Golfer2223's Swing Theories

[iacas]

Edit: Oh, you added more…

16 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Force is mass times acceleration. Acceleration is the speed part of the swing, but the golfer influences the mass of the club head with their own mass. Acceleration is also important as "swing speed" is a flawed concept. 100mph swing gaining speed will hit the ball farther than 100mph losing speed, because it will affect the force!

Please stop. You're so far off base… So, so far…

The mass of the golfer does not matter one bit. Not even a little. A clubhead that hits the ball at 100 MPH and accelerates will hit the ball farther than a clubhead decelerating while it hits a ball at 100 MPH… by about eight inches. (http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/accelerateThru.php - and as the author there notes, it's probably less than that, because the clubhead will immediately decelerate when it contacts the golf ball.)

16 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

I'm not a physics expert but speed is a flawed measurement to find force. Speed doesn't account for the efficiency of the swing, it is just distance traveled over time. How far the golf ball goes depends on force, and momentum as well. Speed has nothing to do with anything, velocity, mass, momentum, acceleration, are what contribute to distance because the only speed that matters is ball speed.

No, it's instantaneous velocity of the clubhead, which is really all the ball cares about. It doesn't matter how you arrive at that clubhead speed, just that it's the clubhead speed presented to the golf ball.

You aren't a physics expert, so why not leave this type of discussion to those who are. I have a few degrees in the sciences, and I've taken and passed a lot of physics classes.

You're well out of your depths, and none of this has anything to do with forearm rotation in the golf swing so far as I can tell.

4 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Excuse me? Tiger gained as many strokes with putting as he did with full swings? Are those two things equal? You take a whole lot more putts than you do swings.

Read the darn charts, dude. They're right there in this thread. Tiger's ballstriking played a larger role in his success than his putting and short game… combined.

4 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Being #10 in putting and #500 in ball striking will equal better scores than being #2 in ball striking and number #20 in putting. Tiger was #1 or #2 in putting all those years, that is why he dominated. Everyone who knows the game knows this.

Nobody who knows anything about these stats would back you up on that one.

[Phil McGleno]

@Golfer2223, please stop-You are embarrassing yourself.

Seriously-Just stop. I do not know that you have said one accurate thing yet except where you said physics is not your area of expertise.-That part was true.

@iacas-You are showing impressive restraint. Must have gotten some lovin for V Day. I do not envy your position either-This is just another chap who will wander off to another forum and complain about how evil you are or something. He will never fully realize how ridiculous that he is behaving or how far off base that kind of statement is.

You should rename this thread because it is not about forearm rotation at all anymore.-Tho I do not know what you would change the title to.

@Golfer2223-Wakeup. And stop.

[Golfer2223]

You are wrong. A heavier golfer can swing at the same speed as a lighter golfer and have more force, while the club swings freely, there is still arm and bicep influence involved. The heavier golfer gets more swing speed by transferring more weight, the lighter golfer is expending the bicep and arm support to achieve the speed, hence acceleration and momentum. This is what ACTUALLY happens even though a  computer model cannot account for all of these variables to generate it. You're looking at it too theoretically. In theory the weight of the golfer is irrelevant but in real life it is not because someone is holding the club, the club is not swinging COMPLETELY freely, or you would have to let it go. Also a heavier golfer can swing a heavier club the same speed, and the heavier club would equal more distance. That is another example of how swing speed is not the only factor for distance. The heavier club would also increase the swing speed due to gravity yes, but the impact force is relevant. Would a fly hitting you at 100mph send you the same distance as a truck? If something is propelling the fly or the truck, doesn't the attached portion between this and the fly or truck add mass? Phil has your back if you want to believe the computer.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Golfer2223

[Golfer2223]

If you are actually an expert you should understand this. Then again Obama is a Harvard lawyer.

I'm sorry but "read the darn charts," and " hahaha no" are not arguments. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to scoring. It's nice to hide behind charts but putting is far more important than ball striking, and the strokes gained due to either can not really be measured. Being in the top ten in putting is more important than being in the top 100 in ball striking. If you don't think this is correct, you should really find another sport to analyze. You're right about one thing. Those degrees do not have anything to do with golf. You can get a masters in physics and not understand how physics works in golf. They wouldn't ask that on a test, and if they did and you got it wrong, you can still get the degree. It's disturbing how people want to talk about their degrees as if it means they have any more understanding of anything. You clearly do not understand how the weight of the person levering the club impacts distance.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Golfer2223 said:

You are wrong. A heavier golfer can swing at the same speed as a lighter golfer and have more force, while the club swings freely, there is still arm and bicep influence involved.

The nicest way I can say this is simply that I am not wrong. You are.

At impact, the clubhead and the bottom 4" or so of the shaft are about all that matter. This has been confirmed, tested, reported, confirmed again, etc. by people with multiple Ph.D.'s and far, far more study in this area than you and I combined.

You are wrong. Please stop talking about things which you already admitted are not your area of expertise.

Just now, Golfer2223 said:

The heavier club would also increase the swing speed due to gravity yes, but the impact force is relevant. Would a fly hitting you at 100mph send you the same distance as a truck? If something is propelling the fly or the truck, doesn't the attached portion between this and the fly or truck add mass?

Ah, you're right! A heavier golf club, swung at the same speed and with all the other impact conditions the same, would hit the ball farther!

The problem is… you can't just give a golfer a heavier club and have him swing it at the same speed. A heavier golf club requires more force to accelerate it to its impact speed, and speed and mass are not linear - a golfer is better off swinging a lighter object faster than a heavier object slower. That's why we continue to see lighter and lighter clubs, particularly drivers, and lighter shafts.

Would you rather be hit by a 400 pound motorcycle going 100 MPH, or a 66,000 pound cement truck full of cement going 5 MPH? If you'd like to be alive to collect the insurance money, 

You're out of your depths, @Golfer2223.

6 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

I'm sorry but "read the darn charts," and " hahaha no" are not arguments. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to scoring. It's nice to hide behind charts but putting is far more important than ball striking, and the strokes gained due to either can not really be measured.

I agree with @Phil McGleno. You're embarrassing yourself now.

6 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Being in the top ten in putting is more important than being in the top 100 in ball striking. If you don't think this is correct, you should really find another sport to analyze.

Oh yeah? How good a year did Aaron Baddeley have in 2015? He led the PGA Tour in Strokes Gained Putting in 2015. Let's see…

25 events. 1 top 10 (no top 5s). Made $439k, good enough for… 157th.

6 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

You're right about one thing. Those degrees do not have anything to do with golf. You can get a masters in physics and not understand how physics works in golf. They wouldn't ask that on a test, and if they did and you got it wrong, you can still get the degree. It's disturbing how people want to talk about their degrees as if it means they have any more understanding of anything. You clearly do not understand how the weight of the person levering the club impacts distance.

It doesn't matter one itty little bit. Not at all. All that matters is the clubhead and the bottom 4" or so of the shaft. That is all.

[SavvySwede]

14 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

You are wrong. A heavier golfer can swing at the same speed as a lighter golfer and have more force,

Yet 5' 11'' 185lb Jamie Sadlowski was able to outdrive beat those 300lb dudes with similar swingspeed? And PGA Tour player Justin Thomas (who weighs 14lbs) hits it further than others with similar swingspeed? You're just being dumb.

Trackman can calculate distance to the yard without the need to input the golfers weight. Anyone can get 1.5 smash factor no matter how much they weigh.

[Golfingdad]

51 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

You are wrong. A heavier golfer can swing at the same speed as a lighter golfer and have more force

I lost 55 lbs between last January and September and I didn't lose a single yard of distance. (Easily verifiable if you check videos in my swing thread from the same time frames) How would you explain that?

[14ledo81]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I lost 55 lbs between last January and September and I didn't lose a single yard of distance. (Easily verifiable if you check videos in my swing thread from the same time frames) How would you explain that?

According to my calculations, the ratio of distance to body weight is close to 1-1 (generally), with a driver.  That means you would have had to increase your swing speed approximately 55 mph to offset the weight loss.

I would have thought an engineer could have got that one Drew....

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, Golfer2223 said:

If you are actually an expert you should understand this. Then again Obama is a Harvard lawyer.

I'm sorry but "read the darn charts," and " hahaha no" are not arguments. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to scoring. It's nice to hide behind charts but putting is far more important than ball striking, and the strokes gained due to either can not really be measured. Being in the top ten in putting is more important than being in the top 100 in ball striking. If you don't think this is correct, you should really find another sport to analyze. You're right about one thing. Those degrees do not have anything to do with golf. You can get a masters in physics and not understand how physics works in golf. They wouldn't ask that on a test, and if they did and you got it wrong, you can still get the degree. It's disturbing how people want to talk about their degrees as if it means they have any more understanding of anything. You clearly do not understand how the weight of the person levering the club impacts distance.

President Obama was not just a Harvard law school graduate, he was elected head of the Law Review, which means he was thought to be the best student by his class. That's a huge honor.

You are just spouting jibberish now. You clearly have no idea how to communicate what you are trying to convey. I am questioning the validity of your posted handicap as well. You are being combative and incoherent. Please reconsider your approach to posting. 

 

[Golfer2223]

Well my handicap is a little high because I play difficult courses from the back tees and I don't play the same courses over and over. I have a lot of improving left to do. I said Obama was a Harvard lawyer, and he is. I don't have to list his other achievements to say that. If you want to chime in with the "not only..." that's your call. Telling me I should reconsider my approach, doesn't look like I'm the combative one. I won't reconsider, but if you want, you can consider reading other posts.

Okay so back to educating the others. Physics is a great science but it makes a lot of assumptions. A lot of times the measurements are not what is actually happening. First of all, weight transfer plays a role in power, by increasing club speed. Transferring the weight increases the club speed. The more weight you transfer, the easier it is to create more speed generally. So @iacas points out the only factor contributing to distance is the speed of the club at impact, and acceleration only affects distance by a mere matter of inches. Well first of all you can't argue swing speed at impact, because swing speed is measured after impact. Right there the argument falls apart yes? What is impact? The moment the club touches the ball? The moment the club leaves the ball? The distance between those two points? 2 inches behind the ball and two inches after? Who knows, because impact is a general term often misconstrued. Swing speed relates to the fastest point of the swing that occurs after "impact." Without acceleration at impact, the swing speed will be slower. It is not the speed at impact that counts, but the fact the club is accelerating at impact to affect the swing speed measurement after it. So a club head decelerating at impact as opposed to one that is accelerating would give you an enormous difference in swing speed measurement.

A golfer can use his/her weight to improve swing speed, which is why Rory and Tiger and others work out to gain muscle mass. @14ledo81 You can not use one person losing weight to determine the impact of weight on swing speed, because with one person there is no control in the experiment. If you lose 55lbs and swing speed stays the same and distance stays the same how do I explain it? Um, you got better.
 Sadlowski weighing under 200lbs.... Let's say Sadlowski and ledo maintain the same mechanics and Sadlowski uses the weight in his weight transfer he had previously, and ledo has no change in mechanics either and transfers the same. Sadlowski would hit it father than he does now! The increase in weight would help in increase his swing speed (not impact speed). Ledo's loss of weight would result in less speed. Again this assumes neither player gains or loses any skill or accelleration, and transfers the same percent of their weight, and use the transfer equally towards swing speed. But in any case, no one can argue that weighing more makes it easier to increase swing speed. People will argue that lighter people have faster swings, but again the heavier golfers may not be as flexible. There are other factors like lag that play a much larger role than weight. But believe this, if a golfer gains weight and maintains the same lag and flexibility and mechanics etc. the weight gain will help them increase force/speed, and hit it farther. Just ask Rory or Tiger and they will tell you this is why they are in the gym. Obviously they want to gain muscle mass and not fat because this type of weight will not have a negative impact on their flexibility.

[14ledo81]

I never thought I would be compared to Sadlowski in terms of swing speed.

I gotta say I kind of like it though......

[Golfer2223]

On to the last point about Badds. It's funny I too was thinking of him. Again what is on paper and what is actually happening are different things. You can be the best putter in the world but if you don't make the putts on the last few holes on Sunday, or when you are straddling the cut line, it won't help you. Tiger made every putt inside 3 feet, something like 1000 in a row, a world record. That's why he won everything. Ball striking stats are equally deceiving. Maybe the golfer hit the fairway or the green, but maybe it left a bad angle, or a tough putt over a ridge. The fairway is not always better than the rough. There are too many variables in the game of golf to measure. In the case of Badds, I would first note he is playing well and making cuts this year, so obviously the putting is not only crucial for success but also for longevity. Now would you argue that making 1 million in one year and then 0 in the next 4 is better than making 3 million across 5 years? This is the other problematic assumption with stats. Just because someone isn't coming in 1st place or making cuts all the time, doesn't mean their game isn't at a high level. Sometimes in tournament play making a par on a difficult hole where the field struggles, will help you more than making a birdie on a hole where 70 percent of the field did also. Stats don't measure these factors. Stats don't take away the stroke gained putting, or add a stroke gained ball striking for these variables. Honestly looking at stats for tour players they mean nothing to me. Kevin Na is always near the top in putting, but I don't consider him any better than other guys. Na just happens to hit many greens and leave long putts, which he sometimes makes, and usually two putts. I would rather be the guy who makes everything inside 5 feet when it matters and three putt occasionally and miss greens a little more. So the thing about Badds is, he is a great putter in the long run, and that's why he is continuing to have some success that many players from his era are not, but at the same time he is not a clutch putter. Tiger was the greatest clutch putter and chipper, and that is why he dominated. Anyone who really knows this game will agree.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Physics is a great science but it makes a lot of assumptions.

Name one of these assumptions that's relevant to these topics.

21 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

A lot of times the measurements are not what is actually happening. First of all, weight transfer plays a role in power, by increasing club speed.

Weight transfer is well down on the list of things that increase clubhead speed. Well down on the list. We covered this already.

21 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

The more weight you transfer, the easier it is to create more speed generally.

Untrue. In fact, you can easily reach the point where "transferring more weight" forward reduces speed. Baseball hitters spike their pressure under their front foot, but actually transfer little to no weight forward. Their weight is actually on their back foot (weight, not pressure or force) at impact. Jamie Sadlowski's weight is favoring his back foot in this image:

21 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

So @iacas points out the only factor contributing to distance is the speed of the club at impact, and acceleration only affects distance by a mere matter of inches. Well first of all you can't argue swing speed at impact, because swing speed is measured after impact.

No it isn't. You're absolutely wrong on that. Yet again. Swing speed is measured before impact occurs, because as soon as impact occurs, the clubhead decelerates. The clubhead is never again going faster in a good player's swing.

21 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Swing speed relates to the fastest point of the swing that occurs after "impact."

Not true.

21 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Without acceleration at impact, the swing speed will be slower.

There is acceleration during the impact interval. It's negative acceleration - also commonly called "deceleration." The clubhead slows down during the impact interval. It never again reaches a speed higher than it's peak pre-impact speed. Not in the swings of any good players.

21 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

It is not the speed at impact that counts, but the fact the club is accelerating at impact to affect the swing speed measurement after it.

Incorrect.

21 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

So a club head decelerating at impact as opposed to one that is accelerating would give you an enormous difference in swing speed measurement.

Incorrect. Clubhead speed is measured just prior to impact, and a clubhead is not going to be speeding up even more after impact.

Here are some more graphs demonstrating this. The little "waves" you see are the shaft basically wobbling a bit, and you'll note it never goes above the peak speed achieve at the moment just prior to impact:

4 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

On to the last point about Badds. It's funny I too was thinking of him. Again what is on paper and what is actually happening are different things. You can be the best putter in the world but if you don't make the putts on the last few holes on Sunday, or when you are straddling the cut line, it won't help you.

You're wrong.

4 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

That's why he won everything.

No, it isn't. Look at the charts already posted above! Once again, these are knowable and known things.

4 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Tiger was the greatest clutch putter and chipper, and that is why he dominated. Anyone who really knows this game will agree.

It is not why he dominated.

Look, you're just being willfully obtuse and stubborn now. These are knowable and known things.

Continue in the same fashion and you will receive a warning, points, and the limitations to your account that come with both of those.

[SavvySwede]

16 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

Well first of all you can't argue swing speed at impact, because swing speed is measured after impact. Right there the argument falls apart yes? What is impact? The moment the club touches the ball? The moment the club leaves the ball? The distance between those two points? 2 inches behind the ball and two inches after? Who knows, because impact is a general term often misconstrued. Swing speed relates to the fastest point of the swing that occurs after "impact." Without acceleration at impact, the swing speed will be slower. It is not the speed at impact that counts, but the fact the club is accelerating at impact to affect the swing speed measurement after it. So a club head decelerating at impact as opposed to one that is accelerating would give you an enormous difference in swing speed measurement.

Another outright falsehood. Trackman measures swingspeed the instant before impact. Trackman has a free online course you should check out before you decide to make more things up.

https://trackmanuniversity.com/

[Golfer2223]

it is interesting to think of swing speed vs swing force. The thing is, swing speed is measured after impact. I guess I was wrong to say swing speed can't measure force, because the more force you have at impact, the more speed you will maintain after impact. So a heavier golfer will be able to maintain the speed better than a lighter one (excluding other variables). However the "swing speed" is just averaging out these factors. The swing speed measurement is not in tune with what is really going on. Here is a physics question. If the swing is faster will it slow up less at impact because it has more force to push through the ball, or will it slow up more because the force of impact with the ball will be greater? By less and more I mean change of speed relative to speed just before impact.

[iacas]

Just now, Golfer2223 said:

it is interesting to think of swing speed vs swing force. The thing is, swing speed is measured after impact.

It is not. Look at the graphs above.

Just now, Golfer2223 said:

I guess I was wrong to say swing speed can't measure force, because the more force you have at impact, the more speed you will maintain after impact. So a heavier golfer will be able to maintain the speed better than a lighter one (excluding other variables).

Incorrect. Get past this "heavier golfer" stuff. You're wrong.

I'll quote myself from above in case you missed it:

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Look, you're just being willfully obtuse and stubborn now. These are knowable and known things.

Continue in the same fashion and you will receive a warning, points, and the limitations to your account that come with both of those.

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

it is interesting to think of swing speed vs swing force. The thing is, swing speed is measured after impact. I guess I was wrong to say swing speed can't measure force, because the more force you have at impact, the more speed you will maintain after impact.

You are wrong. 

It's called collisions. You might want to actually look up the physics on it before you continue. You clearly lack even the basic understanding of what you are trying to convey. 

3 minutes ago, Golfer2223 said:

So a heavier golfer will be able to maintain the speed better than a lighter one (excluding other variables). 

Wrong

[Golfer2223]

If what you're saying is correct, that the speed is maximum before impact and measured then, then I am wrong about that. See I can admit when I'm wrong! That is the difference between us. I was under the impression some devices are placed after the ball that measure swing speed (not the modern launch monitors). Perhaps that is how these older devices worked. In any case, swing speed is fastest just prior to impact*  However it is still a fact that weight transfer is a part of gaining swing speed, and having more weight will increase the pull of the club and speed, all things being equal. Maybe it is only a few yards or so, but so what? I didn't say it's the only factor or the biggest factor. Why get offended over this statement which is true? Are we only allowed to talk about things that affect the shot more than 20 yards? I know for me gaining 10 pounds gave me about 5 yards more. Since I'm on the lighter side, it had more of an impact. It became easier for me to support the club without exerting myself. Maybe it's not a big deal to all people, but for lighter guys or gals, it can be. This is my problem with how you approach my points @iacas, you have to discount everything I say because you don't think it's that important. I'm sorry but if that's how you act on here, then please delete my entire account from your database.

I was wrong about when the fastest point in the swing is, is that going to hurt anyone? I am right that weight transfer impacts swing speed. More importantly this debate over Tiger Woods is a matter of opinion. You keep saying it is a matter of fact because it is on paper, well that is completely stone headed. How can the stats measure if the player had a better angle to the hole, or what the level of difficulty of the putts were? They can't. You know it, I know it, and everyone knows it. You want to believe one thing that's fine, I don't agree with you, and there is no right answer. I came on here to help golfers, which in a short time I have, but obviously this is not the place to do so. It is one thing to correct me if I'm absolutely wrong about something, like when the swing is at its fastest point. But to not only determine which of my points has enough importance to be relevant, and to tell me my opinion about Tiger is wrong and yours is fact, but to limit participation and my account because you don't agree is simply a violation of common practices. You can run this site like a fascist regime if you want, and leave me out of it. You are one of those most petty people I have ever encountered. I highly doubt people are going to get much help here if you control the flow of information this way, some of them may not know better, but some of them do. Good day.