I have yet to see a decent ball striker who simple slaps at the ball with their arms and hands, with little body rotation.
For any ball striker worth his salt, the pivot drives the golf swing.
The TGM guys that believe that if you just put your hands here or there… that somehow the body will naturally follow… are living in dreamland.
There is something called connection… I call it cohesive body tension. Bio might call it kinetic chain. I think Gerry mentioned the arms working best as firm spokes.
Let’s look at a bicycle wheel. The power is coming from the hub… not the spokes. In a good golf swing, the arms don’t do much. The right arm folds yes, but in this folding, it also allows the wrists to cock and load up… The right arm has a substantialI function controlling swing plane.
Many differences or course, but a significant difference between a golf swing and a bicycle wheel is that we have an extra moving part to deal with out on the edge of wheel. As the wheel is spinning around, we can install an extra motor or hinge (take your pick) This extra motor or hinge is our hands… there are no hands on the outside edge of a bike wheel.
I’ll post a hugely over simplified diagram to ponder.
In a few words you have succinctly pictured in a very convincing way the matter of connection, the issues of body versus arms swing, top down versus bottom up, body controlled pivot versus hands controlled pivot in just a few lines.
This would be a “hitting” version… but of course the hands can also play a passive role in a swinging version. Both can work. I prefer hitting personally for some very good reasons.
The over simplification of this deals with the fact it is only in two dimensions. The black circle is a collective of feet, knees, hips, torso, shoulders, all working together properly towards sequencing things appropriately. It’s not a turn as fast as you can. There are multiple stages.
Secondly, the function of the right arm in controlling swing plane and plane shifting is not visible or addressed here…
Third, this module would be void of any weight shifting… and the circle would be moving around from right to left back up and around…
Basically, the human body is much more complicated that a 2D diagram, but this is simply an attempt to show a dual motor system.
The TGM version of #2 and #3 accumulators are lumped into one.
The 5th accumulator I work with my students on is also not clearly defined, but my students would see where it would be applied.
The reason I didn’t follow your suggested method before Wabisabi is that it eliminates both the power of arms AND the swing radius of the arms. Unfortunately I don’t have a 55" club that replaces the arms.
But I did your procedure anyway. My 4-iron gave me 45mph. That alone is more than 50% of my normal 4-iron swing speed of 86mph.
But now let’s cater for the loss of swing radius. My 40" 4-iron held in the sternum was 15" short of the ground. Simply swinging a 55" 4-iron at the same angular speed would lead to a clubhead speed of 55/40 x 45mph = 62mph or 72% of my normal swing speed.
But that’s me. This is Butch, with lengthened clubs:
He looks to still have teres major and minor intact, and maybe possibly even some form or triceps and biceps, but towards the end of the video you can clearly see the arms are not used to generate speed. He’s all pivot.
Steb, I don’t where you come up with that stuff! but that’s more than inspiring, and also teaches us all a good lesson about pivot power.
I couldn’t really see a closeup, but it looks like he has some bit or wrist action, but it’s blocked off on the backswing because his shoulders get in the way. For the average golfer, we can get the shaft loaded with the wrists an extra 90 degrees or more in relation to the shoulder line. If he could do that, I don’t think he’d lose much distance at all…
Please check out the following article in Sports Engineering (2002) 5, pages 23-32 by E. Sprigings and S. Mackenzie.
Here is the Abstract:
Examining the delayed release in the golf swing using computer simulation
E. J. Sprigings & S. J. Mackenzie
College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5C2
Correspondence to: Eric J. Sprigings,
KEYWORDS
energy flow • optimization • power • simulation
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study were first to examine whether, in theory, a delayed release technique that used resistive wrist torque provided an advantage in clubhead speed; and second, to identify the mechanical sources of power that are responsible for increasing clubhead speed. A 2-D, three-segment model comprising torso, arm, and golfclub was used to model the downward phase of the golf swing. Muscle torque generators, constrained by the activation rates and force–velocity properties of human muscle, were inserted at the proximal end of each segment. Three separate optimized simulation conditions were examined. The first, SIM-1, made no attempt to constrain the natural release of the clubshaft. Optimally activated muscular wrist torque was used to accelerate the clubhead. The second, SIM-2, delayed the release point of the clubshaft by means of a resistive muscular wrist torque. This was followed by active wrist torque to accelerate the clubhead. The third, SIM-3, was similar to SIM-2 except no wrist torque was used to accelerate the clubhead following the release point. The results indicated that there was a small advantage in employing the delayed release technique using resistive wrist torque, but significantly less than had been previously reported by other simulation studies. The use of an active wrist torque following the delayed release was found to be advantageous. The main source of power delivered to the golfclub originated from the passive joint forces created at the wrist joint during the swing. In terms of muscle power contributions to the swing, the torque generator at the shoulder joint produced the highest value (800 W), followed by the wrist torque generator (600 W), followed by the torso torque generator (390 W).
The key words in the entire study are:
In terms of muscle power contributions to the swing, the torque generator at the shoulder joint produced the highest value (800 W), followed by the wrist torque generator (600 W), followed by the torso torque generator (390 W).
The torso is mostly slow twitch (ST) fiber. So, the torso generates high torque, but not such high power because of the slow movement of the uncoiling. The higher torque of 120 Nm in the torso was exerted only at a rotational speed of only 3.25 radians per second, thus generation only 390 watts.
The shoulders and wrists are predominately fast twitch (FT) muscle fiber. So, they generate high speed and power, even though they produce less torque than the torso.
So, don’t spin the hips as this cannot produce much power and causes all kinds of accuracy problems. Do release the the wrists and start this release far enough before impact. This will also effect club path, promoting a in to out path.
The body’s main priority is the stabilize it’s COG to off-set the high speed producing shoulders, arms and wrists.
The body supports and contributes roughly 15%.
The shoulders and arms produce the speed roughly 85%.
For the third time from a entirely different mathematical frame of reference supporting the theory that the shoulders, arms and wrist produce the majority of clubhead speed, not a single forum member has proven any of the peer reviewed academic research articles I’ve posted as incorrect. All I’ve heard so far is Kuykendall is naive in his thinking.
Where is the quantitative studies showing your position?
You keep bringing up qualitative perceptions to defend a quantitative presentation, with this type of dialogue the truth will never out!
Fighting science with science is always an interesting debate… but I know for certain that Homer Kelley, who is regarded as one of the major scientific contributors for understanding the golf swing, missed the mark in a big way on a few very vital issues.
There is a very good reason why TGM failed to produce the next great one. We are still waiting.
One could certainly put forth the opposing argument that no one with a doctoral degree in mathematics or physics has ever won a tour event… anywhere… ( I could be wrong!)
Even if a purely observational based understudy of the golf swing actually “got it”… they would still have to do the physical work to train the body to do what they know to be true… and this is the key… because as they set out on their journey, they would encounter a labyrinth of dead ends… trying to figure out how to get the body TO DO what seems so intellectually obvious.
Result?
A lot of VERY intelligent and highly intellectual individuals still shooting 85.
Wabisabi, no disrespect, but can you show us a video of your swing. I want to see the theory in motion. What I like about this forum is that people demonstrate their theories by swinging a golf club. I’m not knocking knowledge based in scientific observation. But instead of reading about the sweetness of honey, I would rather learn about the sweetness of honey by actually tasting it. It’s a different type of knowledge.
I am all too familiar with your discussion technique. I have seen it all too often. Googling quickly around and throwing into the mix any scientific abstract one can find, vaguely supporting one’s position without even reading or quite understanding the article if available for free.
In the past I would than patiently dig up the article in my files analyze it again and post my conclusions. Conclusions would be conveniently ignored and quickly another abstract would be thrown in your direction only a few minutes later and yet some more precious time would be wasted patiently again explaining it all.
I have done a similar analysis as Sprigings & Mackenzie several years ago and posted on forums. The interesting facet overlooked by all is that the main source of power delivered to the golf club originates from the passive joint forces created at the wrist joint during the swing. Hence not muscle force but inertial forces created by motion. This was overlooked by both Prof Jorgensen and Stobbs et al. and therefore perhaps unwillingly contributed to a bit overcooked emphasis on the contribution of the large muscles of legs and body.
I just wish people would read more carefully before jumping on the band wagon.
What did I post?
What does it say? Simply that Kuykendall is wrong with his arguments. That’s it, that’s all.
Anyone just having the most bare bone science education can check for himself that Jack Kuykendall makes a fool of himself the way he abuses of conservation of angular. Since you are now seemingly an expert in scientific matters concerning golf it is very surprising that you don’t see this immediately. Googling around is quick, satisfying but not very profound.
Let’s a take the image dear to Gerry, the wagon wheel. Observing that the rim is moving fast, it in no way does allows one to conclude that the rim is the sole cause for its speed and that the central hub does not contribute to the rim’s speed. Simple common sense tells us a different story. The very slow rotating central hub, torquing, is indeed the sole reason for the speed at the periphery. Even more so when we are taking into account linked segments, kinetic linking, another matter totally disregarded.
I would be very much obliged to you if you would be so kind as to post some evidence of the academic career of Jack Kuykendall and whilst you are at it, why not also for Homer Kelley. The title of scientist is not just something anyone having some high school education or perhaps some technician’s certificate can hang around his neck. Golfer’s are indeed a gullible lot concerning scientific matters but there is some limit of what is descent and acceptable.
again with no disrespect to you or wabisabi, but i want to see a video of your swing too. i want to see how you deliver your “main source of power to the golf club.” i’ll discuss theories all day with you all, but I want to see the theories in action, not just read descriptions about them…
Let’s a take the image dear to Gerry, the wagon wheel. Observing that the rim is moving fast, it in no way does allows one to conclude that the rim is the sole cause for its speed and that the central hub does not contribute to the rim’s speed. Simple common sense tells us a different story. The very slow rotating central hub, torquing, is indeed the sole reason for the speed at the periphery. Even more so when we are taking into account linked segments, kinetic linking, another matter totally disregarded.
mandrin;…I’m generally in agreement with what you have said in your recent posts, in particular this post to wabisabi. However I don’t agree with your (perhaps) over emphasis on the all conquering values of scientific education/ and the individual accumulation of scientific ‘knowledge’. Within the human brain there is a vast difference between the accumulation (education) and storage (memory) of information and the much more rare capacities of some individuals to use stored memory of information and experience to create/ invent completely new information from the existing. Not a criticism, just a clarification.
Yes, I make emphasis of the wagon wheel. My primary reason for choosing that illustration was far more demonstrative than scientific, in intent. When you write and teach, the onus is on you to make your message utterly clear to the widest possible audience. Any illustrations that you use must be familiar to all who will see them/ hear them and must relate to what they have experienced and understand.
I am aware that the wagon wheel that I have used, so often, is not the full or final scientific explanation of Radial Accelerators but it has allowed many thousands to understand the message that I have intended who previously didn’t know a Radial Accelerator from a pothole.
There is a hidden factor in the illustration that, as far as I have been able to determine, nobody else has identified. If you can find what it is it will lead you to a place, and an understanding, that may change your entire concept of much that you believe about the golf swing.
I don’t want to spoil any one’s fun so I will leave it to you to find it. It will be worth the search, if you can, that I will assure you.
wabisabi…In The science of the golf swing by Dave Williams (Hardcover - 1969), Williams correctly analyzed a multiple-flash photograph of Bobby Jones swinging a Driver and if I remember correctly his clubhead speed before impact was 136 feet per second or about 113.2 mph and he also calculated his hand speed to around 20 mph.
Yes, I know that work and it’s Dr David Williams, if I recall correctly. Just thought I might mention another book here; Better Golf in Five Minutes, 1958 by J Victor East. Mr East was an esteemed Australian clubmaker in the days of hickory shafts and it seems that, by agreement with Bobby Jones, he duplicated Bobby’s hickory shafted wooden clubs for Jones and here are the actually Specifications of his beloved driver:
deadweight; 387 grams
shaft weight; 207 grams
length I recall as 43 1/8’’ but I will stand corrected on that point.
So Bobby Jones swung a driver weighing 387 grams with shaft weighing 207 grams and reached a clubhead speed of;
113.2 mph
Now we have shafts down to 50-60 grams and very few players on the tour who can exceed that head speed. I recall seeing Tiger’s clubhead speed at 119mph.
That’s a good bone to chew on, plenty of marrow there if you can gnaw through the bone and the gristle.
Good one for you wabisabi, with all of your scientific whizbangery.
Either today’s hype and bullshit about golf clubs and golf shafts is exposed by that or Bobby Jones must have been super human. Or was it something else that also ties in with the hidden quality in the wagon wheel?
Incidentally I do know the answers to that one too, as is shown in patent technologies that I took out a long time ago.
Regards
Gerry
I am still a bit baffled about all this scientific talk about the golf swing.
Although many of the world’s greatest achievements took place with experiments by Edison, Franklin, Newton or whomever, I have never seen a beaker and chemicals and all the other hocus pocus sitting out on a driving range.
Too much theory going on is why 98% of the golfing world couldn’t hit a cow’s ass with a banjo
I don’t remember ANY of the world’s best strikers EVER worrying about their lines, or angles etc etc. Jones- Snead, Nelson, Hogan, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Miller, Norman so on all got out of their swing what they put in by practice- feel of the movements- delivery paths- divot observation- sound of compression observation- ball flight- inner body feel and motion
They all pretty much to a tee used heavy clubs (although Miller and Player dabbled in graphite shafts for a while)- they all worked it out for themselves… No outside bullshit from others- just their own inner workings, feel and observation
And you can listen to them all…“Clear the left hip”…“Snap my knees to the target”…“Drive my weight to the left side”…“Block my hands through the ball”…'Five right hands"…“Roll the ankles”…etc etc
They all have different ideas that worked for them even if half of those ideas are dis-proven by science.
So science holds little regard to me with the golf swing.
What’s happening on the outside can be entirely different on the inside. I would rather listen to what these players say - than to worry about what they actually do in most instances-
Yet if you compare all these greats at the correct points in the swing for dynamics and not just the pretty parts that everyone normally looks for- they are all pretty much in tune with one another- even though many have differing thoughts.
It really doesn’t have to be this complicated
I’m starting to have a firm belief in Gerry’s - you only get time for one conscious thought from the top of the backswing to impact. A good one there will set up the trained chain reaction. If you get only one conscious thought you best make it a good one, and then just drill the modules so they happily follow suit. The thought doesn’t have to be scientifically correct, just your brain correct. All this math and graphs, to simple ol’ me, is just yellow snow writing.
Putting aside the strong religious and architectural connotations, the wagon wheel for me invokes a very strong symmetrical structure yet very light due to spokes. But foremost the spokes directs one’s attention to a center, from which everything originates. This is similar to a golfer experiencing hitting with his center, hitting with the stomach as some would call it. lagpressure referred to it not too long ago in a post, with reference to the martial arts.
I do not over emphasis science as I am very acutely aware that science plays a modest role in the art of swinging a golf club. However knowing things is a solid foundation to build upon avoiding going up into dead end alleys. But I have a strong aversion of the likes of Kukendall, who gives himself the title of ‘The World’s Leading Scientific Golf Teacher’ yet massacres the most fundamental law in physics and yet belittling aggressively virtually the whole of golf kingdom accusing it of being ignorant.
Thank you for entering into this particular part of the conversation between Mandrin and myself, I always appreciate your well thought out and easy to understand information.
Whenever I bring up Bobby Jones and his 113.2 mph of clubhead speed most deny that it is possible.
Regarding your Wagon Wheel illustration I would imagine the following riddle would expose the same “hidden quality in the wagon wheel” without giving it away.
If I am spacewalking, and my propellent systems fail, how can I get back to my spaceship if all I have is a very large wrench?
I like the wagon wheel analogy…
In my version, the arms are the spokes… that stay firm, and well structured… the power comes from the core center.
The outer rim would love to fly off the spokes but the rim is held in place by the two spokes (arms).
We don’t want the spokes stretching… especially from P3 to P4… (shaft parallel before and after impact)
As CF increases, more and more pressure is exerted upon the spokes, therefore the arms need to be resisting or pulling against the outward flywheel action, to keep things moving in a circle rather than loosening into an oval as TGM teaches.
You can turn something faster in a tighter circle. The secret lies in what to do with the right elbow.
Now many will argue from the physics pulpit that Ben couldn’t possibly do what he is saying because of the forces of impact collision will inevitably stop the clubhead from accelerating…
however…
Do yourselves a favor, and pretend Ben is correct… because what he is saying here is Bars of Gold…
No, there are no tricks here, no grand illusions, no gimmicks. All of the required evidence is sitting there, all you need is the power of observation to be able to see it. An image that was put up by flopshot recently comes readily to mind that suggests that, if you spend far too much time studying the bark, you invariably lose sight of the trees and the forest.
wabisabi…your riddle about spacewalking, losing your propellant and being left with nothing but a very large wrench. Interesting, I haven’t seen this one before but here is my “off the top of the head” response using only the clues/ evidence provided.
In my response I will use only Newton’s Laws of Motion! spacewalking would strongly suggest that the riddle refers to being in outer space.
Out ‘there’ the spacewalker would be in a vacuum, at least for all intents and purposes here. Outer space is not actually a ‘total vacuum’, by definition, because it contains ‘particles’ and ‘stuff’ which we don’t need to define here. We can, I think, safely accept that there is nothing out there to support the demands of Newton’s Third Law Of Motion…there is no RESISTANCE against which to apply a FORCE to create MOTION
That would seem to imply that the spacewalker would remain where he/ she is in compliance with Newton’s First Law…a body at rest shall remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. The wrench in question is described as being a very large wrench and no limit of mass has been imposed. The spacewalker has an attachment to the wrench.
So let’s make the ‘very’ large wrench, VERY LARGE, in fact, large enough to act as the required base of RESISTANCE against which to apply the force(s) already available to put the spacewalker in motion…the muscular forces in the legs and back.
The spacewalker maneuvers their body into an alignment that would see the application of the forces available, applied against the RESISTANCE also now available, the VERY large wrench, that would set them in motion exactly in line with their required destination, their spacecraft (whatever).
Since Newton’s First Law dictates that …a body in a motion shall remain in a constant state of motion unless acted upon by an external force. and we are dealing with a vacuum where there is no 'external force’ available that can act on this particular 'body in motion, the spacewalker must remain in the state of motion initated by the thrust of the legs against the VERY large wrench.
It is a given that the spacecraft is docked in space because the spacewalker went spacewalking and certainly would not have done so had that not been the case.
Regards
Gerry
twomasters…I do not, and never have, used physics, or any other field of science, to try to prove, scientifically, WHAT IS.
I use science only as a tool to PROVE WHAT CANNOT BE. The Process of Elimination. If you can PROVE that something is wrong then do so, remove it, and lower the clutter, piece by piece.
Your post bewails all of the bullshit and the hocus-pocus but what have you done about it? What has anybody else done to get rid of the ever accumulating mountains of this shit? Before you criticize it is wise to first understand what it is that you are criticizing.
The pregnant schoolgirl found rubbing her belly with vanishing cream, that dog won’t hunt!
There is only one way to eliminate vermin and that is to kill it. There is no other way to kill this type of vermin other than to challenge it and PROVE, beyond all possible doubt, that it is indeed bullshit and hocus-pocus.
How would you suggest doing that other than by using the only known and proven constants that we have available with which to do it, the Laws and Rules of Science, as laid down and PROVEN, beyond all possible doubt?
You have only stated here what I have been saying for about forty years. The difference is that I realized that bitching about it only encouraged more of it and did nothing to alleviate the cause of it.
I was never privilaged to enjoy the benefits of a higher education in the Sciences (or anything else). But I was intelligent enough to understand that only immutable proof could challenge and remove this 'bullshit and hocus-pocus’ so I did what I had to do, I dived into the deep end of that Science pool and started thrashing about enough to stay alive in it.
I found that… the harder I tried the easier it got
When you apply the appropriate Laws and Rules to every possible ‘slant’ that can applied to a particular theory or topic and they all fall down until only one remains standing, there is a good chance that such is not a theory, it just may be a FACT. At that point you don’t start beating your gums, bashing a drum, converting the multitudes, you attack what you have found with even greater vigor. When that doesn’t tear a hole in it, you seek and enlist others more able and more qualified than you are in the specific arena, but you don’t ask them to help prove that your little finding is RIGHT, you challenge them to PROVE that it is WRONG. If it stands up against every possible challenge then maybe it is RIGHT.
The beauty of this approach is; If you can root out and forever destroy just one at a time it’s quite like pulling out noxious weeds, plants or even trees, by the roots. You seldom remove just one bit, done properly you take out the roots, the stem/ trunk, every branch and every seed.
If you can offer any other way to do it, kindly spell it out because my way was the hard way. If there is an easier way, I want to know about it.
Regards
Gerry.
