Jump to content
ShawnSum

Bryson DeChambeau - Bulking, Testing, Winning?

355 posts / 22361 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MiuraMan said:

Also a higher spin rate generally results in more accuracy; unless of course it results in more side spin.

I have never heard of this. Do you have something to back up the "more spin=more accurate" claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

51 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

I have never heard of this. Do you have something to back up the "more spin=more accurate" claim?

Is it easier to curve a driver or a wedge? It's not necessarily more accurate, but greater spin rate closer to vertical will be straighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, colin007 said:

Is it easier to curve a driver or a wedge? It's not necessarily more accurate, but greater spin rate closer to vertical will be straighter

It's equally as easy to curve either. The difference with the driver is that the ball goes a whole lot farther. If you could hit your wedge 300 yards with 10k spin, a couple of degrees off straight axis would put you a football field to the side. Let's compare apples to apples.

We have 2 players. Player A is an older gent who plays a hybrid bag with high launch and less spin. Player B is a strapping young lad who plays irons with a lower launch and higher spin. For comparison, they both have the same delivery, an in to out swing of 5 degrees and a square to target face. Both of their balls will start at the target and then draw. If player A generates 4500 rpm and player B generates 6500+ rpm, which will finish more off target at the same distance?

 

Edited by Bonvivant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, Bonvivant said:

It's equally as easy to curve either. The difference with the driver is that the ball goes a whole lot farther. If you could hit your wedge 300 yards with 10k spin, a couple of degrees off straight axis would put you a football field to the side. Let's compare apples to apples.

We have 2 players. Player A is an older gent who plays a hybrid bag with high launch and less spin. Player B is a strapping young lad who plays irons with a lower launch and higher spin. For comparison, they both have the same delivery, an in to out swing of 5 degrees and a square to target face. Both of their balls will start at the target and then draw. If player A generates 4500 rpm and player B generates 6500+ rpm, which will finish more off target at the same distance?

 

It's the angle of the spin axis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No.

 

Thanks for the video. Good info, but i have a question. Would 33 degree (driver) vs 11 degree (8 iron) be the same flight path (laterally not vertically) if the spin rate of the driver was one third of the 8 iron? That's kind of how i was thinking about it. Obviously if this was true, the driver would still curve more, but only because of flight time/distance. I can't imagine a 33 degree axis going too much more off line if the spin rate is significantly lower, despite the increased angle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

Thanks for the video. Good info, but i have a question. Would 33 degree (driver) vs 11 degree (8 iron) be the same flight path (laterally not vertically) if the spin rate of the driver was one third of the 8 iron? That's kind of how i was thinking about it. Obviously if this was true, the driver would still curve more, but only because of flight time/distance. I can't imagine a 33 degree axis going too much more off line if the spin rate is significantly lower, despite the increased angle. 

It curves significantly more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

It curves significantly more.

I would like to know why/how when you factor the spin-rates in for the given clubs. Sure an 8 iron with 5 degree off path might only go 10 yards off start line, but it also only goes 120-170 yards, compared to a driver at 200-300 yards. I think that if you stretched that line out to driver distance it would be a similar scenario. Sure, you maybe only be able to get 10-15 yards offline with 5 degrees and 6500 spin (arbitrary), but over the total distance of a drive, I think that the higher spin rate creates more curve.

The initial claim was that more spin creates a straighter or more accurate shot. If I spin my driver 3500 with 5 degrees off line, and you spin yours 2000 with 5 degrees offline, which will curve more? I think that is an easy answer. More spin does not equal less curve.

Edit*

I guess what I am not getting is the difference if you amp up the spin in a percentage equal to axis tilt, how does it not curve the same amount. I guess the answer probably lies in magnus effect not being as strong as general inertia, but it should be kind of close, no? 

Edited by Bonvivant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

11 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

I would like to know why/how when you factor the spin-rates in for the given clubs. Sure an 8 iron with 5 degree off path might only go 10 yards off start line, but it also only goes 120-170 yards, compared to a driver at 200-300 yards. I think that if you stretched that line out to driver distance it would be a similar scenario. Sure, you maybe only be able to get 10-15 yards offline with 5 degrees and 6500 spin (arbitrary), but over the total distance of a drive, I think that the higher spin rate creates more curve.

The initial claim was that more spin creates a straighter or more accurate shot. If I spin my driver 3500 with 5 degrees off line, and you spin yours 2000 with 5 degrees offline, which will curve more? I think that is an easy answer. More spin does not equal less curve.

Edit*

I guess what I am not getting is the difference if you amp up the spin in a percentage equal to axis tilt, how does it not curve the same amount. I guess the answer probably lies in magnus effect not being as strong as general inertia, but it should be kind of close, no? 

I require a good amount of caffeine before trying to make sense of this. :-$ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

23 minutes ago, RFKFREAK said:

I require a good amount of caffeine before trying to make sense of this. :-$ 

Short story is, I want to know if 1K rpm at 30 degree tilt would generate the same amount of curve as 3K rpm at 10 degree tilt, or at least be close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

50 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

Short story is, I want to know if 1K rpm at 30 degree tilt would generate the same amount of curve as 3K rpm at 10 degree tilt, or at least be close.

If @boogielicious posts a graph I’m out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm going to be brief because this is off topic.

20 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

I would like to know why/how when you factor the spin-rates in for the given clubs. Sure an 8 iron with 5 degree off path might only go 10 yards off start line, but it also only goes 120-170 yards, compared to a driver at 200-300 yards.

There's more to it than that.

If the path and the face are 5° off, the spin axis will be significantly less dramatic with an 8I than a driver.

20 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

I think that if you stretched that line out to driver distance it would be a similar scenario.

It would not be.

The 8I is hit on a much higher launch angle with much less ball speed (forward ball speed), so that plays a big role in how the ball behaves. Even if you could match up the spin lofts, the ball will still curve less. (It would also see the spin rates drop more, too, because the ball would be in the air much longer, so spin rate decay would be much higher.)

20 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

The initial claim was that more spin creates a straighter or more accurate shot. If I spin my driver 3500 with 5 degrees off line, and you spin yours 2000 with 5 degrees offline, which will curve more? I think that is an easy answer. More spin does not equal less curve.

It does and it doesn't.

It does:

image.png

It doesn't:

image.png

What you're not considering is that most people, to deliver "more spin," do so by increasing the spin loft, which reduces the amount of axis tilt (as my video explains).

The initial claim is more accurate than it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 9/22/2020 at 10:37 AM, RFKFREAK said:

This was on his IG:

Between-2018-and-2020-Bryson-DeChambeau-

He also said on his IG that he was 195 in the beginning of 2018, same as the graphic above.  

The article below from June of this year says, "Since we last saw him March, Bryson DeChambeau hit the gym and gained about 20 pounds," and goes on to say, "DeChambeau, who said he now weighs around 240 pounds (up more than 40 pounds from last September)," so if the article is accurate (and it can be called into question because I did see in Bryson's IG page he said he was at 220 in Oct. 2019) we can safely conclude that he looked about as he did in that comparison pic in September 2019.

GCLogo.png

Bryson DeChambeau's weight gain comes from a continuation of the intense workout regimen he...

If we believe the article, then in the 6 month period from September 2019 to March 2020, Bryson put on 20 pounds and in the 3 month period from March 2020 to when this article was published in June 2020, he put on an additional 20 pounds.  I'm saying that if he did it naturally, the max he'd gain for the 6 month period would be about 6-8 pounds and the followup 3 month period another 3-4 pounds and even that's unlikely given that I'm sure he's been working out since he's been a kid.  But, let's say that he didn't and he's a genetic freak and put it on 12 pounds of muscle in 9 months.  That means he put on 28 pounds of fat.  Looking at his frame, he's def put on a bunch of fat but for him to improve on the numbers he had like he has, I call into question some of either his statements or whether he took any substances to help him in gaining his size because I don't see a 2.5:1 gain of fat to lean mass. 

We’ve talked this point to death. He didn’t put on 40lbs of lean muscle mass. His size gains are normal for someone whose daily caloric intake and workout routine has significantly increased over the course of a year or possibly longer.

On 9/22/2020 at 3:18 PM, ChetlovesMer said:

Having never used steroids myself. (I know, shocking right.) I'm not sure, does "Roid-Rage" cause you to berate unsuspecting cameramen who are just trying to do their job? (That's a joke, not an accusation.)

He’s always seemed like an entitled tool to me, even before the transformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, billchao said:

We’ve talked this point to death. He didn’t put on 40lbs of lean muscle mass. His size gains are normal for someone whose daily caloric intake and workout routine has significantly increased over the course of a year or possibly longer.

He’s always seemed like an entitled tool to me, even before the transformation.

My post didn't say he put on 40 pounds of lean muscle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

14 minutes ago, RFKFREAK said:

My post didn't say he put on 40 pounds of lean muscle.  

No, but you seemed in disbelief that he could put on 40 lbs naturally. He bulked. TV exaggerates it a little bit. Looks pretty standard to me. I’ve seen lots of powerlifters do it.

I’ve also met a couple of bodybuilders over the years that used substances. Different look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I could put on 40 pounds of straight flab in six months if I tried hard enough.

I am 99% sure I gained 30 lbs of flab in that sort of timeframe. I got down to 198 lbs and went back up to 230-ish because I got tired of eating 1500 calories a day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Affiliates

    SuperSpeed
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo
  • Posts

    • Have her visit Merchant's Square near Willam and Mary. 
    • I do not know why that clip has been edited so, but my favorite part was when he wanders into the wrong door first - abuse.   One of their best, and entirely apropos. Please film that for me.   I'm quite curious about what is the down side is of simply allowing the guys to dominate the courses so that scores dip lower and lower.
    • Here in the Detroit area we are fortunate to have a good number of Ross courses, including a couple City Of Detroit Muni tracks.All the rest I am aware of are private clubs, but I have been fortunate enough to play most of them back in the 80's and 90's. Unfortunately one, Chandler Park was irreparably harmed when they built I-94 back in the 50's. But one Detroit Muni that isn't even in the City itself is still intact, Rogell Golf Course, next to the Detroit Zoo in Royal Oak is a fairly unmolested Ross course. Given the entire areas lack of natural elevation changes, without excessive use of bulldozers, Ross displays his mastery of deception with false fronts etc. Country Club of Detroit (private and actually in Grosse Pointe) is a real gem,and a prime example of Ross' genius on flat landscape..
    • I have just reentered the game  in Sept. after a 22 yr hiatus. I have found the clubs I am going to stick with for a while whilst I figure out how well I will end up striking the ball. Today I played two balls off every tee, then hit two from the one I picked, etc. Still shot an 84 on a little 6300 yard track because I have only played 1 previous round with these irons, and (Mainly) my touch and feel around the greens, and especially putting need a lot of work. Mid round I changed the setting on my Taylormade SLDR driver to dead neutral (no, I didn't take a penalty for that). My worst issue with reentering the game as an old wound ball player seems to be finding a ball I like. Well, today under a leaf  I found a Bridgestone B XS with with a lot of what I have been missing with the balls they seem to make today. It was fairly easy to work, but more importantly, it had a nice, active and predictive response to spin imparted with the money clubs on shots under a full swing. I'm going to have to investigate the Bridgestone line further. The Titleist Pro V my coworkers play and got me to try was alright, I could jerk the string on full shots, but for me, it wasn't it for finesse spin on less than full shots.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. anhthinhspkt
      anhthinhspkt
      (25 years old)
    2. DARTSO
      DARTSO
      (40 years old)
    3. davem1955
      davem1955
      (65 years old)
    4. matteson83
      matteson83
      (37 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...