Official Golf Thread

[Fang66]



Ha. "Colloquial." Lol. Nice try. Don't bullshit me or yourself, "impact" is in no way shape or form a colloquialism of "energy." I know what you meant, but what you said was wrong and remains wrong. That you are convoluting or blurring these important distinctions in the context of this discussion may be contributing to your misinformed conclusions.
Some of this is just wrong and some is more wrong. Starting with the "ascending blow":

You didnt think this through all the way. Yes, the clubhead can be ascending. But:
-The clubhead is affixed to the shaft.
-0* is perpendicular to the shaft.
-Loft is with respect to that perpendicular 0*
-The clubhead is traveling perpendicular to the shaft at any given moment in that part of the swing.

Regardless of what part of the swing arc impact with the ball takes place, the clubhead is lofted vs. the direction that it is traveling. Unless you are pulling the club into yourself as it passes through the impact zone, which is ridiculous.

And on:
It's starting to become clear that you don't know the first thing about physics. The arc of the blow has nothing to do with it. It's a function of the velocity, mass, and elasticity of both objects. In an all else equal scenario, you can cancel out everything and look at how efficiently energy is transfered from the club to the ball. Since we know from the above that a higher loft delivers a more glancing blow, less efficient transfer of energy will take place.
You should realize that you can address that factors that lead to an outcome independently, and that saying a factor can increase in a scenario does not mean that the some of all factors will increase in that scenario. Words like "could" mean stuff.

Keep digging, you won't get out of the hole. You were trying to tell the guy that he was seeing noticeable increases in both carry and total because a 1/2 degree in loft is imparting significantly more "energy" to the ball rather than the fact that he has brought his ball spin down from from 5000-6000 rpm to 2600-2800 rpm. "Higher backspin increases carry (provides lift), and higher ball flight increases carry (with any normal trajectory), so lower backspin and lower ball flight would both reduce carry", the difference in "energy" transfer is negligible.

ps the arc of a golf swing does not have a constant radius.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]

I'm not in a hole. You may posture as much as you like, but you apparently continue to suck at reading. Case in point:

You were trying to tell the guy that he was seeing noticeable increases in both carry and total because a 1/2 degree in loft is imparting significantly more "energy" to the ball rather than the fact that he has brought his ball spin down from from 5000-6000 rpm to 2600-2800 rpm.

Wrong. Look it up. I'll do it for you:

Higher backspin increases carry (provides lift), and higher ball flight increases carry (with any normal trajectory), so lower backspin and lower ball flight would both reduce carry, given a fixed launch speed. Your distance/carry could be increased due to less energy loss at impact, which is true when spin decreases and when launch angle is lower, but that is due to higher ball speed rather than due to less spin. This trade-off works as swing speeds increase.

Not a very accurate rendition, don't you think. Where, exactly, do you think the energy to spin the ball 5-6K RPM comes from? Duuuuuuuuuh..... The way a club is weighted will obviously contribute to this - but clearly a change in this characteristic is not an all-else-equal situation...

Look, I'm just responding to your wrongheaded attempts to correct my correct posts. I don't give a crap if you want to keep being wrong, fine. Each thing I've said is right. You can try to save face by convoluting things I've said, I don't care.

ps the arc of a golf swing does not have a constant radius.

Correct (obviously), especially at the high backswing and high follow through. In any viable impact zone, however, it does have a fairly constant radius, prob centered between the shoulder blades for most people.

 

[nootje]

FFS idiots. did you miss the memo where he DIDNT mention his launch angle?

If he is around the ideal point of 12.5 to 13 degrees, the previously mentioned backspin would ff up his ballflight considerably, making him balloon and shorten his overall ball flight and roll. Look it up, ideal is around 2800 rpm and 12.5 to 13 degrees launch angle at a club head speed of 110 to 120 mph( of the top of my head, its been a few years), which is his club head speed if I look at the distances he hit afterwards (unless he lives in the himalayas)

If you hit it slower you'll need a couple 100 more rpm, not taking into account preferences with regard to control.

energy doesn't factor in, unless you guys want to talk about the much vaunted smash factor, in which case ill need a few more drinks..

This stuff is not hard, not that sciency and definitely not worth this much effort.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]

That's what she said.

 

[Mildly Consumptive]

Does anyone here like to play golf?

 

[Fang66]

I'm not in a hole. You may posture as much as you like, but you apparently continue to suck at reading. Case in point:

You were trying to tell the guy that he was seeing noticeable increases in both carry and total because a 1/2 degree in loft is imparting significantly more "energy" to the ball rather than the fact that he has brought his ball spin down from from 5000-6000 rpm to 2600-2800 rpm.

Wrong. Look it up. I'll do it for you:

Higher backspin increases carry (provides lift), and higher ball flight increases carry (with any normal trajectory), so lower backspin and lower ball flight would both reduce carry, given a fixed launch speed. Your distance/carry could be increased due to less energy loss at impact, which is true when spin decreases and when launch angle is lower, but that is due to higher ball speed rather than due to less spin. This trade-off works as swing speeds increase.

Not a very accurate rendition, don't you think. Where, exactly, do you think the energy to spin the ball 5-6K RPM comes from? Duuuuuuuuuh..... The way a club is weighted will obviously contribute to this - but clearly a change in this characteristic is not an all-else-equal situation...

Look, I'm just responding to your wrongheaded attempts to correct my correct posts. I don't give a crap if you want to keep being wrong, fine. Each thing I've said is right. You can try to save face by convoluting things I've said, I don't care.

ps the arc of a golf swing does not have a constant radius.

Correct (obviously), especially at the high backswing and high follow through. In any viable impact zone, however, it does have a fairly constant radius, prob centered between the shoulder blades for most people.

This is why no one ever works on their swing to bring driver spin down, and ball companies spend money trying to make balls that spin to infinity off the driver. Oh wait, that's the exact opposite of what actually happens.

The slightly lower energy transfer of an 9 degree vs 8.5 driver is trifling compared to bringing ball spin down from 5000-6000 rpm to 2600-2800 rpm.

Hit an iron off the fairway and then one out of the rough, if you catch some grass between the ball and face it will spin less (lower friction) and fly further, a "flyer". (with less energy transfer).

 

[Fang66]



FFS idiots. did you miss the memo where he DIDNT mention his launch angle?

If he is around the ideal point of 12.5 to 13 degrees, the previously mentioned backspin would ff up his ballflight considerably, making him balloon and shorten his overall ball flight and roll. Look it up, ideal is around 2800 rpm and 12.5 to 13 degrees launch angle at a club head speed of 110 to 120 mph( of the top of my head, its been a few years), which is his club head speed if I look at the distances he hit afterwards (unless he lives in the himalayas)

If you hit it slower you'll need a couple 100 more rpm, not taking into account preferences with regard to control.

energy doesn't factor in, unless you guys want to talk about the much vaunted smash factor, in which case ill need a few more drinks..

This stuff is not hard, not that sciency and definitely not worth this much effort.

I thought a_y said something about all reasonable launch angles, but I might be mistaken, that has almost happened before.?

Anyway, yes 2600~2800 good, 5000~6000 bad.

 

[Fang66]

ps the arc of a golf swing does not have a constant radius.

Correct (obviously), especially at the high backswing and high follow through. In any viable impact zone, however, it does have a fairly constant radius, prob centered between the shoulder blades for most people.

Wwwwwrong again, you do realise that when you swing a golf club the shaft bends, and when the club is "between the shoulder blades" it varies the most.

 

[nootje]



I thought a_y said something about all reasonable launch angles, but I might be mistaken, that has almost happened before.?

Anyway, yes 2600~2800 good, 5000~6000 bad.

He probably did. As I said, this stuff is not that hard. (Executing it is another matter)
The whole discussion reminds me of an obnoxious uncle. He tried to explain to me how the golf swing worked, never mind he just got started in the game and still played without a hcp. I was at that time a teaching PGA professional, I still am but chose another career.

 

[rossoz]

Any Evergreen CC in Haymarket, VA members on here?

 

[Mildly Consumptive]



Any Evergreen CC in Haymarket, VA members on here?

Sadly no. I am still suffering under the worst winter ever in the Great White North. Is Evergreen nice? I feel like my club won't open until Easter at the earliest.

 

[Thanks SF (a new me)]

trying to upgrade my rain/cool weather gears. Any suggested slim fitting/less logo brands that are readily available in US? I found a couple of latest ZR' styles that are slim enough but seems overpriced. I have older Sunderland which I like, but they have limited availability. I may check RL Golf but their prices are jacked up as well. FJ seems to be getting bigger and bigger. I'm still floating on their Small and I am not thin slim. TIA.

 

[whiteslashasian]



trying to upgrade my rain/cool weather gears. Any suggested slim fitting/less logo brands that are readily available in US? I found a couple of latest ZR' styles that are slim enough but seems overpriced. I have older Sunderland which I like, but they have limited availability. I may check RL Golf but their prices are jacked up as well. FJ seems to be getting bigger and bigger. I'm still floating on their Small and I am not thin slim. TIA.

I really like RL Golf and RLX gear.

J Lindberg is slim fitting but expensive as well. Not sure what their cold/rain gear looks like though.

 

[tropics]

i would never have thought of it, but a friend works at under armour and picked me up a few coldgear jackets and pants. i really like them. some of the grey pieces have fairly subtle logos. but some are ridiculous, luminous yellow.. :foo:

 

[archetypal_yuppie]



Wwwwwrong again, you do realise that when you swing a golf club the shaft bends, and when the club is "between the shoulder blades" it varies the most.

You are just awful at reading comprehension.

Radius. RADIUS. centered between the shoulder blades. CENTERED. The RADIUS is CENTERED between the shoulder blades during ANY VIABLE point of IMPACT.