Fighting Gravity and THE Club Weight

[iteachgolf]

Can’t believe a Flat Earther hasn’t come in here and tried to debunk gravity altogether yet!

 

 

No one is trying to debunk Gravity, it just isn't that relevant in the act of swinging a golf club, the math proves it, all the phd's agree on this only some ignorant of the scientific proven facts wxr's would go on about how it's so important in swinging a club... news flash it's not that important, even a 5th grader could understand this fact.

 

This is going nowhere. Believe in your unicorns and antigravity propaganda. Doesn’t change the fact that you can not hit a golf ball more than 100 yards without gravity. Like I said before....try hitting a ball while floating and get back with me.

 

I’m afraid your lack of understanding is laughably obvious. You absolutely could hit a ball while floating and the ball would go much further, not shorter, the smaller the gravitational force. You do realize the one armed hip high chip shot while wearing a massive suit that was hit on the moon traveled over 200 yards right? In space a chip shot would travel a ridiculous distance.

 

And when a player says they are using the ground, the don’t mean only gravity, though it’s part of it. They are using the interaction with the ground to create torque, vertical, and horizontal force. The golf swing requires frictional forces, which is what they are talking about when talking about using the ground. Same thing can be done in zero gravity with a mechanical connection to the “ground”, such as boots attached to the “ground”. The International space station uses footholds for this very reason.

 

 

 

 

And please understand context, gravity is easily overcome and gravity isn’t causing the club the shallow or drop. But I know you like to troll and purposely ignore context Forewood

[iteachgolf]

Btw the current record for hitting a golf ball was done in space in 2006. A one armed shank.

 

“The golf ball did not travel in the full retrograde direction, away from the space station, as intended. Instead, Tyurin shanked the ball, causing it to fly past the starboard side of the Zvezda service module. NASA officials estimate the ball will travel about a million miles round the Earth...”

[iteachgolf]

There is Gravity in space as well. The ball goes further not because of a lack of it.

 

There’s gravity everywhere. It’s why everything stays in orbit. The ball falling back to earth at a much slower rate is absolutely a factor in why the ball goes much further. Wind/air resistance is another big factor

[AFcelica]

http://goo.gl/images/ScYcBP

[oikos1]

I'm torn. On the one hand, I find this thread highly entertaining and am hopeful a little nugget will fall out of this jumble and offer newfound enlightenment.

 

On the other hand, what is a beautifully simple yet eternally complex game, a game that only requires a ball and stick, a game that stimulates both mind and body and fosters friendships and competition, is being bandied about through the cosmos as if there's some secret answer hidden within to all that is meaningful.

 

It's only golf, but just like any other mess of a wreck, I can't look away.

[Golfjack]

I think when people are getting this granular over a golf swing, you're in serious condition of paralysis by analysis. Next it'll be like oh that 4 mph win affected my eye lashes which caused me to blink twice and shifted my COG by 1mm, throwing off my balance and causing that shank.

[A.Princey]

I honestly think the only portion of the swing hugely impacted by gravity is at/during transition. "Laying off the club" to start the downswing and create lag has to be gravity moving the head down as we get the handle moving. The only other possibility for the parallel travel of the shaft to the ground could be one's forearms further flexing and creating a sharper wrist angle, and this isn't feasible. In a proper swing, or an efficient one, the club should be sort of weightless and without force on it at the top, then it stops, and as the legs start the rotation and move the hips + chest + arms and finally hands, a small amount of time has passed where the club "drops".

[iteachgolf]

I honestly think the only portion of the swing hugely impacted by gravity is at/during transition. "Laying off the club" to start the downswing and create lag has to be gravity moving the head down as we get the handle moving. The only other possibility for the parallel travel of the shaft to the ground could be one's forearms further flexing and creating a sharper wrist angle, and this isn't feasible. In a proper swing, or an efficient one, the club should be sort of weightless and without force on it at the top, then it stops, and as the legs start the rotation and move the hips + chest + arms and finally hands, a small amount of time has passed where the club "drops".

 

The clubhead works up in transition as it “lays off”

[glk]

Concerning measurement  of gravity appear to be less than 2% of total work in the downswing.    Pretty small potatoes.

https://vimeo.com/162015461

 

 

 

[Krt22]

What did you guys do for 2 days when golfwrx was down?

[wmblake2000]

Krt22 said:

What did you guys do for 2 days when golfwrx was down?

Haha.  But the good news is... the redesign didn't kill the insanity that makes wrx so much fun.

[juststeve]

Without getting into a debate about force v. curved space time we should consider the action of  simple pendulum.  The motion of the pendulum is powered by gravity and nothing else, yet the distal end of the pendulum moves in an arc with both up and down and back and forth components.  In other words it moves like a simplified golf club being swung.  When a pendulum swings the it traces a consistent path back and forth, bottoms out in the same place every time, and reaches maximum speed at the low point.  In other words it has characteristics desirable in a golf swing. 

It is an error to think that gravity can produce only vertical motion.  In the case of the pendulum, and the golf swing, gravity can produce horizontal motion around a fixed point as well. 

It would also be an error to think that gravity alone can produce an effective golf swing, but I don't think anyone has argued that it can.  That is a straw man erected by people who dismiss the importance of gravity. 

Steve

[TIM929]

wmblake2000 said:

Krt22 said:

What did you guys do for 2 days when golfwrx was down?

Haha.  But the good news is... the redesign didn't kill the insanity that makes wrx so much fun.LOL.

When I first saw the new wrx format, I was thinking "where am I".

then gravity pulled me back into this thread because it's strong enough...  or not...  or is it?   

[iteachgolf]

juststeve said:

Without getting into a debate about force v. curved space time we should consider the action of  simple pendulum.  The motion of the pendulum is powered by gravity and nothing else, yet the distal end of the pendulum moves in an arc with both up and down and back and forth components.  In other words it moves like a simplified golf club being swung.  When a pendulum swings the it traces a consistent path back and forth, bottoms out in the same place every time, and reaches maximum speed at the low point.  In other words it has characteristics desirable in a golf swing. 

It is an error to think that gravity can produce only vertical motion.  In the case of the pendulum, and the golf swing, gravity can produce horizontal motion around a fixed point as well. 

It would also be an error to think that gravity alone can produce an effective golf swing, but I don't think anyone has argued that it can.  That is a straw man erected by people who dismiss the importance of gravity. 

Steve

A pendulum doesn’t move unless a force is applied to it, just hangs straight down.  You must apply a force to get the pendulum to rotate/swing, you’re actually proving Alpha Man’s point.   And what would happen if the pendulum was rotated more than 180* like a club in a golf swing 

 

 

[chigolfer1]

So are we still talking about whether gravity helps the club "fall?"  This seems to have morphed into how gravity impacts (or doesn't impact) the entire swing.

 

Also, why is it "THE" club weight? lol

[wmblake2000]

This thread reminds me of a physics final question... what would happen if the world stopped turning? That was the question.  Good Lord, who the hell knows, but we know it wouldn't be good.  I don't think I got many points for that answer.

 

[Fade]

FD, do you have relativistic swing speed?

[Stuart_G]

Frozen Divots said:

It will overwhelm gravity the way Newton defined it and the way 99.9999% of the world defines it. However, as someone who has worked in the field intermittently since I was a teenager, I along with others with similar experiences, understand the real definition of Gravity.

Except there is a big difference between the "real" defn of gravity, and the relevant defn of gravity when it comes to applying it to the biomechanics of the golf swing.   There is zero benefit to going beyond or outside the Newtonian approach.

[juststeve]

iteachgolf said:

juststeve said:

Without getting into a debate about force v. curved space time we should consider the action of  simple pendulum.  The motion of the pendulum is powered by gravity and nothing else, yet the distal end of the pendulum moves in an arc with both up and down and back and forth components.  In other words it moves like a simplified golf club being swung.  When a pendulum swings the it traces a consistent path back and forth, bottoms out in the same place every time, and reaches maximum speed at the low point.  In other words it has characteristics desirable in a golf swing. 

It is an error to think that gravity can produce only vertical motion.  In the case of the pendulum, and the golf swing, gravity can produce horizontal motion around a fixed point as well. 

It would also be an error to think that gravity alone can produce an effective golf swing, but I don't think anyone has argued that it can.  That is a straw man erected by people who dismiss the importance of gravity. 

Steve

A pendulum doesn’t move unless a force is applied to it, just hangs straight down.  You must apply a force to get the pendulum to rotate/swing, you’re actually proving Alpha Man’s point.   And what would happen if the pendulum was rotated more than 180* like a club in a golf swing 

 

 

iteachgolf said:

juststeve said:

Without getting into a debate about force v. curved space time we should consider the action of  simple pendulum.  The motion of the pendulum is powered by gravity and nothing else, yet the distal end of the pendulum moves in an arc with both up and down and back and forth components.  In other words it moves like a simplified golf club being swung.  When a pendulum swings the it traces a consistent path back and forth, bottoms out in the same place every time, and reaches maximum speed at the low point.  In other words it has characteristics desirable in a golf swing. 

It is an error to think that gravity can produce only vertical motion.  In the case of the pendulum, and the golf swing, gravity can produce horizontal motion around a fixed point as well. 

It would also be an error to think that gravity alone can produce an effective golf swing, but I don't think anyone has argued that it can.  That is a straw man erected by people who dismiss the importance of gravity. 

Steve

A pendulum doesn’t move unless a force is applied to it, just hangs straight down.  You must apply a force to get the pendulum to rotate/swing, you’re actually proving Alpha Man’s point.   And what would happen if the pendulum was rotated more than 180* like a club in a golf swing 

 

 

Actually not so.  A swinging pendulum will continue to swing back and forth until it is slowed to  a stop by friction or resistance.  In a vacuum with a friction less pivot point it would swing forever.  No force beyond that of gravity is required to keep it swinging.   

To start the pendulum swinging all that is required is to haul the weighted end upward, giving it potential energy, and then releasing the  pendulum when gravity alone can convert the potential energy to kinetic energy,  which is transferred to anything the pendulum hits.  Again, no force other than gravity is required to make the pendulum swing from any point where it has potential energy.  The assumption that a pendulum only hangs straight down is an over simplification. 

To answer your question, although the club moves more than 180 degrees in many golf swings, the arms do not.  From any point in a real golf swing the arms can be allowed to fall accelerating under the influence of gravity, and carrying the club with them.  The arms will lead the club down until impact, after which the club will pass the arms re-cocking the wrists on the target side of the ball.  All of this motion can be produced by gravity accelerating the arms and the momentum of the club which also had its source in gravity. 

I think you miss the effect of gravity because it is ubiquitous.  Any time an object is accelerating in a downward direction that acceleration is being assisted by gravity.  Gravity can be augmented with muscular effort.  The falling club can be directed with muscular effort. But no object can fall without gravity assisting that motion, at least not here on earth.

Steve

[iteachgolf]

juststeve said:

iteachgolf said:

juststeve said:

Without getting into a debate about force v. curved space time we should consider the action of  simple pendulum.  The motion of the pendulum is powered by gravity and nothing else, yet the distal end of the pendulum moves in an arc with both up and down and back and forth components.  In other words it moves like a simplified golf club being swung.  When a pendulum swings the it traces a consistent path back and forth, bottoms out in the same place every time, and reaches maximum speed at the low point.  In other words it has characteristics desirable in a golf swing. 

It is an error to think that gravity can produce only vertical motion.  In the case of the pendulum, and the golf swing, gravity can produce horizontal motion around a fixed point as well. 

It would also be an error to think that gravity alone can produce an effective golf swing, but I don't think anyone has argued that it can.  That is a straw man erected by people who dismiss the importance of gravity. 

Steve

A pendulum doesn’t move unless a force is applied to it, just hangs straight down.  You must apply a force to get the pendulum to rotate/swing, you’re actually proving Alpha Man’s point.   And what would happen if the pendulum was rotated more than 180* like a club in a golf swing 

 

 

iteachgolf said:

juststeve said:

Without getting into a debate about force v. curved space time we should consider the action of  simple pendulum.  The motion of the pendulum is powered by gravity and nothing else, yet the distal end of the pendulum moves in an arc with both up and down and back and forth components.  In other words it moves like a simplified golf club being swung.  When a pendulum swings the it traces a consistent path back and forth, bottoms out in the same place every time, and reaches maximum speed at the low point.  In other words it has characteristics desirable in a golf swing. 

It is an error to think that gravity can produce only vertical motion.  In the case of the pendulum, and the golf swing, gravity can produce horizontal motion around a fixed point as well. 

It would also be an error to think that gravity alone can produce an effective golf swing, but I don't think anyone has argued that it can.  That is a straw man erected by people who dismiss the importance of gravity. 

Steve

A pendulum doesn’t move unless a force is applied to it, just hangs straight down.  You must apply a force to get the pendulum to rotate/swing, you’re actually proving Alpha Man’s point.   And what would happen if the pendulum was rotated more than 180* like a club in a golf swing 

 

 

Actually not so.  A swinging pendulum will continue to swing back and forth until it is slowed to  a stop by friction or resistance.  In a vacuum with a friction less pivot point it would swing forever.  No force beyond that of gravity is required to keep it swinging.   

To start the pendulum swinging all that is required is to haul the weighted end upward, giving it potential energy, and then releasing the  pendulum when gravity alone can convert the potential energy to kinetic energy,  which is transferred to anything the pendulum hits.  Again, no force other than gravity is required to make the pendulum swing from any point where it has potential energy.  The assumption that a pendulum only hangs straight down is an over simplification. 

To answer your question, although the club moves more than 180 degrees in many golf swings, the arms do not.  From any point in a real golf swing the arms can be allowed to fall accelerating under the influence of gravity, and carrying the club with them.  The arms will lead the club down until impact, after which the club will pass the arms re-cocking the wrists on the target side of the ball.  All of this motion can be produced by gravity accelerating the arms and the momentum of the club which also had its source in gravity. 

I think you miss the effect of gravity because it is ubiquitous.  Any time an object is accelerating in a downward direction that acceleration is being assisted by gravity.  Gravity can be augmented with muscular effort.  The falling club can be directed with muscular effort. But no object can fall without gravity assisting that motion, at least not here on earth.

Steve

Nobody said gravity isn’t helping but it’s a very small contributor.  And again the net force in transition on the club is upward. 

 

Its not an oversimplification it’s exactly what happens.  Potential energy has to be created for a pendulum to swing.  A pendulum will not move in an arc without an outside force applied to it, it won’t move at all.  And the only reason a pendulum swings is because the top is fixed, there is an upward force causing the rotation 

 

And in the golf swing we swing on a tilted angle.  We are applying the force to make the club rotate in a golfswing.  The entire club would fall to the ground if you just drop it.  There’d be no rotation.  

[Stuart_G]

If you want to assert that the "error" is significant, the burden of proof is on you. Let's see the actual numbers comparing the Newtonian results to yours. Let's see how big that "error" actually is.

[Stuart_G]

Not in this thread you haven't. I don't see a single number quantifying the error in any of your posts much less the proper equations to back up those calculations.

[baudi]

> @glk said:

> Concerning measurement  of gravity appear to be less than 2% of total work in the downswing.    Pretty small potatoes.

>

 

Think about the club for one moment.

 

When I practice pitches I go to the tos-point where the club is close to a near vertical position.

My game is on when I blend my body action with the speed of the club. From the start I will only manipulate the direction I want to feel the natural acceleration from the head moving down. I reckon this is mainly gravitational force not torque because I respond to this action.

I would never be capable of executining this 'free ride' so gracefully myself. It may only be 2% of the net force; it is worth a 1000% of my shot.

 

 

 

[Fade]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> Well however Tremendous Slouch got a pic of > @"Tremendous Slouch" said:

> > > @"Frozen Divots" said:

> > > Haha...did I post that somewhere? Or did you hack me???

> > Followed a string on ABS.

> > http://www.advancedballstriking.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=211&t=20&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=390#p58273

> Gotcha. I forgot I posted that and I thought someone robbed my house...?

 

If only you believed in Newton, you could teach ABS' site-owner a tremendous lesson about F=ma. :)

[baudi]

Before the thread is locked.. Let's s think about the club once more.

 

To me, I first relate the momentum of the club to make the swing going into the right the direction. It is critical to do this right; adding force (probably torque) comes after and is a response.

For warming upI like to do a drill with left arm only. I take 5 iron and grip it 5 inches under the cap. I am looking for controlled shots. The ball goes about 130yds (i am right-handed by nature)

When I bring up the club (left arm parallel to the ground) in transition I softly guide the direction of the club to shallow. It sort of resembles Monte's thumbs up thumbs down drill in a way.

 

From the top, the clubhead is at close to zero mph. To get the lever going the weight of the head provides the acceleration.

My guess is that in the first 2-3 feet the ratio of forces is inverted to the calculation of SmcK. Which makes the absolute of 2% quite relative imho. This guess is a pondering question/point of attention/remark ** not an argumental position for the sake of ego. **

 

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

Frozen Divots asked a simple question regarding Jacobs methodology and conclusions drawn therein:

 

“How does he put a torque vector in plane?”

[AMGolfPro]

First post in the post-WRX forum meltdown era. . . first post or thousandth post, the question remains the same.

 

How does Jacobs put a torque vector in plane?

 

The answer is not in ‘the book.’ You don’t have ‘the answer’ for a reason.

 

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

You asked, and Frozen Divots delivered.

 

Problem you face was clear from outset. . . you underestimated the audience. Now you really find yourself up a creek. Might want to run this one up the chain a bit.

 

Alternatively, you could more simply check your ego at door and start listening. . . and learn something.

 

So, how do you get a torque vector in plane?

 

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

Frozen Divots has gone to great lengths describing how L chasing T (angular momentum chasing torque) is the key to a most efficient golf swing. This is not unique to the golf swing, nor anything novel in the realm of physics.

 

‘Throwing the club head into angular momentum’ by applying torque to the grip is literally the opposite of L chasing T. . . it’s literally the opposite of efficiency. The term ‘torque error’ comes to life.

 

So, same old question: how does Jacobs get a torque vector in plane? Actually, we are way beyond this question, but you are slow to catch on . . . it ain’t in Jacobs book, which is why it’s a book, and not published in a scientific journal.

 

New question: where does the ‘angular momentum’ derive in an efficient golf swing? Hint: you had better start rethinking your views on gravity.

 

[Nard_S]

On a recent science show: Twins, one in space for a year orbiting the planet a couple of hundred miles up in space at 17K mph. the other back on Earth. Due to relativity, guy in space is 6 seconds younger than brother after all that. True story. So I'm supposed to believe Relativity is relevant in a 1.2 second swing at 100 mph in an orbit of 5 feet at sea level..............yeah, okay.