I would love to try to do it, but I don’t think really you can get valid data on a rotational golf swing event from video. The swing is happening in 3 dimensions, and that is flattened into a 2D video image. So any measurements you make are distorted by parallax effects and so forth. The units of measurement are also important to consider, as I guess we want angular measurements, not linear, and you can’t really make those very well on a frontal view video. I think the strobe images used in the 70s were done with the cameras roughly perpendicular to the inclined plane of the swing, but I"m not sure.
You are 100% correct. Why this debate never ends too…i love a good sparing match. I did attempt this with the Hogan grid swing, but the variation was too large…so i had a 20mph to “guess” with. Not very scientific. 110mph to 130+
I would really enjoy playing anyone located in the Denver metro area. You can see for yourself. Ill even work it into pins and aim at sides of the fairway off the tee. Ill play persimmon or modern gear, no worries. No competition either…i just want one of you guys to see it and hear it.
So “the old guys” hit every club the exact same apex height and 6 feet of height dispersion at 95 feet is a lot and signifies current players have no control, yet “the old guys” also were experts at controlling trajectory and hitting it high or low on command? So which is it? They were dead nuts on to the foot through the bag or they moved their trajectories around? Which one? And you’re basing their exact to the foot height dispersion on what? Hogan making the observation that apex heights appeared to be the same through the bag? He was measuring the apex height distance by what metric? And you have charts showing this accuracy?
That’s the entire problem with this thread. A claim is made based on sheer speculation, feel, someone’s intents from an old book, or poor frame rate video, someone else counters the claim with actual data, and then you claim that isn’t good enough, accurate enough, or it isn’t representative of what you’re talking about. It’s flat out insane.
You: “The old guys were so much better and consistent and the equipment was so much better and consistent and they all had the same apex height to the foot because Hogan said so and I saw a 2 wood shot that stopped on a Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf video”.
Me: “Oh, well here’s some Trackman data from the Tour showing apex heights. They’re all pretty similar. Here’s my Trackman data. You can see that my iron shots all have a very similar apex heights. The ball flights are tracked and graphed.”
You: “What a joke. 6 feet of dispersion is not good control. The old guys did it so much better.”
Me: “What are you basing that on?”
You: “Hogan said they were all the same and Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf.”
Me: Watches Nicklaus-Snead snap hook balls all over Pebble, flare shots out right into bunkers, and hack it out of rough, and hit velcro green 9 iron chips all day en route to a 72-71 match.
Unreal…your understanding of the game is hilarious. Balatas and blades on grass that was mowed by hand? vs. What? The modern game? The modern courses are so easy in comparison it makes me wonder if you might actually be a little daft.
Wait! I know!
Ill play you with my persimmons from 6300y. You can play the tips with your modern gear. Winner takes the grand prize…
You cant compare eras buddy…no matter how hard you try.
Are we going to chip with 9 irons onto velcro greens rolling at 7.5 too? Sounds fun.
Bring your persimmons and balatas, you play from 6300, I’ll play from 6800, and we’ll go $100 a stroke or a hole or whatever you want. It’ll be lots of fun.
I posted 2 links to my swing in this thread. I guess you were too busy thinking up insults to look at them. And guess what? Say whatever you want about them, it doesn’t matter. My individual golf swing has no bearing on what we are discussing.
U guys @86General@Fore_Thirty@dubious@jeffmann are wiz kids that cant find ur way to a local range to film. But love slamming JE swing that actually competed in real life against the greats.
!!!you all get ur rocks off here talkn a big talk about the bendn of a rod. Me thinks u have too much time on a keyboard.
OK, assuming this is an honest question I think I can provide a little bit of an answer. I want to make clear that I have no dog in this hunt. I should also say that when I was playing enough to have a handicap it was 6, so I never was all that good. But I have a basic understanding of physics from university and beyond.
Why is impact different? From a purely physics standpoint, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, before impact the “orbit pull” (centripetal force) and longitudinal acceleration are working together in the sense that a generally inward force contributes to both. As the club and core become more perpendicular and then the club passes the torso, an inward force is required to hold the club in orbit while an outward one would be required to maintain longitudinal acceleration. So it’s not so much that the swing “knows” when impact occurs as that the physics changes.
On the other hand, core rotation helps with this conundrum. If we can add some velocity to the rotation of the core it’ll help to prevent the linear velocity of the club from decreasing. Here I think we’re up against physiological limitations, and this is why it’s relatively easy to hold shaft flex at low speeds. Even Mr. Erickson says that it’s a very hard thing to do at higher speeds – I would suspect that each of us has a very practical physiological limit to the speed at which we could hold shaft flex, and for most of us that speed is less than the speed of, say, a full driver swing at the moment of. impact.
vs. What? The modern game? The modern courses are so easy in comparison it makes me wonder if you might actually be a little daft.
good work. Glad to see a real person.
Thanks for the link