My question to you is why should we waste our time going to Jeffy’s site? We have all our answers right here. I put it that it is your responsibility to learn what we are learning and then refute from a position of knowledge.
2 Likes
The shaft may as well be viewed as a piece of string through impact (ie. impact period 0.5 msecs).
There is nothing you can do via your hands through impact that will keep the face more stable. By the time anything you do with your hands (ie. trying to keep the grip stable for an off-centre strike) makes its way down the shaft to try and influence the clubface, the ball has already flown.
Think about the club shaft being 10 meters long and the clubface strikes the ball. Do you think that anything you could do with your hands would have time to influence the clubface before the ball has flown? That same scenario still happens with a normal length driver and experimental tests have shown this to be true.
I have no cause to disbelieve that ABS has proved superior to swinging in your golf action, but it seems doubtful that accelerating the clubface through impact will create a more stable mass condition for an off-centre strike during the impact period.
@Dubious I didnt come to ABS to learn about ur bullshit debate on “swinging is superior”.
Your distraction ended about a week ago.
You keep saying I’m promoting some swinging technique over ABS. Completely untrue!!! The thread title is about ‘Science Validates Erickson’ and I’m posting comments to show that is not entirely correct.
@dubious Ok then, we all are blessed by ur existence here tryn to prove John Ericksons science behind ABS is flawed.
And u say u have no agenda.
Lol. Bye
Nobody gets it until they learn it…
1 Like
I said “if you really wanted to study different golf techniques”.
Anyhow, I’ve raised enough posts to show, from a scientific perspective that some of the ABS claims seem questionable. If however, you can provide evidence to disprove the science, then the biomechanics community will need to reconsider their own findings.
Good luck with ABS .
To be honest… I don’t really care about your opinions and what you continue to question. I’ve proven these things numerous times here… so if you still don’t get it… well, you never will I guess. Why you keep bringing up the same things is beyond me.
How about starting a new topic?
2 Likes
So here again… no golf ball… just swinging above the mat… clearly holding shaft flex beyond lowpoint. Proof? No?
Dubious says: I question John doing this. It’s not happening because Jeff Mann and Tutleman say this is not possible nor is it beneficial to do so. The laws of physics according to “The world of sciences according to Jeff Mann, Dubious, Tuttleman” has declared this isn’t possible nor is it happening even though this capture shows it to be happening. It can’t be happening and I question John’s ablility to do this even though he is showing us he’s doing it. He’s not doing it, because we know this isn’t happening even though we see it’s happening it’s clearly not happening because it can’t happen because current laws of physics support this isn’t happening even though it is… it’s actually isn’t because it can’t because … well… I just question it.
4 Likes
Try getting a photo image before you hit the ball. Of course you will get shaft flex after impact (see video gif below). It’s easy for you to provide the proof of shaft flex before impact as I’m sure you have friends in the golfing industry who use GEARS , ENSO or have a camera with a fast global shutter (or maybe not).
This is my last post on your forum - good luck.
In movement, high speed camera, not based upon still shots. Yes, it’s possible…
I think now we can officially move on from this discussion.
5 Likes
Pics of those beauties please!
Not sure why there was/is such a big debate? People that hold shaft flex have club head accelerating through impact and those that don’t, the club has already started its deceleration through impact. Do I have this right? What is the big controversy?
That’s somewhat right, and the best way to think about it IMO. To be annoying, an accelerating club head is not sufficient to guarantee shaft flex. This is probably not a tangent worth exploring, but the part of me that suffered through a math major feels inclined to point that out…
I think most understand that concept. I think what’s being debated is whether that’s actually possible in a golf swing. And whether people can and do accomplish that. Hence, the chaos that has ensued.
Beautiful! The Hogan designs with the toe relief are my favorites. Thank you for sharing.
It’s always been interesting to me, how the latest research from the major manufacturers has led them to this exact toe-relief design. Mr. Hogan obviously knew what he was doing in everything he touched.
I see your point and it does somewhat track, but I think you have a misunderstanding about radar units or other forms of launch monitors. Radar units are absolutely measuring and tracking the ball as well as the clubhead. The newest updates track and measure the delivered lie angle, the strike location on the face, the speed of the clubhead, the resulting speed of the ball, the angle of attack, the face angle, the swing direction, the resultant path, etc. To the credit of you post, some of that stuff is calculated, but the majority of the things being tracked are actually measured. This technology is used to track missiles to the inch at hundreds of miles. And then you look at camera based units, like Foresight, and they are tracking and measuring in real time at extremely high frame rates. Those kinds of units are using a ballflight algorithm, but they are very much tracking and measuring the impact interval. And then GEARS is in an entirely different league as far as measurement and accuracy.
If the clubhead is traveling X mph and the ball exits at Y miles per hour then the mass of the clubhead is figured into that. If you swung a modern driver at 110 mph and the ball left at 165 mph and then you swing a heavier driver at 100 mph and the ball left at 150 mph then that says they’re both leaving at 1.5 times the clubhead speed and you would know the mass is irrelevant. No amount of formulas will change the fact that a heavier club requires more force to move at the same speed as a lighter one and that older clubs have less coefficient of restitution due to clubhead construction, the ability to move the center of mass around with newer technology, and the ability to make the faces thinner. If you hit balls on Trackman you can measure you clubhead speed with whatever club you want to measure it with and you can measure the exit velocity of the ball and then you can reverse engineer the math.
1 Like