed down as much by impact.

They both swing on pretty close to the turned shoulder plane. Kuehne uses 9.5 degs and Mick uses 8.5 degs. That reasoning would put Kuehne's separation velo way ahead of Mick's were that the only determining factor.

 

[MizunoJoe]

quote:Originally posted by ej20

quote:Originally posted by armourall

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

mandrin,

One more time - How is it that Mickelson has a 14 mph slower impact velo than Kuehne, yet at separation, his clubhead is moving 3 mph faster, using the same ball and drivers with the same COR and head weight?

Joe,

Just curious, did you compare spin rates? I have to think that would have at least some effect. If Phil gets more backspin (and I'm guessing he does), his blow would be more "glancing" and his clubhead wouldn't be slowed down as much by impact.

That's a good point armourall.I thought that a greater slow down of the clubhead after impact means a more solid hit with greater transfer of momentum,not the other way around.The more the clubhead slows down after impact,the greater the ball would be compressed(deformed) if my physic classes memory serves me correct.

The objective is to maximize separation velo while sustaining the LOC, because the ball gets 100% of the separation velo.

 

[MizunoJoe]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin



For me it is perfectly possible to teach golf with scientifically wrong principles.

There is not the slightest trace of contradiction in this statement for me.

The human body/mind ensemble is an extremely complex machinery and

Anything, even completely disagreeing with science, is valid if it helps learning golf.

It comes back always to the same thing - feel versus real, they don’t usually match.

Feel is kingdom for golfers and teachers alike whereas real is a playground for scientists

mandrin,

Those statements remind me of a line from the movie, The Hustler, which was delivered by pool shark, Fast Eddie Felson to Minnesota Fats - "I'm the best there is Fat Man, and even if you beat me, I'm still the best."

In any physical science class, such as Chemistry or Physics, there is the class and then the lab to verify. The lab rules, and if experiments show the theory to be wrong, then the theory must be changed.

In this case, the golf lab proves that your golf "science" is wrong, and separation velo IS influenced by the golfer.

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by Ryan Smither

Very, very interesting thread.

Mandrin--

Could you please explain the English "hinge" experiment further?

Do you find any problems with it?

Is there a better way to test your "theory"?

Very, very interesting thread.

Ryan, thanks for the kind words.

Could you please explain the English "hinge" experiment further?

A two-wood was used with a hinge in the shaft just above the head. This club was used to hit thirty shots, which were compared to thirty, hit by a similar two-wood with a normal shaft.

The shots hit by the hinged club averaged at 215 yards, five yards shorter that the average with the normal club.

It is felt that this small differnce is due to a reduced clubhead speed due to either the extra useless weight in the hinge or due the rather wobbly feel inciting the golfers testing to go a bit ‘easy’.

Comments:

The small difference, real or not, is totally immaterial. The tests clearly proof that the clubhead virtually acts as if disconnected from the golfer.

This is also very clear in the high speed impactsequence showing clearly no visible deflection at impact. No deflection means no significant force exerted by the shaft on the head at impact due to impact and vice versa.

Do you find any problems with it?

None whatsoever. Their test did exactly what it was meant to do, proof the virtual free behaviour of the clubhead at impact.

Is there a better way to test your "theory"?

These test are already some years back. In the USA nowadays there are golf robots. Hence one could use a robot, instead of human golfers, to better control the variables .

Also one could make a small light weight hinge, stiff enough so that a golfer does not feel any wobble but still so that relative to the huge impact forces it is still totally free to move.

Also the normal club used as comparison could have a little ring or some lead tape applied at the same location as that of the hinge.

However these are simply some further refinements to increase measuring precision, interesting if someone really wanted to do very precise experiments.

The English experiments were primarily meant as a test to proof unequivocally a basic principle . This was done very convincingly.

Ryan, the experiment is easy to set up and perhaps the only real expense would be to get some test time on a golf robot. I am sure that MizunoJoe would be happy to contribute. He is burning with desire to disprove the whole idea and hence really eager to support any such effort.

 

[nevermind]

So if that's true, in your opinion what are the implications mandrin? Having the trail forearm on plane with the shaft is worth nothing? A flip of the lead wrist just before impact is a good thing? What?

 

[Brian Manzella]

A two-wood was used with a hinge in the shaft just above the head. This club was used to hit thirty shots, which were compared to thirty, hit by a similar two-wood with a normal shaft.
Similar?. Hit by regular golfers? Hardly scientific.

The shots hit by the hinged club averaged at 215 yards, five yards shorter that the average with the normal club.
So if you factor in a ProV1 and PhillyMik's 100 yard past these golfers drives, you get about 14 yards. The magic number in the other post.

It is felt that this small differnce is due to a reduced clubhead speed due to either the extra useless weight in the hinge or due the rather wobbly feel inciting the golfers testing to go a bit ‘easy’.
A complete and utter GUESS

The small difference, real or not, is totally immaterial. The tests clearly proof that the clubhead virtually acts as if disconnected from the golfer.
In science, NOTHING is "immaterial." In golf 5 yards for every 200 is PLENTY. Ask Ping, Taylor Made or Titleist.

This is also very clear in the high speed impact sequence showing clearly no visible deflection at impact. No deflection means no significant force exerted by the shaft on the head at impact due to impact and vice versa.
I have pictures that PING sent me, that are so much better than these, it is a joke. The shaft does plaenty during the impact interval.

Manzella. Bartlett, MIzuno Joe and others 100..........Mandrin 0

 

[ready2eat]

quote:Originally posted by brianman

Manzella. Bartlett, MIzuno Joe and others 100..........Mandrin 0

What the heck?
What is this 100 to 0? Does this mean you are 100% correct and Mandrin is 100% wrong? Wow, that's amazing!

Mandrin, so what are the results of your 'research'? what can we do differently, in your opinion, than what TGM tells us?

Thanks,

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by brianman

Manzella. Bartlett, MIzuno Joe and others 100..........Mandrin 0

Brian, I really start getting the feeling that I am dealing with a group of Neanderthalers.

I should revisit my history books, since I thought they had disappeared about 40,000 years ago.

Could it be that somehow a small group survived all that time, how truly exciting.

Don’t you realize that for the Homo Sapiens, visiting this forum, your attitude is rather funny.

Maybe I am getting it all wrong it being perhaps part of some esoteric marketing strategy.

Or perhaps just to provoke hoping to create some reason to get rid of me, not bad, how clever. [}]

Ps.: Brian just a simple suggestion, instead of going into a childish shouting match why not have this simple test done for you. Very reasonable don’t you think, truly objective as well as scientific. But my guess is that it will be just the usual shouting style - I am bigger and stronger than you, just as in kindergarten or primary school.