Is a convex shape shaft strike on the ball probable?

[TheDoctor]

At the point of impact, if a club is still in a convex shape, it is going to be more inefficient as it hasn't released the stored energy in to the ball
At the same time, a club that has moved to a concave shape has passed the point of maximum energy transfer so will also be inefficient as well

Even taking your fishing rod analogy, the maximum point of energy transfer is when the rod reaches a straight point, not when it is a convex shape, as a convex shape is not producing any forward momentum

 

[Turtlerancher]

:bicker::deadhorse::facepalm: Sums up this thread, publish a paper disproving the laws of physics and releasing of kinetic energy and after peer review if you are right, come back and we can discuss this revolutionary new development in the golf swing.

 

[93civiccpe]

The fishing rod is the nearest thing to a golf shaft. Both have a progressive tapering shape. So me reference to a fishing rod is apt.

If the concave shape is stronger, the tapered end of the fishing rod should assume that shape when it casts the line and sinker. A wipe cracks with a convex bend snap.

Sure, the pole returns to straight after the convex bend pole releases its stored energy to propel the vaulter over the bar. The energy is built up by the vaulter running down the runway to build up kinetic energy that is converted to the potential energy stored in the convex pole. Then the potential energy is released and converted to kinetic energy to propel the athlete over the bar. I hope this makes sense.

But I do know that you are better qualified than I in this area. All I can rely on is a convex shape of a fishing rod.

This link to the action of a fishing rod may interest you: https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/guides/rodselection.html or https://www.theonlinefisherman.com/fishing-rods
The action is only about a convex bend to cast a line and sinker.

At the point of impact, if a club is still in a convex shape, it is going to be more inefficient as it hasn't released the stored energy in to the ball
At the same time, a club that has moved to a concave shape has passed the point of maximum energy transfer so will also be inefficient as well

Even taking your fishing rod analogy, the maximum point of energy transfer is when the rod reaches a straight point, not when it is a convex shape, as a convex shape is not producing any forward momentum

This is the same point I was going to make as someone who has fished most my life. (freshwater, deep sea, and fly fishing). The fishing rod loads (convex shape) as you start casting forward then returns to straight (or slightly concave if a light action rod) at the point of release where the lure is sent towards the spot you are casting to. It's the snap of the tip that releases the stored energy and casts the lure. If you release too early when the rod is in a convex shape you typically get a high /weak cast that is not on target. For one released late (concave) you typically are casting straight down into the water. As an engineer it seems that at the moment of impact the shaft has a slight convex shape and is releasing through impact that should result in a very efficient transfer of energy. If you held the convex through impact that would be extremely inefficient. You want the clubhead accelerating through the ball not decelerating. It's why so many coaches want the straight line release just past the ball. I just want to see the data showing a golfer who has perfected this technique and a measurement of their gains.

 

[WILDTHING]

In a standard Tour Pro golf swing , the majority of the clubhead speed before 'Release' is caused by the hand speed in the downswing.

1. You can create a torque (twisting force) on your arms that will create a high force over a short distance (clubhead path to ball)
2. You can create a torque on your arms that might create a smaller force but over a longer distance (clubhead path to ball) - ie . over a long backswing
3. Ideally it would be nice to create a torque on your arms that generates a high force over a long distance.

So I am assuming that the OP is using Jim McLeans X-factor research data that actually proves that long hitters have greater pelvic/torso separation capabilities than short hitters. Which could mean they are able to stretch their muscles more effectively like the 2 diagrams below. But note that muscles do not store and release energy like an elastic band (the ligaments do have some elasticity qualities) but the more they are stretched the more they can be contracted. So yes, if one does create X-factor stretch , I can assume a larger arm torque and extra hand speed (using the contraction of the muscles in the diagrams below).

But if the OP is suggesting a shorter more compact backswing , then he must take into account that any extra X-factor generated 'arm' torque will create a hand force applied over a shorter distance, therefore clubhead speed before 'Release' could be compromised.

If you are old and inflexible like me and most of your 'fast twitch' muscles have 'died off' , my X-factor stretch is non-existent and I will have to rely on maximising my range of motion in the backswing (ie. probably an arm swing technique and the simultaneous turn of my pelvis/torso together - just like Shawn Clement). If your a Tour Pro with superior pelvic/torso flexibility , then I suspect they can restrict their hip motion while still being able to maximise their backswing capability (and get a full X-factor stretch).

The kinetics for creating 'Release' (ie. the passive uncocking of the lead wrist and the release of clubhead lag) is quite complicated but it involves other anatomical movements that create/maximise a force across the club via the arms (mainly a tension force via the lead arm). It is this force that creates 'A Moment Of Force' on the clubs 'Center of Mass' that greatly increases the angular velocity of the club to such a degree that it is too fast for the human wrist joints to keep up . This means that the grip of the club is dragging the wrists through impact (therefore the grip end of shaft is being impeded in its angular movement) while the clubheads 'Center of Mass' is freewheeling though to impact (which actually causes extra 'concave bend' in the shaft than is normally expected).

Accelerating the club through impact to increase clubhead speed is a myth , because imagine how much extra speed one can achieve in the 0.0004 seconds that the clubface is in contact with the ball.

The OP needs to produce some 'Kinetic' evidence to prove that his re-engineered golf swing with a convex shaft bend is superior in creating clubhead speed.

 

[csf.com]

This is the same point I was going to make as someone who has fished most my life. (freshwater, deep sea, and fly fishing). The fishing rod loads (convex shape) as you start casting forward then returns to straight (or slightly concave if a light action rod) at the point of release where the lure is sent towards the spot you are casting to. It's the snap of the tip that releases the stored energy and casts the lure. If you release too early when the rod is in a convex shape you typically get a high /weak cast that is not on target. For one released late (concave) you typically are casting straight down into the water. As an engineer it seems that at the moment of impact the shaft has a slight convex shape and is releasing through impact that should result in a very efficient transfer of energy. If you held the convex through impact that would be extremely inefficient. You want the clubhead accelerating through the ball not decelerating. It's why so many coaches want the straight line release just past the ball. I just want to see the data showing a golfer who has perfected this technique and a measurement of their gains.

Your observation of how the fishing rod works is correct.

Right now, all golfers have their shafts transitioning from a convex shape when the left arm is at 9 o'clock position to a concave shape at impact. Once the downswing passes that left arm 9 o'clock position, the swing slows down because the left foot is not open enough at 20 - 30 degrees. The left foot is blocking the turning of the lower body. The shaft transitions to straight and then to concave before it strikes the ball. That to me is a weak strike.

It will be better if the shaft approaches the ball with a convex shape. This is in line with what you have said. I am delighted that you think "at the moment of impact the shaft has a slight convex shape and is releasing through impact that should result in a very efficient transfer of energy".

That observation is the best (and first) comment that I have come heard from a THPer. Now, I know someone like you who also think striking a with a convex shaft is a good thing. You made my day!

I have proposed a swing system that has the aim of striking the ball with a convex shaft. It does not need to retain a convex shape much further after impact on the ball. The Reflex Convex Swing has the following features:

1. Adopt a narrow stance where the distance between the outer heels is the same as that between the outer edges of the shoulders.
2. At address, turn the feet towards the target with the right foot at 20 degrees and the left foot at 45 to 60 degrees (preferably the latter for really fast swings).
3. Use the rotary movement of the lower body - an established technique used in field sports - as the primary source to power the golf swing.
4. Ensure that the left leg remains flexed throughout the impact zone (like in field sports).
5. Pivot the rotary movement of the lower body on the left heel, and let the left foot open progressively as the downswing occurs.

If the above conditions are applied simultaneously, then any golfer having a swing speed of 100+ mph has a chance of striking the ball with a convex bend shaft.

For me, the convex strike on the ball is a distinct possibility. There should no doubt about that. The question is whether my system will achieve the convex strike. Obviously, I think so. Otherwise, I won't have written a book by that name.

I have been posting the information here for discussion. Finally, I have come across someone who thinks a convex strike on the ball is possible. When my book finds an enterprising enough professional wanting to try my system, the data that you wish to see will be forthcoming. In my book, I have identified five professionals who have the capacity to do that.

 

[93civiccpe]

Your observation of how the fishing rod works is correct.

Right now, all golfers have their shafts transitioning from a convex shape when the left arm is at 9 o'clock position to a concave shape at impact. Once the downswing passes that left arm 9 o'clock position, the swing slows down because the left foot is not open enough at 20 - 30 degrees. The left foot is blocking the turning of the lower body. The shaft transitions to straight and then to concave before it strikes the ball. That to me is a weak strike.

It will be better if the shaft approaches the ball with a convex shape. This is in line with what you have said. I am delighted that you think "at the moment of impact the shaft has a slight convex shape and is releasing through impact that should result in a very efficient transfer of energy".

That observation is the best (and first) comment that I have come heard from a THPer. Now, I know someone like you who also think striking a with a convex shaft is a good thing. You made my day!

I have proposed a swing system that has the aim of striking the ball with a convex shaft. It does not need to retain a convex shape much further after impact on the ball. The Reflex Convex Swing has the following features:

1. Adopt a narrow stance where the distance between the outer heels is the same as that between the outer edges of the shoulders.
2. At address, turn the feet towards the target with the right foot at 20 degrees and the left foot at 45 to 60 degrees (preferably the latter for really fast swings).
3. Use the rotary movement of the lower body - an established technique used in field sports - as the primary source to power the golf swing.
4. Ensure that the left leg remains flexed throughout the impact zone (like in field sports).
5. Pivot the rotary movement of the lower body on the left heel, and let the left foot open progressively as the downswing occurs.

If the above conditions are applied simultaneously, then any golfer having a swing speed of 100+ mph has a chance of striking the ball with a convex bend shaft.

For me, the convex strike on the ball is a distinct possibility. There should no doubt about that. The question is whether my system will achieve the convex strike. Obviously, I think so. Otherwise, I won't have written a book by that name.

I have been posting the information here for discussion. Finally, I have come across someone who thinks a convex strike on the ball is possible. When my book finds an enterprising enough professional wanting to try my system, the data that you wish to see will be forthcoming. In my book, I have identified five professionals who have the capacity to do that.

As an engineer the concept seems legitimate but just like anything else, testing is required to validate the hypothesis. I think a lot of this would depend on the material performance of the shaft. If someone uses a freeze frame of a modern driver (say Rory) then you should be able to see where in the downswing the clubhead is moving the fastest. If it's right after the shaft moves from a convex to straight then your idea has validity and might be worth testing. If the clubhead continues to accelerate into the concave shape before starting to decelerate then it would not make sense. Finding that point of deceleration would be the place to start before monkeying with a swing. That should be really easy to do with a slow motion swing from a couple professional golfers. Material chemistry is not my specialty but I would hesitate to think that the clubhead decelerates rapidly after to goes into the concave shape. And these guys are using data like never before to gain any advantage they can and none of them are attempting this. You would think this would have been tried already but maybe no one has thought of it yet.

 

[93civiccpe]

It will be better if the shaft approaches the ball with a convex shape. This is in line with what you have said. I am delighted that you think "at the moment of impact the shaft has a slight convex shape and is releasing through impact that should result in a very efficient transfer of energy".

That observation is the best (and first) comment that I have come heard from a THPer. Now, I know someone like you who also think striking a with a convex shaft is a good thing. You made my day!

After reading this again I want to clarify a couple of things. I am saying it is a valid hypothesis but would have to be proven by testing and having the data to back it up. I believe others have said the same thing.. We need to see the data.

Secondly, I want to add the caveat that I may be the worst driver of the golf ball on this forum so I'm not sure how much you should be celebrating..

 

[TheDoctor]

Ok, I needed a break from what I was doing so decided to Google this book the OP has written and came across this excerpt from the preview shown on Google

The Reflex Convex Swing

In 1957, Ben Hogan’s Five Lessons: The Modern Fundamentals of Golf introduced a technique that transformed the golf game. Almost every golfer, recreational or professional, used some elements of his method. It has since been the “gold standard” for half a century. But in the last two decades...

books.google.co.uk

Since when does someone want a driver to launch at 38 to 45 degrees? And how are you supposed to get a driver to launch at that angle with a ball position in the middle of the stance?

 

[Turtlerancher]

Ok, I needed a break from what I was doing so decided to Google this book the OP has written and came across this excerpt from the preview shown on Google

The Reflex Convex Swing

In 1957, Ben Hogan’s Five Lessons: The Modern Fundamentals of Golf introduced a technique that transformed the golf game. Almost every golfer, recreational or professional, used some elements of his method. It has since been the “gold standard” for half a century. But in the last two decades...

books.google.co.uk

View attachment 8944955

Since when does someone want a driver to launch at 38 to 45 degrees? And how are you supposed to get a driver to launch at that angle with a ball position in the middle of the stance?

Just cause it's launching °38 to °45 to the right doesn't make him wrong.

 

[93civiccpe]

Another thing I want to point out, because of the way modern cameras scan top down or side to side while building each image /frame you get the rolling shutter effect. I am still not convinced that what you are seeing isn't just the rolling shutter effect. You would need specialized high speed cameras to get the images for seeing where the maximum clubhead speed is in the downswing. Rory has started that he hits his driver with a descending blow (does not hit up on it). His feeling is that his hands are still forward at impact. Watch the video below on how the shutter distortion works and how it changes when recording the same swing with the camera sideways since it is building left to right instead of top to bottom. All this to say that you need a lot of good data to prove your hypothesis. (and this data would be required before anyone risks messing up their swing chasing extra speed that might not exist).

 

[TheDoctor]

Just cause it's launching °38 to °45 to the right doesn't make him wrong.

Never thought of that.....I was making the assumption of launching it forwards at that angle

 

[Tevenor]

Since when does someone want a driver to launch at 38 to 45 degrees? And how are you supposed to get a driver to launch at that angle with a ball position in the middle of the stance?

I call them "wedges". They are the newest craze.

 

[93civiccpe]

Just cause it's launching °38 to °45 to the right doesn't make him wrong.

The OP should answer this but those look like he's targeting the ideal angle for launching a projectile for maximum distance in ideal conditions (no wind or spin). Golf balls spin so that launch situation seems like a recipe for a balloon ball. Additionally, his statements in the quoted paragraph such as "this would suggest that..." tell us he's assuming his theory is correct without taking the time to prove or disprove it. The more I read the more I think this hypothesis would be proven wrong if tested.. I'm not buying it. I do believe you want to release as much energy through the ball as possible to get the maximum distance but he's made no progress in showing that the modern golf swing doesn't accomplish that. He sees what I believe to be the rolling shutter effect and is using that to say the modern strike is not effective. If your base assumption is wrong then it's only going to lead to disaster.

 

[csf.com]

After reading this again I want to clarify a couple of things. I am saying it is a valid hypothesis but would have to be proven by testing and having the data to back it up. I believe others have said the same thing.. We need to see the data.

Secondly, I want to add the caveat that I may be the worst driver of the golf ball on this forum so I'm not sure how much you should be celebrating..

 

[csf.com]

I am celebrating because there is someone besides me who thinks that a convex strike hypothesis is valid. Many don't even give it the benefit of the doubt. And keep badgering me for data and data. I don't think you should be overly concerned. A bad driver can have a great idea too.

I think I should say this. Discovery starts with an idea. Then that idea can be framed as a hypothesis. When data are collected, then the hypothesis will be accepted or rejected. That is the scientific method.

Similarly, my idea of a convex strike on the ball has been formalized as a hypothesis in my book, The Reflex Convex Swing. It will be tested and data collected. I am waiting for that to happen. I am confident enough that it will come through. If my system fails, then someone else can devise another system. But the convex strike is a distinct possibility that won't be denied. Simply because it is the only other way - indeed a more powerful force. There is no third way to bending a shaft.

 

[93civiccpe]

I am celebrating because there is someone besides me who thinks that a convex strike hypothesis is valid. Many don't even give it the benefit of the doubt. And keep badgering me for data and data. I don't think you should be overly concerned. A bad driver can have a great idea too.

I think I should say this. Discovery starts with an idea. Then that idea can be framed as a hypothesis. When data are collected, then the hypothesis will be accepted or rejected. That is the scientific method.

Similarly, my idea of a convex strike on the ball has been formalized as a hypothesis in my book, The Reflex Convex Swing. It will be tested and data collected. I am waiting for that to happen. I am confident enough that it will come through. If my system fails, then someone else can devise another system. But the convex strike is a distinct possibility that won't be denied. Simply because it is the only other way - indeed a more powerful force. There is no third way to bending a shaft.

First of all, the hypothesis that the earth is flat was a valid hypothesis until it was disproven with facts. Just because it is a valid hypothesis means that you have to test to see if it is accurate. Here is my problem, though, you haven't proven that the modern driver swing is not producing a convex strike at impact. I posted a video showing the distortion caused by a rolling shutter in digital cameras. There are many videos that show the shaft of tour pros being straight (not concave) at impact and even some that look like they might even have a convex shaft immediately prior to impact. Video distortion is common and there are lots of references explaining how the camera takes the still frames and why it happens. Someone would have to take a bold leap of faith because your hypothesis hasn't been tested and the more data /videos I look at the more I believe you are mistaking the rolling shutter effect for a concave shaft at impact.
On top of this, you haven't measured how the energy is transferred through the shaft to understand when the optimal release of energy occurs. Maybe the shaft should be a little concave because it is very possible the head hasn't started decelerating yet. It all depends on the material dynamics and how the shaft unloads the energy. The sad thing is that it would not be all that expensive to pay for a place with a proper high speed camera to record someone swinging a driver, rule out rolling shutter effect, and show you where the clubhead is moving the fastest and where it starts descelerating. Without that basis then it's not worth even trying the swing change you are proposing. As an engineer this seems careless and lazy to not do the upfront work to get data to justify your hypotheses. It seems like a crazy attempt to sell a book that I'm not buying and would read if given to me for free.

 

[csf.com]

Ok, I needed a break from what I was doing so decided to Google this book the OP has written and came across this excerpt from the preview shown on Google

The Reflex Convex Swing

In 1957, Ben Hogan’s Five Lessons: The Modern Fundamentals of Golf introduced a technique that transformed the golf game. Almost every golfer, recreational or professional, used some elements of his method. It has since been the “gold standard” for half a century. But in the last two decades...

books.google.co.uk

View attachment 8944955

Since when does someone want a driver to launch at 38 to 45 degrees? And how are you supposed to get a driver to launch at that angle with a ball position in the middle of the stance?

I am no expert. I hope this helps:
The attached screen grab states: the optimum launch angle is 45 degrees

 

[csf.com]

Just cause it's launching °38 to °45 to the right doesn't make him wrong.

Thank you. Here is the link:
It about the "Math behind Sports: Optimum launch angle for a hammer throw is 45 degrees. The throw is a parabola curve.
The attached shows the results for a hammer throw. Why wouldn't it work for a golf shot? I won't write it off outright.

 

[csf.com]

This is the same point I was going to make as someone who has fished most my life. (freshwater, deep sea, and fly fishing). The fishing rod loads (convex shape) as you start casting forward then returns to straight (or slightly concave if a light action rod) at the point of release where the lure is sent towards the spot you are casting to. It's the snap of the tip that releases the stored energy and casts the lure. If you release too early when the rod is in a convex shape you typically get a high /weak cast that is not on target. For one released late (concave) you typically are casting straight down into the water. As an engineer it seems that at the moment of impact the shaft has a slight convex shape and is releasing through impact that should result in a very efficient transfer of energy. If you held the convex through impact that would be extremely inefficient. You want the clubhead accelerating through the ball not decelerating. It's why so many coaches want the straight line release just past the ball. I just want to see the data showing a golfer who has perfected this technique and a measurement of their gains.

No further comment. Except for this, if the convex shape straightening on impact is more powerful than approaching it with a concave shape, I shall be celebrating!

 

[csf.com]

First of all, the hypothesis that the earth is flat was a valid hypothesis until it was disproven with facts. Just because it is a valid hypothesis means that you have to test to see if it is accurate. Here is my problem, though, you haven't proven that the modern driver swing is not producing a convex strike at impact. I posted a video showing the distortion caused by a rolling shutter in digital cameras. There are many videos that show the shaft of tour pros being straight (not concave) at impact and even some that look like they might even have a convex shaft immediately prior to impact. Video distortion is common and there are lots of references explaining how the camera takes the still frames and why it happens. Someone would have to take a bold leap of faith because your hypothesis hasn't been tested and the more data /videos I look at the more I believe you are mistaking the rolling shutter effect for a concave shaft at impact.
On top of this, you haven't measured how the energy is transferred through the shaft to understand when the optimal release of energy occurs. Maybe the shaft should be a little concave because it is very possible the head hasn't started decelerating yet. It all depends on the material dynamics and how the shaft unloads the energy. The sad thing is that it would not be all that expensive to pay for a place with a proper high speed camera to record someone swinging a driver, rule out rolling shutter effect, and show you where the clubhead is moving the fastest and where it starts descelerating. Without that basis then it's not worth even trying the swing change you are proposing. As an engineer this seems careless and lazy to not do the upfront work to get data to justify your hypotheses. It seems like a crazy attempt to sell a book that I'm not buying and would read if given to me for free.

Not to worry. Time will tell. Hey I am not trying to sell you a book at this site. I do that at Amazon. I am here to sell a new idea. It is ok if you elect not to buy it, the idea I mean.

 

[-CRW-]

Lessons from ShaftLab - 3

TrueTemper's ShaftLab is a great instrument for shaft research, not just custom fitting.

www.tutelman.com

Ben Hogan, Lee Comeaux, and the Right Hand Hit

Leecommotion, the Right-Side Swing

Bro, you aren't even trying to hide the fact that you are familiar, are you? It’s not exactly a mystery...

 

[M2Giles]

1. I'm not exactly sure why I just read this thread.

2. Isnt GEARS and ENSO and other 3D capture of a swing can summarize what is going on. From some of those captures either the shaft is causing one of three 3 things, adding a bit of speed as it unloads, in between unloading and reloading, or has started to reload prior to impact. If the club has started to reload prior to impact you are losing a marginal amount of club head speed at impact. All of these will also effect the loft presented so again the slight changes in club head speed may be moot. There have been a few academic papers about what the shaft is doing in a golf swing.

3. Unless you want to get one of those systems, you will not be able to measure what the shaft is doing. Then you also have what that feels like affecting you as well.

4. Why did I read this thread and why did I respond.

 

[93civiccpe]

Thank you. Here is the link:
It about the "Math behind Sports: Optimum launch angle for a hammer throw is 45 degrees. The throw is a parabola curve.
The attached shows the results for a hammer throw. Why wouldn't it work for a golf shot? I won't write it off outright.

I thought that's why you chose 45 degrees. It's the angle used for optimal launch of a projectile when you don't take into account external forces acting on it. With a hammer throw you have a smooth /round object that's being released in a straight line. The external forces acting on it are primarily drag from the wind and gravity. The 45 degree launch makes sense here. A golf ball is dimpled and hit with a club which imparts backspin on it. It's intentionally using the backspin and drag across those dimples to create lift and have a stabilized flight. That is the reason a 45 degree launch will not work with a golf ball. The backspin will cause it to keep arching up higher instead of going forward.

 

[csf.com]

Not to worry. Time will tell. Hey I am not trying to sell you a book at this site. I do that at Amazon. I am here to sell a new idea. It is ok if you elect not to buy it, the idea I mean.

I have watched every notable professional on youtube. None of them have struck the ball with a convex shape shaft at impact. It is always a concave shape. And I assume they all use the modern swing. Here is Rory McIlroy swing:
Rory is the 2018 driving distance leader. If he can do the convex strike using his modern swing, I doubt you can find someone who can. Do let me know when you find one. But in my book, I have pointed out that Rory and four others can definitely do the convex strike should he adopt the Reflex Convex Swing core principles.
I attach the impact position of three top male pro. All strike with a concave bend shaft.

 

[93civiccpe]

I have watched every notable professional on youtube. None of them have struck the ball with a convex shape shaft at impact. It is always a concave shape. And I assume they all use the modern swing. Here is Rory McIlroy swing:
Rory is the 2018 driving distance leader. If he can do the convex strike using his modern swing, I doubt you can find someone who can. Do let me know when you find one. But in my book, I have pointed out that Rory and four others can definitely do the convex strike should he adopt the Reflex Convex Swing core principles.
I attach the impact position of three top male pro. All strike with a concave bend shaft.

All of the above appear to be rolling shutter distortion. You haven't proven that a single one hits it with a concave shape. I have to ask since I feel like I've invested way too much time already, did you watch the video I linked several posts above explaining the distortion and why it happens? Here's another video that explains it very well: