RR, you really scare me sometimes. I must have watched that video 10 times trying to figure out what the heck you were talking about! I was looking at the swing, though. Should have known it wouldn’t be that simple.
Been hearing that for years from Mall Rat…nothing new 
Great thread didn´t read it before… and didn´t believe either…
Recently I had this encounter…
Maybe it was camera distorsion - but I felt that after impact I still stressed the shaft.
I can understand the rebound after ground contact - but I play x100 and they don´t
rebound to the other side in the air…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_VMkqWPec[/youtube]
I would like to do this with my longer toys… maybe I am to weak to cope with
the forces…
At least it is a great swingthought for me - only way to move the wall…
Chris
To really check… you need an accurate camera. Then if you have that… put a whiffle ball on a tee and swing through that.
This way you won’t get shaft distortion from the forces of impact or the ground itself.
There are a lot of bad cameras with rolling shutters and so on.
I think FPS is the best tell tale. 1000 FPS with good lighting. I believe the shutter speed such as 10K is a different measurement. So less distortion at higher shutter speeds. Both need good clear outdoor lighting.
One thing for sure is that the pictures in Hogan’s “Power Golf” have created a lot of confusion based upon very inaccurate photo captures. The shaft is NOT doing what it appears in those photos… so just ignore and save yourself a lot of grief.
Thanks for posting your vids Chris.
You have a very mechanically sound golf swing.
Good shoulder rotation and forearm rotation.
Improvements will come from just doing more of what you are already doing… repeatability
spacial awareness, proper shot selection and spacial awareness.
I like how your head moves back similar to Curtis Strange’s action on the backswing. This creates spine tilt and
opens up a nice passageway for the arms to slot on the downswing. You will never feel “stuck” on the downswing like
many players complain about these days with the S and T and similar methods.
Like Knudson said… “The head is not the center of the swing, it goes where it goes”.
Most quality strikers would have their head move back… then down… then forward, then up.
Thank you very much for the compliment - it means a lot to me.
Advanced Ball Sriking helped me a ton to understand what I was doing and what I wanted to do…
Thank you very much for your time and inspiration…
Chris
real-world-physics-problems. … ockey.html
Getting to play golf again and reading some things, like this article. Did not know that during a hockey slap shot the stick was hit against the ice behing the puck to put flex into the the head. More than that is the things in common with great ballstrikers. Left handed hockey player, tucked and bent left elbow, cutting it right, knees bent.
thesportjournal.org/article/ … stick-best
Better article
1 Like
golfdigest.com/golf-equipmen … ins-h.html
Same thing in hockey, technology.
Pros in the persimmon era had to improve their swings to gain 20 yards or more accuracy. Modern day swings stay the same with technology improving their distance and accuracy. Here is a club to give you 10 yards. Keep the swing the same, there will be a club in two years to give 10 more yards to make you appear longer. Doesn’t matter that your ball is curving more, there is a ball that curves less to make you appear more accurate. Swing harder, the club is a huge sweetspot to make you appear precise. Like plastic surgery, looks good but is not real. An illusion of ballstriking.
We would have been without the greatest ball striker ever in the modern day game. Hogans developed a swing with a strong grip and right arm throw to create distance much like modern day swings. He did not win and could not compete, which drove him to change his swing. Any of his before and after swings will show this exactly. Without the need for accuracy, he would have no reason to change his swing. He had to develop a swing for accuracy to compete because the equipment would not allow for error, which resulted in the greatest ballstriking ever. This was when things made sense, bad was bad and good was good. If there was a bad strike the ball would act accordingly. Persimmon strikes acted in direct result to what the swinger did, the flight of the ball was in exact proportion to the quality of the strike. Persimmon has one agenda, PRECISION.
Technology has made bad strikes mimic the the result of good strikes. That doesn’t make sense for pros, use to be mutally exclusive. Both should not exist at once. Bad strikes are bad. Good strikes are good. Thats like someone painting an exact replica Picasso with connect the dots and saying it took as much talent and is as good as the original. The results would appear the same, but it is a mimic. Much like modern day golf, on paper the fairways and greens stats appear to be good like the painting would be good. The painting is painted and the fairways and greens have been hit, but the important part is how each was done. The numbers don’t matter like they use to because the numbers are not real. They are real in that the fairways and greens were hit, but they are not a real result of the swing because the behavior of the ball does not act in exact relation to the quality of the strike. Like I said bad is not bad. Bad stikes should result in bad shots, how bad the shot is should depend on how bad the strike is. If the ball does not behave in direct relation to the quality of the stike then how can we tell what quality is. Quality doesn’t mean what it use to because it can’t. Quality in golf has to include accuracy. Modern golf does not measure accuracy properly because of the definition below. The stats are not real because the “closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quanity’s actual value” is not close at all. A bad swing showed its actual value with persimmon by ball flight behaving in very close relation to a bad swing. A bad swing does not show its actual value with modern clubs and balls because the ball flight has very little relation to a bad swing. The fact that a bad swing, off center clubface strike, can result in the mimic of the good ball flight of a center clubface strike. Ball flight having the characteristics created by a good swing without creating that good swing is crazy.
“In the fields of science, engineering, industry and statistics, the accuracy[1] of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity’s actual (true) value.”
Hogans saying that ball flight is the best thing for determining the quality of a swing would not hold up in the modern game because ball flight is not the measurement system it use to be.
Always great to see ANOTHER one of these posts ranting about the same stuff that’s been said here many times before, you forgot to make your point about holding shaft flex however.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDVB9Prgh0[/youtube]
For me this animation answers the question conclusively. Hogan’s club is clearly moving faster post impact. I think we can say without a doubt that if the club is accelerating, the shaft will be flexed backwards because we hold the club by the handle and much of the mass of the club is at the end of the club. I understand that the video is two dimensional and the club is moving in all three dimensions but I think that there is a direct relationship between velocity in the Z direction and velocity in the Y direction (if we define the X axis to be target line, the Y axis to be up and down, and the Z axis to be behind and in front of Hogan at address). Perhaps someone with a science background can prove or even disprove my assertion here.
Despite the fact that I am by nature very analytical, I feel that there is a certain mysticism and magic to the game of golf that cannot be captured with simple physics equations. For instance, some feel that conservation of angular momentum is applicable to the golf swing and while it may hold more true for a swinger, this principle does not fully explain a hitter’s action because it assumes that no additional force is applied to a closed system. Obviously, this is not the case because it is possible to apply additional force with a strong pivot. This is where I feel that intent in a golf swing is paramount because if we intend to pivot strongly after impact, the swing becomes drastically different before impact because we activate or prepare to activate certain muscles to achieve our intent. For me, the ideal swing is a combination of physics and feel and intent or stated differently, a combination of physics and neuroscience. And because I’m of the opinion that modern neuroscience has a long way to go, perhaps mysticism or magic is not a bad way to describe things. Those who have read The Tao of Physics may have a better feel for what I’m trying to relay here.
I realize that Lag often uses the equations F=ma and p=mv, but I feel that he’s using this to differentiate the actions of a hitter and a swinger and in this limited context I think that contrasting the two equations illustrates this point, but I am sure that he is not suggesting that these equations explain the golf swing.
I think you have a clear understanding of proper intentions which is key. The analytical physics arguments go round and round and lead to frustration on both ends. Very few golfers understand that stuff in clinical terms.
In a nutshell, one can either bring into impact a clubhead that is not accelerating but simply striking the ball with momentum at a fixed velocity where acceleration ended at about P3… or one can keep the motor running and bring into impact a clubhead that is actually still picking up velocity as it strikes the ball. While this is harder to do… it can be done and is a much more sophisticated approach toward striking a golf ball… and the results, if done correctly are substantially better.
Holding Shaft flex by Mr. Hogan…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXkYzjoO09A[/youtube]
My personal version of holding shaft flex…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoT24SMbD3o[/youtube]
Compared to the best two current Golf players…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcuLMYk6H8c[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlb-VIIEHMY[/youtube]
(Skip rory forward to 0:30)
They are all in slomo, so you can stop them maybe similtanous at P3, P4 and Parallel 5…
Of course I don´t play near the quality of Golf they play, but you can see the difference of
swinging and hitting clearly visible by the post impact movements.
BTW Tiger and Rory hit it for sure 40-60 yards longer than me with there swinging pattern ,
but we don´t know what they could do with a hitting pattern.
Chris…
1 Like
Nice vids thanks Chris. Be interesting to compare yourself to Tigers iron swing, he resembles a hitter more with a blade in his hands
Yes, differnt pattern with Tigers Iron swing…
The frames doesn´t match exactly, but clearly different intension here:
Chris
I am surprised about Tigers Wedge swing…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W-FDekh0as[/youtube]
I am coming from a different angle from the DTL view and have a
flatter shoulder rotation - but from Face on…
maybe because we are both 6´1 tall.
Sorry for hijacking this thread.
Chris
Spookily close. Looks like Tigers body is just a touch more left than yours. Or it may be an illusion due to the proximity of the camera.
On Hogan, while I dont think he’d be tiger long today he wouldn’t be far off. Somewhere inbetween Sergio and Duval (at his peak) length I assume
Just want to post “my fight with centrifugal force”…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl0GN4Q-xA4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KV5NAowoL4[/youtube]
To hit it straight this way needs special awareness…
I believe it is only possible with flat gear ( my 9 Iron has a 57´Lie angle!)
If you do this with upright gear you would hook it 30 yards!
Chris
1 Like
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQVXb2J_iUg[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mylcznRmfc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epz-mqWdTJU[/youtube]
Holding Shaft Flex = Moving the Wall!
Chris
1 Like
What’s your handicap Chris?