I think that all here has heard of that Gary Wiren, as the Director of Education, Learning and Research for PGA in the past, sent the book to MIT and to the University of Nebraska for a test.
The feedback was that the science was basically sound.
The interesting thing is that one of the scientists that examined the book was..........
Theodore Jorgensen
who btw was involved in the manhattan project in his early days.
Very interesting indeed. Is there a report anywhere on the findings?
The test itself was a bit of an unconfirmed story itself until Scott Gummers book came out with who and where. I had chased the facts for ages and Joe Daniels said it might be in one of his many boxes of Homers stuff. There did not appear to be much of an effort to go look. Chuck knew the story but I don't think he actually saw the resultant 'tick'. He would have been all over the author for years if he had known who had checked out the workings.
I believe that Dr. Jorgensen's work would disagree that hinge action, whether horizontal, angled, or vertical, could have any effect on ballflight with regard to how the face is behaving during the "impact interval' (time the ball is in contact with the face of the club). I don't believe he would agree with the notion that the face is 3 degrees more open at impact than it is at seperation, either; impact doesn't last long enough and the face doesn't rotate fast enough for that to be possible. This is just from what I understand of his research.
Impact is 450 millionths of a second and a 10% change of anything or any change of intentionality is significant, and that's where Dr. J's work simply misses what is going on. Let's review some facts. Two highly skilled PGA pros swing at different speeds and get different distances. Two more PGA pros swing at identical speeds yet one is almost always in the fairway and the other struggles to find it. Take one pro. Put him/her in the rough of varying lengths and watch the mayhem ensue. Try different types of sand, water, pasta, jello, mud, different types of grass in the rough (Did you see the SPIKE TV golf show with Brad Faxon. If I recall correctly, he could control his shot out of jello but not pasta. I think it was the marinara.) It all matters.
Why are their different golf balls? Marketing? Yep. Performance. Yep. Have you ever hit a woman's Karma with a putter vs. a Pro V 1 or a NXT? Do shafts matter? Weighting? Club materials?
What about using the "Iron Byron?" Why are clubs and balls tested? Why "V" grooves vs, "U" grooves? I think one degree of open and the intentionality of the golfer really matters a lot!
A computer takes a snapshot of an event and measures the event "as best it can." It does not see the stream of events which flow to produce the outcome. Or, let's say it measures an athlete's entire swing from start to finish. The computer's program is written by a human looking for "causality." So how did Tiger win the tournament on his broke leg? What was the chain of events? How many girls was he with during the previous contest vs. the one he won?
I swing slowly. So let's say the period of impact for me is one entire second. (Man, it feels like that some days!) While working with TGM for this first year, I must've ripped 10 gloves but never in the same spot! Every time I focused on one wobble, another appeared! Ever have a round with a loose glove or temperature variance from the front nine to the back?
Let's take Extensor Action instead of a hinge. Same speed of impact. No EA and I feel lost. The right amount of EA and "hello beautiful!"
I won't bring up Chaos Theory, yet, but just start ruminating on the idea of 43 dimensions! BTW, those people at Chernobyl learned about the damage a sub-atomic particle could do the hard way.
Little things matter a lot.
ICT
__________________
HP, grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Progress and not perfection is the goal every day!
John, we are all struggling with the same problem.
Originally Posted by John Graham
ICT,
Let's assume for a second that we replace Dr J's wording from Impact to impact separation. After any hinge action has taken place.
Does this convert his theory to match TGM?
If not, how is it still different?
JG
We can only know at a certain fallible, limited level. I can use a "lot" of EA and really punch a shot from 150 yards right at a pin. Mostly past it or short of it by 30 feet. What I term as a Horizontal Hinge, runs out and an Angle Hinge checks up, usually short. If I forget EA, I'm missing the green.
We are talking about the smallest possible events measured at the fastest speeds. The golfers we all admire ( Norman (either), Woods (as a golfer), Hogan, Jones, Byron Nelson and Nicklaus) controlled the details in amazing ways, often, yet called them different things over time.
I don't accept the idea that a fraction of a small event in a short time is not effecting the outcome, no matter who suggests the idea.
ICT
__________________
HP, grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Progress and not perfection is the goal every day!
Let's assume for a second that we replace Dr J's wording from Impact to impact separation. After any hinge action has taken place.
Does this convert his theory to match TGM?
If not, how is it still different?
JG
No. A straight shot can only be produced by a Force Linear to the Ball. That's the theory applied by TGM.
This goes to the heart of Jorgensens Glancing Blow Theory. There cannot be a straight shot in Golf. Yet Jorgensen believes in "Pushes" and "Pulls". How do you reconcile those shots. Well, here is what he does. At Impact, the Clubface is open 1 degree and if the Ball was struck from the inside from 1 degree or so, a "Push" would result. He is saying that this geometry creates a force linear to the Ball. Did he fall off his chair?
He's assuming that the Clubface doesn't rotate or that all of the forces propelling the Ball are transferred from the Clubface to the Ball in the nano-second at first contact. Or, he's saying that we all "Steer" through the Ball. Actually he is saying that an "Angular Force" applied to the Golf Ball will result in a straight Ball Flight. Are you kidding me?
Let's see: Jorgensen, MIT, Manhattan Project, Homer Kelley, Blue Collar worker. I think I'm going with the Blue Collar worker on this one. "Give me "Collision Dynamics" for One-Hundred Dollars please".
you guys lost me a while back but I was curious to know if Trackman is able to verify either claim, or anything at all. I do not have the time to invest in understanding the differences between what Jorgenson and Homer believed (I am too busy making birdies!) All I know is there are a lot of great players that "swing left", or appear to be tracing a plane line left of center. This is all D-plane means to me. When I do this compression does not suffer and will never be accused of "polishing" the ball. My pivot is much more engaged (and I can sense the 3 stations a lot better as a result i.e. swinging to a particular destination in the finish.) The shaft exits mid body as opposed to over my left shoulder. I feel a lot more pressure in my hands, and my clubface is a lot "quieter" through impact i.e. no hooks! Tough to argue with a physicist who helped make the A-bomb!
you guys lost me a while back but I was curious to know if Trackman is able to verify either claim, or anything at all. I do not have the time to invest in understanding the differences between what Jorgenson and Homer believed (I am too busy making birdies!) All I know is there are a lot of great players that "swing left", or appear to be tracing a plane line left of center. This is all D-plane means to me. When I do this compression does not suffer and will never be accused of "polishing" the ball. My pivot is much more engaged (and I can sense the 3 stations a lot better as a result i.e. swinging to a particular destination in the finish.) The shaft exits mid body as opposed to over my left shoulder. I feel a lot more pressure in my hands, and my clubface is a lot "quieter" through impact i.e. no hooks! Tough to argue with a physicist who helped make the A-bomb!
I can sure see your point Okie. Wouldn't Lee Trevino be a great example? He loved to swing down - way out - and forward, catching the ball way back in the circle. He had to align his machine way left to avoid the quackers...
It's still making the ball leave practically in the same direction as the clubface just as Homer Kelley stated...
At least that's what I'm visualizing. If anybody finds something that works for them, how can it be wrong!?!?!?
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
you guys lost me a while back but I was curious to know if Trackman is able to verify either claim, or anything at all. I do not have the time to invest in understanding the differences between what Jorgenson and Homer believed (I am too busy making birdies!) All I know is there are a lot of great players that "swing left", or appear to be tracing a plane line left of center. This is all D-plane means to me. When I do this compression does not suffer and will never be accused of "polishing" the ball. My pivot is much more engaged (and I can sense the 3 stations a lot better as a result i.e. swinging to a particular destination in the finish.) The shaft exits mid body as opposed to over my left shoulder. I feel a lot more pressure in my hands, and my clubface is a lot "quieter" through impact i.e. no hooks! Tough to argue with a physicist who helped make the A-bomb!
Trackman verifies D Plane. Just remember, D plane and Homer are very close. Only one small part separates them as I have learned from being here.
It all matters.
Linear Mode
