Is "Golf Science" Based on Fake Dynamics?

[TB07]

You either is good at golf or you ain't.

 

- Old Tom Morris, 1823

 

I'm beginning to think he was correct.

 

What about the people who weren't good but made themselves good?

[ajax5184]

I actually thought the video from Como & Sasho was quite good at explaining the physics of laying down the shaft and why it works. They were careful not to be dogmatic or less than nuanced about it. Made a lot of sense to me.

 

I now understand the physics of this laying the shaft down underplane after seeing it on this website

 

http://people.stfx.c...swingplane.html

 

So it seems a valid way to reduce the amount of torque required to square the clubface during the delivery phase.

 

For me, I have weak wrists and not very strong forearms , therefore if I tried to lay the shaft underplane without allowing my left forearm to pronate more, I'd have to palmar flex my left wrist. For me to square the clubface by impact, I'd have to 'pull' a lot more down the left arm abduction plane to get a greater moment of force on the clubhead (along the left arm longitudinal axis) to assist my left arm rotation during delivery. So I don't think it would work for me although it might work for a skilled golfer who can master/time all these various extra moves.

 

So is this what actually causes most of the supination in the downswing in good swings? Does this actually open the face more on a steep OTT slice type swing? This actually makes good sense, but how do you actually implement it?

[Nard_S]

Actually this you tube video has sort of convinced me that maybe all the models need tweaking again. That is because they have all assumed that the wrist is a free hinging joint (wrong). Wonder if this guy has written a book about this 'RYKE' effect?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeDPyfex9M

 

So maybe the golf swing needs to be modelling around a conical pendulum rather than a double-pendulum (2D or 3D).

 

 

PS. Just read some more stuff about this Ryke effect and although it has some impact on the DP model it also has flaws in its claims. None of these models are complete and as I said before, I don't think they will be perfected for cause and effect analysis in my lifetime.

 

 

Good video.

 

I'm getting why my steep and deep caveman swing works and why my controlled urbane does not. Caveman, if the gods allow good timing, shallows the club and lays down the shaft, Urbane, not so much of either. Best ball striking sessions I have enjoyed is when urbane can lay down shaft and deliver head at greater velocity and control but up until now I really never understood the "why" of it.

 

It's one thing to intellectualize something, it's quite different for your body to do it but at least the compass is heading north and I understand why Sergio, Fowler and even guys like Snead and Hogan have the shaft lay down they do.

[tdk8180]

You either is good at golf or you ain't.

 

- Old Tom Morris, 1823

 

I'm beginning to think he was correct.

 

What about the people who weren't good but made themselves good?

 

Then them people is now good at golf.

 

Old Tom Morris, 1824

[TB07]

You either is good at golf or you ain't.

 

- Old Tom Morris, 1823

 

I'm beginning to think he was correct.

 

What about the people who weren't good but made themselves good?

 

Then them people is now good at golf.

 

Old Tom Morris, 1824

 

Then the quote should be if you are not good get better through knowledge and training.

[Silky]

Actually this you tube video has sort of convinced me that maybe all the models need tweaking again. That is because they have all assumed that the wrist is a free hinging joint (wrong). Wonder if this guy has written a book about this 'RYKE' effect?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeDPyfex9M

 

So maybe the golf swing needs to be modelling around a conical pendulum rather than a double-pendulum (2D or 3D).

 

 

PS. Just read some more stuff about this Ryke effect and although it has some impact on the DP model it also has flaws in its claims. None of these models are complete and as I said before, I don't think they will be perfected for cause and effect analysis in my lifetime.

 

 

Good video.

 

I'm getting why my steep and deep caveman swing works and why my controlled urbane does not. Caveman, if the gods allow good timing, shallows the club and lays down the shaft, Urbane, not so much of either. Best ball striking sessions I have enjoyed is when urbane can lay down shaft and deliver head at greater velocity and control but up until now I really never understood the "why" of it.

 

It's one thing to intellectualize something, it's quite different for your body to do it but at least the compass is heading north and I understand why Sergio, Fowler and even guys like Snead and Hogan have the shaft lay down they do.

 

I do not buy the conical pendulum though. I think the free-hinging double pendulum model works just fine except we need to view it in 3d. Here the upper arm of the double pendulum may be the left arm. Treating it as a rotor, you may energize it under three orthogonal torques - yaw, pitch,roll.

 

Yaw is through pivot tilting and roll is through pivot turning. Personally, I can energize my swing through yaw and roll torques just fine. Personally, bowing of the left wrist enables me to tilt and roll harder with proper club face closure. To me, this is not faked dynamics.

 

But how do you implement the pitch torque - Hogan's rotating the club like a baseball bat perhaps, or Monte's leading with the right elbow, or MoeHogan's rotate the arms CCW? Can this add more energy to the swing? I am intellectualizing here with the competency of a hacker in physics.

[Diz]

The question is...are golfers and by extension, the golf club, governed by physics. If so then relationships that take advantage of physics would be advantageous over those that do not fully utilize efficient use of the laws of motion. If that is the case why would you not seek to understand those relationships better?

 

well said , I stack the deck in my favor by using both science and human movement in my swing..(Non Newton Laws and Newton)

 

Doesn't "science" also delve into human movement, or am I missing something?

 

I meant to say Human Movement Principles validated by Science;)

[Larry111]

TB07, I've started two recent thread where I lay out what is my understanding of Mike Austin's and Mike Dunaway's technique. Dunaway said everything he learned about the golf swing he learned from Mike Austin. Both of them were real world long straight hitters. Austin being the longest ever.

 

Am I saying that everyone should model their swings after Austin? NO WAY, because not everyone has fast reaction times and everyone doesn't have the athletic ability to do it. In my view it's up to the instructor to find what works best for the student.

 

Golf's Biggest LIe

http://www.golfwrx.c...fs-biggest-lie/

 

Rotational Force

http://www.golfwrx.c...tational-force/

[Nard_S]

Actually this you tube video has sort of convinced me that maybe all the models need tweaking again. That is because they have all assumed that the wrist is a free hinging joint (wrong). Wonder if this guy has written a book about this 'RYKE' effect?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeDPyfex9M

 

So maybe the golf swing needs to be modelling around a conical pendulum rather than a double-pendulum (2D or 3D).

 

 

PS. Just read some more stuff about this Ryke effect and although it has some impact on the DP model it also has flaws in its claims. None of these models are complete and as I said before, I don't think they will be perfected for cause and effect analysis in my lifetime.

 

 

Good video.

 

I'm getting why my steep and deep caveman swing works and why my controlled urbane does not. Caveman, if the gods allow good timing, shallows the club and lays down the shaft, Urbane, not so much of either. Best ball striking sessions I have enjoyed is when urbane can lay down shaft and deliver head at greater velocity and control but up until now I really never understood the "why" of it.

 

It's one thing to intellectualize something, it's quite different for your body to do it but at least the compass is heading north and I understand why Sergio, Fowler and even guys like Snead and Hogan have the shaft lay down they do.

 

I do not buy the conical pendulum though. I think the free-hinging double pendulum model works just fine except we need to view it in 3d. Here the upper arm of the double pendulum may be the left arm. Treating it as a rotor, you may energize it under three orthogonal torques - yaw, pitch,roll.

 

Yaw is through pivot tilting and roll is through pivot turning. Personally, I can energize my swing through yaw and roll torques just fine. Personally, bowing of the left wrist enables me to tilt and roll harder with proper club face closure. To me, this is not faked dynamics.

 

But how do you implement the pitch torque - Hogan's rotating the club like a baseball bat perhaps, or Monte's leading with the right elbow, or MoeHogan's rotate the arms CCW? Can this add more energy to the swing? I am intellectualizing here with the competency of a hacker in physics.

 

The swing 'with lead arm only' demonstrates why laying down the shaft works. It frees up arms/hands to accelerate faster by alleviating club mass off swing plane and allowing head to short cut back in after hands are at speed. The conical thing makes sense. I'm hitting the range tonight and keen to focus on this. Trick to me is doing move in a radial fashion, to not just drop hands back to ball. I've tasted this may a times but I have never bottled it. Time for some Bordeux. :)

[mfm22]

Ryke = RYan KEvin modest isn't he ...

 

is this the action of hands releasing as the left[ target side ] shoulder rise's and the arms ,shaft and hands [ all rotating closed ] are in line

 

conical is his name for the rotation ?

[WILDTHING]

Looks like Kevin Ryan raised RYKE on another golf forum to get a debate going (just discovered the below link). Maybe worth reading through the comments as I imagine we are repeating what others have already discussed.

 

https://Not allowed because of spam...he-ryke-effect/

 

 

PS.

He says " I will release a book when I am confident those techniques work.". That was back in 2015 so maybe he has had second thoughts.

 

From what I've found out, golfers with strong grips (like Sadlowski) don't need to roll their lead forearms to get distance. So the RYKE effect may be pertinent to a subset of golfers who use specific grip strengths and other body movements. Still a lot of unanswered questions because there are many pros out there who swing without using the RYKE effect.

[Ghost of Snead]

TB07, I've started two recent thread where I lay out what is my understanding of Mike Austin's and Mike Dunaway's technique. Dunaway said everything he learned about the golf swing he learned from Mike Austin. Both of them were real world long straight hitters. Austin being the longest ever.

 

Am I saying that everyone should model their swings after Austin? NO WAY, because not everyone has fast reaction times and everyone doesn't have the athletic ability to do it. In my view it's up to the instructor to find what works best for the student.

 

Golf's Biggest LIe

http://www.golfwrx.c...fs-biggest-lie/

 

Rotational Force

http://www.golfwrx.c...tational-force/

 

Either of them ever win a professional tournament ?

[powerpushfade]

You either is good at golf or you ain't.

 

- Old Tom Morris, 1823

 

I'm beginning to think he was correct.

 

What about the people who weren't good but made themselves good?

Like Tiger, Nicklaus, the State Am Champ, the Club Champion?...what is good?...who was 'good' at golf when they​ started?

[oikos1]

Ya, what is "good". Everyone jump in anytime. It's only been discussed for hundreds and most likely thousands of years...

[tdk8180]

You either is good at golf or you ain't.

 

- Old Tom Morris, 1823

 

I'm beginning to think he was correct.

 

What about the people who weren't good but made themselves good?

Like Tiger, Nicklaus, the State Am Champ, the Club Champion?...what is good?...who was 'good' at golf when they​ started?

 

If you aint born champ, you go to golf camp

 

-Old Tom Morris, 1825

[Noke]

TB07, I've started two recent thread where I lay out what is my understanding of Mike Austin's and Mike Dunaway's technique. Dunaway said everything he learned about the golf swing he learned from Mike Austin. Both of them were real world long straight hitters. Austin being the longest ever.

 

Am I saying that everyone should model their swings after Austin? NO WAY, because not everyone has fast reaction times and everyone doesn't have the athletic ability to do it. In my view it's up to the instructor to find what works best for the student.

 

Golf's Biggest LIe

http://www.golfwrx.c...fs-biggest-lie/

 

Rotational Force

http://www.golfwrx.c...tational-force/

 

Austin the longest ever? That's an opinion, not fact.

[oikos1]

TB07, I've started two recent thread where I lay out what is my understanding of Mike Austin's and Mike Dunaway's technique. Dunaway said everything he learned about the golf swing he learned from Mike Austin. Both of them were real world long straight hitters. Austin being the longest ever.

 

Am I saying that everyone should model their swings after Austin? NO WAY, because not everyone has fast reaction times and everyone doesn't have the athletic ability to do it. In my view it's up to the instructor to find what works best for the student.

 

Golf's Biggest LIe

http://www.golfwrx.c...fs-biggest-lie/

 

Rotational Force

http://www.golfwrx.c...tational-force/

 

Austin the longest ever? That's an opinion, not fact.

[WILDTHING]

Actually this you tube video has sort of convinced me that maybe all the models need tweaking again. That is because they have all assumed that the wrist is a free hinging joint (wrong). Wonder if this guy has written a book about this 'RYKE' effect?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeDPyfex9M

 

So maybe the golf swing needs to be modelling around a conical pendulum rather than a double-pendulum (2D or 3D).

 

 

PS. Just read some more stuff about this Ryke effect and although it has some impact on the DP model it also has flaws in its claims. None of these models are complete and as I said before, I don't think they will be perfected for cause and effect analysis in my lifetime.

 

Just been looking at this Ryke effect again and I have suspicions it could be an example of the 'Intermediate Axis Theorem' . Where if the club is being rotated in its 'intermediate' axis but not in a perfect rotation , the object flips just like the video below (for a tennis racket). Weird science!!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnHC-u2gdw

[Jackhammer993]

This is actually one of the more interesting threads. I just started looking at it. So much information.

[WILDTHING]

Reading some more about the Ryke effect and not totally convinced about Kevin Ryan's claims until he's written his book and provided more evidence.

 

Some of the issues are:

1. Ryke effect is irrelevant if a player uses a very strong grip (ie,. they don't really use PA3 )

2. His claim about most pro's have a large Ryke angle (ie. equivalent to PA3 accumulator angle) doesn't fit the actions of many pros who have small Ryke angles (eg. Phil Mickelson, Bryson DeChambeau, etc)

3. His claim that he added 60m more distance by using a larger Ryke angle between P6.5-P7.0 seems a bit far-fetched.

4. His analysis of what is going on in Jamie Sadlowski's swing to explain why it didn't fit his 'Ryke computer program' doesn't make sense (see below). Why would he even try and explain JS's swing in terms of Ryke when JS doesn't use a club squaring action (he just keeps the clubface square to the clubhead path using a strong grip and incredible flexibility)? His explanation of 'Drive Holding' caused by the forward bend of the shaft in the below video is sort of trying to guess what could be going on to make the swing fit his theories.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQFo1V74KdQ

 

So it seems that maybe the 'driven double pendulum' model is more of a best fit for the majority of the golf swing than the Ryke model (which is a conical pendulum motion which takes effect from P6.5 -P7.0). Not saying that there isn't a Ryke effect and that maybe there is (in some form) but it doesn't seem to apply universally across all golfers with different grips and swing actions.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

Look, I don't mean to step on anyone's toes but if you think these guys have a monopoly on the total knowledge base of the golf swing you might ask yourselves, maybe I'm missing something.

 

What is producing club head speed and power? Also, who or what is their ideal model for the research?

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

I've been listening to the Golf Science Lab Podcast for the past few weeks as I've been tilling/grading/raking/seeding my new pitching area...

 

What I like about many of the scientists/speakers they have on is they're basing it on data. If you'd listen with an open mind, you'd find that they don't say there's one way to make power. They talk about correlations and general patterns. I've learned quite a bit about ground force in the past weeks. As I'm listening, I try to link it back to what Monte, iTeach, and Gankas have been saying. I see the "feels" as the how and the "science" as the why.

 

The session with Daisy-May Kenny was awesome. I've been seeing results with the SuperSpeed training, it was cool to hear her research on the why.

 

I read your original post as the science somehow being at odds with instruction. I see them as different sides of the same coin.

[PorscheFan]

There is some worthy stuff out there, but I believe that most of the data-driven stuff out there is not rooted in science.

 

Science to me is observation and experimentation. It's carrying out experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

 

A lot of what is out there is Observation > Conclusion - Sergio is a pro and 'appears' to hold lag under observation. Conclusion: if amateurs hold lag like Sergio they'll start hitting the ball like a pro.

 

Horse***t

 

This Observation > Conclusion approach defines most 'golf tips'

 

Where are the experiments to prove the hypotheses?

 

"OK, so we took 100 golfers of various abilities and gave them this lag drill. We measured their lag before and after the drill. Result: 93% improved angle x at point Y by more than 10% and the result on swing speed and strike were P and Q."

 

Ah, but that's hard. And it's time-consuming. And it's expensive. So, we get theories and methods instead. And when we get famous supporters of a given method then it gets followers. Until it's not cool anymore, at which point another method gains popularity.

 

A lot of it is chicken and the egg.

 

Observing that better players typically share a certain isolated characteristic is one thing.

 

Assuming that A) a certain drill will develop that characteristic in others; and that B) changing that one isolated thing will produce better swing results (which should be pre-defined in the hypothesis) is something completely different.

[glk]

To me, the golf scientists are carrying out experiments - Shasho has created a swing model which he uses in his research, as just one example. Nesbit is another. Cheetham researched the relationship between handle twist velocity and biomechanics via observation of 94 pros. I certain google can find many other examples.

 

Golf instruction has benefited, in my view, from the observational data provided by 3D, pressure traces as well as the science. Actually seeing what elite players do in 3D versus the old visual observation or more recent 2D video has yielded a large quantity of myths dispelled and "tips" can now be focused on what elite players actually do - how an instructor makes use of this knowledge to help a student is still going to vary based on the instructors communication skills (in addition to their ability to recognize the most significant factor inhibiting the student from improvement). So instruction, to me, is the practical application of both the science and observations. And it appears that some instructors are using 3D and pressure traces to help their students and not just the Tour pro observations.

 

One just needs to be clear on which is being discussed - science or observation.

[Pigems]

Wasn’t Como Tigers coach for a while? If Tiger trusted him, WTF are we to argue? Lol

[bogeypro]

The problem with these types of discussions is that most golf instructors don’t have a PhD in physics. So how do they separate the good info from misinformation?

[Silky]

Actually this you tube video has sort of convinced me that maybe all the models need tweaking again. That is because they have all assumed that the wrist is a free hinging joint (wrong). Wonder if this guy has written a book about this 'RYKE' effect?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeDPyfex9M

 

So maybe the golf swing needs to be modelling around a conical pendulum rather than a double-pendulum (2D or 3D).

 

 

PS. Just read some more stuff about this Ryke effect and although it has some impact on the DP model it also has flaws in its claims. None of these models are complete and as I said before, I don't think they will be perfected for cause and effect analysis in my lifetime.

 

 

Good video.

 

I'm getting why my steep and deep caveman swing works and why my controlled urbane does not. Caveman, if the gods allow good timing, shallows the club and lays down the shaft, Urbane, not so much of either. Best ball striking sessions I have enjoyed is when urbane can lay down shaft and deliver head at greater velocity and control but up until now I really never understood the "why" of it.

 

It's one thing to intellectualize something, it's quite different for your body to do it but at least the compass is heading north and I understand why Sergio, Fowler and even guys like Snead and Hogan have the shaft lay down they do.

 

I do not buy the conical pendulum though. I think the free-hinging double pendulum model works just fine except we need to view it in 3d. Here the upper arm of the double pendulum may be the left arm. Treating it as a rotor, you may energize it under three orthogonal torques - yaw, pitch,roll.

 

Yaw is through pivot tilting and roll is through pivot turning. Personally, I can energize my swing through yaw and roll torques just fine. Personally, bowing of the left wrist enables me to tilt and roll harder with proper club face closure. To me, this is not faked dynamics.

 

But how do you implement the pitch torque - Hogan's rotating the club like a baseball bat perhaps, or Monte's leading with the right elbow, or MoeHogan's rotate the arms CCW? Can this add more energy to the swing? I am intellectualizing here with the competency of a hacker in physics.

 

The swing 'with lead arm only' demonstrates why laying down the shaft works. It frees up arms/hands to accelerate faster by alleviating club mass off swing plane and allowing head to short cut back in after hands are at speed. The conical thing makes sense. I'm hitting the range tonight and keen to focus on this. Trick to me is doing move in a radial fashion, to not just drop hands back to ball. I've tasted this may a times but I have never bottled it. Time for some Bordeux. :)

 

A late reply to Nard_S having just reread some of the thread.

I was a minimalist, a reductionist by training. So classical golf teachings, simple double pendulum, flat left wrist, appealed to me. But as I have more time for golf, learning here and practice mostly on the backyard net, my view has evolved greatly.

Our human wrists, viewed the lead wrist alone, are capable of UD hinge/unhinging, pronation/supination, flexion/extention. This I believe correspond to Nesbit's alpha, beta, gamma torques respectively, and all three movements contribute to the speed of the club head through impact. One can test this by affix the elbows to the side of the torso and try to hit a ball using just the forearms and the wrists and discovers how each movement propel the club head forward. The compound motion of all three movements results in the conical motion of the club shaft.

For an optimal golf swing, as dug out from the ground such as that of Hogan's, I am not surprised that all three movements are utilized in powering the golf swing. The "club head mass off plane" that you mentioned above, to me, it is another club head lag in the pronation/supination degree of freedom of the wrists.

[WILDTHING]

To me, the golf scientists are carrying out experiments - Shasho has created a swing model which he uses in his research, as just one example. Nesbit is another. Cheetham researched the relationship between handle twist velocity and biomechanics via observation of 94 pros. I certain google can find many other examples.

 

Golf instruction has benefited, in my view, from the observational data provided by 3D, pressure traces as well as the science. Actually seeing what elite players do in 3D versus the old visual observation or more recent 2D video has yielded a large quantity of myths dispelled and "tips" can now be focused on what elite players actually do - how an instructor makes use of this knowledge to help a student is still going to vary based on the instructors communication skills (in addition to their ability to recognize the most significant factor inhibiting the student from improvement). So instruction, to me, is the practical application of both the science and observations. And it appears that some instructors are using 3D and pressure traces to help their students and not just the Tour pro observations.

 

One just needs to be clear on which is being discussed - science or observation.

 

With regards Phil Cheethams dissertation about High Handle Twist Velocity vs Low Handle Twist Velocity (and associated biomechanical impact patterns), I read the dissertation and also Jeff Mann's critical analysis and I think Cheethams conclusions seem flawed. Why has Dr Cheetham suggested the following without taking into account other variables that could have been causable factors to his research results?

 

New Instructional Information

•Valuable to know what the elite players do

•Both handle twist techniques can be successful

•Rolling the arms more in the downswing will increase handle twist velocity and clubhead closing velocity

•Lead wrist is extending at impact

•Important to be consistent in teaching the wrist and body characteristics that match

–Don’t force a high HTV golfer to be more open and side bent at impact

–Unless you also change their arm and club twist action

[WILDTHING]

Look at this video by Mike Granato

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTxm4jGcsvY

 

He shows 2 golfers doing active 'grip roll ' torques (ie. motorcyle move?) during the downswing but can anyone explain why there is such a variance between 'grip roll rate' versus 'Club Closure Rate' especially at impact?

 

Golfer 1 at impact has 'Grip Roll Rate' = 1001.88 degrees /sec , 'Club Closure Rate' = -258.87 degrees/sec : This almost 4:1 ratio .

 

Golfer 2 at impact has 'Grip Roll Rate' = 1733.94 degrees/sec, 'Club Closure Rate' = -359.62 degrees /sec : This is approx 5:1 ratio

 

Can this percentage difference between 'Grip Roll Rate' and 'Club Closure Rate' be attributed to the characteristics of the club (shaft twist and Moment of Inertia)?

 

Further why does the 'Club Closure Rate' reduce near impact for both golfers while the 'Grip Roll Rate' increases to a maximum?

 

All of this seems to contradict Phil Cheethams dissertation (pdf link below)

 

https://www.philchee...tation-2014.pdf

 

 

On page 12 (Fig 7) he shows a graph comparing 'Handle Twist Velocity' vs 'Clubhead Closing Velocity' (in degree /sec) and there is never a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio . In fact the ratio at impact is 0.62 and the Clubhead Closing Velocity' is always higher than 'Handle Twist Velocity'.

 

On page 13 , he explains how Clubhead Closing Velocity is calculated using 'Handle Twist Velocity' and 'Swing Plane Velocity' vectors and he states the formula below:

 

CCV = HTV sin () + SPV cos ()

Where () is the lie angle of the driver

 

So you can see from the above formula that CCV (Clubhead Closing Velocity) is always greater than HTV (Handle Twist Velocity).

 

Athletic Motion Golf (using Gears) is showing measurements that don't seem to tally with Phil Cheethams dissertation . Would welcome comments about anything I have overlooked or misinterpreted and possible suggested explanations to some of the questions I posed above.

[ebrasmus21]

One of the most intense threads I've ever read.

[glk]

https://www.gearssports.com/gears-golf-club-ball-metrics/ Grip roll and handle twist velocity are not the same thing.