|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Sept 19, 2022 17:26:29 GMT -5
I have my doubts about the Ryke Effect being anything other than Dr Sasho Mackenzies passive club squaring torque as depicted in the image below: Whenever I've posed this question to Kevin Ryan he has never replied, so we still await his book to explain the physics behind the effect. Here is one of his you tube videos demonstrating the Ryke effect. Here is a close-up view of the model's forearm moving on the same plane as that metal rod 'plane diverter' and also the view of the orientation of the peripheral arm (ie. the golf shaft). The 'forearm' is moving down the 'diverter' plane as shown by the red arrow while you can see that the 'shaft' is behind and on a different plane causing it to rotate like a cylindrical pendulum as shown by the yellow arrow. One can see that it seems to be familiar to the physics of Dr Sasho MacKenzie's passive squaring torque explanation unless Kevin Ryan can prove otherwise. DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 19, 2022 23:00:37 GMT -5
I have my doubts about the Ryke Effect being anything other than Dr Sasho Mackenzies passive club squaring torque as depicted in the image below: Whenever I've posed this question to Kevin Ryan he has never replied, so we still await his book to explain the physics behind the effect. Here is one of his you tube videos demonstrating the Ryke effect. Here is a close-up view of the model's forearm moving on the same plane as that metal rod 'plane diverter' and also the view of the orientation of the peripheral arm (ie. the golf shaft). The 'forearm' is moving down the 'diverter' plane as shown by the red arrow while you can see that the 'shaft' is behind and on a different plane causing it to rotate like a cylindrical pendulum as shown by the yellow arrow. One can see that it seems to be familiar to the physics of Dr Sasho MacKenzie's passive squaring torque explanation unless Kevin Ryan can prove otherwise. DG When I look at that Kevin Ryan video between the 0:13 - 0:15 minute time points I do not see the clubshaft being on a different plane than the central arm. When the attached plastic rod hits the metal pipe it produces a transverse force that causes rotation at the level of the cylindrical unit inbuilt into the peripheral end of the central arm. Also, consider Phil Mickelson's driver golf swing action. Phil does not shallow his clubshaft during his early-mid downswing and his clubshaft and lead arm are both descending down the TSP. Note that his clubshaft is still on the TSP at P6 (image 3). Then, note that he is releasing PA#2 while the clubshaft remains on the same plane as his lead arm/hand (image 4). After P6.5 (image 5) his clubshaft is starting to rotate and I can see no evidence that it has anything to with SMK's "idea" which only applies if the clubshaft is on a shallower plane than the lead arm. I therefore do not believe that Phil's PA#3 release action is causally due to the SMK "idea". I think that what SMK is really implying is that if the clubshaft is on a shallower plane than the lead arm, that less forearm muscular force is required to cause the clubshaft to move in the direction of the lead arm plane.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Sept 20, 2022 2:51:17 GMT -5
Dr Mann
"I think that what SMK is really implying is that if the clubshaft is on a shallower plane than the lead arm, that less forearm muscular force is required to cause the clubshaft to move in the direction of the lead arm plane"
I agree with you.
With regards the 0.13-015 section of that video, there are no golf swing kinematic movements that I can imagine which could cause that type of impact force with a real golfer's forearm. I think all he's trying to demonstrate is that a torque must be happening to create the same movement as his 'Ryke Effect' (using that 'metal loop plane deflector' method).
DG
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Sept 20, 2022 3:42:41 GMT -5
Kevin Ryan has replied back to me about my opinion that the Ryke Effect seems to be familiar to the SMK passive torque . "Interesting that you found a patent application of mine that tried to develop a club with a bent handle that would replicate the Ryke Effect. The patent was rejected because a prior patent had been granted (I think for a putter). I built a few prototypes that were mildly successful but could not achieve the increase in clubhead speed that pros achieve.
You suggest that the SMK passive club squaring torque is the same as the Ryke Effect, however they are very different. If you watch The full Ryke effect video you see that the RE is caused by an increasing torque around the lead arm that is caused by an active transverse force or torque on the lead arm that forces the hand path inside its starting path. At impact. this produces the Ryke Angle that we see in pro golfers.
The SMK passive torque is produced because the club shaft is offset from the arm path. As the arm continues on its original path the passive torque reduces as the club shaft and arm shaft come into alignment at impact. There is no Ryke Angle at impact. This is a very weak Torque compared to the increasing torque of the Ryke Effect that both rotates the lead arm and the club along the shaft.
I am not yet prepared to publish because I think the Ryke Effect is only part of the story of the swing. Until I can explain the Clubhead speed problem I will continue to investigate.
Kevin Ryan------------------- Here is my reply: Hi Kevin - many thanks for your reply I'm assuming that the SMK torque can be partially used to square the clubface but can also be supplemented by musculature forearm rotation. Theoretically, the golfer can still have a 'Ryke Angle' at impact just by utilising and timing both mechanisms. In your videos, is the peripheral arm (ie. representing the club shaft) moving at similar angular velocities as a real golfer's swing? For example, have you made any videos of your model showing the Ryke Effect in action at angular velocities that are comparable to a real golfer's swing? I'd just like to see how much the model clubface rotates square by an imagined impact position. PS. I forgot to add, that the SMK passive torque can also be triggered if the lead arm/forearm moves slightly steeper to the shaft plane in the downswing. For example, both lead arm and shaft could be on the same plane starting the downswing, then the lead arm could be moved slightly closer to the golfer on a steeper plane. This will cause a passive torque effect which imho is the same physics as the SMK passive torque effect and Ryke Effect. --------------------- I have also added another example from his other video If you look at a frame image at the start of the downswing, both the proximal/peripheral arms seem to be on the yellow plane line. But as the downswing progresses, the proximal arm is deflected to the red plane. Unless I'm mistaken, this seems to create the same geometry for the physics of SMK passive torque. Have I made an error in my thinking here? DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 20, 2022 9:28:05 GMT -5
Kevin wrote-: "You suggest that the SMK passive club squaring torque is the same as the Ryke Effect, however they are very different. If you watch The full Ryke effect video you see that the RE is caused by an increasing torque around the lead arm that is caused by an active transverse force or torque on the lead arm that forces the hand path inside its starting path."
I agree with those opinions. I don't think that there is any similarity between the RYKE effect and SMK's passive club squaring torque that is due to the clubshaft shallowing phenomenon.
In a pro golfer's downswing action the lead hand is moving down the swingplane between P4 => P5.5 which means that it is directed outwards relative to the ball-target line. Starting at ~P5.5 the golfer is going to be redirecting his hand arc path more towards the target and that will cause the hand arc path to become more parallel to the ball-target line between P6 => P7 and that change in lead hand direction will provide the transverse force that starts to induce the RYKE effect. The change in hand arc path between P5.5 => P6.2 is much greater in Sergio Garcia's golf swing action because his lead arm becomes more vertically aligned in his P5.5 => P6.2 time period while Phil Mickelson's lead arm is still outstretched and still roughly parallel to the swingplane. Sergio needs a stronger transverse force to induce his RYKE effect because his club's MOI is greater at P5.5 => P6.2 when he still has a lot of clubhead lag. By contrast, Phil Mickelson's lead arm only becomes less outstretched (and slightly more vertical) after P6.7 when he has already released PA#2 and that makes his club's MOI much smaller and he does not need a large transverse force to enact the RYKE effect.
Jeff.
|
|
janik
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by janik on Sept 20, 2022 10:12:06 GMT -5
Really fascinating discussion guys.
Dr. Mann's latest post on hand path being the causal factor in inducing the Ryke effect has me thinking: could it be that a 'poor' amateur player who does not take advantage of the Ryke effect has a swing fault that is their hand path does not 'turn the corner' soon enough from P6? Which would possibly be caused by a 'hit' impulse that is to say they are directing force target-wards from P6->P7 rather than left of the target?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Sept 20, 2022 10:20:16 GMT -5
Dr Mann
Yes, your description makes sense but the physics for the SMK passive torque is the same as the Ryke effect.
Basically, an eccentric force is being applied to the grip which causes a torque (ie. an MOF - moment of force).
1. PA#2 release is caused by an eccentric 'In Plane Net Force' across the grip that creates an 'In Plane MOF'(ie. torque) 2. SMK passive torque is caused by an eccentric force across the grip that creates a 'Moment of Force' (torque) that would tend to tumble the club so that its COM aligns with that force. 3. For the Ryke effect there is an eccentric transverse force across the grip that creates a 'Moment of Force' that would tend to torque the club's COM to align with the force.
The physics for all 3 are the same, an eccentric force (ie. one that doesn't pass through the club's 'Centre Of Mass') that creates a 'Moment of Force' (torque). It's just the different timing of the application of those eccentric forces in the downswing that seems to be the difference between PA#2 release, SMK passive torque and 'Ryke Effect'.
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 20, 2022 11:57:05 GMT -5
Dr Mann Yes, your description makes sense but the physics for the SMK passive torque is the same as the Ryke effect. Basically, an eccentric force is being applied to the grip which causes a torque (ie. an MOF - moment of force). 1. PA#2 release is caused by an eccentric 'In Plane Net Force' across the grip that creates an 'In Plane MOF'(ie. torque) 2. SMK passive torque is caused by an eccentric force across the grip that creates a 'Moment of Force' (torque) that would tend to tumble the club so that its COM aligns with that force. 3. For the Ryke effect there is an eccentric transverse force across the grip that creates a 'Moment of Force' that would tend to torque the club's COM to align with the force. The physics for all 3 are the same, an eccentric force (ie. one that doesn't pass through the club's 'Centre Of Mass') that creates a 'Moment of Force' (torque). It's just the different timing of the application of those eccentric forces in the downswing that seems to be the difference between PA#2 release, SMK passive torque and 'Ryke Effect'. DG There is some similarity in terms of the necessity of an eccentric force. However, SMK's explanation causes the entire lead arm to rotate counterclockwise in order to allow the clubshaft's COM to align itself with respect to the lead arm while the RYKE effect only applies to the lower lead forearm, which has to be very relaxed to allow the lead hand/clubshaft to rotate counterclockwise at the level of the lower lead forearm. Too much muscular tension at the level of the lead lower forearm will make the RYKE effect insufficient. A 'poor' amateur player who does not take advantage of the RYKE effect could have a swing fault that is due to too much muscular tension in the lead lower forearm or because he pulls his lead hand too much outwards in the direction of the ball-target line (or towards "first base") during the mid=> late downswing time period. Between P5.5 => P7 a skilled golfer should be straightening the lead leg and elevating the lead shoulder so that the lead shoulder moves in a more inside-left direction. That will allow the hand path to be directed more targetwards, and even slightly left of the target, between P6 => P7 and that will likely provide the transverse force needed to more efficiently produce the RYKE effect.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Sept 20, 2022 15:57:56 GMT -5
Dr Mann
I don't think SMK's model allowed the entire lead arm to rotate because his research article mentioned the following:
"The model had four degrees of freedom: torso rotation, horizontal abduction–adduction at the shoulder, pronation–supination at the elbow, and ulnar-radial deviation at the wrist"
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 20, 2022 17:28:21 GMT -5
Dr Mann I don't think SMK's model allowed the entire lead arm to rotate because his research article mentioned the following: "The model had four degrees of freedom: torso rotation, horizontal abduction–adduction at the shoulder, pronation–supination at the elbow, and ulnar-radial deviation at the wrist" DG It is interesting that he does not have a degree of freedom in the plane of lead upper arm elevation-depression at the level of the lead shoulder joint. For the RYKE effect to happen the lead humerus must change its angle in the plane of lead upper arm elevation-depression - especially if the golfer has a large accumulator #3 angle at impact (eg. Sergio Garcia). Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Sept 21, 2022 11:29:26 GMT -5
Dr Mann I don't think SMK's model allowed the entire lead arm to rotate because his research article mentioned the following: "The model had four degrees of freedom: torso rotation, horizontal abduction–adduction at the shoulder, pronation–supination at the elbow, and ulnar-radial deviation at the wrist" DG It is interesting that he does not have a degree of freedom in the plane of lead upper arm elevation-depression at the level of the lead shoulder joint. For the RYKE effect to happen the lead humerus must change its angle in the plane of lead upper arm elevation-depression - especially if the golfer has a large accumulator #3 angle at impact (eg. Sergio Garcia). Jeff. Yes, the arm plane is constant but the club shaft plane can alter. In fact, his model when used for optimised CHS swings (with clubface square at impact to target line) and active forearm torque generation, had a shaft plane that was flatter than its arm plane, especially at impact. I'm therefore assuming that there was a PA3 angle at impact for the optimised swings (SIM3 and SIM5) but unsure whether there was a PA3 angle for the SIM1 swing (ie. no forearm torque generation), although Kevin Ryan thinks it was zero and the shaft in line with arm by impact. SMK vaguely implied that the 22% increase in CHS for SIM3 vs SIM1 was due to active forearm rotation but I think he didn't take into account that the PA2 angle was retained significantly later in the downswing for SIM3 compared to SIM1 (ie. a late PA#2 release). I didn't see any evidence in his research confirming 100% that active rotation of the forearm was a causation of the 22% increase in CHS. DG
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Sept 21, 2022 19:25:31 GMT -5
Here is a question I posed to Kevin Ryan Can you please elaborate on what you mean when you say "Until I can explain the Clubhead speed problem I will continue to investigate". I thought you had stated that RE cannot increase clubhead speed (see below comment you once posted on youtube). ""If I implied that the RYKE Effect increased CHS then that is incorrect. It is a mechanism that closes the clubface and adds very little to CHS. However I am now starting to understand sets of forces that can not only produce the closing of the clubface but also very significant increases in CHS. More of that later. I am still refining the process and understanding how and why these forces are generated. I am now convinced more than ever that I can achieve the 40 to 50 yard target."So are you implying that the golfer is doing something different with the forces applied at the grip that can increase CHS? When I say different, I mean something that does not match the inverse dynamic graphs as per below, which is a typical pattern for tour pros. SMK Graph Dr Kwon Graph Here is his reply: ------------------------------------------- This was an analysis I was doing some 8 years ago. As with any analysis, there is an endpoint where you need to say "this has been useful in explaining a part of the problem, but we need to move on to understand other aspects of a very difficult problem. For example is there any relationship between Ground Reaction Forces and the swing or what role does weight shift have in the swing. The human body has been able to "invent" many different mechanisms to achieve its goal (the swing). Maybe the Double Pendulum model and anything related to that bit of physics is past it's used-by-date.
I have moved on in my investigations and therefore going any further forensically with this topic will not be very useful.
Kevin Ryan---------------------- DG
|
|
|
Post by mngolfer on Sept 28, 2022 9:56:01 GMT -5
mngolfer, You wrote-: "I then took some shots on trackman, making a conscious effort to return to my neutral flat wrist position at impact by actively rotating my forearms between p6 and p7. It was a new move for me, but it worked beautifully: my clubface was almost completely centered around -1 to +1 degrees. This after trying approximately one billion different iterations to get a closed clubface."
Your bold-highlighted claim is that you are consciously making an active effort to rotate the lead forearm during the later downswing in order to square the clubface by impact. I personally don't know how one can consistently time the release of PA#3 starting at P6 (presuming a weak or neutral lead hand grip) using an active lead forearm supinatory motion because the club must first release a lot in the plane of lead wrist uncocking (representing the release of PA#2) before the release of PA#3 begins in earnest. However, if the "feel" of a more active PA#3 release works well for you, then there is no reason to use a more passive PA#3 release action.
Another factor to consider is that one should not necessarily return to the same neutral flat lead wrist position at impact that existed at address.
Here is Henrik Stenson's late downswing action.
Note that at impact (image 4) the back of his FLW is not facing the target because he still has a small degree of lead forearm pronation that is needed to create a condition of forward shaft lean. If he came into impact with less forward shaft lean, then it is more likely that the back of his lead wrist would face the target at impact. So, the back of the lead wrist may face the target at impact with a driver, but not necessarily with short irons because a pro golfer often wants to have more forward shaft lean with shorter irons.
Jeff.
Ah, thank you once again. I realized after reading this that I wasn't fully releasing PA#2; I wasn't fully ulnar deviated at impact. I was delaying some of the release until after impact. This of course made the clubface open. I focused on releasing my wrists into ulnar deviation fully before impact (which I would say is a passive-type move) and this no longer necessitated conscious forearm rotation to close the clubface. Shots are much straighter with a much easier move! I think I got too focused on the "impact fix" and maybe not stressing the ulnar deviation part of impact; so I was holding wrist cock inappropriately. It's funny how often I read your pieces and don't pick up on everything the first time; you mentioned "ulnar" 37 times in the downswing article but it completely bypassed me that I need to be fully ulnar-released by impact!
|
|
|
Post by mngolfer on Oct 3, 2022 18:07:21 GMT -5
Another question Dr. Mann: at what point in the swing are both arms first fully extended with the wrists in fully ulnar deviation? I have seen p8 labeled as "The Release", but it appears to me as this release occurs much earlier at P7.5 as shown in your picture of Ernie Els in "How to Move the Arms, Wrists, and Hands in the Golf Swing". Is this correct? And here is Tiger Woods at not-quite-club parallel in image 4: Ricky Fowler: Jamie Sadlowski: I ask because I think I had been trying to get full extension of arms and full ulnar deviation much too late, around P8 or club parallel; it appears to occur much sooner at p7.5.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 3, 2022 21:57:10 GMT -5
Another question Dr. Mann: at what point in the swing are both arms first fully extended with the wrists in fully ulnar deviation? I have seen p8 labeled as "The Release", but it appears to me as this release occurs much earlier at P7.5 as shown in your picture of Ernie Els in "How to Move the Arms, Wrists, and Hands in the Golf Swing". Is this correct? And here is Tiger Woods at not-quite-club parallel in image 4: Ricky Fowler: Jamie Sadlowski: I ask because I think I had been trying to get full extension of arms and full ulnar deviation much too late, around P8 or club parallel; it appears to occur much sooner at p7.5. Full extension of the arms and the maximum degree of ulnar deviation of the lead wrist in a TGM swinging action usually occurs at about P7.3 - P7.5. Remember that the trail arm may remain slightly bent at P7.5 if the golfer uses a DH-hand release action. Cameron Champ's DH-hand release action. Note that CC has a very open pelvis/upper torso through impact that allows him to get his trail shoulder well downplane, and that enables him to still have a slightly bent trail arm and a slightly bent trail wrist at P7.5 (image 3). So, both arms only reach full extension after P7.5. By contrast, Ernie Els and Rickie Fowler (in those posted capture images) get full extension of both arms well before P7.5 because their trail shoulder is well back at P7.3/P7.5.
Jeff.
|
|