Golf Physics 101

[Neil18]

Re: Golf Physics 101

If you think using a Loreal advert as a modern metaphor to describe people discussing unnecessary science is a personal attack, then that's not my boggle. T'wasn't my intention. However it does adequately describe my feelings on this thread.

"I came, I read, I communicated my honest feeling" is a fact. If you find my matter of factness insulting, again, not my boggle. Honesty is honesty. If you take it politely or rudely, then that my be down to the ambiguity of reading text, as text does not communicate tone of voice. Or it may be that honesty hits sore spots that nobody likes to be hit.

.................anyway.......................... as we are in the mood for pointing out people missing the point, the point of my original (admittedly short, and possibly stiring) post on here (for which I have already apologised, but some don't want to let it go) was in the hope that someone might go forth and explain to me why this is helpful in learning the physical act of swinging a club to hit a ball? So far all I've got are responses that continue to lead me to the conclusion that this thread has no useful information on the subject of swinging a club.

Knowledge? Yes. I'm all for it, if it serves a purpose. But I shall refer to a previous point. If we aren't going to crack open our maths exercise books on the practice tee, or create 3D models of ourselves to send to Callaway to tell them why we can't hit the clubs they make, what is this information for? If you find it interesting, fine. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just questioning it's use in the learning process. I might have studied the science of space exploration to the nth degree, but it won't make me a good astronaut. I'd more be in the control room talking about it, not doing it.

Tell me to get my hands ahead at impact and I'll try to do it. Why? Because it leads to ball compression and better distance and accuracy. If someone told me to get my hands ahead at impact because it causes all the scientific (and no doubt true) things previously mentioned thus-far, then I'd tell him to get lost.

And before anyone else wants to come back on here and moan some more, you can get on with discussing maths. Really. I'm not trying to blast your privilege of discussing what you want, where you want, just someone please tell me if I should go and take an Open University course in advanced Physics if it'll make me a better golfer.

[BrianW]

Re: Golf Physics 101

Hey Neil!

Just turn off the set if it offends, It's only a website! Golf is like politics, some get deep some don't even vote. Yin-Yang, Zin-Zen, golf shmolf. You post some great threads on golfing issues, let others have their fun, even if it is different.

Now, if Carlsberg made golfing equipment, it would PROBABLY be the best golf eqipment in the world? I have to say though that 6 pints of it has not done much for me the next day.

[Rule]

Re: Golf Physics 101

This has been one of my favorite threads and I feel like the more I understand something, the better I can get. If someone wants to get as technical about the hands and the release, please do. I know it's like beating a dead horse, but you never know what little tidbit will make the difference.

[Scragger63]

Re: Golf Physics 101

Err...

I'd happily appear in a Loreal ad......

I hear the pay is great!!!

[ilang]

Re: Golf Physics 101

Well physics are working in the swing all the time,but we dont have to be aware of the fact.Some people swing naturally without ever thinking about it.
Its like loading a spin dryer,if you dont load it well balanced it will knock.(hence the old saying old banger).The most important thing in the swing for me regarding this,is back swing to downswing.The transition has to be smooth unhurried balanced.To me the club head does not exist,its only the grip and the hands that are being swung.The club head does not control the hands its the other way around.
If you hold a driver dead vertical with your hands at 9 o/clock it is almost weightless.I try to maintain that thought in swinging the club in the downswing in a weightless way.
I am very small and have a short back swing but still to the dismay of my 6ft pals I knock it passed them.Thats not to brag just to point out that technique is more important than muscle in the golf swing.

Neil I agree with you,.Hows old Essex?,I miss Romford,Chigwell,West Essex,Thorndon Park, course's etc.

[GoNavy]

Re: Golf Physics 101

I am very small and have a short back swing but still to the dismay of my 6ft pals I knock it passed them.Thats not to brag just to point out that technique is more important than muscle in the golf swing.

I was with you till here, don't agree on the technique over muscle deal, both would be better. If muscle didn't mean as much as technique then the ladies would drive as far as the men.

About ten years ago I played the back nine here at the air base with Mike Dunaway and Bobby Wilson, Dunaway had a show on TNT at the time offering 10K to anyone that out drove him. Wilson had come in second place the previous two years in the National long drive. Now these guys were out driving me by 70 yds on every tee shot, even though I felt my swing was better, from a technical point, Wilson used a three quarter swing. However I did notice, couldn't help but notice, that when I joined them, (slow group in front of them) and we shook hands, both of these guys were really strong. You could feel it in their hands, like grabbing a brick. I was amazed, I wasn't exactly a short knocker back then, these guys made me feel like I was a school kid again playing with the adults...lol...so strength has a great deal to do with it IMO. Also no coincidence that Tiger hits long, he works out allot, and Gary Player before him. Gary was long for a little guy, he was working out, before it became the in thing. Jack Nicklaus had tree trunks for legs in his young days, he was long back then too. Hogan worked out with tennis balls constantly, they say his hands were like vise grips.

[ilang]

Re: Golf Physics 101

Gonavy.
I meant muscle with no technique,I am quite thick set myself.
I take it,it was not Clark Air Base in the P.I.?.

Yes C.Mays good comments.

I once watched Player at a Golf clinic,he said the same about Leadbetter.
He said about teaching"there is Leadbetter giving lessons on the telephone for 100 U.S.D. a time and cannot break 80".He went on to say that Leadbetter ruined Baker-finch AFTER he won the British Open.And player told Baker-finch,with your swing now you will never win another tournament.

So you takes your pick.

[ilang]

Re: Golf Physics 101

Good sites them,Thanks C.May.

Its always good to hear from someone who can speak first hand.
Because I have been playing golf a long time and to my novice pals I might look alittle impressive.They sometimes ask for a lesson.I always say no go to the pro,and whatever he tells you ,work at it.And maybe after 3 months you will improve,there are no instant cures.When Nick Faldo started with Leadbetter,he was hitting some balls along the ground for quite some time, in his sessions on the range.
I have never met a low handicap golfer who never hit thousands of balls in practice.
I remember a reporter was commenting from the '71' British open at Birkdale,he wrote"its getting dark here and someone just ask me who is that in the practice bunker,I told him Trevino.He replied" but hes just had a 69 and leading".I replied "Thats why he's leading".(he went on to win).

[edshaw]

Re: Golf Physics 101

C Mays writes the following:

Ed,
let me help you out here. Turn the back hand down towards the ground and notice the wrist hinge and how you can swing the arm back and forth w/o breaking the hinge.
Since we are swinging at an angle to the top of the backswing with the hand knuckles down and then back down in the same position we are using the right hand to square the clubface and to add power unlike the upright swinger who has the wrist in a position if he boke it then the clubhead would outrace the hands.
When you read that, amatuers / that with professionals also.
Turn you over to David Leadbetter:
1. http://www.davidleadbetter.com/2006/..._clubface.html
And Newton's Second Law, Force = Speed. It is the force of the wind on the sail that moves the boat faster.

My reply:

C Mays:
--Interesting thoughts here both on your part and on David's.
Thanks you for taking the time to respond.
--What you guys are getting at needs photo illustration. It's just
to technical to be explained with words, alone. For example, when
you say "turn the back hand down towards the ground and notice
the wrist hinge," is that the same thing as turning the right hand
clockwise? After all, the right hand is the back hand, and, a
clockwise turn will turn it towards the ground. See my confusion?
David is a little confusing here in the same way, with his comments
about the right palm. Anyway, my job is not to harass
you with perceived inadequacies, but instead, to ferret
out the truth of your instruction.
--Now, then, it seems to me whereas the rotation of the club is
critical to David, I'm not sure it is to you. I understand this rotation
as setting the stage for the release, which is as I understand it
the "turning over" through the hitting area. And, I don't see why
anyone needs to be concerned with this rotation in the takeaway.
It seems David wouldn't agree, and, I surely could not argue with
David's success. Still, as I experience it, nothing of the arms and
hands "rolls" in the integrated takeaway, save maybe the in-step
of the left foot.
--I have a "feel" key that just about at waist high I want to feel
the pressure of the club handle against the cupped fingers of
both hands, the middle bones of the fingers, as if there were a
genie with a rope attached to the club handle, standing at
about 45 degrees off the aft (/) and me throwing that sack
(as someone on this forum so eloquently stated it) of potatoes
over my right shoulder. This whole feel, a feel I rely on, has little
to do with or to gain by, rotation.
Further, considering the things that can (often do) go
wrong with a golf swing, might not thoughts of a rotation in
the takeaway be just another nuisance, though maybe not to
the demi gods of golf David Leadbetter serves. Mind you, we
are still on the subject of the takeaway.
--By the same token, I am asking you if the wrist break is
something I ought to be concerned with during takeaway?
Again, my concept of the wrist break is the lateral hinging
(slap slap slap like the bad guy in the movies) and of
rotation, a movement of the forearms.
Thanks again for your help.
Ed Shaw

[Allen Drummond]

Re: Golf Physics 101

Great thread for physics, greater thread for the comedy!
I think we agree that all else being equal (wind, side spin, ball type, etc) the ball with the higher velocity will go further.
Here are two cases:
1) A ball is struck by a clubhead traveling at a constant 120 mph.
2) A ball is struck by a clubhead traveling at 120 mph but accelerating.
Will the two balls have the same resulting velocity? No. Case two will result in a higher velocity.

Here is the reason:
F = ma
But
a = dv/dt (change in distance with respect to time)
So
F = m*dv/dt
Rearranging we have
F * dt = m * dv
Where
F is the force applied by the clubhead.
m is the mass of the golf ball.
dv is the change in velocity of the golf ball.
dt is the time the clubhead applies force to the ball.

The equation says that for a given force applied to a given mass (the ball) the only way to increase the velocity is to increase the time the clubhead is in contact with the ball (dt).
So what does that have to do with a gynecologist? Absolutely nothing lest he/she plays golf.
You do want to be accelerating through impact. The momentum equation stated is accurate and useful but applies to a body of constant velocity. If the clubhead is travleing at a constant velocity then it will in fact be, what we term, decelerating. If the clubhead was accelerating at the time of impact it is true that the acceleration will change but that does not mean it then is either moving slower or decelarating. Only that the rate of accleration has slowed.
The acceleration due to the arc of the swing is one that is toward the center of the arc. This acceleration exists even if the clubhead is slowing down. While it does have significant impact on ones ability to control a clubhead it has litte to do with the straight line acceleration we desire at impact.

Al

PS
From a post I made last year:
Sorry for the math and long-winded explanation but its sort of what I do for a living.
F is force.
M is mass.
A is acceleration.
V is velocity.
t is time.
d means delta or the change of a quantity.
F = MA , force equals mass times acceleration,
and A = dV/dt which is the change in velocity over time.
Therefore F = M * dV/dt.
Moving the time component to the other side we have
F * dt = M * dV.
So what?
The M in the above equation is the golf ball which is a fixed quanity.
The dV is the acceleration of the golf ball (which we want to be big).
The F is the amount of force from the club head is limited by a players strength (no really, strength).
The dt is the total amount of time that the force is applied to the mass (golf ball).
The equation says that for a given force (F) and a given mass (M) the only way to increase the accelaration (dV) is to increase the time the club head is applied to the ball.
WHAT?
A given player has a limited amount of force they can generate with the club head. This force may be applied through a constant velocity of the club head (swing speed) or through acceleration (increasing swing speed).
From Newton's laws of motion we know that, at the moment of collision, the club head will slow down and the golf ball will accelerate.
If the club head is at a constant velocity at time of impact then it slows down away from the ball as the ball jumps away from the club and the time of impact is short. If the club head is accelerating sufficiently through impact the club head still slows down away from the ball but it will still be accelerating (though a little less) and trying to catch up to the ball. This causes an increase in the contact time between club head and ball resulting in an increased ball acceleration (MORE DISTANCE!).

[edshaw]

Re: Golf Physics 101

Thanks for the detailed response, CMays.
Sorry for having doused you with cold
water so early in the AM.
Your instructions are always worth
close inspection, always gratefully
received.

[rbrion]

Re: Golf Physics 101

At the beginning of this thread you ask: Specifically what swing mechanics can be taught for better accelaration?
And can this easily be taught to anyone? Or do we need some sort of
innate physical talent?

I for one have been playing for 14 years and have gotten better every single year. As well, today at 41 and I'm longer than I have ever been and I havn't bought a new driver for 3 years and I play with $25 instead of $45 balls. When I first started golfing I remember only being able to hit the ball 150 yards now I can hit the ball over 300 yards. I believe it took me 3 years to be able to hit over 230 yards, 5 years to hit over 250, and 10 years to be able to hit over 270 yards.

I don't care about any of the technical stuff I have read in this thread but if you want to get longer I would suggest watching a 30 second video lesson that Ben Hogan gave years ago. It can be found on Jim McLean's video analysis of Ben Hogan's swing. I don't feel that Jim McLean gave Ben Hogan justice in this video but the 30 second leson recorded of Ben Hogan himself was worth hundreds of dollars to me.

I believe that if Ben Hogan had a secrete that he is demenstrating it over and over in these 30 seconds. At least for me it is the secrete that has made all the difference to my game.

[GoNavy]

Re: Golf Physics 101

At the beginning of this thread you ask: Specifically what swing mechanics can be taught for better accelaration?
And can this easily be taught to anyone? Or do we need some sort of
innate physical talent?

I for one have been playing for 14 years and have gotten better every single year. As well, today at 41 and I'm longer than I have ever been and I havn't bought a new driver for 3 years and I play with $25 instead of $45 balls. When I first started golfing I remember only being able to hit the ball 150 yards now I can hit the ball over 300 yards. I believe it took me 3 years to be able to hit over 230 yards, 5 years to hit over 250, and 10 years to be able to hit over 270 yards.

I don't care about any of the technical stuff I have read in this thread but if you want to get longer I would suggest watching a 30 second video lesson that Ben Hogan gave years ago. It can be found on Jim McLean's video analysis of Ben Hogan's swing. I don't feel that Jim McLean gave Ben Hogan justice in this video but the 30 second leson recorded of Ben Hogan himself was worth hundreds of dollars to me.

I believe that if Ben Hogan had a secrete that he is demenstrating it over and over in these 30 seconds. At least for me it is the secrete that has made all the difference to my game.

One of the biggest reason people hit further after some time playing is simple exercise. Muscles used in the golf swing are seldom if ever used in day to day life. When these golf muscle get stronger you hit further, simple as that, the reason pros hit further then ameuturers, because we don't swing a golf club or hit balls near as much as they do. These guys have been hitting 200 or 300 or more golf balls every single day for years, I don't have that kind of time, don't think most ameuturers do. So your best bet, if you can't play every day is to get you a heavy club and at least swing it few times a night to keep those golf muscle getting stronger. Do slow swings to make sure you are doing it correctly, heavy club swung at full speed can hurt you, don't do it !!!

[edshaw]

Re: Golf Physics 101

I think we can bail this thread out with
additional analysis, not that I am admitted
to having been intimidated by the "hit and
go find" adherents; just not interested in
taking them on.
There is another approach to this matter
of acceleration, an approach that is not
related to physics as it is martial arts. I am
talking about the knack of accelerating through
impact, and, we know that deceleration kills
the shot.
Curiously, this thread has led to a discussion
of the X-factor; maybe all roads lead to Rome.
Let's forget the fancy name and concede that
the X-factor is little more that upper body
torque and that deceleration may be little
more than a shortage of understanding of the
question, "In the swing, what happens following
impact?" and, the answer might take us full circle,
back to Hogan's swing plane.