The question was based on all things being equal. The ball is on the clubface for 1/2 a millisecond. Therefore compression has to be equal. VH allows one to add loft versus HH. So for less compression the face would have to be layed back more at impact (therefore it is no longer equal).
Hey mb
But that wouldnt be "all things equal" exactly as you'd have to speed up Vertical's hands to get the clubspeed up to Horizontal's. The two arent "all things equal" assuming any #3 angle for the golfer standing on the tee.
The thing I dont get about the 1/2 millisecond logic is that its plenty of time for the ball get squished and rebound so why not roll on the face .......to varying amounts depending on layback or closing.
But that wouldnt be "all things equal" exactly as you'd have to speed up Vertical's hands to get the clubspeed up to Horizontal's. The two arent "all things equal" assuming any #3 angle for the golfer standing on the tee.
The thing I dont get about the 1/2 millisecond logic is that its plenty of time for the ball get squished and rebound so why not roll on the face .......to varying amounts depending on layback or closing.
o.b.
"If two players wind up at impact separation with the clubhead, face and shaft in the exact same alignments all at the same speed and hitting the ball in the same spot on the face with every other alignment matching with the only difference being that one player arrived there after a Horizontal Hinge action and other player arrived there after a Vertical Hinge Action."
Exact same alignments, same spot on club face , same speed, etc.
The ball would have the exact same compression - how could it not?? That being said it is easier to add loft using a vertial hinge but that is not relevant to the question at presented.
"If two players wind up at impact separation with the clubhead, face and shaft in the exact same alignments all at the same speed and hitting the ball in the same spot on the face with every other alignment matching with the only difference being that one player arrived there after a Horizontal Hinge action and other player arrived there after a Vertical Hinge Action."
Exact same alignments, same spot on club face , same speed, etc.
The ball would have the exact same compression - how could it not?? That being said it is easier to add loft using a vertial hinge but that is not relevant to the question at presented.
Hey mb.
I know that the question as posted is not the one you really want answered. Change the question if you want.......
To spell it out.........how can "the clubhead, face and shaft ....all at the same speed" happen given any # 3 angle? It cant. The butt end and the head are not traveling at the same speed for HH vs Angled vs VH. .......Its impossible.
So his question must change. Which makes things more apples vs oranges ......to my mind.
Sorta like two cars doing 60 mph....one a vw beatle in fourth gear the other a porsche.....ya they're both assumed to be going 60 but does that mean they are equally powerful in a general sense? Of course not. Does this make the Porsche's power advantage "irrelevant" .......no , of course not. HH is the Porsche in this example which relates to velocity only. Id suggest that there are other considerations to compression for HH vs VH beyond this point.
So, is the official answer that my hypothetical is an impossibility?
Even with a pitch?
or a chip?
Could I build an iron byron type machine to create it?
or is it against all the laws of physics that no combination of work or intelligence could make it happen?
JG
You could build an iron byron to recreate Hinge Action Id imagine ........but it would have to have some #3 Accumulator Angle....... the grip in the left hand under the heal of the thumb pad instead of running up through the life line. ( like one does when putting ..........and why do we do that when we're putting? Because it deadens the send applied to the ball......by zeroing out the clubhead travel associated with any rolling of the left wrist. Giving every Hinge Action the clubhead travel of Angled Hinging .......which is zero) Its interesting to me that golfers commonly adopt this putting grip , sometimes even when chipping without any knowledge of why .......but the physics of it is there for the ball to react to.
If you want more info on #3 angle check out Ted Forts golf channel video......there's a part where he talks about "distal" acceleration as I recall. Imagine doing that with a putting grip and notice how there wouldnt be any added clubhead acceleration for left forearm roll.
You could build an iron byron to recreate Hinge Action Id imagine ........but it would have to have some #3 Accumulator Angle....... the grip in the left hand under the heal of the thumb pad instead of running up through the life line. ( like one does when putting ..........and why do we do that when we're putting? Because it deadens the send applied to the ball......by zeroing out the clubhead travel associated with any rolling of the left wrist. Giving every Hinge Action the clubhead travel of Angled Hinging .......which is zero) Its interesting to me that golfers commonly adopt this putting grip , sometimes even when chipping without any knowledge of why .......but the physics of it is there for the ball to react to.
If you want more info on #3 angle check out Ted Forts golf channel video......there's a part where he talks about "distal" acceleration as I recall. Imagine doing that with a putting grip and notice how it would accelerate the clubhead at all.
OB.
Interesting point.
If I remember correctly, the more #3 accumulator the more head travel for any forearm rotation. Am I saying that right?
So, for horizontal hinging which employs more #3 the club head is accelerating more then with vertical hinging?
Am I correct so far?
Would that mean that if I can accelerate the club more over a shorter time frame that I get more umf than going at a constant speed?
I hope I haven't just confused myself. Is this what you meant with your car analogy?
Hybrid Mode
