How do you describe feel?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

I don't buy that 95% of feel is sound.  Especailly on well struck shots.  As some have mentioned the well struck shots have the least amount of sound.  And to not feel the vibration on a good shot is still a feel.

Yeah, those sound, scientifically conducted studies, what do they show?

You probably also think you can tell the difference between otherwise identical clubs, one forged, one cast. You can't.

And a well struck shot has a tremendous thwack sound. Been to the range on the PGA Tour? Tremendous sounds. All over the place.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yeah, those sound, scientifically conducted studies, what do they show?

You probably also think you can tell the difference between otherwise identical clubs, one forged, one cast. You can't.

And a well struck shot has a tremendous thwack sound. Been to the range on the PGA Tour? Tremendous sounds. All over the place.

Yeah, we all know that no two scientific studies can yield different results and are always conducted unbiased.  A "study" isn't an end all for proving something like this.

We're not talking about differentiating between clubs.  I don't think that.  Interesting assumption.

I'm not saying there isn't significant sounds made or that sound doesn't play a role.  I'm only disagreeing with the extent of the role.  I don't think it's 95%.  You know I'm wrong and what I think so move on.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Yeah, we all know that no two scientific studies can yield different results and are always conducted unbiased.  A "study" isn't an end all for proving something like this.

They tend to be when they've been repeated and consistently demonstrate the same things. People like to think they're unique. That they can do things others can't, that they have some sort of finely tuned sense. It's often not the case.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

We're not talking about differentiating between clubs.  I don't think that.  Interesting assumption.

It wasn't an assumption. It was a statement of probability. :-)

If you think the number's wrong (and I fully admit I made up the 95% - it may be 85 or 90, I don't remember exactly - just that "feel" is almost entirely "sound"), find something reputable (your own opinions don't count) which contradicts it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576208583180153672.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20070054754/description.html

And of course the link Mike provided. There are a lot more out there. If you're truly open to it, I think you should try things out. Hit balls with headphones on or something. It's not entirely accurate because you'll still see what you're hitting, but it is.... "ear-opening".

Still, I suppose that what actually happens (sound being some high percentage of "feel"), we can still ask the general "how do you describe it" feeling. And if you're unaware of how much sound matters, you can of course "describe" it any way you like.

I describe feel as the sound of two imaginary pink elephants playing Guitar Hero. :-)

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by iacas

They tend to be when they've been repeated and consistently demonstrate the same things. People like to think they're unique. That they can do things others can't, that they have some sort of finely tuned sense. It's often not the case.

It wasn't an assumption. It was a statement of probability. :-)

If you think the number's wrong (and I fully admit I made up the 95% - it may be 85 or 90, I don't remember exactly - just that "feel" is almost entirely "sound"), find something reputable (your own opinions don't count) which contradicts it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576208583180153672.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20070054754/description.html

And of course the link Mike provided. There are a lot more out there. If you're truly open to it, I think you should try things out. Hit balls with headphones on or something. It's not entirely accurate because you'll still see what you're hitting, but it is.... "ear-opening".

Still, I suppose that what actually happens (sound being some high percentage of "feel"), we can still ask the general "how do you describe it" feeling. And if you're unaware of how much sound matters, you can of course "describe" it any way you like.

I describe feel as the sound of two imaginary pink elephants playing Guitar Hero. :-)

Well, now you know I'm not disagreeing with the syudy(ies) all together, I'm disagreeing with the 95%.

Why don't my opinions count?  This is completely subjective.  I'm certainly not the only one here not buying into the sound being that big of a factor...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Why don't my opinions count?

I never said they didn't. I'm just saying that your opinions might change if you opened your eyes (or ears) to some of the studies in this area.

What actually makes up "feel" is borderline "fact." How someone "describes" it is pure opinion, and thus, something to which everyone can have their own.

[Phil McGleno]

In other words, Eric, some opinions are worth more than others! You prick. But I agree. I used to say I felt it in my loins. Now I say I heard it in my loins. Confuses the hell out of people.

I describe the feel of a well-struck shot from good turf as an orgasm of the mind, body, and soul.

So there.

[Harmonious]

After re-reading Mvmac's reference's abstract (I'm not paying $31 for the whole thing) and Erik's article, I think I've come across a discrepancy.

The Mvmac reference http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022460X04009137 seems to be a survey of golfers who rate the quality of each shot, which is then measured against the sound.  The study attempts to relate good shots to the loudness: " a shot was rated as having a pleasant feel if it had a loud, sharp sound and a lively feel ".  I could be wrong, but a loud, sharp sound is more appropriate to drivers, not to irons.  Again, I didn't read the entire article, but it sure sounds like they were testing drivers.

And this is backed up by Erik's reference http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576208583180153672.html . It states: "In irons, sound is relatively less important, if only because irons don't make nearly the racket drivers do...The better golfers, who are our main target audience for clubs, like a quieter, more traditional sound and feel" and "With driver-ball impact, the consensus has it, physical feel is a small part of the experience."

So, good feeling drivers are louder, good feeling irons are quieter. Nowhere did I see anyone give a percentage of sound vs feel.  Erik's article only says that sound is a "dominant" component of feel.

I think I'm going to try to correlate smell and taste to the feel of a shot.  Maybe I can get a grant to study it.  One day, after a great shot, when we say "Boy, that was sweet!", it can be backed up by science.  And we already know that we hit it a bad shot, it really stinks!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Nowhere did I see anyone give a percentage of sound vs feel.

That's not really a discrepancy... just two slightly different but related topics. A discrepancy would be one article claiming that 80% of feel is non-audible vibrations transmitted to your hands. That's just "we're unable to find the original articles." Searching for things like "sound feel golf club testing" results in crap. :-)

Anyway, I think we're all doing our best to derail the topic. I'll shut up now. I like Phil's answer: a tingling in the loins. ;-)

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

After re-reading Mvmac's reference's abstract (I'm not paying $31 for the whole thing) and Erik's article, I think I've come across a discrepancy.

The Mvmac reference http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022460X04009137 seems to be a survey of golfers who rate the quality of each shot, which is then measured against the sound.  The study attempts to relate good shots to the loudness: "a shot was rated as having a pleasant feel if it had a loud, sharp sound and a lively feel".  I could be wrong, but a loud, sharp sound is more appropriate to drivers, not to irons.  Again, I didn't read the entire article, but it sure sounds like they were testing drivers.

And this is backed up by Erik's reference http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576208583180153672.html . It states: "In irons, sound is relatively less important, if only because irons don't make nearly the racket drivers do...The better golfers, who are our main target audience for clubs, like a quieter, more traditional sound and feel" and "With driver-ball impact, the consensus has it, physical feel is a small part of the experience."

So, good feeling drivers are louder, good feeling irons are quieter. Nowhere did I see anyone give a percentage of sound vs feel.  Erik's article only says that sound is a "dominant" component of feel.

I think I'm going to try to correlate smell and taste to the feel of a shot.  Maybe I can get a grant to study it.  One day, after a great shot, when we say "Boy, that was sweet!", it can be backed up by science.  And we already know that we hit it a bad shot, it really stinks!

You obviously need to open your eyes.  Your opinions don't count.  You need to try things out or find a study that corresponds to your position.

You probably also think you can tell the difference between otherwise identical clubs, one forged, one cast. You can't.

Oh, and you also incorrectly interpreted the referenced studies.

Thanks for playing

[Gresh24]

Almost forgot.  You can have a different "description" of feel if you want to.  It's wrong, but you are free to express your incorrect opinion if you don't know any better.

Touch is apparently no longer one of the senses.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

You obviously need to open your eyes.  Your opinions don't count.  You need to try things out or find a study that corresponds to your position.

You probably also think you can tell the difference between otherwise identical clubs, one forged, one cast. You can't.

Oh, and you also incorrectly interpreted the referenced studies.

Thanks for playing

Not quite sure from this whether you are implying that I buy into the sound thing.  If you read my earlier posts in this thread, you'll find that I discount that sound is a major factor of feel, for irons anyway.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Not quite sure from this whether you are implying that I buy into the sound thing.  If you read my earlier posts in this thread, you'll find that I discount that sound is a major factor of feel, for irons anyway.

Sorry, just having a little fun.

I agree with you.  But, when I voiced that same "opinion", I was told all those things I quoted in response to your post.

[Bananarama]

whats funny is that vibrations in your hand and vibrations in your ear will be the same, one just interprets then as sound and one as touch. The ear is more sensitive but the hands are closer and connected to the cause of vibration.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

You obviously need to open your eyes.  Your opinions don't count.  You need to try things out or find a study that corresponds to your position.

My opinions "count" as much as yours (count towards what, I have no idea...). But I'm not really talking about my opinions... I'm talking about the studies I've read which conclude that sound is responsible for a significant majority of what a golfer interprets as "feel."

Originally Posted by Gresh24

You probably also think you can tell the difference between otherwise identical clubs, one forged, one cast. You can't.

Nope. I've been clear on that for years (a quick search yielded this and I'm sure there are older ones).

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Oh, and you also incorrectly interpreted the referenced studies.

I don't believe I did. It says sound is relatively less important for irons than drivers . So if "feel" is 95% sound with drivers, "relatively less important" could be 85% with irons. Irons tend to hit the grass and dirt, too, which engineers have little control over, and which accounts for a good bit of the sound - and will produce roughly the same sounds regardless of the implement used to cause the divot. The article doesn't say sound is not still the majority component of "feel." Just that in irons it's less important than with drivers.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Almost forgot.  You can have a different "description" of feel if you want to.  It's wrong, but you are free to express your incorrect opinion if you don't know any better.

Touch is apparently no longer one of the senses.

Opinions can't be wrong. Facts can be. Opinions can be unfounded, but my "opinion" (what little I've shared in this thread) is based on the facts I've taken away from the things I've read, seen, heard, and had re-told to me. The vast majority of what a golfer perceives as "feel" is actually sound. I don't really care if you're convinced of this. I'm content in what I know.

I remember one study played different sounds at impact and asked golfers to identify which balls (IIRC) were balata and which were the old surlyn distance balls. Same clubs, etc. Only the sound piped into their ears - pre-recorded impact sounds - differed. They guessed wrong virtually every time - when the softer sound was played they guessed balata and vice versa. I've talked to engineers at various companies, and they too stress how important sound is. Mizuno made a whole video on it, after all.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

I agree with you.  But, when I voiced that same "opinion", I was told all those things I quoted in response to your post.

Two people can agree all they want that the sun revolves around the earth.

Originally Posted by Bananarama

whats funny is that vibrations in your hand and vibrations in your ear will be the same, one just interprets then as sound and one as touch. The ear is more sensitive but the hands are closer and connected to the cause of vibration.

They're not the same, though. Similar, yes, but a) the sound of the ball is not transmitted up the shaft, and b) the vibrations caused at impact can be incredibly altered by the materials in the clubhead, shaft, and grip. The vibrations aren't the same.

I don't recall reading any studies that say touch isn't part of "feel" - it's just not the majority. Again, y'all are welcome to believe what you want. I'm content. :-)

[Phil McGleno]

I have two students one is blind one is deaf. They are good ol' buddies and play together three or four times a week. The blind golfer knows exactly how well he struck a shot. Great hands, too, so he knows just about exactly where his ball went, how far, etc. The deaf golfer has no clue. Unless he really fats one or shanks one or misses it off the toe or something and the shaft twists in his hands, he's got no idea how well he hit the ball. The blind guy's always tellin' him how he caught the last shot. We joke that between the three of us, one sees no evil, one hears no evil, and I make up for the rest of 'em by speakin' all sorts of evil.

The original name for the PING company got its name from a sound on a well-struck putt. Sound is feel and feel is sound. I thought everyone knew that, but I guess not. But hey, you fellas not knowing that ain't skin off my nose.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

I have two students one is blind one is deaf. They are good ol' buddies and play together three or four times a week. The blind golfer knows exactly how well he struck a shot. Great hands, too, so he knows just about exactly where his ball went, how far, etc. The deaf golfer has no clue. Unless he really fats one or shanks one or misses it off the toe or something and the shaft twists in his hands, he's got no idea how well he hit the ball. The blind guy's always tellin' him how he caught the last shot.

Probably doesn't help the deaf guy too much for the blind guy to tell him how he hit the shot, since he can't hear him.

[DublinMeUp]

[=3][/][quote name="Harmonious" url="/t/53872/how-do-you-describe-feel/18#post_655269"]

Probably doesn't help the deaf guy too much for the blind guy to tell him how he hit the shot, since he can't hear him.

[/quote] lol'd at this

[Phil McGleno]

Sign language. Blind guy hasn't been blind his whole life deaf guy has been deaf since birth I think.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Probably doesn't help the deaf guy too much for the blind guy to tell him how he hit the shot, since he can't hear him.