PDA

View Full Version : A physics question

wolfdancer
06-02-2007, 11:37 AM
While Colin has mentioned the topic, in his power break video...I apologize to the pool purists for inquiring about a non-pool topic.
Problem is that the "science" types here do not venture south, where only politics and other sins of the flesh, are discussed.
I just bought a golf swing device, similar to one I've had for some 20 years now....and reading the instructions...I found that I don't really understand the physics involved in golf, batting a baseball, etc....
The topic is C.O.A.M. and I have seen them macho ice skaters pull in their arms, and increase their rotational speed...also studied once...flyball speed regulators....BUT
if L = mrv.....and only r can be changed...the distance between the clubhead, and the center point for the radius of curvature of the clubhead as it travels through the swing
The claim is powerful swings produce a reduction in the magnitude of r.
I can understand how..if the leading wrist momentarily stops, that produces a sling shot effect...but can't figure out how r is diminished
Conversely the claim is that swinging a weighted club will increase strength, but slow down clubhead speed by increasing r ???
I asked my swing guru from the land down under about coam....but he said it was an urban myth, and suggested I buy a driver with a bent shaft.
I'm also not sure how a clubhead/bat speed of X produces a separation speed of X + ????????
Anyway, thanks for any replies
I've been using resistance bands to improve my break...and they seem to be helping out.....

Bob_Jewett
06-02-2007, 03:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ... The topic is C.O.A.M. and I have seen them macho ice skaters pull in their arms, and increase their rotational speed...also studied once...flyball speed regulators....BUT
if L = mrv.....and only r can be changed...the distance between the clubhead, and the center point for the radius of curvature of the clubhead as it travels through the swing
The claim is powerful swings produce a reduction in the magnitude of r.
... <hr /></blockquote>
Well, I suspect the text is from the marketing department rather than R&amp;D. If you want higher speed on the golf ball, you need higher speed on the club head. The rotation rate is not the important factor. If you could somehow put a steel bar to stop the middle of the club just before club head to ball impact, the rotation rate would be maybe tripled, but the head speed would be the same or decreased.

Jal
06-02-2007, 03:45 PM
Wolfdancer, I doubt that I can help because I'm not exactly sure what the questions are (not a good start), and with biomechanics mixed in, that complicates things considerably. But I'll do my best to increase our mutual confusion with a few thoughts.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>....BUT
if L = mrv.....and only r can be changed...the distance between the clubhead, and the center point for the radius of curvature of the clubhead as it travels through the swing<hr /></blockquote>In decreasing r, such as an iceskater does, you're exerting a force along r. This produces no torque so the angular momentum L doesn't change. Therefore, the magnitude of the linear speed at any moment (v in mrv) increases in accordance with L (=mrv) remaining constant.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>The claim is powerful swings produce a reduction in the magnitude of r.<hr /></blockquote>Decreasing r does give you more v assuming some fixed value for L. But decreasing r also reduces the amount of torque applied (possibly). This is where the biomechanics comes in to muddy things up

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>I can understand how..if the leading wrist momentarily stops, that produces a sling shot effect...but can't figure out how r is diminished<hr /></blockquote>This is the principle behind the trebuchet, but I'm not sure what it has to do with a golf swing? With the trebuchet, the rock/sling, by itself, has a certain angular momentum about the rotational axis of the entire massive arm's structure. When the arm slows down, the rock/sling can only experience this change as an increased tension in the tether to which it's attached to the arm. This has the same effect as pulling in on the tether to decrease r, accelerating the rock/sling (actually, increasing its acceleration which it's already doing by virtue of orbiting the central axis). In effect, r has decreased from the distance the rock was from the axis of the giant arm, to something less.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>Conversely the claim is that swinging a weighted club will increase strength, but slow down clubhead speed by increasing r ???<hr /></blockquote>It will slow down club head speed by increasing its moment of inertia (you can only exert so much torque). I suppose that if it causes you to extend your arms more, then r would be lengthened too.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>I'm also not sure how a clubhead/bat speed of X produces a separation speed of X + ????????<hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure if you're asking why it produces more than X (the + ???? part), or X itself. For a simple one-dimentional elastic collision (no rotation involved), the conservation laws (momentum and energy) say that the separation speed will be X. From a force point of view, Newton's third law (equal but opposite forces act on both objects) also dictate that this will be true. But I won't go any further because I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

Jim

wolfdancer
06-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Jim &amp; Bob....thanks for your replies....
I probably didn't phrase my questions where they would make sense to a scientist, or engineer..
The first question had to do with swinging a weighted object...say a lead sinker on the end of a fishing line...in this case though a golf clubhead. The ad claim was a good swing would reduce the radius and therefore to satisfy the equation rotational speed would be increased....
My second question has to do with bat, or clubhead speed...
how does a clubhead speed of 100mph produce a ball speed of 130mph, or more.....is this because of the different weights, or C.O.R.?.... or both???
I'm a little out of my comfort zone trying to discuss ball physics..so thanks for your patience....

cushioncrawler
06-02-2007, 06:15 PM
Woolfy -- Firstly, there is no such thing as angular momentum, all momentum is linear. But, to get proper answers to all sorts of questions, it is best to assume that all momentum is angular momentum. I hope that this has helped to simplyfy things, and helps woolfy to understand the following. Oh, and there is no such thing as momentum anyhow -- momentum is just an eezy way of accounting for forces and time -- and "momentum" helps the sale of golf training aids.

If angular momentum is conserved as the string is shortened then the sinker's speed remains constant. Revs per minute dont necessaryly mean much. The palava with the training aid is baloney.

Think of a golf ball bouncing off the wall of the clubhouse, it impacts at say 65mph, and, if e is 1.00, it bounces back to your feet at 65mph. This is equivalent to the clubhouse mooving at 65mph and hitting a stationary golfball -- the ball goze from 00mph to 130mph. In RealWorld a lite-weight clubhead going at 100mph hits the golfball at say 170mph.

I used to grind about 1oz off my metal woods, to get even more clubhead speed. Actually, it woz mainly so that the clubhead didnt lag so far behind my body (ugly). Actually, it gave more "trampoline effect" allso, ie a bigger "e", ie more ball speed, ie more distance (or less effort, take your pick).

I tryd bent shafts -- good, but illegal. madMac.

Jal
06-02-2007, 11:19 PM
Let me try your last one first, because at least here you'll get some satisfaction (I hope).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>My second question has to do with bat, or clubhead speed...
how does a clubhead speed of 100mph produce a ball speed of 130mph, or more.....is this because of the different weights, or C.O.R.?.... or both??<hr /></blockquote>Just as Mac said, it's because of the greater weight of the clubhead. Also as he indicated, if you increased the clubhead's mass to infinity, the ball would take off at exactly twice the clubhead's pre-impact speed. If you reduced the clubhead (and shaft's) mass to the that of the ball's, just like with pool balls it would stop and the ball would take off at the clubhead's pre-impact speed (close anyway - we're ignoring some of the possible rotational aspects).

This is all true if the coefficient of restitution (COR) is 1. It's usually a little less, so the ball's speed is a little less than in the ideal case, and the club doesn't slow down quite as much either.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>...The first question had to do with swinging a weighted object...say a lead sinker on the end of a fishing line...in this case though a golf clubhead. The ad claim was a good swing would reduce the radius and therefore to satisfy the equation rotational speed would be increased....<hr /></blockquote>Sorry Wolfdancer, but I think you'll need to draw me a picture.

<hr /></blockquote>I'm a little fuzzy as to what "stopping the lead wrist" means, but say your arms collided with something located just above the wrist, thus stopping your arms as a whole, but your wrists could pivot freely, at least for a short duration. I think the clubhead speed should increase....if you didn't let go of the grip. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody corrects this.

Jim

Jal
06-02-2007, 11:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> Woolfy -- Firstly, there is no such thing as angular momentum, all momentum is linear.<hr /></blockquote>Why do you say so, Mac?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>If angular momentum is conserved as the string is shortened then the sinker's speed remains constant. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think so, but I'm always interested in hearing your arguments.

Jim

cushioncrawler
06-03-2007, 04:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> Woolfy -- Firstly, there is no such thing as angular momentum, all momentum is linear.<hr /></blockquote>Why do you say so, Mac?<hr /></blockquote>Jim -- Here i look at it from the point of view that each bit of matter has an instantaneous v (with all due respekt to relativity), and that this v has an instantaneous direction. For a solid body of course it is eezy to relate all of the little vees (or the effektiv bits) to one big VEE (or W actually) uzing the standard equation, but this is still only an accounting ploy (albeit a very good one).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>If angular momentum is conserved as the string is shortened then the sinker's speed remains constant. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think so, but I'm always interested in hearing your arguments...<hr /></blockquote>Jim -- I suppose that there are two ways of shortening the string. If the sinker is twirling around the top end of a vertical bit of pipe, and if Woolfy shortens the line by pulling it down throo the pipe, thus making the sinker spin faster, then i guess that Woolfy is doing work, and adding energy and momentum, hencely the sinker would have more V. But, if the line is tied to the top of the pipe, and the line wraps around the pipe each turn, then i guess that momentum (and V) is conserved. How duz this sound?? madMac.

Jal
06-03-2007, 07:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>...I'm a little fuzzy as to what "stopping the lead wrist" means, but say your arms collided with something located just above the wrist, thus stopping your arms as a whole, but your wrists could pivot freely, at least for a short duration. I think the clubhead speed should increase....if you didn't let go of the grip. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody corrects this.<hr /></blockquote>After some more thought, I think this is nonsense (and so is the trebuchet stuff). Sorry about that...bad physics day.

Jim

cushioncrawler
06-03-2007, 08:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>...I'm a little fuzzy as to what "stopping the lead wrist" means, but say your arms collided with something located just above the wrist, thus stopping your arms as a whole, but your wrists could pivot freely, at least for a short duration. I think the clubhead speed should increase....if you didn't let go of the grip. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody corrects this.<hr /></blockquote>After some more thought, I think this is nonsense (and so is the trebuchet stuff). Sorry about that...bad physics day....<hr /></blockquote>Jim -- Phew, thank god u are mooving on, koz, u are correct that u were wrong, but, u nearly stumbled across the secret (or one of the secrets)( or the main secret) as to how/why tornadoes are tornadoes. I happen to be (i think) the only person in the world who knows, and (up to now) i aint telling. But what is "trebuchet"??? madMac.

cushioncrawler
06-03-2007, 08:58 PM
Jim -- I looked up wiki for "trebuchet" -- there is some good stuff there about physics, stuff that i hadnt come across before. In a way, the trebuchet principle(s) apply to golf allso (perhaps not very much to pool).

But as far as i can see, the trebuchet duznt have any special power, and duznt have anything to help a golfer. It seems to me that a trebuchet takes advantage of the property of a rope etc to take the place of a solid lever. Here a say 20' long rope duz the job of say 15' of solid lever. So, a 40' lever (arm) plus 20' of rope duz the same job az a 55' lever (arm). Clearly, a 40' arm is lighter than a 55' arm. Thats the main trick to it (ie to a trebuchet). But there is one more little trick here.

In a golf swing, a player mainly pulls on the shaft (ie like a rope), plus he/she can apply torq with the wrists (ie a bit of lever effekt). Power-wize, a golfer shood be able to hit the ball just as far uzing 100% lever effekt (ie a stiff straight arm'hand'shaft hold'n'swing) or uzing 50% lever effekt. The trebuchet effekt (ie 50% lever swing), az applyd to the golf swing, givz the following advantages (over a 100% lever swing)....

....It allows a shorter backswing. The effektiv lever here is at all times a/the line between the player's chest and the clubhead. The angle between this line at the end of the backswing and this line at impakt iz nearnuff the angle available to the player to generate clubhead speed.

....It allows the player to use more muscles, wrists (2 of them) and elbow (1 of them) mainly.

....Some players might have a style/swing such that they are able to make the clubhead "pass" (overtake) the hands at about impakt, but this is no big deal here. madMac.

Bob_Jewett
06-03-2007, 09:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> .. . The ad claim was a good swing would reduce the radius and therefore to satisfy the equation rotational speed would be increased......
<hr /></blockquote>
I'll try to be clearer.

The above statement from the ad is nonsense. You want to maximize the speed of the club head, not the rotation rate in and of itself. Imagine you are twirling a weight on a playground at the end of a 10-foot rope. Suppose it is moving at 63 feet per second. The rotation rate is 1 rotation per second. Suppose the exact middle of the rope hits a vertical pole. The speed of the weight remains exactly the same -- 63 feet per second. The rotation rate doubles to 2 rotations per second. If the weight happens to hit a baseball, it makes no difference to the collision whether it hits before or after the rope hits the pole.

Whether changing the radius of the swing in a golf swing helps or hurts the speed of the club head is not a simple matter. I think that no one here knows enough about sports kinesiology to give a definite answer

As for why the ball goes faster than the club head, this is a standard problem in high school physics. The formula for a perfect collision is given in Byrne's "Advanced" book. If a freight train hits a stationary ping-pong ball, the ball ends up moving away from the freight train at the speed of the freight train. For an observer on the ground, the ball is going twice as fast as the train. You already know what happens when balls of equal masses collide. When a ping pong ball hits a freight train that is stopped, the ping-pong ball bounces back with its original speed. (That assumes no loss of energy in the collision and no air resistance.) For cases in between, like an 18-ounce stick hitting a 6-ounce ball, something in between happens. Ideally, the speed of that ball goes to 150% of the stick speed, and the stick speed drops by half. What has been observed is 130% for ball speed because the tip is not perfectly elastic.

Jal
06-04-2007, 12:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>Jim -- Here i look at it from the point of view that each bit of matter has an instantaneous v (with all due respekt to relativity), and that this v has an instantaneous direction. For a solid body of course it is eezy to relate all of the little vees (or the effektiv bits) to one big VEE (or W actually) uzing the standard equation, but this is still only an accounting ploy (albeit a very good one).<hr /></blockquote>I tend to see it the same way, although they are fundamentally different items (looking at the very small scale stuff where particles have spin, but not much to spin with).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>Jim -- I suppose that there are two ways of shortening the string. If the sinker is twirling around the top end of a vertical bit of pipe, and if Woolfy shortens the line by pulling it down throo the pipe, thus making the sinker spin faster, then i guess that Woolfy is doing work, and adding energy and momentum, hencely the sinker would have more V. But, if the line is tied to the top of the pipe, and the line wraps around the pipe each turn, then i guess that momentum (and V) is conserved. How duz this sound?? madMac. <hr /></blockquote>Mac, I think so. In the the second case, the sinker should donate a tiny bit of energy to the pipe and whatever massive thing the pipe is attached to (judging from the linear case).

Jim

cushioncrawler
06-04-2007, 01:18 AM
Woolfy -- I guess that any sort of excercise machine will improov strength etc. But i havta mention that i have followed Long John Daly around a golf course, and allso Crewdon (from England??). We all know Long John's style, i mean when away from a blackjack table. Crewdon is interesting, the opposite of Long John. He had a 4 finger overlap grip (i think). Hiz swing -- The clubhead, during the backswing, never went up higher than about 18" above his head. The backswing woz sort of in one piece, ie allmost zero wrist-kock. Az the clubhead got to near end of backswing, the arm/hands went quickly into the foreward-swing. At first, the wrists cocked here, sort of leaving the clubhead behind, allmost in slo-motion. Then, the clubhead disappeared, caught up to the arms'n'hands, and throo. It woz Crewdon's own verzion of a catapult. He out-drove Norman. Crewdon is one of the biggest n fattest golfers i have seen. Played off plus 8 as an amateur. Couldnt handle bunkers but. madMac.

Jal
06-04-2007, 01:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>Jim -- Phew, thank god u are mooving on, koz, u are correct that u were wrong, but, u nearly stumbled across the secret (or one of the secrets)( or the main secret) as to how/why tornadoes are tornadoes. I happen to be (i think) the only person in the world who knows, and (up to now) i aint telling. But what is "trebuchet"??? madMac. <hr /></blockquote>Mac, I feel a little uncomfortable getting so far away from pool, but since this thread was never really about it, and since tornados probably take out pool halls, or at least homes with tables in them, I'm all ears. I just hope it doesn't involve clubhead speed.

Jim

cushioncrawler
06-04-2007, 02:31 AM
Jim -- I have lots of different types of recurring dreams (nightmares actually). These fall into a few really silly standard themes, but, the main one by far involves tornadoes. I have allways been fascinated by tornadoes. Some years ago i decided to Yahooo the cause (or physics of) tornadoes. But, then, i stopped. No, i would have a think about it all, and then look it up -- so i jumped into bed, az uzual, with a few sheets of paper, and a pencil and a rubber (i shood have said eraser). Koz, i do most of my best work in bed.

Of course the main thing that separates tornadoes from ordinary whirlwinds is that tornadoes firstly rely on the steam-cycle for much of their power. In fact, i dont think that u will even find a mention of something as obvious and simple as the steam-cycle in any tornadoegenisis site (are theze storm-chasers creationists or what!!!!!). In fact, tornadoeologists havent even been able to agree about the definition of a tornado, and the definitions put up so far are about as pathetic as the rest of their work. But, anyhow, this [steam cycle stuff] surely duznt fully explain how lumps of air travelling at perhaps 50mph (at ground level) end up travelling at perhaps 300mph (at ground level). No, i woz looking for the real cause, the real secret.

Of course, the peripheral issue of the search for a reason why rizing-air likes to take on a spiralling form haz never crossed the minds of any meteorologist. And i wont go into this right now either -- it iznt important, yet.

So, after less than 30 minutes in bed, i had the solution in hand. I had found the secret. Great. Ok, now i could Yahoo. But, i Yahood and Yahood and Yahood, and not one mention of my solution. Sure, some tornadogists came close, they stood at the door, but didnt look in, only pausing long enuff to say that the solution couldnt possible by behind that particular door (for one or two reasons). Much later, some described how more recent research had shot down one of these reasons. Here they had now gripped the knob, but hadnt twisted it, nobody opened that door for a proper look. But enuff for today, more later. madMac.

wolfdancer
06-04-2007, 09:58 AM
Bob,thank you for your explanation...and the freight train analogy really helped!!!

wolfdancer
06-04-2007, 10:23 AM
Jim, I used their term "stopping the lead wrist..." in some 40 years of reading golf articles and books...I've never seen the term before....I'm guessing it refers to the uncocking of the wrists...it was the "shortening of the radius" that confused me...
It's not pool related...but in Colin's power break video, he hid mention centripetal forces, and leverage...well, it gave me an "in" to pose the question here....and thank you for your input...
Here's a trainer similar to the two that I have....it would also help any future baseball hall-of-famers, you might be raising...although I used to swing a cheap, heavy tennis racket, with the cover on, to work on my swing.
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31R8RXPQKZL._AA280_.jpg

wolfdancer
06-04-2007, 10:33 AM
Mac, it was a "stretch" for me to ask the questions about golf, here in the sacrosanct pool section....but how did it mutate to tornadoes?
...maybe I opened a "...buchet of worms"?
As to your plus 8 golfer....I believe if your arc was wide enough at the bottom....you wouldn't need a lot of height in your backswing to generate clubhead speed??
I was never that good a golfer, but I did wear plus fours

cushioncrawler
06-04-2007, 04:44 PM

The best that i could come up with at that time (this woz about 1998), woz "The WhipCrack Effekt". But now i am thinking that "The Trebuchet Effekt" might be better.

The thing is, one haztafind an effekt that forces lumps of air travelling at say 50mph to go to say 300mph. The steam-engine operating inside every true tornado provides much power, but this power karnt really (directly) produce hi-speed air near ground level, it can account for hi-speed air say 100' or 200' above ground only.

True tornados karnt form without the presence of the ground sort of "plugging" the bottom end of the tube (vacuum). This is well known, but this sort of "ground effekt" is not a part of our little "secret" neither. And i admit that there has been a lot of good science out there regarding air moovment around certain types of storm clouds, which are the main parents of tornados. And there is a lot of hot-air out there about tilting of horizontal vorticity etc etc. All of these very nice little/big "things" can produce air mooving at 50mph, and air mooving in a vortex etc, but everyone out there seems to be missing the point -- how is it that lumps of air can speed up to 300mph ??, at ground level ???

I knew very early on that i had to find some sort of WhipCrack Effekt (or Trebuchet Effekt) that applyd to lumps of air, instead of a little bit of leather (or a rock). More later. madMac.

cushioncrawler
06-04-2007, 04:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Jim, I used their term "stopping the lead wrist..." in some 40 years of reading golf articles and books...I've never seen the term before....I'm guessing it refers to the uncocking of the wrists...it was the "shortening of the radius" that confused me...
It's not pool related...but in Colin's power break video, he hid mention centripetal forces, and leverage...well, it gave me an "in" to pose the question here....and thank you for your input...
Here's a trainer similar to the two that I have....it would also help any future baseball hall-of-famers, you might be raising...although I used to swing a cheap, heavy tennis racket, with the cover on, to work on my swing.
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31R8RXPQKZL._AA280_.jpg <hr /></blockquote>Woolfy -- My first thort here woz -- What have these "fans" got to do with tornadoes?? But then it hit me -- these training "fans" have everything to do with tornadoes. If u used them outside, on a "muggy" day, i bet that u would see that they shed little mini-tornadoes off their "wing-tips". madMac.

wolfdancer
06-04-2007, 05:04 PM
I thought the favorite diet of tornadoes was trailer parks???

cushioncrawler
06-04-2007, 05:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I thought the favorite diet of tornadoes was trailer parks??? <hr /></blockquote>Woolfy -- Dang, u got it in one. Over the years, every time i passed a trailer park, i noticed that there woz allways at least one guy in there on the lawn uzing (swinging) one of those darn "golf training fans". I mean, were theze guys attempting suicide. A bit like pointing an umbrella to the sky during a lightning storm. Anyhow, u have now spoiled the ending of my story. madMac.

Stretch
06-06-2007, 11:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ... The topic is C.O.A.M. and I have seen them macho ice skaters pull in their arms, and increase their rotational speed...also studied once...flyball speed regulators....BUT
if L = mrv.....and only r can be changed...the distance between the clubhead, and the center point for the radius of curvature of the clubhead as it travels through the swing
The claim is powerful swings produce a reduction in the magnitude of r.
... <hr /></blockquote>
Well, I suspect the text is from the marketing department rather than R&amp;D. If you want higher speed on the golf ball, you need higher speed on the club head. The rotation rate is not the important factor. If you could somehow put a steel bar to stop the middle of the club just before club head to ball impact, the rotation rate would be maybe tripled, but the head speed would be the same or decreased. <hr /></blockquote>

There is a sling shot effect though. You can see it at the Top of the swing. The shaft bends and loads up pryor to snapping down. The head of the club finally catches up to the hands when it hits the ball. So in actuality (is that a word?) the club head is still taveling back when the forward stroke begins. Hmmmmmmmm /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif That pause at the back stroke may be like killing a few mph's off the o'l break. Wouldn't that be akin to starting your Driver off at the top of your swing? I don't think i could knock a golf ball 50 yards like that. St.

Deeman3
06-06-2007, 01:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Stretch:</font><hr> Wouldn't that be akin to starting your Driver off at the top of your swing? I don't think i could knock a golf ball 50 yards like that. St. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Stretch:

I thnk the reason we take the club back, then come forward immediately, is to create a "coil" of the body, taunt like a streched rubber band. Just bringing the club to the top and stopping would most likely not let that pre-load take place. I don't think, with the possible exception of a few player's breaks, that we get that same "coil" or tension at the back of the swing of a cue. Not sure but it seems that way to me... </font color>

wolfdancer
06-07-2007, 01:12 PM
Dee,I probably have the most pronounced pause in my back swing, in the history of the game.In fact, sometimes I then forget just what I'm doing in that awkward position (which is why I'll need a stroke a hole from you)...
I think though that the club head "loads up" during the downswing, as it lags behind the hands and body....
Way back when....Gary Player endorsed a line of golf clubs "The Black Knight" series...featuring fiberglass shafts....
If you ever wanted to see "lag" it was in them shafts....problem was you never knew which fairway you were going to end up in...and it usually wasn't the one you were playing. I stuck some eyelets and a reel on mine, and entered some fly casting tournaments......
I think Ted Williams won them...lol....he actually was a hall of famer with a fly rod in his hands,,,