- Audio version at the end of this post –
The evolution of golf driver heads has really come a long way in the past 25 years. They have evolved from wood to metal heads with space age materials and have grown in size like an athlete on steroids. The first “metal woods” in the mid 80’s picked up the name “Pittsburgh Persimmon,” which was a real good and flattering name and really defined the new material used to make them.
The first metal woods were made at just about the same size as the wood drivers they replaced. Then the race to “big” began and the heads started to grow like those over fertilized thousand pound plus pumpkins we see every year in the news at Halloween.
The big club manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon that bigger is better. Their marketing said that they could make the sweet spot bigger, you’d have more margin for error for better miss-hits, and all that and more will help you hit better shots and shoot lower scores. Metal woods also allowed the manufacturers to move the center of gravity around, putting it more out on toward the toe and higher up on the face to help the outside-to-in steep swing path golfers who hit it out on the toe and high on the face and who slice, hit more solid feeling shots. Metal is great for allowing them to manipulate the weight and design. But the big question is: has it all really been good for golfers and their game? The answer is yes and no.
As the woods got bigger, a few problems began to emerge. Aerodynamics came into play with the heads vibrating or wobbling approaching impact for high speed swingers, as stability and control is a must for solid and square contact. The manufacturers had to address this, just like plane builders and NASCAR has to do as stability and control is a must to avoid crashes. Then, as the heads got bigger and heavier, they had to find ways to make them lighter, especially when they started making the shafts longer. Their marketing was longer shafts hits longer drives. That is true only if the golfer can swing the longer club faster and hit it as solid and straight as a shorter one, which most amateurs and even professionals can’t do consistently.
They shaved weigh by making the faces thinner and then we end up with the trampoline effect, where the faces now bowed inward with contact. The engineers I talk with tell me this is loosing energy transfer to the ball and thus affecting distance, as compared with the ball being compressed on a solid flat face. They also say that a face bowing inward can also affect direction and accuracy. And then the companies ended up with the big problem of these thinner faces cracking or crushing. With that, they have to replace the clubs of pros and amateurs, which I am sure runs into big bucks.
The manufacturers put million$ and million$ into marketing, saying, “Bigger is better, longer, more forgiving because of a bigger sweet spot.” They got into the driver wars on Tour for who is “NUMBER 1” because being the number1 driver on The PGA Tour would sell more clubs to the golfing public. Bigger sweet spots led into companies advertising that they now had multiple sweet spots on their drivers, with one saying it had as many as nine. And then this same company really went the distance and said that the entire face was a sweet spot. Drivers with adjustable weights came next, then adjustable face angles and interchangeable shafts. Many of these variable adjustments are good in that they allow golfers to test and adjust their driver and set it to where it works best for them.
Then the hammer fell on the manufacturers when the USGA ended the “Bigger is Better” battle by limiting the size of driver heads to a maximum of 460cc’s. The companies now have to come up with a new marketing campaign to keep sales going and golfers buying.
So, I will make my prediction that I have been saying for a couple of years now. Bigger is not better. Bigger heads with bigger faces in reality give a golfer more club face to miss the sweet spot farther and thus hit the ball worse. And this applies to irons as well.
I predict the new marketing campaigns will soon start selling “smaller is better.” They will sing the praises that smaller is more aerodynamically stable. There is no vibration approaching impact and thus the club head is swinging faster and the stability assures a more solid and square to the line impact. They will say that the face can now be made thicker, which will end cracking or crushing the faces and is more stable for greater energy transfer to the ball for more distance and control. They may even scale back the length of the shafts, which would also be a bonus to helping golfers make better swings and hit better drives.
I predict the heads will shrink down to somewhere between 325 CC’s to around 400 CC’s. I will be surprised if they stay over 400 CC’s and if they do it will be barely bigger than 400. They will not go back to the old Pittsburg Persimmon size, as size does matter. Too big as well as too small have negative effects and consequences. Like everything in life, finding the right balance and harmony is best for total performance. They will likely keep the good variables of adjustable weights, shafts and face angles, as these options sell clubs and at higher prices. And I am sure we will continue hearing that they have bigger sweet spots and more sweet spots and better and harder faces and so forth.
But what we will see for sure is the drivers of the future, and I am sure the future is coming soon to your pro shop and store, is drivers will be slimmer, but still glimmer in the sun light. The good news is that they will perform better, which means hitting better drives more solidly, longer and straighter. What a concept!
The Surge!
- Use these controls for the audio version of this post –
Get Flash to see this player.
Tell me what you're thinking... and what part of the golf swing, or this great game... you'd like to know more about. If you want your pic to show with your comment, go get a 
Uhhhhhhhh, yeah there is! It’s called club head speed. You can measure that club head speed with a very stiff shaft and compare it to club head speed with a very limber shaft and notice that the club head with the limber shaft is higher.
That’s the whole point I’ve been trying to get across. You match the timber of the shaft to the strength, tempo, etc of the player to maximize club head speed and control.
Also, what you see on the video is not illusion. How could it be? You see it.
DT gives a great explanation of all this on the link I sent.
You said…”Since the only time the golfer is putting a mounting force on the club is from the top of the backswing to that point where his left arm is at about the horizontal position then it must be assumed that this is the only point in the swing when he can apply it; the remaining part of the swing is taken up by contolling the effect of any force that he has put on it, and that in itself will only be applied as a result of his moving onto the left foot at the start of the downswing and therefore taken for granted subconsciously rather than any artful manipulation”
Why make that assumption. As long as the swing is acclerating you are still applying force to the shaft. Also, in a correctly executed golf swing, you don’t move the weight to the left foot at the top of the back swing. If you did that you’d be way out in front of the ball and the club head would never catch up. At the top of the back swing, ideally the weight starts to transfer over and is a gradual process as the swing is being made so that by the time you finish, you finish on the left side. Actually, in the properly executed swing, at impact, you are still “behind” the ball..
It does appear that the concept of a shaft “loading” and “unloading” is all relatively new to you. So, let me through one more wrinkle to you. The shaft will bow at the top, it will start to bow forward in the last part of the downswing, but it also will bow downward slightly. Hence the term, toe down effect. As you see, sure is a lot going on. That is predominately why there are better grades of graphite shafts available. They help minimize all the bowing and twisting that goes on in the shaft during the swing. With steel shafts, you have some of the same things going on but not nearly to the degree that you see in graphite. So, by conjecture, you can summarize that steel is more accurate that graphite and as a whole you would be correct. However, with that being said, you can buy graphite that is very close to the properties of steel but the average golfer would not do this as the wholesale cost of the shafts exceeds $200 per shaft.
Question for the Surge: Do you have an update to your book, a new book or contemplating a new book? I learn much better when I read. I would also like to see more of the swing demonstrated as I am have some problems following your lecture DVDs. I am doing well with the short irons but tend to pop up too soon on the long irons and well, just forget about driving. As someone who has been away from golf for over 40 years I feel like I am swinging a banjo when I hack away with the driver. Actually it is more like swinging a banjo on a long stick.
to J. Griffin :
Thanks for the informative answer.
Please do understand — I am not “wed” to TaylorMade or “longer shafts” — merely reporting the results of one brief “testing” — and some confirmation of what I already “felt” and “thought” vis a vis my old driver and the newer offering.
As for the simulation, the results compared well with what I a getting on the course with the old driver (although the simulation had total distance some 10 to 15 yards longer). I whole-heartedly agree on tesitng it on the outdoor range before you buy.
Considering our ungoing discussion with Roger Hamilton, I am wondering if the PPGS swing, as a generalization, might require a more flexible shaft than a conventional swing due to vertical end of back swing(very little, if any “preload) and a shorter distance back to the ball giving less time to accelerate the club head?
Note: I entirely agree with “loading” and “unloading” of the shaft — it it physically, mathematically and visually proveable to be a fact. Although the EXACT mechanism of this occurance may be at issue– Questins like how much acceleration, velocit and ecatly where in swing? And how much does the linear velocity of the hands decrease, when the arms and shoulders decrease, thus alowing the observed “unloading” of shaft before impact? Do the hands actually arrive at 0 ft/sec in the hitting area? Taht would be THEROETICALY desireable from the standppoint of physics and mathematics to apply the maimum possible culb head speed – but it is humaly obtainable ? I think not!
As to our friend Roger Hamilton and his 40 year old book by the noted Doctor of Engineering — I suspect hte Dr. did VERY valuable and useful research with the “tools availble” to him at the time — but I believe that the time required to “do the math” by hand and/or slide rule would have required years of his time — maybe a life time indeed. It only with the advances of time, mainly in fast affordable computers that the neccessary calculations can be carried out in a reasonable amount of time. I applaud the Dr for his attempts and lament the fact that required tools were not available.
Even a very basic engineering formula Stress = Mc/I took some 1500 year or more to be correctly deduced (from the time of the ancient Greeks building wooden ships until the mid or lat 1800’s) Many noted scientific researchers from Archimedes to Galileo to DaVinci came to the wrong conclusions — but a very logical answer considering the materials, methods and measuring devices available to them. I suspect the Dr in question falls into the same category.
With regards to graphite being superior to steel, etc for shafts, I agree 100%.. ALL materials have certian measurable properties or “parameters’ — what is different is the VALUE of the numbers that describe specific properties. It turns out that it is easy to manage and control these values (and therefore cheaper) in graphite than in steel. To produce a steel shaft with the properties would require an enormous effort in research, time and money — and the result would be a shaft costing $1000’s ! So why bother ? — and no one does.
Keep hitting them LONG and STRAIGHT!
Amos
Hi J,.
Up until I had a re-read of your last post, this morning, I had made up my mind, or perhaps simply reacted to it, by deciding that enough was enough, “I give up”. So, why come back ? Here is a pasted copy of part of your message that begged for a corrective reply. Hah ! I can hear you say; “what the h*** nonsense is this guy going to come up with next………….OK go on then….”
“Why make that assumption. As long as the swing is acclerating you are still applying force to the shaft. Also, in a correctly executed golf swing, you don’t move the weight to the left foot at the top of the back swing. If you did that you’d be way out in front of the ball and the club head would never catch up. At the top of the back swing, ideally the weight starts to transfer over and is a gradual process as the swing is being made so that by the time you finish, you finish on the left side. Actually, in the properly executed swing, at impact, you are still “behind” the ball.”
Take the second sentence….”as long as the swing is accelerating”
We shouldn’t have to differentiate between velocity and acceleration; nor should we have to point out that the club’s position relative to the golfer changes, the most important bit of the club being the head, which is what the golfer is intending to hit the ball with, and which, in spite of all claims to the contrary is SOLELY responsible for propelling the ball; ie its mass + its velocity at impact – that’s not a formula, just a way of speaking – I don’t know the correct realtionship there, I think you do.
The swing, meaning the effort of the golfer, accelerates ONLY to the point where his left arm is approximately parallel to the ground; thereafter it definitely does NOT accelerate, BUT is hard put to keep a CONSTANT VELOCITY; and in fact will NOT BE ABLE to do THAT if the accelerated part of the swing is carried out too quickly; THE MAIN REASON FOR BAD SHOTS.
The important part that explains the reason for the TRANSITION FROM ACCELERATION TO CONSTANT VELOCITY is the movement of the club head. Because the golfer has initiated its movement by PULLING [ ONLY ] in the direction of the SHAFT, the head wants to act independently on ACCOUNT OF ITS MASS – as you rightly pointed out, approx 7 ozs.
Because it is attached to the golfer, via the shaft, it opens up the wrist cock, BY ITS OWN MOMENTUM and begins to get further away from the golfer, BUT IT IS BEING FORCED TO STAY IN A ROUGHLY CIRCULAR MOTION by the mentioned attachment; so it reacts to this MECHANICAL SITUATION by ACCELERATING until at impact it is travelling at some 150+ feet per second. The golfer cannot control this except by virtue of his much greater mass being forward on his left foot, AS INNUMERABLE VIDEOS ON YouTube will demonstrate; see Ben Hogan’s for example.
This acceleration causes the 7 oz head to exert a pull on the golfer; IT IS THIS CONSIDERABLE PULL THAT MEANS THE GOLF SWING CANNOT ACCELERATE CONTINUOUSLY, that is impossible. The centrifugal force pull on the golfer is some 50-60 lbs – if memory serves.
Even if he was swinging bugger all the golfer cannot accelerate from the top of the swing to the bottom – or it certainly would look very odd indeed.
As you can see the second part of the second sentence is correct.
“Also, in a correctly executed golf swing, you don’t move the weight to the left foot at the top of the back swing. If you did that you’d be way out in front of the ball and the club head would never catch up”
To repeat; if you watch Ben Hogan and others in the videos available on YT you will see that this is exactly what they claim to do, and DEMONSTRATE CLEARLY.
It might be more understandable if you acknowledge that when the club is drawn back on the upswing the golfer moves his shoulders in a comfortable near horizontal plane – there isn’t much effort required, for obvious reasons; BUT because the downswing requires the golfer to execute the now totally different MECHANICAL SITUATION or movement so that the club head gets directly behind the ball he has to move his shoulders in a rocking motion, ie a much steeper plane than at address or backswing, again because of the mounting CENTRIFUGAL FORCE that will tend to make the club head sweep past beyond the ball, ie further away from the golfer than the ball. Tthe movement of the wrists is also more complex on the downswing; the golfer usually has his arms and club at an angle to one another at address[ - the degree of this angle often is personal to the golfer - I used to play with a guy who felt he could only control his swing by having his arms and the club in line at address, in spite of me trying to tell him it wasn't necessary to do that - he was a very good golfer but didn't, or wouldn't try - like so many, to understand the mechanics enough, to dispense with unnecessary adjustments - a famous golfer, who's name escapes me used to have a most pronounced angle at address, AND OF COURSE attracted the notion that he had a SWING ALL HIS OWN, SIMPLY because of this largely irrelevant characteristic. ]
I think the term for this involuntary “dipping” of the wrists is called pronation. – maybe not, let’s say straightening, so that the arms and club shaft are in line – a VERY UNDERSTANDABLE RESULT.
Let’s focus on the following sentence:-
“…If you did that you’d be way out in front of the ball and the club head would never catch up..”
I think I see your reasoning here, but it applies to a diagramatic representation of the swing; or maybe passive, as opposed to dynamic situation. The fact is the club head does catch up, BY ACCELERATING – as IT HAS TO. That is what the amateur tends NOT to believe; in fact HE TENDS TO believe in other explanations for the swing.
IT REALLY IS A SUCK IT AND SEE SITUATION for the uninitiated to accept the correct way of it.
Roger.
So far, unlike many who’ve made comments, I haven’t said anything about MY attempts to put into practice what I’ve been attempting to preach. So, it might make interesting reading, not necessarily documenting proof of anything, to tell of my own experience(s) whilst trying hard to keep the “I” word out of it as much as possible.
I don’t know how common it is for people who are RIGHT-HANDED by natural inclination to “swing” anything, from say, an axe to a cricket bat – ie anything in general requiring 2 hands; in a LEFT-HANDED manner; but my late elder brother and I shared that characteristic.
In my last few years at school I decided I might have a try at golf. Not intending to take it up seriously I tried going around with another schoolboy, ie borrowing his clubs along the way. I gripped the club as I would have left-handed but had, of course, to try and swing right-handed. His and other golfers’ – on the course who chanced to witness my efforts – advice were personally discouraging to me and caused me embarrassment, as such ill-considered comments usually do; particularly as I was rather proud of the fact that I was pretty good at most things I took up; plus the fact that they didn’t think that I might well be labouring under considerable difficulty, for the reasons above.
Unremembered years later some friend of the family lent me a book – “The Nine Bad Shots of Golf”, I think is the title. You can imagine how I “devoured” its contents with every intent to regard the text as gospel and put it into practice at every available opportunity; nevermind “lecture” anyone who was too polite to run away or tell me to STFU, on how to play golf !
I don’t recall much of the advice, ie in text form, but I suspect strongly that some of the efforts to follow it remain buried in my subconscious to this day, waiting to pop up into my swing and ruin my shots completely. Suffice to say all I got from this book was a sense of inadequacy and frustration; and a strong feeling that SOMEWHERE, somehow I would come across an explanation of the golf swing that would alleviate it; a not uncommon situation I aver.
Some more years later, more than I care to try and remember, I visited the local library armed with 4 free tickets, 3 of which I used up rapidly, leaving 1. I had looked at the SOTGW by you-know-who, but decided it probably wasn’t for me, maybe on account of the cover with its slide-rule/ball/club top picture and the force-vector diagram on the bottom one, inducing a very self-conscious me with the vision of going round the golf course making all sorts of measurements at every shot, oh no; what if I messed up after all that – perish the thought !
Anyway I decided it might be of interest so I took it home. Reading it, HERE IS the answer. Putting it into practice took some time AND a considerable degree of zen-like concentration, but I managed it enough to know that what I’ve tried to explain WORKS VERY WELL INDEED. Of course, when I failed the concentration bit my golf rapidly deteriorated to absolute rubbish as before and me, as before, hurling golf clubs, my bag or anything else handy, up the fairway as far as I could f***** throw them !
So, with a temperament like mine and the left-cum-right handed adjustment problem to cope with I am not in much doubt as to the efficacy of Dr Williams wonderful research.
I could go on, if you want ? – but for the moment I’ll not risk being boring any further.
Roger.
Geeze, I’m sorry but your information and theory is just not correct. Acceleration, the measureable change in speed (the magnitude of velocity) is continued to impact in the correctly executed golf swing. This is able to be proved with many instruments available at our disposal. I personally use a radar system and can track the speed of the club head at 2 ft from impact to impact. Good swings still have the head accelerating and bad swings show decel.
About the weight shift. Please look again at a proper swing. At the top of the swing the hips either start to rotate or a slight bump which begins the weight shifting from the back foot towards the front foot. The completion of which does not take place until the impact has been made and the player finished totally on the left side and the right foot is up on the toe. Saying that you move all the weight over to the left at the top of the swing is incorrect. If this was done, the result would be a ton of fat shots as you have changed the spine angle. It’s like saying if I was going to throw a ball as far as I could, I wind up, move all the weight to the front foot, then throw the ball. This isn’t what happens either. You wind up which put the weight on the back foot, start to uncoil which starts shifting the weight over and that help propel the throw and then you finish with the weight on the left and the right side comes around even. Difference in the golf swing is the right side doesn’t come up to the left unless you were Gary Player.
My description didn’t say clubhead acceleration wasn’t continuous – it said Club Swing – or speed of players hands, if you like.
Won’t bother to go into weight shift.
Are you sure you read ALL my stuff ?
Hi J.,
Wonder if you would care to tell me what’s wrong with this idea:-
For the sake of argument let’s focus on the golfer’s hands gripping the club.
The distance his hands travel from the top of the backswing to that point when the club head strikes the ball is obviously a great deal less than the distance the golf club head has to travel, where its start point can be as far back as beyond the horizontal somewhere to the left of his left shoulder through a huge arc to strike the ball itself.
In order for it to get there at the same time as his hands at the vertical point it has to accelerate; it has no choice because it’s attached to the club being held by his hands. This is the principle by which the flail is used, and that has been used for centuries before golf was ever thought of, and is why at least one professional golfer of note could start hitting whatever he was hitting with a knobby stick.
Let’s focus on the flail itself and try to imagine how we could improve on the speed by which the end of the flail hits the grain it’s being used to beat. Take away the plain lump of wood and substitute one of those clubs you speak of that can be charged kinetically.
Please describe in detail how it would work; or if that’s a bit too theoretical, how exactly it works with the golfer swinging a club.
Roger.
to Roger Hamilton:
Since J. griffin does not seem to be here — I will “take a crack” at this.
IF i understand a flail correctly, it is an implement composed of wooden shaft of suitable diameter to easily grasp, with sometihing on the order of piece of leather belting attached to the “business end” ? And swung in an overhand manner by the hands and arms, but with some accompying bending of the waist and back at a pile of grain near to the ground? Based on these assumptions being correct — then here goes.
1: the wooden sahft, although quit stiff, does eperience “dynamic loading” (flexing) and “dynamic unloading) (un-flexing) — although in amounts to small to be observable.
2. If the wooden rod is replaced by a “suitable” graphite shaft of proper flexibility with the same belting as before, then the shaft will dynamically load (flex) in the direction opposite to the direction of motion as soon as the “down stroke” is started.
3. At some point, the hands arms, shoulders and waist bend must “slow” and finally stop to prevent th operator from falling on his face or strinking the ground. When the hands and arms begin to slow their motion (de – acceleration) then “dynammic loading” (unflexing) begins and the leather belting flies forward to hit the grain — just as before.
Would this truly be an improvement? I’ll let you decide after I list what I expect the operator of the “Wonder Flail” would report :
1 – for the same physical EFFORT as before — something on order the of “BOY! I really beat the HELL out of that grain” — due to increased velocity of the leather striking the grain.
or with Less hand arm and back motion employed in the swing — then “WOW! Same results as before, with much less back pain” — due to a smaller swing arc required because now the shaft is allowed to flex and “cover” some of the distance
As an aside — are “flails” still commonly used in your country(England, I’m guessing) ? If so perhaps a “Wonder Flail” market exists ? ;<)
Amos
I would somewhat liken the short chain or strap that holds the two pieces of wood together as a bend point. Why have the connector and not just one solid piece of wood? It allows the operator to “whip” the other piece through more forcefully, i.e. more flex. The more flexible, the more force.
It does seem that we are in agreement on the other issue as to the club head acclerates through impact. Part of the principal of this accerlation is the “unloading” of the shaft. The build up of this energy, kinetic as you have described, is the bowing of the shaft. The release of this energy is the bowing of the shaft in the other direction, i.e. down the target line.
Had a search to see what the internet could tell us about flails, so here’s a number of links; don’t include anything in square brackets, if you should copy/paste any. I’ve tried to put them in order of best picture first [ just use the usual prefix "http://www." or just "http:" where u see // :-
antiquefarmtools.info/page5.htm - corn flail item # 23
thefreedictionary.com/flail [ picture of flail being used ]
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_(agriculture)
//en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Flail
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_(weapon)
silverdragonstudio.net/d20_flails [ flail balls manufactured ]
It seems a flail can be as simple as a sock with a bar of soap at the end, reputedly used by hoodlums at some point or other in America’s (prohibition ?) history. Guess it would take some doing to store kinetic energy in socks; you’d have to wear them for quite some time, at least.
As a relevance to the golf swing it is a very good reference; the sock “cosh” [ UK ] I mean, unlikely as that might sound. It is not such a far cry from the analogy that D Williams draws in his book, early on:-
If you consider the system where a small weight, say a golf ball sized stone is fastened to one end of a piece of string. In order to put it into motion the person holding the open end of the string has to exert a pull on it, gradually getting the stone into continuous motion, in a circle, where he can keep it going at high speed with just a twirl of the wrist.
In order to get maximum club head speed the golfer must exert exactly the same in-line force, allowing his wrists to remain as a hinge, as in the flail system. You can see that if the leather hinge in the flail were to any degree stiff then the resultant system would be less efficient, with less of the effort of the user being applied to the speed of the end part.
It’s tempting to think of the golf club in the same way as a fishing rod, particularly with regard to the stepped change in diameter of the shaft; plus the way it can be waggled about; even the droop at the top of the swing suggests a whip-like characteristic, nevermind the strange flexing of the shaft at different stages of the swing, as caught on camera. As I pointed out before even Henry Cotton thought that the club helped him with the shot, where such a bend could be seen.
As I was at pains to point out before there ARE 3 reasons why the golfer CANNOT expect to obtain any advantage from the shaft’s flexing.
1 It would never be in the correct direction – if you suggest that any reasonably close to desired direction could be obtained then by what means would it be “steered” to absolute direction ?
2 No golfer can hold the shaft powerfully enough to keep the grip steady and allow the head to whip through, and if he did the club head speed would suffer. In other words it is neither desirable or possible to even consider that any benefit could be accrued by this method.
3 The time taken for the downswing is too short for any such flexing to take place in time – ie the charging of the shaft would be backwards in direction and the discharge would be forward – this HAS to take a finite amount of time and can be calculated according to the length of the shaft and the speed at which the cycle of resonance (or vibration) goes – ie the speed of sound, as it happens. It is just too long !
If you don’t believe any 2 of the above then at least the remaining one IS PROOF ENOUGH. As I said before, if you complicate the cycle of energy from the player to the eventual hit then some would be wasted, to no effect; or if you insist there is a kinetic transfer, to reduced effect.
to Roger Hamilton:
OK — now that I see what you exactly what you mean by a “flail” — let’s try it this way :
In a properly executed PPGS swing, there is NO WRIST COCKING. The hinge point in the flail is replaced by the “kick point” in the shaft, activated by the shaft flexure due to “dynamic loading” followed by “dynamic un-loading” in the hitting area. Wheter the shaft is made of wood, steel, graphite, etc does matter to the MECHANICS — but it is MUCH easier to control the desired properties of the “flail effect” with GRAPHITE.
If you use a convention rotational backswing ending with the shaft near horizontal at the top, you have introduced a third hinge — the wrist. So by analogy, you now have a 3 part flail — the upper arm to wrist being the first link, the upper shaft to the “kick point” being a second link, with the remainder of the shaft and clubhead being the third link.
So perhaps Henry Cotton was correct after all :<))
In reference to the sock and soap — it is a powerful short range weapon when in the hands of an expert. I know of one bar tender who broke up a "bar room brawl" by rendering about 5 or 6 opponents unconsious wtih a sock loaded with a bar of soap. The manner of use is to swing the sock overhead a time or two, much like a cowboy twirling his lariat to form a loop. Then delivering a crashing blow to the oppents head. The bar soap is heavy enough to "do the job" — but soft enough to not leave a mark – or kill the victim (rarely). In the case of the bartender, you want the "opponents" to sober up and return as paying customers later!
Happy Flailing
Amos
Amos,
How can you swing back the golf club without any wrist cock – u have a demo video for that ?
You have any vector diagrams to show loading unloading ?
You have pictures of someone’s swing with arms & club in line at all points in the swing ?
Anyhow, whatever anyone wants to believe in theory; swinging the club is an art and the only need for the theory is to avoid getting wrong ideas.
I have an idea for the design of a golf ball; it goes like this:-
You buy up golf balls made in the normal way; best quality but no label.
Then you advertise them like so:-
P – is for professional !
L – is for lash it out of sight
A – is for absolute power
C – is for customized
E – is for empirical
B – is for blast ‘em away
O – is for originality
You can add the word “EFFECT”; that is optional.
I’ll buy up $150,000 worth of shares of the manufacturer of any kinetic loading golf club, PROVIDING they agree to make the balls to my specifications.
Can’t do fairer than that !!
ROGER
It is esy to swing up to the top of the back swing with no wrist cock in the LEFT wrist. This is accomplished by ROLLING the forearms as the club is ROTATED by the initial shoulder turn to the “toe up” position in the mitt. From there the club is simply raised “up the tree” by raising the arms from the shoulders. There is a “break” or “cocking” of the RIGHT wrist ONLY to accommodate this move. Buy I repeat — there is no breaking of the LEFT wrist in the PPGS swing — it remains FLAT at all times — NEVER EVER “cupped” or “bowed”
Please see SURGE”s DVD videos, available on this site.
As for videos of “loading” and “unloading” – I refer you back to the Tiger Woods video referenced in one of J. Griffin’s posts above. Although the path is shorter, the same effects occur, specially in the hitting area. Also, look on Utube for Steve Stricker’s swing — it is not exactly PPGS, but it is similar. Videos of ANY top flight professional should show similar results as regards to shaft “flexing”
You should be purchasing shares in ANY maker of golf shafts — steel or graphite,etc — I would suggest buying shares in a graphite shaft maker though.
btw — I like your idea regarding golf ball merchandising — save me a few shares of your company — PLEASE?
As an aside — I once saw a video on our GOLF Channel tv of a “trick shot artist” using a driver with a piece of ordinary garden hose as a shaft. Speak of being like a buggy whip! At the top of his back swing, the club head was touching his forward rib cage!! NOW that is the ultimate in”pre-loading”. Naturally, the centrifugal force of the downsing “unloaded” and straightened the shaft. He was able to swing and strike the ball “straight and true” with reasonable distance for several shots. He then invited members of the audience at the filming site to “try their hand” at it. NONE of the participants succeded in even making contact with the ball.
Amos
My response:
First, what you extoll as fact is but theory. I can prove to that a shaft will make a difference in the velocity of the clubhead through impact. And disprove several other notions but simple fact is that some tests that were done 40 years ago have you convinced. Also, going back to a previous part of the conversation which centered around the good book and graphite shafts, you mentioned that graphite shafts while not mentioned specificly, they were alluded to. I find this most interesting since the publication took place in 1967 and graphite shafts were only first introduced a bit over 30 years ago.
You said…..
1 It would never be in the correct direction – if you suggest that any reasonably close to desired direction could be obtained then by what means would it be “steered” to absolute direction ?
answer: To actually get the best performance you would FLO or pure the shafts for repeatability something that you shot down previously even though you didn’t understand it. Why do you find it difficult to fathom that the reaction is very similiar to being able to take a fishing pole and casting the lure and weight into the desired location. Can it be controlled 100%. Of course not or there wouldn’t be any bad shots.
2 No golfer can hold the shaft powerfully enough to keep the grip steady and allow the head to whip through, and if he did the club head speed would suffer. In other words it is neither desirable or possible to even consider that any benefit could be accrued by this method.
answer: Where did that come from? The ability to hold the club while a club head accelerates? This one just baffles me. Perhaps your interpretation of “whiping” through is much more powerful that what we are talking about. The acceleration is taking place in the direction of the swing and it’s not like it’s exerting such force that one is not capable to hold on. However, if one has sweaty hands, it is more difficult to hold the grip steady
3 The time taken for the downswing is too short for any such flexing to take place in time – ie the charging of the shaft would be backwards in direction and the discharge would be forward – this HAS to take a finite amount of time and can be calculated according to the length of the shaft and the speed at which the cycle of resonance (or vibration) goes – ie the speed of sound, as it happens. It is just too long !
Answer: The average time of the downswing is like .5 sec, more or less, so how much time does it take for a shaft to bow and unbow? Let’s take a look at one of your suggestions. That was to take a shaft and put it in a vice. Let’s do that but let’s have a driver head on the end. So, let’s pull or move the shaft back as far as you can and let it go. If you could see it (which you can film it if you wish), you’d see that the head does indeed go past the resting point. You keep mentioning “charging” of the shaft. I think you though process is off here too. It’s not like a charge is being imparted, it’s simpley the bending and unbending of the shaft. The more a shaft bends, the more it will unbend. Think of it like a catapult if you will. Let me give you a two by four with a weight on the end and a 1 by 1 with the same weight on the end. Are you going to tell me that you would swing the both with the same speed? If that is the case, then there is nothing more that I can say and I just wave the white flag and hope that some day you’ll take the time to read some modern research and see what actually happend to a shaft during a swing.
to J Griffin:
I think a major problem for our friend Roger, is his failure to comprehend or recognize the “Kick point” of the shaft as “replacing” the hinge in his beloved flail.
I do believe that if one attached a club head to the end of a flail, and handed it to a wonderfully gifted golfer like the trick shot artist in my earlier posting, the results COULD be similar to using a modern shafting — but perphaps only one golfer in a million would be able to control it. Much lke the issues with “long shafted drivers” — but perhaps at the other end of the spectrum because the “flail driver” might prove to be much too flexible to control.
My (hopefully) final thoughts on the matter
Amos
RE AMOS Nov 28 – 9:27pm
Hi Amos,
My reaction to your reference to the flat left wrist:-
“Now you’re talking !” Over 35 years ago when I was to be seen often on the local council recreational 9 hole golf course I used to practice guitar as well, ie classical style with the turned left wrist. Like everything I ever do I went at it too hard, for too long and with a great deal of anxiety. So any virtuosity gained was more than negated by becoming too weak to function correctly. My touch typing is suffering at the moment for the same reason; so before going any further it might be instructive for anyone prone to a similar condition ( better than saying temperament ) to try and control it; it’s a killer – destroys your confidence absolutely !
The point I’m getting to is that I was conscious of weakness in the left wrist and was aware of the advice of keeping it from cupping as you suggest.
Thanks for the anecdote on the “trick shot artist”; his “act” demonstrates all that I have been trying to get across admirably. The centrifugal force indeed would straighten the hose out, before the head was coerced by its finite length into accelerating into the back of the ball. No doubt those who tried to emulate him did not wait sufficiently long for the hose to initially straighten before executing a swing.
RE J. Nov 29 – 9:42 pm
[ date for Amos posting should have been Nov 29, not Nov 28 ]
You would be incorrect to suggest that I have been extolling the virtue of theory. That is exactly what I’ve been trying to get across. Dr Williams was a practising scientist involved, presumably primarily, in the design of aircraft, where analysed mechanical systems of great complexity have to be proven by practical synthesis to be worthy of eventual incorporation, using KNOWN principles for reference; to minimise chances taken with peoples’ lives.
As I said before the simple analysis of the forces on the golf club would have been child’s play; if he says in his book that such-and-such happens and such-and-such doesn’t happen, with the mechanical formulae to prove it and finally tender it as a scientific paper to none less than The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics then you can bet your bottom dollar that he is correct. That was his profession, one of the highest integrity.
Now let’s deal with the graphite shaft business. At some point D W said that the ideal club shaft would be one that is weightless. That is, presumably, the virtue of graphite as a material; ie it is light and exhibits a good resistance to bending and twisting.
Please at least consider, however much loyalty you feel obliged to show to the contrary, that the golf club does not emulate the action of a fishing rod; or a catapault as you later suggest; however much visual “evidence” tends to show that it does.
Without knowing exactly how and when the tendency of the club to bend and twist when swung, due to the center of gravity offset of the club head, I have to admit I’m not averse to wondering if the high speed video of “Tiger Woods”, allowing us to see a slow motion action replay where the “unloading of shaft flex” seems to come in at just the right moment, is not a fake; ie it has been edited to give just that impression.
I guess that SUSPICION might be taken as a weakness in my argument; even if it is just an acknowledgement of a distinct possibility.
Roger.
two comments:
When Ernie was asked to swing as hard as could, he picked up only went from 125 to 127 swing speed at the expense of accuracy. What does that tell you.
2-When Dick Harmon took his reluctant father Claude to the golf merchandise school many years ago, after 20 minutes Claude said ‘ok let;s go Dickie”. Dick responded by saying “Dad, but we just got here” Claude said “I have been here 20 minutes and I have picked up 60 yds on my drive and I cannot possibly hit it left”
My comment: All the advances have not reduced scores.
RE AMOS Nov 30 – 5:16
Hi Amos,
As I replied to J. this “kick point” is bogus. If such a phenomenon were to occur, ie initial flex, then it would have to ABSORB, or be initiated by, effort applied by the golfer, so WEAKENING the shot, not strengthening it; ie the flex/unflex system would not be 100% efficient – so why have it there in the first place.
The fisherman has to rely on his flex/unflex fishing rod, however inefficient it is, because he couldn’t cast his line that effectively any other way.
As for the flail; the golf club is not adminstered like a flail, in that there would be a multiplicity of hinges making the execution of the shot pretty hard, if not impossible; it is the complete system where the golf club is one part of the flail and the golfer the other that “synthesises” the system.
It’s interesting to see, in the historical pictures of the flail as both an agricultural implement and a weapon of war, that the first part of the flail, the handle if you like, is a great deal longer than the second part. The golfer’s arms/shoulders/upper torso that constitute the one piece action should never be exceeded by the length of his club, otherwise the head would never come into line at the hitting point in time.
Roger.
It might be of interest to point out, with reference to golf club length, that the fellow golfer I mentioned in another post who adopted no wrist cock at address, with golf club and arms in line; was an unusually tall guy, and later on in our acquaintance he bought a set of extra length clubs.
I was not playing at the time, merely meeting up with him on the penultimate hole as I was crossing the course, it being a public park. He told me about getting the new clubs and asked me if I’d like to try his driver.
I mistimed it, of course, what with no time to warm up or get used to the extra length; however I did get the ball a reasonable distance down the fairway. He told me that I had done better than anyone else who had tried his clubs, saying they couldn’t hit the ball at all with them. My height is about 5 foot 10 inches or slightly under. He is, if still alive, well over 6 feet.
So what does that prove; absolutely nothing, I guess.
Roger:
Sir, I will give you this, I tip my hat to you that you hold fast to your position. I wonder though how it is that only you are correct and that all the others, player, teacher, fitters, shaft manufacturers, club makers, etc. in error. I thought certainly that you would give credence to Dave Tutelman since he is more into the “science” side of golf. But, no, even then you chose not to agree. So, continue on and enjoy.
Roger,
It just hit me, for you the old adage “seeing is believing” just ain’t the case.
Kick Point i.e. the spot of the shaft where it bends. You do admit that a shaft will bend don’t you? It’s not theory that the shaft bends during the swing, it is proven fact.
You can but a shaft in a vice, pull the shaft to the right. Hey, it bends. Another point to consider. If I did put a shaft in a vice and pulled it to the right 12″ and let it go, would the shaft speed returning to it’s previous state at rest be greater after moving 2″ back to the left or at 10″ moving back to the left? If unclear, put your hand in the way at 2″ and then at 10″ and you’d feel the difference.
And please, just please tell me how you can say even though what I have said about the reaction of a golf club may appear visually to be true, it isn’t? What have you seen, studied, read, that says a shaft can’t bend (flex)? I can tell you from experience that the physical characteristics of a shaft do play a function in a golf shot. I sponsor a long drive team as part of my business and my biggest gun uses a 3X shaft at 48″. I can swing the club and I can hit it straight. I can’t get the ball to launch on the correct launch angle, the speed of my swing is lower that with my 44″ driver even though the shaft is longer, and I don’t hit the ball nearly as far. GIve my my 44″ driver with a soft light weight shaft, I hit the ball visibly higher and longer. So, believe what you will and the rest of us will go with what IS. The earth is round! Just funnin’ with you! Good day!
Hi Ji.,
I can only suggest that you are not getting the distance with the 48″ because it is verging on the too long for your arm length or you are breaking the wrists fractionally too soon and maybe not moving onto the left foot quite soon enough. Of course the wrist break is involuntary and should not even be thought of; just take fractionally longer to achieve maximum HAND SPEED; in other words the so-called “delayed hit”
That’s as far as my “infamous theory” takes me; you can try it if you like and report back. Also when swinging make sure you are not subconsciously “inserting” wrist action and are starting the downswing with the lightest, 2oz or even less effort.
The differences between my suggestion(s) and what you are doing are very very minimal, but may just do the trick ?
Forgive such advice from a complete amateur, but the ideas are not guesswork.
Robert,
It is appreciated and valid points. However, I think this would probably be a good time to tell you that I am a Master Teaching Professional as well as a Master Fitter and recognized as one of the Top 100 Fitters in the world. However, I obviously am not a good “salesman” as I can not convince you otherwise of the notions of physics that you currently hold to. I just can’t seem to wrap my head around why you won’t see the varasity of the concept that what was accepted as truth and fact some 43 years ago is not necessarily the truth today. First of all, the equipment that we have today to test applied physics with in relationship to the golf club is much more superior to that in days gone by. Also, the ability to manufacture the equipment to such exacting specifications is mind boggeling. Who would have thought in 1967 that we would someday have a steel shaft that weighed as little as 90 grams and would still perform well. The way graphite shafts are made today is so superior to that of even 15 years ago that it’s astounding. The engineers can make the shaft do all kind of things by the way it’s wrap, where it’s wrap, and on and on. Your suggestion that the high definition slow motion photograhpy had been doctored was way off the target. What you see is what is happening. It has been proven over and over again. You can go search out any videos that you like and you’ll see the same thing. However, with irons made with steel shafts the reaction is not nearly as pronounced or noticeable. That is why steel is a more accurate shaft material. However, graphite being lighted and titanium driver heads being lighter, the manufactures has been able to take a 43.5″ driver and now make them 50″ is they want to. I do not think what they have done is good for the game but nevertheless, it is what it is. I used the example before that for the longest time it was accepted practice that to make a club draw biased, you move weight to the toe. Mizuno even advertised this in the MP14 ads. But, as technology advanced, and CAD and other programs came along, the engineers could see that they had it totally backwards. You should put the weight in the heel. So, I submit to you that just because what once used to be accepted as fact, it does not mean that it is currently flat. Remember, the earth ain’t flat! (that’s still my favorite)
to Roger:
Every materail known to man “deflects” or “deforms” under loading — whether the load is Staitc )a boook on a coffee table, for instance” or Dynamic (a book drooped on the floor). Any competnet Unviersity level Sophomore Engineering student who has studied a course called “Strength of Materials” knows this — it is a required course for graduation from any Unviersity of Engineering in the USA (and probably the world for that matter).
ALL structures deform under load — whether they are buildings, bridges, cars, ships, airplanes or whatever. The real problems are how much do they deflect and why? And is this beneficial or harmful to the object in question.
Any moving structure (car, ship, airplane) experiences dynamic loading due to Inertia of the object )or it somponent parts) EVERY time it speeds up of slows down. In normal every day events, the resulting deformations are too small to seen or felt. In short, it it moves it experiences dynamic loading — there is no escaping it.
While I have never attempeted to desingn a golf club shaft, I have witnessed many tests in the AeroSpace industry of somewhat similar objects “long slim stringers and ribs” held at one end and and allowed to swing in a circle to obtain data for Vibration analysis. They do deflect and deform in a manner similar to the Tiger Woods swing video — and due to their own properties of weight and inertial and material distribution along the “shaft”. If they did not the tests would be worhtless!! So I say the Tiger Woods video (and others) are REAL and not faked.
In fact the more I think on it — the golfer applies very little effort to “bend the shaft” — the inertia of the reallitevy heavy club head attached to the end of a long slender shaft applies at least 80% (maybe more) of the required “force”. The speed of the golfer’s swing does add to the flexing though.
to J Grffin :
RIght ON and AMEN!! I concur 100% — what you reported on your swing with the Champion’s club is in eact aggreement with my knowlodge nad intuition would lead me expect
Regardless of the theory you use — KEEP hitting them LONG and STRAIGHT!
Amos
Hi Amos & J.,
I guess one just can’t change the world and that’s that. There’s more to life than golf.
Maybe the best thing to do is just ignore what people believe and claim, even when one knows perfectly well that what they say at times, does not concur with reality; at least as seen by the discipline of science, if not by the simple dictates of common sense, or common knowledge.
If I should carry this argument on any longer I shall tend to say something I’ll regret and I don’t want to do that. That is not waffle or an irrelevant claim or some kind of red herring intended to steer anyone’s gaze from “the magician’s sleight of hand” or any intention to dupe the unwary.
Believe me in this, at any rate; it’s not easy to turn one’s back on an unresolved issue when certain that those who take a hard and fast stance are clearly in possession of an indefensible argument, or at least fail totally to put into words any kind of really convincing ideas.
At my age, nearly 70, I realise that I have probably convinced myself of many a wrong idea in the past; but at least now I can review an alternative viewpoint and try to see its merits, and be ready to abandon what is clearly without substance.
I wish I could write without sounding like a f***** book; but I’ve got into the habit of it and it’s now chronic; like someone with a posh accent, being (reasonably) adept with words doesn’t always mean there’s much learning behind it.
I didn’t invent the rules of science, simple though they are in this instance; but I understand how they apply to the subject in hand. I guess if the whole world wants to believe that the moon is made of green cheese then it doesn’t mean I should grieve over it.
On the other hand maybe you are just taking the P*** ?
Bye.
I have absolutely no idea what you just said but it sure sounded good! I do have one further question and that is just what is P***?
Roger, just one last try. You said….
Believe me in this, at any rate; it’s not easy to turn one’s back on an unresolved issue when certain that those who take a hard and fast stance are clearly in possession of an indefensible argument, or at least fail totally to put into words any kind of really convincing ideas.
Dave Tutelman is about the most learned person I know on the subject and you chose to reject his position and scientific evidence. With that in mind, what more could one do?
I did have one other analogy that I thought I’d try. So, let’s take a 4×4 post and be anchor one end of it by any means that you choose. We put a 10 lb weight on the other end. We do the same with a 2×2. Will they bend? Of course they do. Which one has more bend? The thinner 2×2 of course. Why? Because it isn’t as thick and can’t produce as much resistance. Same thing with shaft.
I am wondering if in that book you have mentioned if the good Dr. says a shaft does not bend, or flex as it is called. As you mentioned, he did his work with airplanes. Even the wings of an airplane “wave”. They don’t stay perfectly still. If it could stay perfectly still then it would break from the stress. Even a bridge FLEXES if you will.
So, sir, please tell me just how much more “proof” you need and I’ll do my best to get it for you.
to J Griffin:
After further reflection, I am lead to wonder what logic the Dr used in his study. In engineering or scientific analyses it is customary to state “assumptions” and “initial conditions” — the resulting anslysis is only as true and valid as such assumptions and initial conditions are true.
It is also usual, at least in the begining stages to make the model as simple as possible — i.e. a perfect circular swing and a “rigid” shafted club. Some useful results could be obtained from such a study, but also some erroneus ones too. When theory and observation conflict, it is time to modify the theory!
So a better model is constructed — perhaps a “space curve” with x,y,z, coordinates and maybe some “flexing” of the shaft, hinging of the wrists allowed — not more reliable conclusions will be formed but the computational effort is considerably more difficult an time consuming.
Since I do not have access to the referenced book, I do no know where the learned Dr. “began” and “ended his analysis — but from what Roger has reported and considering the computational tools available some odd 40 years ago – -I strongly susect he ended with “circular swings” and no more than “semi-rigid” shafts.
I am also reminded of the Scientific Paradox of Lord Kelvin, a very famed British Thermodynamicist, who tried to calcaulte the age of the Earth by Thermodynamic principles. He prepared a famous paper, presented it to the Royal Society and other esteeemed scientist — with the question “Where is my error?” — the answer he obtsained was known to be in error when compared to other estimates. All scientists who examined his work admired his logic, theory and mathemateics – and could find no error in his reasoning or his mathematics. The problem was that radioactivity and the heating effects of radioactive decay were not known in his day.
At a later time when scientific knowledge included knowledge of radioactivity and these effects were included in Lord Kelvin’s work, then a very accurate “age of the earth” was obtained that is in close agreement with other methods such a Carbon dating, etc.
This is reported simply to explain “science in action” — some one proposes a theory, based on the “best knowledge and data available” and produces a work of science — and the knowledge base is increased.
At a later time another researcher, with new data or changed conditions, revises the original work. New (or modified) results are obtained and knowledge is once again increased.
And in the future, someone will once again improve on the “second effort” — and so on and so on forever.
Anyone care to venture what club shafts will be made from in say 20 or 40 years into the future? :<0
Amos
opppssssssssssssssss — int the third paragraph above — “not more relaiable —– ” should read “NOW more relaiable — ”
Sorry for any confusion coaused by the typo and proff reading
Amos
Amos,
Ok, you get another amen brother! Whew! BTW, are we the ones who think the moon is made of green cheese?
News Flash: The Golf War
At present scientific studies of the moon have necessarily been conducted at some distance, ie from the earth, with but few visits from humans able to examine this galactic body at closer quarters. In spite of many other observations made with techniques such as spectroscopy, interferometry and radiography, astronomers have yet to establish that the moon is indeed composed of any of an acknowledged number of identifiable dairy derivatives, though a certain Dr Wallace and his assistant Sr Gromit claim to be on the verge of declaring our famous satellite to be “…Wensleydale ?..”
Dr Wallace admitted, at a Paris seminar held in his honour, after travelling to the moon in a DIY rocket, that his samples had been adulterated with cracker like material, generously provided by Jacobs Ltd., intended merely for the purpose of transportation. The esteemed octogenarian expressed great optimism regarding further efforts to establish the true nature of “…his favourite holiday resort…”, saying that the extant instrumentation would no doubt prove inadequate, in the not too distant future; and that his long cherished belief in an inexhaustible supply of “…de brie ?..” would be vindicated as a result of new techniques as yet “…not too far from the horizon…”, and that he would still be around to enjoy the results. His assistant Sr Gromit took this opportunity to publicise his new book “Advanced Canine Electronics”
As a further publicity stunt, Sprawlings USA – a huge urban golfing concern, have pledged monetary support for further Wallace lunar ventures, plus a lifelong supply of their latest “Flexthrow” shafted golf clubs. They are confident that Dr Wallace will be released from impecunious encumbrances both to continue his quest to prove the true nature of our romantic associations, and, to discover hereto unknown species of flora and fauna.
Roger,
That indeed was priceless. I’d buy the book if it was ever published!(with MasterCard of course!)
to Roger:
That was truly PRICELESS!! Many a good “belly laugh” from that one!
THANK YOU for the posting
Amos
RE GOLF SWING VIDEOS:
Second link no good either; says videos not found…………..*** ANYHOW *** >>>>
I’m certain that I don’t need to see them, BECAUSE they will undoubtedly be just fine, as good as anyone would want !!!
It’s the INTERPRETATION of what you are actually doing that is questionable; to be polite.
Roger.