I really would like to get to the heart of this debate which is a very important one. Now I’m going to preface this by saying up front I haven’t done any high level math or physics equations since 1994 and I only did them then because they made me take the classes. The heart of this is the F=MA equation and it has bugged me ever since I first started messing around with this site. Before here I had only seen that applied to a golf swing a couple if times and that was only in passing. I never thought it was applicable at all and I still don’t but I’m not a math guy. The first reason I don’t think it applies is that it was my understanding that F=MA applies to linear motion rather than rotary. Even if it can be applied to rotary motion A is defined as a quantifiable change in Velocity. V is defined as Speed+Direction, right? Now I count four different orbits between the top of the backswing and impact making this move AND impact is right in the middle of another transition to a fifth orbit AND that doesn’t even take into consideration the changes in arc radius. What I get out of this is that with all the reroutes and directional changes it is impossible to consistently calculate Velocity, the calculation would be totally different when calculated from different POVs. So if you can’t calculate a consistent Velocity because of constantly changing direction its impossible to get a real number for Acceleration.
Now even if this is all rubbish and there is a repeatable method for consistently calculating A as the same number from different points of view the other problem as I am seeing it is that M&A are not equal partners in this equation. Again I’m not a math guy but because A is always a squared and M is to the factor of one that Force will change exponentially with a change in Acceleration but only simply by a change in Mass. This leads to the basic problem with the rocket shots, drivers et al with lower Mass, much lower Density in the materials, much larger surface area and are designed for higher Velocity at impact, whether or not V really is quantifiable in any reasonable fashion in a real number.
This has been rolling around between the loose screws for a long time now & I don’t know how to make this work or if it does. Like I said I don’t think it does but I ain’t qualified to render an opinion. So how does this work if it does?
Let me take a shot here. First off: It is possible to track a clubhead’s velocity (speed and direction) and/or acceleration (change in velocity divided by time) through any part of the swing. You can use accelerometers, radar, or even video if you have a bunch of cameras all coordinated. Even if the clubhead moves on arcs and orbits and changes radius and all these things… you can still understand the velocity or acceleration and here’s how:
Acceleration is change in velocity divided by time elapsed. So let’s say you are concerned with some arc up near transition…well at any particular point in time the clubhead has an instantaneous velocity. First we have to define a coordinate system, say x,y,z with the x direction the “target line”, the y direction as where the players body is facing at address along the ground (90 degrees to the target line), and the z direction directly up in the air towards the sky. Now lets take that arc of say 1ft and .1 second in time, and cut it in half so now we are considering an arc of .5 ft and .05s, and divide it in two again so it’s even smaller, and divide again…pretty soon that arc is really small, fractions of a mm and the time is very very small…now it becomes reasonable to treat that itty bitty arc as a straight line. This is the instantaneous direction of the club at that point in the arc and is has a specific speed at that point in time. The direction of that line is probably is some strange direction so we break it into its components…some velocity component in the x direction, some velocity component in the y direction, and some velocity component in the z direction too. You can plot this instantaneous velocity on a chart of velocity (x component) vs time as a single point. Then you move to the next tiny little segment of the arc and break it down too, plotting it’s velocity components vs this new point in time. You do this for all the tiny segments of the arc you are interested and you have a plot of x-velocity vs. time for all the time points in that curve. The total change in x-velocity from the start time of that arc to the finish time of that arc divided by the total elapsed time of that arc describes that average acceleration in the x direction of the clubhead during that arc.
So, in summary, the clubhead may be changing arcs orbits, heights, speeds, angles, etc. but in the end you divide the curve up into a bunch of teeny tiny straight velocity vectors (instantaneous velocity) which represents a teeny tiny little bit of time, break each instantaneous velocity vector into x,y,z components, plot each instantaneous velocity vs. it’s moment in time, then calculate the average velocity in the direction of interest. It would be the velocity in the x-direction (line of flight so to speak) that would be of interest for additional calculations of momentum or force.
I can try to get to the other questions later.
P.S. I’m not a mathematician. I’m an engineer who made it through physics and calculus but I’m nowhere near Mandrin’s level. If I messed up on any of the above descriptions I’ll gladly retract or edit them.
I am getting a few sets geared up to play. Posting this to let everyone know how the different shafts react to the swing, and any feedback that players have on using the shafts I am posting. Makes me think as to which shaft Hogan would play if he had the options or stay the same, think he use to play something similar to x300 or heavier tipped two inches. Older shafts were made heavier than modern shafts and at shorter lenths, which would make them stiffer than modern. I know shafts are made for different ball flights. Lag and Two, do you think that the type of shaft that Hogan used helped create his ballstiking, know the stiffness and heaviness did, but the characteristics of dynamic gold having stiff tip and soft butt. Do you think if he had to play project x with stiff tip and butt it would have changed anything.
My ball flight is very high, making it difficult to be consistent with distance. Have gotten flatter and more shallow, dispersion is better but height the same. x100 is even high in long irons, have read these shafts have low launch but spin a lot. I like them in my wedges, but spin up with irons. Project x and kbs c taper are made for high ball high spin players. Have the rifles in a set and like them, but are similar to x100 in height. Got the 8.0 out of a set because they are not made anymore and want to make a set of rebar.
In Hogan PC and Macgreogor murifield, X100 shafts.
Ultimately the most important consideration is whether or not you are holding shaft flex or not.
A great accelerating hitter like Hogan would hit the ball lower with looser shafts and higher with stiffer shafts. A firm shaft void of too much forward shaft lean at impact will allow a good hitter to utilize the true loft of the club while taking a shallower divot with less interference potential from the ground.
Most golfers don’t hold shaft flex so the opposite is true. Looser shafts get under the ball more as shaft flex is lost, while firmer shafts keep the ball lower minimizing a concave shaft deflection for a decelerating club moving through the impact arena.
It’s just common sense stuff here really if you think about it… but it assumes the accelerating hitter is actually going at it as hard with a looser shaft… then you would see the lower ball flight. Most good players would feel this extra kick in a practice swing and adjust their acceleration rate either instinctually to accommodate the desired trajectory or consciously adjust with a slower swing tempo.
Generally speaking, the better your golf swing gets, the firmer shaft you can play… but I like the idea of starting firm which kinda encourages you to work into it faster. Soft shafts can really hold you back if you are going the hitting route.
Also, I am not an advocate of frequency matching shafts for hitters… because a golf shaft does not oscillate back and forth prior to impact… only once at transition. Vibrating the shaft like a guitar string would be critical for playing music but not for hitting a golf ball. You want stability and structure and you get that more from thicker walled heavier shafts. Even if a shaft is made stiffer with certain lighter alloys, you’ll get better feedback from a heavier shaft… meaning the vibration you get coming up the shaft from the strike post impact with resonate deeper into the body due to the physics of mass alone.
This is one of the problems with the modern game and why the guys on tour can’t hit fairways. For one, they can’t feel where they hit the ball on the face with proper pinpoint precision, and they can’t feel the right things coming up the shaft to properly fine tune their technique. The head is too light, the shaft is too thin and light and the only feedback they get is visually watching the ball flight. The auditory feedback is very poor also with the high pitched titanium squeal.
Like David Games noted in his interview here… you can play persimmon in the dark and know basically where you hit the ball. You can both feel and hear it. This is feedback is critical if you really want to improve your golf swing.
Thanks Lag. The reason I got the project x 7.0 and kbs c taper is that they are the heaviest shafts made I think and easy to get, 130 grams. I have not hit the project x, but have read they feel stiffer than any shaft and are great for hitters. Like that you said Hogan hit stiffer shafts higher, most players switch to project x to hit the ball lower, stiffer shaft to hit the ball lower. This goes with everything else about players not hitting like Hogan in the Modern game. Hogan would be higher with stiffer, most players go lower with stiffer.
It seems the word “heavy” has been taboo for a long time.
In a game such as baseball, where one is actually hitting the ball with the shaft,
heavy bat is considered a positive rather than a negative, as long as one can handle it.
There is a point of diminishing returns, which will continue to move if one uses heavier gear because of the fact
that the human body will strengthen to accommodate over time.
The ProPel shafts are more of a tip flex, but when you go with the #1 version, or tip them, then that tip flex starts to be minimized. I tend to hit them lower when swinging well because holding shaft flex with take loft off the club with a compartively looser shaft. But again, for those not holding shaft flex, then the whole concept goes upside down.
This is why the shaft debate is such a mystery for most.
New to this site and so far I am loving it! My question is for those of us who want to play the modern driver what graphite shafts what shaft would you recommend? I would like to keep it at 44 or 44 1/4 inches. I have played some version of a TM graphite shafted driver for 20 years or so and do not want to change. The new golf balls are made to go with the new drivers, going with something older with the new balls doesn’t make sense to me. Thanks for any help.
The original intention of graphite or any lightweight material was simply to redistribute weight down into the head. The goal was not to make the overall weight of the club lighter. a 14 ounce driver meant you could put more lead into the head on a persimmon.
The modern theory is to use the lightweight club to make it longer, which of course you lose some control doing that… so to compensate they make the head much bigger to offset the loss of precision and control of a longer club. Throw in an new ball that doesn’t spin properly to help the problem, then finally redesign all the courses and cut down a majority of trees to widen the playing field.
From an accuracy standpoint, this is completely going in the wrong direction.
From a long drive contest perspective, then this would be the correct direction.
Still, even in the modern game, most players will benefit from driving the ball straighter, and certainly benefit if they are going to play a golf course that presents a proper test of tee shot accuracy and placement.
Lag,
I agree with what you are saying. I used to hit the ball 255-270 with a TM graphite driver at 44 inches using balata. I also rarely missed a fairway. Which helped a lot when playing a 450 yard hole meant a driver 4 or 5 iron. I went to a longer shafted driver to gain distance to keep up with the modern game. After 8 to 10 years of hitting it longer, when properly stuck, but more crooked I decided to go back to a shorter length driver in an attempt to hit the sweet spot more but also to hit the fairways more consistently. Working with Two, I have rekindled old sensations and feelings of the golf swing I used to know and therefore believe that a shorter driver would be beneficial to my progress and swing.
Working in the business I need to play a modern driver. Maybe I can try a heavy graphite, even though they may be hard to find for a drive, or maybe even an X-100 to see which work better.
I know this thread is a hundred years old, but if you haven’t found a shaft I switched to a tipped x300 in my driver a year ago and I really like it, plus it’s way cheaper than graphite. But I did it with a cobra from like 2003 so I needed to add some lead tape as the head feels too light with the heavier shaft.
How did the old school greats typically set up their grips? Did they have thick grips or thin? I know knudson (hitter) liked to feel steel so that takes care of him. We know Moe (swinger) had thick grips.
Lag- How would a thick grip versus a thin grip effect the hitters technique? Do you have a preference in grip size for hitters and would it be different for swingers? I have heard that the golfers who had heavy clubs had thicker grips??
