Grip pressure vs swing speed?

[GoGoErky]

25 minutes ago, cav5 said:

 

Good post dude. Obviously iacas will disagree with you. He has appointed himself the fact keeper of golf swing.

 

If you're taking that much isolated pressure in the hand well good luck. Throw some 100lb dumbells over your head with thumb wrapped and then thumb under. See the difference. LOL do a dumbell wrist curl with 100lbs. It ain't happening.

 

 

We can tell you don’t read threads because he already replied and unlike you, your buddy and a few others who hang out in this section he is Ana crush expert on the swing and a respected one at that, who has also worked with other experts in various parts of the industry

 

So you may no like that several people like to ensure that anyone who comes to the forum has the correct information, it’s unfortunately necessary thing because of the previously mentioned group constantly posting bad info.

 

 

[cav5]

35 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

We can tell you don’t read threads because he already replied and unlike you, your buddy and a few others who hang out in this section he is Ana crush expert on the swing and a respected one at that, who has also worked with other experts in various parts of the industry

 

So you may no like that several people like to ensure that anyone who comes to the forum has the correct information, it’s unfortunately necessary thing because of the previously mentioned group constantly posting bad info.

 

 

 

Other experts calling eachother experts doesn't actually mean anything. Correct information based something you think matters to a golf swing. All these facts hes shared with you can you break 75?

[GoGoErky]

Just now, cav5 said:

 

Other experts calling eachother experts doesn't actually mean anything. Correct information based something you think matters to a golf swing. All these facts hes shared with you can you break 75?

Well we all know who the experts are based on their resume and their success. We know who aren’t based on their resume or lack of.

 

Theres measured things about the golf swing that shouldn’t be argued against yet you and the group keep arguing against what is actually known and measured.

 

 

Not that it matters or even your business what shoot but yes I can break 75 even before his knowledge. 

[cav5]

23 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Well we all know who the experts are based on their resume and their success. We know who aren’t based on their resume or lack of.

 

Theres measured things about the golf swing that shouldn’t be argued against yet you and the group keep arguing against what is actually known and measured.

 

 

Not that it matters or even your business what shoot but yes I can break 75 even before his knowledge. 

 

You realize how you sound right lol. Shouldnt be argued because of nesbit, sasho, and icacas LOL

[TheDeanAbides]

46 minutes ago, cav5 said:

 

You realize how you sound right lol. Shouldnt be argued because of nesbit, sasho, and icacas LOL

Do you realise what you sound like? 

[GoGoErky]

58 minutes ago, cav5 said:

 

You realize how you sound right lol. Shouldnt be argued because of nesbit, sasho, and icacas LOL

I sound pretty reasonable.

 

you probably want to read what you posted out loud and see how it really sounds.

 

We know you think you and your buddy have some super secret knowledge nobody else has ever come across but the reality is you don’t and it’s actually quite bad

[Golf_Goof]

1 hour ago, cav5 said:

 

You realize how you sound right lol. Shouldnt be argued because of nesbit, sasho, and icacas LOL

 

Well, similarly you ought not disregard them as authorities without demonstrating how their authority is irrelevant to the subject, or that their work is in error. 

Edited Friday at 03:03 PM by Golf_Goof

[TheDeanAbides]

28 minutes ago, Golf_Goof said:

 

Well, similarly you ought not disregard them as authorities without demonstrating how their authority is irrelevant to the subject, or that their work is in error. 

Or why he thinks that his opinion is as valid as actual measured data. 

[PedronNiall]

3 hours ago, cav5 said:

 

Good post dude. Obviously iacas will disagree with you. He has appointed himself the fact keeper of golf swing.

 

If you're taking that much isolated pressure in the hand well good luck. Throw some 100lb dumbells over your head with thumb wrapped and then thumb under. See the difference. LOL do a dumbell wrist curl with 100lbs. It ain't happening.

 

 

 

Are you really incapable of understanding that lifting 100 lbs overhead or doing so with a wrist curl is not at all the same as applying an instantaneous offsetting force when a club peaks out in the swing? Are you incapable of getting that a metal handle on a typical weight, even with texturing on the surface, held against bare hands provides nowhere near the coefficient of friction that a golf glove and grip do while also not fitting the fingers in the same way or being held in both hands the way a golf club is at speed? Even if you go the VJ route and mostly let go with the trail hand there is still offsetting force being applied by it. 

 

They are not remotely similar examples. Why do you bother with your literal nonsense and continue to deny actual science? You don't believe the swing or its basic elements can be taught so why are you even here? It's beyond sad at this point. 

[Socrates]

Just now, TheDeanAbides said:

Or why he thinks that his opinion is as valid as actual measured data. 

Goes to the now too common thinking, that if you say something often enough and loud enough, it will become true.  Facts be damned.

[TheDeanAbides]

1 minute ago, Socrates said:

Goes to the now too common thinking, that if you say something often enough and loud enough, it will become true.  Facts be damned.

Facts be damned indeed. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, cav5 said:

Good post dude. Obviously iacas will disagree with you.

 

You're right. I "disagree" with the idea that 2+2 = a cucumber and that the earth is flat while I agree with physics and measured data.

 

3 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

So you may no like that several people like to ensure that anyone who comes to the forum has the correct information, it’s unfortunately necessary thing because of the previously mentioned group constantly posting bad info.

 

Pretty much.

 

1 hour ago, TheDeanAbides said:

Do you realise what you sound like? 

 

Clearly not.

[cav5]

12 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

Are you really incapable of understanding that lifting 100 lbs overhead or doing so with a wrist curl is not at all the same as applying an instantaneous offsetting force when a club peaks out in the swing? Are you incapable of getting that a metal handle on a typical weight, even with texturing on the surface, held against bare hands provides nowhere near the coefficient of friction that a golf glove and grip do while also not fitting the fingers in the same way or being held in both hands the way a golf club is at speed? Even if you go the VJ route and mostly let go with the trail hand there is still offsetting force being applied by it. 

 

They are not remotely similar examples. Why do you bother with your literal nonsense and continue to deny actual science? You don't believe the swing or its basic elements can be taught so why are you even here? It's beyond sad at this point. 

 

Uhh thats pretty much what I said. You're hand isn't taking it. Two powerlifters of the same strength can vary how they take it by moving into correct position and have different outcomes. Actual science of what? You'd have to describe to me exactly what a golf swing is an correlate it for me to believe you.

 

Actually many ppl DM and like that I keep posting against the "authority". I'd be happy to post state and usga tournament scores over the last decade to show real, actual, improvement, likely beyond anyone here.

 

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

I sound pretty reasonable.

 

you probably want to read what you posted out loud and see how it really sounds.

 

We know you think you and your buddy have some super secret knowledge nobody else has ever come across but the reality is you don’t and it’s actually quite bad

 

You can't define a golf swing outside of your opinion. That's a fact.

 

You know exactly how a golf swing works? So you know what to measure and that it's telling whats really going on? You've accounted for everything? You're positive LOL?

 

I'm not saying that, you are.

 

55 minutes ago, Golf_Goof said:

 

Well, similarly you ought not disregard them as authorities without demonstrating how their authority is irrelevant to the subject, or that their work is in error. 

 

They have strong opinions. Ain't that hard to position yourself as an authority lol. Basically business 101

[Nels55]

4 hours ago, joostin said:

@Nels55 had a good experiment with the bathroom scale.  Even then, I think the 100+ lb is a little deceiving because it's not a static pull like a gym lift.  It's an instantaneous one like in a jump, using body momentum.  We generate more force than most can probably perceive because of this.

I did easily max out the scale by jumping a bit.  I did not think that was a valid test of my ability to hold on to the grip because I can jump and max out the scale without holding onto the club.

[TheDeanAbides]

1 hour ago, cav5 said:

 

Uhh thats pretty much what I said. You're hand isn't taking it. Two powerlifters of the same strength can vary how they take it by moving into correct position and have different outcomes. Actual science of what? You'd have to describe to me exactly what a golf swing is an correlate it for me to believe you.

 

Actually many ppl DM and like that I keep posting against the "authority". I'd be happy to post state and usga tournament scores over the last decade to show real, actual, improvement, likely beyond anyone here.

 

 

You can't define a golf swing outside of your opinion. That's a fact.

 

You know exactly how a golf swing works? So you know what to measure and that it's telling whats really going on? You've accounted for everything? You're positive LOL?

 

I'm not saying that, you are.

 

 

They have strong opinions. Ain't that hard to position yourself as an authority lol. Basically business 101

Again, and for the final time: you're stating opinions; they’re stating the results of measured data. You just sound like a bit of a banana, dude. 

Edited Friday at 05:43 PM by TheDeanAbides

[GoGoErky]

52 minutes ago, cav5 said:

They have strong opinions. Ain't that hard to position yourself as an authority lol. Basically business 101

They have actually data from studies over time not opinions. You have opinions with no data and zero experience 

[MonteScheinblum]

There are three general kinds of people when discussing a topic.
 

1.  Those that feel comfortable in going along with prevailing sentiment of what people of authority say.
 

2.  People who want to learn and expand their knowledge.  They are not always easy to convince, but will listen to the opposing view point with curiosity, even if they are slow to conform,

 

3.  People who find some sort of intellectual superiority by not giving into what they see as group think.  They see everyone in group 1 as weak minded and everyone in group 2 as a slightly better version of group 1.  They are usually fairly intelligent, but unwilling to learn anything that doesn’t fit their narrow view of things.

 

Group 2 tries to convince group 3 of things with facts and fail miserably.  They try and try and end up insulting group 3, which gives them what they want, An even greater position of intellectual superiority because in their mind, they fought off the mindless barbarians.  
 

 

[TheDeanAbides]

5 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

There are three general kinds of people when discussing a topic.
 

1.  Those that feel comfortable in going along with prevailing sentiment of what people of authority say.
 

2.  People who want to learn and expand their knowledge.  They are not always easy to convince, but will listen to the opposing view point with curiosity, even if they are slow to conform,

 

3.  People who find some sort of intellectual superiority by not giving into what they see as group think.  They see everyone in group 1 as weak minded and everyone in group 2 as a slightly better version of group 1.  They are usually fairly intelligent, but unwilling to learn anything that doesn’t fit their narrow view of things.

 

Group 2 tries to convince group 3 of things with facts and fail miserably.  They try and try and end up insulting group 3, which gives them what they want, An even greater position of intellectual superiority because in their mind, they fought off the mindless barbarians.  
 

 

Damn, I feel so exposed. 

[cav5]

28 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

There are three general kinds of people when discussing a topic.
 

1.  Those that feel comfortable in going along with prevailing sentiment of what people of authority say.
 

2.  People who want to learn and expand their knowledge.  They are not always easy to convince, but will listen to the opposing view point with curiosity, even if they are slow to conform,

 

3.  People who find some sort of intellectual superiority by not giving into what they see as group think.  They see everyone in group 1 as weak minded and everyone in group 2 as a slightly better version of group 1.  They are usually fairly intelligent, but unwilling to learn anything that doesn’t fit their narrow view of things.

 

Group 2 tries to convince group 3 of things with facts and fail miserably.  They try and try and end up insulting group 3, which gives them what they want, An even greater position of intellectual superiority because in their mind, they fought off the mindless barbarians.  
 

 

 

Exposed perfectly. We must conform now? You at least can play but that's just pandering now

[cav5]

56 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

They have actually data from studies over time not opinions. You have opinions with no data and zero experience 

 

Unless you can beyond a doubt explain the physics of the swing, you have no business applying the "data". Not just the club, each muscle, joint etc undergoing their own

 

I sued a panel of expert doctors for a misdiagnose once. I didn't take the money but wanted them to feel how pissed off I was and scare their reputation. Damn their experience I guess

Edited Friday at 06:16 PM by cav5

[Nels55]

2 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

There are three general kinds of people when discussing a topic.
 

1.  Those that feel comfortable in going along with prevailing sentiment of what people of authority say.
 

2.  People who want to learn and expand their knowledge.  They are not always easy to convince, but will listen to the opposing view point with curiosity, even if they are slow to conform,

 

3.  People who find some sort of intellectual superiority by not giving into what they see as group think.  They see everyone in group 1 as weak minded and everyone in group 2 as a slightly better version of group 1.  They are usually fairly intelligent, but unwilling to learn anything that doesn’t fit their narrow view of things.

 

Group 2 tries to convince group 3 of things with facts and fail miserably.  They try and try and end up insulting group 3, which gives them what they want, An even greater position of intellectual superiority because in their mind, they fought off the mindless barbarians.  
 

 

I believe that there is another class who simply post stupid things to get a reaction.  DFTT!

[PedronNiall]

2 hours ago, cav5 said:

 

Unless you can beyond a doubt explain the physics of the swing, you have no business applying the "data". Not just the club, each muscle, joint etc undergoing their own

 

I sued a panel of expert doctors for a misdiagnose once. I didn't take the money but wanted them to feel how pissed off I was and scare their reputation. Damn their experience I guess

 

You argued against MacKinzie's data and findings yet you offered zero in the way of facts when you did so. You've done the same when "interacting" with the instructors here. You pretend you're making a good faith argument when you present zero evidence to support your side other than your anecdotes about watching a lifter do XYZ exercises in the gym.

 

When you went after those doctors I'm certain evidence was required, not just your claims that they were wrong. No idea what the outcome was, and maybe you indeed did the same there and were simply laughed out of the courtroom, but assuming you had some legal basis for your tort you at least have the capacity to comprehend that you need to present evidence supporting your position and contesting the other side. How you can get that but still act as you do here is baffling and your behavior remains sad. 

[Shilgy]

5 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

You argued against MacKinzie's data and findings yet you offered zero in the way of facts when you did so. You've done the same when "interacting" with the instructors here. You pretend you're making a good faith argument when you present zero evidence to support your side other than your anecdotes about watching a lifter do XYZ exercises in the gym.

 

When you went after those doctors I'm certain evidence was required, not just your claims that they were wrong. No idea what the outcome was, and maybe you indeed did the same there and were simply laughed out of the courtroom, but assuming you had some legal basis for your tort you at least have the capacity to comprehend that you need to present evidence supporting your position and contesting the other side. How you can get that but still act as you do here is baffling and your behavior remains sad. 

Yeah, but he says he can break 75 so ….theres that.🙄. I’m guessing that in a few years that 75 will raise to  whatever his competence level is at the time.

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, cav5 said:

 

Unless you can beyond a doubt explain the physics of the swing, you have no business applying the "data". Not just the club, each muscle, joint etc undergoing their own

 

 

 

 

So if you don't know literally EVERYTHING, there's no point in saying ANYTHING?

 

That's not how the world works. You can break things down into various components and study them individually. Sometimes (as in the case of a golf instructor) if you're good at it you can assemble it into a whole and help people at golf. Sometimes (as in the case of a biomechanics researcher studying golf) perhaps you limit yourself to those components under study and you never attempt to instruct students on getting better. 

 

Both groups can be considered "experts" or "authorities" if you recognize the scope and limits of their expertise. In NEITHER case is either required to know every single thing about every muscle, joint, etc in the human body. 

 

I'll give you an example. I work for a large multinational tech company, which builds products based on bleeding-edge technological development. We employ hundreds of PhDs at our company. Each of them is necessary because to live at the bleeding edge, you have to have people whose expertise is SO specialized that they can advance the science in their own tiny little technical area. But you know what? Not a single one of them understands ALL of the tech necessary to build a single one of our products. They can't possibly do so. The aggregate of necessary knowledge is so vast that it is beyond the scope of a single human being. 

 

By saying that in order to talk about anything, you must understand EVERYTHING, down to the individual joint and muscle (and beyond), is creating an impossible bar to clear. Which, quite frankly, I think was your intent. 

[Shilgy]

42 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

So if you don't know literally EVERYTHING, there's no point in saying ANYTHING?

 

That's not how the world works. You can break things down into various components and study them individually. Sometimes (as in the case of a golf instructor) if you're good at it you can assemble it into a whole and help people at golf. Sometimes (as in the case of a biomechanics researcher studying golf) perhaps you limit yourself to those components under study and you never attempt to instruct students on getting better. 

 

Both groups can be considered "experts" or "authorities" if you recognize the scope and limits of their expertise. In NEITHER case is either required to know every single thing about every muscle, joint, etc in the human body. 

 

I'll give you an example. I work for a large multinational tech company, which builds products based on bleeding-edge technological development. We employ hundreds of PhDs at our company. Each of them is necessary because to live at the bleeding edge, you have to have people whose expertise is SO specialized that they can advance the science in their own tiny little technical area. But you know what? Not a single one of them understands ALL of the tech necessary to build a single one of our products. They can't possibly do so. The aggregate of necessary knowledge is so vast that it is beyond the scope of a single human being. 

 

By saying that in order to talk about anything, you must understand EVERYTHING, down to the individual joint and muscle (and beyond), is creating an impossible bar to clear. Which, quite frankly, I think was your intent. 

Exactly…..and the funny thing is he and his cohort seem to not know ANYTHING and yet continue to post about EVERYTHING.

 

It would be like a scratch off winner becoming a financial advisor based on his money making prowess.🤣

[MonteScheinblum]

58 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Exactly…..and the funny thing is he and his cohort seem to not know ANYTHING and yet continue to post about EVERYTHING.

 

It would be like a scratch off winner becoming a financial advisor based on his money making prowess.🤣

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
― Socrates

[Shilgy]

4 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
― Socrates

You’re quoting @Socrates now?🤭
 

The other wisdom is to know that “scratch ain’t s###” .

Edited Friday at 11:11 PM by Shilgy

[MonteScheinblum]

Just now, Shilgy said:

You’re quoting @Socrates now?🤭

I’m soliciting his help here.

[Golf_Goof]

8 hours ago, cav5 said:

They have strong opinions. Ain't that hard to position yourself as an authority lol.

Genuine authorities don’t position themselves 😉

[golferdude54]

9 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

Again, and for the final time: you're stating opinions; they’re stating the results of measured data. You just sound like a bit of a banana, dude. 

 

Nah, a banana would say "it's peanut butter jelly time!" (early 2000's memes were weird)