|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 18, 2012 9:49:42 GMT -5
What is worthless about that video? Why do you believe that a clockwise rotation of the straight left arm/FLW through the immediate impact zone (between P6.9-P7.2) cannot open the clubface relative to the target and clubhead arc? Jeff. 1st Question: Everything. Completely useless. 2nd Question: 750hz ENSO pro.How is "ENSO" any kind of answer? Show us the data.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 18, 2012 9:53:45 GMT -5
Dexterous, Here is some evidence. Sorry don't agree. That video is worthless and certainly is no proof of your claim. Those who actually believe you can have the face closed just prior to impact and then utilizing some sort of hand release "open" the face through impact are just plain wrong. That's not reality. And your proof is what? You're just hand-waving.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 18, 2012 13:59:39 GMT -5
Here is a close-up of a JB Holmes iron shot: What is the "rate of closure" here in the last frame? Face looks a little shut before impact to me. Does it keep shutting post-impact??? Or does the hosel lead the toe??
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 18, 2012 14:26:33 GMT -5
I agree with Jeffy in post#47 where the clubface didn't open as expected due to the gear effect that normally accompanies a toe shot - the clubface remained more stable, like John Erickson's hitting shot's clubface. I would like to see Dexterous address that clearly observable fact with an explanation.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 18, 2012 15:06:59 GMT -5
Why doesn't someone just get an iron head, measure the balance point on the face, throw a shaft in it, get some face tape, get a casio, and show some toe shots?
I think it would be more satisfying to both parties in the debate.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 18, 2012 15:43:59 GMT -5
Why doesn't someone just get an iron head, measure the balance point on the face, throw a shaft in it, get some face tape, get a casio, and show some toe shots? I think it would be more satisfying to both parties in the debate. Or why not get a Phantom camera and do some real research???
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 18, 2012 16:23:08 GMT -5
Tom, I don't think anyone I hear arguing about this has access to a phantom.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 18, 2012 17:31:14 GMT -5
Virtuoso,
A Casio camera and an average golfer will not resolve this controversial issue.
We need a high speed camera (eg. Phantom) to record the clubface angle/displacement, a Trackman device to record the clubhead path and ball flight patterns, impact tape to record precisely where the clubface impacted the ball, and a superb golfer like John Erickson who can selectively swing ("dead hands" technique) and hit (stabilising the clubface through impact via positive push-pressure at PP#1/PP#3) off-center shots.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 18, 2012 17:43:58 GMT -5
Perhaps not, but I haven't seen a single piece of face tape and thus the actual hit location in relation to the balance point.
That piece of information is not hard to get and might enlighten us further, even if it isn't complete resolution.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 18, 2012 18:34:00 GMT -5
Dexterous,
I never stated that JE's swing video, or Jeffy's video, was optimum. However, the blurred images are reasonably meaningful - even if not precise or optimal. By contrast, your comments are not meaningful. You stated that you have "evidence" that you cannot share with us. That makes the "evidence" meaningless. I only take seriously "evidence" that is in the public sphere and open to peer-review analysis and criticism. It reminds me of debates about Mac O'Grady's MORAD ideas, which are not publically available. I never take MORAD ideas seriously for the same reason that I cannot take your "evidence" seriously - it is not in the public sphere where it can be openly analysed and critiqued.
You also stated-: "To say that a golfer can manipulate the clubhead at impact is false. It's not happening." That's a personal assertion devoid of any evidentiary support. I can only take your claim seriously if you supplied "evidence" to support your claim. John Erickson's and Jeffy's "evidence" may be imprecise, and under the contaminating influence of many confounding variables, but at least it is "evidence". That "evidence" is obviously not scientifically conclusive because it is imprecise, and that's why I will continue to be open to any better-quality "evidence" that enters the public sphere.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 18, 2012 19:25:55 GMT -5
Hey guys, let me ask you this. How much force is the clubhead applying to the ball at impact? Lets say the head weight is 200 grams, good cg alignment and the head is traveling 100 mph.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 18, 2012 19:27:06 GMT -5
Dexterous,
Your evidentiary data may be meaningful to you, but that doesn't represent "scientifically conclusive" evidence - because it is not in the public sphere where it can be peer-reviewed and assessed for its level of scientifically conclusiveness. I am not interested in your personal opinion - I am interested in any "evidence" even if the evidence is imperfect and scientifically inconclusive. I am not at all wedded to a "belief" that it is possible to manipulate the clubface during impact, or stabilize the clubface via biomechanical mechanisims, and I am willing to change my mind if presented with scientifically-conclusive evidence.
You wrote-: "You have no conclusive evidence that the clubface can be manipulated at impact. NONE!! So don't even suggest that it can be done because in your mind you can fantasize about it based on crude and unsophisticated data gathering."
I agree that I do not have conclusive evidence, but I do have "suggestive" evidence (even if the evidence is crude) that I find intellectually intriguing.
You also wrote-: "Based on my own research and other scientists that have done similar analysis, the clubface cannot be manipulated at impact by the golfer swinging the club. Thanks for listening.
I am listening! However, you are not producing any "evidence" that I can analyze and critique, and assess for its level of scientific conclusiveness.
By the way, how about telling us who you are and what research you have undertaken, so that we are all better informed about your credentials and work-output.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Jul 18, 2012 21:45:26 GMT -5
dexterous=mike finney?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 18, 2012 22:57:41 GMT -5
Greg,
You could well be right!
Dexterous has the same propensity to criticize any presentation of "evidence" as being incomplete/invalid, without presenting ANY "evidence" to support his personal beliefs - as MF routinely did when we debated issues in 3jack's forum. If this pattern continues, then he will soon be banned. I don't mind any forum member contradicting my personal opinion, but they cannot constantly attack my opinions in a derogatory manner, without presenting "evidence" and/or a solid counterargument to support an alternative perspective. This is what differentiates this golf forum from BM's golf forum. I am very interested in reading posts that contain an alternative/contrary opinion - but that opinion must contain a detailed explanation and/or meaningful "evidence" (even if the "evidence" is not scientifically conclusive) to support that opinion.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 19, 2012 10:11:27 GMT -5
Ok guys, so I found some math that nmgolfer did a couple years ago and posted to the web. The force acting on the clubhead at impact is around 1500 lbs. I assume the force is less on a non-center hit but not significantly less.
Is that your understanding as well? If so, would it not be absurdly difficult for the golfer to:
a. Set up a closure rate that counteracted that force on a scale of any relevance, and
b. Create a "stable" structure in the wrist orientation that counteracted that force on a scale of any relevance
Thoughts?
|
|