53 replies to this topic

[CallawayLefty]

This thread = how Golfwrx'ers think about their games

This https://www.youtube....h?v=RrvkB3pK8lg = how Dustin Johnson thinks about his game

[Viewing As Guest]

[Fort Worth Pro]

CallawayLefty, on 12 January 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

This thread = how Golfwrx'ers think about their games

This https://www.youtube....h?v=RrvkB3pK8lg = how Dustin Johnson thinks about his game

And Claude Harmon 3 understands all the stuff going on this thread. This is a place to discuss swing theory is it not??

[Stuart G.]

Fort Worth Pro, on 12 January 2018 - 01:04 PM, said:

Stuart G., on 12 January 2018 - 01:00 PM, said:

Fort Worth Pro, on 12 January 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

I understand kinetics is just the forces and torques but kinetics are what a player is going to feel in the golf swing. A player is going to feel those forces and torques.

It's more then just the forces.  It includes understanding mass distributions and inertial considerations, how all the pieces are connected and, how each joint 'works', etc...   And while they might feel a few of the forces, considering all the muscles that are firing and mass moving around during the swing, tendons and ligaments stretching and holding, they will never feel anything but an extremely small percentage of them and even the ones they do feel will not be at any level of accuracy.

The kinetics being measured have nothing to do with muscles, joints, etc. it is simply the force and torque applied at the mid hands point of the club.

Correct (sort of) kinetics doesn't - but the feel has everything to do with those.  That's why kinetics isn't what one feels.

[DavePelz4]

Mrs. Pelz and I got caught once attempting In-Plane coupling.

[Krt22]

From what I've read, in order for a couple to be a couple, it needs to occur in a single plane.

[Quick Bucket]

I experienced an impact coup with a Newtonian-like opposing contrecoup for a net force driven by way of a force moment, but was it a mental or physical force.   Or, in layman's terms,  this thread inspired me to pick up the nearest ball-pein hammer and smack myself upside the head until unconscious.

[Quick Bucket]

bogeypro, on 12 January 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Wtf... is this a golf forum or engineering class?  Do you folks actually teach real golfers using terms like these?!

I  hope not.

[PutterKilledTheDream]

Fort Worth Pro, on 12 January 2018 - 01:29 PM, said:

CallawayLefty, on 12 January 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

This thread = how Golfwrx'ers think about their games

This https://www.youtube....h?v=RrvkB3pK8lg = how Dustin Johnson thinks about his game

And Claude Harmon 3 understands all the stuff going on this thread. This is a place to discuss swing theory is it not??

But where’s  the theory behind this? I’d just like to hear a layman’s term example of this level of information being put into practical application and someone actually shaving strokes.

[northgolf]

FatReed, on 12 January 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

Fort Worth Pro, on 12 January 2018 - 12:11 PM, said:

FatReed, on 12 January 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

Fort Worth Pro, on 12 January 2018 - 11:45 AM, said:

PutterKilledTheDream, on 12 January 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

So when Sasho says “ inverse dynamics” he means that the direction of the force or torque both my hands combined together apply to the club is moving basically opposite of the direction I’m twisting the grip or shaft?

If I hold a club directly out in front of me, and I rotate the club wide open from address to shaft parallel..... the net force is downward some direction while the net couple is pointing behind me some direction?

Now explain how scientifically understanding these forces translates into improved swing mechanics. That’s where the disconnect happens.

As explained by another poster...that isn't what inverse dynamics means.

How does understanding the kinetics lead to better swing mechanics? Simply, Kinematics is what you see, and kinetics is what you feel. Understanding what forces and torques need to be applied can help an instructor understand what a player needs to feel in order to change something.

That’s not how it works . . . that’s not how it will ever work . . .and that’s why modern golf instruction is in the dark ages.

Motion cannot be taught; it can only be learned.

“FORCE DEFORMS” Frozen Divots

Serious question, how good are you? This isn't meant to be a demeaning question. You might very well be a +5. Completely agree that there is a difference in teaching and learning but to say a motion can't be taught is just nonsense.

I don’t consider your question demeaning, but I do consider it completely irrelevant. . . just as my knowing you are a fantastic golfer is irrelevant.

You don’t answer to me, only to those who are paying you to help them improve. If you are convinced you are on the right track, and your customers satisfied with service you provide, then keep up the good work.

So you didn't collude with Sasho, right?

[northgolf]

bogeypro, on 12 January 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Wtf... is this a golf forum or engineering class?  Do you folks actually teach real golfers using terms like these?!

No, they teach golfers how to move using cues they can understand.  This argument is about understanding the movement in a way that isn't subjective.

[Viewing As Guest]

[Fort Worth Pro]

PutterKilledTheDream, on 12 January 2018 - 10:42 PM, said:

Fort Worth Pro, on 12 January 2018 - 01:29 PM, said:

CallawayLefty, on 12 January 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

This thread = how Golfwrx'ers think about their games

This https://www.youtube....h?v=RrvkB3pK8lg = how Dustin Johnson thinks about his game

And Claude Harmon 3 understands all the stuff going on this thread. This is a place to discuss swing theory is it not??

But where’s  the theory behind this? I’d just like to hear a layman’s term example of this level of information being put into practical application and someone actually shaving strokes.

Where is the theory behind what?? Practical application? One of my TCU women's golfers used to swing Driver about 85 mph tops. She now is at 98. Understanding this stuff has helped me prioritize her changes better and there were times I had to ask her to do some stuff she didn't want to because she had been told in the past it was wrong. I had to explain the why to her in order to show her it was the correct thing to do.

[DaveLeeNC]

Re: FWPro comment

For some people (like me) an understanding of "why is that true" can be very helpful.

dave

[Silky]

My interpretation for "in-plane coupling" is just the end-of-range of the wrist hinging (a stop) resisting the inertial motion of the club near the top of swing in the backswing and during transition.  Try to model this as active pushing and pulling of the hands is over specification, not useful and misleading.

[Redjeep83]

I’m just glad tigers not in the bio camp any longer

[Soloman1]

We humans are all in the "bio camp."

"...not in the bio camp any longer"

You can't leave the bio camp any more than you can suspend the laws of physics, unless your grits are some kind of magic grits.

Edited by Soloman1, 14 January 2018 - 09:49 PM.

[ThinkingPlus]

bogeypro, on 12 January 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Wtf... is this a golf forum or engineering class?  Do you folks actually teach real golfers using terms like these?!

It would be fantastic. There would be no ambiguity. Of course my opinion is not to be trusted in this case. I have all the right degrees for the terminology and concepts being used.

[Redjeep83]

Soloman1, on 14 January 2018 - 09:42 PM, said:

We humans are all in the "bio camp."

"...not in the bio camp any longer"

You can't leave the bio camp any more than you can suspend the laws of physics, unless your grits are some kind of magic grits.

Tiger got the magic grits, dumped it

[PutterKilledTheDream]

ThinkingPlus, on 14 January 2018 - 09:49 PM, said:

bogeypro, on 12 January 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Wtf... is this a golf forum or engineering class?  Do you folks actually teach real golfers using terms like these?!

It would be fantastic. There would be no ambiguity. Of course my opinion is not to be trusted in this case. I have all the right degrees for the terminology and concepts being used.

Ambiguity? I can just see it now....” you see, your COM is above your moment of force. That’s why you’re leaking it out to the right. You’re not taking advantage of the mechanical advantage”.

Look I know (some) of these guys are extremely intelligent. There’s no question there. I still don’t see how all this force/torque talk is any real breakthrough in terms of improvement. As I’ve said before, maybe it’s my business background speaking here, but it all just sounds
like marketing hype.

The COMs desire is to line up with moment of force.... f$&k I may make a run at the Champions Tour in about a decade. It all makes sense now.

[ThinkingPlus]

PutterKilledTheDream, on 14 January 2018 - 11:10 PM, said:

ThinkingPlus, on 14 January 2018 - 09:49 PM, said:

bogeypro, on 12 January 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Wtf... is this a golf forum or engineering class?  Do you folks actually teach real golfers using terms like these?!

It would be fantastic. There would be no ambiguity. Of course my opinion is not to be trusted in this case. I have all the right degrees for the terminology and concepts being used.

Ambiguity? I can just see it now....” you see, your COM is above your moment of force. That’s why you’re leaking it out to the right. You’re not taking advantage of the mechanical advantage”.

Look I know (some) of these guys are extremely intelligent. There’s no question there. I still don’t see how all this force/torque talk is any real breakthrough in terms of improvement. As I’ve said before, maybe it’s my business background speaking here, but it all just sounds
like marketing hype.

The COMs desire is to line up with moment of force.... f$&k I may make a run at the Champions Tour in about a decade. It all makes sense now.

Physics and mathematics are the direct opposite of marketing.  One could try to pull a snow job throwing terms and concepts around, but there are enough geeks around to separate the wheat from the chaff.  The whole point of marketing is to hide an ugly truth within a compelling beautiful story so you will buy it.  As soon as someone speaks in the language of physics and math, you can't  hide the truth.  They are either right or wrong and it can be verified.  No ambiguity.

[Stuart G.]

ThinkingPlus, on 15 January 2018 - 09:20 AM, said:

As soon as someone speaks in the language of physics and math, you can't  hide the truth.  They are either right or wrong and it can be verified.  No ambiguity.

At least as long as all the underlying assumptions are true :-)


Sorry,  I do agree with you but as an engineer I couldn't resist.

Edited by Stuart G., 15 January 2018 - 09:47 AM.

[Viewing As Guest]

Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

[ThinkingPlus]

Stuart G., on 15 January 2018 - 09:46 AM, said:

ThinkingPlus, on 15 January 2018 - 09:20 AM, said:

As soon as someone speaks in the language of physics and math, you can't  hide the truth.  They are either right or wrong and it can be verified.  No ambiguity.

At least as long as all the underlying assumptions are true :-)


Sorry,  I do agree with you but as an engineer I couldn't resist.

In theory no assumptions should be necessary, but with humans and biomechanics involved some assumptions are necessary.  Other assumptions are made for ease of understanding or calculation.  The assumptions need to be reasonable as you say. If one were being rigorous each assumption or approximation would be subjected to perturbation analysis to determine the validity of the assumption or approximation.  Behind the scenes doodling rarely exposed to the uninitiated. LOL.

[LeoLeo99]

Quick Bucket, on 12 January 2018 - 02:38 PM, said:

I experienced an impact coup with a Newtonian-like opposing contrecoup for a net force driven by way of a force moment, but was it a mental or physical force.   Or, in layman's terms,  this thread inspired me to pick up the nearest ball-pein hammer and smack myself upside the head until unconscious.

Maybe your could smack your head into the hammer instead of vice-versa.  Newton's third law, yo.

[virtuoso]

The G-WRXER DEATH LOOP:

1. The G-wrxer hears new concept and doesn't understand it, so makes fun of it.
2. Later G-wrxer thinks he figured it out and tries it.
3. G-wrxer tries it incorrectly and fails at it.
4. G-wrxer posts a question about why he can't do it.
5. G-wrxer gets 23 posts from other G-wrxers--some incorrect, some making fun of idea, some asking how they can do it, some saying he should forget all this mechanical stuff and play by feel.
6. G-wrxer fails again, and decides to play by feel and returns to normal level of incompetence.
7. G-wrxer preaches to everyone to play by feel.
8. The G-wrxer hears new concept and doesn't understand it, so makes fun of it.
9. ...and turtles all the way down...

[PutterKilledTheDream]

For some reason the 3-D guys take these comments as a shot across the bow. Not really sure why.
Isn’t Sasho a scratch? I’m honestly curious how he and some of the other big names like Mayo and Finney able to incorporate the science into their own games. The same way they would their students.

I jog my memory bank and I can’t recall ever consciously thinking about applying torque or force to the club, grip or shaft. Not saying it doesn’t happen. So it’s measurable now, undeniable. Someone please explain to me how quantifying this data helps a player shoot lower scores.

Impact collision dynamics was a light bulb moment for me 6 years ago in understanding swing and ballflight. This.... I’m completely in the shadows. Would like to hear from people who actually know what they’re talking about.