Ernie used to swing at close to 120mph...
Swing smoother, hit further!
- Thread starter delc
- Start date
One Planer
Global Moderator
The key word in that paragraph Del is "Appear".
Despite appearances, they give the ball a good lash.
the_coach
Journeyman Pro
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 ....
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Blackballed
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!
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
Tour Winner
Control strike better, hit it further!
ScienceBoy
Money List Winner
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.
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
Last edited:
ScienceBoy
Money List Winner
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.
Because he's a 7ft tall and 17 stone, slight exaggeration but my point stands.
LIG
Q-School Graduate
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
Q-School Graduate
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.
Last edited:
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
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
Challenge Tour Pro
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.
: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
Journeyman Pro
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
garyinderry
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Blackballed
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).
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
