Bryson DeChambeau - Oy

[Bonvivant]

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?

[colin007]

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

[Bonvivant]

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 September 24, 2020 by Bonvivant

[colin007]

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.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

It's equally as easy to curve either.

No.

 

[Bonvivant]

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. 

[iacas]

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.

[saevel25]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

No.

 

Wow, I haven't seen that video in a long time. Had to dust that one off. 😛

[Bonvivant]

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 September 25, 2020 by Bonvivant

[RFKFREAK]

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.  

[Bonvivant]

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.

[Vinsk]

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....

[iacas]

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:

It doesn't:

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.

[billchao]

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

This was on his IG:

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.

Bryson added another 20 pounds in the gym

---

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.

[RFKFREAK]

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.  

[billchao]

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.

[iacas]

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

[saevel25]

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.