What Kind of Release is this? & Can an effective swing include no deceleration?

[Virtuoso]

RoC should be measured as an angle change to the path arc in a given distance.

Cheers

So, your contention is that less angle change to the path arc in a given distance is better? And distance is the defining space, not time? And, not perpendicularity, but rather angle change, ie, staying constantly "open" instead of perpendicular, is better. If not, and perpendicular is better, then, if the arc is narrow, the roc should be higher, and if the arc is wider, the roc should be slower?

...and if all this collapses like a house of cards, ie, a guy "rolls" and "flips" the clubhead and hits it straighter than a non-roller/flipper, this is an exception?

 

[cwdlaw223]

Where am I supposed to take these data from ??? What I can do is just to speculate with a huge dose of probability while comparing swing motions.
I even do not know if such researches have ever been run -- and certainly they should have been not only once. It would lighten a few brains, I am sure.

Cheers

That's my point. When people say that ROC is important they are merely guessing. I can look at video and claim that the face looks like it's closing at a slower rate than with another swing. So what? Just because I slow my "rate" down doesn't mean my timing of the face automatically increases (and my speed will stay the same). That's a major assumption in such deductive reasoning that if the ROC slows down one can better time the face (I'm speaking with a normal swing.)

I know one instructor who claims he can slow the rate down with a release sytle and keep the clubhead speed the same. The funny thing is that his favorite champion constantly begs for evidence and believes that it must be true because of video without even knowing how much of a material difference is between fast vs. slow ROC. Those two are just guessing and video doesn't show the forces at work.

 

[wulsy]

I believe someone stated in rather large type that one should remember that these ideas need to be related to a human being hitting a golf ball with a golf club. I agree with him. What works for a machine don't necessarily work for a hyoomann.

 

[jimmyt]

Didn't Brian end this RoC discussion months ago.......

Please reread his recent Blog posted yesterday......end of story

 

[Dariusz J.]

So, your contention is that less angle change to the path arc in a given distance is better? And distance is the defining space, not time? And, not perpendicularity, but rather angle change, ie, staying constantly "open" instead of perpendicular, is better. If not, and perpendicular is better, then, if the arc is narrow, the roc should be higher, and if the arc is wider, the roc should be slower?

Excuse me ? Where have you taken all these odd questions from ?

I do not believe I need to explain such prosaic things but:

1. the notion 'rate' means mathematical ratio; experts who run researches should decide how to measure it so that it is clear whose clubhead rotates more in a certain period of time or distance; I presume you understand we're not talking about RoC between contact and separation -- the reason I ask is because I needed to explain it several times before;

2. there should be a special coefficient taken into account for different clubhead speeds of different golfers just to equal them;

3. if in this certain given time/distance perpendicularity of clubhead is being preserved it shows the smallest possible RoC;

4. I have no experience in preparing conditions to run a physical test but I do not think this one is extremely tough thing to do.

...and if all this collapses like a house of cards, ie, a guy "rolls" and "flips" the clubhead and hits it straighter than a non-roller/flipper, this is an exception?

It is not about who hits it straighter, but who can hit it more repeatably !!!; straighteness of shots can be easily found e.g. via stance if we presume a very consistent golfers who e.g. hits dead straight pulls 90 times out of 100 hits; compare it to a guy who can hit it straight 25 times out of 100 and shows total inconsistency in the rest of his shots.

Shortly saying, the correlation to be proved is as follows: the smaller RoC = more consistency (which is so obvious a thing that I don't believe should be discussed).

That's my point. When people say that ROC is important they are merely guessing. I can look at video and claim that the face looks like it's closing at a slower rate than with another swing. So what? Just because I slow my "rate" down doesn't mean my timing of the face automatically increases (and my speed will stay the same). That's a major assumption in such deductive reasoning that if the ROC slows down one can better time the face (I'm speaking with a normal swing.)

I know one instructor who claims he can slow the rate down with a release sytle and keep the clubhead speed the same. The funny thing is that his favorite champion constantly begs for evidence and believes that it must be true because of video without even knowing how much of a material difference is between fast vs. slow ROC. Those two are just guessing and video doesn't show the forces at work.

Well, assumption and guess are powerful tools in search of the truth. Intuition as well. Science history is full of such cases.
The point is that I have the same right to claim things as you to negate them until the truth is revealed through tests. Doubting in assumptions does not make the assumption false. Hope you understand it.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Didn't Brian end this RoC discussion months ago.......

Please reread his recent Blog posted yesterday......end of story

What Brian could have eventually ended was the discussion of the RoC impact between contact and separation. And he was right.

Cheers

 

[Virtuoso]

Shortly saying, the correlation to be proved is as follows: the smaller RoC = more consistency (which is so obvious a thing that I don't believe should be discussed).
Cheers

If it be so obvious a thing that you don't believe should be discussed why does the correlation need to be proved?

What if preservation of perpendicularity is not the deciding factor in who hits it the most repeatably? What then?

 

[Dariusz J.]

If it be so obvious a thing that you don't believe should be discussed why does the correlation need to be proved?

I never started any discussions about it. My participation was always aimed at answering those who doubted the correlation. Like in this case. I merely used the abbreviation RoC in the context of distinguishing release types and it causes an avalange.

What if preservation of perpendicularity is not the deciding factor in who hits it the most repeatably? What then?

He who has smaller RoC. E.g. Furyk hits it more repeatably than Donald which is a fact stated by Trackman specialists. Preserving perpendicularity is an ideal but I am sure it's unattainable even becauise microfactors you mentioned before.

Cheers

 

[Virtuoso]

I never started any discussions about it. My participation was always aimed at answering those who doubted the correlation. Like in this case. I merely used the abbreviation RoC in the context of distinguishing release types and it causes an avalange.



He who has smaller RoC. E.g. Furyk hits it more repeatably than Donald which is a fact stated by Trackman specialists. Preserving perpendicularity is an ideal but I am sure it's unattainable even becauise microfactors you mentioned before.

Cheers

Is it fair to say that, since you've decided to make path of the arc the standard against which face angle should be measured (ie, it's conformance to perpendicularity), that an arc with a smaller radius should by necessity then have a faster ROC, all other things being equal?

 

[cwdlaw223]

Dariusz -

You keep using the word ROC but you can't quantify it. You are comfortable with a theory based upon mere perception with the eyes and without any qualitative reference? I can run fast and slow. So can Usain Bolt. Who's faster? Technically, you couldn't answer that question because, Usain could be hurt or maybe I run faster than a world record and nobody knows. Now if I tell you that I run the 100 meter dash in 15 seconds in Usain bolt runs it in 9.67 seconds you know he's faster.

I'll take my chances about ROC not being significant at this point in time. I believe that ROC is timing. Some people work well at a higher or lower number than others and there's no pattern. The person asserting the positive bears the burden of proof by the way. You're asserting the positive, not me.

 

[Cloran]

Dariusz -

You keep using the word ROC but you can't quantify it. You are comfortable with a theory based upon mere perception with the eyes and without any qualitative reference? I can run fast and slow. So can Usain Bolt. Who's faster? Technically, you couldn't answer that question because, Usain could be hurt or maybe I run faster than a world record and nobody knows. Now if I tell you that I run the 100 meter dash in 15 seconds in Usain bolt runs it in 9.67 seconds you know he's faster.

I'll take my chances about ROC not being significant at this point in time. I believe that ROC is timing. Some people work well at a higher or lower number than others and there's no pattern. The person asserting the positive bears the burden of proof by the way. You're asserting the positive, not me.

Tell that to a thiest... it makes for some nice Turkey Day conversation.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Is it fair to say that, since you've decided to make path of the arc the standard against which face angle should be measured (ie, it's conformance to perpendicularity), that an arc with a smaller radius should by necessity then have a faster ROC, all other things being equal?

Depends if we have another verification factor, such as e.g. target line. In isolation, it is still perpendicular to the arc, however, I'd say, yes it is faster. But I believe it is an academic dispute since the differences in arc width between golfers aren't so big to make a difference.

Dariusz -

You keep using the word ROC but you can't quantify it. You are comfortable with a theory based upon mere perception with the eyes and without any qualitative reference? I can run fast and slow. So can Usain Bolt. Who's faster? Technically, you couldn't answer that question because, Usain could be hurt or maybe I run faster than a world record and nobody knows. Now if I tell you that I run the 100 meter dash in 15 seconds in Usain bolt runs it in 9.67 seconds you know he's faster.

I'll take my chances about ROC not being significant at this point in time. I believe that ROC is timing. Some people work well at a higher or lower number than others and there's no pattern. The person asserting the positive bears the burden of proof by the way. You're asserting the positive, not me.

Well, if you put it this way, I surrender. I said already I cannot prove it, I cannot throw data except common sense.

Cheers

 

[cwdlaw223]

Tell that to a thiest... it makes for some nice Turkey Day conversation.

I believe that all worldviews should be viewed against the following questions (feel free to add another one):

(1) What is the origin of life?
(2) What is the meaning of life?
(3) How do you define morality?
(4) What's your destiny?

I think you'll find that theism emerges given the mental agony of atheism (no God) or agnosticism. Most people want to be their own God and do whatever they want to do on their own terms without regard to any natural law or God being in charge or telling them what to do. The Western mind is afflicted with atheism and agnosticism much more than the Eastern mind.

I digress and will gladly take such burden. Of course, science itself is based upon assumptions that cannot be proven scientifically but everyone wants God to be proven with scientific certainty. How ironic!

 

[cwdlaw223]

Dariusz-

Common sense isn't always that common when it comes to golf.

I thank you for your honesty and understand your position.

 

[Cloran]

I believe that all worldviews should be viewed against the following questions (feel free to add another one):

(1) What is the origin of life?
(2) What is the meaning of life?
(3) How do you define morality?
(4) What's your destiny?

I think you'll find that theism emerges given the mental agony of atheism (no God) or agnosticism. Most people want to be their own God and do whatever they want to do on their own terms without regard to any natural law or God being in charge or telling them what to do. The Western mind is afflicted with atheism and agnosticism much more than the Eastern mind.

I digress and will gladly take such burden. Of course, science itself is based upon assumptions that cannot be proven scientifically but everyone wants God to be proven with scientific certainty. How ironic!

(Channeling Christopher Hitchens)

1. No one knows for sure, but I'll take randomness over creationism. Any young earth believers around these parts?
2. For me, to be a productive member of society.
3. I can't think of any moral activities that an Atheist CAN'T do simply because they do not believe in a God.
4. Destiny? It's being determined every day, right now I think it's to swing a golf club like Moe Norman. Could change tomorrow though.


(This is WAY too off topic... best we let sleeping dogs lie and get back to the RoC debate.)

 

[Virtuoso]

Depends if we have another verification factor, such as e.g. target line. In isolation, it is still perpendicular to the arc, however, I'd say, yes it is faster. But I believe it is an academic dispute since the differences in arc width between golfers aren't so big to make a difference.

Although I agree that where the radius reaches it's maximum, most golfers are similar with the same type of club, but a golfer that un-hinges the club much earlier will have a wider radius sooner than someone that un-hinges very late in the downswing. Would this not be a big enough difference to be considered more than just merely academic? And, if so, should the face angle be kept perependicular to the arc regardless of when the club shaft un-hinges?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Although I agree that where the radius reaches it's maximum, most golfers are similar with the same type of club, but a golfer that un-hinges the club much earlier will have a wider radius sooner than someone that un-hinges very late in the downswing. Would this not be a big enough difference to be considered more than just merely academic? And, if so, should the face angle be kept perependicular to the arc regardless of when the club shaft un-hinges?

Frankly, I have no idea. Probably, as you suggested, it would be less academic and less negligible but I doubt it could change the overal view.

Cheers

 

[mgjordan]

Is it just me or does it seem like there are two seperate arguments regarding rate of closure? It seems as if the first argument is how much, if any, closure accurs during the impact interval and what effects it may or may not have on ballflight. The second argument is regarding the timing of the squarness of the clubface at impact. This argument hinges on the belief that a player with a clubface that is squarer longer has less timing involved to return a clubface square consistently than a player that has a lot of rotation nearing impact.
I think enough evidence exists to refute the first argument; the ball and club simply aren't in contact long enough for clubface closure during impact to influence ballflight. Regarding the second argument, it would certainly seem as if a clubface that is "more square" longer would be easier to return to square on a consistent basis. It seems as if it would be easier to consistently rotate the clubface from 10 degrees open to square that it would be to rotate the clubface from 50 degrees open to square. When we putt we try to hold the clubface reasonable square so we can consistently hit the ball where we aim...I think it would be difficult to roll the wrists and forarms rapidly open to square and start the ball on line often enough to putt well. I would assume the same would apply to the full swing.
I don't know the answers to these questions, but it is a good discussion and I appreciate everyone doing the research to try to find the answers.

 

[mgranato]

... and then there is simply confusing RoC with what occurs during off center impacts. A few (thank goodness) believe this "scientist" is/can control the racquet through impact causing it to move like it does during these collisions.

Note how long it takes the guy to react to being hit after actually being hit while all the time expecting to be hit. C'mon.

 

[dbl]

To the suggestion that closing 100 degrees versus 20 degrees is more problematic, that need not be the case. For the 20 degree case, the player has to accelerate and reach or maintain some rotational velocty in a smaller interval and has to modualte the torques in quite a specific way. The player utilizing 100 degrees can theoretically ramp up his rotation and then maintain it with a more constant torque (for instance). Whether or not either method actually yields better performance will just have to be measured. But there's no reason beforehand to think the smaller amount of closure or lower rate would be better.