Wait right up there by the axis........that W looking thing, are those gonads?

Pistol I thought you were joking.

0-For-3
 

Jeff,

First, you compliment my "very good question" . . . [Thank you.]

Then, it's off to Wikipedia and -- :shock: -- all those words.

Finally, comes the realization that you made absolutely no attempt to answer even one of my three questions!

Amazing.

Truly amazing.

Is it any wonder readers often find your posts maddening?

:salut:

Enough already
 

Jeff

In my opinion, Lynn is the truth, especially on HIS OWN WEBSITE!!! You play this game with everyone and I am quite tired of it. When you ask questions for "knowlege" then continuously debate the answers you come off as a complete A___! Enough is enough!

Mandrin no es mi ... amigo
 

Mandrin of la Mancha doesn't live here....

I'm his trusty companion Pancho sanchez who tried his darnedest to keep him from tilting at windmills :) That is until I got expelled from that "academy" for failing to "grovel".

Golfgnome

You wrote-: "In my opinion, Lynn is the truth, especially on HIS OWN WEBSITE!!!"

You are entitled to your opinion. However the end of your statement was presumably capitalised for emphasis and it presumably emphasizes your strong opinion that Lynn's opinions represent the "truth" - because it is his website.

Your capacity for logical thinking is admirable!

Jeff.

Incoming!
 

Way back when, a Wall-Streeter named Benjamin Graham wrote a book, The Intelligent Investor. Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., and now the second richest man in the world, has called it the greatest investment book ever written. In that book, Mr. Graham makes the point that one is right because his facts are right, not because of his opinions.

That's the way I've run this railroad for the past four years and some 7,000 personal posts. My record speaks for itself . . . as does yours.

Get your facts right, Jeff, and you'll have no beef from me.

Otherwise, I suggest getting fitted for a flak jacket.

:salut:

Hey.... I've got that book..
 

Hey I've got that book! (The intelligent Investor) ... Its first addition excellent shape including dust cover. I'll part with it for a cool $1000 any takers? (Look around thats a steal)

Hang in there Jeff... you ain't all wet.

Tube For Two
 

No, Mandrin . . .

But tread carefully . . .

There's room for two in that inner tube!

:salut:

Yoda - you stated-: "Then again, that's why I've created this Golf By Jeff Forum and given you domain. Here you can pick things apart to your heart's content and enjoy relative freedom from my comment. But, it's also why I've put a 'caveat emptor' sign at the front door and stated that your presence here does not imply endorsement of your opinions by LBG."

I have no problem with that "caveat emptor" sign at the front door. That does not insult me. That simply warns people to be very skeptical of my expressed opinions.

Also, when you state-: "Get your facts right, Jeff, and you'll have no beef from me. Otherwise, I suggest getting fitted for a flak jacket."

That doesn't bother me. You, or anybody else, is free to criticise me as much as they want.

However, I resent the following series of statements-: "Yet, you then totally deep-end and restate to your own end basic laws of physics that have been accepted since the time Isaac Newton wrote his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). You put up a lot of good stuff, Jeff, but man, you make it difficult to sit idly by as you reinvent concepts that have served mankind well for centuries. --- To me, that's arrogance."

I am obviously not attempting to reinvent Newtonian laws. I may be misunderstanding them, or misrepresenting them - but I am not arrogantly reinventing them. You know that! Also, if I am so obviously wrong, why didn't you bother to show me my errors by means of an explanatory logical argument?

Going back to the orbiting ball example.

Consider this diagram.



The ball is orbiting on the outer circle at a constant speed. The hand is moving along the inner circle. A taut string connects the hand to the orbiting ball.

At ball position X, the hand is slightly ahead of the ball when it is at position A. That means that the hand is pulling the orbiting ball via the taut string. The source of energy in the system is the hand-in-motion.

If the ball moves to position Y, then two forms of energy are required - i) energy to move the ball at a constant speed; ii) energy to move the ball in a circular direction (represented by the red arrows) and that represents energy to provide centripetal acceleration. Where does the energy come from? There is only one rational answer - it comes from the orbiting hand that moves from position A to position B. The taut string is simply an inert "connection" between the hand and the orbiting ball, and it allows hand motion to provide the energy to the orbiting ball, which then i) moves the orbiting ball at a constant speed and ii) it provides the energy to centripetally accelerate the ball so that it continues to move along a circular path. The string is not the source of any energy, or the source of a centripetal force.

If you disagree with my opinion, and you have the "facts", then please provide a counterargument.

Here is composite photo of Tiger Woods and Jamie Sadlowski.



The yellow dotted line shows the direction Tiger's hands and central clubshaft are pointing at when the club moves in the late downswing to impact. They are in a straight line relationship with a straight line drawn through the clubhead's sweetspot - the red dotted line. That makes biomechanical sense. Look at where Jamie Sadlowski's hands are pointing (yellow dotted line). They are not pointing at the clubhead's sweetspot. How does one explain that fact? Either we are dealing with an additional "force" (or factor) that has caused the clubhead and peripheral end of the clubshaft to be deflected forward (relative to the hand position), or we are dealing with a camera artifact. If you disagree with my opinion, and you know the "facts" then please provide a counterargument.

Jeff.

Pontificating?!?! No he didn't!
 

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/3...Betty%E2%80%A6

I thought it was spelled "pontificating" instead of "pontificatiing". His pedantic speech is exasperating.

Might I suggest another golf website where pontificating and verbal defecation are the modi operandi?

Jeff, based on video I've seen, including the one I posted for you, I really don't believe that this photo is an accurate representation of the shaft's position during this interval, but rather is a "camera artifact". I have a really hard time believing that he could make any kind of consistent contact with a shaft that deflects that much, when he's swinging at 145 to 150 mph. His shaft likely looks more like Tiger's.

Bigwill

I am very sympathetic to your opinion that it is a camera artifact. The degree of shaft deflection appears "too large" to be mechanically possible. The only other explanation that makes sense to me is that he is deliberately choosing a very flexible shaft in order to get additional "kick". I will remain open-minded about this possibility, although I increasingly suspect that your "camera artifact" opinion may be correct.

Jeff.

I have to admit, I was a little disappointed in the camera that they used for that sequence when I picked up that issue. It looks like he's swinging a water hose :)


According to Golf digest, he's hitting a double-x flex that's tipped more than an inch, so it isn't too flexible. Plus you have to remember that at the speeds these guys generate, spin and control are huge issues, and my guess is that a shaft that's flexible enough to look like that would be more harmful than helpful in regards to those.

Bigwill

I wonder if he used a flexible shaft just for the GD camera shoot, in order to accentuate that "visual effect". I don't know - I am just guessing!

Jeff.

With an extra 250 large in his pocket, and club sponsorship deals, I'm sure he can afford to replace it after it snapped :)

Yodas Luke

You wrote-: "Might I suggest another golf website where pontificating and verbal defecation are the modi operandi?"

Yoda has kindly provided me with this forum where I can freely express my opinions (even if they represent in your mind "verbal defecation"). You are not obliged to visit this forum. Yoda has already stated that he has posted a "caveat emptor" sign in front of this forum. What excuse do you have for entering this forum and then complaining about the "quality" of my posts.

By the way, why do you have to have the psychological need to pontificate about an obvious typo error?

Jeff.

"kindly provided"
 

A. Your quote: "Yoda-I have been deciding whether to respond to your last post. Your tone is demeaning and ill-conducive to an ongoing debate. Why can't you simply state your disagreements without pontificatiing, and implying that you are the final arbiter of the "truth"?"

Although I enjoy the depth and nature of many of your posts, I find the above quote offensive. That is, if you are suggesting that Yoda is trying to be pompous or supercilious. In this forum, he is the judge and the jury. Until you start your own website, that’s the law. Enjoy the scenery or find your own pasture.

B. Your quote: “What excuse do you have for entering this forum and then complaining about the "quality" of my posts?”

I have been with Yoda from the beginning. I am a Senior Instructor with this website and I am responsible for some of the content. I need no other excuse.

I’m invoking my right as the “anybody else” in the following quote:
“That doesn't bother me. You, or anybody else, is free to criticise me as much as they want.”

C. Your quote: ”By the way, why do you have to have the psychological need to pontificate about an obvious typo error?”

I have an unfair pet peeve about people using big words and not spelling them correctly. I never “criticise” anyone, but I often criticize. At least I haven’t caught you using “your” as a contraction.

D. I would like to sincerely apologize to you if you assumed that the part of my quote, “verbal defecation”, was directed at your posts. When I thought of a place where the true Pontiff of the Universe reigned supreme, the “verbal defecation” also came to mind. In no way did I mean for that to be a reference to you or your posts. That part was solely directed at the other website. I hope you’ll trust in my stated intent.

Unfinished Business
 

Jeff,

The facts in my posts #154 and #157 presented my argument (without, BTW, wearing out my readers). I'm done on this one. Per my advance notice above, I have entered the "enjoy relative freedom from my comment" phase. Enjoy!

:happy3:

Meanwhile, for old times sake, there are at least two pieces of unfinished business on the table that I would appreciate your cleaning up:

From my post #129:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 59127) Jeff, BTW, you state that you see in my photos a "phenomenon that [you] have seen many times previously. Before release, the clubshaft is bent backwards and after release the clubshaft is bent forward." Question: How do you explain "The Snake" (Photo #4 in my post #127 above), where "after release", the Shaft simultaneously is bent both backwards and forwards? :scratch: Please include the photo in your reply, and for the visually-challenged among us, please trace the Shaft with a yellow line. Thanks!

And from my post #150:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 59174) Jeff, Assume a tethered ball in orbit around an axis. Does the tether (and its tension) serve as the centripetal force of that action? If not, what does? If so, how does that differ from the concept of the clubhead tethered to its center (left shoulder) by the left arm and clubshaft? :)

Thank you for your attention.

:salut:

Yodas Luke

You wrote with respect to Yoda-: "he is the judge and the jury."

That is correct. However, my affection for Yoda, and my presence on this website, is predicated on the belief that Yoda will be a wise and fair judge and that he will not be prejudiced to such a degree that he would censor a forum member's sincere opinions. As long as Yoda adheres to that high standard, I have no reason to seek another golf website, like the one run by the "Italian Stallion" who will not tolerate anyone questioning his "high priest" wisdom.

You also stated that as a Senior Instructor, you have the responsibility for this site's contents and that you also have the right to criticise my posts. That is correct. I have forthrightly stated that I eagerly seek insightful criticism that will strenuously test the legitimacy of my opinions regarding the golf swing. The only way that I can know whether my ideas are solid is to test them for their falsifiability factor in an open forum. If my ideas can be easily falsified, then I obviously need to modify them to make them more "true".

My only objection to criticism is when it is targeted at me in an ad hominem way, and where the tone of the posts is very demeaning/belittling. I may be stupid and often wrong, but I am sincerely trying to seek the "truth". I may appear arrogant and bombastic when I argue passionately for the "truth" of my personal opinions, but I do not indulge in ad hominem attacks. If you look at the contents of my posts, they are very targeted at arguing about the issues - even if you think that my arguments are wrong-headed. If forum members thinks that my arguments are illogical, they simply have to provide a counterargument that demonstrates my lack of insight. They don't have to add supplementary belittling remarks.

I did presume that you regarded my posts as verbal defecation, which is the chief reason why I became sufficiently invoked to respond to your posts. I accept your "corrective" explanation, and I am willing to move on without harboring any grudges. I don't know you personally, and I have every reason to believe that you are a very nice person, who I would very much like to meet someday.

Jeff.

Yoda - I cannot address your first question re: post #123 because I cannot locate that post. Post #123 was not your post.

I will offer my opinion regarding your second question.

You asked-: "Assume a tethered ball in orbit around an axis. Does the tether (and its tension) serve as the centripetal force of that action? If not, what does? If so, how does that differ from the concept of the clubhead tethered to its center (left shoulder) by the left arm and clubshaft?"

I do not think that the tether (and its tension) of the tethered ball in orbit represents as the centripetal force. I think the centripetal force is derived from the movement of the hand in a circular manner (when the hand moves from position A to position B in the following diagram), and the taut string only transmits the centripetal force to the orbiting ball. The string is continuously taut with no variation in its degree of tension - and therefore it is not a source of the centripetal force. It is only the conduit whereby the centripetal force (the force that keeps the orbiting ball traveling in a circle) is transmitted from the hand to the ball.



By analogy, the left arm/clubshaft combo does not create any centripetal force. It only serves as conduit whereby a centripetal force is transmitted to the clubhead. The source of the centripetal force is the movement of the left hand in a circular arc. The left hand moves in a circular arc secondary to a combination of two motions - the arc-like movement of the left shoulder socket in space, and the arc-like movement of the left arm which is suspended from the left shoulder socket, which acts as its fulcrum point.

Jeff.

"helping" is in the mission statement
 

And, based on your posts, I would love to meet you. I'm sure we could talk for hours about all of these subjects. We do it at all of our schools, as I'm sure anyone that's been to one can attest to sleep deprivation.

One of the things that I appreciate most about Lynn is that I could tell that he was a seeker of the truth. It's a quality that I have found in very few of the "top" teachers. Most have arrived at a personal opinion and will not openly discuss alternate points of view.

If anyone in the world wants to help people learn, it's Lynn, and I consider him a father figure. So, any negative comment directed at him makes me want to droop somebody's lip or dot their eye. &B

I'm sure you understand.

Yodas Luke

You wrote-: "One of the things that I appreciate most about Lynn is that I could tell that he was a seeker of the truth. It's a quality that I have found in very few of the "top" teachers. Most have arrived at a personal opinion and will not openly discuss alternate points of view."

We agree. That's also what I like about Yoda. He is a "seeker of the truth", and he will openly discuss alternate points of view. Giving me a personal forum on his personal website is an overt manifestation of that enlightened attitude.

I also can easily understand why you want to protect your "father figure".

I just want your "father figure" to lay off a little and not give me such a hard time. Attack my arguments, but do not belittle my serious intentions as another (imperfect) person who is also a "seeker of the truth".

Jeff.

Snake Hunt
 

My mistake, Jeff. It should have read #129. To prevent confusion for future readers of this thread, I have corrected the error. Also, I've corrected #129 to read that the photo referenced was Photo #4 from Post #127, the very obvious sequence just a few inches down on the same page as #123 (and the only photos of me in this thread).

So, with this correct identifying information, please proceed with your answer.

Thank you.

One Last Time . . .
 

Jeff,

As you know (and I know you do because you have so written elsewhere in this thread), centripetal force operates inward and not outward. In this instance, that means inward from the ball to the hand and not -- as you inexplicably state -- outward from the hand to the ball. This is why I earlier said (post #160) that you first acknowledge Newton's laws and then proceed to distort them to your own ends. In your post #169, you said that you "resent" that assessment, but your quote above is indisputable evidence of its truth.

For the rest of us, the object acting on the ball to cause this phenomenon is the string. Hence, the string supplies the centripetal force and not the hand. From my post #154:

We are concerned here with a mass orbiting about an axis of rotation and exhibiting both a centripetal force (a force 'seeking the center' and whose origin we are now debating) and a centrifugal force (a force 'fleeing the center' and that is reactive to the centripetal force). An orbiting mass constantly accelerates towards its axis of rotation. This centripetal acceleration demands an equal and opposite force that opposes the centripetal force and creates an outward centrifugal reaction directed away from the axis.

In your model, the ball is the orbiting mass and the hand is the axis of rotation. The hand is not the centripetal force (as you incorrectly state). It is, after all, the axis! Instead, the centripetal force (acceleration) is exerted on the ball by another object (in your model, the string). Then, the centrifugal reaction is exerted by the ball on the object that originated the centripetal acceleration (the string).

Until you accept the above, you contradict conventional scientific wisdom that has been in place for more than three centuries. Hence, there is no use in further exploring these ideas as they relate to the Golf Stroke.

Yoda

I will offer you a reply, that represents my "best" understanding of the shaft bend phenomena.

I am going to presume that the shaft bend is "real" and not a camera artifact.

Let me start with the orbiting ball.



I have modified this diagram by adding dotted yellow/red lines. The red dotted line is in a perfect straight line relationship with the yellow dotted line - which means that there is an instantaneous relationship between cause-and-effect. If the hand (cause) moves in a circular arc, then the orbiting ball (effect) will respond instantaneously and also move in a circular arc (due to centripetal forces). There is no delay in this system when the string is continuously taut, and the system is in a state of balanced motion.

Now consider the golf swing.

I have placed yellow dotted lines and red dotted lines (as previously placed on other images) on your photos.



Starting with image 1

The clubhead sweetspot line (red dotted line) is lagging behind the hand pull line (yellow dotted line). I believe that this is due to clubhead inertia, and this phenomenon is only possible with a flexible shaft.

Image 2

The clubhead sweetspot line is ahead of the hand pull line. I believe that this is due to the fact that the hands are going through the tight radius turn of the small pulley of the endless belt - the time point where the club releases very fast. The fast releasing clubhead manages to get slightly ahead of the hand pull point - only because the shaft is flexible.

Image 3

I believe that the shaft has a double bend. The first bend (seen at the top of the shaft) is due to the same phenomenon as seen in image 2 where the central part of the shaft gets bent forward because the clubhead's speed is fractionally faster than the hand pull - during the pre-impact phase of the downswing. Then impact occurs, which slows the clubhead down. That causes the clubhead to get pushed back secondary to the collision - and that causes the peripheral end of the clubshaft to bend backwards while the central part of the clubshaft is still bent forwards. This snake-like bend phenomenon is only possible because the clubshaft is flexible.

Jeff.

The Defense Rests
 

Jeff,

I do not agree with either your observations or conclusions in your post #185 immediately above. However, I do appreciate your thoughtful reply and its visuals (even though your photo lines as identified are drawn incorrectly and thus misrepresent the invisible reality of Centrifugal Pull).

:salut:

Yoda - in response to post #184.

My comment about a centripetal force moving outwards along the string was plain stupidity!!!

I believe that there is no centripetal force moving in either direction along the string. I believe that centripetal force is better defined as a force that causes an orbiting object to travel in a circular path rather than a straight line path.

Consider my orbiting ball example again.



Consider the orbiting ball at position X. If the hand (positioned at point A) abruptly stopped moving, then the hand would no longer pull on the string. What would happen to the ball in the absence of a pull force. It would veer off in a straight line direction at an tangent to the circumference of the circle (orbiting path). Now what would happen if the hand continued to move at its constant rate of speed from position A to position B. It would continue to exert a constant pull on the orbiting ball via the continuously taut string. The direction of the pull (transmitted via the taut string) is circular - from position X to position Y. The string is not directly pulling the orbiting ball to the center of the circle. That central pull to the center (a centripetal pull) is only a mental concept. One can see the orbiting ball being pulled from position X to position Y and we can mentally/conceptually divide the forces pulling the ball into two components - a force that pulls the ball forward in a straight line direction, and a force that causes centripetal acceleration (causes the ball to move along a circular path rather than a straight line path).

Note that the string is angled relative to the circumference of the orbiting ball's circle of rotation - where the axis of rotation is in the dead center of the circle.

You wrote-: " In your model, the ball is the orbiting mass and the hand is the axis of rotation. The hand is not the centripetal force (as you incorrectly state). It is, after all, the axis!"

Wrong! The axis of rotation is the dead center of the circle - both the hand's circle of rotation and the orbiting ball's circle of rotation. The hand is in orbit around the axis of rotation (dead center of the circle) like the ball - the only difference being that the radius of the hand's orbit is much smaller than the radius of the ball's orbit. As the hand moves in a circular fashion, it inherently is exhibiting a centripetal force that keeps it moving in a circular manner. The ball is moving at exactly the same rpm speed as the hand (due to it being pulled by a continuously taut string). In that sense, the hand's centripetal acceleration is transmitted to the ball by the taut string (which is inert) and the ball therefore also centripetally accelerates. In other words, if the hand centripetally accelerates (by the act of rotating in a circular manner), then the ball has to centripetally accelerate - because the connecting string is continuously taut and the taut straight string passively transmits the pull force from the hand to the ball.

Jeff.

Jeff,

I know that you have this little area for your own stuff, a good idea - but I would advise you to look at some of this stuff about artifact on video camera footage:-

http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/

It may or may not be relevant to the above debate...but it must be worth you looking into in your usual thorough way ...it may save you some brain cells in the long run.... trying to use physics to explain an artifact is fairly fruitless...so I would want to make sure that image is real or artifact first.

Hope this helps.

End Game
 

No, Jeff, you just made a mistake. We all make mistakes. It's the way we learn.

More yet to learn. :study:

Gettin' there now.

Thanks, Jeff, but no thanks. I'll leave that privilege for others.

&B

GBD

Thanks.

Wonderful post!

I always suspected this "camera artifact" problem. I need to learn much more about this problem with rolling shutters that causes skewing of lines.

Jeff.

No worries, Jeff. You fight your corner hard :salut: - but maybe I do sometimes wonder whether you ever say to yourself "do I need to be in this corner in the first place?" - :laughing9 . Still good quality if your are springbok!

Perhaps you could do thread (within the confines of your zone - not sure if the protected zone is to protect "you" from "us" or vica versa! :laughing9 - joke!)on camera artifact in golf :

1)Rolling shutters and skew
2)Any camera and parallax error
etc..maybe a few more ...maybe the represenation of the "target line" on DTL shots (use line on ground or vertical shaft in ground with camera behind it...there must be a number of varaitions) - certainly gets confusing for players who use closed footline and open / square shoulders.... where are they aiming! Then you add in a "plane line" with inherent parallax problems...it is a wonder that video is ever helpful !!:laughing9

How do the ultrafast cameras like the new Casios, EX-1 or 20 or whatever they are, which give 400-1000FPS do it?? Would love to know if you can find out. Putting those cameras and FPS in the right price bracket should lead to the clubface getting an accurate representation in the next few years of golf instruction. Bizhub for the masses:golf:

Endgame extends into overtime!
 

Yoda - seeing that you are at the end of the game, and my overactive mind has forced me into an overtime time period, I will address this post to other forum members who may be following this debate (game).

I have thought of another example.

Imagine five ice skaters skating on an ice rink while holding hands. Imagine that they travel at the same rate of speed in a straight line direction, so that they are all in a perfectly straight line. Imagine that they all stop exerting any active force to propel themselves forward, and that they are all coasting at the same speed.

Now imagine that that the ice skater at the one end of the line (which I will call the central end of the line) abruptly brakes to a sudden stop and then spins in a circle around the axis of his stationary feet. His extended arm will then spin around his axis of rotation and create a circle of rotation of a finite radius. His extended arm will exert a pull force on the second ice skater that will cause the second ice skater to passively rotate in a circle at roughly the same rpm as the first skater. This transmitted pull-force phenomenon will occur down the line of skaters. The fifth skater (last in line) will travel fastest and also transcribe a circle on the ice and that circle will have the greatest radius. If the fifth skater is traveling in a circle due to passive pulling forces, then there must be a centripetal force in play - even though the pulling force is essentially circular in nature. Not only is there a centripetal force in play, but the fundamental source of that centripetal force is the fact that the first skater's extended arm is traveling in a circular manner around the axis of rotation (the first skater's feet).

Jeff.

GBD

The "protective zone" is designed to protect you guys from my thinking (or lack of thought).

I may take your advice. I definitely plan to learn more about camera artifacts, and if I learn something useful, I will communicate my acquired "learning" in a new thread.

Jeff.

court tv
 

Court reporter:

"Ok, so the prosecution it would appear is in deliberation now. Its been nearly an hour now. We can only suspect that they are frantically researching this last evidence presented by Golfbulldog that suggests the artifact is not to blame , that the shaft is a snake, based on the type of shutter used in both pieces of photographic evidence".

"Im going to ask an interested spectator here and forum member a question"

"Mr O.B. Left whats your take on what your seen unfold here today"

Mr left:

"I frankly dont know what this is all has to do with the pivot center but it sure has been interesting, Mr Lance is no doubt seeing a rise in ratings and viewership is on the whole way up, crazy stuff"

Court reporter
"We've seen some people leave the courtroom though"

Mr Left:

"Yes , true some people who were at the front of the court made their way slowly to the back and then sort of slipped out the door. Some are merely watching the clock like a student praying for the class to end so they can bolt"

Court reporter:
"but on the whole viewership it would appear is up"

Mr left:

"yes for sure but we'll have to see whether this is a bubble or not remember this is still in its infancy this whole format and certainly some left when the defense and Yoda rested. They're minds are made up I guess.

Court reporter:
"there are suggestions that the whole thing would be better off in the LaB"

Mr.Left
" I wonder if Plato had to deal with these sorts of irritating "show me" kinds of seekers. What are we in Missouri or something"

Court reporter

" Or misery maybe" I will say this however Jeff, is a game combatant and has never to my knowledge attacked anyone in a personal manner"

Mr Left

"Yes I like the guy. Very intelligent and probably has a formal education in the sciences of some sort. Not sure what his motivation is but.. He can just abandon something and then on the other hand.......... if this was a chess game youd have to question the manner in which he defended his shaft flex thing with a restating of Newtonian Law, sort of like defending a trapped pawn with your kind and queen". Im a Yodian , personally.. Who knows where this will end and what it will eventually imply to my golf swing" Im excited! As for me, my interests are only practical. I just want to compress my balls a little better.

Court Reporter
"Yes and weve lost Mike O. He was always compressing your balls."

Mr left
"no comment". "Lets just say that we all miss Mike".

Court Reporter
"For the record then. What type of shutter does your camera have"

Mr Left:
"I dont wish to comment but my lawyer will be issuing a statement shortly about the nature of my cameras CMOS shutter and the Vipers mechanical shutter."

Court reporter
"Thank you MR Left we'll wait for that and for the next exciting move from Jeff."


And 3,2,1...............

Anyone? Anyone?
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s-oG...eature=related

:eyes:

Ive seen this picture before and to be quite honest, it would be hard to play golf with that second picture. Lag is great don't get me wrong. But can he sustain the line there? I would rather hit the face in the same spot.

( Notice his hips at the topend )

If you took his DTL line view I would think his shaft gets way way under the hand plane baseline too soon, via looking at were his right arm is to his body. Garcia and Hogan ( Lynn Ill use you as well if you dont mind) dont do that , they don't have much baseline disruptions which is why they are who they are.

Jeff, you crack me up!

Merry Christmas :salut:

Image 1: This "whip lag" is quite normal.

A lot of good players have a "two burst" swing, where the shaft is seriously bent in this part of the swing, and where something similar happens around impact. It's related to lag pressure.

The combination of lag pressure excerted by right hand - and rope handling pull from the left arm - will put a significant amoung of Newtonian moment to the grip end of the club. (Force x length). And the work from this moment stresses and bends the shaft. And increase the clubhead sped as well. AND ENERGY IS STORED.

Image 2:

While it is biomechanical possible to maintain the clubhead speed through impact it is impossible to maintain the brute force moment from image 1 all the way through. And when the moment decreases , the shaft starts to release. And since the club is a highly resonant system with moderate inner damping, the club will now whip forward - as it does here. This is not an ideal occurence since it means that stored energy is released long before impact. It is kind of similar to the dreaded throwaway. But given how we are built it is perhaps unavoidable in a swing that starts hard and fast down.


Image 3:

Strange things may happen to the shaft at impact. But it seems to me like this player has a two-burst swing. That he was reloading the shaft. Or at least was trying to. But the forward bend of the bottom half of the shaft will work against his effort of adding an extra ooomph at impact.

All this shaft bending and releasing business is about stored energy. If the shaft doesn't fit the swing, chances are that the energy stored in the shaft is released at the wrong moment. Further, the s- shape of the shaft just before impact here suggests there's no chance that all the stored energy will be used to send the ball far away. The shaft seems to be loaded and unloaded at the same time at impact.

I believe this is the kind of image that proves that the shaft manufacturers still have an interesting challenge in securing a proper and controlled sequence of energy storage and release through the swing.

Other people have a "one burst" swing, where the moment applied at the club shaft increases gradually through impact. But we aren't able to load the shaft as much at impact and therefore the biggest shaft bends are usually seen in strokes like image 1-3 with a big wrist cock and aggressive down swing.

And then some people are using an almost pure rope handling technique throughout without any of these shaft loading bursts. In addition to the extensive shaft loading we see above, the rope is pulling the center of gravity. And since this isn't on the shaft axis it will cause shaft bend as well. In which case the mechanical properties of the shaft will have less influence on distance, but perhaps on direction.

The stiffness of the shaft has a profound influence of the timing of the shaft rebound. A stiff shaft will release faster than a whippy shaft, and every player that applies some moment to the shaft (lag pressure) at impact would want a shaft that releases in juust the right moment.

Centripetal force only stores energy
 

I am not sure whether I understand everything that has been said about centripetal force & accelleration in this thread.

But there is one thing I know: Centripetal force doesn't produce swing speed. It only keeps it. It's an excellent energy storage device that enables us to keep what we have already put in there while we add some more....

But even a rope handling technique is more than centripetal force. We are not pulling our rope from the swing centre. We are pulling from a point that is forward of the swing centre (from left shoulder or left hand, depending on which part of the swing we look at).

The total force applied to the club at any point prior to impact can be decomposed in a radial (centripetal) component and a tangential component. And the little tangential force component has the same direction as the ball at - at least in an uncompensated swing. And that's the part that increases swing speed and adds energy to the swing.

PS:
I tried to post an illustration, but wasn't successful. Hope the text is clear without it.

CPwindow

I don't see how you can definitively conclude that his his clubshaft will get under the handplane in the later downswing. I can agree that he may have a problem with his pelvis outracing his upper torso and arms and that he may not be able to easily square the clubface, which will result in pushed shots.

I do not know the golfer personally. He merely wrote and stated that he tended to loss his lag on certain swings and he thought that it mainly occurred when he reverse pivoted.

I agree that having a large amount of lag (like him) is not necessarily advantageous if he cannot complete his swing on-plane in a perfectly synchronised manner.

Jeff.