What the Golfer CAN and CAN'T do during Impact

[Brian Manzella]

There a lot of folks out there in internet land that think they "know" about what the golfer can do to the ball at and during impact.

Most of them are pretty far off of what actually occurs, and can occur.

I used to be one of them, because I read a book on the subject that was supposed to be scientific. It was not.

Here are some facts to digest:

1. The golfer can not influence impact at or during impact. The golfer can not add mass, make the face open on a CG centered strike, close it extra, resist deceleration, etc.​

EXHIBIT A — From Anti-Summit I, the first 10 minutes of the symposium on this very subject (free of charge):
​

​

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/42476533" width="500" height="283" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

EXHIBIT B — Modern Driver​

A represents the visual center of the face, at least the one the company graphically marked.

B represents the direction the Center of Gravity of the club will move from the often used placement by manufactures toward the heel of the club.

C represents the possible further direction movement of the CoG that matters at impact due to the last 5-6 inches of the shaft being included at impact to the over all mass of the club.


2. This is why a strike can occur in what you might think the "sweetspot" is, but it is actually not hit on the ideal place on the club from that particular swing, and with that particular club.

3. The 3D path of the ACTUAL at impact "last 5 -6 inches of the shaft and the clubhead CoG" has to pass DIRECTLY thorough the center line of the ball to get a "no-twist: impact. If that CoG passes to the heel side of the centerline of the ball, you get a toe side hit, with an opening face and tilted to the left spin (draw) axis pickup. If that CoG passes to the toe side of the centerline of the ball, you get a heel side hit, with an closing face and tilted to the right (fade) spin axis pickup.

​

EXHIBIT C: If the CoG were the green dot, this would happen:

​

Also, two more things to consider in this photo....1. The light grey arrow points to a rubber tee that may have somewhat contributed to the action by the head....2. The balls was also contacted high on the club causing positive vertical gear effect (adding loft).​

 

[Kevin Shields]

There's Hertz, and there's not exactly.

 

[curtisj76]

There's 2 types of golfers that come to this site:

#1 Guys that just want to get better at golf
#2 Guys that want to get better at golf AND learn all the "science stuff"

Anyways, I'm #1 and have no idea what Brian just said............all I want to know is do we want to hit the ball on A, B, or C?

THANKS

 

[Lindsey Newman]

There's 2 types of golfers that come to this site:

#1 Guys that just want to get better at golf
#2 Guys that want to get better at golf AND learn all the "science stuff"

Anyways, I'm #1 and have no idea what Brian just said............all I want to know is do we want to hit the ball on A, B, or C?

THANKS

Actually, there are 3 types of people that come to this site.

 

[DCgolf]

really good stuff there...makes a lot of sense..

 

[JonWil]

Those were good questions. So, all club head and path variables being equal, a larger golfer with a heavier, stiffer, accelerating shaft, with 100 mph impact, will produce superior results over a smaller golfer with a lighter, more flexible, decelerrating shaft with 100 mph impact? Hummm.

 

[Dariusz J.]

1. The golfer can not influence impact at or during impact. The golfer can not add mass, make the face open on a CG centered strike, close it extra, resist deceleration, etc

I really do not know why there is a need for scientific proofs for fighting with such a childish heresy. Everyone who knows a little physics knows that is impossible. Intuition is enough.
A much more difficult question to fight against would be to proof that an INTENT is enough to change something important at impact. But again, if people start finally to not neglect timing issues (which are crucial IMO), intuition is enough again.

Reassumming: too much details while lacking macroscale.

Cheers

 

[Brian Manzella]

You are missing the point Dariusz....


Getting the details correct is important to us. It turned out we were correct on all of the above, which means there are folks out there who should admit they were dead wrong.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I know that, Brian. I said gathering the scientists should focus on really important things, leaving bullshit as it is. Unless, it is really important to kill the bullshit before going into serious stuff. For me it is a waste of time. These who listen already suspected it, these who won't listen, never believe it and a status quo will be sort of maintaned.
But I can be wrong. Maybe it should be done like you programmed it. I can understand it.

Cheers

 

[Brian Manzella]

Dariusz,

We don't waste a whole lot of time with this BASIC stuff. But at some point, if you have to, you put a couple of people back in their place.

 

[mgranato]

Can some one tell me how long it takes for a feel to be translated into a thought to then be translated into a conscience measured action?

When you hit a golf ball, and feel impact of the club and ball, where is the ball by the time you sense that feeling?

When you "save" a shot with your hands (a common description), is there physically enough time to process the action of impact into a corrective action from the golfer to save the shot before the ball is gone?

 

[jimmyt]

Can some one tell me how long it takes for a feel to be translated into a thought to then be translated into a conscience measured action?

When you hit a golf ball, and feel impact of the club and ball, where is the ball by the time you sense that feeling?

When you "save" a shot with your hands (a common description), is there physically enough time to process the action of impact into a corrective action from the golfer to save the shot before the ball is gone?

Great question........

 

[Dariusz J.]

Can some one tell me how long it takes for a feel to be translated into a thought to then be translated into a conscience measured action?

When you hit a golf ball, and feel impact of the club and ball, where is the ball by the time you sense that feeling?

When you "save" a shot with your hands (a common description), is there physically enough time to process the action of impact into a corrective action from the golfer to save the shot before the ball is gone?

Don't even mention it. Human brain can only make about two conscious calculations per second, let alone time for execution.
The problem lies otherwise: a. the intent (preprogramming of the brain before starting an action); b. the intent (conscious), say, at transition.

Cheers

 

[drewyallop]

Dariusz,

We don't waste a whole lot of time with this BASIC stuff. But at some point, if you have to, you put a couple of people back in their place.

For God's sake Brian let the mongrel bark. No matter how much science is piled onto his head (a head reminiscent of a character in a medieval Japanese soap opera), nothing will change. Your attention is his oxygen.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Oxygen or not, this week saw some of their main tenants go up in flames.

I suggest they just teach what they want to teach, and leave the goofy non-science in the waste basket where it belongs.

 

[dbl]

So, all club head and path variables being equal, a larger golfer with a heavier, stiffer, accelerating shaft, with 100 mph impact, will produce superior results over a smaller golfer with a lighter, more flexible, decelerrating shaft with 100 mph impact? Hummm.

I'm not sure I heard the same thing at all. 100mph with the same variables has the same result of impact whether from a brutish guy or small guy. However for a "Ladies shaft" verses a "X Stiff" shaft that the two might independently choose, the L shaft will absorb more of the muscular strength applied at the handle (IF any late attempt is made). So with the clubhead hitting the ball at about 1400 pounds of force, and the golfer applying maybe 20 pound at the handle, the stiff could add what 17 pounds and the L shaft 14? Anyway, this was described as neglible in either case.

And if you were to add them to the earlier speed that got you near 100mph, then the brutish golfer could come in with 1383 and the small guy with 1386 and have those muscular additives yielding the same 1400.

 

[art]

Can some one tell me how long it takes for a feel to be translated into a thought to then be translated into a conscience measured action?

When you hit a golf ball, and feel impact of the club and ball, where is the ball by the time you sense that feeling?

When you "save" a shot with your hands (a common description), is there physically enough time to process the action of impact into a corrective action from the golfer to save the shot before the ball is gone?

Dear mgraato,

The answers to your questions are (1) a quarter to one half a second, (2) Feel and recognize what you felt correctly about a quarter of a second, and with a ball speed of 150 MPH, you can do the math (55 feet) and (3) as you will read below, these are proprioceptive controlled INVOLUNTARY reactions based on previous experiences (no,not MUSCLE memory),and react in the 0.050 to 0.100 second reaction time, BUT the degree of correction is based on previous information as to what movements are called into action, and when.

As background, art of my career involved testing and understanding the reactions of astronauts to react to unexpected circumstances, especially emergencies and regarding the thrust of your questions above, the 'realization to positive motion reaction' times were in the range of 1/4 to 1/3 of a second.

That's 'a trip thru the brain', and then back thru the nervous system to the appropriate muscles for the desired physical reaction.

There are other INVOLUNTARY reflex reactions that are controlled by proprioceptors recognizing a movement that threatens the safety of a human, and those signals make a round trip ONLY TO AND BACK FROM THE SPINE. And lastly, there are the local threats, hand on the stove, ball coming at you face etc., where the INVOLUNTARY decisions are made even faster, by necessity.

So, for my research seeking golf truth, especially regarding the dynamics, I used these experiences to lead me to a few REAL research papers on this subject. The results of this much more detailed research places results in 'response' times as I recall, of about 0.200 sec, 0.100, and 0,050 seconds for the three types of reactions above.

More importantly, applying this to the golf swing leads me to the conclusion that a plan to VOLUNTARILY do anything during the downswing, you MUST mentally finalize the execution of this no later than the 'transition', and TAKE WHAT YOU GET reflexively in timing during the downswing, since a desire to do it at a particular and specific time during the downswing is controlled by reflex and fast twitch muscles with their associated variances in response times.

So in summary, I see the set-up as having almost no time-dependent constraints as to when you waggle, Bumpy back, activate back swing etc., but if you want to try to control anything DURING the downswing, IMO, the transition is the last time to try to do that, with the associated random timing consequences.

Hope this helps, and regards,
art

 

[James Marshall (Hogan1953)]

Brian,

Is the COG as far towards the heel with irons as well?

Thanks

 

[dbl]

Mr G, I believe the scientists said the club was only in contact with the ball for about 40 microseconds, and the response time of the shaft (~4.2Hz) also guarantees there is no time to make a corrective action which would affect the clubhead....so the ball is long gone.

 

[DCgolf]

I wonder if that's why Hogan's club had that famous worn spot nearer the hosel?