Speed Training

[Hoganman1]

I was reading a thread on another site about "speed training". One of the posters said he trains every day by swinging a driver shaft without a club head. I tried it, but haven't been able to play or even go to the range to see if it has had an effect. The site (GEA) has been down all day so I cannot access the thread to see if there are any additional comments. My understanding is that it works similar to the Orange Whip and helps one increase swing speed. Has anyone on this forum tried this training and had some success?

 

[duncan mackie]

https://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/threads/superspeedgolf.100276/unread

 

[Hoganman1]

Thanks!

 

[Doh]

The orange whip is not about swing speed it's more about timing and sequencing.

 

[Hoganman1]

The orange whip is not about swing speed it's more about timing and sequencing.

Thanks for the input. I haven't tried the Orange Whip so I wasn't sure how it helps.

 

[SGC001]

I was reading a thread on another site about "speed training". One of the posters said he trains every day by swinging a driver shaft without a club head. I tried it, but haven't been able to play or even go to the range to see if it has had an effect. The site (GEA) has been down all day so I cannot access the thread to see if there are any additional comments. My understanding is that it works similar to the Orange Whip and helps one increase swing speed. Has anyone on this forum tried this training and had some success?

I would suggest that a heavy club to help create a better sequence would benefit more people.

You get a lot of sport scientists jumping down your throat about heavy clubs teaching your muscles to move slower, but its a false apples and oranges comparison imo (note not arguing about muscle speed).

Heavier clubs have benefits that help plane and sequence, this seems to been ignored.

I'd argue a better kinematic sequence and application of force and power at appropriate times would be likely to benefit more people.

I dont disagree about training muscle speed, just think its a different argument and part of training.

Its possible that training with extra weight which has been done in many sports under the guide of increasing speed and power is wrong and is a myth passed down, but i see too much ecological validity with kinematic sequence and think it more likely some sport scientist without thinking it through thought only of the training muscle contraction speed and didnt consider sequence which is now perpetuated.

 

[Dibby]

I would suggest that a heavy club to help create a better sequence would benefit more people.

You get a lot of sport scientists jumping down your throat about heavy clubs teaching your muscles to move slower, but its a false apples and oranges comparison imo (note not arguing about muscle speed).

Heavier clubs have benefits that help plane and sequence, this seems to been ignored.

I'd argue a better kinematic sequence and application of force and power at appropriate times would be likely to benefit more people.

I dont disagree about training muscle speed, just think its a different argument and part of training.

Its possible that training with extra weight which has been done in many sports under the guide of increasing speed and power is wrong and is a myth passed down, but i see too much ecological validity with kinematic sequence and think it more likely some sport scientist without thinking it through thought only of the training muscle contraction speed and didnt consider sequence which is now perpetuated.

What is your basis for it being apples and oranges? What do you think is different? Speed is related to plane and sequencing.

I would suggest that as long as you have feedback, in this case some way of measuring speed, you will find that in order to get faster, you have to improve sequencing and plane automatically.

This is actually similar to an area where I feel a lot golf teaching goes awry. There is a huge focus on position, when in reality if we focus on impact conditions, as we improve these, positions (including plane and sequencing of movement) tend to improve naturally. Speed is one of these impact conditions, and in order to get maximum speed we have to move efficiently, better sequencing will always lead to better speed, so IMHO better to learn to be fast and develop sequence through learning what makes you faster, than to try and learn sequence slowly and then try and speed it up. In fact I would go so far as to say I would bet most people can have perfect sequence at low speed, but can't do it at full speed.

 

[SGC001]

What is your basis for it being apples and oranges? What do you think is different? Speed is related to plane and sequencing.

I would suggest that as long as you have feedback, in this case some way of measuring speed, you will find that in order to get faster, you have to improve sequencing and plane automatically.

This is actually similar to an area where I feel a lot golf teaching goes awry. There is a huge focus on position, when in reality if we focus on impact conditions, as we improve these, positions (including plane and sequencing of movement) tend to improve naturally. Speed is one of these impact conditions, and in order to get maximum speed we have to move efficiently, better sequencing will always lead to better speed, so IMHO better to learn to be fast and develop sequence through learning what makes you faster, than to try and learn sequence slowly and then try and speed it up. In fact I would go so far as to say I would bet most people can have perfect sequence at low speed, but can't do it at full speed.

I think u misunderstand me, your points are similar to mine, namely an efficient proximal to distal sequnce benefits speed.

The part about speed i am commentating on is the argument that using heavy clubs trains muscles themselves to move slower and hence decreases speed so lighter clubs should be used. I think sequence first then actual muscle speed after is more aporopriate.

I'm suggesting that the apples of correct sequence should not negated by the oranges of muscle contraction speed.

 

[Hoganman1]

So it sounds like training with a shaft without a head as well as swinging a weighted club are both beneficial.

 

[SGC001]

So it sounds like training with a shaft without a head as well as swinging a weighted club are both beneficial.

Potenially, both have been done in golf for ages and there are arguments for both having benefits.
Edit
Heavier clubs can facilitate a change to a more efficient motor pattern, once on an efficient pattern lighter clubs can facilitate quicker muscles, u also get pretty good auditory feedback with the lighter club. Be careful though too many people try and maximise club speed at impact. It does occur there as the ball hits the club slowing it down, but u need some 'right' arm left to resist deceleration during impact. With no ball maximum speed occurs more or less when the right arm has extended.

 

[Dibby]

I think u misunderstand me, your points are similar to mine, namely an efficient proximal to distal sequnce benefits speed.

The part about speed i am commentating on is the argument that using heavy clubs trains muscles themselves to move slower and hence decreases speed so lighter clubs should be used. I think sequence first then actual muscle speed after is more aporopriate.

I'm suggesting that the apples of correct sequence should not negated by the oranges of muscle contraction speed.

I think we are thinking along similar lines, my response was based purely on a speed perspective, but from the bigger picture, a weighted club is useful. Especially as a heavier club will most likely lead to better striking, and a better strike even with a few mph less initially will still go further.