# Swing smoother, hit further!



## delc (Aug 1, 2016)

Inspired by watching the Women's golf at Woburn, I tried swinging the club a bit slower and more smoothly today, like most of them do, and found that even at the age of 70 I was almost hitting forum distances again.  &#128526;


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			Inspired by watching the Women's golf at Woburn, I tried swinging the club a bit slower and more smoothly today, like most of them do, and found that even at the age of 70 I was almost hitting forum distances again.  &#128526;
		
Click to expand...

You seem surprised. Most of us hit it best when we slow down and don't try at all


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 2, 2016)

How many men would you watch hit it smoother most are all power but its controlled and the timing is spot on.

So imo forget smoother and get the timing right and it will go further


----------



## One Planer (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			Inspired by watching the Women's golf at Woburn, *I tried swinging the club a bit slower *and more smoothly today, like most of them do, and *found that even at the age of 70 I was almost hitting forum distances again*.  &#62990;
		
Click to expand...

My only take on this, to coin a Callaway  phrase, "You can't argue with physics".

You cannot swing slower and hit it further. You just can't! You can swing smoother and hit it further than you would if you snatch and lash at it, but you can't hit it further by swinging slower.

You can still swing fast and be smooth. Look at Jason Day or Dustin Johnson.


----------



## Capella (Aug 2, 2016)

It would be interesting to see the numbers on a launch monitor on this. My guess would be, that even though you feel like you are hitting it slower, your clubhead speed at the moment of impact will actually be the same or even higher, just because the sequence is better.


----------



## Dando (Aug 2, 2016)

a few weeks ago i decided to alter my swing by shortening my back swing and slowing down the take away. my back swing is now about 3/4 length but the transaction into the downswing feels a lot smoother and slightly quicker through the ball.
the result is a cleaner strike and i am now a club longer than before. 
This added to a change in my grip and set up gives a lower ball flight and a slight draw (still get the odd hook but its work in progress).


----------



## bobmac (Aug 2, 2016)

Capella said:



			It would be interesting to see the numbers on a launch monitor on this. My guess would be, that even though you feel like you are hitting it slower, your clubhead speed at the moment of impact will actually be the same or even higher, just because the sequence is better.
		
Click to expand...


I agree.
Plus, you are less likely to hit the sweet spot consistently if you lash at it


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 2, 2016)

Slower and smoother means that you are more likely to get your timing right meaning you get the power of your body and coil hitting the ball, not just your arms. Pro's get that timing right as a matter of course so they have power plus speed. For most amateurs a fast swing means arm power only, hence why you lose distance.

Unless you are very good and can get your timing spot on slower and smoother will mean better for many amateur golfers, particularly as you get older. Doing it is another challenge altogether, must swing slower, must swing slower.......


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 2, 2016)

Its a smoother transition you are after.   once you have changed direction smoothly you can then turn on the power. 


God it takes patience.  Something most of us have in short supply. 


Matsuyama is the king of the pause, start downswing then rip.


----------



## njrose51 (Aug 2, 2016)

I understand where Delc is coming from. For me, slower and smoother on the take away allows me to get everything in place - coil, shoulder turn etc. then starting the downswing just as smoothly - hopefully - allows the sequence to work, and the acceleration to begin, leading to full power release through the ball rather then rushing with my arms from the top of an incomplete backswing. Smooth and slow allows me to put power and speed into the swing at point of impact. (doesn't always work though and I can still lash the F**K out of the ball with the driver!)


----------



## Leftie (Aug 2, 2016)

Don't know about you lot, but the number of easy swing lay up shots I've played that go 15 - 20 yds further than a full blooded lash and still end up in the trouble ........ :mmm:


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 2, 2016)

One Planer said:



			My only take on this, to coin a Callaway  phrase, "You can't argue with physics".

You cannot swing slower and hit it further. You just can't! You can swing smoother and hit it further than you would if you snatch and lash at it, but you can't hit it further by swinging slower.

You can still swing fast and be smooth. Look at Jason Day or Dustin Johnson.
		
Click to expand...

agree, there is a difference between hard & fast. 

Fast comes, from being smooth though IMO


----------



## fundy (Aug 2, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			agree, there is a difference between hard & fast. 

Fast comes, from being smooth though IMO
		
Click to expand...

sounds like youre calling yourself smooth Sam


----------



## AlanMills (Aug 2, 2016)

One Planer said:



			My only take on this, to coin a Callaway  phrase, "You can't argue with physics".

You cannot swing slower and hit it further. You just can't! You can swing smoother and hit it further than you would if you snatch and lash at it, but you can't hit it further by swinging slower.

You can still swing fast and be smooth. Look at Jason Day or Dustin Johnson.
		
Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately for you, physics tells us you can do exactly that.  I can think of three ways...

1) hitting the ball slower will decrease backspin which, into a head wide, can stop the ball ballooning up and stalling.

2) Alternatively, slower with a better launch angle, can make it longer too.

3) a bit of a cheat this one, but hitting slower and presumably more controlled may well mean you don't hit it into that tree and it may not bounce back behind you. ;-)


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 2, 2016)

bobmac said:



			I agree.
Plus, *you are less likely to hit the sweet spot consistently if you lash at it*

Click to expand...

This is the key!

Smash Factor (from a LM) will be significantly higher with a smooth feeling, if *slightly* slower swing because the strike is more often nearer to the sweet spot!

I've apparently got a 'ultra smooth' 90mph Driver swing that maximises ball-speed to around 135 virtually every time! My mate also has a 'smooth' swing - but his is 25mph faster!! If his swing is on, he's 80+ yards ahead of me; if it's slightly off, it can be 100 yards away from mine - often on an adjacent fairway! 

Finding the right balance of speed and rhythm (or tempo and timing!) is the key! I'd still like to be able to swing faster, as it's generally a huge advantage!

Oh and Gareth/One-Planer.... 90mph swing with a 1.5 (centred strike) Smash Factor gives same ball-speed as 100mph swing with 1.35 SF (off-centred strike) - so yes, you can hit it further if you hit it better!


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 2, 2016)

fundy said:



			sounds like youre calling yourself smooth Sam 

Click to expand...

  You've seen a photo of my legs, they are far from smooth.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 2, 2016)

One Planer said:



			My only take on this, to coin a Callaway  phrase, "You can't argue with physics".

You cannot swing slower and hit it further. You just can't! You can swing smoother and hit it further than you would if you snatch and lash at it, but you can't hit it further by swinging slower.

You can still swing fast and be smooth. Look at Jason Day or Dustin Johnson.
		
Click to expand...


People who feel like they are swinging smoother are often swinging just as fast or faster than normal, they swing better (more efficiently)

The women are probably giving it 98% of all they have, they can just make what is almost flat out look good with balance and technique


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 2, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			agree, there is a difference between hard & fast. 

Fast comes, from being smooth though IMO
		
Click to expand...

You are still talking about golf right?


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 2, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			You are still talking about golf right?
		
Click to expand...

maybe, maybe not


----------



## delc (Aug 2, 2016)

I should add that I am now hitting my 8 iron about 150 yards, whereas up to recently it was only 120 yards! &#128526;


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			I should add that I am now hitting my 8 iron about 150 yards, whereas up to recently it was only 120 yards! &#128526;
		
Click to expand...

Some people are smoking some weird weed today.

What would you put the 30 yard increase down too?


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			I should add that I am now hitting my 8 iron about 150 yards, whereas up to recently it was only 120 yards! &#128526;
		
Click to expand...

How much of that (extra) is carry and how much is run - with pretty rock hard summer fairways (and greens)?

Well done on reducing the h'cap though!


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			I should add that I am now hitting my 8 iron about 150 yards, whereas up to recently it was only 120 yards! &#62990;
		
Click to expand...

Surely you have lived through a previous Summer?


----------



## delc (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			How much of that (extra) is carry and how much is run - with pretty rock hard summer fairways (and greens)?

Well done on reducing the h'cap though!
		
Click to expand...

It's mostly carry, and our course has been softened up by recent rainfall in the South of England.


----------



## chellie (Aug 2, 2016)

Sure I've read a similar thread before by you


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 2, 2016)

Del has seen more epiphanies than Lourdes.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			It's mostly carry, and our course has been *softened up by recent rainfall in the South of England*.
		
Click to expand...

Eh! What? Apart from last night - and the Wimbledon induced stuff - there's been sod-all rain around!

July was actually the 6th driest on record for South East! https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2016/07/30/north-south-rainfall-divide-for-july/


----------



## delc (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Eh! What? Apart from last night - and the Wimbledon induced stuff - there's been sod-all rain around!

July was actually the 6th driest on record for South East! https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2016/07/30/north-south-rainfall-divide-for-july/

Click to expand...

It's been pretty wet here yesterday and today. Today was supposed to be cloudy but dry according to the weather forecast, but it actually turned out to be pretty wet. I know because I was out there playing golf!  &#128580;


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			It's been pretty wet here yesterday and today. Today was supposed to be cloudy but dry according to the weather forecast, but it actually turned out to be pretty wet. I know because I was out there playing golf!  &#128580;
		
Click to expand...

I repeat!!!!

July was actually the 6th driest on record for South East! https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2016/07/30/north-south-rainfall-divide-for-july/

Indeed, last night - and this morning were wet (forgot to mention that, even though I too experienced it!). But That's the only rain I can remember since Wimbledon!

That ain't going to soften fairways overnight!

Check the link I posted!!


----------



## the_coach (Aug 2, 2016)

the only stuff that can be taking place in terms of carry distance, is a little ways better synced sequence has been able to deliver whatever clubhead speed available in the particular swing motion at the part of the swing that this matters the most .. through impact and this combined with pretty reasonable other launch conditions 

as opposed to highest speed being reached elsewhere in the overall motion usually this being some place before impact


----------



## chellie (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			I repeat!!!!

July was actually the 6th driest on record for South East! https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2016/07/30/north-south-rainfall-divide-for-july/

Indeed, last night - and this morning were wet (forgot to mention that, even though I too experienced it!). But That's the only rain I can remember since Wimbledon!

That ain't going to soften fairways overnight!

Check the link I posted!! 



Click to expand...

You know it will have been different where Del is


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			I should add that I am now hitting my 8 iron about 150 yards, whereas up to recently it was only 120 yards! &#128526;
		
Click to expand...

So your actually saying that by watching the womens golf at Woburn and because they hit it slower and smoother and you have taken that on board,that now you are swinging slower and smoother you have started hitting your 8 iron 30 yards further and you now carry your 8 iron 150 ish.

Absolute cookoo land.


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 2, 2016)

Must be a nightmare now.  If you get a but fast with the swing you will come up 30 yards short. 

Disaster.


----------



## delc (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			I repeat!!!!

July was actually the 6th driest on record for South East! https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2016/07/30/north-south-rainfall-divide-for-july/

Indeed, last night - and this morning were wet (forgot to mention that, even though I too experienced it!). But That's the only rain I can remember since Wimbledon!

That ain't going to soften fairways overnight!

Check the link I posted!! 



Click to expand...

The greens were quite soft and receptive this morning, to the extent I could make pitch marks and screw the ball back with my shorter irons. I think I only used my 8 iron for approach shots to the greens.  &#128512;

P.S. It's August now, not July!


----------



## Soft hands (Aug 2, 2016)

Capella said:



			It would be interesting to see the numbers on a launch monitor on this. My guess would be, that even though you feel like you are hitting it slower, your clubhead speed at the moment of impact will actually be the same or even higher, just because the sequence is better.
		
Click to expand...

This is exactly how it was for me. My last lesson I ended up hitting a few of latest drivers messing around, and every time my swing 'felt' slower it was quicker not much mind just a mph or so, obviously swinging what I felt was within myself got timing better.


----------



## One Planer (Aug 2, 2016)

AlanMills said:



			Well, unfortunately for you, physics tells us you can do exactly that.  I can think of three ways...

1) hitting the ball slower will decrease backspin which, into a head wide, can stop the ball ballooning up and stalling.

2) Alternatively, slower with a better launch angle, can make it longer too.

3) a bit of a cheat this one, but hitting slower and presumably more controlled may well mean you don't hit it into that tree and it may not bounce back behind you. ;-)
		
Click to expand...

OK. Using your logic,  aside from 3 :smirk: , can you explain why Zach Johnson or Jim Furyk don't hit the ball as far as Jason Day or Dustin Johnson?

What you are saying appears to counteract Newton's Second law of motion.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 2, 2016)

One Planer said:



			My only take on this, to coin a Callaway  phrase, "You can't argue with physics".

You cannot swing slower and hit it further. You just can't! You can swing smoother and hit it further than you would if you snatch and lash at it, but you can't hit it further by swinging slower.

You can still swing fast and be smooth. Look at Jason Day or Dustin Johnson.
		
Click to expand...

Not convinced about  swinging fast being the only way to get distance.  Applying force to the ball it what gets it moving, if you apply force over distance you will produce good ball flighting.  Big strong men often hit the ball a long way without swinging fast.


----------



## delc (Aug 2, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Not convinced about  swinging fast being the only way to get distance.  Applying force to the ball it what gets it moving, if you apply force over distance you will produce good ball flighting.  Big strong men often hit the ball a long way without swinging fast.
		
Click to expand...

I now seem to have more time to properly complete my backswing and my quality of striking the ball has definitely improved. I guess that these are the main factors in increasing my length of shot.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 2, 2016)

What a weird thread

Swing faster, hit it harder, ball go further.. all other things being equal obviously

The size and strength of the man swinging the club is irrelevant to the ball, golf balls do not fly further as big strong men scare them into staying in the air longer, unless the aforementioned big strong men actually use their strength to accelerate the club into the ball at a higher velocity


----------



## delc (Aug 2, 2016)

There are lots of good golfers who appear to swing quite slowly but hit the ball miles, e,g. Ernie Els for the men and Inbee Park for the ladies. I think that timing and technique come into it more than just slogging at the ball.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 2, 2016)

Ernie used to swing at close to 120mph...


----------



## One Planer (Aug 2, 2016)

delc said:



			There are lots of good golfers who appear to swing quite slowly but hit the ball miles, e,g. Ernie Els for the men and Inbee Park for the ladies. I think that timing and technique come into it more than just slogging at the ball.
		
Click to expand...

The key word in that paragraph Del is "Appear".

Despite appearances, they give the ball a good lash.


----------



## the_coach (Aug 2, 2016)

main of the issues seen in this thread is over some misconceptions 

the  big easy has never swung it slow - _the reason it looks smooth is a tad  down to Ernie's size relative to the size of his golf club but largely  because the swing sequence is perfectly in sync and along with all that  the launch conditions are always near to optimum_

it's all about  efficient use of the folks available clubhead speed to get optimum  transfer of club speed to ball speed so that entails hitting it out of  the center

strike location is a crucial factor in getting best distance for every mph - along with optimum launch parameters

the  OP has simply had better sequencing better strike location - better  sequencing nearly always means the clubhead is moving a tad faster even  if it may not feel that's whats is happening - "feel to real" 

and  for the distance increase with an 8i of 150 quoted even given hard  ground ...... which it appears was not the case .... for sure that  clubhead would have had to be traveling a tad faster to get an extra  25-30 ....


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 2, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			What a weird thread

Swing faster, hit it harder, ball go further.. all other things being equal obviously

The size and strength of the man swinging the club is irrelevant to the ball, golf balls do not fly further as big strong men scare them into staying in the air longer, unless the aforementioned big strong men actually use their strength to accelerate the club into the ball at a higher velocity
		
Click to expand...

OK, lets use physics.  Force = Mass x Acceleration.   So a small mass moving very fast will create suitable Force and its the Force on the ball that  compresses it onto the clubface.  It also means that a higher mass into the ball at a slower velocity will also create suitable force into the ball.    So the mass of a the golfers body applied through the golf club to the ball will create suitable force to make the ball travel a good distance, just as a fast acceleration with low mass will do the same.

I know a few very strong guys that can hit the ball a very long way, they dont pull ugly faces at the ball they use the power of their big arms driven by the mass of their bodies to apply force over distance into the golf ball.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 2, 2016)

It also doesn't matter how hard you swing....If you hit it badly (out of toe, heel, or too low or high on the face) it ain't going to go as far as it can/should if you 'middle' it! Balancing the drop-off between this reduced performance against the increased speed from a faster, less consistent swing is what makes for a more consistent result!


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 2, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			OK, lets use physics.  Force = Mass x Acceleration.   So a small mass moving very fast will create suitable Force and its the Force on the ball that  compresses it onto the clubface.  It also means that a higher mass into the ball at a slower velocity will also create suitable force into the ball.    So the mass of a the golfers body applied through the golf club to the ball will create suitable force to make the ball travel a good distance, just as a fast acceleration with low mass will do the same.

I know a few very strong guys that can hit the ball a very long way, they dont pull ugly faces at the ball they use the power of their big arms driven by the mass of their bodies to apply force over distance into the golf ball.
		
Click to expand...

You wrongly make the assumption that a big man swinging at 100mph will hit the ball significantly further than a small man swinging at 100mph.

F equals MA and 100mph at impact is 100mph at impact the force on the ball is several tonnes per square inch and has nothing to do with the weight of the static lump of meat that accelerated the club to 100mph, if your theory were correct fat people would produce larger smash factors than thin people.

BTW when you hit it a long way it is not your arms that produce your power, it is everything from the ground up, your arms TRANSMIT the power

Hit it further, have a pie


----------



## Dan2501 (Aug 3, 2016)

Control strike better, hit it further!


----------



## ScienceBoy (Aug 3, 2016)

For me it's more about the first few feet, try to apply power when taking away the club and disaster.

I generally can apply power at other time times and get away with it... Well on the range 

Out on the course it's not usually worth the risk but it's nice to know you have a few percent extra when needed, especially when trying to squeeze a short iron close when between clubs.

If you get the sequence right on the downswing you can actually swing quite hard and hit the ball well.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 3, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			You wrongly make the assumption that a big man swinging at 100mph will hit the ball significantly further than a small man swinging at 100mph.

F equals MA and 100mph at impact is 100mph at impact the force on the ball is several tonnes per square inch and has nothing to do with the weight of the static lump of meat that accelerated the club to 100mph, if your theory were correct fat people would produce larger smash factors than thin people.

BTW when you hit it a long way it is not your arms that produce your power, it is everything from the ground up, your arms TRANSMIT the power

Hit it further, have a pie
		
Click to expand...

You don't seem to have taken in what I said.  I didnt say hit with their arms I said apply force using their arms and body. Hit it HARD.

F=MxA    Have you ever seen a wrecking ball knock down a building traveling at low speed. Put a golf ball on the floor and flick it only using your index finger moving as fast as possible.   Now keep your index finger straight and move the ball by pushing it with your whole arm and finger and see how far it travels. 

M=2  A = 10  :   F = 20

M=4  A = 5 :      F = 20

Think about it.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Aug 3, 2016)

I recall watching a 16 year old twig drive the ball similar to the fruit packing club champion. The size difference was comical but the result was the same. Both big hitters.


----------



## Fish (Aug 3, 2016)

delc said:



			There are lots of good golfers who appear to swing quite slowly but hit the ball miles, e,g. Ernie Elsl.
		
Click to expand...

Because he's a 7ft tall and 17 stone, slight exaggeration but my point stands.


----------



## LIG (Aug 3, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			So your actually saying that by watching the womens golf at Woburn and because they hit it slower and smoother and you have taken that on board,that now you are swinging slower and smoother you have started hitting your 8 iron 30 yards further and you now carry your 8 iron 150 ish.

*Absolute cookoo land.*

Click to expand...

Another opinion could be that maybe, just maybe, Del has always been cack with his 8 iron and up to now hasn't used the middle of the club.


----------



## LIG (Aug 3, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			What a weird thread

Swing faster, hit it harder, ball go further.. all other things being equal obviously

The size and strength of the man swinging the club is irrelevant to the ball, golf balls do not fly further as big strong men scare them into staying in the air longer, unless the aforementioned big strong men actually use their strength to accelerate the club into the ball at a higher velocity
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			OK, lets use physics.  Force = Mass x Acceleration.   So a small mass moving very fast will create suitable Force and its the Force on the ball that  compresses it onto the clubface.  It also means that a higher mass into the ball at a slower velocity will also create suitable force into the ball.    So the mass of a the golfers body applied through the golf club to the ball will create suitable force to make the ball travel a good distance, just as a fast acceleration with low mass will do the same.

I know a few very strong guys that can hit the ball a very long way, they dont pull ugly faces at the ball they use the power of their big arms driven by the mass of their bodies to apply force over distance into the golf ball.
		
Click to expand...




351DRIVER said:



			You wrongly make the assumption that a big man swinging at 100mph will hit the ball significantly further than a small man swinging at 100mph.

F equals MA and 100mph at impact is 100mph at impact the force on the ball is several tonnes per square inch and has nothing to do with the weight of the static lump of meat that accelerated the club to 100mph, if your theory were correct fat people would produce larger smash factors than thin people.

BTW when you hit it a long way it is not your arms that produce your power, it is everything from the ground up, your arms TRANSMIT the power

Hit it further, have a pie
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			You don't seem to have taken in what I said.  I didnt say hit with their arms I said apply force using their arms and body. Hit it HARD.

F=MxA    Have you ever seen a wrecking ball knock down a building traveling at low speed. Put a golf ball on the floor and flick it only using your index finger moving as fast as possible.   Now keep your index finger straight and move the ball by pushing it with your whole arm and finger and see how far it travels. 

M=2  A = 10  :   F = 20

M=4  A = 5 :      F = 20

Think about it.
		
Click to expand...

Physics is right fellas but you should be discussing Impulse and Momentum methinks. 

Think about Iron Byron and what the manufacturers do when club/ball testing.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 3, 2016)

LIG said:



			Physics is right fellas but you should be discussing Impulse and Momentum methinks. 

Think about Iron Byron and what the manufacturers do when club/ball testing.
		
Click to expand...

With a machine like Iron Byron there is only one way to hit the ball and it's not quite the same as a mass of muscle, bone and sinew swinging a golf club.   The Physics still stand though, speed with low mass will create suitable force just the same high mass at lower speed.

If you are slapped around the face by a girl or punched in the mouth by a beefcake they both hurt, the forces are applied differently though.


----------



## seochris (Aug 3, 2016)

LIG said:



			Physics is right fellas but you should be discussing Impulse and Momentum methinks. 

Think about Iron Byron and what the manufacturers do when club/ball testing.
		
Click to expand...

  :clap::thup:  Correct....and i would go so far as to say Kinetic energy imparted to the ball which is directly proportional to the square of its velocity.


----------



## Capella (Aug 3, 2016)

I think, the crux is that the mass that hits the ball is not just the mass of the cubhead. If you'd just throw the clubhead at the ball, things would be easy and 351DRIVER was right in stating that 110 mph are 110 mph, no matter who creates them. But the clubhead is connected to the shaft and through that to your arm and depending on your sequence of motion, that can actually increase the effective mass that hits the ball at impact. 

I recently read a blog entry by a German pro about this. He did an expermiment where he went to the gym regularly over winter to build up muscle power. What he expected to happen was, that the training would increase his clubhead speed and therefore his distance. The numbers showed, though, that even though he did increase his distance, much to his surprise the clubhead speed stayed the same. And he was consistent enough and did enough hits to take quality of strike (if we take that just to mean where he hits it on the club face) out of the equation. What the training did do for him was to somehow hit the ball "stonger" which if we look at it from the physical perspective of impulse or momentum, can only mean that the effective mass is higher at the moment of impact. 

The blog entry is in German, but if anyone is interested, it can be found here.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 3, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			You don't seem to have taken in what I said.  I didnt say hit with their arms I said apply force using their arms and body. Hit it HARD.

F=MxA    Have you ever seen a wrecking ball knock down a building traveling at low speed. Put a golf ball on the floor and flick it only using your index finger moving as fast as possible.   Now keep your index finger straight and move the ball by pushing it with your whole arm and finger and see how far it travels. 

M=2  A = 10  :   F = 20

M=4  A = 5 :      F = 20

Think about it.
		
Click to expand...

So when you say the POWER OF THEIR BIG ARMS.. this is not what you meant?
jees


Unless you are moving your OWN MASS through the ball at 110mph you have nothing to do with the actual force on the club head!

The best way to solve physics teasers is to use extreme examples

If two men swing a driver that is 15 feet long and the clubhead moves at 50mph 
teh ball in both cases assuming hit in the same manner, AOA etc will go exactly the same distance... the end of the big pendulum is the club, the anchor in the centre is not moving through the ball...

Bigger or stronger guys may get a MARGINALLY better strike due to better balance at impact this is simply good technique,  you need to be in the correct position at impact to transfer the energy from the club into the ball.

A 500lb man swinging at 100mph will not hit the ball any further than a 100lb woman swinging at 100mph 

In short

BIG GUYS do not magically hit the ball further just because they are big guys which was the only point i made (Correctly) before someone started talking to me about physics using an equation that has no bearing on anything beyond showing that he remembers a little high School Physics.


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 3, 2016)

delc said:



			I should add that I am now hitting my 8 iron about 150 yards, whereas up to recently it was only 120 yards! &#55357;&#56846;
		
Click to expand...

Lets remember its 'about 150yards'.    this isn't measured.   it is a guess.   people tend to over estimate, some more than others. 

Lets say its 140yards for arguments sake.   with a taylormade speedblade 8 iron which is really a 7 iron then its hardly the biggest shock.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 3, 2016)

There's a lot of twaddle being proposed in this thread!

Though it really does come down to Physics!

Anyone really interested could look at the following site ... http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/index.php which references an old (and rather more successful) class-mate of mine Rod White on the physics of the Golf Swing!

Theodore Jorgenson also produced a book called 'The Physics of Golf' that, while pretty heavy going , seems to explain lots! That book was the first time D-Plane was mentioned (to my awareness).


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 3, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			So when you say the POWER OF THEIR BIG ARMS.. this is not what you meant?
jees


Unless you are moving your OWN MASS through the ball at 110mph you have nothing to do with the actual force on the club head!

The best way to solve physics teasers is to use extreme examples

If two men swing a driver that is 15 feet long and the clubhead moves at 50mph 
teh ball in both cases assuming hit in the same manner, AOA etc will go exactly the same distance... the end of the big pendulum is the club, the anchor in the centre is not moving through the ball...

Bigger or stronger guys may get a MARGINALLY better strike due to better balance at impact this is simply good technique,  you need to be in the correct position at impact to transfer the energy from the club into the ball.

A 500lb man swinging at 100mph will not hit the ball any further than a 100lb woman swinging at 100mph 

In short

BIG GUYS do not magically hit the ball further just because they are big guys which was the only point i made (Correctly) before someone started talking to me about physics using an equation that has no bearing on anything beyond showing that he remembers a little high School Physics.
		
Click to expand...

If you want to ignore physics and keep changing the argument then feel free but it changes nothing.

To make it a bit easier for you to understand its about hitting the ball fast verses hitting it hard.  Both will create ball speed.  All golf swings need an amount of speed but I guess I had best leave you to your own beliefs.


----------



## Region3 (Aug 3, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			If you want to ignore physics and keep changing the argument then feel free but it changes nothing.

To make it a bit easier for you to understand its about hitting the ball fast verses hitting it hard.  Both will create ball speed.  All golf swings need an amount of speed but I guess I had best leave you to your own beliefs.
		
Click to expand...

I have completely lost the plot over what you are arguing/discussing now.

Are you trying to assert that the mass of the golfer is a contributing factor to distance, assuming all other things are equal?


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 3, 2016)

What argument?

I have not posted anything that is wrong!

Please argue with someone else

thank you


----------



## bobmac (Aug 3, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			Please argue with someone else

thank you
		
Click to expand...


He is :smirk:


----------



## njrose51 (Aug 3, 2016)

(1) I understand the concept that Delc was first talking about - smoother and slower is enabling a better impact and he may well be increasing club head speed without knowing it.
(2) I understand about a small golfer v a big golfer swinging same speed and power = same distance

But let me throw into the debate Joe Miller, the former Long Drive champion. yes, I know he is not a common golfer or a professional tour player, but he is immensely strong and once swung at over 200mph. So there is the argument that swinging fast and having the strength to smash the ball hard - coupled of course with the correct technique - can send the ball a huge distance.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 3, 2016)

njrose51 said:



			(1) I understand the concept that Delc was first talking about - smoother and slower is enabling a better impact and he may well be increasing club head speed without knowing it.
(2) I understand about a small golfer v a big golfer swinging same speed and power = same distance

But let me throw into the debate Joe Miller, the former Long Drive champion. yes, I know he is not a common golfer or a professional tour player, but he is immensely strong and once swung at over 200mph. So there is the argument that swinging fast and having the strength to smash the ball hard - coupled of course with the correct technique - can send the ball a huge distance.
		
Click to expand...

he did not swing it at over 200mph, his ball speed might have been but not swing speed.

This agrees with some of the points made though in that, being stronger/bigger is beneficial to speed of swing if you use the muscles/size you have to proper effect. 

And also, going back to the original post, i would also argue that relative to his size, Joe has a smooth takeaway meaning he can load the correct muscles and then hit the shot as hard as he wants.


----------



## One Planer (Aug 3, 2016)

I would argue that flexibility would play a bigger role than muscle mass.

Look at most tour pros. Hardly beef cakes.

.... But that's another argument :smirk:


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 3, 2016)

Seems to be about 8 threads within a single thread, not even sure i know what it about now


----------



## delc (Aug 3, 2016)

One Planer said:



			I would argue that flexibility would play a bigger role than muscle mass.

Look at most tour pros. Hardly beef cakes.

.... But that's another argument :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

I seem to have lost length as I get older, mainly I think due to my body being less flexible. I have some old videos of my swing taken 25 years ago showing that my backswing was much longer then than it is now.  The only advantages of being strong and flexible are that you can develop more club head speed and impart more speed to the ball. However for maximum transfer of energy the club face has to be square to the target line at the point of impact and the ball must be struck off the centre of the club face.


----------



## TonyN (Aug 3, 2016)

I think the key thing here, is not about swinging slower, but swinging more relaxed. Bob posted a while back and I think the general message was, to swing at 90%. Ultimately, we still swing at the same speed, we just seem more relaxed, so our muscles are relaxed and they move faster. 

When we try to swing faster, we tense up and probably swing slower. When we feel like we swing slower, our muscles are relaxed and we probably swing it just as fast. 

I used to watch the Videojug tutorials when I first started playing,This one pretty much covers why its better to stay relaxed 
[video=youtube;5PZP2u2tegE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PZP2u2tegE[/video]


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 3, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			he did not swing it at over 200mph, his ball speed might have been but not swing speed.

This agrees with some of the points made though in that, being stronger/bigger is beneficial to speed of swing if you use the muscles/size you have to proper effect. 

And also, going back to the original post, i would also argue that relative to his size, Joe has a smooth takeaway meaning he can load the correct muscles and then hit the shot as hard as he wants.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with almost everything you say (btw. Joe swings at a bit over 150mph - Ballspeed has been measured at 225).

However, the 'load the correct muscles' concept is a misconception that needs to be corrected. Muscles don't 'load' - they work by contracting! It's 'the swing' that gets loaded!

Then again, there are a number of Russian cheating 'athletes' who have been 'loading' muscles!


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 3, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			I agree with almost everything you say (btw. Joe swings at a bit over 150mph - Ballspeed has been measured at 225).

However, the 'load the correct muscles' concept is a misconception that needs to be corrected. Muscles don't 'load' - they work by contracting! It's 'the swing' that gets loaded!

Then again, there are a number of Russian cheating 'athletes' who have been 'loading' muscles! 

Click to expand...

What I meant by that isn't really the load in actual terms it was in reference to a previous post which said 'pointless being big if you don't use the muscles correctly'


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 3, 2016)

MendieGK said:



			What I meant by that isn't really the load in actual terms it was in reference to a previous post which said 'pointless being big if you don't use the muscles correctly'
		
Click to expand...

Yeah! No problem with that - the 'load muscles' misconception is just one of my 'hobby-horses'!

Joe is an excellent example of someone optimising his physical attributes - though for a specific purpose, so perhaps to the detriment of other aspects of his Golf (understandably deemed less important!!). He is a huge guy whose exercise regime is absolutely focused on muscle speed to maximize clubhead speed! Jamie Sadlowski is a completely different shape, but has the same ultimate purpose - to maximize clubhead speed. I'm sure Jamie's exercise regime will have a different focus to Joe's as it's JS's flexibility that achieves the speed - for him! Getting very large biceps/triceps would actually be detrimental for JS!


----------



## bobmac (Aug 3, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Then again, there are a number of Russian cheating 'athletes' who have been 'loading' muscles! 

Click to expand...


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 3, 2016)

bobmac said:



View attachment 20399

Click to expand...

I can remember watching Irina and Tamar Press perform!


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 4, 2016)

Seems to have evolved into how to swing fast now.. 2 more pages and I will rejoin just as soon as I am sure no one is going to start with Physics equations again


----------



## drdel (Aug 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			You don't seem to have taken in what I said.  I didnt say hit with their arms I said apply force using their arms and body. Hit it HARD.

F=MxA    Have you ever seen a wrecking ball knock down a building traveling at low speed. Put a golf ball on the floor and flick it only using your index finger moving as fast as possible.   Now keep your index finger straight and move the ball by pushing it with your whole arm and finger and see how far it travels. 

M=2  A = 10  :   F = 20

M=4  A = 5 :      F = 20

Think about it.
		
Click to expand...


Good grief SR you don't think you can get away with a science/physics based argument: you'll soon be expecting a thread to converge on the truth and where on earth would the keyboard warriors get their kicks then?


----------



## drdel (Aug 4, 2016)

For those who doubt that the stature of the golfer doesnâ€™t matter in hitting the golf ball.
Itâ€™s all down to physics and how energy is transferred to the ball. The kinetic energy comes from movement and the potential energy of how â€˜hardâ€™ the force is applied â€“ momentum if you like.
For a given club-head speed the momentum behind the hit comes from all the moving mass behind the club. That mass includes the golfer and the club.
If this didnâ€™t matter then you would have small guys who could generate the same speed at the head of an axe working as lumberjacks.  Obviously a bigger guy with stronger arms and torso generating the same axe-head speed applies more energy to the cutting edge. The bidder momentum he achieves stops his body and the axe being slowed at the moment of impact.
This is why a â€˜smoothâ€™ swing where the golf club is still accelerating through the point of impact will achieve a greater energy transfer than a decelerating club travelling at the same impact speed.
Even if you donâ€™t want to accept the science then ask yourself why the likes of Day, Johnson etc. are large guys working on their upper body strength.
I ainâ€™t seen a â€˜smallâ€™ guy win the Long Drive competitions.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 4, 2016)

drdel said:



			Good grief SR you don't think you can get away with a science/physics based argument: you'll soon be expecting a thread to converge on the truth and where on earth would the keyboard warriors get their kicks then?
		
Click to expand...

Bit of an issue when the 'science' quoted is nothing to do with the actual 'problem and solution' though! 



drdel said:



			For those who doubt that the stature of the golfer doesnâ€™t matter in hitting the golf ball.
Itâ€™s all down to physics and how energy is transferred to the ball. The kinetic energy comes from movement and the potential energy of how â€˜hardâ€™ the force is applied â€“ momentum if you like.
For a given club-head speed the momentum behind the hit comes from all the moving mass behind the club. That mass includes the golfer and the club.
If this didnâ€™t matter then you would have small guys who could generate the same speed at the head of an axe working as lumberjacks.  Obviously a bigger guy with stronger arms and torso generating the same axe-head speed applies more energy to the cutting edge. The bidder momentum he achieves stops his body and the axe being slowed at the moment of impact.
This is why a â€˜smoothâ€™ swing where the golf club is still accelerating through the point of impact will achieve a greater energy transfer than a decelerating club travelling at the same impact speed.
Even if you donâ€™t want to accept the science then ask yourself why the likes of Day, Johnson etc. are large guys working on their upper body strength.
I ainâ€™t seen a â€˜smallâ€™ guy win the Long Drive competitions.
		
Click to expand...

Most of the above is twaddle! *Club-head speed is everything*! What the build of the golfer is has little/no bearing on it - except to indicate which 'style' of training that particular golfer should use to increase their speed!

Check out Rod White's findings in the Tutelman stuff in the reference I posted earlier!

And compare the Long Drivers Jamie Sadlowski and Joe Miller!

Bubba Watson is actually a pretty weedy guy - at least compared to the likes of John Daly, JB Holmes and Kiradech Aphibarnrat, yet he's way above them in the Driving Distance stats! Darren Clark and Lee Westwood both GAINED distance when they lost weight (Mass being an important part of momentum)!

If body mass - as opposed to club-head speed - really had an effect on distance, then the Smash Factor calculation (Max Ball-Speed = 1.5 * Club-head speed) would have to also factor in Mass of swinger! As it clearly doesn't, then body mass is NOT a factor!

'Accelerating through impact' has almost no (actually, it's roughly half a percent) benefit to the actual strike - though it's almost certainly a great thought to maximise the impact speed! Again see Tutelman's comparison! 

However, physical attributes do contribute to the *ability* to generate club-head speed! Being relatively tall helps and being physically strong - in the right way - also helps. For those trying to maximise their distance, optimising their physical characteristics can help! But (Long Driver) Jamie Sadlowski's distance would almost certainly decrease if he added body mass - which is why he hasn't!



drdel said:



			...and the potential energy of how â€˜hardâ€™ the force is applied - momentum if you like'
		
Click to expand...

The above is absolute twaddle!!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 4, 2016)

What a surprise, Mr Foxy insulting peoples point of view.  Surely that's not a first.   Twaddle 

The golf ball only respects the force applied to it at impact, it cares nothing about how fast a clubhead is swinging.   Mr Newton found out that Force = Mass x Acceleration but seems like that's twaddle.  If the golf club was a piece of string with a clubhead on the end then indeed the only way to increase force would be to swing it faster but the clubhead is on the end of a shaft and it's possible to apply pressure to the shaft from the mass of your hands, arms and body, just the same as it is by swinging the club faster.    Watch Tour pro's swing a wedge with a slow looking tempo and then take a big divot, see the tension in their arms when they are swinging through impact, they certainly aren't holding onto the grip like it's a tube of toothpaste.

Make a reasoned argument but please leave out the stupid insults.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			What a surprise, Mr Foxy insulting peoples point of view.  Surely that's not a first.   Twaddle 

The golf ball only respects the force applied to it at impact, it cares nothing about how fast a clubhead is swinging.   Mr Newton found out that Force = Mass x Acceleration but seems like that's twaddle.  If the golf club was a piece of string with a clubhead on the end then indeed the only way to increase force would be to swing it faster but the clubhead is on the end of a shaft and it's possible to apply pressure to the shaft from the mass of your hands, arms and body, just the same as it is by swinging the club faster.    Watch Tour pro's swing a wedge with a slow looking tempo and then take a big divot, see the tension in their arms when they are swinging through impact, they certainly aren't holding onto the grip like it's a tube of toothpaste.

Make a reasoned argument but please leave out the stupid insults.
		
Click to expand...

Read this link! http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/index.php particularly the 'Golf Swing Physics' reference in it! Rod White is rather more qualified than me on the subject - and I'm almost certain also than you! So i'll let him 'make the reasoned argument' On that matter, Tutelman (also rather well qualified to comment) states - applying Newton's 2nd Law of course! - that the effect of 'accelerating through the ball' is less than half of one percent! And still no reference to body (or shaft) mass - just the mass of the club-head! 

Of course Newton's 2nd Law applies, but it's not the area of Physics that's relevant! And where did I say that was twaddle?

More appropriate areas that apply to Club-head/ball collision are that of (conservation of) Kinetic Energy (of the Club-head only before collision) and (conservation of) Momentum. The link uses that! Try reading it!

There is a small consideration wrt arm mass, but that is pretty insignificant if talking about the effect of the overall body on energy transmitted to the ball!

As an aside, to backup my 'Club-head speed is everything' assertion...Can you explain why this facility http://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/ doesn't consider Mass of shaft or Golfer - only Club-Head speed - yet comes up with pretty perfect numbers? Likewise...Does Trackman consider anything Mass or Force related? 

No! *The only thing that matters is Club-Head speed*! 

Anyway, this has all got rather off the topic of the thread - though certainly relevant to the Golf Swing! I suggest that if you want to continue this discussion, you create a new thread!


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 4, 2016)

Big people on average swing faster than small people, there is no debate there

10OMPH from a big guy or small guy will produce the same ball speed

There we go summed it up..

If this were not the case the 500lb guy who swings at 100mph would hit it much further than the 100lb guy who swings at 100mph


I agree with everything Foxholer said with one exception

John Daly when he was Younger could swing every bit as fast as Bubba now, Bubba has longer levers than JD so JDs 128mph swing is more impressive to me than Bubbas but with the same equipment and assuming JD was still able to swing this fast the ball would not care it would go the same distance if they both connected properly


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 4, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			...
I agree with everything Foxholer said with one exception

John Daly when he was Younger could swing every bit as fast as Bubba now, Bubba has longer levers than JD so JDs 128mph swing is more impressive to me than Bubbas but with the same equipment and assuming JD was still able to swing this fast the ball would not care it would go the same distance if they both connected properly
		
Click to expand...

Happy enough to accept that! And I agree about JD being impressive - certainly some overswing! The Wilson Killer Whale (he used one) was my first serious Driver! Had a graphite insert that must have been some fairly impressive tech to produce!


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 4, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Happy enough to accept that! And I agree about JD being impressive - certainly some overswing! The Wilson Killer Whale (he used one) was my first serious Driver! Had a graphite insert that must have been some fairly impressive tech to produce!
		
Click to expand...

I have actually swung his Wilson Killer Whale
What are the odds !


----------



## drdel (Aug 4, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Bit of an issue when the 'science' quoted is nothing to do with the actual 'problem and solution' though! 



Most of the above is twaddle! *Club-head speed is everything*! What the build of the golfer is has little/no bearing on it - except to indicate which 'style' of training that particular golfer should use to increase their speed!

Check out Rod White's findings in the Tutelman stuff in the reference I posted earlier!

And compare the Long Drivers Jamie Sadlowski and Joe Miller!

Bubba Watson is actually a pretty weedy guy - at least compared to the likes of John Daly, JB Holmes and Kiradech Aphibarnrat, yet he's way above them in the Driving Distance stats! Darren Clark and Lee Westwood both GAINED distance when they lost weight (Mass being an important part of momentum)!

If body mass - as opposed to club-head speed - really had an effect on distance, then the Smash Factor calculation (Max Ball-Speed = 1.5 * Club-head speed) would have to also factor in Mass of swinger! As it clearly doesn't, then body mass is NOT a factor!

'Accelerating through impact' has almost no (actually, it's roughly half a percent) benefit to the actual strike - though it's almost certainly a great thought to maximise the impact speed! Again see Tutelman's comparison! 

However, physical attributes do contribute to the *ability* to generate club-head speed! Being relatively tall helps and being physically strong - in the right way - also helps. For those trying to maximise their distance, optimising their physical characteristics can help! But (Long Driver) Jamie Sadlowski's distance would almost certainly decrease if he added body mass - which is why he hasn't!


The above is absolute twaddle!!
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insult LP. Clearly you would have failed as an engineer.

If you don't believe momentum has potential energy increased by the mass then I suggest you try driving head on into a 40tonne truck. At the same closing speed your chances of survival is less than if you'd hit a Fiesta ! Fact.

The same is true for any impact between two bodies hence the Rules Of Golf limits to CoR and MoI of Drivers.

However in my short time on the Forum I've learnt that you'll never let facts get in the way of your opinions and insults - pity.


----------



## LIG (Aug 4, 2016)

drdel said:



			Thanks for the insult LP. Clearly you would have failed as an engineer.

If you don't believe *momentum has potential energy increased by the mass* then I suggest you try driving head on into a 40tonne truck. At the same closing speed your chances of survival is less than if you'd hit a Fiesta ! Fact.

The same is true for any impact between two bodies hence the Rules Of Golf *limits to* CoR and *MoI of Drivers*.

However in my short time on the Forum I've learnt that you'll never let facts get in the way of your opinions and insults - pity.
		
Click to expand...

Firstly a question (as I don't recall the rules on MoI of drivers and haven't a copy of the rules to hand) : Is there a limit on MoI of Drivers? I know there is on CoR but...MoI?

Secondly, (to save Foxholer from replying/insulting you again) the bit in red above is ASBOLUTE NONSENSE i.e. it makes no sense. Momentum cannot "have" Potential Energy - they are two very different things. Perhaps you are becoming confused about *objects* with Potential Energy. 

Oh and you quoted Foxholer but insulted LP - another schoolboy error.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 4, 2016)

If you have read TGM by Homer Kelly he explains how there are two effective ways to hit a golf ball. One is the Swinging method and the other is the Hitting method, he explains how they are different but both can be effective.  Swinging is a method of letting the clubshaft freewheel through impact and is what some are talking about here.  The other 'Hitting' is where the club is pushed through the ball and uses less wrist action but relies more on the pivot of the body to apply leverage and compress the ball.

This guy in the attached video is explaining how to apply leverage by using body pivot to compress the golf ball.

[video=youtube;l0-jv7yQ55Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0-jv7yQ55Q[/video]


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 4, 2016)

drdel said:



*Thanks for the insult LP. *Clearly you would have failed as an engineer.

If you don't believe momentum has potential energy increased by the mass then I suggest you try driving head on into a 40tonne truck. At the same closing speed your chances of survival is less than if you'd hit a Fiesta ! Fact.

The same is true for any impact between two bodies hence the Rules Of Golf limits to CoR and MoI of Drivers.

However in my short time on the Forum I've learnt that you'll never let facts get in the way of your opinions and insults - pity.
		
Click to expand...

Excuse me ? Have I missed a post directed towards you or something ?


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 4, 2016)

LIG said:



			Firstly a question (as I don't recall the rules on MoI of drivers and haven't a copy of the rules to hand) : Is there a limit on MoI of Drivers? I know there is on CoR but...MoI?

Secondly, (to save Foxholer from replying/insulting you again) the bit in red above is ASBOLUTE NONSENSE i.e. it makes no sense. Momentum cannot "have" Potential Energy - they are two very different things. Perhaps you are becoming confused about *objects* with Potential Energy. 

Oh and you quoted Foxholer but insulted LP - another schoolboy error.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks LIG! You are absolutely correct! Momentum (Mass * Velocity) is unrelated to Potential Energy! That 40Tonne truck certainly has Kinetic Energy (0.5*40Tonnes*Velocity*Velocity) - which i wouldn't want to get in the way of! 

So, yet again....Twaddle! Try reading some school level Physics!

s for you question re MOI...Yes, there is a limit (for Drivers anyway). I think the number is 5900 gm/Square CM. From memory, introduced around the time of the early Nike yellow beasts. I had a Cobra L4V was supposedly labelled that way because it was designed to be at the *L*imit of all *4 V*ariables (I think). Bleedin' fugly, Noisy stick that I never really liked!


----------



## drdel (Aug 5, 2016)

OK, I apologise to LP.

In simple terms the reason two golfers who have identical club-head speed at impact may generate different distances (all other things being equal; launch angle. spin etc) is because one golfer may hit the ball 'harder' because his club is accelerating hard at the instant of impact whereas the other player's club may be decelerating, coasting or not accelerating as 'hard'.

Hence Delc's 'smooth' swing may be better because he has not spent all his energy early and the club is still accelerating rather than coasting or decelerating at the instant of impact.


----------



## Three (Aug 5, 2016)

drdel said:



			In simple terms the reason two golfers who have identical club-head speed at impact may generate different distances (all other things being equal; launch angle. spin etc) is because one golfer may hit the ball 'harder' because his club is accelerating hard at the instant of impact whereas the other player's club may be decelerating, coasting or not accelerating as 'hard'.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's absolute rubbish. 

The ball doesn't care about the acceleration or deceleration, the only thing that matters is the speed (all other factors being equal).


----------



## Three (Aug 5, 2016)

drdel said:



			Hence Delc's 'smooth' swing may be better because he has not spent all his energy early and the club is still accelerating rather than coasting or decelerating at the instant of impact.
		
Click to expand...


Again, the rate of acceleration or deceleration is irrelevant.


----------



## delc (Aug 5, 2016)

I am still hitting the ball impressive distances for my age with my smoother, longer swing. I seem to have more time to complete my swing and I am definitely not slogging at the ball. 
Main problem is that even if I go down a club or two from what I am used to, I sometimes go off the back of the green with approach shots.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 5, 2016)

drdel said:



			...
In simple terms the reason two golfers who have identical club-head speed at impact may generate different distances (all other things being equal; launch angle. spin etc) is because one golfer may hit the ball 'harder' because his club is accelerating hard at the instant of impact whereas the other player's club may be decelerating, coasting or not accelerating as 'hard'.
...
		
Click to expand...



Read this! http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/accelerateThru.php


----------



## delc (Aug 5, 2016)

Three said:



			Sorry, that's absolute rubbish. 

The ball doesn't care about the acceleration or deceleration, the only thing that matters is the speed (all other factors being equal).
		
Click to expand...

The great Bobby Jones once claimed that he felt like he was freewheeling through the impact zone, which is the sort of feeling I am getting now getting with my revised swing. If you think about it you have about a second to accelerate the club head to about 100 mph. Accelerating the clubhead after you have hit the ball is a waste of time and effort, although you should still try to swing through to a full finish.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 5, 2016)

drdel said:



			OK, I apologise to LP.

In simple terms the reason two golfers who have identical club-head speed at impact may generate different distances (all other things being equal; launch angle. spin etc) is because one golfer may hit the ball 'harder' because his club is accelerating hard at the instant of impact whereas the other player's club may be decelerating, coasting or not accelerating as 'hard'.

Hence Delc's 'smooth' swing may be better because he has not spent all his energy early and the club is still accelerating rather than coasting or decelerating at the instant of impact.
		
Click to expand...

When people say IN SIMPLE TERMS they often are trying to bluff that they have a vast pool of knowledge that they will simplify for the their layaudience in order to help them understand a complex problem.

Problem is, your post like many who post with this caveat is 100% BS


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 5, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			When people say IN SIMPLE TERMS they often are trying to bluff that they have a vast pool of knowledge that they will simplify for the their layaudience in order to help them understand a complex problem.

Problem is, your post like many who post with this caveat is 100% BS
		
Click to expand...

:thup:

Here's Tutelman's summary of the 'Hands Hit' that Bobby Jones advocated and many players/coaches believe assists club-head speed http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/handhit.php 

The conclusion is that, while it could well a good/great swing thought, adding wrist torque (the assumption of what this is) actually provides no benefit (unless absolutely perfectly timed, in which case it might add about a foot of carry!) and is significantly more likely to slow the swing down!


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 5, 2016)

The reason for accelerating at impact is simply to ensure you do not actually slow down as you approach the ball

It is a great swing thought to have, to accelerate (OR FEEL YOU ARE) through the ball merely to ensure you do not slow down before you actually connect

It is misinterpreted that somehow accelerating at impact makes a big difference, it doesnt, the point is simply to ensure you do not lose speed before you connect with the ball...

i.e. swing to a finish


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 5, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			When people say IN SIMPLE TERMS they often are trying to bluff that they have a vast pool of knowledge that they will simplify for the their layaudience in order to help them understand a complex problem.

Problem is, your post like many who post with this caveat is 100% BS
		
Click to expand...


Anyone that posts with a caveat that a different opinion is 100% BS or Twaddle are 100% knobs and need to do a bit of growing up.

It would be interesting to find out if you would use the same language face to face.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 5, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Anyone that posts with a caveat that a different opinion is 100% BS or Twaddle are 100% knobs and need to do a bit of growing 
*IF SOMETHING IS 100% BS, NOTHING WRONG WITH SAYING SO*

It would be interesting to find out if you would use the same language face to face.
		
Click to expand...

Says the guy who just called someone a knob 

FYI yes, i am pretty blunt and if someone says something that is stupid, rather than nod politely I will say, you know what you said sounds good but is stupid, its a trait i am blessed with.

There is a simple way to avoid this though, do not start preaching to people IN SIMPLE TERMS then talk utter ****, simples.

Dont you know who I am?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wysX_VNiX6U


----------



## Three (Aug 5, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Anyone that posts with a caveat that a different opinion is 100% BS or Twaddle are 100% knobs and need to do a bit of growing up.

It would be interesting to find out if you would use the same language face to face.
		
Click to expand...

You need to learn the difference between a subject that requires an opinion, versus a subject that is based on facts. 

As an official "Long Driver"  the guy knows his facts.    He's more than entitled to dismiss unquantifiable "opinions"  from those who are talking out their posterior. 

The physics of  how a ball goes certain distances is based on fact, not opinion.    How golfers "feel"  during their swing is one thing, what they are actually doing is normally completely different.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 5, 2016)

Three said:



			You need to learn the difference between a subject that requires an opinion, versus a subject that is based on facts. 

As an official "Long Driver"  the guy knows his facts.    He's more than entitled to dismiss unquantifiable "opinions"  from those who are talking out their posterior. 

The physics of  how a ball goes certain distances is based on fact, not opinion.    How golfers "feel"  during their swing is one thing, what they are actually doing is normally completely different.
		
Click to expand...

So you haven't bothered to read my posts before commenting on them.  I have explained the physics of it and given examples of experts opinion, nothing I have posted is pure opinion.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 5, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			Says the guy who just called someone a knob 

FYI yes, i am pretty blunt and if someone says something that is stupid, rather than nod politely I will say, you know what you said sounds good but is stupid, its a trait i am blessed with.

There is a simple way to avoid this though, do not start preaching to people IN SIMPLE TERMS then talk utter ****, simples.

Dont you know who I am?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wysX_VNiX6U

Click to expand...


My comment to you was in reply to your insulting post.   I have explained the facts and physics to you on this issue, I have given you examples of experts who agree with my opinion.    You seem to get a bit confused in the way grown up debate works, people state an opinion and others are at will to question it and offer alternative views.  Suggesting an alternative view is BS or Twaddle is the debating method of the playground.

If you want to use your 'Simple Terms' to debate Newtons Laws of Motion then please do, if you want to use 'simple terms' to debate Homer Kelley's book 'The Golf Machine'  then please do but leave out the kids stuff please.

Oh! and if thats you then it just about sums it up.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 5, 2016)

Socket Rocket you seem to be getting your knickers in a twist over my *reply* to THIS message

*In simple terms the reason two golfers who have identical club-head speed at impact may generate different distances (all other things being equal; launch angle. spin etc) is because one golfer may hit the ball 'harder' because his club is accelerating hard at the instant of impact whereas the other player's club may be decelerating, coasting or not accelerating as 'hard'.

Hence Delc's 'smooth' swing may be better because he has not spent all his energy early and the club is still accelerating rather than coasting or decelerating at the instant of impact.*

Which does not require debate it is just nonsense

I used his SIMPLE terms thing, because in my experience when people say in SIMPLE terms they often are bluffing a bit, in this case the person clearly does not know what they he is talking about yet chose to introduce his knowledge to us in SIMPLE TERMS. 

 I find the expression in simple terms mostly to be pretty patronising as well, the assumption being that the people you are speaking to will not understand the whole of what you know, it makes you look doubly stupid when you are 100% wrong.

In simple terms an apple is an orange.
That too would be rubbish, same thing, when a statement is wrong it is wrong..


----------



## drdel (Aug 5, 2016)

I really don't think this debate is going anywhere useful.  I have no personal axe to grind with you DRIVER351 and I have no wish to continue with such a trite and insulting debate as the thread has now degenerated beyond recovery.

The "Simple Terms" to which you seem to have taken great exception was merely a common saying, if you felt put down then I'm sorry. You can stick to your opinion but claiming my comments are 100% wrong is daft as there's no basis for measure 10%. 20% etc. you need to be able to have 100% of something which means knowing the ultimate value!

SR has tried to explain the underpinning physics but you seem determined to be blind to the fundamental fact that a force is the product of mass and acceleration. Thus whether the club is decelerating, at steady state or accelerating is of material significance to how much energy can potentially be transferred to the ball.

You may be able to hit a ball well but you're demonstrating that you're no scientist.


----------



## Region3 (Aug 5, 2016)

drdel said:



			I really don't think this debate is going anywhere useful.  I have no personal axe to grind with you DRIVER351 and I have no wish to continue with such a trite and insulting debate as the thread has now degenerated beyond recovery.

The "Simple Terms" to which you seem to have taken great exception was merely a common saying, if you felt put down then I'm sorry. You can stick to your opinion but claiming my comments are 100% wrong is daft as there's no basis for measure 10%. 20% etc. you need to be able to have 100% of something which means knowing the ultimate value!

SR has tried to explain the underpinning physics but you seem determined to be blind to the fundamental fact that a force is the product of mass and acceleration. Thus whether the club is decelerating, at steady state or accelerating is of material significance to how much energy can potentially be transferred to the ball.

You may be able to hit a ball well but you're demonstrating that you're no scientist.
		
Click to expand...

Are you able to show us the mathematics behind it. No arguments then. :thup:


----------



## 351DRIVER (Aug 5, 2016)

drdel said:



			I really don't think this debate is going anywhere useful.  I have no personal axe to grind with you DRIVER351 and I have no wish to continue with such a trite and insulting debate as the thread has now degenerated beyond recovery.

The *"Simple Terms"* to which you seem to have taken great exception was merely a common saying, *if you felt put down then I'm sorry*. *You can stick to your opinion* but *claiming my comments are 100% wrong is daft* as there's no basis for measure 10%. 20% etc. you need to be able to have 100% of something which means knowing the ultimate value!

SR has tried to explain the underpinning physics but you seem determined to be blind to the fundamental fact that a force is the product of mass and acceleration. *Thus whether the club is decelerating, at steady state or accelerating is of material significance to how much energy can potentially be transferred to the ball.*

You may be able to hit a ball well but you're demonstrating that you're no scientist.
		
Click to expand...

1st up, i got an A in Physics, no one can ever take that away and F equals MA is not news to me
2nd up, you are still wrong

I have highlighted the relevant areas you might want to reconsider
SIMPLE TERMS is highlighted as i find it funny given i know what is techincally known as a **** load more than you do about this

I did not feel put down, i just found it a tad ridiculous when you are expressing in simple terms something that is entirely inaccurate.

Your comments are wrong  and you seem to think the only formula you learned at school somehow backs you up (It doesn't, energy transfer ratio or smash factor has nothing to with F equals MA instead it is down to the materials that are colliding)  

If you want to use F equals MA then  use it when applying it to people of varying mass moving their limbs to produce the same clubhead speed via equal length arms of various thickness, fatter people will use more force to move their larger limbs in order to produce the speed) there you go, a useful application for your equation

Again i highlighted the part that you should check, keeping it all in simple terms

I will check back in on page 15 of this weird debate.


There is a reason i highlighted MATERIAL that reason is (ALthough I am rather certain you do not know this) an accelerating club head can produce 0.5 to 1.5 CM extra distance v one that is moving with zero acceleration, but that was never what you meant.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 5, 2016)

Region3 said:



			Are you able to show us the mathematics behind it. No arguments then. :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Here's a reference to an article from someone who can - and does! http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/golfSwingPhysics.php

And for those who can't be bothered to link to it, simply quoting Newton's 2nd Law, here's his conclusion....
<Start of Quote>
Summary for Technique

Work done by the golfer builds up kinetic energy in the torso, shoulders, and arms. This is then transferred via tension in the shaft as the club and arms unfold away from the golferâ€™s body.

The good: the greater the fold (wrist cock) the more efficient the transfer of energy from the body to the club.
The bad: the greater the wrist torque (use of the hands) the earlier the club unfolds and the less energy is transferred to the club.
These two effects, the negative effect of wrist torque and the positive effect of wrist cock, account for most of the 70 m difference between the beginner and the scratch golfer.

These effects are also counterintuitive â€“ not what the beginner golfer expects. This perhaps explains why a good golf swing is so hard to learn. 

Another factor making a good swing hard to learn is that it is mentally difficult to hold onto the club firmly while not holding the wrists firmly. It is curious that most people, when asked to throw a golf club as far as possible, would swing the club around their shoulders without using wrist torque, and this is exactly the action required for a good swing. Swinging a club loosely around your shoulders as if you were about to throw it will help to train your brain to not use your hands. I have also found it helpful to visualise throwing the club through the impact zone. In fact a full vigorous swing around your shoulders like a baseball swing, including hip and shoulder movement, captures all of the important parts of the swing.

One of the benefits of the overlap grip is that it keeps the combined length of the hands short and the right hand weak (for a right-handed golfer). This enables the golfers to grip the club firmly, but limits the ability to apply wrist torque.
<End of Quote>

Unless anyone suitable qualified can point out an error in that article, then I'll continue to call their opinions 'uninformed' and 'twaddle'! There is no insult intended - it's not personal, simply factual!

Oh and the other 'conclusion' is that (appropriate) better wrist-cock/un-cock is a major factor on improving distance - so that's the thing to focus on for most of us!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 6, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			Socket Rocket you seem to be getting your knickers in a twist over my *reply* to THIS message

*In simple terms the reason two golfers who have identical club-head speed at impact may generate different distances (all other things being equal; launch angle. spin etc) is because one golfer may hit the ball 'harder' because his club is accelerating hard at the instant of impact whereas the other player's club may be decelerating, coasting or not accelerating as 'hard'.

Hence Delc's 'smooth' swing may be better because he has not spent all his energy early and the club is still accelerating rather than coasting or decelerating at the instant of impact.*

Which does not require debate it is just nonsense

I used his SIMPLE terms thing, because in my experience when people say in SIMPLE terms they often are bluffing a bit, in this case the person clearly does not know what they he is talking about yet chose to introduce his knowledge to us in SIMPLE TERMS. 

 I find the expression in simple terms mostly to be pretty patronising as well, the assumption being that the people you are speaking to will not understand the whole of what you know, it makes you look doubly stupid when you are 100% wrong.

In simple terms an apple is an orange.
That too would be rubbish, same thing, when a statement is wrong it is wrong..   





Click to expand...

This post goes to highlight your misunderstanding of what has been put to you.  The golf ball has no concept of whether the club was accelerating or decelerating at the point of impact, it only respects the actual force applied to it.  You may have an 'A' level in physics, I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and I know that anyone suggesting that the mass and acceleration applied to a golf ball does not affect the force applied to it is ignorant of the facts.

Making statements like I am 100% wrong needs proof, otherwise it's just stupid.  I can see attempting to debate with you is pointless, you are fixated in your view and wont even consider a reasoned argument.

I wont attempt any further intellectual discussion with you as it's unfair to get into a fight with an unarmed man.

Let the Force be with you.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 6, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Here's a reference to an article from someone who can - and does! http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/golfSwingPhysics.php

And for those who can't be bothered to link to it, simply quoting Newton's 2nd Law, here's his conclusion....
<Start of Quote>
Summary for Technique

Work done by the golfer builds up kinetic energy in the torso, shoulders, and arms. This is then transferred via tension in the shaft as the club and arms unfold away from the golferâ€™s body.

The good: the greater the fold (wrist cock) the more efficient the transfer of energy from the body to the club.
The bad: the greater the wrist torque (use of the hands) the earlier the club unfolds and the less energy is transferred to the club.
These two effects, the negative effect of wrist torque and the positive effect of wrist cock, account for most of the 70 m difference between the beginner and the scratch golfer.

These effects are also counterintuitive â€“ not what the beginner golfer expects. This perhaps explains why a good golf swing is so hard to learn. 

Another factor making a good swing hard to learn is that it is mentally difficult to hold onto the club firmly while not holding the wrists firmly. It is curious that most people, when asked to throw a golf club as far as possible, would swing the club around their shoulders without using wrist torque, and this is exactly the action required for a good swing. Swinging a club loosely around your shoulders as if you were about to throw it will help to train your brain to not use your hands. I have also found it helpful to visualise throwing the club through the impact zone. In fact a full vigorous swing around your shoulders like a baseball swing, including hip and shoulder movement, captures all of the important parts of the swing.

One of the benefits of the overlap grip is that it keeps the combined length of the hands short and the right hand weak (for a right-handed golfer). This enables the golfers to grip the club firmly, but limits the ability to apply wrist torque.
<End of Quote>

Unless anyone suitable qualified can point out an error in that article, then I'll continue to call their opinions 'uninformed' and 'twaddle'! There is no insult intended - it's not personal, simply factual!

Oh and the other 'conclusion' is that (appropriate) better wrist-cock/un-cock is a major factor on improving distance - so that's the thing to focus on for most of us!
		
Click to expand...

Tutelman is generally discussing a swinging motion and making comparisons between how the wrist cock can amplify speed.  His other comments are not explaining the difference between a swinger and a hitter.  Go read TGM to understand how these different actions create force to the ball.


----------



## delc (Aug 6, 2016)

There seems to be some misconceptions here. Newton's first law states that a body remains at rest or in a constant state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. In a golf swing this applies to both the club head and the ball. So you apply a force to accelerate the club head to whatever speed and then the clubhead applies a force to the stationary ball, which accelerates smartly away. Due to transfer of momentum effects and the golf ball having less mass than the clubhead, the ball will leave the impact travelling about 30% faster than the club head speed. The wrist hinge and delayed hit (lag) adds a flail effect which amplifies the club head speed into the ball and gives greater distance.


----------



## Robobum (Aug 6, 2016)

delc said:



			There seems to be some misconceptions here. Newton's first law states that a body remains at rest or in a constant state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. In a golf swing this applies to both the club head and the ball. So you apply a force to accelerate the club head to whatever speed and then the clubhead applies a force to the stationary ball, which accelerates smartly away. Due to transfer of momentum effects and the golf ball having less mass than the clubhead, the ball will leave the impact travelling about 30% faster than the club head speed. The wrist hinge and delayed hit (lag) adds a flail effect which amplifies the club head speed into the ball and gives greater distance.
		
Click to expand...

Ctrl C

Ctrl V


----------



## delc (Aug 6, 2016)

There is an interesting experiment described in 'The Search for the Perfect Swing' by Cochran and Stobbs. They had a club made with a hinge just above the neck. They found that this made hardly any difference to the distances hit, even though the golfer or robot couldn't apply any more force during the impact zone. They concluded that for all practical purposes, the club head was in ballistic free flight through the impact zone. Some trick shot artists make use of this effect by hitting good shots with clubs with hinged or rubber shafts. &#128526;


----------



## guest100718 (Aug 6, 2016)

I find applying lots of golf ball wack force makes the ball go a long way. If it goes off line and I use foul language to alter it's course, this often fails.


----------



## delc (Aug 6, 2016)

guest100718 said:



			I find applying lots of golf ball wack force makes the ball go a long way. If it goes off line and I use foul language to alter it's course, this often fails.
		
Click to expand...

A good golfer swings with effortless grace. A bad one with graceless effort!  &#128512;


----------



## 3565 (Aug 6, 2016)

Best post in ages, I know physics plays a massive part and have attempted to read the golfing machine, without doubt a hard read. Can I understand, no, beyond my concept, I know what to do and how to do it but understanding how is another level! 

But reading this post, I've come to the conclusion there must be some **** hot swings from those who understand physics..........

very entertaining.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Aug 6, 2016)

This is going to be my approach to tomorrow's round. Swing smooth.

I just think a little slower swing will make the best of the round.

My swing deserted me on the range yesterday but after throwing down the alignment sticks it was better than ever. Hopefully I can beat 90 for the first time this year.


----------



## Region3 (Aug 6, 2016)

I hope you're having a good giggle at this thread Ian.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 6, 2016)

Region3 said:



			I hope you're having a good giggle at this thread Ian.



Click to expand...

some of the comments made me giggle, but it's been interesting thread of which I have no knowledge about and I can't and won't contribute as I'm not really 'informed' properly about physics. some would do well to take note!


----------



## Robobum (Aug 6, 2016)

3565 said:



			some of the comments made me giggle, but it's been interesting thread of which I have no knowledge about and I can't and won't contribute as I'm not really 'informed' properly about physics. some would do well to take note!
		
Click to expand...

Have you not got Google?


----------



## drdel (Aug 6, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			This post goes to highlight your misunderstanding of what has been put to you.  The golf ball has no concept of whether the club was accelerating or decelerating at the point of impact, it only respects the actual force applied to it.  You may have an 'A' level in physics, I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and I know that anyone suggesting that the mass and acceleration applied to a golf ball does not affect the force applied to it is ignorant of the facts.

Making statements like I am 100% wrong needs proof, otherwise it's just stupid.  I can see attempting to debate with you is pointless, you are fixated in your view and wont even consider a reasoned argument.

I wont attempt any further intellectual discussion with you as it's unfair to get into a fight with an unarmed man.

Let the Force be with you.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you SR and like you I have an engineering Degree, along with an MSc and a PhD so I'll trump your 'A' level physics 351.

One last go for you DRIVER351 - you are mistaking Power and Force and these concepts involve the mass, velocity and acceleration. I won't confuse your brain by the difference between centripetal and centrifugal dynamics because the club head is travelling on an arc but will limit my comments to linear dynamics just to consider that even if the two club-heads measures the same velocity at the instantaneous point of impact the minute time the driver surface is in contact can transmit different levels of energy related to the trampoline effect the shaft stiffness etc. and strength of the golfer applying the effort. The reason is that power is a force over a distance so if the club accelerates the velocity after the instant of impact will be marginally higher than it was; likewise of the club is decelerating at impact it will be marginally slower after the ball rebounds from the surface transmitting less power so potentially less distance.

Enough time wasted I'm out of here.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 6, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Have you not got Google? 

Click to expand...

I have, but I'm more of a show it to me and I'll replicate it then to sit and decipher a book or internet reading and to apply my brain in a physical way........


----------



## Pro Zach (Aug 6, 2016)

drdel said:



			I agree with you SR and like you I have an engineering Degree, along with an MSc and a PhD so I'll trump your 'A' level physics 351.

One last go for you DRIVER351 - you are mistaking Power and Force and these concepts involve the mass, velocity and acceleration. I won't confuse your brain by the difference between centripetal and centrifugal dynamics because the club head is travelling on an arc but will limit my comments to linear dynamics just to consider that even if the two club-heads measures the same velocity at the instantaneous point of impact the minute time the driver surface is in contact can transmit different levels of energy related to the trampoline effect the shaft stiffness etc. and strength of the golfer applying the effort. The reason is that power is a force over a distance so if the club accelerates the velocity after the instant of impact will be marginally higher than it was; likewise of the club is decelerating at impact it will be marginally slower after the ball rebounds from the surface transmitting less power so potentially less distance.

Enough time wasted I'm out of here.
		
Click to expand...

To steal a phrase, this is twaddle. To suggest that someone writing this absolute nonsense has a Ph.D. is laughable. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Sorry if this sounds offensive to anyone but writing such drivel while claiming authority is in itself offensive.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 6, 2016)

Pro Zach said:



			To steal a phrase, this is twaddle. To suggest that someone writing this absolute nonsense has a Ph.D. is laughable. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Sorry if this sounds offensive to anyone but writing such drivel while claiming authority is in itself offensive.
		
Click to expand...

If you disagree with something then do more than throw insults about as it makes you sound immature and stupid.  

Are you immature and stupid?  Why not make some grown up arguments to persuade us otherwise.


----------



## the_coach (Aug 6, 2016)

with this as a topic it was never goin to be short - could have been a whole bunch longer ..... but the reading of is not compulsory 

force is a result of mass multiplied by acceleration (â€˜forceâ€™ at collision impact in a golf sense is clubhead speed)

thereâ€™s a bunch differing â€˜forcesâ€™ going on when folks swing a golf club with the one of the intents being to produce a â€˜speedâ€™ of the clubhead through impact (along with other optimum launch conditions)

one part of these â€˜forcesâ€™ thatâ€™s always there is the vertical component of force which is always goin to be affected by the constant acceleration of gravity 
(even when folks standing still doin nothing the vertical ground reaction force there is, is equal to their weight (force of body mass caused by gravity)

whatâ€™s key though to the production of clubhead speed (â€˜forceâ€™) at collision impact is that through the whole swing motion this vertical force changes due to the motion of movements that folks make - so this vertical force is affected both by gravity and also the total acceleration, so including the acceleration that folks produce through their swing motion itself

depending just how folks move (the efficiency of) during the swing motion, the vertical force can be greater or lesser than their body weight

easy ways to experience this is weighing on a scale (scale calculates body mass from â€˜forceâ€™ with the known acceleration of gravity) and bending at the knees to get on the scale, first off scale will show a lower body mass (weight) due to negative acceleration, then as the downward (bending) movement slows (as folks balance to straighten up) it momentarily shows a higher body mass due to positive acceleration
but when all the movement of getting on the scale has stopped it will show the true body mass as at this point there is zero acceleration except that of gravity

any folks that are still here up to this point - the reason for sure all of that is important in a golf swing is the â€˜ground reaction forceâ€™  is a real critical part of being able with a swing motion to produce maximum club head speed (force) at collision impact
anyone imagining this not to be the case should find the nearest rink to them and try out producing clubhead speed with a swing motion on the ice â€¦.

principle of grf is in itself a ways simple as the laws of motion dictate that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction (folks exert pressure/force into the ground, the ground 'exerts' pressure/force back)

throughout a swing motion a force is exerted into the ground by the golfer swinging the club (better sequenced golf motions will for sure be able to utilize grf in a ways to produce more clubhead speed/force at collision impact) 

itâ€™s a tad more complicated and would take many pages to explain fully as there are also horizontal components or shear force component to grf and these are indirectly affected by gravity as they also increase with vertical force

like say sliding the foot over the ground more force exerted down at the same time it becomes increasingly more difficult to slide the foot

so with sufficient traction (enough vertical force) between the golferâ€™s feet and the ground the â€˜horizontal forceâ€™ allows folks to push in one direction and to move in the opposite direction

this is what is taking place during the rotational movement of the backswing pivot, changing at transition, and taking place again in the downswing
(there is also of course the centripetal force (& centrifugal force) between the rotational motion and the arms and golf club - but then again to go into this fully is something else again

at itâ€™s real essence the 3 major force components through a swing motion are all acting at the same time, hopefully through a good sequence of motion this provides folks the ability to produce torque â€˜aboutâ€™ the vertical axis

vertical force has to be there for there to be any horizontal (shear) force

the rotational motion itself is just a result of the horizontal forces acting in â€˜oppositeâ€™ (not just left and right but also diagonal shear forces) directions at the feet to ground connection
(forces in the toe/heel - heel/toe direction are primarily working to cause rotation with the forces in left/right - right/left direction primarily providing the stability for balance during the motion)

better athletic body condition combined with optimum swing motion sequencing technique is going to be able to produce a faster clubhead speed/force at collison/impact
(also the physicality of height to have a wider/bigger overall swing arc - combined with these other 2 factors would produce a great clubhead speed than a narrower/smaller swing arc all other things being equal)


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 7, 2016)

@Coach

There's a lot of good stuff in that post! Thanks (I think) for introducing Gravity - the only element of Potential Energy (as opposed to 'potentially energy') there is in a swing.

There is, however, 1 glaring, if not very important, error. Scales measure Weight - the Force - not Mass. The Mass of a body does not magically change when the knees are bent (or straightened), simply the force (Weight). If that experiment/demonstration (Space Suit required!) was performed on the Moon, the numbers (Weight) would be different but the Mass would the same (provided the same Space Suit was included in the Earth conducted one ). 

There is also a 'glaring' and very important 'error' (well, misconception really) that has pervaded the thread! F=MA (Newton's 2nd Law) will always be applicable, but it is not the area of Physics that is most relevant to the club-head/golf ball collision! To prove my point, consider the following... F=MA does not mention Speed (Velocity really, but will do here), so the calculation (of any *extra* distance provided by Wrist Torque (Torque being Rotational Force) is just as relevant if done while stationary as if it were done with the arms moving! Try doing that and you will see that very little is possibly gained - and should notice that the effect on club-face can be rather severe! This is pretty much what experience has shown happens in 'full-speed' swings - the recommendation is 'Don't actively manipulate the wrists (just let them uncock) or if you do, timing is absolutely critical!

The area of Physics that IS appropriate is that referred to in Rod White's explanation ... http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/golfSwingPhysics.php

One of his conclusions (from the mathematics he provides) is that (poorly timed) wrist torque can actually reduce Club-Head speed - because of its effect on the 2-Pendulum 'System' that represents the Golf Swing. Increased Lag/Wrist Cock, however, can increase Clubhead Speed significantly - all reflecting what Teachers generally say and the models can demonstrate!

Another question for you that may resolve other issues in the thread...

If a Golfer swings at 100mph (Club-Head speed), does it matter whether he is 100lbs or 300lbs? Or is Club-Head Speed all that matters?!


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 7, 2016)

drdel said:



			I agree with you SR and like you I have an engineering Degree, along with an MSc and a PhD so I'll trump your 'A' level physics 351.
		
Click to expand...

In that case, you should be ashamed of (most of) the following post!



drdel said:



			For those who doubt that the stature of the golfer doesnâ€™t matter in hitting the golf ball.
Itâ€™s all down to physics and how energy is transferred to the ball. The kinetic energy comes from movement and the potential energy of how â€˜hardâ€™ the force is applied â€“ momentum if you like.
For a given club-head speed the momentum behind the hit comes from all the moving mass behind the club. That mass includes the golfer and the club.
If this didnâ€™t matter then you would have small guys who could generate the same speed at the head of an axe working as lumberjacks.  Obviously a bigger guy with stronger arms and torso generating the same axe-head speed applies more energy to the cutting edge. The bidder momentum he achieves stops his body and the axe being slowed at the moment of impact.
This is why a â€˜smoothâ€™ swing where the golf club is still accelerating through the point of impact will achieve a greater energy transfer than a decelerating club travelling at the same impact speed.
Even if you donâ€™t want to accept the science then ask yourself why the likes of Day, Johnson etc. are large guys working on their upper body strength.
I ainâ€™t seen a â€˜smallâ€™ guy win the Long Drive competitions.
		
Click to expand...

And.....

Can you fault anything in Rod White's article http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/golfSwingPhysics.php Both he and Tutelman are pretty well qualified to publish the Physics/Math(s) behind the swing!


----------



## drdel (Aug 7, 2016)

What it seems impossible for you; DRIVER351 and Foxholer to accept is the effect of whether the golfer has a technique that permits acceleration of the club head through the impact zone. I am not arguing about the function of clubhead speed and distance. I am disagreeing with whether for the exact same clubhead speed, (same trampoline effect, same golf ball deformation, same shaft distance etc. etc) will always (potentially) give the same distance.

Delc's post was about swinging smoother; my contention, backed by science, is that because the swing is 'smoother' the same club head speed at the precise instant of impact produces a different 'smash' input if the clubhead is accelerating, than at static velocity or indeed decelerating. For the average golfer the smoother swing pmore likely means the club head is still accelerating through the zone and in those fractions of a second while the ball deforms against the clubhead the CoG of both the club and the ball come closer together and, supplemented by the reforming and rebounding ball, an accelerating club head is in contact with the ball (pushing it) for a few milliseconds longer hence imparting more power (force times distance) in addition to the force from the kinetic energy (mass times velocity squared) that came form the head's speed.

A decelerating or coasting clubhead (when the golfer has spent his energytoo early e.g. when trying to 'hit' it hard) may be travelling at the same velocity but it now relies only on the trampoline and all other effects which because the clubhead velocity has become slower than that of the ball it looses contact with the ball whose hysterisis in reformation has sent it off the head sooner thus less power is transferred to it. As a consequence of the lower total energy imparted to the ball less potential distance results.


----------



## the_coach (Aug 7, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			@Coach

There's a lot of good stuff in that post! Thanks (I think) for introducing Gravity - the only element of Potential Energy (as opposed to 'potentially energy') there is in a swing.

There is, however, 1 glaring, if not very important, error. Scales measure Weight - *the Force* - not Mass. The Mass of a body does not magically change when the knees are bent (or straightened), simply the force (Weight). If that experiment/demonstration (Space Suit required!) was performed on the Moon, the numbers (Weight) would be different but the Mass would the same (provided the same Space Suit was included in the Earth conducted one ). 

There is also a 'glaring' and very important 'error' (well, misconception really) that has pervaded the thread! F=MA (Newton's 2nd Law) will always be applicable, but it is not the area of Physics that is most relevant to the club-head/golf ball collision! To prove my point, consider the following... F=MA does not mention Speed (Velocity really, but will do here), so the calculation (of any *extra* distance provided by Wrist Torque (Torque being Rotational Force) is just as relevant if done while stationary as if it were done with the arms moving! Try doing that and you will see that very little is possibly gained - and should notice that the effect on club-face can be rather severe! This is pretty much what experience has shown happens in 'full-speed' swings - the recommendation is 'Don't actively manipulate the wrists (just let them uncock) or if you do, timing is absolutely critical!

The area of Physics that IS appropriate is that referred to in Rod White's explanation ... http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/golfSwingPhysics.php

One of his conclusions (from the mathematics he provides) is that (poorly timed) wrist torque can actually reduce Club-Head speed - because of its effect on the 2-Pendulum 'System' that represents the Golf Swing. Increased Lag/Wrist Cock, however, can increase Clubhead Speed significantly - all reflecting what Teachers generally say and the models can demonstrate!

Another question for you that may resolve other issues in the thread...

*If a Golfer swings at 100mph (Club-Head speed), does it matter whether he is 100lbs or 300lbs? Or is Club-Head Speed all that matters?*!
		
Click to expand...

maybes you should read the post again 

"easy ways to experience this is weighing  on a scale _(scale calculates body mass from *â€˜forceâ€™ *with the known  acceleration of gravity)_ and bending at the knees to get on the scale,  first off scale will show a lower body mass (weight) due to negative  acceleration, then as the downward (bending) movement slows (as folks  balance to straighten up) it momentarily shows a higher body mass due to  positive acceleration
but when all the movement of getting on the scale has stopped it will  show the true body mass as at this point there is zero acceleration  except that of gravity"


the rest of that para so after the underlined bracketed part, is written taken the underlined part, as a given, as stated from the outset 
- most folks associate the reading of a scale as a reading of body mass weight - so back in the real world a 'short hand' way of folks finding out a 'reasonably true' measure of how heavy they are
however get on a scale in the real world and it will react as described above as due to negative then positive acceleration the real world 'weight/body mass read out' as understood by most' will react as described - bearing in mind the phrase written at the start of the para - _(scale calculates body mass from *â€˜forceâ€™ *with the known  acceleration of gravity)_

taking place during the rotational  movement of the backswing pivot, changing at transition, and taking  place again in the downswing
(there is also of course the centripetal force (& centrifugal force)  between the rotational motion and the arms and golf club - but then  again to go into this fully is something else again

at itâ€™s real essence the 3 major force components through a swing motion  are all acting at the same time, hopefully through a good sequence of  motion this provides folks the ability to produce torque â€˜aboutâ€™ the  vertical axis
torque 'about' a vertical axis - here "about" being a word chosen carefully as it refers to the *rotational motion affect* on the *"arms and club"* note here it was the *arms and club* that distinction again chosen carefully - there was no mention of 'wrists' as a separate entity and no mention of a somewhat often times misleading phrase 'wrist torque' - and again no mention of any independently induced wrist motion through impact to provide, quoting "any extra distance"

in regard to the last sentence/question would just refer back to an initial point made from the get-go
*(â€˜forceâ€™ at collision impact in a golf sense is clubhead speed)
*
and no folks on earth produce a golf swing motion that is not affected by gravity



plus to produce optimum clubhead speed to a max in any swing motion has to done using ground reaction force with an optimum sequence of the swing motion


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 7, 2016)

drdel said:



			What it seems impossible for you; DRIVER351 and Foxholer to accept is the effect of whether the golfer has a technique that permits acceleration of the club head through the impact zone. I am not arguing about the function of clubhead speed and distance. I am disagreeing with whether for the exact same clubhead speed, (same trampoline effect, same golf ball deformation, same shaft distance etc. etc) will always (potentially) give the same distance.

Delc's post was about swinging smoother; my contention, backed by science, is that because the swing is 'smoother' the same club head speed at the precise instant of impact produces a different 'smash' input if the clubhead is accelerating, than at static velocity or indeed decelerating. For the average golfer the smoother swing pmore likely means the club head is still accelerating through the zone and in those fractions of a second while the ball deforms against the clubhead the CoG of both the club and the ball come closer together and, supplemented by the reforming and rebounding ball, an accelerating club head is in contact with the ball (pushing it) for a few milliseconds longer hence imparting more power (force times distance) in addition to the force from the kinetic energy (mass times velocity squared) that came form the head's speed.

A decelerating or coasting clubhead (when the golfer has spent his energytoo early e.g. when trying to 'hit' it hard) may be travelling at the same velocity but it now relies only on the trampoline and all other effects which because the clubhead velocity has become slower than that of the ball it looses contact with the ball whose hysterisis in reformation has sent it off the head sooner thus less power is transferred to it. As a consequence of the lower total energy imparted to the ball less potential distance results.
		
Click to expand...

The additional distance that an (actually) accelerating clubhead makes over the tiny period it is in contact with the ball is negligible - at least if clubhead speed is maximised at initial impact. The club is in contact with the ball for a few microseconds! By how much will the clubhead speed increase over that period? 

You claim your opinion is 'backed by science'! Time to actually provide that science (and plug in the numbers!) or admit to it posting twaddle!

Accelerate through the ball is a (pretty good) swing thought! It helps maintain/maximise Clubhead Speed - the key to distance! Any additional acceleration - during the very small time the face and ball are in contact - provides only a tiny bit of extra speed/distance. 
Again this marginal benefit can be demonstrated by performing the 'acceleration' from stationary, with a small push (representing an acceleration of 1mph) of the ball by the clubhead. Absolutely naff-all distance gained!!

White also states that the 30-50 metres he gained has also been achieved with 'less effort'. This seems to correspond to DelC's 'swing smoother hit further'!


----------



## 3565 (Aug 7, 2016)

Golf is deceptively simple but endlessly complicated...................by man!!!


----------



## Robobum (Aug 7, 2016)

Wow. Some of you need to find something productive to do with your time.

Drugs, hookers, gambling..... Anything which means you stop.........just stop.........please!!!


Please stop


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 7, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Wow. Some of you need to find something productive to do with your time.

Drugs, hookers, gambling..... Anything which means you stop.........just stop.........please!!!


Please stop
		
Click to expand...

I believe it would be unhealthy to just stop. Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them.  Maybe a better way would be for us to wean ourselves away from the debate by letting our feminine sides dominate such that we pay compliments to all posts no matter how wrong they may appear to us.

Sorry, I'll get me coat Sweet Cheeks.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Aug 7, 2016)

this gets my vote for thread of the year. :thup:


----------



## delc (Aug 10, 2016)

Since changing to a smoother swing I am consistently scoring in the low 80's and had a 78. My driving distance has gone up from about 210 yards to about 250 yards, but the biggest improvement is in my iron play, where I am hitting each club about 20 yards further and generally much cleaner and straighter. Golf almost (but not quite) seems like an easy game again!


----------



## Slab (Aug 10, 2016)

Could someone please just answer this simple Q

Car A accelerates and hits space hopper at 30pmh
Car B speed is constant and hits space hopper at 30pmh
Car C is decelerating and hits space hopper at 30pmh

Assuming all other factors are equal i.e car size/weight, wind etc etc etc...  where can I buy 3 space hoppers?



_edit: just thinking this through I also need a rather large oversized tee, perhaps 6-8 inch diameter head, thanks_


----------



## Region3 (Aug 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Could someone please just answer this simple Q

Car A accelerates and hits space hopper at 30pmh
Car B speed is constant and hits space hopper at 30pmh
Car C is decelerating and hits space hopper at 30pmh

Assuming all other factors are equal i.e car size/weight, wind etc etc etc...  where can I buy 3 space hoppers?



_edit: just thinking this through I also need a rather large oversized tee, perhaps 6-8 inch diameter head, thanks_

Click to expand...

Olympic torch for the tee, should have change from a grand off ebay.

Pilates balls are better than space hoppers because they don't have ears (handles) that stop it rolling properly.

HTH  :thup:


----------



## Slab (Aug 10, 2016)

Region3 said:



			Olympic torch for the tee, should have change from a grand off ebay.

Pilates balls are better than space hoppers because they don't have ears (handles) that stop it rolling properly.

HTH  :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, I did consider pilates balls but then thought it a bit unscientific, after all how are the forum members supposed to hang on after impact? 
It just introduces a random element dependent on thigh gripage and would doubtless skew results

Cheers for the torch idea though


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Could someone please just answer this simple Q

Car A accelerates and hits space hopper at 30pmh
Car B speed is constant and hits space hopper at 30pmh
Car C is decelerating and hits space hopper at 30pmh

Assuming all other factors are equal i.e car size/weight, wind etc etc etc...  where can I buy 3 space hoppers?



_edit: just thinking this through I also need a rather large oversized tee, perhaps 6-8 inch diameter head, thanks_

Click to expand...

How about this:

You get a choice of a skinny 8 stone whimp punching you in the face at 10 MPH  or a 20 stone Schwarzenegger .


----------



## Region3 (Aug 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Thanks, I did consider pilates balls but then thought it a bit unscientific, after all how are the forum members supposed to hang on after impact? 
It just introduces a random element dependent on thigh gripage and would doubtless skew results

Cheers for the torch idea though
		
Click to expand...

Ah, didn't realise there were forum members on the space hoppers as they got mashed by vehicles. Carry on.


----------



## Slab (Aug 10, 2016)

Region3 said:



			Ah, didn't realise there were forum members on the space hoppers as they got mashed by vehicles. Carry on.
		
Click to expand...

Naturally I was gonna use kids of equal size but figured forumers might be interested in seeing the practical elements of the test first hand (if I call it a Forum Opportunity I reckon it'll get a good uptake)


----------



## Norrin Radd (Aug 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Naturally I was gonna use kids of equal size but figured forumers might be interested in seeing the practical elements of the test first hand (if I call it a Forum Opportunity I reckon it'll get a good uptake)
		
Click to expand...

can i drive the accelerating car please


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 10, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			How about this:

You get a choice of a skinny 8 stone whimp punching you in the face at 10 MPH  or a 20 stone Schwarzenegger .
		
Click to expand...

Now that WOULD be different. There is almost certainly more mass moving, so the MOMENTUM will be different!

But the equivalent scenario - the 8 stone wimp and the 20 stoner (or even an Iron Byron) middling a shot with a Driver whose head is travelling at 100mph will achieve the same distance (other attributes - AofA, swing path etc - also being the same!). Swinging simply - or simply swinging! - and letting all the energy transfer to the clubhead - is definitely the optimum method, providing the maximum clubhead speed! That's what Rod White's article concludes and both he and Delc  appear to be reaping the benefit!

White's paper has been published in sufficient academic journals (see his references) and for sufficient time for it to be critiqued by peers (and perhaps betters). You might also recognise some of his references (and diagrams/animation)! Tutelman himself has a pretty impressive CV wrt the likelihood of identifying any error! Unless you can actually prove otherwise, please accept that White is correct!

I'm convinced that our most efficient swings are when we simply let the swing happen, something I believe I'm pretty good at - if at a slower speed than the likes of Freddy Couples, Sergio, Ernie etc!


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 10, 2016)

delc said:



			Since changing to a smoother swing I am consistently scoring in the low 80's and had a 78. My driving distance has gone up from about 210 yards to about 250 yards, but the biggest improvement is in my iron play, where I am hitting each club about 20 yards further and generally much cleaner and straighter. Golf almost (but not quite) seems like an easy game again!  

Click to expand...

Your driving distance has gone up 20% and you still think your iron play is the biggest improvement.

No disrespect Delc but this is all rather baffling to be honest as with this type of significant improvement I would expect to see lower scores leading to a rather large handicap improvement.


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 10, 2016)

Two minutes on a launch monitor could prove If he really has gained the distance he thinks he has. 

It's always 'about' 20 yards.  

One thing is for certain. Most times people over estimate how far they hit the ball. 

Be nice to see numbers for this smooth swing against his old swing.


----------



## DRW (Aug 10, 2016)

delc said:



			Since changing to a smoother swing I am consistently scoring in the low 80's and had a 78. My driving distance has gone up from about 210 yards to about 250 yards, but the biggest improvement is in my iron play, where I am hitting each club about 20 yards further and generally much cleaner and straighter. Golf almost (but not quite) seems like an easy game again!  

Click to expand...

Oh please, Driving distance from 210 to 250 (average), would mean about at least a 10mph(depending on hardness of fairways) increase in swingspeed or equivalent better ball hit strike on each and every shot.

Also your 8 iron you said in a previous post now goes 150 yards from 120 yards but now you say about 20 yards further, I am confused. But this still means more than 10mph increase.

If you hit your 8 iron 150 yards(assuming mainly carry distance), then that is long for an 8 iron, therefore you would expect your driver to go further than 250 with roll, as 250 is not long at this time of year.

I think it is down mainly to summer conditions. For instance I can chase a 7 iron out to 175 in summer, but in early spring when no roll I hit it about 155 carry.

Someone who hits it short and has a good short game, should always see an improvement in scores during summer and confidence is a wonderful thing.

I do think it is funny that some people think a large man swinging at 100mph, will hit it further than a small guy swinging at 100mph. :rofl:

The max club to ball speed allowed is 1.5 IIRC, where does the large man and small man come in that sentence or the rules.


----------



## Three (Aug 10, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			How about this:

You get a choice of a skinny 8 stone whimp punching you in the face at 10 MPH  or a 20 stone Schwarzenegger .
		
Click to expand...


If the golf clubhead hits the ball at 100mph, it doesn't make any difference if the person holding the other end is a 12 yr old girl or Mike Tyson.


----------



## the_coach (Aug 10, 2016)

Three said:



			If the golf clubhead hits the ball at 100mph, it doesn't make any difference if the person holding the other end is a 12 yr old girl or Mike Tyson.
		
Click to expand...

+1 
:swing:


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 10, 2016)

DarrenWilliams said:



			...
I do think it is funny that some people think a large man swinging at 100mph, will hit it further than a small guy swinging at 100mph. :rofl:

The max club to ball speed allowed is 1.5 IIRC, where does the large man and small man come in that sentence or the rules.
		
Click to expand...

A large man will almost certainly have larger arm muscles than a small one! This will make it easier for him to swing faster without using any of the other, more technical, ways to produce clubhead speed that smaller folk need to use - to get the same clubhead speed. Compare Lee Westwood (89Kg) with Andy Sullivan (72Kg) and Matt Fitzgerald (65Kg). They are all within a few yards for driving stats (Sullivan is actually the longest). Rory (73Kg) has actually 'got shorter', according to the stats, in 2016, but is still longer on average than all the above! So it's not body mass that is the dominant contributor to distance - at least, not at Pro level! - otherwise Westwood's 20% 'advantage' would be telling!

At Club/Hacker level however....The ease of bigger guys, with bigger arm muscles, to swing faster CAN be telling. But how often have any/all of us watched in awe as the weedy Junior's fluid swing smacks the ball 50+ yards further than we would even contemplate!

Clubhead Speed of a centred strike is the only stat that matters wrt distance. Body mass is irrelevant - except providing the ability to use more powerful muscles to swing faster!

Accelerating through impact is a good swing thought, but has infinitesimal effect! Actively using wrist torque to produce more speed is more likely to produce less speed!


----------



## delc (Aug 10, 2016)

The best tip I got for improving my distance was from a video clip earlier on in this thread, where the importance of keeping a constant grip pressure through the swing was emphasised. If you do that it is quite easy to swing smoothly, and not, as it where, get in your own way. I really seem to be able to whip the club through impact really fast now. By the way, my handicap has already come down from 13 to 11, with at least a potential for more cuts, as I am averaging about 81 shots per round at the moment.


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 10, 2016)

delc said:



			The best tip I got for improving my distance was from a video clip earlier on in this thread, where the importance of keeping a constant grip pressure through the swing was emphasised. If you do that it is quite easy to swing smoothly, and not, as it where, get in your own way. I really seem to be able to whip the club through impact really fast now. By the way, my handicap has already come down from 13 to 11, with at least a potential for more cuts, as I am averaging about 81 shots per round at the moment.
		
Click to expand...

Has your handicap come down after you started this thread or was it before?

I was replying to your post where your driver had increased by 20% but your irons were better.

If all your boasts are true then I would be expecting a 2 shot drop in handicap rather sooner than later.


----------



## delc (Aug 10, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			Has your handicap come down after you started this thread or was it before?

I was replying to your post where your driver had increased by 20% but your irons were better.

If all your boasts are true then I would be expecting a 2 shot drop in handicap rather sooner than later.
		
Click to expand...

Since! I have played in two comps since making the change. First was a Seniors Medal when I shot a nett 71 off 13, which was 3 under the CSS, and then in a Bogey-Par playing off 12 I shot a 6 up on the course, actually a gross 78.  &#128512;


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 10, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			Your driving distance has gone up 20% and you still think your iron play is the biggest improvement.

No disrespect Delc but this is all rather baffling to be honest as with this type of significant improvement I would expect to see lower scores leading to a rather large handicap improvement.
		
Click to expand...




delc said:



			The best tip I got for improving my distance was from a video clip earlier on in this thread, where the importance of keeping a constant grip pressure through the swing was emphasised. If you do that it is quite easy to swing smoothly, and not, as it where, get in your own way. I really seem to be able to whip the club through impact really fast now. By the way, my handicap has already come down from 13 to 11, with at least a potential for more cuts, as I am averaging about 81 shots per round at the moment.
		
Click to expand...




pokerjoke said:



			Has your handicap come down after you started this thread or was it before?

I was replying to your post where your driver had increased by 20% but your irons were better.

If all your boasts are true then I would be expecting a 2 shot drop in handicap rather sooner than later.
		
Click to expand...




delc said:



			Since! I have played in two comps since making the change. First was a Seniors Medal when I shot a nett 71 off 13, which was 3 under the CSS, and then in a Bogey-Par playing off 12 I shot a 6 up on the course, actually a gross 78.  &#128512;
		
Click to expand...


So you shot 84/71 when you were a 13 handicap and got a cut to 12 on the 14/7 2016.

The womens golf where you got the inspiration of hitting it smoother was on the 28/7/2016 at Woburn as you stated.

You started this thread on the 01/8 2016.

I ask you if you got a cut after you posted the thread and you answer yes but the story doesn't add up.
Do you want to change your answer?


----------



## delc (Aug 10, 2016)

In answer to Pokerjoke, I also went to watch the Qualifying event for the US Women's Open at the Buckinghamshire, and we had a couple of LET pro golfers in attendance at our Captain's day. Does it really matter anyway? I have found something that helps my golf, and may help other forum members!


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 10, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			So you shot 84/71 when you were a 13 handicap and got a cut to 12 on the 14/7 2016.

The womens golf where you got the inspiration of hitting it smoother was on the 28/7/2016 at Woburn as you stated.

You started this thread on the 01/8 2016.

I ask you if you got a cut after you posted the thread and you answer yes but the story doesn't add up.
Do you want to change your answer?
		
Click to expand...

:rofl:

This month's 'Foxholer Award for BS Detection' ! :clap:

@Delc No it doesn't really matter - except perhaps to your reputation (h'mm! ). Pleased that you have found something that has improved your Golf!


----------



## Crow (Aug 10, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			So you shot 84/71 when you were a 13 handicap and got a cut to 12 on the 14/7 2016.

The womens golf where you got the inspiration of hitting it smoother was on the 28/7/2016 at Woburn as you stated.

You started this thread on the 01/8 2016.

I ask you if you got a cut after you posted the thread and you answer yes but the story doesn't add up.
Do you want to change your answer?
		
Click to expand...

Get a life man!


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 10, 2016)

Crow said:



			Get a life man! 

Click to expand...

Your probably right but I cant stand BS trying to fabricate a story to make it sound better to others so to me it does matter I suppose.


----------



## delc (Aug 10, 2016)

What is really nice is that I can now reach a 400 yard par-4 with something like a driver and an 8 iron or less, whereas before I often needed a driver and a fairway wood or hybrid to even get anywhere close to the green. This makes such a difference!  &#128512;


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			Your probably right but I cant stand BS trying to fabricate a story to make it sound better to others so to me it does matter I suppose.
		
Click to expand...

Thatchers makes things matter less.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 10, 2016)

delc said:



			What is really nice is that I can now reach a 400 yard par-4 with something like a driver and an 8 iron or less, whereas before I often needed a driver and a fairway wood or hybrid to even get anywhere close to the green. This makes such a difference!  &#128512;
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but stop this - you can't go from not being able to get it past 210 and constantly going on about not being long enough for your course and your HC etc etc to now hitting drives over 250 and 8 irons 150 plus !! All because you swing smoother ?!? I haven't read all the maths rubbish but Darren had it spot on in regards how quick your swing speed would have to improve !! 

I expect you are currently getting a little bit more roll during the hard ground summer season and that's it


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sorry but stop this - you can't go from not being able to get it past 210 and constantly going on about not being long enough for your course and your HC etc etc to now hitting drives over 250 and 8 irons 150 plus !! All because you swing smoother ?!? I haven't read all the maths rubbish but Darren had it spot on in regards how quick your swing speed would have to improve !! 

I expect you are currently getting a little bit more roll during the hard ground summer season and that's it
		
Click to expand...

Smoother doesn't necessarily mean slower.  You can swing smooth and gradually increase speed so that at impact you are creating better ball compression, a good swing creates maximum speed just after impact and to do that you need good tempo.   Why do so many suggest Delc is not telling the truth, swinging our of your socks can create all kinds of poor impact conditions and inefficiency.  Effortless Power beats Powerless Effort.


----------



## guest100718 (Aug 10, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Smoother doesn't necessarily mean slower.  You can swing smooth and gradually increase speed so that at impact you are creating better ball compression, a good swing creates maximum speed just after impact and to do that you need good tempo.   Why do so many suggest Delc is not telling the truth, swinging our of your socks can create all kinds of poor impact conditions and inefficiency.  Effortless Power beats Powerless Effort.
		
Click to expand...

Because sadly delc bashing is the way of the forum.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 10, 2016)

Does anyone know what 'smooth', or 'smoother' mean ?
With a little bit of a physics.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2016)

Backsticks said:



			Does anyone know what 'smooth', or 'smoother' mean ?
With a little bit of a physics.
		
Click to expand...

Good rhythm and tempo such that you keep control of the swing.


----------



## delc (Aug 11, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Good rhythm and tempo such that you keep control of the swing.
		
Click to expand...

I had been going through a bit of a bad patch earlier in the year, rarely breaking 90, with the biggest problem being lack of length, putting too much strain on my short game. What got me thinking was a visit to our club by LET pro Hannah Ralph, whose swing looked so slow and rhythmical compared with most club golfers, yet she still hit the ball further than most of them (men included).

What I have been working on are: staying centred, longer slower backswing, turn don't sway, swinging through the ball rather than hitting at it, maintaining a constant grip pressure and turning my body through the impact zone to a full finish. These changes now seem to be bearing fruit as my scores have come down to the low 80's and I am hitting the ball much further. Basically I have made my golf swing more efficient. I have always been a relatively straight hitter, but long and straight beats short and straight every time!


----------



## drdel (Aug 11, 2016)

Backsticks said:



			Does anyone know what 'smooth', or 'smoother' mean ?
With a little bit of a physics.
		
Click to expand...

See post 89 and SocketRocket's post above.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 11, 2016)

Backsticks said:



			Does anyone know what 'smooth', or 'smoother' mean ?
With a little bit of a physics.
		
Click to expand...


Any excuse to show this swing again

[video=youtube;mcfVZ6JwHJ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcfVZ6JwHJ8[/video]


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2016)

It's physiology then, not physics - though everything actually eventually comes down to physics!

Big shoulder turn brings the powerful upper body and core muscles into play; big hip turn and 'ground up' on the downswing brings the powerful leg muscles into play on the downswing!.

Here's a 12 stone (+/- a couple of pounds) who hits the ball quite well - and smoothly! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ0dNIP-yoU

Here's another Sadlowski vid that's really worth watch watching for advice about speed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLGwxXk-7LM

Gorgeous swing in that vid Bob!


----------



## delc (Aug 11, 2016)

I played to my handicap again today in a qualifier, despite my round including 5 three-putts and 1 four-putt. Greens were awful after hollow tinning and sanding, and I really struggled on them. A gross 83 and 36 points shows how good my tee to green golf was!  If and when the greens get back to normal I am still hoping for another cut in handicap. Think I made buffer today (results not yet published) and I came 2nd in the competition.


----------



## delc (Sep 9, 2016)

Thought that I would report that my slower, smoother swing is still working well. I am hitting the ball decent distances again, and my average score has come down from the low nineties to the low eighties. My best score lately was 78, and my worst score was 85, which is not too bad for a creaking 70 year old. I think that my swing must have got too short and quick before I made the change. Swing, don't hit!


----------

