"Prove Me Wrong!" - Increasing Swing Speed

[klineka]

7 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

"lets see how much or your previous performance we can recover..."

What if the person is already swinging the fastest they have ever swung, even though they are past their physical peak? There wouldn't be previous performance to recover if they are already swinging at the fastest they've ever swung.

 

7 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

If I were training you my words once I know your age would be "lets see how much or your previous performance we can recover and then see how long we can hold onto it for."  If you were in your teen years it would be "lets see just how high we can get your peak performance and then see how long we can hold onto that for." 

If you were training me and you made either of those statements to me or a teenage son/daughter of mine, that would be the last training session I would do with you. 

IMO, the statement, regardless of age, should be something along the lines of "lets see how much we can increase your clubhead speed and make you a better golfer." That's it. Simple. Everyone wants to swing faster and hit it further regardless of their age. Nobody wants to lose clubhead speed.

Why is it necessary to tell a teenager "and then see how long we can hold onto that for" ?? Good chances are assuming they stay with the sport and are healthy they'll be able to swing at that same speed or faster for at least 10-20 years before you'd have to worry about "holding onto that" 

 

7 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

 

You would have hit it a ton in college but your losses in speed wouldn't be as dramatic if you continued to play the game into your late 40's but you wouldn't be hitting it as far as you did in college even though your handicap could continue to drop.  

This statement is where you are flat out wrong. It's false. Not true. There have been examples posted in this specific topic plus other studies by people that use training systems like SuperSpeed that have people in their 40's and even older that are now swinging faster, and thus hitting it further than they did in college or when they were younger. 

7 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

You can say that it is semantics but it is not because of the point of reference given in each of the above examples.  

Semantics matter when you make statements that aren't true.

[TN94z]

8 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Knowledge is the key and that is why I play to a single digit handicap right and left handed.  The answers to your questions are right there in your own statements.  It is amazing how your bench press maxed out near your physical peak in college and you know that you could do nowhere near that number now....but why...could it be because you don't bench press anymore...yes...and because you are also getting older...yes.  Now if you put your focus back on bench press and getting back into bench pressing shape then you could recover much of that lost performance I assure you.  But you will never bench press 435 pounds again.  But even if you recovered performance up to say benching 370 that is still more than most and you could still compete amongst your peers.

But what if you never bench pressed in college and didn't bench press until you were in your 40's. As your technique improved and understanding of bench pressing got better you got up to benching 380 pounds when you started at say 300 pounds initially and you would make the statement " I've increased my bench press 10 pounds and bench press more than I ever have?" Now when I say " you actually recovered performance that you already had by focused effort on bench pressing and that you would have benched more at your physical peak" make sense?  You were born stronger than others but your didn't put focused effort into your talent until after your physical peak so you missed out on maximizing your talent but you are maximizing what you have left by focused effort.  That is all that I am saying.  

 

Nope. I have worked out for years, since I was 16...now 40. I worked with powerlifting trainers 10 years ago. They were elite level in the nation guys. I put up some descent bench, squat, and deadlift numbers while working with them. Now, 10 years later, I am squatting, deadlifting, bench pressing, etc...more than I ever have.

 

I just don't see how one ever knows their peak at anything. The only way to figure that out is to continue doing what you're doing (golf, weightlifting, etc..) for your whole life (aside from injuries) and then look back and compare numbers. For me, in this conversation, the whole "you would have been better with your new found better technique had you been using it at your physical peak" is just an out and putting something out there that can't really be argued. It's like a "well, no s***" kind of debate.

Edited November 6, 2018 by TN94z

[iacas]

This is quickly coming to the pointless, stupid end I predicted with my first post in this topic.

9 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

The debate that triggered this thread in the first place was the assertion made in another thread about swing speed in relation to handicap that I disagreed with.

You cannot "disagree" with a fact. That correlation is data, and it's a perfectly valid, legitimate, accurate conclusion.

You still have not managed to understand this. You still think that you can "disagree" with it. The studies with swing speed and handicap index have reached the hundreds of thousands at this point. Maybe even millions. It's not a small data set.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

What if the person is already swinging the fastest they have ever swung, even though they are past their physical peak?

You're missing @Righty to Lefty's point: the time at which you swing your fastest IS your physical peak, because he's defined it that way, resulting in a completely pointless conversation.

When I pointed to a student of mine whose swing speed is higher and whose handicap is lower at 50 than either were at 25, he literally said something like "How did he delay his physical peak until 50?"

It's a pointless conversation.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

This statement is where you are flat out wrong. It's false. Not true.

Pointless to argue with the dude. He's arguing facts as if they're opinions, while also using "all" and "none" types of statements.

Fact: players who swing faster tend to have lower handicaps and players with lower handicaps tend to have higher swing speeds.

Fact: players can and often do increase their swing speed past what virtually everyone would define as their "physical peak."

@Righty to Lefty can't overcome those things at all.

[saevel25]

Even the USGA knows that swing speed matters to handicap. The course rating system is based on it.

Quote

Scratch Golfer

A "scratch golfer" is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A male scratch golfer , for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots at sea level. A female scratch golfer , for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 210 yards and can reach a 400-yard hole in two shots at sea level.

They know that swing speed is important.