Key Indicator For Increased Clubhead Speed -Dr Sasho MacKenzie

[mfm22]

Med ball throw down doesn't seem like a good analogy if the vector is in one direction = down ( in line with gravity)

 

Golf swing has a few vector forces. Down , out , forward all in various degrees

 

Pressure into ground going back Loading up more in trail side Not sure what happens during start down if some pull down with arm unit Would imagine this is more lateral - horizontal force towards target side

 

No doubt what happens going into impact - pressure is more vertical target leg straightens to post up and counter the pulling down force of the club head

The better the counter balance the better the release and speed

 

 

 

 

[Swingman420]

Isn’t Sasho the guy whose computer model was a lead arm with no ability to rotate the shaft?

Yeah let’s listen up.

The ground force baloney just confuses people. No one good focuses on ground force over hands.

[Fort Worth Pro]

Isn’t Sasho the guy whose computer model was a lead arm with no ability to rotate the shaft?

Yeah let’s listen up.

The ground force baloney just confuses people. No one good focuses on ground force over hands.

 

 

Skip to 7:00 for his thoughts.

 

He must not be a very good driver since you assured us that nobody good thinks about ground force jver hands ?

[Hawkeye77]

Doesn't Pete Cowen stress ground forces and some pretty successful players buy into his teaching?

[Swingman420]

Isn’t Sasho the guy whose computer model was a lead arm with no ability to rotate the shaft?

Yeah let’s listen up.

The ground force baloney just confuses people. No one good focuses on ground force over hands.

 

 

Skip to 7:00 for his thoughts.

 

He must not be a very good driver since you assured us that nobody good thinks about ground force jver hands ?

 

Umm ok? The context was ON THE RANGE. Nice try though.

 

[Fort Worth Pro]

Isn’t Sasho the guy whose computer model was a lead arm with no ability to rotate the shaft?

Yeah let’s listen up.

The ground force baloney just confuses people. No one good focuses on ground force over hands.

 

 

Skip to 7:00 for his thoughts.

 

He must not be a very good driver since you assured us that nobody good thinks about ground force jver hands ?

 

Umm ok? The context was ON THE RANGE. Nice try though.

 

A simple "you're right" would suffice. It's why you don't speak in absolutes like no one/everyone. Almost always an exception to what you are saying. In this case good players often have wildly divergent thoughts/feels. Rory clearly feels pressure down his left leg in transition and that's one of his swing signatures.

[BB28403]

Doesn't Pete Cowen stress ground forces and some pretty successful players buy into his teaching?

 

Pete Cowen, no offense to anyone else, in my opinion is probably the best golf swing coach on earth.

 

 

[Etzwane]

I haven't listened to the podcast but wouldn't this simply into "rotate faster for faster clubhead speed"?

[Stuart_G]

Interesting you said Newton's 2nd Law? Why isn't it Newtons 3rd Law to explain Sasho's 'Medicine ball thrown to the ground example'? That by throwing it down , the medicine ball is throwing one's body up . Doesn't the same apply if you are pulling the arms/club down? The body is pulled up and the ground forces are reduced?

 

The throwing the ball down example is a bit different since there is no separate 'effort' made by the body to resist or alter the effects of that force (gravity does that for us).

 

Your OP was referring to an increase in ground force, not a decrease. We pull on the club and the club pulls on us (3rd law) but the increase in the ground force is a separate effort to prevent that pulling from moving us into a different position (2nd law). The body can not usually be treated as a single rigid structure - or shouldn't be in most cases when to comes to motion analysis since we are generally looking at what 'effort' is required to perform any particular motion.

[WILDTHING]

Interesting you said Newton's 2nd Law? Why isn't it Newtons 3rd Law to explain Sasho's 'Medicine ball thrown to the ground example'? That by throwing it down , the medicine ball is throwing one's body up . Doesn't the same apply if you are pulling the arms/club down? The body is pulled up and the ground forces are reduced?

 

The throwing the ball down example is a bit different since there is no separate 'effort' made by the body to resist or alter the effects of that force (gravity does that for us).

 

Your OP was referring to an increase in ground force, not a decrease. We pull on the club and the club pulls on us (3rd law) but the increase in the ground force is a separate effort to prevent that pulling from moving us into a different position (2nd law). The body can not usually be treated as a single rigid structure - or shouldn't be in most cases when to comes to motion analysis since we are generally looking at what 'effort' is required to perform any particular motion.

 

This is what I said

 

"That even though the 'pull down' of the club is high at shaft vertical while ground force measurement should be low (ie. Newtons Third Law)"

 

I was trying to say that although the ground force measurement should be low (because of Newtons 3rd Law) , we must try to make it as large as possible . Apologies if I've confused anyone.

[WILDTHING]

Apparently , Sasho's 'Principal Component Analysis' findings do not apply to golfers whose COP readings favour towards the rear foot during impact . Back to the drawing board!!!

 

Their cop trace is on the rear foot at impact because their left foot has left the ground making it weightless, not because their pressure has actually worked back. A common misconception by people that haven't actually researched it

 

If you've done the research, maybe you would like to explain what Sasho really meant in the video below at 4:30 to 5:25?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJasHgll6gU

[David C]

It’s almost as if people that propel an object faster than others, are faster, more athletic, have better balance and have better coordination show higher values of things when some sort of measurement of their action is taken.

[Stuart_G]

That even though the 'pull down' of the club is high at shaft vertical

 

Is it (downward linear acceleration) really that high at that point? I wouldn't think so but haven't seen hard data on that. Most studies I've read are focused more on the rotational acceleration and torques at that point in the swing, not the linear.

[David C]

Hi All

 

Has anyone listened to this podcast before from Dr Sasho MacKenzie ?

 

https://soundcloud.c...sasho-mackenzie

 

I have raised this same question with Dr Jeff Mann so awaiting his response but interested to hear other opinions.

 

It seems Dr Sasho Mackenzie has found some correlation between ground force via lead leg and clubhead speed. I don't think it proves increased ground force causes an increase in clubhead speed but that it is somehow connected (by something called 'Principal Component Analysis').

 

If I have interpreted this podcast correctly , he says that one should have 'as much ground force under lead leg as possible' at clubshaft vertical in the downswing. That even though the 'pull down' of the club is high at shaft vertical while ground force measurement should be low (ie. Newtons Third Law), one MUST endeavour to create 'as much ground force as possible' under the lead foot. This is to enable one to create momentum up and back to prevent the clubhead momentum pulling one off balance through impact.

 

I am suspecting this explains what's happening from a 'Kinetics' standpoint but its interesting he mentions 'delaying wrist c0ck angle increase during release' has a less 'Principal Component Analysis' value to clubhead speed than the above.

 

PS. Strange, but I think the Shawn Clement instruction about how to increase clubhead speed 'intuitively' fits with Dr Sasho MacKenzie's findings. SC calls it the 'Centrifugal Pump' and you can see it in action in his 'feet together drill' and lots of other videos.

 

I thought he purposefully avoided saying you must endeavour to create as much ground force. Thought his point was, if I’m swinging so I’m putting a lot of energy into the clubhead, I need to brace myself against it in order to swing it fast and direct its path and that bracing against it, when measured as pressure exerted against the floor, showed higher numbers in faster swingers.

 

If you swing faster, you will create more ground reaction force, surely? And through that particular point of your body at that particular moment in time.

 

To which I would say you need to be quicker, more flexible, better coordinated and technically better if you want to swing faster.

 

You are going to be creating the momentum you wrote about above automatically if you swing fast and hit the ball far and accurately and don’t fat it, otherwise you wouldn’t be any good. You’d be what’s called ‘a bad golfer’ with a ‘not very good swing’.

[ksgolfcoach]

Apparently , Sasho's 'Principal Component Analysis' findings do not apply to golfers whose COP readings favour towards the rear foot during impact . Back to the drawing board!!!

 

Their cop trace is on the rear foot at impact because their left foot has left the ground making it weightless, not because their pressure has actually worked back. A common misconception by people that haven't actually researched it

 

If you've done the research, maybe you would like to explain what Sasho really meant in the video below at 4:30 to 5:25?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJasHgll6gU

 

What would you like explained? From 5:10-5:20 he specifically talks about people like Justin Thomas have a back foot cop trace because the left foot gets airborne. Think it’s pretty self explanatory.

 

No long hitter with a high dvf is actually moving their center of mass backwards causing their pressure to be on their back foot. None. The problem is you think you know what you’re talking about yet you’ve never actually researched it. I’ve talked with sacho. I’ve talked with terry hashimoto, I’ve talked to a lot of smart people and I use a force plate every day. Now I know it’s the internet so you will, by law, be forced to come back at me and try and prove yourself right. You’d rather argue to learn, fair enough, you can win. But there’s actually some very fascinating things one can learn in a cop trace to really help their game

 

 

[WILDTHING]

Apparently , Sasho's 'Principal Component Analysis' findings do not apply to golfers whose COP readings favour towards the rear foot during impact . Back to the drawing board!!!

 

Their cop trace is on the rear foot at impact because their left foot has left the ground making it weightless, not because their pressure has actually worked back. A common misconception by people that haven't actually researched it

 

If you've done the research, maybe you would like to explain what Sasho really meant in the video below at 4:30 to 5:25?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJasHgll6gU

 

What would you like explained? From 5:10-5:20 he specifically talks about people like Justin Thomas have a back foot cop trace because the left foot gets airborne. Think it's pretty self explanatory.

 

No long hitter with a high dvf is actually moving their center of mass backwards causing their pressure to be on their back foot. None. The problem is you think you know what you're talking about yet you've never actually researched it. I've talked with sacho. I've talked with terry hashimoto, I've talked to a lot of smart people and I use a force plate every day. Now I know it's the internet so you will, by law, be forced to come back at me and try and prove yourself right. You'd rather argue to learn, fair enough, you can win. But there's actually some very fascinating things one can learn in a cop trace to really help their game

 

The research is here if you wish to read it.

 

http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1432/1/Ball.pdf

 

 

Specifically this part:

 

A new and important finding was that for Reverse golfers, at ball contact weight was positioned near midstance and was moving towards the back foot. Further, moving weight more rapidly towards the back foot at this event was related to better performance on a group and an individual basis. This is in direct conflict with the coaching literature which reports weight should be nearer the front foot at ball contact and be continuing to move further towards the front foot. There is no mention of this technique in either coaching or scientific literature so it represents a new finding. This finding requires that both coaching and scientific recommendations for weight transfer in the golf swing need to be changed.

 

PS. There are some simple tests one can do to approx determine if you favour being a front, rear and 'center' golfer (which wasn't mentioned as a 'category' in that .pdf above).

 

See this video by EA Tischler as an example of someone who is a 'centre-rear' golfer so its not cut and dry that one is just a front/rear/center golfer (they could be anywhere in between too) .

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe9uQ2HjKms

 

If that person was a pure front foot golfer , when they did the one-legged and feet together drills , you would find:

 

1. Lead One Legged Drill - would stay balanced in the follow-through

2. Rear One-Legged Drill - would topple forward onto the lead leg in the follow-through

3. Feet Together Drill - would sway more onto the lead leg in the follow-through.

 

I am a centre-rear golfer and its physically a strain to get my weight onto the front foot . This is why I do not use pre-conceived notions about the golf swing and use Shawn Clement concepts where my body will determine the best way I need to swing to meet my intent (as I long as I swing in balance, in rhythm , and without strain).

[dodger]

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about swing mechanics. I have taken lessons from prominent instructors, including a couple in the top 50 golf digest list and Monte. I have a library of golf books and videos. I have read the golfing machine and actually understand it. I still have no clue how to implement what Mackenzie talks about into a workable swing. The research of these golf scientists is incredible, but I cannot even begin to figure out how to do what they talk about. I am 20 yards longer than I was five years ago. I am on a better swing path and get center contact more often. I have no clue how to get even more speed without sacrificing that consistent contact. If I was a tour pro who was in the bottom 10 percent in distance I would worry about trying to figure this stuff out, but otherwise, why?

 

Do you feel like your swinging a broom handle or a wet mop?

 

AC

Haha, neither. If I tried either one, my wife would have me cleaning floors. There are a variety of releases documented in the Golfing Machine, some do not have the feel of the wet mop. I have taken lessons from Chuck Evans, who at no time told me to feel like I was dragging a wet mop. I think the current research is similar to Homer Kelley in one particular way. It is for instructors, whose job it is to improve golf games, to know this stuff and how to get golfers to implement it. Kelley's work is almost fifty years old, he wrote the first edition in 1969, without any of the technical implements currently available to scientists, 3d, high speed video, computer analysis... It was ongoing, why there are so many editions. He died in 1983, so my sense is the wet mop stuff would likely have been changed a little. I like to understand this swing stuff, but I play my best without thinking of any of it.

[Krt22]

Apparently , Sasho's 'Principal Component Analysis' findings do not apply to golfers whose COP readings favour towards the rear foot during impact . Back to the drawing board!!!

 

Their cop trace is on the rear foot at impact because their left foot has left the ground making it weightless, not because their pressure has actually worked back. A common misconception by people that haven't actually researched it

 

If you've done the research, maybe you would like to explain what Sasho really meant in the video below at 4:30 to 5:25?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJasHgll6gU

 

What would you like explained? From 5:10-5:20 he specifically talks about people like Justin Thomas have a back foot cop trace because the left foot gets airborne. Think it's pretty self explanatory.

 

No long hitter with a high dvf is actually moving their center of mass backwards causing their pressure to be on their back foot. None. The problem is you think you know what you're talking about yet you've never actually researched it. I've talked with sacho. I've talked with terry hashimoto, I've talked to a lot of smart people and I use a force plate every day. Now I know it's the internet so you will, by law, be forced to come back at me and try and prove yourself right. You'd rather argue to learn, fair enough, you can win. But there's actually some very fascinating things one can learn in a cop trace to really help their game

 

[iteachgolf]

Apparently , Sasho's 'Principal Component Analysis' findings do not apply to golfers whose COP readings favour towards the rear foot during impact . Back to the drawing board!!!

 

Their cop trace is on the rear foot at impact because their left foot has left the ground making it weightless, not because their pressure has actually worked back. A common misconception by people that haven't actually researched it

 

If you've done the research, maybe you would like to explain what Sasho really meant in the video below at 4:30 to 5:25?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJasHgll6gU

 

What would you like explained? From 5:10-5:20 he specifically talks about people like Justin Thomas have a back foot cop trace because the left foot gets airborne. Think it's pretty self explanatory.

 

No long hitter with a high dvf is actually moving their center of mass backwards causing their pressure to be on their back foot. None. The problem is you think you know what you're talking about yet you've never actually researched it. I've talked with sacho. I've talked with terry hashimoto, I've talked to a lot of smart people and I use a force plate every day. Now I know it's the internet so you will, by law, be forced to come back at me and try and prove yourself right. You'd rather argue to learn, fair enough, you can win. But there's actually some very fascinating things one can learn in a cop trace to really help their game

 

The research is here if you wish to read it.

 

http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1432/1/Ball.pdf

 

 

Specifically this part:

 

A new and important finding was that for Reverse golfers, at ball contact weight was positioned near midstance and was moving towards the back foot. Further, moving weight more rapidly towards the back foot at this event was related to better performance on a group and an individual basis. This is in direct conflict with the coaching literature which reports weight should be nearer the front foot at ball contact and be continuing to move further towards the front foot. There is no mention of this technique in either coaching or scientific literature so it represents a new finding. This finding requires that both coaching and scientific recommendations for weight transfer in the golf swing need to be changed.

 

PS. There are some simple tests one can do to approx determine if you favour being a front, rear and 'center' golfer (which wasn't mentioned as a 'category' in that .pdf above).

 

See this video by EA Tischler as an example of someone who is a 'centre-rear' golfer so its not cut and dry that one is just a front/rear/center golfer (they could be anywhere in between too) .

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe9uQ2HjKms

 

If that person was a pure front foot golfer , when they did the one-legged and feet together drills , you would find:

 

1. Lead One Legged Drill - would stay balanced in the follow-through

2. Rear One-Legged Drill - would topple forward onto the lead leg in the follow-through

3. Feet Together Drill - would sway more onto the lead leg in the follow-through.

 

I am a centre-rear golfer and its physically a strain to get my weight onto the front foot . This is why I do not use pre-conceived notions about the golf swing and use Shawn Clement concepts where my body will determine the best way I need to swing to meet my intent (as I long as I swing in balance, in rhythm , and without strain).

 

They are using COP as = weight. Again just because the COP is moving backwards (due to front foot being airborne) doesn’t mean the COM is moving backwards. There’s a huge difference between COM and COP and the study you linked is simply measuring COP which obviously “goes back” with some long hitters when the front foot is unweighted. Doesn’t mean COM is moving backwards.

 

 

You obviously don’t even understand the discussion or what Josh (KS) said. So why argue something you clearly don’t understand

[Fade]

I listened to the podcast, it struck me as premature sharing of unfinished work. I noticed that the podcast is 5 months old. Has this coincidence been explained since?

[Nard_S]

A major league pitcher most definitely uses lead leg to throw the rest of his body against. What's not often mentioned is that they throw down hill. A mound drops over a foot (15"?) so when lead leg plants his body geometry does too and it moves downward.

 

I am at a point where I recognize that a large issue with my swing has been that I compensate my steep hand arm action with a body that loses angles & gets shallow. This greater forum in general has illuminated this. Body geometry has to be downward in order to deliver club on a shallower path. The ground force thing comes into play when you do this in the "falling down to ball" move and if done correctly there's a solid sense of pushing into the ground and anchoring against forces generated by the swing much like a MLB pitcher throwing a 100 mph fast ball. The hands might be the Conductor but the body is the symphony that delivers the music.You can have all the arm speed in the world but if the rest is not doing it right it will be a sour, flat note.

[wmblake2000]

I love these threads where I have no fricking clue what they mean for me... one less swing thought to wrestle with!

[WILDTHING]

They are using COP as = weight. Again just because the COP is moving backwards (due to front foot being airborne) doesn't mean the COM is moving backwards. There's a huge difference between COM and COP and the study you linked is simply measuring COP which obviously "goes back" with some long hitters when the front foot is unweighted. Doesn't mean COM is moving backwards.

 

 

You obviously don't even understand the discussion or what Josh (KS) said. So why argue something you clearly don't understand

 

 

What I don't understand is what you are implying I don't understand (don't think I've mentioned COM during my posts). Agreed the EA Tischler video is more about finding your optimal swing 'anchor' (COM ) and may not relate to whether you are a 'rear or front' foot golfer from a COP trace perspective. Although I can easily imagine someone who pivots more around their right hip (because their COM favours that side) might not have much COP pressure on their left leg at impact (depends on their dynamic swing pattern).

[Swingman420]

Rory agrees to film on webcast. “Hey Rory can you help us promote grf?”

“Sure”

 

Golfers would be best served not paying attention to this stuff.

COP is a result more than a cause.

Golf industry loves confused golfers. Easy prey.

[PorscheFan]

Pressure and mass... Two pages in and still we struggle...

[iteachgolf]

Josh was talking about COM vs COP and literally stated that while trying to disprove him you posted a study about COP being back, which he clearly stated happens. But it’s because lead foot is airborne and not because the COM actually backs up. You obviously and still don’t understand the discussion because Josh’s post in this thread have all been about COM vs COP

 

They are using COP as = weight. Again just because the COP is moving backwards (due to front foot being airborne) doesn't mean the COM is moving backwards. There's a huge difference between COM and COP and the study you linked is simply measuring COP which obviously "goes back" with some long hitters when the front foot is unweighted. Doesn't mean COM is moving backwards.

 

 

You obviously don't even understand the discussion or what Josh (KS) said. So why argue something you clearly don't understand

 

 

What I don't understand is what you are implying I don't understand (don't think I've mentioned COM during my posts). Agreed the EA Tischler video is more about finding your optimal swing 'anchor' (COM ) and may not relate to whether you are a 'rear or front' foot golfer from a COP trace perspective. Although I can easily imagine someone who pivots more around their right hip (because their COM favours that side)

 

[WILDTHING]

Josh was talking about COM vs COP and literally stated that while trying to disprove him you posted a study about COP being back, which he clearly stated happens. But it's because lead foot is airborne and not because the COM actually backs up. You obviously and still don't understand the discussion because Josh's post in this thread have all been about COM vs COP

 

They are using COP as = weight. Again just because the COP is moving backwards (due to front foot being airborne) doesn't mean the COM is moving backwards. There's a huge difference between COM and COP and the study you linked is simply measuring COP which obviously "goes back" with some long hitters when the front foot is unweighted. Doesn't mean COM is moving backwards.

 

 

You obviously don't even understand the discussion or what Josh (KS) said. So why argue something you clearly don't understand

 

 

Sorry but you've lost me!!!

 

The thread was about 'clubhead speed' vs 'COP under lead foot' vs 'club vertical in downswing' - a relationship that Sasho found. He then said that it didn't apply to 'Rear Foot' golfers as per research findings in that .pdf I posted .

 

I haven't got a clue how KS's comments has any relevance to the above , to that .pdf or any connection to COM?

 

KS says that the left foot is off the ground or unweighted which is why the COP is under the rear foot . So what?

 

If you look at the graphs in that .pdf (page 122 fig 4.13) you will find that both front and rear foot golfers have similar COP traces from P4 -P6 (ie. COP moves from rear to left foot ).

 

For front foot golfers the COP moves more to the front foot (from P6 - P7) .

 

For rear foot golfers the COP moves back from the front foot to the rear foot (from P6-P7).

 

This is what KS said :

"Their cop trace is on the rear foot at impact because their left foot has left the ground making it weightless, not because their pressure has actually worked back. A common misconception by people that haven't actually researched it

 

The graphs show that for rear foot golfers the COP pressure has worked back from the front foot at P6 to the rear foot by impact (P7) or is this something 'I have failed to understand again'?

 

I think you have entered into the middle of this thread without actually knowing what was being debated .

 

Also the implication that the left foot is 'unweighted' could be incorrect because aren't COP force plates based on some ratio (total= 100%) between left and right feet? Therefore the 'actual real time pressure force' on the left foot (if it could be measured) might actually increase but the COP reading might show a decrease (because an even greater 'actual real time pressure force' was being exerted under the right foot than previous). COP readings might not reflect the actual dynamics that are happening in the golf swing.

[FourTops]

This sounds like snapping a wet towel. Your wrist snaps backward as the towel extends away from your wrist...creating the "snap".

[iteachgolf]

Josh was talking about COM vs COP and literally stated that while trying to disprove him you posted a study about COP being back, which he clearly stated happens. But it's because lead foot is airborne and not because the COM actually backs up. You obviously and still don't understand the discussion because Josh's post in this thread have all been about COM vs COP

 

They are using COP as = weight. Again just because the COP is moving backwards (due to front foot being airborne) doesn't mean the COM is moving backwards. There's a huge difference between COM and COP and the study you linked is simply measuring COP which obviously "goes back" with some long hitters when the front foot is unweighted. Doesn't mean COM is moving backwards.

 

 

You obviously don't even understand the discussion or what Josh (KS) said. So why argue something you clearly don't understand

 

 

 

Sorry but you've lost me!!!

 

The thread was about 'clubhead speed' vs 'COP under lead foot' vs 'club vertical in downswing' - a relationship that Sasho found. He then said that it didn't apply to 'Rear Foot' golfers as per research findings in that .pdf I posted .

 

I haven't got a clue how KS's comments has an relevance to the above , to that .pdf or any connection to COM?

 

KS says that the left foot is off the ground or unweighted which is why the COP is under the rear foot . So what?

 

If you look at the graphs in that .pdf you will find that both front and rear foot golfers have similar COP traces from P4 -P6 (ie. COP moves from rear to left foot ).

 

For front foot golfers the COP moves more to the front foot (from P6 - P7) .

 

For rear foot golfers the COP moves back from the front foot to the rear foot (from P6-P7).

 

This is what KS said :

"Their cop trace is on the rear foot at impact because their left foot has left the ground making it weightless, not because their pressure has actually worked back. A common misconception by people that haven't actually researched it

 

The graphs show that for rear foot golfers the COP pressure has worked back from the front foot at P6 to the rear foot by impact (P7) or is this something 'I have failed to understand again'?

 

I think you have entered into the middle of this thread without actually knowing what was being debated .

 

Also the implication that the left foot is 'unweighted' could be incorrect because aren't COP force plates based on some ratio (total= 100%) between left and right feet? Therefore the 'actual real time pressure force' on the left foot (if it could be measured) might actually increase but the COP reading might show a decrease (because an even greater 'actual real time pressure force' was being exerted under the right foot than previous. COP readings might not reflect the actual dynamics that are happening in the golf swing.

 

Not surprised you’re lost. What KS is saying is the magnitude of pressure isn’t increasing on the right foot when the left foot becomes airborne, it’s simply the ratio shifts right because the left foot is airborne.

[FourTops]

Josh was talking about COM vs COP and literally stated that while trying to disprove him you posted a study about COP being back, which he clearly stated happens. But it's because lead foot is airborne and not because the COM actually backs up. You obviously and still don't understand the discussion because Josh's post in this thread have all been about COM vs COP

 

They are using COP as = weight. Again just because the COP is moving backwards (due to front foot being airborne) doesn't mean the COM is moving backwards. There's a huge difference between COM and COP and the study you linked is simply measuring COP which obviously "goes back" with some long hitters when the front foot is unweighted. Doesn't mean COM is moving backwards.

 

 

You obviously don't even understand the discussion or what Josh (KS) said. So why argue something you clearly don't understand

 

 

 

Sorry but you've lost me!!!

 

The thread was about 'clubhead speed' vs 'COP under lead foot' vs 'club vertical in downswing' - a relationship that Sasho found. He then said that it didn't apply to 'Rear Foot' golfers as per research findings in that .pdf I posted .

 

I haven't got a clue how KS's comments has an relevance to the above , to that .pdf or any connection to COM?

 

KS says that the left foot is off the ground or unweighted which is why the COP is under the rear foot . So what?

 

If you look at the graphs in that .pdf you will find that both front and rear foot golfers have similar COP traces from P4 -P6 (ie. COP moves from rear to left foot ).

 

For front foot golfers the COP moves more to the front foot (from P6 - P7) .

 

For rear foot golfers the COP moves back from the front foot to the rear foot (from P6-P7).

 

This is what KS said :

"Their cop trace is on the rear foot at impact because their left foot has left the ground making it weightless, not because their pressure has actually worked back. A common misconception by people that haven't actually researched it

 

The graphs show that for rear foot golfers the COP pressure has worked back from the front foot at P6 to the rear foot by impact (P7) or is this something 'I have failed to understand again'?

 

I think you have entered into the middle of this thread without actually knowing what was being debated .

 

Also the implication that the left foot is 'unweighted' could be incorrect because aren't COP force plates based on some ratio (total= 100%) between left and right feet? Therefore the 'actual real time pressure force' on the left foot (if it could be measured) might actually increase but the COP reading might show a decrease (because an even greater 'actual real time pressure force' was being exerted under the right foot than previous. COP readings might not reflect the actual dynamics that are happening in the golf swing.

 

Not surprised you're lost. What KS is saying is the magnitude of pressure isn't increasing on the right foot when the left foot becomes airborne, it's simply the ratio shifts right because the left foot is airborne.

 

Seems in dance or just standing....anyone can lift their left heel yet retain their weight on their left foot....it's just more concentrated on the ball of their left foot. Am I on the right track?