I am talking about the loft of the face increasing during the impact. In every one of those irons shots, it is quite visible that the face is delofting upon impact (even the lob shot). Sure a bunch are miss hit and they also rotate.
Because the ball is going up, the face must be going down.
Where in 2-c-* is the CG of club head mentioned?
I can't find it.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying hinge action can't happen.
Saying that the clubface is adding loft during impact is all I am discussing.
__________________
Make Everything.
Last edited by John Graham : 11-09-2010 at 02:08 AM.
Nevermind . . . Let's leave the Land of Oz and head to the practice tee. Watch me hit two delicious little pitch shots. I'll hit both with the same descending blow (Clubshaft Control) and with an identical amount of force (Clubhead Control). Both shots will fly dead straight, but the second will fly distinctly higher than the first. Now . . .
Why would that be?
Answer:
Because, through Impact, my Left Wrist (Clubface Control) executed a totally different Motion. And that totally different Left Wrist Motion produced a totally different ClubfaceMotion. And that totally different Clubface Motion produced a totally different Separation alignment and Ball Response. Putting it simplistically . . .
Impact matters!
Have you done this while having a Trackman / Flightscope giving you numbers?
__________________
Golf is an impossible game with impossible tools - Winston Churchill
Forgetting the science for a moment. I have watched at least 6 authorized instructors teach and demonstrate hinging all the way from south carolina to california. I think I have the technique down fairly well. I know that the shot pattern is different and also useful. Therefore from that standpoint it is a valid teaching concept. Now in regard to science. It would be helpful to all of us for someone like Yoda to reveal his thoughts about trackman. Although I am a scientist I would caution all not to be overawed by science. After nearly 25 years of knowing about hinging, seeing hinging demonstrated and doing it myself the statement that there is no such thing is just laughable. Perhaps the available science is lacking. Now I am a good ping pong player and pride myself on the use of sandpaper or rubber paddles. Slams and cut shots produce various ball flights. Has that been studied also and is it relative? So when I read that science disproves hinging I just don't care frankly. My lesson using a trackman was very helpful so I believe it is a useful tool. So let the discussion continue, but for the "scientists" to snicker at the masters of the hinging art makes me lose respect for them.
The sketches in 2-C-1/2/3/4 assume a "centered (Sweet Spot) Impact". See 2-D-0.
In Sketch 2-C-1 #1, the two Impact Points are clearly shown to be on the Sweet Spot Plane. This fact is explicitly stated in 2-N-0: "In Sketch #1, the Impact Points are on the Sweet Spot Plane".
For further explanation of the Sweet Spot Plane, i.e., the assumed "Center of Gravity application", see 2-F.
Finally, always remember this:
"In the interest of brevity, regardless of how often any point is mentioned, every effort has been made not to discuss any one aspect more than once. So a complete definition can only be the sum of the comments about it." (1H)
I am talking about the loft of the face increasing during the impact. In every one of those irons shots, it is quite visible that the face is delofting upon impact (even the lob shot). Sure a bunch are miss hit and they also rotate.
Because the ball is going up, the face must be going down.
Where in 2-c-* is the CG of club head mentioned?I can't find it.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying hinge action can't happen.
Saying that the clubface is adding loft during impact is all I am discussing.
Sir,
Although, it may appear to some that "we" may muse about aimlessly upon occasion it shall be accepted, lacking equivalent contrary demonstration, Mr. Kelley diagrams are accurate. Had he desired to demonstrate that the clubface-ball contact was other than the ideal he certainly would have included those additional resultant vectors. There is neither a need nor opportunity for us to attach additional hypotheticals to Mr. Kelleys work in this instant.
Q.E.D.
Forgetting the science for a moment. I have watched at least 6 authorized instructors teach and demonstrate hinging all the way from south carolina to california. I think I have the technique down fairly well. I know that the shot pattern is different and also useful. Therefore from that standpoint it is a valid teaching concept. Now in regard to science. It would be helpful to all of us for someone like Yoda to reveal his thoughts about trackman. Although I am a scientist I would caution all not to be overawed by science. After nearly 25 years of knowing about hinging, seeing hinging demonstrated and doing it myself the statement that there is no such thing is just laughable. Perhaps the available science is lacking. Now I am a good ping pong player and pride myself on the use of sandpaper or rubber paddles. Slams and cut shots produce various ball flights. Has that been studied also and is it relative? So when I read that science disproves hinging I just don't care frankly. My lesson using a trackman was very helpful so I believe it is a useful tool. So let the discussion continue, but for the "scientists" to snicker at the masters of the hinging art makes me lose respect for them.
I'm hearing from you there is a HUGE difference between the science, and real world teaching. I can watch YODA and VJ Trolio executing different hinge actions in basic motion and see the difference in the balls reaction with my own eyes. Great post Mr. Sandridge!
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
I am talking about the loft of the face increasing during the impact. In every one of those irons shots, it is quite visible that the face is delofting upon impact (even the lob shot). Sure a bunch are miss hit and they also rotate.
Because the ball is going up, the face must be going down.
Where in 2-c-* is the CG of club head mentioned?
I can't find it.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying hinge action can't happen.
Saying that the clubface is adding loft during impact is all I am discussing.
Interesting point but does that necessarily discount the net variances? Layback only vs closing only given the delofting you mention. There must still be a difference no?
In 0.5 ms, the sound travels about 17 cm in air, 70 cm in water and 250 cm in iron. What's sound got to do with it? The speed of sound equals the speed of mechanical forces running through the same medium. As in: How long does it take after you started pulling the rope until it is stretched in the other end, ready to carry a bigger force?
The golf shaft is made of iron or some other material with very similar mechanical properties. The impact shock that the ball imposes on the clubhead will reach the grip of your club after about 0.2-0.3 ms. Then add another 0.05 ms or so to get through the rubber "insulation" of the grip and to the hands. All of this means that your hand will be "talking" directly to the ball for about half of the impact interval.
The brain may not receive a "minutes of meeting" before the ball has left the club, but that doesn't mean that the meeting didn't happen. And it doesn't mean that the ball, the clubhead and the hands weren't "communicating" directly.
There are people who believe that the golf club head is on its own during impact. They are wrong.
We can see on the impact videos that something else makes a difference. The shaft lean and the delofting that we see in some of them is due to a combination of moving mass above the sweet spot (shaft, hands, arms) and lag pressure (forces) that the golfer imposes on the clubhead through impact. 0.2 ms is a lot of time to get some work done. How you move the butt end of the club before impact will make a difference, so you can do some "impact work" beforehand that is delivered prompte. And in addition there's time to add more after the meeting has started.
However...
The mass speed being produced prior to impact really wants to keep moving forward. That's due to conservation of energy. What happens then when the ball slows the clubhead down dramatically? Imagine what would happen if the ball was infinitely heavy and you let go of the club. The ball would then work as a hinge pin and the grip end would start to spin around the golf ball. But we don't want that to happen. We want as much of the kinetic energy that the hands, arms, shaft and clubhead is carrying to be directed at the ball. Therefore we really want to resist the tendency towards increased shaft lean through impact.
We want the geometrically flat left wrist to remain flat. Bending and throwaway is the enemy before ball contact. But during impact, bending is not the eneny. Arching is. Arching during the impact interval means that we let some of the mass-velocity of the club shaft move the hands in stead of forcing all of it to move the ball.
If the rope handling has slack in it -
(and it will have a slack if you approach impact with a bent left wrist. And it will have slack if you're practically freewheeling through the ball. And it will have slack if you're disconnected somewhere between the ground and the hands. Well - I guess compared to the sudden increase of force at impact it will have some slack in any case, but the point is to minimise it)
If the rope handling has slack in it your left wrist will arch as a response to the reverse throwout condition imposed by the ball on the club. How to avoid it? Make the power package structure as rigid as possible. As resistant as possible against this happening. Maximise the push-pull efforts by the hands. As much rope handling (pp#2) as you can carry - from the feet up - combined with linear force, type pp#3. You basically want that rope to be as tight as you can get it before you contact the ball. So there's no giving in during the impact interval.
Linear Mode
