Golf Ball Hitting Steel at 150 mph

[JB]

They will post just about anything on the web just to get fools to believe it. Haven't you figured that out by now???? It's the only way they've found to feel superior to normal people.



Then how do you justify that compared with the other 2 videos I posted???????????

A "golf ball person'? What 's a "golf ball person"? Sure sounds like an "expert" to me!

Believe it if you like... it's pure horsefeathers but y'all can believe the fantasy if you want. If you think that the difference between a club hitting a ball at 120+ and a ball hitting a steel plate at 150 is that dramatic, then go for it. I'm sure that there's still swampland for sale in Florida too. I believe the testimony in the 2 videos I posted, and no amount of so called "expert" testimony is going to convince me that there can be that dramatic a difference with an increase of 30mph. Guess I'll just have to have the Mythbusters check this one out.

JB, you seem to get a special joy out of contradicting anything I post, and it's starting to get old. This place was kind of fun when I first joined, but it's gone downhill lately. You seem to have the dominate clique here convinced that your opinions are always more right than anyone else's because you have this mythical aura of expertise, justified or not. Or maybe I just don't count for as much because I don't participate in your contests and giveaways, but that's not why I spend time on the forum. I'm probably not going to be around as much as I have been... at least not to post any contradictory opinions. There are plenty of other places to visit. :confused2:

I expect that last paragraph to be deleted, but I felt I had to put it in there anyway.

This is frankly absurd. You call out people that believe what they want to believe in this video. Since we have two sides, why NOT talk to an expert in ball manufacturing. We have had 3-4 of them on our podcasts in the past year alone. You want to dispute what others see, but when someone disputes your OPINION on the subject its not fair or right. You are going as far as to criticize each and every person that does not agree with your opinion on this subject calling it malarkey, hogwash, etc... The fact is that some believe it is real and some believe it is not. Both sides have made their points and that is why we called a golf ball person in from our radio show interviews in the past. to get THEIR OPINION!

If you prefer to hang out on other boards, that is your prerogative, but just because someone disagrees with you on points and others agree with their assessment does not bring a board down. Perhaps that should say more about the poster and less about the fine members that make up this forum.

Insulting the intelligence of the members here like they cannot form their own opinion is completely ridiculous.

 

[_JL_]

I just want to clarify, even though I posted this video, I in no way had anything to do with making it or uploading it. I just randomly found it on YouTube.
About whether or not it's real, I honestly don't know. At this point, I'm certainly more inclined to side with the ball expert.

 

[TC]

They will post just about anything on the web just to get fools to believe it. Haven't you figured that out by now???? It's the only way they've found to feel superior to normal people.



Then how do you justify that compared with the other 2 videos I posted???????????

A "golf ball person'? What 's a "golf ball person"? Sure sounds like an "expert" to me!

Believe it if you like... it's pure horsefeathers but y'all can believe the fantasy if you want. If you think that the difference between a club hitting a ball at 120+ and a ball hitting a steel plate at 150 is that dramatic, then go for it. I'm sure that there's still swampland for sale in Florida too. I believe the testimony in the 2 videos I posted, and no amount of so called "expert" testimony is going to convince me that there can be that dramatic a difference with an increase of 30mph. Guess I'll just have to have the Mythbusters check this one out.

JB, you seem to get a special joy out of contradicting anything I post, and it's starting to get old. This place was kind of fun when I first joined, but it's gone downhill lately. You seem to have the dominate clique here convinced that your opinions are always more right than anyone else's because you have this mythical aura of expertise, justified or not. Or maybe I just don't count for as much because I don't participate in your contests and giveaways, but that's not why I spend time on the forum. I'm probably not going to be around as much as I have been... at least not to post any contradictory opinions. There are plenty of other places to visit. :confused2:

I expect that last paragraph to be deleted, but I felt I had to put it in there anyway.

why would you feel this way? i'm confused. from a standpoint of a bystander it seems as though you feel the video isn't real and JB does....so what? are your feelings hurt?

to think that "you don't count for much" here is odd too. i think you are a valuable member here for sure and i hate that you feel the way you do right now. if you don't want to participate in contests, that's fine by me, i don't understand why you wouldn't though, it's just fun.

i hope you stick around man, and i don't think that JB would delete anything from your post, you're just being honest, and honesty is what's important here.

 

[Hawk]

Insulting the intelligence of the members here like they cannot form their own opinion is completely ridiculous.

But, oh so common. Fourputt, I don't know if the video is a fake or not and I don't really care. But, you are often the person dismissing others' opinions with a holier-than-thou attitude, whether it's our preference in the scores of a PGA tournament, a stupid video, or our use of the word "muscle memory". Whether or not you intend your statements to come off that way, they do. You shouldn't be surprised when you get backlash for the way you say things.

 

[Ty_Webb]

Hmmm. I am speaking with him again on Monday and would gladly pass on your questions. But I think I am seeing something different than you are in that video. I see the ball quite compressed and not round at the exact impact. And yes TW is no where near 139. In fact closer to 120 than 140.

He gave his opinion that he thought it was real. But I will gladly ask him the followup questions when we speak.

Maybe we need to have him on the radio show again to discuss.

The ball compresses at the exact point of impact. I don't think anyone would dispute that. My point was comparing the shape of the ball when it's a quarter of an inch from the clubhead (perfectly round) with the shape of the other ball when it's an inch and a half from the steel plate (egg-shaped). That comparison doesn't bear up to both balls being made of the same stuff.

To add more to the fire, here is a squash ball hitting a wall:



Look familiar? A squash ball is something that you can squeeze with your fingers to deform it completely.

 

[RxGus]

why would you feel this way? i'm confused. from a standpoint of a bystander it seems as though you feel the video isn't real and JB does....so what? are your feelings hurt?

to think that "you don't count for much" here is odd too. i think you are a valuable member here for sure and i hate that you feel the way you do right now. if you don't want to participate in contests, that's fine by me, i don't understand why you wouldn't though, it's just fun.

i hope you stick around man, and i don't think that JB would delete anything from your post, you're just being honest, and honesty is what's important here.

That is seconded by me. Just cause we disagree on this video doesn't mean anything... it's an internet video.

 

[TC]

That is seconded by me. Just cause we disagree on this video doesn't mean anything... it's an internet video.

exactly gus! it's a squashing golf ball from a youtube video. are there really that strong of emotional ties to it?

 

[One-T]

for those who care, Jeff Overton says its real

 

[Fourputt]

I'll put it this way.... this is not the first forum where I've seen this video, but it is the first one where anyone actually believed that it was true after a couple of posts. And certainly the first one where anyone tried to put up "expert" testimony that it was true. Yet when I went to the trouble to find other videos to support my contention, I just got dumped on... no comment on the seemingly noticeable difference between the apparently normal videos I posted and the (to me) obviously fake one.

Maybe it's just me... I've learned to question anything on YouTube that looks too dramatic. It's just too easy these days to fake a photo or a video, and it often takes an expert to tell the difference. The Mythbusters have done entire shows debunking viral videos.

I simply know that the materials which make up a golf ball don't react with the fluidity of that fake video. They couldn't do that and still do all of the things that a golf ball has to do. A golf ball simply doesn't have the mass to deform itself to that extent, even at twice that speed. Then to flop around like it seems to do on the rebound is simply impossible. A golf ball is not that flexible. It's compressible within certain limits - that's necessary for function, but it is not fluidly flexible like that.

I apologize for my earlier outburst, but I just got rubbed the wrong way.

 

[One-T]

I'll put it this way.... this is not the first forum where I've seen this video, but it is the first one where anyone actually believed that it was true after a couple of posts. And certainly the first one where anyone tried to put up "expert" testimony that it was true. Yet when I went to the trouble to find other videos to support my contention, I just got dumped on... no comment on the seemingly noticeable difference between the apparently normal videos I posted and the (to me) obviously fake one.

Maybe it's just me... I've learned to question anything on YouTube that looks too dramatic. It's just too easy these days to fake a photo or a video, and it often takes an expert to tell the difference. The Mythbusters have done entire shows debunking viral videos.

I simply know that the materials which make up a golf ball don't react with the fluidity of that fake video. They couldn't do that and still do all of the things that a golf ball has to do. A golf ball simply doesn't have the mass to deform itself to that extent, even at twice that speed. Then to flop around like it seems to do on the rebound is simply impossible. A golf ball is not that flexible. It's compressible within certain limits - that's necessary for function, but it is not fluidly flexible like that.

I apologize for my earlier outburst, but I just got rubbed the wrong way.

well, ask her to rub the right way!

 

[JB]

I'll put it this way.... this is not the first forum where I've seen this video, but it is the first one where anyone actually believed that it was true after a couple of posts. And certainly the first one where anyone tried to put up "expert" testimony that it was true. Yet when I went to the trouble to find other videos to support my contention, I just got dumped on... no comment on the seemingly noticeable difference between the apparently normal videos I posted and the (to me) obviously fake one.

Some believe it is real. As for our "expert" (still not sure why quotes are needed), he has been on our radio show and works for one of the largest golf ball manufacturers in the world. He is entitled to his opinion just as much as anybody else is. When people have differing opinions on a subject, why not ask someone that does that very thing for a living rather than repeated speculation by people "in the know"? It seems to make all the sense in the world to me to ask an "expert".

No different than you being an "expert" on golf rules and people asking you for clarification. I believe this person knows exactly what materials make up the golf balls as you mention you do as well.

You said it yourself, "it often takes an expert to tell the difference". Hence the reason we contacted one. We just now asked him to participate in our radio show over the next couple of weeks and discuss this topic.

But I have a feeling when he comes on and talks about it, it will still not matter to most....Because this is an OPINION of his, just like it is of yours.

Proof will come out in the end, it always does and some will be right and some wrong. It matters very little in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Fourputt]

You said it yourself, "it often takes an expert to tell the difference". Hence the reason we contacted one, but are still getting questioned on that side of it as well. We just now asked him to participate in our radio show over the next couple of weeks and discuss this topic.

I was talking about an expert in video analysis. Your golf ball expert isn't likely to know any more about that than I do.

What I don't get is why everyone is unable to see the difference. You see a club strike a ball in one video I posted. Then you see a ball bounce off a steel plate in the other. The difference between those and the supposed 150 mph rebound is like night and day, yet the actual difference in speed at impact is minimal at best. How then can anyone justify the difference? If a ball truly compressed and deformed that much it would lose most of its rebound speed by just being absorbed in the deformation. That's why higher compression balls fly farther with higher clubhead speeds - they don't deform as much. They store that energy and apply it to leaping off the face of the club. It's a fact that all else being equal, higher clubhead speed results in a higher ball speed because of the way that a ball is designed to rebound off the club face. If the ball deformed so much more at just 30 mph higher, then ball speed would actually decrease as you hit it harder.

Jamie Sadlowski's clubhead speed is pushing 150 mph yet I would very much doubt that he gets anywhere near that kind of deformation and wobble on the rebound. Every true slow motion video I've ever seen of the golf ball at impact shows it snapping back to round as soon as it leaves the clubface, no matter how hard it is hit.

 

[JB]

I was talking about an expert in video analysis. Your golf ball expert isn't likely to know any more about that than I do.

Im done arguing, and I am sure you have qualifications a mile long on these things just like they do. But I do believe that someone in R&D at a golf ball manufacturer knows a thing or two about this stuff and if he says it could be real then I am sticking with him.

I will also say, nobody has any idea what kind of golf ball is being used here, what the compression is, when it was made, or anything else. To completely dismiss it with NO FACTS at all seems a bit odd, but there are so many "experts" now, who knows.

As you said, JS has a huge swing speed and does not see a change. But could it be that he might if he was using say Precept Lady IQ or a ridiculously soft compression ball? People also must remember that a club head is moving with the ball at impact rather than completely stationary with a block of steel. We dont have ANY idea of what was being done and hence the person in R&D says "It COULD" happen based on materials in golf balls

 

[One-T]

I was talking about an expert in video analysis. Your golf ball expert isn't likely to know any more about that than I do.

What I don't get is why everyone is unable to see the difference. You see a club strike a ball in one video I posted. Then you see a ball bounce off a steel plate in the other. The difference between those and the supposed 150 mph rebound is like night and day, yet the actual difference in speed at impact is minimal at best. How then can anyone justify the difference? If a ball truly compressed and deformed that much it would lose most of its rebound speed by just being absorbed in the deformation. That's why higher compression balls fly farther with higher clubhead speeds - they don't deform as much. They store that energy and apply it to leaping off the face of the club. It's a fact that all else being equal, higher clubhead speed results in a higher ball speed because of the way that a ball is designed to rebound off the club face. If the ball deformed so much more at just 30 mph higher, then ball speed would actually decrease as you hit it harder.

Jamie Sadlowski's clubhead speed is pushing 150 mph yet I would very much doubt that he gets anywhere near that kind of deformation and wobble on the rebound. Every true slow motion video I've ever seen of the golf ball at impact shows it snapping back to round as soon as it leaves the clubface, no matter how hard it is hit.

I do not know, so this is a question. Wouldnt a ball being hit react differently that hitting something? Plus, its steele compared to whatever a specific club face is made of. Thanks, Jeff Overton

 

[Fourputt]

I do not know, so this is a question. Wouldnt a ball being hit react differently that hitting something? Plus, its steele compared to whatever a specific club face is made of. Thanks, Jeff Overton

As long as the forces involved are equivalent, it shouldn't matter. The mass of the ball doesn't change, regardless of whether the ball is moving or sitting still. In the OP's video, the plate actually moves a little bit, which would actually reduce the impact. There is actually less of that sort of effect in a club face, but the club also has less mass than a solid steel plate, so it's impact is reduced by whatever effect the ball's mass has in reducing the clubhead speed at impact. I don't know the numbers, and I don't have the background to crunch the numbers even if I had them.

I will just barely admit that if some odd, super soft ball was used in that video, then it's remotely possible to get such an effect. I'm still very skeptical, and I still very much doubt that such a reaction could be obtained from the typical golf ball which we all use on the course. I've seen soft rubber balls that are shaped and dimpled to look like a golf ball, but are in reality just a toy rubber ball, with no cover and no layering like a real golf ball. A ball like that might react like the video.

 

[RxGus]

I was talking about an expert in video analysis. Your golf ball expert isn't likely to know any more about that than I do.

What I don't get is why everyone is unable to see the difference. You see a club strike a ball in one video I posted. Then you see a ball bounce off a steel plate in the other. The difference between those and the supposed 150 mph rebound is like night and day, yet the actual difference in speed at impact is minimal at best. How then can anyone justify the difference? If a ball truly compressed and deformed that much it would lose most of its rebound speed by just being absorbed in the deformation. That's why higher compression balls fly farther with higher clubhead speeds - they don't deform as much. They store that energy and apply it to leaping off the face of the club. It's a fact that all else being equal, higher clubhead speed results in a higher ball speed because of the way that a ball is designed to rebound off the club face. If the ball deformed so much more at just 30 mph higher, then ball speed would actually decrease as you hit it harder.

Jamie Sadlowski's clubhead speed is pushing 150 mph yet I would very much doubt that he gets anywhere near that kind of deformation and wobble on the rebound. Every true slow motion video I've ever seen of the golf ball at impact shows it snapping back to round as soon as it leaves the clubface, no matter how hard it is hit.

There are, by my count, 3 major differences beween the videos of a driver and the steel (not counting the speed difference).
1. Angle. The ball hitting steel is making 90 degree contact with a solid surface. There is no place for the energy to go besides back the way it came- this is the driving force of compression. Hitting an object at even a 10* angle provides an outlet of energy away from the center of a ball, reducing compression and causing a change of direction. The driver provides an outlet for the energy

2.Inertia. A steel plate weighs more than a driver, meaning that the energy of the ball has more mass to move. Its why a baseball distance is more tied to bat speed than ball speed.... more weight (and inertia) in the bat than the ball. In a lighter driver, contact with the ball slows the driver head slightly absorbing energy and reducing compression. Against a stationary steel plate there is less energy going into moving the plate and more going back into the ball- increasing compression.

3. Composition. Drivers are designed to transfer energy. They are designed to be springy and to absorb and release energy more efficiently. A steel plate does not do this. At the moment of impact the driver face deflects (like the loading of a shaft) and absorbs energy from the ball and releases it over a longer period of time (microseconds) again... reducing compression on the ball. A steel plate does not give in the same way (it was not designed to).

All three of these are major difference that can account for the difference in compression over "only" 30 mph difference.
Run the same video against a steel plate at 10* and you will see a very different ball reaction.

 

[Ty_Webb]

Im done arguing, and I am sure you have qualifications a mile long on these things just like they do. But I do believe that someone in R&D at a golf ball manufacturer knows a thing or two about this stuff and if he says it could be real then I am sticking with him.

I will also say, nobody has any idea what kind of golf ball is being used here, what the compression is, when it was made, or anything else. To completely dismiss it with NO FACTS at all seems a bit odd, but there are so many "experts" now, who knows.

As you said, JS has a huge swing speed and does not see a change. But could it be that he might if he was using say Precept Lady IQ or a ridiculously soft compression ball? People also must remember that a club head is moving with the ball at impact rather than completely stationary with a block of steel. We dont have ANY idea of what was being done and hence the person in R&D says "It COULD" happen based on materials in golf balls

The "facts" as I see them are:

There is a video on youtube of what is alleged to be a golf ball hitting a steel plate at 150 mph.
There are several other videos of golf balls being hit at similar speeds which spring back into shape almost instantaneously after impact, in wild contrast to the continued oscillating of the ball in the original video.
Several people have said they believe the original video is real.
None of them have made any attempt to explain the difference in what is known to be real (swingvision footage) and what is not known to be real (the original video), except JB's suggestion that perhaps it's a really low compression ball, in which case, to my mind the video is at least misleading.

One-T, I wouldn't expect a ball to react differently between being hit and hitting something. After all, the two things differ only in your frame of reference. One possible difference between the two is that when a golf club hits a ball, it slows down. Personally, I think the fact that the steel plate in the original video quite clearly moves when it's hit by the ball negates that possible difference since the plate moving is the same as the clubhead slowing down. I also don't believe that the construction of whatever the ball is hitting would make any difference so long as whatever it is it was hitting is hard. Steel or concrete or titanium shouldn't really make any difference. Not on the macroscopic level that we're looking at on the original video and on the swingvision videos.

I think the similarity between the squash ball and the golf ball (a squash ball being hollow and made of soft rubber) on the original video is very telling in the question of whether it's real or not.

 

[JB]

There are, by my count, 3 major differences beween the videos of a driver and the steel (not counting the speed difference).
1. Angle. The ball hitting steel is making 90 degree contact with a solid surface. There is no place for the energy to go besides back the way it came- this is the driving force of compression. Hitting an object at even a 10* angle provides an outlet of energy away from the center of a ball, reducing compression and causing a change of direction. The driver provides an outlet for the energy

2.Inertia. A steel plate weighs more than a driver, meaning that the energy of the ball has more mass to move. Its why a baseball distance is more tied to bat speed than ball speed.... more weight (and inertia) in the bat than the ball. In a lighter driver, contact with the ball slows the driver head slightly absorbing energy and reducing compression. Against a stationary steel plate there is less energy going into moving the plate and more going back into the ball- increasing compression.

3. Composition. Drivers are designed to transfer energy. They are designed to be springy and to absorb and release energy more efficiently. A steel plate does not do this. At the moment of impact the driver face deflects (like the loading of a shaft) and absorbs energy from the ball and releases it over a longer period of time (microseconds) again... reducing compression on the ball. A steel plate does not give in the same way (it was not designed to).

All three of these are major difference that can account for the difference in compression over "only" 30 mph difference.
Run the same video against a steel plate at 10* and you will see a very different ball reaction.

Very good information. Ball Expert will be on the radio show coming up after the outing we believe. We can discuss these points with him as well.

 

[Ty_Webb]

There are, by my count, 3 major differences beween the videos of a driver and the steel (not counting the speed difference).
1. Angle. The ball hitting steel is making 90 degree contact with a solid surface. There is no place for the energy to go besides back the way it came- this is the driving force of compression. Hitting an object at even a 10* angle provides an outlet of energy away from the center of a ball, reducing compression and causing a change of direction. The driver provides an outlet for the energy

2.Inertia. A steel plate weighs more than a driver, meaning that the energy of the ball has more mass to move. Its why a baseball distance is more tied to bat speed than ball speed.... more weight (and inertia) in the bat than the ball. In a lighter driver, contact with the ball slows the driver head slightly absorbing energy and reducing compression. Against a stationary steel plate there is less energy going into moving the plate and more going back into the ball- increasing compression.

3. Composition. Drivers are designed to transfer energy. They are designed to be springy and to absorb and release energy more efficiently. A steel plate does not do this. At the moment of impact the driver face deflects (like the loading of a shaft) and absorbs energy from the ball and releases it over a longer period of time (microseconds) again... reducing compression on the ball. A steel plate does not give in the same way (it was not designed to).

All three of these are major difference that can account for the difference in compression over "only" 30 mph difference.
Run the same video against a steel plate at 10* and you will see a very different ball reaction.

This video at 1:51 shows Jamie Sadlowski hitting a ball, so the speed difference is maybe 5mph. I imagine that the loft on the club he's using is somewhere in the 5-6° region. The steel plate in the video gives when it's hit

 

[JB]

This video at 1:51 shows Jamie Sadlowski hitting a ball, so the speed difference is maybe 5mph. I imagine that the loft on the club he's using is somewhere in the 5-6° region. The steel plate in the video gives when it's hit

Do you know what ball Jamie is using? Do you know what the compression is?

 

[Ty_Webb]

Do you know what ball Jamie is using? Do you know what the compression is?

Nope, but I covered that in my previous post. Watch the original video again. Specifically the bit at around 27-29 seconds. You see the way the bit of the ball that hits the plate goes back inside the ball? Do you think that's possible with a ball that has a solid core? Or would you expect that only with a ball that is hollow? Because I don't think that's possible with a solid core.

Well, I say that, but I'm pretty sure it's a pinnacle gold. No idea what the compression is.

 

[JB]

Nope, but I covered that in my previous post. Watch the original video again. Specifically the bit at around 27-29 seconds. You see the way the bit of the ball that hits the plate goes back inside the ball? Do you think that's possible with a ball that has a solid core? Or would you expect that only with a ball that is hollow? Because I don't think that's possible with a solid core.

Im no ball expert, that is the reason we called on one. He said it is possible. Whether he is right or not, who knows, but he said "this could take place"

 

[RxGus]

Nope, but I covered that in my previous post. Watch the original video again. Specifically the bit at around 27-29 seconds. You see the way the bit of the ball that hits the plate goes back inside the ball? Do you think that's possible with a ball that has a solid core? Or would you expect that only with a ball that is hollow? Because I don't think that's possible with a solid core.

Well, I say that, but I'm pretty sure it's a pinnacle gold. No idea what the compression is.

Don't forget there is a HUGE difference between angular and direct momentum. Jamie's swing is based on a purely angular velocity. Even at 140 mph it is not striking the ball in a straight line. Thats why launch angle doesnt equal club face angle. A ball moving in a stright line is direct momentum and provides different forces on things that it contacts.

We are also talking about the way things behave beyond human perception. The extra microsecond the ball is on the face of the driver makes a large difference in ball compression. Take the squash ball you mentioned earlier and throw it at a trampoline. You wont get near as much compression but you will still get energy transfer.

We can not apply what we "know" about the world to these situations. Electrons and other particles behave VERY different than what we feel should be possible, but they do regardless. It is beyond us to say how something "is" at these camera speeds. if you were to watch the same video at "real" speeds you would never be able to notice most of the compression, let alone the "liquid" part at the end where people are getting hung up on the most.

I do not know if this video is real or fake, however I do know that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it because of a video of a driver hitting a ball. The physics are very different between the two. We are talking about a club faced designed to absorb and transfer energy vs a steel plate designed to be ridgid and not transfer energy.

Edit:
Also remember: even the most solid core is, at its very root, more air than anything. You are applying what you know about the physical properties of a product to its molecular properties and they are not always (in fact, rarely are) the same thing. How a ball behaves under this stress and at this camera speed is far more reflective of molecular properties than physical properties.

 

[Ty_Webb]

Don't forget there is a HUGE difference between angular and direct momentum. Jamie's swing is based on a purely angular velocity. Even at 140 mph it is not striking the ball in a straight line. Thats why launch angle doesnt equal club face angle. A ball moving in a stright line is direct momentum and provides different forces on things that it contacts.

We are also talking about the way things behave beyond human perception. The extra microsecond the ball is on the face of the driver makes a large difference in ball compression. Take the squash ball you mentioned earlier and throw it at a trampoline. You wont get near as much compression but you will still get energy transfer.

We can not apply what we "know" about the world to these situations. Electrons and other particles behave VERY different than what we feel should be possible, but they do regardless. It is beyond us to say how something "is" at these camera speeds. if you were to watch the same video at "real" speeds you would never be able to notice most of the compression, let alone the "liquid" part at the end where people are getting hung up on the most.

I do not know if this video is real or fake, however I do know that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it because of a video of a driver hitting a ball. The physics are very different between the two. We are talking about a club faced designed to absorb and transfer energy vs a steel plate designed to be ridgid and not transfer energy.

Edit:
Also remember: even the most solid core is, at its very root, more air than anything. You are applying what you know about the physical properties of a product to its molecular properties and they are not always (in fact, rarely are) the same thing. How a ball behaves under this stress and at this camera speed is far more reflective of molecular properties than physical properties.

If all this is true, wouldn't that impact significantly the ball speed calculations that people come up with using the CoR and masses of clubhead and ball and conservation of momentum and energy? I would expect that they would. And what are physical properties if not a manifestation of molecular properties?

Besides, the difference between angular and direct momentum for the period where the ball is in contact with the clubhead I would expect to be minimal. The ball doesn't know that the clubhead is moving in an arc. Not in the half an inch or so of clubhead travel while in contact with the ball. It's not like we're talking about the ball in one instance compressing a little more than in the other. We're talking about the ball in one instance deforming slightly and then springing back to shape and in the other instance flattening entirely and then springing apart, fast enough to deform again repeatedly. There is just nothing else that looks remotely like that.

But let's look at this from another point of view. On the video of the ball being hit with a golf club, it is being struck at somewhere in the region of 140-150 mph in the Sadlowski video. The ball compresses to maybe 80% of its original size (in the horizontal plane at any rate). In the original video, the ball compresses to somewhere in the region of 10-20% of the original size. How much additional force do you think it would take to compress that by that much more? Or, to put it the other way, how much softer would the ball have to be to compress by that much more at a similar force being applied?

 

[johnblah]

heres the thing, there is no way for sure to know is the First video is at 150mph or Way faster, those facts are hard to know for sure, it could be MUCH faster shot out of an air cannon as it possibly was for the "test". Also all other videos are a a MUCH faster frame rate, The Original posters video says its at 70,000fps and the other posted videos are between 600-4000 if that, the difference there is Huge.