Do Not Pull On the Club from the Top of the Backswing...Stop the Handle Late In Downswing.

[Zitlow]

8 hours ago, Hidraw said:

This is to continue on @virtuoso's valuable comment about how I should organize my swing thoughts.  
 

As a passenger in an airliner, I certainly want the pilots in the cockpit to focus on high-level intent - go up, down, left, right, etc…. instead of mechanical minutiae like the motion of rudders, ailerons, horizontal stabilizers, etc.  Whereas an action like turning the airliner left may involve coordinated movement of several mechanical control surfaces that are accomplished by mechanical or electronic circuitry and should be encapsulated or shielded from the thoughts of the pilots so that they can focus on pertinent  and very critical tasks, like making sure that the passengers can breath,  that are still quite complicated requiring rigorous training scheme.
 

This should be applicable for developing golfers in learning golf swing.  Where advanced golfers may have a complete abstraction for a golf swing to “ just hit the ball”, a developing golfer may need to go down below an encapsulating level to monitor and refine the necessary sequence of actions but should not go too deep to the level of various minute actions of body components.  That lowest  biomechanical level should be the concerns of mechanics for an airliner or golf teaching professionals for golf swing.
 

My previous traditional swing thought was that the downswing consisted of two phases - transition and release.  But from this research paper, there are actually three phases for a downswing of a proficient golfer as differentiated from the different trajectories of the center of curvature of the hub path as shown in the copied picture from the paper below.
 

Now that requires a bit of thinking and data analysis to derive to a golfer thoughts and succinct actions.  Of course, details are omitted such as not allowing slack in the system, etc. But let’s have a good sketch first before further refining.  My rough sketch consist of three sequential actions

Golf Swing
= Swing the Torso → Swing the Arms → Swing the Club
= TILT → TUG → THROW
=  ?..….?

Now, I think this should be a good basis for discussions and suggestions.

I do not know about the TILT but to me the TUG and THROW surely invoke intrinsic capabilities and actions of a human being in dealing with external objects.  Or the TILT is just tug backward  like we could do to a tree branch over our back, and where the TUG is to tug downward and forward.  Come to think of it, THROW here is to tug upward, so we are tugging the club all the way in our downswing but there are certainly three distinct phases of tugging.

(Sorry for the change in fonts, I compose the post offline and do not know how to fix the fonts)

 

Or this. 

[Hilts1969]

2 hours ago, Zitlow said:

 

Don't send that to Dustin Hoffman

 

He played Rain Man he might understand it.

[Zitlow]

11 hours ago, Hidraw said:

 

Golf Swing
= Swing the Torso → Swing the Arms → Swing the Club
= TILT → TUG → THROW
=  ?..….?

 

 

That make sense. In the downswing the lower body swings the upper body, the upper body swings the right shoulder, the right shoulder swings the right arm, hand and club.

 

His right shoulder is swinging his right arm into position, notice how loose his right arm is. His right side pivots around his braced left leg. The golf swing is similar to a baseball throw on an inclined plane. The loose right arm slings the clubhead into the ball. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nels55]

Here is a quote from the end of the study that @MonteScheinblumreferenced:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3761476/

 

The golf swing is not like a planet orbiting the sun.

Conclusion

Analysis of the hub path during the downswing found that it is geometrically complex, deviates significantly from a constant radius path, exhibits a continuously changing radius, and experiences considerable movement of the center-of-curvature. While the size and shape of the hub path differed considerably among subjects, a three phase pattern emerged that was based upon path radius max/mins, that aligned well with distinct stages of thedownswing. Significant markers, relative changes, and trends in the kinematic and kinetic quantities occurred within these specific phases of the hub path. Describing the downswing relative to the hub path phasing was found to be logical and informative.

The shape of the hub path appears to result from a complex combination of achieving equilibrium between the golfer and the club, and a purposeful configuring of the path to control the outward movement of the club while minimizing the kinetic loading on the golfer yet transferring the maximum kinetic quantities to the club. Artificially controlling and optimizing the hub path of the better golfer in the group indicated that a non-circular hub path was superior to a constant radius path in minimizing the kinetic loading while generating the highest possible club head velocity.

This results presented in this study support the notion that the non-circular nature of the hub path is fundamental to the golf swing, and properly configured an essential element in achieving the maximum transfer of energy from the golfer to the club. These finding have important implications for golf instruction, and possibly for equipment design (achieving variable equilibrium paths) and injury prevention (minimizing kinetic loading).

[Hidraw]

I'd like to unpack my concept concerning the hub path from a different perspective.

We are not Iron Byron where a central motor generates central torque.  As the hands travel along the hand path, we have different set of muscles to leverage the motion.  (Sorry, levers and hinges again)  The phase begins when there is a optimal leverage for that set of muscles, for example, pushing with the right leg to move the torso, and the phase ends when the leverage is spent and we transition to the next phase.

Of course the post configuration of one phase is the pre configuration of the next phase.

I consider the Left Wall as the leverage plane for Phase 3.  Now it is interesting to find the leverage plane for Phase 2.  It must be a slanted plane.

I suspect that the action in Phase 2 is to swing the arms to ram or to pound or to spear that leverage plane with the butt end of the club.

I hope I am not talking nonsense.
 

[Hidraw]

Last items to be unwrapped for fun - instantaneous center and radius of curvature.

The paper stated that the instantaneous radius of curvature is shortest near impact.  This means that the hands and club is going through a very tight corner of the track.  A tractor-trailer or a high speed train going through too tight a turn in the road at high speed would jacknife or derail.  Isn't what we want to do to the club upon release.

Now, when I first read the paper, I naively tried to identify the center of curvature at different Phases with position on the body.  My friends in Robotics would probably laugh at that.

The left shoulder blade and the left arm act like a two segment robotic arm.  There are positions in 3d space that the "hand" of the robotic arm can access and there are positions that it cannot access.

Let's confine our consideration to 2d space for our shoulder and arm.  Standing upright extend your left arm inline with the shoulder with the left hand furthest left.  Turn your body around 360 degrees.  That inscribes a circle beyond which are positions that your hand cannot access. 

Now move your left arm inline with the shoulder blade furthest to the right side.  Again turn your body around 360 degrees to inscribe a smaller circle inside which your left hand with straight left arm cannot access.

Now the area between the two circles like a Saturn ring is the accessible region - positions that the left hand with straight left arm can access.

Any curve contained inside this ring can be traced by the left hand by articulation of the angle of the left shoulder blade around the neck and the angle of the left arm around the left shoulder.

A small circle inside the accessible region can be traced, and obviously, the center of curvature is the center of that small circle itself.

A straight line segment inside the accessible region can also be traced - and the centers of curvature is at infinity.

Back to golf now with three segment robotic arm - the left shoulder blade, the left arm and the club.  This robotic arm has one more segment and additional degree of freedom  Considering tracing or inscribing a curve through impact we can conclude that a short straight path for the clubhead is possible! 

Tiger surely knows how to inscribe his famous Stringer Shot.

Edited January 23 by Hidraw

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Hidraw said:

for example, pushing with the right leg to move the torso

 

Fairly OT so I'll keep it to just this: In the downswing? Doesn't really happen much.

 

5 hours ago, Hidraw said:

The paper stated that the instantaneous radius of curvature is shortest near impact.

 

In large part because the clubhead angle is "flying out" at that point. The center of curvature is moving closer to the grip.

 

5 hours ago, Hidraw said:

A tractor-trailer or a high speed train going through too tight a turn in the road at high speed would jacknife or derail. Isn't what we want to do to the club upon release.

 

The arms/clubhead aren't a semi or a train on tracks.

 

And… I'm not sure I see the point in anything else said, so… I'll leave you to it.

[virtuoso]

Hidraw, if you’re talking about the hub path of the hands, at the beginning of the swing, you are pulling an arrow from your quiver….so longitudinal. At the bottom of your swing the hub of the hands and the “upper hub” of your shoulders/chest are actually spinning around each other. It’s just that the combined center of rotation is much closer to the upper hub. See a hammer thrower analogy for that concept. In this case, it is indeed useful to use the orbiting planets as an example. The earth and moon are orbiting around each other, but the combined center of rotation is very close to the earth center because of the mass difference. This accounts for the hand path radius shrinking at the bottom during throw out.

[Hidraw]

2 hours ago, virtuoso said:

Hidraw, if you’re talking about the hub path of the hands, at the beginning of the swing, you are pulling an arrow from your quiver….so longitudinal. At the bottom of your swing the hub of the hands and the “upper hub” of your shoulders/chest are actually spinning around each other. It’s just that the combined center of rotation is much closer to the upper hub. See a hammer thrower analogy for that concept. In this case, it is indeed useful to use the orbiting planets as an example. The earth and moon are orbiting around each other, but the combined center of rotation is very close to the earth center because of the mass difference. This accounts for the hand path radius shrinking at the bottom during throw out.

Counterbalancing!  I like that.   Thanks for fitting in a very big piece of the golfer swing puzzles.
 

Edited January 23 by Hidraw

[Righty to Lefty]

On 1/22/2024 at 3:55 AM, Hidraw said:

Before the thread dies, I just want to wrapup an open issue of the "feel" of @Righty to Lefty about stopping the handle late in the downswing and the reality of what "really" happened according to research data in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3761476/




The authors derived force, acceleration, velocity at the hands from sequences of snapshots in the downswing of 4 golfers of varying handicap.  Their Figure 6 as depicted above shows the tangential force (along the hand path) and normal force (perpendicular to the hand path).  We could observe near impact that there is and abrupt action that diminishes the tangential force to zero and increase the normal force to peaks.  @Righty to Lefty may interpret this as stop the handle, but in fact the handle still moving while the direction of acceleration changes.

 

Thanks for your post Hidraw as I am diggin your deep dive into things. The main thing that I was commenting on was in Dr. Sasho Mackenzie's video on that other thread he literally stated " as the club gets to just below shaft parallel the golfer begins to work in the opposite direction of the club head's travel" and that the golfer is applying a negative couple to the golf club. 

 

Being that the golfer's only connection to the club is the handle in, the golfer is applying a braking force to the handle end which transfers the building force and momentum onward to the club head.  This is no different than snapping a towel or cracking a whip where a negative couple is applied to handle end to rapidly accelerate the tip end. Did you see that video...if not I'll repost it.  I will post more on this later but thanks for your post.

[Hidraw]

4 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Thanks for your post Hidraw as I am diggin your deep dive into things. The main thing that I was commenting on was in Dr. Sasho Mackenzie's video on that other thread he literally stated " as the club gets to just below shaft parallel the golfer begins to work in the opposite direction of the club head's travel" and that the golfer is applying a negative couple to the golf club. 

 

Being that the golfer's only connection to the club is the handle in, the golfer is applying a braking force to the handle end which transfers the building force and momentum onward to the club head.  This is no different than snapping a towel or cracking a whip where a negative couple is applied to handle end to rapidly accelerate the tip end. Did you see that video...if not I'll repost it.  I will post more on this later but thanks for your post.

Yes @Righty to Lefty, braking or deceleration can add energy in the system like in cracking a whip.  I do remember a presentation slide of Dr Sasho Mankenzie stating object being tugged will rotate to orient the its center of mass to the direction of the tugging force.  To myself, braking is a just special case in the change in direction of force.  But, in a golf swing, we should treat the combined arms and club system as the object to be whipped, like a towel or a whip, and use our body to provide the whipping.

In fact, Theodore Jorgensen in his book The Physics of Golf also based his golf swing model on this principle accelerating and braking, but it is the golfer torso that is accelerating and braking with right timing to swing the passive double pendulum of the arms and club.  Tutelman provides a simulation program based on this model.




 

[johnrobison]

9 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

" as the club gets to just below shaft parallel the golfer begins to work in the opposite direction of the club head's travel" and that the golfer is applying a negative couple to the golf club.

That doesn't mean braking. It simply means the resisting of the outward force. It's the force applied by the golfer to keep the club from flying away. Also, what do you believe the negative couple represents? 

[Simpsonia]

10 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Thanks for your post Hidraw as I am diggin your deep dive into things. The main thing that I was commenting on was in Dr. Sasho Mackenzie's video on that other thread he literally stated " as the club gets to just below shaft parallel the golfer begins to work in the opposite direction of the club head's travel" and that the golfer is applying a negative couple to the golf club. 

 

Being that the golfer's only connection to the club is the handle in, the golfer is applying a braking force to the handle end which transfers the building force and momentum onward to the club head.  This is no different than snapping a towel or cracking a whip where a negative couple is applied to handle end to rapidly accelerate the tip end. Did you see that video...if not I'll repost it.  I will post more on this later but thanks for your post.

 

Once again, your imprecision with language is what is getting you in trouble in these threads. Pretty much nobody defines "braking" in the way that you do. Think of the common speedboat with a water skier analogy. When the speedboat cuts a sharp corner and whips the water skier out, did hit "hit the brakes" or did just just change directions? 

 

To pretty much everyone else, "braking" means a force applied in the opposite direction of movement of the thing itself moving. So if the hands are moving up, then "braking" would mean in the opposite direction, ie a force moving the hands back downwards. It has nothing to do with the different directions of the clubhead vs hands. 

Edited January 24 by Simpsonia

[Valtiel]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Once again, your imprecision with language is what is getting you in trouble in these threads.

That's the frustrating recurring theme here that sets off alarm bells for me. You occasionally see versions of this in various debates....someone throws out a very non-standard word or concept, either because it's completely novel or being used in an overly academic or unusual way, and they seem to completely lack the self awareness to go "yeah I should take care to explain this really well". The alarm bells come from the fact that, at least to me, this sends a message that education and understanding are not the priorities. I'm going to say things in a way that will be extremely difficult for other people to parse, and that is *their* problem. It's gross and does very little to help a community. 
 

[iacas]

11 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

The main thing that I was commenting on was in Dr. Sasho Mackenzie's video on that other thread he literally stated " as the club gets to just below shaft parallel the golfer begins to work in the opposite direction of the club head's travel" and that the golfer is applying a negative couple to the golf club.

 

You continue to misunderstand the video, even though I have pointed out your errors several times. You also do not seem to understand what a “couple” is or what it represents. In short, it’s about rotation. If something is rotating clockwise, and you call that direction “positive,” then rotation in the other direction is a negative.

Furthermore, once something begins rotating (or moving) in one direction, if it slows down but continues to rotate or move in that direction, a “negative” force is being applied. That’s very different than “braking.”

 

Additionally, the instantaneous center of rotation never exists inside the grip (lower than the end of the grip) in this video, as I’ve already shown to you:

 

 

11 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

… the golfer is applying a negative couple to the golf club.

 

If you’ve seen a golfer “going normal” where the force vector points almost at their belly near impact, the golfer isn’t really “pulling the club in” at that moment — they’re literally just holding the grip at that instant firmly enough so that it doesn’t get pulled out of their hands by the momentum of the club swinging fast and on an arc.

 

You don’t understand physics well enough to really be having this conversation. You should be asking a ton of questions, not making proclamations.

 

In other words, sometimes a golfer is “applying” a force simply by holding on to the club, not by actively “braking” or whatever.

 

11 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

This is no different than snapping a towel or cracking a whip where a negative couple is applied to handle end to rapidly accelerate the tip end.

 

It is in fact quite different than cracking a whip.

 

6 hours ago, Hidraw said:

Yes @Righty to Lefty, braking or deceleration can add energy in the system like in cracking a whip.

 

No, it isn’t. Clue: a whip gets lighter toward the end, a golf club gets heavier (seeing as how the clubhead is down there). It’s the exact opposite of a whip.

 

Another clue: rotational ≠ linear. You don’t crack a whip by “rotating” it like you’re spinning a rock on a string.

 

You are both completely mucking up the physics here. But I don’t know what to expect when one of you sees a video of a long drive guy DOING A PUMP DRILL and claims victory because the shaft snaps when he begins to make another backswing.

 

 

That’s a better video for you two. Notice, for example, the big red line ramping up FAST the entire downswing. Notice how it even begins (it changes its direction from negative to positive) in the backswing, while the club is still moving in the initial direction.

 

This is very basic stuff that goes right over your head, @Righty to Lefty.

 

2 hours ago, johnrobison said:

That doesn't mean braking. It simply means the resisting of the outward force. It's the force applied by the golfer to keep the club from flying away. Also, what do you believe the negative couple represents? 

 

He doesn’t have a clue. Something something cracking a whip.

 

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

Once again, your imprecision with language is what is getting you in trouble in these threads. Pretty much nobody defines "braking" in the way that you do. Think of the common speedboat with a water skier analogy. When the speedboat cuts a sharp corner and whips the water skier out, did hit "hit the brakes" or did just just change directions? 

 

To pretty much everyone else, "braking" means a force applied in the opposite direction of movement of the thing itself moving. So if the hands are moving up, then "braking" would mean in the opposite direction, ie a force moving the hands back downwards. It has nothing to do with the different directions of the clubhead vs hands. 

 

It’s not just the imprecise language, as you know. He’s trying to use something he doesn’t understand to justify his experiences or feels.

 

And he does so in an intellectually dishonest way, as this post isn’t all that different from some others I’ve made. I re-used the two images I used before, and he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t read, he doesn’t comprehend, he doesn’t ask questions. He doesn’t even answer questions posed to him.

 

It’s a scummy way of having a discussion.

 

Edited January 24 by iacas
Posted weird

[johnrobison]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

You don’t understand physics well enough to really be having this conversation. You should be asking a ton of questions, not making proclamations.

💯

[MonteScheinblum]

@iacas

they’re literally just holding the grip at that instant firmly enough so that it doesn’t get pulled out of their hands by the momentum of the club swinging fast and on an arc.

 

Exactly right.  This is where the theory about my ability to create extreme speed came from.  ACTUAL experts in physics surmised that my 100th percentile grip strength allowed me to max out my ability even though my overall physical size and strength were quite average.

 

They had measured thousands of people with a dynamometer, including some large pro athletes in major sports and I was higher than anyone they had ever seen.

 

Really funny story when all of the top long drivers at the time went into a bar and they had one of those strength meters you put a quarter into.  Sounds like the opening line to a joke, but the scene was funnier than any joke.

 

If anyone is interested, I’ll tell it.  It had many levels to the comedy.  

[Hawkeye77]

2 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

@iacas

they’re literally just holding the grip at that instant firmly enough so that it doesn’t get pulled out of their hands by the momentum of the club swinging fast and on an arc.

 

Exactly right.  This is where the theory about my ability to create extreme speed came from.  ACTUAL experts in physics surmised that my 100th percentile grip strength allowed me to max out my ability even though my overall physical size and strength were quite average.

 

They had measured thousands of people with a dynamometer, including some large pro athletes in major sports and I was higher than anyone they had ever seen.

 

Really funny story when all of the top long drivers at the time went into a bar and they had one of those strength meters you put a quarter into.  Sounds like the opening line to a joke, but the scene was funnier than any joke.

 

If anyone is interested, I’ll tell it.  It had many levels to the comedy.  

Tell! 

[MonteScheinblum]

39 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Tell! 

Lots of active bragging here, but it’s necessary to set up the pertinent part of the story.

 

This took place when I was the number 1 long driver and I was having some nice success on the Nike (Korn Ferry Tour).  
 

This was at the second biggest tour event of the year and as you can imagine, all the 6-3 to 6-6 250+ pound long drivers did not like it I was beating them.  I had like 7 wins and 3 seconds in the previous 10 events.  
 

We were all at the golf course the day before the pro am.  Several of them said they were working hard and going to kick my ***.  Two came up and told me that had shot in the 60’s multiple rounds in a row and wanted to go play for money.

 

I shot like 31 on the front 9 and they got mad, gave up and didn’t pay.

 

2 days later was the event.  I hit the best drive in the semi finals so I got to hit last in the finals.

 

The second to last hitter smashes one and when they called his distance over the PA, he had taken the lead by a fair margin. Let’s call it 365.  He comes over to me, looks down on me and starts pointing in my face that I’m nothing, he owns me, etc. etc.

 

I calmly walk over the to ball bin, select 1 ball, turn to the crowd and say, “This is all I will need.”

 

They went crazy.  
 

I hit it, threw the club in the air and raised my hands over my head in victory as soon as the ball left the club.  A few seconds later on the PA, “372!”

 

The crowd cheered and said long driver came up, got my club off the ground and broke the shaft over his knee.

 

Later in the evening we go into a bar/restaurant.  They had one of the strength tester machines, where you grab the grip like a dynamometer and squeeze.

 

The chart said something like 

 

100 Hercules

90-99 He Man

80-89 Strong Man

70-79 Stud

60-69 above average

50-59 average

Under 50 wimp

 

A few of them saw it and said let’s have a contest. Everyone throw in $20 and about 5 or 6 did so.

 

One said, “You may have beat us at golf and won the contest, but we know you’re too much of a ***** to compete with us at this.  
 

I reached into my pocket and threw $20 on the table.

 

They were giving themselves aneurysms squeezing the handle with grunts and veins popping out of their neck.  I was laughing at them.  Everyone went and the range was 85-95.

 

”Now it’s your turn *****.” 

I calmly walked up and pulled a 109.  Put a another quarter in and pulled a 107 left handed.

 

You could hear a pin drop.  They surmised there was some sort of trick to it.  3 of them spent the next 30 minutes and about $10 in quarters trying to figure out the trick, some even using two hands.  To no avail.  No one broke 100.

 

They were so mad a few of them thought about taking me in the alley and beating the crap out of me and one of the more sane individual’s said, “The way he’s done you guys dirty this last few days, he probably has a seal team waiting in the alley to take you guys out,  I’d leave him alone.”

 

 

Edited-I was such a troll at those events.  They hated I was so much smaller and weaker physically, yet won most of the events.  At one event I had one of the other top guys convinced he had no chance against me because I had plutonium inside my driver head. 

Edited January 24 by MonteScheinblum

[getitdaily]

2 hours ago, Valtiel said:

That's the frustrating recurring theme here that sets off alarm bells for me. You occasionally see versions of this in various debates....someone throws out a very non-standard word or concept, either because it's completely novel or being used in an overly academic or unusual way, and they seem to completely lack the self awareness to go "yeah I should take care to explain this really well". The alarm bells come from the fact that, at least to me, this sends a message that education and understanding are not the priorities. I'm going to say things in a way that will be extremely difficult for other people to parse, and that is *their* problem. It's gross and does very little to help a community. 
 

It's It's because said person is regurgitating something they saw in a video and they think they know the underlying concepts, but don't. 

 

It's when tangential thought connection manifests into perceived knowledge.

[Hawkeye77]

20 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Lots of active bragging here, but it’s necessary to set up the pertinent part of the story.

 

This took place when I was the number 1 long driver and I was having some nice success on the Nike (Korn Ferry Tour).  
 

This was at the second biggest tour event of the year and as you can imagine, all the 6-3 to 6-6 250+ pound long drivers did not like it I was beating them.  I had like 7 wins and 3 seconds in the previous 10 events.  
 

We were all at the golf course the day before the pro am.  Several of them said they were working hard and going to kick my ***.  Two came up and told me that had shot in the 60’s multiple rounds in a row and wanted to go play for money.

 

I shot like 31 on the front 9 and they got mad, gave up and didn’t pay.

 

2 days later was the event.  I hit the best drive in the semi finals so I got to hit last in the finals.

 

The second to last hitter smashes one and when they called his distance over the PA, he had taken the lead by a fair margin. Let’s call it 365.  He comes over to me, looks down on me and starts pointing in my face that I’m nothing, he owns me, etc. etc.

 

I calmly walk over the to ball bin, select 1 ball, turn to the crowd and say, “This is all I will need.”

 

They went crazy.  
 

I hit it, threw the club in the air and raised my hands over my head in victory as soon as the ball left the club.  A few seconds later on the PA, “372!”

 

The crowd cheered and said long driver came up, got my club off the ground and broke the shaft over his knee.

 

Later in the evening we go into a bar/restaurant.  They had one of the strength tester machines, where you grab the grip like a dynamometer and squeeze.

 

The chart said something like 

 

100 Hercules

90-99 He Man

80-89 Strong Man

70-79 Stud

60-69 above average

50-59 average

Under 50 wimp

 

A few of them saw it and said let’s have a contest. Everyone throw in $20 and about 5 or 6 did so.

 

One said, “You may have beat us at golf and won the contest, but we know you’re too much of a ***** to compete with us at this.  
 

I reached into my pocket and threw $20 on the table.

 

They were giving themselves aneurysms squeezing the handle with grunts and veins popping out of their neck.  I was laughing at them.  Everyone went and the range was 85-95.

 

”Now it’s your turn *****.” 

I calmly walked up and pulled a 109.  Put a another quarter in and pulled a 107 left handed.

 

You could hear a pin drop.  They surmised there was some sort of trick to it.  3 of them spent the next 30 minutes and about $10 in quarters trying to figure out the trick, some even using two hands.  To no avail.  No one broke 100.

 

They were so mad a few of them thought about taking me in the alley and beating the crap out of me and one of the more sane individual’s said, “The way he’s done you guys dirty this last few days, he probably has a seal team waiting in the alley to take you guys out,  I’d leave him alone.”

 

 

Edited-I was such a troll at those events.  They hated I was so much smaller and weaker physically, yet won most of the events.  At one event I had one of the other top guys convinced he had no chance against me because I had plutonium inside my driver head. 

 

Thanks! 

 

So out of curiosity on the grip  -- genetics? baseball skills over the years? combination? 

Edited January 24 by Hawkeye77

[MonteScheinblum]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Thanks! 

 

So out of curiosity on the grip  -- genetics? baseball skills over the years? combination? 

Likely all and some more 

[getitdaily]

6 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Likely all and some more 

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

14 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Thanks for your post Hidraw as I am diggin your deep dive into things. The main thing that I was commenting on was in Dr. Sasho Mackenzie's video on that other thread he literally stated " as the club gets to just below shaft parallel the golfer begins to work in the opposite direction of the club head's travel" and that the golfer is applying a negative couple to the golf club. 

 

Being that the golfer's only connection to the club is the handle in, the golfer is applying a braking force to the handle end which transfers the building force and momentum onward to the club head.  This is no different than snapping a towel or cracking a whip where a negative couple is applied to handle end to rapidly accelerate the tip end. Did you see that video...if not I'll repost it.  I will post more on this later but thanks for your post.

 

I love how you reply quoting the post, in a thread with the title we have, which has this graph, and think it supports your theory:

 

 

Quite literally this shows that all four golfers are applying tangential force (i.e. pulling) on the handle at the start of the downswing (or, at least 0.2s prior to impact). 

 

Then, not a single one of those golfers has a negative tangential force (i.e. braking) before impact. The forces all rapidly approach zero in that last 0.03s, but it would be much more accurate to call this "coasting" and not braking. 

 

Oh, and the "in the opposite direction to the club head's travel" is the "normal" force, or centripetal force. Not braking either. 

[iacas]

45 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I love how you reply quoting the post, in a thread with the title we have, which has this graph, and think it supports your theory:

 

Yep. I said it a long time ago… that you could almost take exactly the opposite of what he says, and you'd be significantly closer to the truth than whatever he says.

 

45 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Quite literally this shows that all four golfers are applying tangential force (i.e. pulling) on the handle at the start of the downswing (or, at least 0.2s prior to impact).

 

Indeed. As do other videos, common sense, measurements… etc.

 

45 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Then, not a single one of those golfers has a negative tangential force (i.e. braking) before impact. The forces all rapidly approach zero in that last 0.03s, but it would be much more accurate to call this "coasting" and not braking.

 

I dunno man, lotta braking going on here!

 

 

I mean, you're talking to the same guy who confused a pump drill with "braking." Or maybe he's just been spelling it wrong this whole time, and he means to say "breaking."

[Hidraw]

  10 hours ago, Hidraw said:

Yes @Righty to Lefty, braking or deceleration can add energy in the system like in cracking a whip.

 

No, it isn’t. Clue: a whip gets lighter toward the end, a golf club gets heavier (seeing as how the clubhead is down there). It’s the exact opposite of a whip.

Thank you for the comment.  I wish it could have been more cordial.

Work = Force x distance.

No distance then Force produces no work, no energy added.

A correct statement should be 
"reversing acceleration can add energy in the system like snapping a towel"
where your hand is travelling forward and then backward.

[iacas]

43 minutes ago, Hidraw said:

Work = Force x distance.

 

v² = v₀² + 2a(s − s₀)

f_k = μ_kN

a = α × r − ω² r

τ = rF sin θ

 

I can cut and paste physics formulas too.

 

43 minutes ago, Hidraw said:

"reversing acceleration can add energy in the system like snapping a towel"
where your hand is travelling forward and then backward.

 

a) "reversing acceleration" is not a term used in physics. Negative acceleration, "deceleration" if you must… whatever. I don't know what "reversing acceleration" is.

b) virtually all (gravity plays a minor role) "added energy" comes from your muscles. Golfers are not "adding energy" by doing something that doesn't involve an outside force (gravity or their muscles) acting on the golf club.

c) a golf club, in addition to being heavier at the wrong end compared to a whip, is also a fairly rigid body compared to a whip.

d) I don't think either of you understand how you crack a whip — there's no real "backward" movement. It's more like casting a fly (fishing) than anything. It's a momentum problem, which is why the backward nature of the golf club orientation is relevant (in addition to the rigidity).

e) There's definitely no actual backward movement in the grip of a golf club, which continues forward.

 

 

[MattC555]

I had no idea Devo was subliminally giving me golf lessons all these years. 

 

[Hidraw]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

v² = v₀² + 2a(s − s₀)

f_k = μ_kN

a = α × r − ω² r

τ = rF sin θ

 

I can cut and paste physics formulas too.

 

 

a) "reversing acceleration" is not a term used in physics. Negative acceleration, "deceleration" if you must… whatever. I don't know what "reversing acceleration" is.

b) virtually all (gravity plays a minor role) "added energy" comes from your muscles. Golfers are not "adding energy" by doing something that doesn't involve an outside force (gravity or their muscles) acting on the golf club.

c) a golf club, in addition to being heavier at the wrong end compared to a whip, is also a fairly rigid body compared to a whip.

d) I don't think either of you understand how you crack a whip — there's no real "backward" movement. It's more like casting a fly (fishing) than anything. It's a momentum problem, which is why the backward nature of the golf club orientation is relevant (in addition to the rigidity).

e) There's definitely no actual backward movement in the grip of a golf club, which continues forward.

 

 

I have explained my term "reversing acceleration" by the sentence that follows.

That post of mine was from the urge to rectify an incorrect statement, nothing more.
The knowledge required here is at most Physics 201 or Mechanics 201 that there is no need to flaunt for there are millions out there that are more knowledgeable in the subject than us two.

At my age I have learnt to be humble. a long time ago.  For, say, in a room full of people, I discovered that most of them are better at me at a few things.  Some are much better than me in  shooting, billiards, singing, playing musical instruments, making money, multilingual, writing, giving speeches, leading people, etc.

Being nasty can be useful sometimes when needed.  But if you do not want to get old and die alone, try not to push people away, especially your family members, your friends.


 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Hidraw said:

The knowledge required here is at most Physics 201 or Mechanics 201 that there is no need to flaunt for there are millions out there that are more knowledgeable in the subject than us two.

 

So you think you're of equivalent physics knowledge to me? Despite "reverse acceleration" and "the golf swing is like cracking a whip" and your use of the formula for work, and a few other things? No need to answer… it's rhetorical.
 

3 minutes ago, Hidraw said:

At my age I have learnt to be humble. a long time ago.  For, say, in a room full of people, I discovered that most of them are better at me at a few things.  Some are much better than me in  shooting, billiards, singing, playing musical instruments, making money, multilingual, writing, giving speeches, leading people, etc.

 

You left physics off your list.

 

3 minutes ago, Hidraw said:

Being nasty can be useful sometimes when needed.  But if you do not want to get old and die alone, try not to push people away, especially your family members, your friends.

 

Yeah, so… pointing out that you're wrong is not being nasty. But commenting on my life, my friends, my family, and dying alone is totally cool? Okay pal. 🤣

 

Not a big fan of meta-commentary, but buddy… relax. Stop taking "you're wrong, here's why" so personally.