What the Golfer CAN and CAN'T do during Impact

[dbl]

If talking about absolute face position, then nope no opening, imo.

If GMB's saying close "less" then wouldn't that be perhaps a case, with no data presented currently, where ROC is high and then slow? I doubt this occurs, but just saying the face ROC will not be "negative or zero" is not the same as the 2nd derivative being zero or negative. Is GMB point (now) about the 2nd derivative?

I'm not sure if questions in lala land are just plain about the face or ROC...so can be ignored if that's the sole issue.

 

[mgranato]

"Get the clubface slightly closed just prior to contact, and then by impact feeling like it's actually holding more open."

When this is being sold, bought, and taught as the ideal release there should be some serious concerns about one's grasp of what really can and cannot be controlled in the swing.

 

[Matt 4-L]

What are the factors that make someone a more accurate player? Which component has the biggest effect on accuarcy? ROC, Angle of attack, path and any others? Which component should we focus on the most, I am guessing ROC is not one of them. If I want to improve my driving but not sacrafice a lot of distance what would I work on?

 

[Dariusz J.]

What are the factors that make someone a more accurate player? Which component has the biggest effect on accuarcy? ROC, Angle of attack, path and any others? Which component should we focus on the most, I am guessing ROC is not one of them. If I want to improve my driving but not sacrafice a lot of distance what would I work on?

Talent in dealing with timing +/- how timing proof is the motion. A rule of thumb for repeatability.

Examples -- there can be a very gifted golfer for whom timing issues are not a problem; he may be more repeatable than another golfer who cannot deal with timing issues at all and is less consistent even with a more timing-proof motion.

The key is that it is not possible to get rid of timing once and for all; we can only limit its impact on a given human activity.

As regards RoC, it is a very important component of how timing proof is one's motion. But I am not treating it as a goal per se but it is just a result of a given concept of motion. Focusing on RoC itself is a waste of time.

Cheers

 

[cwdlaw223]

I completely agree with Dariusz that it is NOT possible to get rid of timing once and for all.

I can't agree yet that RoC is very important as it relates to a number by itself. For example, I do not believe that RoC is going to turn out as a constant like impact numbers. I suspect that data will show that some guys flourish with a high RoC and some guys are horrible with low RoC. Thus, RoC is golfer specific and it's not like you will swing for a specific RoC number like you do with impact. RoC plays a (big) role in our timing, but it's not something that once it changes will automatically produce better results. It's only a part of what goes into delivering the club into impact and the faster your speed the faster your RoC (like friction and heat).

I think the issue we should be focusing on for timing is in our brains, not the RoC. What about our brains controls world class timing? That question relates to other sports as well.

 

[gmbtempe]

I completely agree with Dariusz that it is NOT possible to get rid of timing once and for all.

I can't agree yet that RoC is very important as it relates to a number by itself. For example, I do not believe that RoC is going to turn out as a constant like impact numbers. I suspect that data will show that some guys flourish with a high RoC and some guys are horrible with low RoC. Thus, RoC is golfer specific and it's not like you will swing for a specific RoC number like you do with impact. RoC plays a (big) role in our timing, but it's not something that once it changes will automatically produce better results. It's only a part of what goes into delivering the club into impact and the faster your speed the faster your RoC (like friction and heat).

I think the issue we should be focusing on for timing is in our brains, not the RoC. What about our brains controls world class timing? That question relates to other sports as well.

Wouldn't Tiger be a good example, he has increased his swing speed numbers from last year, should he not be less accurate? I think he has also slowed how much roll he has into impact because he is not stuck nearly as bad as he was and strengthened his grip, this should slow the rate of closure (IMO). He is now third in total driving, I doubt it was just better timing and he has the same "roll" as last year.

 

[cwdlaw223]

Wouldn't Tiger be a good example, he has increased his swing speed numbers from last year, should he not be less accurate? I think he has also slowed how much roll he has into impact because he is not stuck nearly as bad as he was and strengthened his grip, this should slow the rate of closure (IMO). He is now third in total driving, I doubt it was just better timing and he has the same "roll" as last year.

No. Where's the real evidence (not from a Casio camera) that Tiger increased his speed and decreased his RoC? There is none. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite that increasing speed increases the RoC. It was just better timing. It's hard to time a clubhead going over 110+ mph and 12-15* delivered loft. I wouldn't be surprised if the RoC is relatively the same and that the way one delivers the clubhead in relation to their OWN biomechanical talents is what counts.

RoC is a red herring right now. How much does RoC have to slow down so that one can "time it" better?

Maybe that question will be answered one day, but it isn't answered with a Casio camera. Timing is a brain issue. Everybody needs to put in their 10,000 hours to be come a virtuoso. Just chaning the RoC will NOT cause someone to instantly change their face control (unless they don't want to hit the ball anywhere).

The concept that RoC is slowing down with increased speed and PROVED by video with a Casio camera is junk science. If all evidence is equal weight than all of your thoughts will be jumbled together.

 

[gmbtempe]

We just see it different cwd, and thats fine. I don't think Tiger is just all of a sudden timing it better after 5 years of crap driving. I think he has instituted changes that requires less roll (and stall) into impact.

It is just opinion because that jerk Tiger did not get on the dang ENSO machine during the late Haney years and this year to prove me right!!!

 

[cwdlaw223]

Where's the evidence that Tiger's RoC decreased qualitatively? This is really an issue of causation for improved driving. There could be many, many different factors for improvement. I think a healthy body, less psychology problems at home and better instruction allow him to time his swing better. There's no evidence that his RoC changed in any qualitative amount.

RoC is not the key issue. Heck, people can't even numberically tell how much RoC has to drop per player for the same swing speed for better face angle control. Anybody can drop RoC by reducing their swing speed.

The Casio guys only have subjective descriptions. I want numerical (like Trackman - takes away the guessing). Their release pattern claim might be correct, but they can't prove that their release actually maintains speed and decreases RoC at a point where there would be an increase in face angle control (at this time).

 

[cwdlaw223]

RoC by itself is almost meaningless just as face angle without knowing the path and intended shot is almost meaningless. Patterns might emerge in the future regarding RoC, but the claims that decreasing RoC will make one a better ballstriker aren't validated. A 10% change in RoC numbers might seem like a lot, but if there isn't a significant reduction in face angle readings/control is the 10% reduction effective? No.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Tiger is driving the ball better because he isn't swinging ridiculously in/out anymore; that's the main driver (pun intended)

 

[gmbtempe]

Tiger is driving the ball better because he isn't swinging ridiculously in/out anymore; that's the main driver (pun intended)

IMO the two are tied together (in to out/rate of closure)

 

[cwdlaw223]

IMO the two are tied together (in to out/rate of closure)

Was it the path change or an assumed decreased RoC number? We can tell you exactly how much the ballflight improves with path changes (assuming I know the face angle, center hit, ballspeed and launch angle). Nobody can make a claim that a reduced RoC will automatically make it easier to time impact better. What's 20% of .0002 of a second? Is that 20% material in the golf swing? What if the max that someone can reduce their RoC is 20% WHILE MAINTAINING THE SAME SPEED and yet their ballflight dispersion average is the same?

Only the Casio guys claim that the reduced RoC has a material effect and yet they don't give any before or after NUMBERS with such claims. Only assumptions from video. There has to be a materiality to a RoC reduction and if such reduction is NOT an effect of reduced speed.

 

[gmbtempe]

Was it the path change or an assumed decreased RoC number? We can tell you exactly how much the ballflight improves with path changes (assuming I know the face angle, center hit, ballspeed and launch angle). Nobody can make a claim that a reduced RoC will automatically make it easier to time impact better. What's 20% of .0002 of a second? Is that 20% material in the golf swing?

Only the Casio guys claim that the reduced RoC has a material effect and yet they don't give any before or after NUMBERS with such claims. Only assumptions from video. There has to be a materiality to a RoC reduction and if such reduction is NOT an effect of reduced speed.

Casio guys? You make it sound like they were the first and only to start studying this issue, its not a recent event.

 

[Kevin Shields]

IMO the two are tied together (in to out/rate of closure)

How so? The more in to out the more closure?

 

[Brian Manzella]

If you swing further in to out, you HAVE TO HAVE a more closed-to-path face.

You will also get plenty of heel-side strikes.

The more LEFT you swing, the more toe-side strikes you get.

 

[gmbtempe]

How so? The more in to out the more closure?

I won't say its an absolute but the more I see to much in to out/under the more roll to square the face I see, I also see being to far in to out/under creating some pivot issues (circa Tiger the past couple years).

 

[Brian Manzella]

The weird thing is on the lesson tee, you need more closure to make good body movements ( that then take the closure away pre-impact) work.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

Ah, so the point being made here is that "possibly" rate of closure has to do with path and shaft angle coming down? And that rotation from the core could have an influence on all of those variables? And... And... it's "possible" that the face could counter rotate when the shaft backs up from steep to shallow and um it's also possible that when swinging inside out that that that you could flip and roll the shaft and face?

All of this has been true forever and if you are going from closed to open it started long before last parallel. And is the chatacteristic of every bad move I have ever witnessed.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

One other thing, why is the poster boy (Furyk) for a "slow rate of closure" one of the gimpiest drivers on tour #166? When is the contradiction going to stop.