|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 19, 2012 11:59:12 GMT -5
Tom, I don't think anyone I hear arguing about this has access to a phantom. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 19, 2012 12:12:48 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. I disagree, that blurred crap is NOT meaningful by any respectable criteria. My data is only meaningless to you. It's extremely meaningful to me and the other people that shared in the capture of it. You can't expect everyone to submit to your every demand, sometimes you have to actually go out and do some expert testing and analysis of your own that extends beyond your bedroom, basement, and computer keyboard. It's not easy to do and takes time and money to do it right. I did it, so don't think you can school me on what is true evidence and what is not. Invalid "evidence" is not really evidence. 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. 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. OK, that is one question which I agree is impossible to assess at 300, 600 or even 1,200 fps. But, I am unaware of any research on the topic that involved elite golfers. Until then, I consider it unresolved. But how about this other question (which is the one that interests me more): will differing release styles result in different clubface reactions on identical off-center strikes? There is plenty of Casio video evidence that suggests this is true. And it also is a perfectly logical outcome. You have no counter-evidence or even a counter-argument.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 19, 2012 13:10:35 GMT -5
Virtuoso,
The clubhead's force acting on the ball may be 1500 lbs, but that doesn't mean the CF-loading force is that much, and it is probably only 100lbs and it also only exists for a fraction of a second. I have no problem believing that different hand release actions can move the clubhead/clubface between P6.9-P7.2 (immediate impact zone) although not necessarily within the 1/4,000th second time period of the impact interval (because that's a very short time period).
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 19, 2012 13:18:58 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: "But how about this other question (which is the one that interests me more): will differing release styles result in different clubface reactions on identical off-center strikes? There is plenty of Casio video evidence that suggests this is true. And it also is perfectly logical outcome. You have no counter-evidence or even a counter-argument."
I agree that Mike Finney (Dexterous) has provided no "evidence" to counter Jeffy's suggestion, which may be true. I remain open-minded about the possibility that the clubface may behave differently in response to off-center strikes depending on the type of hand release action used by a golfer, and I look forward to further research work on this issue. MF unfortunately has a strong bias against this theoretical possibility, but his biased personal opinion is meaningless because he never backs up his biased personal opinion with any "evidence". Harboring a bias is OK - but it is not OK to never attempt to present some level of "evidence" to support one's bias.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 19, 2012 17:07:04 GMT -5
Dexterous,
You wrote-: "From my experience and from what I've read and heard from scientists that have dealt with club-to-ball action, no, I don't think differing release styles will alter clubface reactions at impact on exact same off center hits to any noticeable degree, mainly because CG location and it's alignment with ball as it strikes the face is going to significantly dictate how the clubhead will react."
That's simply a biased opinion! You have never presented any "evidence" to support your opinion, so your opinion is meaningless in terms of changing my mind. I actually don't have a "horse in this race", because my primary area of interest lies in golf mechanics/biomechanics, and I am less interested in the topic of ball-clubface interactions. I remain open-minded about the effect of different hand release actions on clubface displacement secondary to off-center strikes, and I am willing to change my mind based on "evidence". You are obviously not going to be presenting any "evidence", so your strongly expressed biased opinions regarding this issue has no relevance to this thread's discussion. I am not even sure why you have decided to join this forum and why you are posting here, and I am also not at all convinced that you are not MF. It doesn't matter whether you are, or are not MF, as long as you do not refer to Jeffy and me as "douche bags" as MF still continues to do in BM's forum. Any such comment (or its equivalent) will get you promptly banned from this forum.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 19, 2012 18:20:12 GMT -5
OK, that is one question which I agree is impossible to assess at 300, 600 or even 1,200 fps. But, I am unaware of any research on the topic that involved elite golfers. Until then, I consider it unresolved. But how about this other question (which is the one that interests me more): will differing release styles result in different clubface reactions on identical off-center strikes? There is plenty of Casio video evidence that suggests this is true. And it also is a perfectly logical outcome. You have no counter-evidence or even a counter-argument. Resolution is important. The camera's ability to handle resolution and exposure at high frame rates is crucial to capturing clearly what happens during club-to-ball action. You will find camera's that can do that are expensive!! If you watch golf on TV, you've seen this many times. At the US Open this year, NBC had some great high speed video (18,000 fps HQ) of close up clubhead/ball impact. There were several excellent shots taken of Tiger and Furyk. I have them on my DVR and haven't transferred them to my Mac yet. From my experience and from what I've read and heard from scientists that have dealt with club-to-ball action, no, I don't think differing release styles will alter clubface reactions at impact on exact same off center hits to any noticeable degree, mainly because CG location and it's alignment with ball as it strikes the face is going to significantly dictate how the clubhead will react. Things that may appear logical can be very deceiving and end up being completely wrong. That's something that should be kept in mind before coming to any conclusions, especially when conducting research with inferior equipment and methods. Jeffy, unless the club is delivered to the ball at a very odd angle (open or closed) I don't think the RoC is going to matter as much as CG/ball alignment affecting clubhead reaction. At least for now, that's what I believe. @jeff Mann: Jeff, I am not Mike Finney. Who I am is irrelevant. I do not have the time to spend on the internet writing extensively about the golf swing as you do. I drop in on several sites maybe twice a week for a half hour or so, that's it. I have spent a lot of time and money working with high quality, high speed cameras for several years and the data we have will never be posted on the internet for free. Sorry. Thanks for spelling my screen name properly this time though!! lol Well, then, tell us some more about your "experience" as well as the research these "scientists" have conducted. What players were analyzed is perhaps the most important question. I'm unaware of any study of these issues involving elite players. And my experience is that the "scientists" conducting this type of research are generally completely clueless when it comes to technique. And your research. Who was analyzed? Were any "drive/holders", as defined by Kelvin Miyahira, part of the study? Are you even qualified to identify the different release styles? My guess is no. What we observe is that drive/holders are applying very little "closing" force through impact, so they are prone to have a clubface that readily deflects open, even on what appear or feel to be center strikes. Rollers, that are applying a counter-clockwise closing force through impact, can have very little clubface deflection on toe hits and video showing this has been posted. Unless you can post videos or other analyses showing the opposite, your claims have no standing with me.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 19, 2012 20:08:24 GMT -5
Dexterous,
Feel free to e-mail the administrator.
I didn't say that you would refer to Jeffy and me in a derogatory manner - like MF does in BM's forum. I merely warned that if you used any equivalent derogatory ad hominem attack that you would be banned from this forum because of my low threshold for personal insults - which I have developed as result of a habitual pattern of previous ad hominem insults generated by a number of previous (now banned) forum members. I admit to being paranoid with respect to new forum members who relentlessly attack my opinions - especially when they are unwilling to present "evidence" to support their contrary opinions.
If you haven't worked-out that most of the threads generated in this golf forum are generated by me in order to critique golf instructional opinions expressed in other golf forums - then you have not done your homework by reviewing all the previous threads posted in this golf forum since this golf forum initially started.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 20, 2012 13:28:56 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? Something is missing from your analysis. First, consider that the golf ball weighs just 1.62 ounces, yet it can massively deflect the clubhead on an off-center hit. Shouldn't a human be able to apply the same force as a 1.62 ounce golf ball? Also, the 1,500 pounds of force is obviously not "acting on the clubhead". Such a force would snap the clubhead right off and/or rip it out of the player's hands. No doubt the 1,500 pounds somehow represents the kinetic energy being transfered from the moving clubhead to the golf ball. I'll look into it later when I have time.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 20, 2012 17:11:13 GMT -5
Unless you can post videos or other analyses showing the opposite, your claims have no standing with me. Fantastic. And the "evidence" you are presenting with Casio cameras has no standing with me and everyone else that has done clubhead/ball impact analysis with the best high speed camera technology. No surprise that you ignore the substantive questions that challenge your unsupported claims. You may not like the Casio evidence, but at least it IS evidence. You've shown us nothing but bluster. Talk is cheap, especially on the internet. OK, so you can't share your data with us. But you can at least tell us what was studied and who the subjects were.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 20, 2012 17:26:42 GMT -5
Ok Tom, fair points, let me ask you this:
So, the 1500 lbs (peaking at several thousand) of force is applied by the 200 gm moving clubhead on to the stantionary 1.62 ounce ball. I imagine on a non-center hit, it is somewhat less, but still quite substantial. Clearly, the 1.62 ounce ball is applying significant force back on the club, because as you said "it can massively deflect the clubhead," despite its tremendous kinetic energy.
So the forces applied by the ball and the clubhead are unbalanced (not pointed at each other)
And, so, your contention for a toe-ward impact:
a. An increase in closure rate can re-balance those forces more and
b. A decrease in closure rate can unbalance those force more
....and further, because of that, it may have a measurable and significant effect on the launch parameters of the ball.
.....and as a consequence, because of that, a golfer with a high closure rate should never hit it on the heel and a golfer with a slow closure rate should never hit it on the toe.
....and finally, if that is all true, the rate of closure has "in effect" moved the sweet spot (cg) more toward the heel for slow closure rate golfer, and more toward the toe for a fast closure rate golfer.
Is this a misrepresentation of your reasoning?
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 21, 2012 4:03:32 GMT -5
Ok Tom, fair points, let me ask you this: So, the 1500 lbs (peaking at several thousand) of force is applied by the 200 gm moving clubhead on to the stantionary 1.62 ounce ball. I imagine on a non-center hit, it is somewhat less, but still quite substantial. Clearly, the 1.62 ounce ball is applying significant force back on the club, because as you said "it can massively deflect the clubhead," despite its tremendous kinetic energy. The force "back" by the ball would be an inertial or fictitious force. Not exactly what I think, but I haven't completely studied the topic and formed a firm conclusion. As I understand it, no force is applied by the ball; all the "real" force is applied by the clubhead and (I think) an equal inertial force by the ball is created in response. The forces are in balance, it is just that on an off-center hit some energy is lost to clubhead deflection and, and as result, that energy doesn't get transfered to the ball, which is why off-center hits don't travel as far. Maybe not 100% exact, but close enough for now.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 21, 2012 8:13:49 GMT -5
Virtuouso,
I don't know what point you are trying to make by calculating the actual forces involved in the clubhead-ball interaction. The fact remains that the clubhead is the active agent and the ball is passive. Secondly, the degree of deflection of the clubface with an off-center strike is going to be determined by the mass of the ball and the degree of off-centeredness of the strike. What we need to know is whether different hand release actions (which are determined pre-impact and are therefore in play during impact) will affect the degree of clubface deflection with a certain magnitude of off-center strike. I know of no research that has been published in this arena, and Dexterous has contributed no "evidence" to help us better understand this topic, and he has only manifested a remarkable propensity to flaunt his strong personal biases.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 21, 2012 16:05:48 GMT -5
Dexterous,
You started the process by first joining this website => then sharply criticizing "evidence" that you personally found wanting => then adamantly refusing to provide contrary "evidence" to support your contrary opinion. You therefore do not deserve any respect, or attention, by any forum member and I will be delighted when you stop posting any posts in this golf forum. It greatly frustrates/antagonizes me when a new forum member will i) not reveal his true name, ii) his golfing background information, and iii) is not willing to freely share any "evidence" that he may have with respect to golf swing mechanics/biomechanics - and I will not be upset if that new forum member decides to stop posting in this golf forum.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jul 21, 2012 16:55:44 GMT -5
No surprise that you ignore the substantive questions that challenge your unsupported claims. You may not like the Casio evidence, but at least it IS evidence. You've shown us nothing but bluster. Talk is cheap, especially on the internet. OK, so you can't share your data with us. But you can at least tell us what was studied and who the subjects were. No, not ignoring anything. Just disinterested with your inferior "evidence" with downmarket technology, your tactless opinions and your goading expetations. I don't see any benefit disclosing my information to you. I will not be replying to your posts again. In other words, you've got nothing. No surprise. Good riddance!
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 21, 2012 17:40:31 GMT -5
Dexterous wrote (with a wink)-: "If you saw the high speed video and data I have collected over the years you would be amazed."
I can only wholeheartedly agree with Jeffy when he states-: "In other words, you've got nothing. No surprise. Good riddance!"
If he is not MF, then he is obviously a MF-clone, and he is not welcome in this golf forum. As I previously stated : I do not welcome any new forum member who will i) not reveal his true name, ii) his golfing background information, and iii) who is not willing to freely share any "evidence" that he may have with respect to golf swing mechanics/biomechanics".
Jeff.
|
|