Jump to content

birlyshirly

Established Member
  • Content count

    376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by birlyshirly

  1. I didn't look hard for this, and there might have been even better evidence if I could be bothered to dig, but here you go. This is an amateur recording a variation of 4 or 5 mph on iron shots (PW and 5 iron respectively) across a small sample size of less than 20 shots. http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Dan-Plan-2013-04-21-Multi-Group-Report.pdf My point? If you see variation like that on a small number of driving range swings, it's perfectly reasonable to expect occasional larger variations.
  2. So what does "synced up" mean, if it doesn't mean extra clubhead speed? Does it mean delofted by 6*? And, if you know Hammer's game somewhat, what's your estimation of the limits of variation in his clubhead speed?
  3. It seems to be your point that it's impossible that Hammer hit a freak 9 iron 15 yards further than his usual from a driving range mat as a result of increased swingspeed. I just don't think it's as outlandish as you seem to.
  4. Yes - but there's always the possibility that the GS95 is the "right" shaft for you - but you need a swingweight adjustment to make better contact. Just out of curiousity - the Hogan Apex was the first lightweight steel shaft (maybe about 115g?), and Hogan made their irons a 1/2" longer as a result. Did you compare the lengths of the clubs you were testing?
  5. birlyshirly

    Left arm straight.

    Broadly, I'd agree - with perhaps a slightly different emphasis. I'd argue that identifying physical limitations should help you understand your compensations/flaws, and maybe leave some alone on the basis that you state. Swing within your means.
  6. Here's the first data that came to hand. Sorry if you consider it crappy measuring equipment. [URL=http://www.andrewricegolf.com/2012/09/driver-test-old-vs-new/]http://www.andrewricegolf.com/2012/09/driver-test-old-vs-new/[/URL] Maybe Andrew started out cautiously and was really cranking out the last couple of drives - though that would be an odd way to conduct a test. My point? That we're not machines and there will be some variation from swing to swing.
  7. I don't believe there's anything that can be stated as a "rule" about weight of shaft - a lot is going to come down to personal preference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but whilst the GS95 is ultralight steel - isn't it only mid-weight compared to graphite shafts that are increasingly being touted for irons? Tom Wishon recommends adding experimental lead tape in increments and using impact tape, or a marker pen, to see if (and how much) added headweight yields the most consistent impact. Ping Eye 2s had stiff, but light in weight by the standards of the day, stock shafts. ZZ lite - geddit?
  8. [QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/72283/distance-club-head-speed-or-technique/18#post_946511"] If such a quote exists, then I'd suggest that has a lot to do with the equipment they were using at the time or something else. I highly doubt that sometimes a player just randomly swings an iron 10 MPH faster. [/QUOTE] As I said, you'd expect better players to be more consistent in their clubhead speed. Then again, I've seen very good players vary 4 - 5 mph in the course of only a dozen swings, so the occasional spike somewhere between 5 and 10 mph doesn't seem outlandish to me, even for a pro. Lihu - I'm sorry if you thought I meant that you'd misread the display - I meant only that the sensor misread the clubhead speed. You have the same unit I have - and for what it's worth, I have read online that it does base its readings at least in part on measured ballspeed. I know mine records much higher speeds when I hit balls than when I just make the fastest swings I can muster with no ball. I also have the occasional freak reading like yours! Do you think it's generally MORE reliable than the SSR units? You can open it up and calibrate it if you think its readings are consistently out.
  9. birlyshirly

    Left arm straight.

    Hmm - I'm not saying technique doesn't come into it. I'm just saying that it seems sensible to me to rule out poor physical mobility first. In my own case, I think I could make a "full" shoulder turn, but right now I'd do it by overturning my hips. I don't think my hips are sliding. Of course, we could then argue about what makes for "over turned hips". But that's my point - I think the physical screens make for a good, objective measure of physical capability. And if I pass basic physical benchmarks, then I can worry about technique down the line. What I do know is this. In the last 40-odd years, I've done close to zero golf-specific fitness work and very minimal stretching or flexibility work. I don't get to play enough golf for that to count. I have measurably poor flexibility for just about any activity, regardless of whether you see golf as an athletic endeavour or not. But I can't think of another sport where flexibility wouldn't count as part of your "fitness" to practice any part of the required technique. Heck, I have flexibility issues just riding a bike. So given what I know about my current level of agility - it seems sensible to me to check that avenue out before worrying about a bent left arm, or indeed many other positional niceties. But for all I know, your typical students come to you with better flexibility than I currently enjoy - and it usually IS a technique issue. Again, that's what I see being the purpose and value of the screens.
  10. Depends on what you mean by "better player". It stands to reason that better players are going to be more consistent in their swing speed. But I'm positive there's a Nicklaus quote out there, I'm thinking Golf My Way, about the occasional long iron that feels effortless and flies like nobody's business - and I didn't get the impression he was talking about flier lies.
  11. I don't know you - but in most cases it would be safe to assume that a 128mph hybrid is a misread. As far as I can make out, some radar devices actually use measured ballspeed in an algorithm to determine clubhead speed. All that said, spikes in speed of up to 10mph would be consistent with the occasional shot that travels an extra 20 yards or so. I'm sure we've all had those experiences on the course, whether or not there's been a radar there to verify the speed.
  12. Is that (what I put in bold) really the consensus? That's not the impression I have, based on my own reading. I see more teachers online who seem to basically accept that beyond a basic level of competence , clubhead speed is a physical gift rather than a technique to be taught. And believe me, some of these guys, if they thought they could sell clubhead speed, they'd be selling it by the bucket load. Most teachers IMO (and yes, I'm generalising) appear to focus on technique that will deliver solid ballstriking and impact conditions - which is the way to maximise your distance for any given clubhead speed. There are some people out there talking about stretching and physical conditioning - but that doesn't really answer your question about the occasional shot that appears out of the blue and flies 10 - 20 yards further. Don't discount the possibility that you really did find some extra clubhead speed that you can't usually access. I've practiced with a swing speed radar and do see occasional spikes in measured speed.
  13. birlyshirly

    Left arm straight.

    Probably true - the bit in bold. Nothing against a My Swing thread - but that's surely not the answer to my question. If poor mobility is the root cause of a bent left arm (mine or the OP's) - then surely you would test that by way of physical screens, not a swing video. I haven't been through TPI - though I'd like to. There are also some well-regarded general physical screens here - http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-instruction/2011-09/combine-tests#slide=1 For lots of reasons, I wouldn't worry myself about a bent left arm unless and until I could pass the basic physical mobility tests (and right now, I'm a clear fail on 3 so I've got work to do).
  14. birlyshirly

    Left arm straight.

    Absolutely speaking from personal experience in terms of how much of an effort I need to make to keep my left arm straight through the top of backswing and transition. Obviously there are good player counter-examples - or at least players who I don't expect are having to fight to maintain the extension of their left elbow. Of the factors you mention though - I don't see my grip or alignment causing the problem. Core strength? I'm not sure I see the relevance - would you mind elaborating? I find it hard to see past lack of flexibility as the fundamental issue - I'd imagine mobility or freedom of movement is more influential on sequencing, rather than the other way round. But again, if you see things differently, I'd like to hear about it.
  15. birlyshirly

    Left arm straight.

    Is there any reason, other than a fundamental lack of flexibility, why the left arm should bend appreciably prior to impact? I know I have never consciously pursued a bent left arm at the top of my backswing. I have also found it takes a ridiculous effort to keep it straight and hit shots with any sort of speed. In my own case, I can see a longterm commitment to stretching having a greater effect than any longterm commitment to trying to change this part of my technique.
  16. birlyshirly

    Why Don't You Take Lessons?

    I wonder how many golf pros would make that sales pitch. I think some are, rightly, wary of over-promising. Too much of the benefit of their advice is contingent on the pupil putting in the work. The guy I go to now for online lessons talks about practicing changes that will have you playing better golf six months down the line. I can see the changes in a week or so, and I can see the results on the range. But translating those changes into better scores on the course is still challenging. This year, the most noticeable thing I saw was that my worst scores were much less damaging. But I didn't see any dramatic breakthrough in my handicap. That's not a complaint - but it's recognition that what we're trying to do is not easy.
  17. birlyshirly

    Forged or cavity back

    If golf clubs were drinks, surely you'd want something to stimulate your palate rather than blitz your perceptions and have you thinking that you're superman. [Agree that lessons can be a good idea though...]
  18. birlyshirly

    Why Don't You Take Lessons?

    I'm open to lessons, but believe you need to temper expectations. I promised myself a proper assault on reaching single figures this year - and resolved to give up the self-analysis and get proper lessons. The guy I found locally is well-regarded at every level of the game. We get along well and there's no communication problem. His lessons were clear and I worked on his instructions - but hit a point after maybe 4 or 5 lessons when I could see he was more or less scratching his head. We're looking at my swing on video, and by the time I'm at A6 he's saying "there's really no reason not to hit good shots from there...." Believe me, I was NOT hitting consistently good shots, although, even if I say so myself, it looked OK on video. From there, and from similar experiences with other teachers, I've drawn the conclusion that there's more to ballstriking than technique, or at least the technique that can be viewed and analysed on video. I've put in enough time and effort this year to get my swing in line with what my teachers have recommended - but not so much time playing the course, practicing out of different lies, hitting into different winds, shaping the ball etc etc. Maybe a lesson from someone who teaches with trackman, or a swingvest or similar, would open up a different perspective on what I need to work on - but those guys are a bit thin on the ground in my area. I absolutely don't want to knock the work of teachers in general, or the guys I've worked with directly. The advice has been good - but I am coming to believe that it takes more, whether its hand-eye co-ordination, timing, talent or practice, to improve your scoring game than just to improve your swing on the practice tee.
  19. birlyshirly

    New Decision - Ball Movement on Camera

    We trust golfers to play by the rules when they're out of sight. What's the principle for not trusting them to use ONLY approved apps on their phone?
  20. Yup. Horses for courses. Mo Farah isn't exactly match-fit for sumo - in fact he's not even that strong of a runner over short distances. Plenty golfers carry a bit of excess weight that hides the stuff that counts.
  21. birlyshirly

    Should divots be considered ground under repair?

    [QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/180#post_922632"] [QUOTE name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/180#post_922609"] Let's be clear - you're saying I'm clinging to this last little bit? That "last little bit" is the only point I've made. [/QUOTE] No it isn't. You claimed that it was legal to move your ball from a divot hole. The number of clubs that had this invalid rule is a secondary point that is, for the most part, irrelevant except to serve as a possible impetus for the addition of the Decision in 2009 (to take effect in 2010). [CONTENTEMBED=/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/180#post_922609 layout=inline] [/CONTENTEMBED] [/QUOTE] OK - let's call it my primary point, the point that I joined the thread to make. Originally Posted by birlyshirly [COLOR=853C3A][URL=/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/72#post_921940] [/URL][/COLOR] Funny how so many posters get so heated and moralistic and spirit-of-the-game-ish . The current rule is the current rule, but it's pretty arbitrary IMO. I don't recall any great hoo-ha in the years when you could legally move your ball from a divot. If there's a justification for the current rule, it's probably to save wear and tear on the course. In the context of a thread starter asking about the desirability of a change in the rules for seeded divots, I thought I was pretty clear in my first post. I would not have posted on this thread if I'd wanted a debate on whether the local rules I'd played under previously had been properly made (which would have been way OT). I was only pointing out that different playing conditions had held sway. [QUOTE name="Fourputt" url="/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/180#post_922643"] [QUOTE name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/180#post_922609"] What do you think are the consequences if those local rules were indeed "in violation of the Rules of Golf"? Do you too think handicaps were invalidated, or that golfers who played by those local rules were cheating, "almost criminal" - like some posters have argued? [/QUOTE] There is no "if" about it. That was never a legitimate local rule. Those courses which instituted such a policy were in direct contravention with the Rules of Golf. Rule 13 requires that you play your ball as it lies unless a rule allows it to be lifted . As there is no such rule or exception for relief from divot holes, anyone with even the most basic rules knowledge should know that this was not authorized. No one, myself included called anyone a cheater or criminal (used the term for emphasis in what a consider a grievous abuse of power by the involved committees) for following what they thought was a legitimate local rule. What I said was that I considered such freewheeling with the rules to be criminal because it improperly modified a rule which is founded on one of the most fundamental principles of the game. If there was anyone which could be called "criminal" it was those committees which usurped the authority of the ruling bodies to institute those illegitimate "local rules". [/QUOTE] Fourputt - you originally said "Playing the ball as it lies is just about as fundamental a principle of golf as there is. Modifying that principle without a rule or authorization is, to me just about criminal." I took you to mean that to extend to a player who discards or modifies that principle during play. Sorry if I misunderstood. But the same question to you as to Iacas - what are the consequences of following a Local Rule that violates a Rule of Golf?
  22. I like the old advice that a low teed ball encourages a fade and a higher teed ball a draw. Most of the time, I'm trying to hit a gentle fade off the tee - so tee it pretty low, though still higher than I would for an iron. No idea how that measures up in terms of mm. If I feel a straight or draw flight is absolutely necessary, then I think a 3 wood is more reliable than a driver and I tee it a little higher.
  23. birlyshirly

    Should divots be considered ground under repair?

    Let's be clear - you're saying I'm clinging to this last little bit? That "last little bit" is the only point I've made. That we have a number of posters who went into furious denial when I pointed out this one fairly innocuous matter of fact, and blew it into a 10 page dispute, is not my problem. Why should anyone who doesn't live in Scotland care? Well, if you don't think you've got anything to learn from whatever doesn't happen in your own backyard, then that's up to you. It should be of interest to anyone who's genuinely curious about the consequences of changing the rule about relief from divots. Obviously you can disagree with the practice or legality of taking relief from divots, but saying that it's irrelevant speaks of closed-mindedness. What do you think are the consequences if those local rules were indeed "in violation of the Rules of Golf"? Do you too think handicaps were invalidated, or that golfers who played by those local rules were cheating, "almost criminal" - like some posters have argued?
  24. birlyshirly

    New Decision - Ball Movement on Camera

    Remember I thought your list was reasonable? I'm asking Rulesman whether he agrees.
  25. birlyshirly

    Should divots be considered ground under repair?

    @MS256 and Phil - I posted an article saying specifically that more than half of Scotland's clubs operated some kind of divot relief local rule. That's not 2 or 10, that's widespread, IMO. I can't verify the claims of the article, except to say that it's consistent with my experience. So take it or leave it. But if you, or anyone else wants to dispute the facts claimed in the article, it would be more persuasive to say "here is some contradictory evidence" rather than just some lame version of "that can't be accurate, because I've never heard about it before" You make a reasonable point. I think the Rules' primary purpose is to provide clarity and a level playing field. To that extent, what the Rules say on any given point could be quite arbitrary - as I think is the case here. I disagree with your conclusion though. It's one thing to say that the Rules could be changed to no ill effect. It's quite another to conclude that we don't need rules at all. The point is to have a system that everyone plays to.
×

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...