Shafts for drivers
Tim Waterman
the head of the taylor made and the steel shaft in the callaway. Does anyone
know if its possible to put the Callaway steel shaft into the Taylor Made
driver head?
Thanks
Tim
Larry Whitaker
Hi Tim,
At the risk of opening another "Pandora's Box" of controversy, I think
you are imagining some difference between one driver shaft and
another. I can't discern any difference between ANY of them, stiff,
regular, whatever.
But, I make sure my grip is extremely loose, my two hands as close
together as possible, almost no finger pressure in my lower hand, my
two hands a single "unit" that allows the club to freely flail. I DO
NOT exert leverage from the handle in an attempt to accelerate the
club head toward the ball, and thus-- the relative stiffness or other
characteristics of the shaft are simply inapplicable. Who cares? It
could be a rope! And we have all seen great players hit good drives
with driver heads connected to a handle with a chain or rope! How in
the world could characteristics of a shaft make any difference at all
if you swing correctly?
Save your money and learn to swing your existing driver without
leverage! With a good swing and hitting the ball on the sweet spot,
any old driver, even wood, will send the ball down the middle and
about the same distance. This driver stuff is all BS! I can
out-drive 99% of golfers with my old Callaway Big Bertha. I don't
even know what steel shaft it has, who cares?
Larry
Eric Strulowitz
"Larry Whitaker" <la...@delmardata.com> wrote in message
news:n9uv5vkc5m9n9linl...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:08:13 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Waterman"
> <Timenter...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a Callaway Big Bertha Warlbird driver and a Taylor Made R360. I
love
> >the head of the taylor made and the steel shaft in the callaway. Does
anyone
> >know if its possible to put the Callaway steel shaft into the Taylor Made
> >driver head?
> >Thanks
> >Tim
> >
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> At the risk of opening another "Pandora's Box" of controversy, I think
> you are imagining some difference between one driver shaft and
> another. I can't discern any difference between ANY of them, stiff,
> regular, whatever.
>
>
surely you are not serious about this!!! I have 2 drivers, 1 regular and 1
stiff, and the difference is like night and day.
IMHO, shaft stiffness is the most important variable of clubfitting.
Someone who has a driver speed of 85mph has no business with a stiff shaft,
likewise someone at 110 mph couldn't possibly have any degree of repeatable
accuracy with a regular or senior flex.
Sorry to disagree!!
Eric
Chrome
Spoken as a true 18 Handicaper
Eric Strulowitz
"Eric Strulowitz" <maers...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:H4T7a.1468$Xu.8...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
pays IMHO to get your swing speed checked and get a shaft that fits your
swing. And based on ball flight, tip stiffness and flex points also can be
important.
I don't disagree Larry that you can't play well with any shaft, as you will
taylor your swing to the shaft, but that is really not a good way to go in
the long run
Eric.
Robert Davis
difference between shafts ... I assume this includes no difference
between Senior flex and X-Stiff Tour flex ... and also no difference
between metal, graphite and probably hickory. 8^)
You think Harvey Penick and all the pros he taught would agree with
your analysis here?
Rob
Ron Blanchard
Possible? Yes. Adviseable? Probably not.
I wouldn't touch the Warbird. You'd be better off having a clubmaker
pull the TMR360 shaft with a good puller (so it's not damaged in any
way and can be reinstalled if needed) and then install a new steel
shaft. A typical replacement for a Memphis 10 shaft would be
something like a True Temper TT Lite, Dynalite, or Dynalite gold.
There are others that will work too. Remember that you're dealing
with a .405 bore head on the TMR360, so the .335 shaft you select will
need to be properly shimmed either with a coil or a brass shim. Have
the clubmaker verify the frequency of the Warbird and the TMR360 so
you can get the correct flex on the new configuration. The club will
surely feel different (bore through smaller steel head vs. the newer
tech of the TMR360), but at least you match it very closely.
You do mean the TM "R" 360, the non-conforming one, right? If it's
the regular TM360, the bore is .350 ...
Good luck. There are advantages to having a steel-shafted driver,
including a bit more control and feel.
Ron
------------
"The right way to play golf is to go up and hit the bloody thing."
-George Duncan, 1920 Open Champion Golfer
RJ
You can swap shafts so long as the tip size is the same. But I believe these
drivers have different tip sizes, with the R360 being the "odd ball".
RJ
...
Ron Blanchard
> <Timenter...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a Callaway Big Bertha Warlbird driver and a Taylor Made R360. I love
> >the head of the taylor made and the steel shaft in the callaway. Does anyone
> >know if its possible to put the Callaway steel shaft into the Taylor Made
> >driver head?
> >Thanks
> >Tim
> >
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> At the risk of opening another "Pandora's Box" of controversy, I think
> you are imagining some difference between one driver shaft and
> another. I can't discern any difference between ANY of them, stiff,
> regular, whatever.
This is typical Larry. Since *I* can't discern the difference, you
and everyone else in the world must be imagining it.
>
> But, I make sure my grip is extremely loose, my two hands as close
> together as possible, almost no finger pressure in my lower hand, my
> two hands a single "unit" that allows the club to freely flail. I DO
> NOT exert leverage from the handle in an attempt to accelerate the
> club head toward the ball, and thus-- the relative stiffness or other
> characteristics of the shaft are simply inapplicable. Who cares? It
> could be a rope! And we have all seen great players hit good drives
> with driver heads connected to a handle with a chain or rope! How in
> the world could characteristics of a shaft make any difference at all
> if you swing correctly?
You mean, correctly like you? Is there only ONE golf swing? Is there
only ONE body type?
>
> Save your money and learn to swing your existing driver without
> leverage! With a good swing and hitting the ball on the sweet spot,
> any old driver, even wood, will send the ball down the middle and
> about the same distance.
Hmmm, a good swing, on the sweet spot, equals ... a good drive!
Brilliant!
> This driver stuff is all BS! I can
> out-drive 99% of golfers with my old Callaway Big Bertha. I don't
> even know what steel shaft it has, who cares?
>
> Larry
Besides the fact that I don't believe your claim that you can outdrive
99% of golfers, I really wish you would stop spreading this
misconception you have about shaft flex. Regardless of *your* opinion
on the matter, shaft flex *is* important. Tour players and the best
amateurs often choose stiffer flexes for more control.
Slower-swinging players with longer arcs generally should use
relatively soft flexes to maximize distance. Sometimes, it's the
opposite, as a very strong player might be best fit to an R or S range
flex instead of X. Shaft flex correlates with the individual player's
natural timing, swing type, how they load the shaft, and other
factors. Too much lead or lag in the shaft (because of it's flex) can
effect the outcome of the shot.
Your claim that shaft flex is 'BS' is about as credible as saying that
clubhead loft, shaft length, lie angle, and shaft torque are all 'BS'.
Bobby Jones and other old-time greats would hand-select individual
clubs based on their own preferences and requirements, including the
*flex* of the shaft.
Please post some video of you hitting a rope driver (I want to see how
you keep the rope straight as you pause at the top of your backswing).
In fact, why don't you amaze your playing partners and just *use* a
rope driver! You can watch their jaws drop as you rip drive after
drive 250+ straight down the middle, past 99% of golfers. I'd even
recommend that you carry a complete bag of rope clubs, including the
putter. You'll be scratch in no time :-)
Ron
Larry Whitaker
Well, Eric, think about it. If you aren't exerting leverage, if you
could swing a whippy club without bending the shaft, which is what VJ
Singh and all good players work to be do, then the shaft flex wouldn't
make any difference, would it? If the clubhead is being "flung" and
extended out there by centrifugal force, the shaft is not accelerating
the clubhead.
But, of course if you are using a golf club like a garden hoe, pushing
it through with leverage, especially with the lower hand, then the
flex would make a huge difference. Heck,you might even break a shaft
now and then!
Not long ago someone posted a URL to a web site that showed Bobby
Jones' 2-iron swing from the top-- a set of stop-action strobe photos.
His wooden shaft did not bend! So what difference would the shaft
flex make if the player doesn't bend it?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but with a smooth centrifugal swing, the
shaft flex couldn't make any difference! Just engineering logic--and
I am absolutely sure that Golf Labs could prove my premis with the
robot. Want to bet? We could submit this question to them...
Larry
>
Boyd Beattie
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but with a smooth centrifugal swing, the
> shaft flex couldn't make any difference! Just engineering logic--and
> I am absolutely sure that Golf Labs could prove my premis with the
> robot. Want to bet? We could submit this question to them...
>
> Larry
>
So why do almost all pro's use S, XS or XS+ shafts?
--
Regards,
J.B. Beattie
Technical Director
The IT Shop Ltd
mailto:mail...@the-laptop-shop.co.uk
http://the-laptop-shop.co.uk
Larry Whitaker
Well, this is not about playing well, but about the principle of
whether shaft flex makes any difference to those with a good swing.
I hereby offer to bet anyone-- if you will accept Golf Labs as the
final authority. We can ask them whether shaft flex makes any
difference in ball flight characteristics in ANY club they test.
I know it doesn't because the robot has a totally free "wrist," it
cannot exert any leverage, and thus there could be no difference in
clubhead speed or orientation at impact between shafts --or even if
there were a chain instead of a shaft!! The robot has an ideal
swing.
But who wants to challenge my premis?
Larry
>
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
>Apparently Larry is the only golfer in the world who can't see any
>difference between shafts ... I assume this includes no difference
>between Senior flex and X-Stiff Tour flex ... and also no difference
>between metal, graphite and probably hickory. 8^)
>
>You think Harvey Penick and all the pros he taught would agree with
>your analysis here?
>
>Rob
Well Rob, to an engineer I have discovered that golf is about 3/4
hocus pocus and mystique. Old wife's tales repeated and then used to
sell clubs, ha.
But the swing is a very simple mechanical movement. The golf club is
a very simple weighed striking object. If an engineer looks at it
analytically, as Golf Labs does, the results are totally predictible.
The shaft flex is simply not a variable because the ideal swing exerts
NO leverage from the handle. Case closed.
Of course I admit that the flex would make a difference if someone is
exerting leverage, i.e. using a golf club like a garden hoe-- but who
cares how a farmer swings a golf club?
larry
Larry Whitaker
<j...@the-it-shop.co.uk> wrote:
>Larry Whitaker wrote:
>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but with a smooth centrifugal swing, the
>> shaft flex couldn't make any difference! Just engineering logic--and
>> I am absolutely sure that Golf Labs could prove my premis with the
>> robot. Want to bet? We could submit this question to them...
>>
>> Larry
>>
>So why do almost all pro's use S, XS or XS+ shafts?
Hey, I know some touring pros. They don't know any more about
equipment than we do-- AND, they are almost superstitious about
certain things, which is a sure sign that many are just not very
bright, ha. I would think a professional golfer would be the last
person to ask about anything technical.
They don't know and don't care. Some refuse to even look at
themselves on video, afraid that image might make them change whatever
mysterious forces that let them win! Maybe it is voodoo?
Larry
Boyd Beattie
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:33:24 +0000, Boyd Beattie
> <j...@the-it-shop.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Larry Whitaker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry to burst your bubble, but with a smooth centrifugal swing, the
>>>shaft flex couldn't make any difference! Just engineering logic--and
>>>I am absolutely sure that Golf Labs could prove my premis with the
>>>robot. Want to bet? We could submit this question to them...
>>>
>>>Larry
>>>
>>
>>So why do almost all pro's use S, XS or XS+ shafts?
>
>
> Hey, I know some touring pros.
Of course you do Larry. Keep taking the tablets.
They don't know any more about
> equipment than we do-- AND,
Christ they must know more than you.
they are almost superstitious about
> certain things, which is a sure sign that many are just not very
> bright, ha.
Unlike you, obviously a man of awesome intellectual talent, otherwise
you wouldn't be able to ridicule their perceived lack. Personally, I
reckon you are getting your IQ mixed up with your golf score and your IQ
is in the 70s and your score is around 120, not the other way round.
I would think a professional golfer would be the last
> person to ask about anything technical.
>
> They don't know and don't care. Some refuse to even look at
> themselves on video, afraid that image might make them change whatever
> mysterious forces that let them win!
Maybe it is voodoo?
Yeah! Right! Maybe it's more Larry Bullshit?
It couldn't possibly be that with their swing type and swing speed they
get more control with a stiffer shaft?
These are the guys who make their living at the game, the guys who
actually *can* outdrive 99% of other golfers *in real life* , not in
their fantasies, and you, a country club hacker who has probably never
broken 90, dismiss them as thick, superstitious and too stupid to ask
for equipment advice. I know where the bullshit is in this thread. You
are full of it Larry.
Now try to answer the question again, properly this time, here it is
again in case you forgot it,
"So why do almost all pro's use S, XS or XS+ shafts?"
Ron Blanchard
Larry, why on earth would anyone playing golf want to play well?
> but about the principle of
> whether shaft flex makes any difference to those with a good swing.
It does. The ball may go too high, too low, spin too much, not spin
enough, have erratic distance, or lose distance.
>
> I hereby offer to bet anyone-- if you will accept Golf Labs as the
> final authority. We can ask them whether shaft flex makes any
> difference in ball flight characteristics in ANY club they test.
>
> I know it doesn't because the robot has a totally free "wrist," it
> cannot exert any leverage, and thus there could be no difference in
> clubhead speed or orientation at impact between shafts --or even if
> there were a chain instead of a shaft!! The robot has an ideal
> swing.
>
> But who wants to challenge my premis?
>
> Larry
> >
Larry, please do yourself a favor and thoroughly read everything on
Golf Lab's website. In particular let me know what you think about
their 'silly notions' and 'BS' regarding the following information
(paraphrased here) found on their site.
*** BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL FROM GOLF LABS WEBSITE
"...To test clubs it is recommended to test against competitors in the
same market as your product. The shaft FLEX (emphasis mine) and loft
should be as close as possible. Length and swing weight should also be
taken into consideration..."
"...The following is a list of programs for shaft testing:
• TIPPING procedures for optimum trajectory;
this form of testing is used to determine exactly how a shaft must be
TIPPED (that's FLEX, Larry) in order to optimize the trajectory,
carry, and total roll of the golf ball (that would be ball flight
characteristics, Larry).
• Distance Characteristics;
By testing the club at different speeds the client will be able to see
the relationship between the FLEX characteristics of the shaft and the
distance patterns at a set speed. This will enable you to determine
the length of a club based on the shaft.
• Dispersion Characteristics;
By testing the club at different speeds the client will be able to see
the relationship between the torque characteristics of the shaft and
the dispersion patterns at a set speed. This will enable you to
determine the accuracy of a club based on the shaft.
• Distance vs. Speed;
Both graphite and steel shafts have a speed range in which they
achieve optimum distance and dispersion in relation to the club head.
Speed testing will evaluate a shaft's performance at various speeds in
order to optimize the club to a speed range (Heaven forbid, Larry,
could they possibly mean shaft FLEX here?!).
To test shafts it is recommended that the same heads be used on all of
the clubs tested. These heads, and clubs, should be checked for their
LOFT, LIE, LENGTH, WEIGHT, BULGE, AND ROLL. It is critical that all of
the heads be the same. That way you have isolated the shaft as the
variable that you are examining. Once this accomplished we can
evaluate the shaft based upon distance (length), dispersion
(accuracy), trajectory, and club head speed..."
"...Robot Variables
The following variables can be changed on the robot:
Launch Angle Conditions
Club and Ball Velocities
Ball Spin Rate
Tee Table Position
Club Swing Profile
Swing Plane
By changing these variables the robot can simulate DIFFERENT TYPES OF
SWINGS. Clubs can be compared using a high, mid or low handicap type
of swing. Equipment can now be tested under various launch angle
conditions to determine which is optimum..."
*** END QUOTED MATERIAL FROM GOLF LABS WEBSITE
Larry, are you still up for this challenge?
Ron
Dene
> >>
> >So why do almost all pro's use S, XS or XS+ shafts?
>
> Hey, I know some touring pros.
Name one.
-Greg
jeffc
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:08:13 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Waterman"
> <Timenter...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a Callaway Big Bertha Warlbird driver and a Taylor Made R360. I
love
> >the head of the taylor made and the steel shaft in the callaway. Does
anyone
> >know if its possible to put the Callaway steel shaft into the Taylor Made
> >driver head?
>
> you are imagining some difference between one driver shaft and
> another. I can't discern any difference between ANY of them, stiff,
> regular, whatever.
Oh brother. Just when you think it can't get any worse.
> But, I make sure my grip is extremely loose, my two hands as close
> together as possible, almost no finger pressure in my lower hand...
<and more bullshit snipped that had nothing at all to do with the question>
Tim, the only issue here is whether the HEAD of the 360 takes the same shape
tip as the Callaway (some take a tapered tip of a different size.) Ask your
pro shop.
Big Bobby Clobber
> Larry Whitaker wrote:
>
> > Sorry to burst your bubble, but with a smooth centrifugal swing, the
> > shaft flex couldn't make any difference!
Mine is not a smooth centrifugal swing, it changes direction from backswing
to downswing. In your words, "Just engineering logic"
--and
> > I am absolutely sure that Golf Labs could prove my premis with the
> > robot.
Not likely. But they could measure the forces involved with the shaft
loading and unloading.
--
Big Bobby Clobber
"The constant undying hope for improvement makes golf so exquisitely worth
playing." - Bernard Darwin
Larry Whitaker
I thought you signed "regards." You don't mean regards, instead of
offering a cogent argument against my honestly felt and logically
supported premis, you did an ad hominem attack against me personally.
And, you just made my kill file. See ya.
larry
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
Good job, Ron. I saw that too and of course it is all correct. But,
it cannot test shaft flex and they admit that as its primary
limitation.
The Golf Labs testing grounds are right beside my country club here in
Rancho Santa Fe, CA. I have met Gene Parente, President, and stood
beside him as watched the machine operate. It is extremely simple.
The modern robot is much simpler than the older "Iron Byron" which did
have a "powered" wrist and thus could exert leverage. Any logical
person can see how it is constructed and must admit that since it has
a free "wrist" it cannot exert leverage. Since it just flings the
club through, it cannot bend or flex the shaft like humans do from the
handle. It cannot test shaft flex characteristics.
Larry
Larry Whitaker
Yeah, right. My brother's son went to UNLV, was on the golf team and
was a teaching pro for years in Las Vegas. He comes here often and we
go over to Las Vegas and play with him and his friends every few
months. Many of his team mates are now touring on both the PGA and
buy.com (or whatever they call it now) tours. I see these guys all
the time. There is nothing special about them except that they can
play golf better than most. So what?
Larry
Boyd Beattie
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 23:40:41 +0000, Boyd Beattie
>
> I thought you signed "regards." You don't mean regards, instead of
> offering a cogent argument against my honestly felt and logically
> supported premis,
I quote,
"They don't know and don't care. Some refuse to even look at
themselves on video, afraid that image might make them change whatever
mysterious forces that let them win! Maybe it is voodoo?"
That's what passes for, "honestly felt and logically supported premis",
in your world, does it?
I see you still haven't tried to answer the question properly.
Boyd Beattie
Didn't get to ask them their names then, Larry?
Blair P. Houghton
>
>The shaft flex is simply not a variable because the ideal swing exerts
>NO leverage from the handle. Case closed.
That's not true, and not even possible, given the position of
the hands and club at the top of the backswing.
The club is a flexing spring, and being able to time that
flex so as to maximize its contribution to head velocity
at ball contact is how you get a 300-yard driving average.
That doesn't mean that the grip has to be a stranglehold,
as your mention of your grip might imply. The grip should
still be light at contact, but the hands will be torquing
the club significantly in the last 90 degrees before contact.
>Of course I admit that the flex would make a difference if someone is
>exerting leverage, i.e. using a golf club like a garden hoe-- but who
>cares how a farmer swings a golf club?
How's your cucumbers coming along?
>>> At the risk of opening another "Pandora's Box" of controversy, I think
>>> you are imagining some difference between one driver shaft and
>>> another. I can't discern any difference between ANY of them, stiff,
>>> regular, whatever.
That's because you're using a purely centripetal-force
swing. Or you think you are. Because the club would
hit you on the head if you weren't applying torque there.
I'm not saying you're casting, but you're using your hands
more than you think. And your not likely hitting the ball
anywhere near 300 yards. And if you are, you could probably
hit the ball 350 if you put a little mustard on it and had
a properly-tuned shaft.
--Blair
"Loose hands good, mostly."
Blair P. Houghton
http://usga.org/test_center/method_measurement.html
--Blair
"Someone thinks it's significant.
And they run golf."
Larry Whitaker
>Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>>
>>The shaft flex is simply not a variable because the ideal swing exerts
>>NO leverage from the handle. Case closed.
>
>That's not true, and not even possible, given the position of
>the hands and club at the top of the backswing.
>
>The club is a flexing spring, and being able to time that
>flex so as to maximize its contribution to head velocity
>at ball contact is how you get a 300-yard driving average.
>
>That doesn't mean that the grip has to be a stranglehold,
>as your mention of your grip might imply. The grip should
>still be light at contact, but the hands will be torquing
>the club significantly in the last 90 degrees before contact.
Well, maybe you know something that the world's best long drivers
don't know. But Dr. Melvin, inventor of the Whippy TempoMaster clubs
and also a long driving competitor himself, says that ideally the
shaft should NOT bend at all. The long drivers all try NOT to exert
leverage from the handle-- and in fact Dr. Melvin says that the right
lower hand pushing can ONLY slow the club down, the exact opposite of
your premis. To generate maximum clubhead speed, they try to allow
the club to hinge in the last 3 fingers of the upper hand so it is
more free to flail-- and create clubhead speed like the robot does.
The lower hand only pushes the upper hand--not the club handle.
And of course the Golf Labs Robot does not bend the shaft because it
can't-- it has a totally free wrist. The robot arm swings down, the
club lags behind due to inertia and then releases like we pop a whip.
So with your theory that the club shaft is a flexing spring, I suppose
a 15' bull whip should be stiff?
>
>>Of course I admit that the flex would make a difference if someone is
>>exerting leverage, i.e. using a golf club like a garden hoe-- but who
>>cares how a farmer swings a golf club?
>
>How's your cucumbers coming along?
>
>>>> At the risk of opening another "Pandora's Box" of controversy, I think
>>>> you are imagining some difference between one driver shaft and
>>>> another. I can't discern any difference between ANY of them, stiff,
>>>> regular, whatever.
>
>That's because you're using a purely centripetal-force
>swing. Or you think you are. Because the club would
>hit you on the head if you weren't applying torque there.
>I'm not saying you're casting, but you're using your hands
>more than you think. And your not likely hitting the ball
>anywhere near 300 yards. And if you are, you could probably
>hit the ball 350 if you put a little mustard on it and had
>a properly-tuned shaft.
Well, you should get the Whippy video and watch Dr. Melvin hit 20
300+ yard drives in a row with a driver that has a shaft like a
flyrod. Also the trick shot artists can all hit them with a rope
shaft-- just doesn't make sense that they would hit them better with a
stiff shaft--
The preponderance (and in fact ALL) of the evidence is on my side.
Any engineer (golfer or not) would look at the robot and the trick
shot artists and anyone who can hit with a whippy and conclude that
the shaft should NOT bend in a good swing--
And thus also agree that the shaft flex characteristics in a modern
golf club should make essentially NO difference.
Larry
Howard Brazee
On 4-Mar-2003, Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> And of course the Golf Labs Robot does not bend the shaft because it
> can't-- it has a totally free wrist. The robot arm swings down, the
> club lags behind due to inertia and then releases like we pop a whip.
> So with your theory that the club shaft is a flexing spring, I suppose
> a 15' bull whip should be stiff?
Is there a different meaning of "bending the shaft in the swing" besides moving
it the club and having the club head lag behind due to inertia?
Brent Hutto
wrote:
The largest bending motion of the shaft is in the toe-down direction
rather than leading or lagging per se (at least in a normal golf
swing). If Larry can swing a club with a whippy shaft and it isn't
bending at all, then he must not have a clubhead on the end of the
shaft.
Brent Hutto
Robert Davis
> Well, you should get the Whippy video and watch Dr. Melvin hit 20
> 300+ yard drives in a row with a driver that has a shaft like a
> flyrod. Also the trick shot artists can all hit them with a rope
> shaft-- just doesn't make sense that they would hit them better with a
> stiff shaft--
I think your logic leaves a little to be desired Larry ... just
because they *can* hit balls with a Whippy or a clubhead on a rope, in
no way implies that's the *best* way.
> The preponderance (and in fact ALL) of the evidence is on my side.
> Any engineer (golfer or not) would look at the robot and the trick
> shot artists and anyone who can hit with a whippy and conclude that
> the shaft should NOT bend in a good swing--
So are you saying that the pro's (say Tiger Woods for example) shafts
do not bend when they swing, or that they don't good swings?
Rob
Scott Newell
> Well, you should get the Whippy video and watch Dr. Melvin hit 20
> 300+ yard drives in a row with a driver that has a shaft like a
> flyrod. Also the trick shot artists can all hit them with a rope
> shaft-- just doesn't make sense that they would hit them better with a
> stiff shaft--
>
> The preponderance (and in fact ALL) of the evidence is on my side.
> Any engineer (golfer or not) would look at the robot and the trick
> shot artists and anyone who can hit with a whippy and conclude that
> the shaft should NOT bend in a good swing--
>
> And thus also agree that the shaft flex characteristics in a modern
> golf club should make essentially NO difference.
So why don't accomplished golfers swing clubs with shaft made of a rope or a
spaghetti noodle then? If it doesn't matter, then why do they spend hours
of their time at their respective OEM test facility looking for the right
combination of shafts, clubhead specs, balls, grip sizes, etc? Why do most
pros put lead tape on their clubheads to tweak swingweights and the timing
of their release?
Shaft fitting and club fitting might not matter as much to hackers like us,
but if it doesn't matter to *anyone*, then why do the good players spend the
time tweaking their equipment, namely shafts?
No offense to Dr. Melvin and other trick shot/driving range artists, but
Larry, do you realize that they aren't playing the game of golf? If you
really aspire to be a driving range artist, go right ahead. I prefer to
play golf.
--
Scott D. Newell (new...@wsu.edu)
Washington State University
"That shot is impossible!...Jack Nicholson
himself couldn't make it!"-- Homer Simpson
Howard Brazee
On 4-Mar-2003, "Scott Newell" <new...@wsu.edu> wrote:
> > And thus also agree that the shaft flex characteristics in a modern
> > golf club should make essentially NO difference.
>
> So why don't accomplished golfers swing clubs with shaft made of a rope or a
> spaghetti noodle then?
How do you work the back swing then?
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
>
Of course. When the club lags behind due to inertia, the whole club,
shaft and all, does that and thus the shaft does not bend. The arms
continue to move down and through and the club left behind "hinges" in
the upper hand (the purpose of the golf glove there and not in the
lower hand) and then releases later in the swing.
Watch the opening video of golf labs in this URL- that "wrist" is just
a free swivel-- it cannot exert any leverage from the handle.
http://www.golflabs.com/flash.html
Larry
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
>Larry Whitaker wrote:
I am simply repeating what I read, what I have been told by experts,
and what I have experienced--and also my personal observation of the
GolfLabs Robot. Golf Labs told me that touring pros go to their
facility and study the machine in action. Pros watch the machine hit,
and try to absorb its tempo-- to similarly exert NO leverage and thus
generate the maximum clubhead speed centrifugally--and effortlessly!
Of course the ideal of NO leverage is difficult and maybe impossible
because humans are simply not strong enough to hold the club like the
robot does-- with one finger and thumb! We have to put both hands on
the handle and necessarily one hand below the other, inviting leverage
for beginners. But if we could, the longest drivers would swing it
with one hand, not both. They would "pop" it through like we do a
whip or a tennis racket forehand--with one hand, not both in order to
get more "popping" action and fantastic clubhead speed.
Watch it in action: http://www.golflabs.com/flash.html
Larry
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
>
Well, that is a trick shot, of course, but what they do is wind up,
get it swinging, and then swing it through the ball. Haven't you seen
The Hit Man on The Golf Channel? He has been on quite a bit in recent
years.
see his web site at: http://www.chuckthehitman.com/
Blair P. Houghton
>On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:38:35 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
>
>>Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>The shaft flex is simply not a variable because the ideal swing exerts
>>>NO leverage from the handle. Case closed.
>>
>>That's not true, and not even possible, given the position of
>>the hands and club at the top of the backswing.
>>
>>The club is a flexing spring, and being able to time that
>>flex so as to maximize its contribution to head velocity
>>at ball contact is how you get a 300-yard driving average.
>>
>>That doesn't mean that the grip has to be a stranglehold,
>>as your mention of your grip might imply. The grip should
>>still be light at contact, but the hands will be torquing
>>the club significantly in the last 90 degrees before contact.
>
>Well, maybe you know something that the world's best long drivers
>don't know.
If they know half the physics I know, they've had twice
the physics classes.
>But Dr. Melvin, inventor of the Whippy TempoMaster clubs
>and also a long driving competitor himself, says that ideally the
>shaft should NOT bend at all. The long drivers all try NOT to exert
Then why make them Whippy? What's he a "Dr. Melvin" of, anyway?
>leverage from the handle-- and in fact Dr. Melvin says that the right
>lower hand pushing can ONLY slow the club down, the exact opposite of
>your premis. To generate maximum clubhead speed, they try to allow
>the club to hinge in the last 3 fingers of the upper hand so it is
>more free to flail-- and create clubhead speed like the robot does.
At contact. Before then, they're using those fingers to get
the club to the contact point.
>The lower hand only pushes the upper hand--not the club handle.
Then those three fingers should be amputated, as they can
only be violating your principle of not pushing the club.
Bad news, they're pushing the club. Not hard, and they
shouldn't be squeezing the club, but they're torquing that
baby down from hip-high.
>And of course the Golf Labs Robot does not bend the shaft because it
>can't-- it has a totally free wrist. The robot arm swings down, the
>club lags behind due to inertia and then releases like we pop a whip.
It would hit the ball farther if it could apply a torque
about that wrist.
>So with your theory that the club shaft is a flexing spring, I suppose
>a 15' bull whip should be stiff?
No, a club should be a 15' bull-whip, then you'll get those
supersonic head speeds. But it isn't, because that's got
no control on face angle. And a bullwhip is better at
turning a small, heavy momentum into a faster, lighter one,
while a club turns a small, heavy momentum into a wider,
faster one. Hence the need for shear strength. (Ropes
don't do shear, and whips are ropes. Golf clubs are not.)
>>That's because you're using a purely centripetal-force
>>swing. Or you think you are. Because the club would
>>hit you on the head if you weren't applying torque there.
>>I'm not saying you're casting, but you're using your hands
>>more than you think. And your not likely hitting the ball
>>anywhere near 300 yards. And if you are, you could probably
>>hit the ball 350 if you put a little mustard on it and had
>>a properly-tuned shaft.
>
>Well, you should get the Whippy video and watch Dr. Melvin hit 20
>300+ yard drives in a row with a driver that has a shaft like a
>flyrod.
300+? Is that all? With a fabulous invention like that
and all the hype about finding the Secret of Length, I'd
expect 305+, easy, like John Daly's tour average with
a rod-stiff driver...
>Also the trick shot artists can all hit them with a rope
>shaft-- just doesn't make sense that they would hit them better with a
>stiff shaft--
How far can they hit with a rope? Not far, and not accurate
(and from what I've seen, they have to duck on the followthrough).
>The preponderance (and in fact ALL) of the evidence is on my side.
None of it is, and saying it is won't make it so.
A rope on a stick (a whippy club on the end of your arm)
will have less terminal clubhead velocity than the same
arm with a stiff club with a torque added to it.
Think of it this way:
The stiff club, being the same shape as the rope, can act
in the same manner as the rop club for situations with
no torques (free wrists). Therefore it is at least as
good. But the stiff club can also support an additional
shearing force. It can transmit torque from the wrist
to the clubhead. Therefore it is capable of being better
than the rope.
And your argument is sunk.
>Any engineer (golfer or not)
I'm an engineer (golfer) with 25 years' nearly constant
experience with physics and analysis. I'm saying you're
wrong. Aboriginal tribesmen know more physics than you.
The atlatl is a superior machine to the sling.
>would look at the robot and the trick
>shot artists and anyone who can hit with a whippy and conclude that
>the shaft should NOT bend in a good swing--
The robot and the trick shot artists are not making money
on the tour. The guys pulling down over a million dollars
a week are using the stiffest shafts engineering can invent.
And out-driving your examples. And landing the ball in a
narrowed fairway.
>And thus also agree that the shaft flex characteristics in a modern
>golf club should make essentially NO difference.
Plain horseshit, if you'll pardon my clubhouse.
But let's expand a little: A "whippy" shaft could be superior
to a stiff shaft, which is superior to a ropy shaft, if the
whippy shaft were tuned such that it flexed during the downswing
and released through the impact with the maximum whip-amplified
velocity. Supersonic speeds, in the optimal cases. But this
isn't a purely centripetal effect, as the amplification is the result
of a wave of energy moving along the constantly decreasing
weight and stiffness of the whip.
Whipping, actually, is what a "stiff" shaft does in the
hands of someone as strong and skilled as Tiger Woods.
It flexes and releases and whips slightly along its length,
adding a little extra momentum to the angular momenta
imparted by the sling-like and atlatl-like components of
the club motion. With "regular" flex shafts, the timing
of the rebound is wrong, and while the whipping is larger,
it happens too late, and the head reaches impact de-lofted
and turned to a push.
--Blair
"What's the handicap on this troll?"
Howard Brazee
On 4-Mar-2003, Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >Is there a different meaning of "bending the shaft in the swing" besides
> >moving
> >it the club and having the club head lag behind due to inertia?
>
> Of course. When the club lags behind due to inertia, the whole club,
> shaft and all, does that and thus the shaft does not bend. The arms
> continue to move down and through and the club left behind "hinges" in
> the upper hand (the purpose of the golf glove there and not in the
> lower hand) and then releases later in the swing.
Every film I have seen shows the shaft bending. Are these optical illusions,
or are you saying inertia isn't why the clubs bend?
> Watch the opening video of golf labs in this URL- that "wrist" is just
> a free swivel-- it cannot exert any leverage from the handle.
> http://www.golflabs.com/flash.html
The opening video here is a drawing.
Larry Whitaker
Read the recent post from HH. He says it better than I can
"Then, . . Lacking the strength to even try to 'hit' the ball using my
hands, >I just naturally 'slung' the club. Being lean and supple in
those days,
>naturally led me to come through the ball often with an open club-face. As
>I got older, stronger, and thicker, the club-face was not only no longer
>open, it was quite remarkably closed. I ignorantly tried to 'control'
>things by hitting even harder with my hands.
>
>Now, I'm back to being much, much more patient at the top of my backswing, .
>. Waiting, waiting, waiting for the backswing to complete before I even
>attempt to begin the pull down. Then, on the pull down, I don't use my
>hands _AT ALL_, . . Merely 'slinging' the club through the ball.
>
>I'm back to a five handicap, which matches the very best I ever achieved
>(some 35 years ago). Yet, today I scarcely break a sweat. I never, never,
>ever _HIT_ a ball these days. I merely sling the clubhead through the space
>where the ball is sitting. And, presto, it goes much, much straighter now
>than I ever knew that balls _could_ go. (Maybe not as far, I'll grant.)
>
>But, isn't it odd that it took me over 50 years of golf to learn that all
>those guys who used to try to tell me about 'slow and easy' swinging back
>when I was a kid knew what they were talking about? Pretty dumb of me!
>
>My son-in-law seems to have come up with this naturally. He consistently
>gets phenomenal distance. Yet I've never seen such a relaxed, slow, and
>easy swing. Watching him hit a ball, you'd swear that the ball wouldn't go
>more than a hundred yards. But, his shots consistently start out low,
>appear to 'hit a step,' and, then, 'hop' over the step; they proceed to rise
>and rise as they climbing prettily, before settling to earth with little or
>no roll. I'd give a lot to be able to hit even a few such shots from time
>to time. Clearly, he's slinging the clubhead, and since he's so patient, it
>becomes possible for the clubhead to build up fantistic speed by the time it
>impacts the ball.
>
>Sorry to be so long-winded. But, the lesson seems obvious. To prevent or
>cure a hook, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, _HIT_ THE BALL USING THE HANDS. Just hang
>on with the hands barely hard enough to keep the club from flying down the
>fairway. Just let the wrists do whatever they want to do on their own. ""
He is not talking about bending the shaft--he is talking about NOT
bending the shaft by avoiding all hand action--no leverage.
Larry
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
>
>On 4-Mar-2003, Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> >Is there a different meaning of "bending the shaft in the swing" besides
>> >moving
>> >it the club and having the club head lag behind due to inertia?
>>
>> Of course. When the club lags behind due to inertia, the whole club,
>> shaft and all, does that and thus the shaft does not bend. The arms
>> continue to move down and through and the club left behind "hinges" in
>> the upper hand (the purpose of the golf glove there and not in the
>> lower hand) and then releases later in the swing.
>
>Every film I have seen shows the shaft bending. Are these optical illusions,
>or are you saying inertia isn't why the clubs bend?
>
See Bobby Jones swing from the top at
http://www.clubmaker-online.com/bj003r.html
His shaft doesn't bend.
Larry
Ron Blanchard
of you! Watch out, you might be kill-filed!
BTW, I've queried Gene re: how they have to 'set' the machine to get
it to properly hit balls with clubs of different flexes. Curious what
his response will be. I'll eat my hat if he says there is only one
swing, one speed, one tempo, and the machine hits every club
regardless of flex exactly the same every time, as Larry suggests.
I posted a pic awhile back showing B. Jones hitting a driver. It's a
strobe sequence pic, and you can clearly see the shaft flexing as he
accelerates down and through the ball. In fact, the shaft flexes
forward slightly prior to impact as it should. If we had a
down-the-line view, we would have seen the shaft bowing. Of course,
Jones was an idiot and knew nothing of the golf swing or fine-tuning
and hand-selecting his clubs to optimize accuracy, distance, and
trajectory. Poor guy... he probably thought those shafts of his
simply weren't bending.
Ron
---------
Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote in message news:<cAj9a.2134012$zx5.3...@news.easynews.com>...
Mike Dalecki
You need to see an eye doctor. Clearly that shaft bends at loading and
unloading.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor
RSG-Wisconsin 2003: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim
I do not patronize spammers. Help keep RSG clean!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
>Larry Whitaker wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:32 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On 4-Mar-2003, Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Is there a different meaning of "bending the shaft in the swing" besides
>> >> >moving
>> >> >it the club and having the club head lag behind due to inertia?
>> >>
>> >> Of course. When the club lags behind due to inertia, the whole club,
>> >> shaft and all, does that and thus the shaft does not bend. The arms
>> >> continue to move down and through and the club left behind "hinges" in
>> >> the upper hand (the purpose of the golf glove there and not in the
>> >> lower hand) and then releases later in the swing.
>> >
>> >Every film I have seen shows the shaft bending. Are these optical illusions,
>> >or are you saying inertia isn't why the clubs bend?
>> >
>> See Bobby Jones swing from the top at
>> http://www.clubmaker-online.com/bj003r.html
>>
>> His shaft doesn't bend.
>
>You need to see an eye doctor. Clearly that shaft bends at loading and
>unloading.
>
>Mike
Apparently you are determined to believe what you want to, thus
nothing I could cite would change your mind.
But compared to real bending of the shaft, that is nothing. We have
all seen photos of club shafts being bent into a U-shape by extreme
leverage from the handle. Bobby Jones apparently did what Freddy
Couples and most other good pros do-- which is to minimize lower hand
leverage-- which would have the effect of minimal shaft bending.
Larry
Mike Dalecki
>
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:42:06 -0600, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Larry Whitaker wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:32 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >On 4-Mar-2003, Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Is there a different meaning of "bending the shaft in the swing" besides
> >> >> >moving
> >> >> >it the club and having the club head lag behind due to inertia?
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course. When the club lags behind due to inertia, the whole club,
> >> >> shaft and all, does that and thus the shaft does not bend. The arms
> >> >> continue to move down and through and the club left behind "hinges" in
> >> >> the upper hand (the purpose of the golf glove there and not in the
> >> >> lower hand) and then releases later in the swing.
> >> >
> >> >Every film I have seen shows the shaft bending. Are these optical illusions,
> >> >or are you saying inertia isn't why the clubs bend?
> >> >
> >> See Bobby Jones swing from the top at
> >> http://www.clubmaker-online.com/bj003r.html
> >>
> >> His shaft doesn't bend.
> >
> >You need to see an eye doctor. Clearly that shaft bends at loading and
> >unloading.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Apparently you are determined to believe what you want to,
Actually, it has to do with the shaft bending, not with believing this
or that.
> thus
> nothing I could cite would change your mind.
If you'd wanted to change my mind, you could have shown me a picture
where the shaft *doesn't* bend. The one you cite shows a bend at
loading, and then bending at unloading.
Why didn't you show a picture that has a shaft that doesn't actually
bend, if that's the point you were trying to make, instead of a picture
where the shaft bends?
> But compared to real bending of the shaft, that is nothing.
Compared to real bending? Wow.
> We have
> all seen photos of club shafts being bent into a U-shape by extreme
> leverage from the handle.
I don't recall seeing that.
> Bobby Jones apparently did what Freddy
> Couples and most other good pros do-- which is to minimize lower hand
> leverage-- which would have the effect of minimal shaft bending.
Minimal? But above, you say it doesn't bend. Now it's minimal?
Wow.
Mike
>
> Larry
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker
http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor
RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
Howard Brazee
On 5-Mar-2003, Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> See Bobby Jones swing from the top at
> http://www.clubmaker-online.com/bj003r.html
>
> His shaft doesn't bend.
Interesting. What was his shaft made of? How fast was he swinging?
Howard Brazee
On 5-Mar-2003, Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> But compared to real bending of the shaft, that is nothing. We have
> all seen photos of club shafts being bent into a U-shape by extreme
> leverage from the handle. Bobby Jones apparently did what Freddy
> Couples and most other good pros do-- which is to minimize lower hand
> leverage-- which would have the effect of minimal shaft bending.
I guess the more you accelerate the swing, the more force is on the handle
(where else?), and the bigger the lag. But the swing doesn't start by itself,
with the club head moving up in the air.
If you take a jump rope and do the same swing, there will certainly be a lag as
we accelerate the swing.
The people who swing 120mph don't have more gravity creating the swing than do
people with 60mph swings. They move their arms and body more.
I agree, floppy hands allow the full swing to work better in several ways - but
the acceleration still has to be passed to the club from the handle.
Brent Hutto
wrote:
>
Hickory wood.
And it does bend. And boy does it twist.
Even though Bobby Jones (and all the other great players of the
hickory-shaft era) had a golf swing specifically designed to minimize
the excess torsional bending of those whippy shafts (that's why all
the extra hip, foot and leg dancing compared to good modern swings)
they were still limited by the fundamental lack of consistency that
could be achieved with a wooden shaft. Nowadays, good timing is
desirable but back then it was required to hit the ball with any kind
of accuracy at all.
And for some reason when steel shafts came about, the great
ballstrikers like Byron Nelson abandoned the old-fashioned "don't let
the shaft flex too much" swing and learned to load that sucker up and
knock the crap out of the ball. Maybe that was because they were all
deluded and Larry Whitaker could have taught them a thing or two.
I doubt it. Larry is a moronic troll.
Brent Hutto
Chrome
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:38:16 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
>
Mr Larry
I see you are a believer in GolfLabs.
Did you now that one of the services they offer to clients and manufacturers
is the ability to compare different shaft flex's and composite materials for
the benefit of optimizing a players potential?
jeffc
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:b45h5m$t35$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> The people who swing 120mph don't have more gravity creating the swing
than do
> people with 60mph swings. They move their arms and body more.
This is something that "gravity golfers" and "non leverage" advocates like
Larry can't seem to grasp.
jeffc
>
> On 5-Mar-2003, Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> > See Bobby Jones swing from the top at
> > http://www.clubmaker-online.com/bj003r.html
> >
> > His shaft doesn't bend.
>
> Interesting.
Yeah, about as "interesting" as saying 2 + 2 = 5 :-)
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
>
Hi Howard,
Well, I think the rope comparison is applicable here. We have seen
them 'whip' a club with a rope shaft through and attain the same
clubhead speed as a regular stiff shaft. The difference is that with
the rope they must allow the clubhead to accelearate slowly at
first--no leverage is possible. That is the ideal taught by the
Whippy clubs-- and of course the way Bobby Jones and all the ancients
swung those wooden shafted clubs.
What do you think?
Larry
Brent Hutto
<la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>Well, I think the rope comparison is applicable here. We have seen
>them 'whip' a club with a rope shaft through and attain the same
>clubhead speed as a regular stiff shaft. The difference is that with
>the rope they must allow the clubhead to accelearate slowly at
>first--no leverage is possible. That is the ideal taught by the
>Whippy clubs-- and of course the way Bobby Jones and all the ancients
>swung those wooden shafted clubs.
>
>What do you think?
I think if Bobby Jones had to swing a clubhead on a string he'd do
whatever was required to hit the ball that way.
If he had to swing a clubhead on a hickory shaft he'd swing entirely
differently and hit the ball much better.
And if he were able to use a steel shaft he'd swing yet another way
and hit the ball better still. He'd probably end up with something
that looks like the late Payne Stewart's swing is my guess.
Brent Hutto
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
Transparent to me that you are selling shafts or clubs or something
going on that makes you unable to be objective on this subject, so why
not just not post rather than reveal your bias?
larry
Chrome
Why does GolfLabs offer and sell services to golfers and manufacturers for
testing shaft flex?
>
Mike Dalecki
You said it doesn't bend. It does. Does *that* make me biased? Of
course not. Instead, it would appear you're simply trying to deflect
attention from the fact that, once again, Larry is wrong?
I think you're ignorant of what happens in a golf swing, of how
equipment used in a golf swing affects results, and I hope that nobody
takes your advice at face value, or they'll set their progress as a
golfer back significantly.
Is *that* bias? I suppose it is--I *am* biased against thinking you
know what you're talking about. Why? Because, mostly, you show that
you don't. And while you may occasionally say something that might, in
isolation, be seen has having merit, taken with all the other things you
say, it's clear you don't really understand much of this topic.
When you show that you understand enough that your arguments will stand
on their face, I might develop a different bias--one that tends toward
assuming you know what you're talking about.
But until then, my current opinion of your knowledge holds.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor
RSG-Wisconsin 2003: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
Scott Newell
> going on that makes you unable to be objective on this subject, so why
> not just not post rather than reveal your bias?
Boy, Larry...now that's a comeback. You must have been a whiz in debate
class.
X-examine: "Your momma's so fat....
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
Ok, if I am wrong then Dr. Melvin is too. I got my opinions about the
ideal of not bending the club shaft by reducing leverage from the
handle from him--his video and his literature that comes with the
Whippy clubs. So we're both wrong, we have no idea about the golf
swing or golf club shafts or anything. We'll slink away and give you
the stage. Take it....I give up.
Larry
Mike Dalecki
<snip>
> >> Transparent to me that you are selling shafts or clubs or something
> >> going on that makes you unable to be objective on this subject, so why
> >> not just not post rather than reveal your bias?
> >>
> >> larry
> >
> >You said it doesn't bend. It does. Does *that* make me biased? Of
> >course not. Instead, it would appear you're simply trying to deflect
> >attention from the fact that, once again, Larry is wrong?
> >
> >I think you're ignorant of what happens in a golf swing, of how
> >equipment used in a golf swing affects results, and I hope that nobody
> >takes your advice at face value, or they'll set their progress as a
> >golfer back significantly.
> >
> >Is *that* bias? I suppose it is--I *am* biased against thinking you
> >know what you're talking about. Why? Because, mostly, you show that
> >you don't. And while you may occasionally say something that might, in
> >isolation, be seen has having merit, taken with all the other things you
> >say, it's clear you don't really understand much of this topic.
> >
> >When you show that you understand enough that your arguments will stand
> >on their face, I might develop a different bias--one that tends toward
> >assuming you know what you're talking about.
> >
> >But until then, my current opinion of your knowledge holds.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Ok, if I am wrong then Dr. Melvin is too.
I don't know about this Dr. Melvin--I just know about Larry Whitaker.
Larry said in a picture he pointed to that the shaft wasn't bending. I
pointed out that it was, in fact, bending--twice (loading and
unloading).
I do not know what this Dr. Melvin would have seen in that picture, but
I suspect that he would have seen what I and others see--that the shaft
bends.
> I got my opinions about the
> ideal of not bending the club shaft by reducing leverage from the
> handle from him--his video and his literature that comes with the
> Whippy clubs.
Maybe you didn't get it right.
> So we're both wrong, we have no idea about the golf
> swing or golf club shafts or anything.
I still don't know what this Dr. Melvin says, and so I can't speak to
what he knows or doesn't know, what his theory says or doesn't say. I
can, however, note that you were incorrect.
And so that doesn't make you both wrong. It just makes you wrong.
> We'll slink away and give you
> the stage.
"We'll"???? Is this Dr. Melvin involved in this somehow? Are you
consulting him prior to your posts to RSG?
> Take it....I give up.
>
> Larry
OK.
bighorn_bill
YOU make the assumption that shaft bending can ONLY be caused by
someone leveraging on the club with the lower hand. The fact
that you can get shaft bending by someone using a pure
swinging technique somehow escapes your puny intellect.
(dph)
> Larry Whitaker wrote:
LLLarry's foolishness and Mike's commentary snipped.
> "We'll"???? Is this Dr. Melvin involved in this somehow? Are you
> consulting him prior to your posts to RSG?
I'd doubt it.
> > Take it....I give up.
> >
> > Larry
Is LLLarry leaving RSG ? Is that the 6th time ?
--
--dph membe...@rec-sport-golf.com
http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=hayesd
http://rec-sport-golf.com/newsgroup/charter.html
If this post does not meet the goals of the charter, please email me.
Blair P. Houghton
>Read the recent post from HH. He says it better than I can
He says the same thing you do. He doesn't realize that
it's impossible to swing a golf club without "using the
hands".
Yes, the grip you described in an earlier post is very
close to the optimal grip. Very loose-feeling, so as
to prevent competing muscle groups from causing tension and
twisting. But it's not even close to being a frictionless,
torqueless pivot.
The club is supported in the top position by torque from
the hands. This torque continues to be applied to the
club during the first half of the downswing. When the
club reaches horizontal, the hands and arms are nearly
vertical, but when the club reaches vertical, the hands
and arms are still nearly vertical. The difference is that
the hands are accelerating the club through the last part
of the downswing. This doesn't require any additional
grip strength, just a contribution from the couple about
the center of the grip.
It's a very subtle force, and, as you and "HH" noticed,
it's best if it comes from perfecting the timing rather
than from trying to create the force.
But you can bet that once you've got it, you can start to
modulate it to increase your distance. The longer drivers
on the tour actually hold the club back longer--not by
applying a reverse torque, but by holding off on releasing
their hands until the club is past horizontal. It takes
a fast downswing and more practice, because the margin
for error is decreased. But, like all things in this
ridiculously unstable system, decreasing the margin for
error unlocks the potential for performance.
If you didn't apply torque to the club, it would fall on
your head before you even got to the pause. And without
applying torque, you limit your distance to that obtainable
with the single solution to the 2-segment swinging rod with
a weight on it passing through the location of the ball.
You can hit it that way, but I can make it go farther
with some torque, and I'd be willing to bet money that if
we wired up your hands we'd find you applying unbalanced
forces to the sides of the club.
Squeezing the grip is a bad thing, because it sets
competing muscle groups in tonic stimulation, which means
the force you're applying to the club is reduced by the
competitive force, and the forces build until one hand
or the other wins, and usually that's your strong hand,
your bottom hand, which twists the clubface open, creating
a high, short, slicing trajectory even on perfect-looking
swings.
--Blair
"The problem with argument from
authority comes when it isn't."
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair, using de facto logic to dispute Larry's claims? How ad hominem
>of you! Watch out, you might be kill-filed!
Call me qwazy.
I like the way he didn't refute a single point, and instead
just all 1,000 words of it and tacked on 500 more that
someone else wrote.
I take it this guy is the r.s.g bike.
>BTW, I've queried Gene re: how they have to 'set' the machine to get
>it to properly hit balls with clubs of different flexes. Curious what
>his response will be. I'll eat my hat if he says there is only one
>swing, one speed, one tempo, and the machine hits every club
>regardless of flex exactly the same every time, as Larry suggests.
I haven't seen this "machine". Where does it start the swing?
If the arm is up and the club is horizontal, there's got
to be a torque right there.
It is physically impossible to swing a golf club from a
common top position without applying a torque somewhere,
because the top position is maintained by a torque against
the pull of gravity on the club.
You could do it if you conspired to make the club swing *through*
the common top position, but then it would have a nonzero initial
angular velocity, which is nothing like a golf swing.
The tuning of such a thing would look like an experiment
in chaos theory. Because it would be, basically. Which,
really, is what The Golf is. Explaining much of WHY IT'S
SO HARD.
I can guarantee the solution isn't to replace the grip
with a "Necker's Knob".
>I posted a pic awhile back showing B. Jones hitting a driver. It's a
>strobe sequence pic, and you can clearly see the shaft flexing as he
Y'know what? I bought those videos in 1990 for $259.
And, for various reasons*, NEVER WATCHED THEM.
What a dope. I wonder what box they're in.
* - One of which was I realized they were just the
golf portions, and didn't include the skit portions
of the original films. I thought I was buying a piece
of history, and all I got was a school movie.
>accelerates down and through the ball. In fact, the shaft flexes
>forward slightly prior to impact as it should. If we had a
>down-the-line view, we would have seen the shaft bowing. Of course,
>Jones was an idiot and knew nothing of the golf swing or fine-tuning
>and hand-selecting his clubs to optimize accuracy, distance, and
>trajectory. Poor guy... he probably thought those shafts of his
>simply weren't bending.
A total lamer 60 years ahead of his time.
--Blair
"Everyone gets a ride."
Sparky
On 7-Mar-2003, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
> I take it this guy is the r.s.g bike.
Yep, he get's ridden like a swooped back pony at the county fair every time
he posts...
me
Larry Whitaker
Hi Blair,
Well, whatever, ha. The way I and all who avoid lower hand
interference do it is to try to keep our lower hand fingers off the
club handle. The middle ones need to be there, of course, but the
thumb and first finger can be held completely off--like Freddy Couples
does. I try to get the feeling of my arm above the wrist pushing on
the other arm there-- rather than through the hands.
I make a big effort to backswing very "connected" with my two upper
arms "glued' to my rib cage as long as possible-- I also make a big
effort NOT to allow my arms to be tense at setup.
The effect of this is to create an "arm" swing that allows the club to
"flail" as much as possible (given the limitations you list). It does
work amazingly well. The ball goes straight every time because the
clubface is aligned by gravity alone-- and with a big shoulder turn,
the clubhead path is along the target line or even from the inside.
This is the formula for a good result even with a 1-iron from a tight
lie!
Larry
Boyd Beattie
I give up.
>
> Larry
If only I could believe that.
--
Regards,
J.B. Beattie
Technical Director
The IT Shop Ltd
mailto:mail...@the-laptop-shop.co.uk
http://the-laptop-shop.co.uk
Blair P. Houghton
>On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 06:29:49 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
Well, whatever, hah.
Larry, I don't care about your arms (sound like a pretty
swing...NOT), and if it goes straight, I doubt it gets
very far.
Yes, your lower-hand index finger should be virtually
if not actually off the club, but the ball of that finger
is still on the club, and that hand is still contributing
to the torquing of the club. Loosening the fingers prevents
twisting torque without eliminating swinging torque.
--Blair
"Now if I could get my lower back
off the club, I could make better
contact..."
Ron Blanchard
Of course it bends, and this has all been clearly pointed out to Larry
and anyone else who claimed 'no bending' in the past, complete with
enhanced photos (i.e. straight lines next to the bent shafts) for
those with vision problems.
I really wouldn't mind if Larry changed his sermon to 'minimal hand
leveraging and minimal bending of the shaft', as this is certainly a
goal to strive for. The BS about NO LEVERAGING, NO BENDING is
completely false. Tiger Woods wins 1 out of 4 tournaments hitting
shots that feature his very strong arms, forearms, wrists, and hands.
Ron
Larry Whitaker
>Larry Whitaker <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 06:29:49 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
>>>[...90 lines that Larry didn't address and couldn't be bothered to trim...]
>
>Well, whatever, hah.
>
>Larry, I don't care about your arms (sound like a pretty
>swing...NOT), and if it goes straight, I doubt it gets
>very far.
Actually, I routinely land it out there 270 or so and that is with
heavy air at sea level. I have had many 300+ yard drives with some
rollout. My best drives happened when I was wasn't trying for
distance but to hit the middle of the fairway, totally relaxed, my
hands felt like they did nothing at all, and the club obviously freely
"flailed" which is the way humans create clubhead speed, or bat speed,
or racket speed, or ax speed, etc. etc.
In golf "less is more," and I didn't make that up.
>
>Yes, your lower-hand index finger should be virtually
>if not actually off the club, but the ball of that finger
>is still on the club, and that hand is still contributing
>to the torquing of the club. Loosening the fingers prevents
>twisting torque without eliminating swinging torque.
As I said, 'whatever,' about the role of individual fingers because I
don't want to think about that. A lof of this stuff just doesn't bear
close examination because focusing our mind on it, ruins the swing.
The hands are like that in a golf swing, just relax them as much as
possible so the natural flail can happen. Harden them and you are at
the mercy of a lucky wrist-flip to orient the clubhead just before
impact.
Playing Vista Valley CC tomorrow morning. Look it up. Its in
Southern California.
Larry
Larry Whitaker
wrote:
Lets remember how all this started. I gave many examples to prove my
belief that it is better NOT to bend the shaft with leverage from the
handle and that with a non-leveraged swing, the shaft flex
characteristics simply wouldn't matter.
In order to prove that I simply repeated what dozens or hundreds of
books and instructions say about leverage and that the ideal swing has
no or as little leverage as possible. I included the Golf Labs Robot
as an example because it has a free wrist and maybe I should not have
done that since someone pointed out that it does have a detent that
leverages the shaft as it starts the swing--then the wrist is free as
I said. Someone else, months ago, brought us the Bobby Jones photos
as proof that Bobby's extremely low leverage swing doesn't bend the
shaft. I just repeated his assertion. If the bend is slight, lets
not split hairs here, if it bends it is very slight and those photos
prove that his beautiful non-leverage swing basically doesn't bend the
shaft. Another citation was the Whippy clubs and the instructions
that come with mine-- Dr. Melvin says clearly that the object of the
Whippy Training club device is to teach us to swing it without bending
the shaft-- i.e. in his opinion a non-leveraged swing is correct.
So, it is logical to conclude that unless you use the golf club like a
garden hoe, leveraging from the handle, the shaft flex characteristics
are irrelevant. I can hit my Whippy 5-iron the same distance as my
Ping 5-iron. Both go 180 and straight. That would seem to prove that
those with a good swing wouldn't be able to discern any difference in
shaft flex characteristics. Case closed?? Can we move on??
Larry
Blair P. Houghton
>Actually, I routinely land it out there 270 or so and that is with
>heavy air at sea level. I have had many 300+ yard drives with some
>rollout. My best drives happened when I was wasn't trying for
>distance but to hit the middle of the fairway, totally relaxed, my
>hands felt like they did nothing at all, and the club obviously freely
They may feel that way, but I can guarantee you that
it's against the laws of physics for them not to torque
the club. Unless maybe you make it change direction
by having it bounce off the top of your head.
>"flailed" which is the way humans create clubhead speed, or bat speed,
>or racket speed, or ax speed, etc. etc.
Or flail speed...
Bats and rackets are not flailed; solid torques from the
hands are absolutely essential to making them get to
where the ball will be. Golf clubs need less torque,
unless you want more speed and less margin for error.
But then, the ball isn't moving, and it's below the whole
machine.
--Blair
"It's there. Just like your feet."