Is a convex shape shaft strike on the ball probable?
You do realise throwing a hammer and hitting a golf ball have zero things in common?
As far as I am concerned, you have very little idea about the golf swing based on this thread and your sources of comparison
Therefore I am out
I realized that when he posted above that he does not understand rolling shutter. I was trying to encourage him to do the basic research just to prove the basis of his hypothesis and he clearly does not want to. A lot of what he's using as the basis of this "new swing" seem to be misunderstandings of physics and how a swing works. If he doesn't understand why launching a golf ball at 45 degrees with a driver is a bad thing then why go further? My only concern was that a THP'er buys into this and really screws their swing up trying to make this work.
WILDTHING
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 360
- Handicap
- 15
Yes, there can be a rolling shutter effect , but even with a phantom camera (25,000 FPS) , there is still forward shaft bend (ie. concave as shown in your video image) coming into impact for full swing 5 iron- Driver. The OP knows there is forward shaft bend and thinks his new swing will create convex bend with superior speed and compression on the golf ball . Unfortunately , he has to prove that as a fact, not supposition and is no different to other golf theories being marketed.
Here is the proof that there is concave shaft bend in full swings 5 iron-Driver .
The below is the research from TruTemper back in 1999 for nine PGA pros using strain gauges on a shaft . The horizontal axis is the shaft forward bend (ie. all shown to be concave ), while the y-axis is the clubhead droop . Even long drivers have forward shaft bend and a good example is Jamie Sadlowski if you can find a super slow mo video of him.
Last edited:
WILDTHING
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 360
- Handicap
- 15
The only way the OP is going to convince me with regards the superiority of his re-engineered swing is if he can prove an increase in the 'Smash Factor' (as defined below). Using comparisons of other sports like hammer throws ,pole-vaulting and fishing-rod casting is irrelevant.
The Smash Factor (SF) is the ball speed divided by the clubhead speed- see below from Dave Tutelmans website:
The Smash Factor (SF) is the ball speed divided by the clubhead speed- see below from Dave Tutelmans website:
- e = Coefficient of Restitution. For a modern driver this is pretty much stuck on 0.83, because (a) the USGA/R&A rules say it can't be more and (b) manufacturers know how to build to 0.83 and even higher.
- m = Ball mass. This is 46g, for pretty much the same reason as COR is 0.83. The rule says it can't be more, and less gives poorer performance. A lighter ball may have more initial ball speed, but its lower inertia gives it less "punch" through air resistance. Ball manufacturers learned long ago that heavier balls go farther, and the Rule makers learned almost as long ago to limit the maximum ball mass. So all balls are just about 46g.
- M = Clubhead mass. For most modern drivers, this is within a couple of grams of 200g. But it can depart significantly for design reasons. It is an unusual design that is far from 200g, but they exist. We'll explore this more below.
- loft is a property of the club. For most Tour drivers (and most drivers in the hands of amateurs) it is within a degree of 10º.
- miss is the distance, in inches, that impact misses the sweet spot of the clubhead. It should be noted that the factor 0.14 dates back to about 1990, when driver heads were small and made of wood. Today's driver has a much higher clubhead moment of inertia, so the factor is correspondingly smaller. I haven't seen any data, but I suspect it is more like 0.07-0.10.
csf.com
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 10
- Thread starter
- #157
93civiccpe. I appreciate that you understand that the 45 degrees angle is not taken out of thin air. I also understand your other points o drag, dimple, lift, and backspin. I am not good enough to comment further.
Your comment that the convex strike on the ball is a possibility is sufficient for me. I shall have to wait when my system gets tested and see whether the probability of a convex strike materializes.
csf.com
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 10
- Thread starter
- #158
93civiccpe and Tevenor. I wish to thank both of you for trying to engage me conscientiously and let me explain myself.
93, the convex strike is real. Because it is a stronger bend than the concave bend of the modern swing.
I have explained previously that the weak concave strike of the modern swing is due to three factors. Perhaps, I should restate them again.
1. The square right foot does not hold the right hip and side steady enough. Pages 54 to 57 (Hogan's book) show that the hips are always moving throughout the backswing. If the purpose is to get the maximum difference between the shoulders and hips to get the necessary muscular tension (p57), then it makes sense to pre-turn the right foot to 20 degrees (which I advocate). That way the backswing can generate the maximum energy with the least amount of shoulder turn and a compact backswing.
2. The 'slide and turn' movement that is needed to shift weight over the wide shoulder-width stance is not efficient. The rotary movement of the lower body over a narrow stance, which is 6 inches narrower than the Hogan stance, is more efficient. As in shot put, 17 of the 25 all-time puts use the spin (rotary) technique; it is 20 percent further than the slide technique. My system uses the rotary movement of the lower body as the primary source of power. My 'reflex swing' stance is where the distance between the outer heels is that between the outer edges of the shoulders. This 'reflex swing' stance is wide enough for the rotary movement of the lower body to occur rapidly within the confines of the heels, thereby maintaining stability.
3. The 22 degrees left foot advocated by Hogan actively blocks the downswing as the left arm reaches and gets beyond 9 o'clock. The left foot needs to be open after impact in order to complete the swing. Long drivers, like Tiger and John Daly, have their left foot pointed 45 to 60 degrees at the completion of their swings. On page 27 (Hogan's book), he suggests that the left foot must not block the downswing in any way. From these two observations, I deduced that it must be better to pre-open the left foot 45 - 60 degrees at address. That way, at no time throughout the downswing, will the left foot block the downswing.
Those three factors of the Hogan method have diminished the efficiency and distance potential of the modern swing. Those are the reasons for the shaft being in 'concave' bend before it strikes the ball. The concave strike is a weak strike.
My method, The Reflex Convex Swing, was conceived to rectify the difficulties faced by the Hogan method. In the hands of top professionals or all those with swing speed above 100 mph, the Convex Swing will impact the ball with a 'convex' bend shaft, or perhaps just straightening. It will deliver distances beyond the Hogan modern swing.
I post this in all humility and with my best intention to advance the development of the golf swing. This has not been attempted since Mindy Blake in his Golf Swing of the Future. This effort of mine is the latest attempt to make a radical overhaul.
I wish to suggest that readers spend less time poking holes in my method. They should spend time more time thinking of a better system, if mine proves to be not good enough, of achieving a 'convex' strike on the ball. The convex strike is a more powerful force. To me, there is little doubt about that. The future lies with the 'convex' strike.
May someone else can conceive a better system if mine proves not good enough!! That to me is a better use of our mental energy. But I understand it is a lot of fun too to poke holes. Devising a better way is a lot more difficult. We need to acknowledge that driving distances have stagnated. Rory's effort in 2018 is only 14 yards longer than Daly's 1999 effort. Hogan's method has reached its technical limits.
Since a number of readers have posted "I am OUT!", I think I should take time out too. That way, I won't continue to post views that may not go down well with many. I wish to thank all those who have read my posts and replies. I can still be available to exchange views if you so choose at saifahcheong@gmail.com.
93, the convex strike is real. Because it is a stronger bend than the concave bend of the modern swing.
I have explained previously that the weak concave strike of the modern swing is due to three factors. Perhaps, I should restate them again.
1. The square right foot does not hold the right hip and side steady enough. Pages 54 to 57 (Hogan's book) show that the hips are always moving throughout the backswing. If the purpose is to get the maximum difference between the shoulders and hips to get the necessary muscular tension (p57), then it makes sense to pre-turn the right foot to 20 degrees (which I advocate). That way the backswing can generate the maximum energy with the least amount of shoulder turn and a compact backswing.
2. The 'slide and turn' movement that is needed to shift weight over the wide shoulder-width stance is not efficient. The rotary movement of the lower body over a narrow stance, which is 6 inches narrower than the Hogan stance, is more efficient. As in shot put, 17 of the 25 all-time puts use the spin (rotary) technique; it is 20 percent further than the slide technique. My system uses the rotary movement of the lower body as the primary source of power. My 'reflex swing' stance is where the distance between the outer heels is that between the outer edges of the shoulders. This 'reflex swing' stance is wide enough for the rotary movement of the lower body to occur rapidly within the confines of the heels, thereby maintaining stability.
3. The 22 degrees left foot advocated by Hogan actively blocks the downswing as the left arm reaches and gets beyond 9 o'clock. The left foot needs to be open after impact in order to complete the swing. Long drivers, like Tiger and John Daly, have their left foot pointed 45 to 60 degrees at the completion of their swings. On page 27 (Hogan's book), he suggests that the left foot must not block the downswing in any way. From these two observations, I deduced that it must be better to pre-open the left foot 45 - 60 degrees at address. That way, at no time throughout the downswing, will the left foot block the downswing.
Those three factors of the Hogan method have diminished the efficiency and distance potential of the modern swing. Those are the reasons for the shaft being in 'concave' bend before it strikes the ball. The concave strike is a weak strike.
My method, The Reflex Convex Swing, was conceived to rectify the difficulties faced by the Hogan method. In the hands of top professionals or all those with swing speed above 100 mph, the Convex Swing will impact the ball with a 'convex' bend shaft, or perhaps just straightening. It will deliver distances beyond the Hogan modern swing.
I post this in all humility and with my best intention to advance the development of the golf swing. This has not been attempted since Mindy Blake in his Golf Swing of the Future. This effort of mine is the latest attempt to make a radical overhaul.
I wish to suggest that readers spend less time poking holes in my method. They should spend time more time thinking of a better system, if mine proves to be not good enough, of achieving a 'convex' strike on the ball. The convex strike is a more powerful force. To me, there is little doubt about that. The future lies with the 'convex' strike.
May someone else can conceive a better system if mine proves not good enough!! That to me is a better use of our mental energy. But I understand it is a lot of fun too to poke holes. Devising a better way is a lot more difficult. We need to acknowledge that driving distances have stagnated. Rory's effort in 2018 is only 14 yards longer than Daly's 1999 effort. Hogan's method has reached its technical limits.
Since a number of readers have posted "I am OUT!", I think I should take time out too. That way, I won't continue to post views that may not go down well with many. I wish to thank all those who have read my posts and replies. I can still be available to exchange views if you so choose at saifahcheong@gmail.com.
I appreciate the new swing idea but I want to see some testing to prove the basis of the theory. If you can get a measurement of where the clubhead is moving the fastest and where it starts decelerating in a professionals swing then that would be a good start. I'm open to new ideas and discussions as we would all like to hit the ball straighter and further but I would be hesitant to change anything in my swing without proof that the new swing change would provide better results.
csf.com
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 10
- Thread starter
- #160
Just to answer your specific query. A professional's downswing slows down when his left arm is from 8 to 9 o'clock position or when the left hand is at right hip. The shaft has a convex bend. Then it loses its convex shape, straightens, and then to 'concave' before it strikes the ball. That change in shape from convex to concave is the telltale sign of a slowing swing. I have said that before. So, I won't belabor the point.
I don't see any reason why the shape can't remain convex and stay convex at the impact on the ball. But the left foot needs to be open 45 - 60 degrees at address. And of course, rotate the lower body over a narrower stance. That's all there is to it. I am sure some pro will wise up to it when they come across the idea of The Reflex Convex Swing. Now, I am sounding like an old gramophone. That is why I decided to call a time-out and not antagonize people further.
I agree with you about generating the data to back the hypothesis. I shall try to work with a local lady pro to produce a 'convex' strike. And of course, post it on youtube. You and THPers will be the first to know.
Right now, my effort is being hampered by the lockdown in India where the printer is located. The printer supplies to Malaysia where I stay. Supplies from Amazon seem not to be interrupted.
It's not about the hands, it's about the club head and the speed it travels. Its about the energy the club head imparts on the ball. If you don't understand that primary concept, then your approach is flawed.
Just a thought here but you do realize a picture does not tell the true story of what a pole actually does during a pole vault right? It doesn’t just bend and straighten. I know from experience as I did pole vault myself and watched live and in videos many vaulters. The shaft actually rotates as it bends and releases its bend back straight. I am not sure if this will help in your thoughts, make no difference, or completely kill your idea but just wanted to toss that out there to you.
Good post! This is exactly what I tried to tell him I told he beginning. It is physically impossible to cancel out the head moving in front of the shaft at impact. I also do not them you would want it to. That is the shaft releasing and adding speed to the hit.
this does not mean you still can not have you hands in front of the head, you can. It just means that the stored energy is changing directions.
csf.com
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 10
- Thread starter
- #164
I do understand. The rotational movement of the lower must be the primary driving force in a golf swing. That drives the upper body which drags the left arm and the club via the left wrist and hand. My contention that the rotary movement of the lower body is a more powerful source than any other. The faster the rotary movement, the faster the resultant clubhead speed. So I do understand.
Then you understand why impact position is the point you want the max energy transferred. To maximize energy transfer, you need to unload the stored potential energy in the shaft and turn it into kinetic energy ( motion ). A convex club indicates it has remaining potential energy left to expend. I will agree with your point that a strike to far past the transition point into concave will lose energy as kinetic energy transfer back into potential energy. But I would postulate, as a counter theory to your supposition that convex is the most powerful the following:
Any swing approach that requires the shaft to stay in an excessive bent ( i.e. loaded ) position, convex OR concave, at impact is not transferring the most energy possible into the ball at impact and therefore will not transfer the max potential energy into the ball.
csf.com
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 10
- Thread starter
- #166
You are correct. The pole probably twists somewhat. Yes, the pole will straighten as it flips the vaulter over.
Your comment does not invalidate what I said. I merely stated that the convex shape is the other way to bend a shaft. It happens to be a stronger shape.
What needs to happen is someone devising a system to get a 'convex' bend shaft to strike the ball. My system is just one proposal. There may be others.
It doesn’t twist so much as rotate. It has no choice because the weight of the vaulter is forcing it out and away from him. You typically will see it bend back towards the mat first and then it will rotate as it bends more and continue rotating as it bends pushing the pole from basically straight in front of the vaulter to off to his left(right handed vaulter) side and almost somewhat behind. The only ones I have not seen rotate in that manner ended up snapped in multiple places. I am no physics expert but I assume the pole could not hold up to a straight bend without that rotation.
This exactly. I’ve done a lot of shaft experimentation over the last 35+ years and shaft flex, weight, and profile all play an important role. I want the shaft to go from a convex shape to a concave shape at impact to square up the face and maximize speed. It does has exactly that from the transistion at the top of the swing to somewhere before the impact position on the downswing. If it remained in the convex position through impact the shaft wouldn’t have released as much energy to the ball as the clubhead would not have traveled as far in the same amount of time.
Golf
Watch all the latest Golf clips, highlights, shows, replays, and more on NBC Sports.
www.golfchannel.com
Another point sometimes missed is the goal in golf is to shoot the lowest score, not hit it the farthest. I play stiffer shafts that are give me a bit less distance in my irons and in my fairway woods because I like the feel and have better dispersion. Left and right accuracy and distance control are way more important to the pros than picking equipment that simply is maxed out for distance. I can put longer, lighter, more flexible shafts in my irons that go farther but the result is longer and fewer birdie putts made. PGA Tour pros could easily pick up another 5+ yards off the tee if they went to a positive angle of attack but the Trackman stats show the average angle of attack is -1.4* with the driver on the two measured driving holes each round. They are doing this for accuracy. As I’ve said earlier, a lot of Tour pro’s have ruined their careers or had a big slump after chasing 10 more yards off the tee.
Last edited:
csf.com
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 10
- Thread starter
- #169
I am not suggesting that the convex shape stays that way. It must eventually straighten. At which stage it strikes the ball, I cannot be sure. But I am betting that a convex bend will deliver a more powerful strike than a concave bend.
I shall leave it at that. Until I get someone to do the convex strike, I am still speculating. Perhaps, some enterprising pro may read my book and give it a shot. It is a no loss situation.
Read your first 2 lines and I thought we had a break through. Then the third line ruined it.
glad you agree that the club must straighten eventually. Progress. As far as not knowing the best time for that to happen, try this exercise.
1) Stand 1 foot away from a wall.
2) Pull your arm back like you are going to hit someone in the face
3) Extend your arm until you make contact with the wall. Notice the angle of your arm.
Now do the same exercise but at 2 feet. Take notice of the angle of the arm and the amount of extension and body rotation you get from teh 2 foot vs 1 ft position.
Now do the same exercise extend your arm until it is straight out in front of you. Stand far from wall so that your hand just touches the wall. Step forward 1". Now repeat teh exercise. at this point your arm should be full extension, your body should be in full rotation.
Now the question: Which one of these punches would deliver the most force to the wall?
The guy has a book already out. He's not about to admit now that the thesis behind it is wrong. Nobody here is going to change his mind.
My point was actually not to change his mind. I do believe he should have tested his hypothesis before writing a book. My only complaint is that he's presenting his hypotheses as fact without data to back it up. I do find some of the principles he's using questionable or wrong but the idea that you want the most energy possible released through the ball is solid logic. What is not solid is whether the convex shape would in fact deliver more energy or less energy and what the trade - offs would be.
WILDTHING
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 360
- Handicap
- 15
To give the OP some credit , isn't he doing what countless other 'instruction experts' have been doing for many years (theorising and writing books on the subject)? There is no such thing as a 'peer review' happening in golf instruction because there aren't many qualified enough to be deemed as peer reviewers. Even the research articles by respected biomechanic experts like Dr Sasho MacKenzie ,Dr Phil Cheetham, Dr Kwon fail to get properly 'peer reviewed' and we could end up with 'flawed' golf instruction being cascaded down to us.