Let's Talk Lag's Golf Machine

[lagpressure]

Bio and I and BPGS1 are very much on the same page on the golf swing. We however have different definitions of the word biomechanics.

I am fine with that definition being “The study of Human Body Motion”

Bio seems to feel that mechanics and bio mechanics are two different things. I see them as the same thing. So any disagreements we have are usually over definitions.

Since we as humans made of bones, muscle fiber, blood, hair, skin and so forth… we are inherently biomechanical beings… Therefore all our motions are biomechanical.

All of my students module work is dealing with training the muscles… muscle building, tone, repetition, sensory awareness in time and space,with very tight verifiable tolerances, that are constantly monitored my me. These by definition (dictionary) are all biomechanical actions.

“Bio” may have a different definition, and I look forward to nailing that down for the benefit of this forum.

I suspect that Bio and I would differ in opinion (possibly) that unrelated exercises are paramount for developing a proper golf swing. History tells us with %100 certainty that it is not mandatory to have your body scientifically screened or analyzed with computer technology to learn to properly swing a golf club. It may be helpful, but it is not mandatory. We know this because some of the greatest strikers of a golf ball played before computers were invented or high speed photo imaging and so forth.

The bio mechanical motion is different between hitting and swinging… not as much with the bigger internal muscles, but the decision to use either passive or active hands do change the biomechanical activity of the body. The hands are part of the body, therefore there participation is absolutely included in the biomechanical process… until BIO puts forth a different definition that we can agree to use.

To clear up the f=ma

force being applied to the golf ball by the accelerating mass of the clubhead.

I also do not teach a one size fits all method. I do teach pressures… when and where to apply them and how to synchronize them to our benefit. However, students have great flexibility in their set ups, their grips, the loading action, their backswing path, tempo, rhythm, their transition, and how they choose to finish swivel the club. This allows for a tremendous amount of freedom for personal style and biomechanical deviation.

[gerry]

Re…BPGS1 » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:29 pm …
BPGSI…
What I have written to you has nothing whatever to do with my ego, it’s all about what is right and what is wrong, nothing more, nothing less. I have a profound reason for wanting to be able to determine what is right and wrong, and that is to establish a basis of provable fact that is beyond question and to drive towards the removal of all trivia and all unsupportable bullshit from the teaching arena. This for the benefit of the millions how play the game and also for those who would play it, if they could get past the absurdities and the gobbledeegook of learning how to.
If a player, any player, can change his/ her downswing after it has commenced then it has the potential to massively complicate what should be a very simple issue. If no one can, it simplifies matters, proportionally. That is my only interest here, to see if anyone in this forum had anything that could contribute/ impede this pursuit. No one has, including BPGSI.
Before you accuse me of having an ego problem, it may be wise for you to read back over your own more recent posts here. You make great measure of your successes and what you have achieved. As I recall, I have declined to mention my background, even when specifically requested by members to do so.
You should (perhaps) bear it in mind that other readers will make that judgment, both members and visitors, anyone who cares to read what has been written here.
Now you suggest that I should read two books that support YOUR theories on this specific matter. You are very shy about level playing fields, aren’t you! As I have previously mentioned, there are now over 10,000 publications on golf and the golf swing and none of them are right, so why would I pay the slightest heed to two books that you recommend when you have clearly displayed your own agenda and it’s needs to be served by those books?
My work has been put to the harshest and most rigorous testing possible, over a very long period of time. It has been critically examined by Professors of Anatomy, Neurology, Physics, many of them, and much more. I am my own most brutal task master.
The main reason that I have succeeded in my pursuits is because I have an advantage that very few people have, one that you are utterly devoid of; I am ever willing to laugh at my own stupidity, when found to be wrong. I welcome comment where I have been found to be in error, such people do me a great service. If I continue to labour under false conclusions I can never find the realities. Perhaps you could learn from that.
I may have to ask a thousand questions to find one grain of truth, I’m happy to do that.
I have put some provable, verifiable matters to you, the collective impact of which flatly deny your own offerings re time and motion in the downswing. You have failed to directly respond to any of that, with the exception of a nerve travel time which meant nothing to the overall picture anyway because, even if the nerve impulse can travel faster, the same masses still have to be stopped, redirected, accelerations recommenced, whatever.
Why do you keep on shifting the goal posts? What you have said in this thread is written down! Everybody who has read it is fully aware of what both of us have said. You specifically used the -sometimes- with full emphasis. You made that comment, offered that suggestion, and now you come back with;
…”Nice of you to come to your own conclusion with zero evidence to back it up that I can only succeed in making the shot selected 30% of the time. Perhaps I was guilty of false modesty with my “sometimes” qualifier, but in truth, I am not a ballstriking machine and my success rate is closer to 75%.”
(Frankly, I have seen no evidence of ‘modesty’ in your writings, false or otherwise!)
The only aspect that was of any importance to me what-so-ever was the exceedingly remote possibility that you had ‘something’, supportable by evidence, that could cause me to question or rethink my existing conclusions on consciously altering the downswing, after it had commenced.
I am now satisfied that you have nothing of value to offer. You hold to your beliefs, I’ll hold to mine.
On the matter of Tiger stopping his swing halfway down and your use of that as evidence during our discussion, that was not really a good plan. I saw no evidence that he stopped and then tried to start it up again and hit the golf ball with it, did you. Have I missed something? I made no mention of just stopping the swing, my stance is that you cannot stop what you have started and then re-program it, re-route it and recommence acceleration to it’s full potential. There is a vast difference between the two!
Wise old adage; When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
That’s all she wrote for me, on this topic.
Gerry

[macs]

Bio thanks for the detailed reply. Makes sense. The only pattern I did not understand is your version of Hitters. The majority of good bal strikers being in the “Swinging” or “spinning” categories and their resemblances explains a lot.
Last quesion for now anyway, what body types will or will not be suitable for Lag’s “spinning” type golf swing.

This was aimed at BP not Bio.
thanks for the reply BP.

[Steb]

I know it sounds like it fits, but it doesn’t work that way Lag.

F=ma describes the change in acceleration an object will get when a force is applied to it. It does not describe the force an accelerating object will apply to something else. That is far more complex.

A club starting a foot from the ball and snapped towards it will have a far greater acceleration than a club starting from the top accelerating gently, yet the ball in the first scenario won’t go anywhere near as far. This is similar to the racing driving being thrown back into his seat upon takeoff, but not when slowly accelerating through 200mph. He is said to experience more G-force (ie gravity units of acceleration) when taking off. There is little doubt over which car will throw a pedestrian further.

The concept of momentum was introduced in physics for handling collisions due to the complexity of working with variable forces over time. Momentum tells us that the car moving at steady 200mph with no acceleration will send a pedestrian flying farther than the car which is accelerating flat out through 50mph.

p=mv tells us that a heavier clubhead will send a ball farther than a lighter clubhead if we can obtain the same swing speed at impact. But F=ma tells us we won’t be able to swing a heavier club as fast as a lighter club.

Both F=ma and p=mv are both equally applicable to hitters and swingers and any other system of movement. Physics has no concept of what it’s dealing with. The ball has no concept of which method hit it. The period of impact is so short that accelerating through it or not makes little difference to the ball. To the swing, yes, the intention might well be the most efficient way of accurately generating velocity, but not to the ball.

I see the only difference between hitting and swinging as where along the chain power is added and where along the chain it is simply transmitted.

[lagpressure]

Steb,

please feel free to put forth the correct formula…

Can we agree that if the clubhead is traveling at 90 mph 2 feet before impact… 90 mph 1 foot before impact, meets the ball at initial contact at 90 mph we have a clubhead that is void of acceleration? Agreed? or not agreed?
Would this club not however have momentum? p =mv this would be the mass times the velocity correct? a 14 ounce head strikes the golf ball at a constant velocity of 90 mph. We have weight (mass) and we have velocity correct or not correct?

Now if we add into the equation the weight of the golf ball, and calculate what the post impact velocity is 1 foot past impact, there would be a formula for that. A very complex formula… one that might include figures for ball speed, and deceleration rates of the clubhead post impact. This formula would probably include air drag, venturi effect on the golf ball, COR, make up and compression characteristics of the rubber of the ball… or whatever material it is made of and so forth.
We are looking at an extremely complex formula that only a true physicist would be able to make any sense out of. In my 40 years of playing golf, I have yet to meet or play a round of golf with a physicist. Never met one on tour ever.

Not if we look at a situation where we have a clubhead traveling 80 mph two feet from impact, 85 mph 1 foot before impact,
and 90 mph at initial contact… we have a very different situation. Are we not dealing with acceleration at impact?

Let’s suppose there is no impact or collision. The power source that is driving this acceleration would create a situation that would have the same mass moving at 95 mph 1 foot past where impact would have been… but in our case, there is no ball…

Now… we do an experiment…

We use two golf swings, and we place a golf ball in the path of two situations as described above.

We have our 90 - 90 - 90 - with nothing driving it through and no pre stress in the golf shaft.

Or, we have our 80 - 85 - 90 with a fully loaded accelerating clubhead and pre stressed clubshaft that is trying to get the clubhead to 95 mph… 1 foot past impact, but will be knocked back some… due to the collision forces of impact.

My hypothesis is that the final post impact velocity of the clubhead will be higher in the second situation, and the ball itself will sustain a deeper compression.

Anyone with the qualified background to present the proper formula for these conditions… feel free to post here of course.

[stinkler]

By the same token it would be interesting for a decelerating measurement too? 100, 95, 90? ; more like my swing : )

[lagpressure]

I have done some research into this and the formulas get about 2 feet long once you take into account all possible variables, such as angular motions, arcs, and so forth.

Swingers will argue that it is impossible to actually accelerate the clubhead into impact. People like Tom Wishon have mountains of data showing how the shaft flex is lost at P3 once angular momentum has taken over as the clubhead gets outside the arc of the hands and so forth. My question would be…
who was swinging the club? Tom himself or Ben Hogan?

Swingers are correct…swingers cant’ do it because there wrist are simply hinges and not motors. If you think like a swinger, you will get swinger results also encase yourself inside swinger ideologies.

Only active firing hands have the ability to accelerate the clubhead using a form 3 lever to accelerate the clubhead tangentially with any sort of practical results.

[macs]

Good point Steb and an equally good reply from Lag
This is not scientific but how about: compression = MxVxA

[lagpressure]

Hogan said…“I wish I had three right hands…”

Might this be why?

I find it rather compelling, because once I understood this and let go of passive hand hinges… I became a much better ball striker… but only after I then made the bigger second part discovery…

[lagpressure]

angular acceleration

angular momentum

We haven’t reached impact yet and official formulas look like this…

If I thought in anyway this kind of study would benefit students more that properly training muscles with tight biomechanical tolerances working with an impact bag, I would be all over it. If the Homer’s or Jeffman’s of the world start waxing me on a golf course, I’d be much quicker to sign into advanced physics class… rather than sign into the starter’s booth on the first teebox.

[Steb]

I’ve just been typing a response whilst watching The Big Break and you’ve pretty much said what I wrote. I’ll post it anyway so it wasn’t a waste of time:

It would take me days Lag [to go into this] and even then only other engineers or scientists would understand what I’d post. And I wouldn’t dare even go near the human side. Hence my hesitation to go into it the past. It serves no benefit anyway, it’s just an academic distraction.

All we can do consider how the conclusions from people who have spent good time looking into it correspond with what we feel.

Being pedantic, club going 90-90-90 does theoretically have a radial or centripetal acceleration keeping it moving in an arc, but I’ll agree it has zero tangential acceleration, the one I know you’re referring to.

The difference between the 90-90-90 clubhead and and the 80-85-90 clubhead is that even when ignoring the ball, the accelerating clubhead is going only an extra half mph at separation. Assuming constant acceleration, this means it only averages an extra quarter of an mph throughout impact. Higher velocity? Yes. Significant? No.

Cochran and Stobbs covers a lot of this. I’ll give it a re-read and post some of their observations.

[lagpressure]

But I am sure there is another HUGE angle that the scientists will not consider… OFF CENTER HITS…

The passive hand hinge approach of the wrists goes better with lighter grip pressures … look at Couples and VJ… right hand is dangling off the club at impact.

If your hitting it dead center into the gravitational center of the club … good… under pressure? even better…

but…

with an aggressive hand strike with a very firm grip, the club resists twisting in the hands, and transfers much better energy into the golf ball…

Not convinced? let go of the club with both hands a foot after impact and see what the ball does… to do that, you’ll have to be loosening your hands before impact slightly… try it…

I am very weary of the finding of Cochran and Stobbs, because they would need two sets of data… one for swingers, and one for hitters… Wishon doesn’t understand the hitting protocol I discuss or his findings would be different.

I heard him say that it is impossible to hold shaft flex to impact… I did it myself and have it on high speed video… it’s not hard to do it …I can show anyone how to do it in 20 minutes at slower swing speeds… it’s the integration of doing it at higher swing speeds were it gets tricky, but still doable.
You do need a set of hands…

[Steb]

I don’t think science in any way goes against you feel is right in the swing Lag. All the reading and thinking I’ve done, the simulations in engineering software I’ve done and glimpses of it personally in practice, I see no contradictions. Just the F=ma reasoning I don’t like.

Tom Wishon is no scientist (but I’d argue observation is better anyway) but in his manual of clubfitting he does say:

“The only golfers who are able to deliver the club to impact with the shaft still flexed backward so the clubhead lags very slightly behind the shaft at impact are those who are extremely strong, who are able to exert radial acceleration on the club for a longer time in the downswing, and who are able to hold the wrist-cock angle until extremely late in the downswing”.

This is obviously referring to the classic swinger but your hitting protocol is completely consistent with his reasoning. Develop strong, active hands through impact so that acceleration can be delayed for as long as possible, preventing the loss of the wrist-cock angle. Your way just just makes the pre-stressed shaft feasible for those who aren’t extremely strong. IMO you get there in a more efficient way, but still wrist strength is key.

[dinkbat]

I’m new to this thread, but I would like share some thoughts about this acceleration through the ball thing you guys have been discussing. If we assume that you can accelerate the club through impact ( and I’ve seen Lag accomplish that very feat on his video ) in the previously mentioned 85-90-95 mph manner then that should produce a pre-stressed shaft at impact, i.e. the shaft is bent backwards at impact. Now if we have zero acceleration at impact, the 90-90-90 mph condition, then that should produce an unstressed shaft at impact, i.e. the shaft is neither bent backwards or forwards at impact. Now think of the impact interval for a moment. If you have the latter situation, the unstressed shaft ,would not a considerable amount of energy be lost into the shaft as the collusion of the clubhead with the ball bends the shaft backwards. I mean after all it does take some amount of force to bend that shaft. And conversely would not less energy be lost in the shaft if it is pre-stressed or already bent backwards at impact - thereby imparting more of the available energy into the ball. It seems that even though the clubhead is traveling at 90mph in both cases at impact I think you would get more energy into the ball, i.e. more compression of the ball, with the pre-stessed shaft. And this difference would be even greater if you had a decelerating club with a forward leaning shaft at impact.
I think that much of the “feel of the ball on the clubface” that Lag and other good players talk about at impact has to do with the accelerating club and the extra compression percieved at impact with that pre-stessed shaft. I think a lot of that feel and some distance is lost with a non-accelerating clubhead or god forbid a decelerating clubhead. Probably some control is lost as well. As we all know good acceleration creates and helps preserve a FLW. That FLW will begin to deteriorate quickly as we get to zero acceleration or deceleration. I’m not a scientist and maybe the energy differences I’ talking about here are smaller than I think - but thats my story and I’m sticking to it - at least until you guys shoot me down. I know there are a lot of intelligent people on this forum - so let me have it - I’ll take it like a man!

dinkbat

[Marcus]

to establish a basis of provable fact that is beyond question and to drive towards the removal of all trivia and all unsupportable bullshit from the teaching arena. This for the benefit of the millions how play the game and also for those who would play it, if they could get past the absurdities and the gobbledeegook of learning how to.

Now there is a mission statement well worth supporting. Good luck Gerry!

[waffle_iron]

Enjoying every word on this thread, thank you gentlemen.

[twomasters]

I am not of the opinion you have to be strong to maintain a pre-stressed shaft. Anyone can do it with the correct sequence of events. It is all about parts firing in the correct motion to continue that acceleration like Lag said.
If the clubhead is always trying to be sped up the closer we get to the hitting zone then you have a shot at it.
If the club accelerates too fast to soon, then yes you need to be strong and have an acute awareness for where the club head is coming down to be able to hold flex (which cuts out about 95% of the golf population right there)

[biomechanic]

Macs,
I don’t teach mechanics … we are a human motion analysis company … it’s Lags and BPS’s job to teach mechanics…

Here is an example
Lag’s golfswing has movement patterns issues in his golfswing NOT mechanic… the way lag’s body moves in sequence and creates speed there is issue … the Kinetic link (power production process)
These movement patterns issues lag has is irrelevant to his golf swing… if you measured lag hitting a tennis ball or throwing a ball or hitting a baseball you would see similar movement patterns issues. WE HAVE RESEARCHED this for years…

Lags movemet patterns issues is neuromechanical… how his body naturally moves in sequence to create the power production process or kinetic link…
As i have said there is an anatomical way the body is designed to move and function… the body is designed to create speed a certain way… When you body learn this it moves most effective and creates speed most effectively…

Golf lessons won’t fix lags issues or golf training it’s deeper than golf… Most people’s movement pattern issues in golf are neuromechanical not golf specific or mechanical…

What we do is train people neuromechanics we measure someone’s movement patterns and then build a program around their data.
The exercises we provide aren’t necessarily golf specific… Remember we are training movement patterns here .
Every exercise has been pre-tested we have hundreds of exercises and training programs from years of testing… On a daily basist we are creating new training techniques and testing more and more exercise… we measure these exercise… whether is training muscle to load and fire in the right sequence or training a body segment to move a certain way…
Although once the body learns it become second natural because this is how the body wants to move naturally… actually designed to move…

Biomechanics is very deep and complex… beyond what most people perceptions of biomechanics is… we have hundreds of researchers in all fields in medicine kinesiology, neuromuscular, neuromechanics, Physiotherapy, biomedical engineers, biological scientists the list goes on.
It’s a combined effort together, our company back ground is biomedical engineering and degree in biomechanics…

The human body is a very complex machine understanding how the body moves and functions… Then understand muscles and how they function and how training effects muscles, how do you train muscles… the list goes on…
Our team has been researching, testing and training 10’s of thousands plus athletes for 20 years… in golf alone we have tested over 10’s of thousands of golf swings… I will say this i’m yet to see anyone with the same movement patterns issues… everyone is different…

the body does want to moves a certain way and create speed… it called the kinetic link… golf, tennis , what ever…

Mac ask stinkler… since we have worked on his movement patterns not only has his golf improved he mention he is now playing better tennis…

[TeddyIrons]

I think I’m finally starting to understand what you mean by biomechanics, Bio.
So it seems to me that a student of yours would learn movement patterns, and this would not adversely affect somebody that was also a student of Lag’s, or anybody else? They could be compatible. Your movement patterns are not solely golf moves, they are body moves that will help somebody improve their kinetic link in sport - they could potentially improve how they throw a ball, swing a tennis racquet, although I assume you do target one particular sport with any student…? But where I’m still confused is that you still talk about starting from the ground up, sequencing, and so on - which is also part of Lag’s programme or probably any good golf programme. You say Lag’s programme is teaching mechanics, but he also teaches how to use ground forces, start from the ground up, optimise movements, and so on, like you. There is clearly an overlap. Lag’s programme is designed to teach movement patterns for a golf swing (or hit!), and to strengthen the muscles necessary for the kind of swing he advocates. I’m sure there are aspects to your training that Lag’s programme does not cover, and vice-versa. They are very much different approaches but possibly compatible.
Maybe?

[Wabisabi]

Regarding Biomechanics,

I think Bio would agree there are certain stages that children go through in order to develop basic motions for survival and further he would know what those stages are. Therefore, he should be able explain to us 3 or 4 basic drills or exercises that mimic the child development stages of acquiring efficient biomechanical motion that would work to improve all aspects of our movement through life including our golf swing.

If you have a specific movement pattern that does not create a proper kinetic link for your golf swing, then my guess would be your not creating that efficient kinetic link to pick up your dropped keys off the floor.

There must be a basic set of exercises that would improve everyones movement patterns without having to test for a specific problem in your golf swing?