Swing smoother, hit further!

[SocketRocket]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[351DRIVER]

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.

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]

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

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 golfer’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 – 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]

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..

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]

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 golfer’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 – 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!

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]

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]

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.

Ctrl C

Ctrl V

 

[delc]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[3565]

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]

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]

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

 

[3565]

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

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]

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!

Have you not got Google?

 

[drdel]

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.

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.