Is a convex shape shaft strike on the ball probable?

[Tevenor]

why do I feel like this is one of this adds that claims to have a simple solution but takes an hour and a half to tell you the answer is to buy their ebook?

You might end up walking away owning a timeshare as well.

 

[tahoebum]

I don’t agree that a convex shape at impact will result in longer drives/more clubhead speed. Just the opposite, in fact. The shaft is convex at the 9 o’clock position on the downswing so with a concave position at impact the clubhead has traveled farther than it would have if the shaft had remained convex. Farther in the same amount of time equals faster. We don’t care about the speed of the shaft, just the clubhead.
I have confirmed this by getting on a Trackman. I own a softer flex version of the same shaft for my driver. The softer flex deflects more which means it is more concave at impact and is longer by a couple of yards but I prefer the stiffer shaft because it feels better to me and my misses are straighter than those with the softer shaft.

 

[Scorp]

So is he gone?

I didn't understand a good portion of what he was saying... it's not that I can't read plain english but... it's like he's using big words just for the sake of using big words. Like was mentioned by someone else, easily digested information accessible to all audiences.

 

[csf.com]

So is he gone?

I didn't understand a good portion of what he was saying... it's not that I can't read plain english but... it's like he's using big words just for the sake of using big words. Like was mentioned by someone else, easily digested information accessible to all audiences.

Scopion12, I am still around. If you don't understand what I am saying, you need to point to me which aspect is it that you don't. I didn't think my English is that deep. You got to pose me a question about what is it that you don't understand.
csf

 

[csf.com]

You might end up walking away owning a timeshare as well.

I understand your skepticism. I was trying to engage in a constructive discussion. If you don't consider the idea worth your while, I am ok with it. Thanks for reading the post.

 

[Tevenor]

I understand your skepticism. I was trying to engage in a constructive discussion. If you don't consider the idea worth your while, I am ok with it. Thanks for reading the post.

Actually I was trying to engage you in your thought process. As someone who went to school for Mechanical Engineering, specifically Material Science and Aerospace, I usually am pretty open to various theories and suppositions when it comes to energy transfer, material performance, and general things of that nature ( like in golf shaft profiles and results ). Some of the best innovations have come from oddball ideas that at face value seem counter intuitive but after testing, data, and research, prove out to be the better option. But so far, I've asked you some pretty specific questions and all you have been able to share with us is "wait until my 5 posts". Healthy skepticism is the bedrock of discovery but to over come that, you have to actually present data and observations to support your theories. You have yet to do that.

 

[csf.com]

I don’t agree that a convex shape at impact will result in longer drives/more clubhead speed. Just the opposite, in fact. The shaft is convex at the 9 o’clock position on the downswing so with a concave position at impact the clubhead has traveled farther than it would have if the shaft had remained convex. Farther in the same amount of time equals faster. We don’t care about the speed of the shaft, just the clubhead.
I have confirmed this by getting on a Trackman. I own a softer flex version of the same shaft for my driver. The softer flex deflects more which means it is more concave at impact and is longer by a couple of yards but I prefer the stiffer shaft because it feels better to me and my misses are straighter than those with the softer shaft.

I am ok if you don't think that striking a ball with a convex bend will outperform the concave bend. All I know is that the fishing rod uses a convex bend at the tapered end to cast the line and sinker. Or the pole of the vault has a convex bend and not a concave bend. That should be convincing enough.
The point of it all is whether the system that I have devised will result in getting the convex-bend shaft from 9 o'clock to the 6 o'clock impact position.
The reasons for my system to be able to achieve are given in my initial post. So I don't wish to repeat it. I plan to expand on some details in later posts.
I have just posted my second post which explains that the backswing using my system will generate the necessary extra power to contribute to the 'probable' convex strike on the ball. It has not been done before. So I can understand the skepticism of many readers, THPers. But if they follow the deductive logic behind the system, you may be persuaded. If not, that's fine with me too. Thanks for taking the time to read my post. And bothering to consider it. I appreciate that.

 

[JB]

One final question from me.
Why not post the entire system now?
Or will you be asking people to purchase to get that info?

 

[mjkladis]

all golf shafts load during the downswing.
all golf shafts unload before impact as a response to the change in direction and speed/force that happens at impact. the shaft is designed to maximize this energy transfer.

if your "system" is designed to increase lag, then you're barking up the wrong tree. lag is worthless unless the golfer releases it. and lag is a response to proper sequencing. it's a mistake to chase lag.

 

[PapaJohick]

wtf am I reading here..... haha.

could be from skimming it, but you ask what a certain phenomenom is due to not truly understanding it, say you're not techincally savy, then you start to tell us you know about the golf swing and how you have a 5 step process that will allow us to hit it better/transfer more energy into the ball?

Its like that guy interviewing for Michael's job that has a 3 part plan to get Dundermifflin back on track but wont relay the process in the interview until he's hired...

 

[csf.com]

Actually I was trying to engage you in your thought process. As someone who went to school for Mechanical Engineering, specifically Material Science and Aerospace, I usually am pretty open to various theories and suppositions when it comes to energy transfer, material performance, and general things of that nature ( like in golf shaft profiles and results ). Some of the best innovations have come from oddball ideas that at face value seem counter intuitive but after testing, data, and research, prove out to be the better option. But so far, I've asked you some pretty specific questions and all you have been able to share with us is "wait until my 5 posts". Healthy skepticism is the bedrock of discovery but to over come that, you have to actually present data and observations to support your theories. You have yet to do that.

Tenenor, I am happy to engage with you in this manner unlike someone dismissing that my English is not up to scratch. Let me declare that I have a humbler educational background. I only have a BSc in science and a MSc in Tech Economics. I have worked as a process researcher, analyzing and searching for gaps in existing processes. Then devising ways in filling the gaps identified. That is what I did when started playing golf searching for a reflex swing.

I don't have any measurable data at all. It was a thought process that produces my concept of a convex strike on the ball. To ask me to support my concept with any data is to hold me to a higher standard than Ben Hogan and Mindy Blake. And Hogan produced a swing that is still the 'gold standard' of the golf swing. At that time Hogan backed it with his spectacular play. I am not remotely in that category.

But the progress with the Hogan swing has stagnated. Rory, in 2018, drove it 319 yards, a mere 14 yards past John Daly 305 yards. That tells me that the modern swing has reached its technical limits.

So I went about thinking why that should be so. One area is the wide Hogan shoulder-width stance. It is not conducive to efficient motion. That factor put it off to a disadvantage. Hogan's method cannot compare with the rotary movement of the lower body, pivoting on the left heel, which is prevalent in the final swing of hammer throw and shot put. A system that I advocate in my reflex convex swing to allow a proven technique in field sports to improve the effectiveness of the golf swing.

The second area is the 22 degrees that Hogan prescribed for the left foot at address. In my old edition, page 44, Hogan acknowledged that the left foot will block the downswing if it is not open enough. And I contend that 22 degrees that advocated by Hogan are not open enough. Why?

Tiger Woods and John Daly, both have their left foot opened to 45-60 degrees at the finish of their swing. By that time, their 20-25 degrees left foot at address and at impact would have done the damage of blocking the downswing throughout the impact zone.

That is the reason why I advocate a left foot turned towards the target 45-60 degrees pre-turned at address and not later in the swing. Such an open left foot will not block the downswing.

When you combined the three features, namely narrow stance, rotary movement of the lower body pivoting on the left heel (to reduce friction) and an open 60 degrees left foot not blocking the momentum of the downswing, the driving force generated in the downswing will more than probably produce a 'convex;-bend shaft on the ball.

And we all know that a convex-bend shaft is more powerful than a concave one. The convex bend is the only other way. There is no third way. Any progress will be in the convex direction.

The deductive logic is behind my concept. Only time will tell.

Since I lived 12-hour zone difference away, I need to bid you good night.

 

[Tevenor]

Buckle up....

I don't have any measurable data at all. It was a thought process that produces my concept of a convex strike on the ball. To ask me to support my concept with any data is to hold me to a higher standard than Ben Hogan and Mindy Blake. And Hogan produced a swing that is still the 'gold standard' of the golf swing. At that time Hogan backed it with his spectacular play. I am not remotely in that category.

So if no data, then can you just walk through theoreticals?

But the progress with the Hogan swing has stagnated. Rory, in 2018, drove it 319 yards, a mere 14 yards past John Daly 305 yards. That tells me that the modern swing has reached its technical limits.

Debatable assumption.

So I went about thinking why that should be so. One area is the wide Hogan shoulder-width stance. It is not conducive to efficient motion. That factor put it off to a disadvantage. Hogan's method cannot compare with the rotary movement of the lower body, pivoting on the left heel, which is prevalent in the final swing of hammer throw and shot put. A system that I advocate in my reflex convex swing to allow a proven technique in field sports to improve the effectiveness of the golf swing.

The second area is the 22 degrees that Hogan prescribed for the left foot at address. In my old edition, page 44, Hogan acknowledged that the left foot will block the downswing if it is not open enough. And I contend that 22 degrees that advocated by Hogan are not open enough. Why?

Tiger Woods and John Daly, both have their left foot opened to 45-60 degrees at the finish of their swing. By that time, their 20-25 degrees left foot at address and at impact would have done the damage of blocking the downswing throughout the impact zone.

That is the reason why I advocate a left foot turned towards the target 45-60 degrees pre-turned at address and not later in the swing. Such an open left foot will not block the downswing.

None of this I disagree with. I have my front foot at closer to 45 degrees to support rotation of the left hip out of the zone. However the correct angle is really a reaction to flexibility in the left hip/leg and swing path considerations. There is no one best option. Should most amateurs open up more? probably.

When you combined the three features, namely narrow stance, rotary movement of the lower body pivoting on the left heel (to reduce friction) and an open 60 degrees left foot not blocking the momentum of the downswing, the driving force generated in the downswing will more than probably produce a 'convex;-bend shaft on the ball.

This is where you lost me. How does the setup of the body of the player alter the expectations of the performance of a shaft? If you took the player out of the equation and used a hitting robot instead, all the the robot would need to do is swing faster than the shaft can flex back to impact to create a convex hitting scenario, yes? Would you agree?

And we all know that a convex-bend shaft is more powerful than a concave one. The convex bend is the only other way. There is no third way. Any progress will be in the convex direction.

The deductive logic is behind my concept. Only time will tell.

Do we? Another assumption and you have already said you have no data. I think you need to start there. Why is a convex shape at impact creating more force imparted into the golf ball, then a swing where the shaft is unloading into the ball and creating more CHS at the end of hte shaft as the shaft tries to come back to it's steady state which is straight. Like all springs, the shaft will try to return to equilibrium.

Since I lived 12-hour zone difference away, I need to bid you good night.

Good night!

 

[Templet0n]

I understand your skepticism. I was trying to engage in a constructive discussion. If you don't consider the idea worth your while, I am ok with it. Thanks for reading the post.

This issue is you have not posed anything that can be digested in any way that resembles a practical application? Are you teaching this method somewhere? Do you have examples of players that do this that you can break down their swing and shows us what you mean and how they do it?

I honestly have no idea how I would swing to produce the results you are talking about. I also have no idea if in a real world situation it can be done. Do you?

Give us something that makes sense. I think you will get more results that way.

 

[JB]

This issue is you have not posed anything that can be digested in any way that resembles a practical application? Are you teaching this method somewhere? Do you have examples of players that do this that you can break down their swing and shows us what you mean and how they do it?

I honestly have no idea how I would swing to produce the results you are talking about. I also have no idea if in a real world situation it can be done. Do you?

Give us something that makes sense. I think you will get more results that way.

We always try to keep spam at bay, sometimes it slips through, but so many THPers reached out to me over the last 24 hours about this that I did some research. This gentlemen, it appears has already published a book on this. In fact he joined others and was transparent it appears, rather than here.

We reached out to him two days ago upon the request from some forum members here. We asked if he was selling a book and was told “no, I dont have a sales pitch at all”. Benefit of the doubt, like we always do we allowed it to continue, but its probably best we lock this up since its from the same playbook that has 5 posts, all ending in buy this book to learn about how to unlock this swing.

 

[Templet0n]

We always try to keep spam at bay, sometimes it slips through, but so many THPers reached out to me over the last 24 hours about this that I did some research. This gentlemen, it appears has already published a book on this. In fact he joined others and was transparent it appears, rather than here.

We reached out to him two days ago upon the request from some forum members here. We asked if he was selling a book and was told “no, I dont have a sales pitch at all”. Benefit of the doubt, like we always do we allowed it to continue, but its probably best we lock this up since its from the same playbook that has 5 posts, all ending in buy this book to learn about how to unlock this swing.

Fair enough. I was just hoping for some form of coherent thought.

 

[JB]

Fair enough. I was just hoping for some form of coherent thought.

Me too, that is why we haven’t closed it yet. We are going to give it another day since he is overseas I gather.
I have no doubt that he believes in this new swing theory. I’m not even saying it does or doesnt work.

 

[Tevenor]

Fair enough. I was just hoping for some form of coherent thought.

 

[GraniteRoost]

I think the proper place for this start of discussion and thought process would be a data that shows clubhead velocity throughout the swing. The premise that most golfers are losing speed before impact seems flawed. My hypothesis is you would see very few players losing clubhead speed before impact, in fact people like Rory who know how to hit the ball are still accelerating the clubhead through impact, even if the shaft is bowed forward "concave".

Shafts are about timing release of energy, and in terms of actual energy return neutral is when the shaft has unloaded fully, but I am not sure that is necessarily where peak clubhead speed occurs. What matters is how the shaft and golfer work together.

 

[blugold]

I understand your skepticism. I was trying to engage in a constructive discussion. If you don't consider the idea worth your while, I am ok with it. Thanks for reading the post.

What data do you have that this plan swing works? Any launch monitor data from actual golfers? Any quantitative data that what you say works best, does actually work best?

 

[csf.com]

Buckle up....

So if no data, then can you just walk through theoreticals?
Not really. I have changed Hogan's right and left foot positions. You can try my new positions. You can feel the 20 degrees right foot can allow you to have a tighter backswing sooner. The backswing will be shorter. The shoulder and hip planes will be at a maximum of 45 degrees. That is the maximum energy generation possible. It is a real-time effect you can find out for yourself. It is not even 'theory'. It is a practical outcome.
I am not sure Einstein whether had any data when he proposed E=MC2. I thought his thesis was confirmed much later. And I am nowhere near proposing such profound stuff. Just logical mundane stuff that can be readily experienced if only you wish to test it out.

Debatable assumption. It is not an assumption. The data is available at PGA.com. If a 14-yard improvement over 2 decades does not show stagnation, then I can't marshall any more persuasive data.

None of this I disagree with. I have my front foot at closer to 45 degrees to support rotation of the left hip out of the zone. However the correct angle is really a reaction to flexibility in the left hip/leg and swing path considerations. There is no one best option. Should most amateurs open up more? probably.
If you are still using a 22 degrees left foot set at address, then you should try using 45 degrees, it will not block the rotation of your lower body and slow yoru downswing. Try it. You have nothing to lose.
Tony Finau sets his left foot 45 degrees at address. He has a powerful swing. He is one of 5 professionals whose swings I have analyzed and know can do the convex strike when he adopts the core principles that I have mentioned.

This is where you lost me. How does the setup of the body of the player alter the expectations of the performance of a shaft? If you took the player out of the equation and used a hitting robot instead, all the the robot would need to do is swing faster than the shaft can flex back to impact to create a convex hitting scenario, yes? Would you agree?
You need to adopt all three core principles simultaneously. They are mutually reinforcing. They are designed to increase energy generation (the subject of my #2 post) and increase the efficiency of converting that energy into a convex strike force. They are designed to increase swing to the extent that you can achieve a convex strike. I am sure the five candidates that I have selected can do it sooner rather later.

Do we? Another assumption and you have already said you have no data. I think you need to start there. Why is a convex shape at impact creating more force imparted into the golf ball, then a swing where the shaft is unloading into the ball and creating more CHS at the end of hte shaft as the shaft tries to come back to it's steady state which is straight. Like all springs, the shaft will try to return to equilibrium.
I think you and most people know that the convex-bend implement is more powerful than a concave-bend. You won't see a concave-bend pole in a vault. Any talk of data is a distraction when the fact is so obvious.

Good night!
Thanks for persevering with me. This is the type of discussion I have plenty of patience for.

 

[csf.com]

Me too, that is why we haven’t closed it yet. We are going to give it another day since he is overseas I gather.
I have no doubt that he believes in this new swing theory. I’m not even saying it does or doesnt work.

JB, thanks for keeping an open mind. It is easy to check that I have published my book, The Relfex Convex Swing. Like I have said that I am posting the concept for the benefit of THPers to consider its validity. I have kept not made any sales pitch, have I. Just talking technical stuff. csf.com

 

[csf.com]

This issue is you have not posed anything that can be digested in any way that resembles a practical application? Are you teaching this method somewhere? Do you have examples of players that do this that you can break down their swing and shows us what you mean and how they do it?

I honestly have no idea how I would swing to produce the results you are talking about. I also have no idea if in a real world situation it can be done. Do you?

Give us something that makes sense. I think you will get more results that way.

Do read my post carefully. Or read my replies to Tevenor.

 

[csf.com]

What data do you have that this plan swing works? Any launch monitor data from actual golfers? Any quantitative data that what you say works best, does actually work best?

Why not try to follow the logic of the system that I have proposed in my post. A lot of ideas come through thought processes. When it becomes a practice, you will have all the data then.

 

[csf.com]

I think the proper place for this start of discussion and thought process would be a data that shows clubhead velocity throughout the swing. The premise that most golfers are losing speed before impact seems flawed. My hypothesis is you would see very few players losing clubhead speed before impact, in fact people like Rory who know how to hit the ball are still accelerating the clubhead through impact, even if the shaft is bowed forward "concave".

Shafts are about timing release of energy, and in terms of actual energy return neutral is when the shaft has unloaded fully, but I am not sure that is necessarily where peak clubhead speed occurs. What matters is how the shaft and golfer work together.

I have already said that the convex-bend shaft at 9 o'clock transitioning to straight and then concave is evidence of the swing losing speed. I don't know what else to say to persuade you. csf.com

 

[blugold]

Why not try to follow the logic of the system that I have proposed in my post. A lot of ideas come through thought processes. When it becomes a practice, you will have all the data then.

I have. I want to see how to achieve what you are describing in the swing. Do not tell me the about the Hogan stance. Not every golfer uses Hogan's stance or follows Hogan's teaching on swing mechanics. So, how do I achieve a convex shaft at impact? It's just a stance thing, or is it? Show me some proof of concepts, please.