| |
Main
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:59:40
From: Martin Levac
Subject: So, I've been practicing.
|
I went to the practice range yesterday.
I went out at around 11am, came back home at around 3pm. I hit quite a few
bucket fulls of balls. I hit them deliberately without any hurry or undue
delay. The clubs that saw the most use was the 3 iron and the 9 iron. The 3
iron was the most satisfying to hit well but the most difficult to use while
the 9 iron was the easiest to hit well therefore the most effective.
Perhaps I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion about those two
clubs?
Anyways, to make a long story short, proper contact is what I was focusing
on. The more I focused, the more accurate I was. The more I focused, the
less force I needed to apply. The less force I needed to apply, the better
control I had. The better control I had, the better contact I was able to
achieve. The better contact I was able to achieve, the more accurate I was.
Etc.
I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact, to
be more accurate.
A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance from
the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the clubhead to
the ball.
So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
to be more accurate and to be longer.
For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of more
power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
Martin Levac
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:53:27
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
> I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact, to
> be more accurate.
>
> A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance from
> the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the clubhead to
> the ball.
>
> So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
> to be more accurate and to be longer.
>
> For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of more
> power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
As you discovered, all other things being equal, more power does = more
distance. But if more power means poorer contact, you'll trade off
accuracy and distance.
Personally, I hit the ball straighter and more solid the harder I
swing, at least for 7 iron and longer clubs. Reason being is I let
physics do the work instead of trying to manipulate the club with my
hands and arms.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 03:08:21
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160434406.949929.317070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
>> to
>> be more accurate.
>>
>> A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance
>> from
>> the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the clubhead
>> to
>> the ball.
>>
>> So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
>> contact,
>> to be more accurate and to be longer.
>>
>> For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of
>> more
>> power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
>
> As you discovered, all other things being equal, more power does = more
> distance. But if more power means poorer contact, you'll trade off
> accuracy and distance.
>
> Personally, I hit the ball straighter and more solid the harder I
> swing, at least for 7 iron and longer clubs. Reason being is I let
> physics do the work instead of trying to manipulate the club with my
> hands and arms.
>
No, I'm sure I discovered the contrary. Less force = more control = better
contact = better transfer of momentum = more distance + more accuracy.
Unless force is different than power?
Your second paragraph sounds like you're trying to let the club control
itself or counting on chance for the good shots. Last time I checked, there
wasn't a club that could do that and chance is, well, a chancy thing. I used
to think something along the same line but I decided that it just didn't
work as often as I wanted so I took control. Golf is a game of ability, not
a game of chance.
I'm trying to develop the ability to strike the ball squarely in the middle
of the clubface thereby sending the ball to the target.
I'm not trying my luck.
Martin Levac
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 11:20:53
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:xSxWg.56431$0H5.614431@wagner.videotron.net...
>I went to the practice range yesterday.
>
> I went out at around 11am, came back home at around 3pm. I hit quite a
> few bucket fulls of balls. I hit them deliberately without any hurry or
> undue delay. The clubs that saw the most use was the 3 iron and the 9
> iron. The 3 iron was the most satisfying to hit well but the most
> difficult to use while the 9 iron was the easiest to hit well therefore
> the most effective.
>
> Perhaps I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion about those two
> clubs?
>
> Anyways, to make a long story short, proper contact is what I was
> focusing on. The more I focused, the more accurate I was. The more I
> focused, the less force I needed to apply. The less force I needed to
> apply, the better control I had. The better control I had, the better
> contact I was able to achieve. The better contact I was able to achieve,
> the more accurate I was.
>
> Etc.
>
> I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
> to be more accurate.
>
> A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance
> from the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the
> clubhead to the ball.
>
> So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
> contact, to be more accurate and to be longer.
>
> For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of
> more power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
>
> Martin Levac
>
All golfers have a maximum swing speed beyond
which they lose control. If you can swing a driver
above 125mph you could probably be a tour pro,
about 110mph a club pro or top amateur, about
100mph a single figure amateur, around 80mph
anywhere between 18 and 20 handicap, and below
75mph you're a hacker. End of story. What's new?
Alan
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 07:40:33
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:T5qdnSwj_q6b6bbYnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:xSxWg.56431$0H5.614431@wagner.videotron.net...
>>I went to the practice range yesterday.
>>
>> I went out at around 11am, came back home at around 3pm. I hit quite a
>> few bucket fulls of balls. I hit them deliberately without any hurry or
>> undue delay. The clubs that saw the most use was the 3 iron and the 9
>> iron. The 3 iron was the most satisfying to hit well but the most
>> difficult to use while the 9 iron was the easiest to hit well therefore
>> the most effective.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion about those two
>> clubs?
>>
>> Anyways, to make a long story short, proper contact is what I was
>> focusing on. The more I focused, the more accurate I was. The more I
>> focused, the less force I needed to apply. The less force I needed to
>> apply, the better control I had. The better control I had, the better
>> contact I was able to achieve. The better contact I was able to achieve,
>> the more accurate I was.
>>
>> Etc.
>>
>> I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
>> to be more accurate.
>>
>> A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance
>> from the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the
>> clubhead to the ball.
>>
>> So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
>> contact, to be more accurate and to be longer.
>>
>> For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of
>> more power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
>>
>> Martin Levac
>>
> All golfers have a maximum swing speed beyond
> which they lose control. If you can swing a driver
> above 125mph you could probably be a tour pro,
> about 110mph a club pro or top amateur, about
> 100mph a single figure amateur, around 80mph
> anywhere between 18 and 20 handicap, and below
> 75mph you're a hacker. End of story. What's new?
>
> Alan
>
I disagree with everything you wrote.
Martin Levac
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 15:08:28
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
In article <QELWg.56535$0H5.1003279@wagner.videotron.net >, vac3
@REMOVEvideotron.ca says...
> I disagree with everything you wrote.
>
Indeed. Speed does nothing for your game. It's about the 'application'
of force, not the swing speed. I have colleagues who have high swing
speed with ferocious hooks and fades, and they have h/c of +25.
Also the length of the swing is important here. Many high h/c players
have two third swings like me. This can be because of back restrictions
and/or confidence factors.
Most amateurs try to apply the force that they generate to 'push' and
'lift' the ball toward the hole.
I play best when I imagine myself chopping down on the ball as if to hit
it down and forward into the ground. I also play best when I place my
hands forward of the normal stance position with a slight cock in my
wrists as a result.
--
Howard
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:16:58
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"Howard9" <fictional@email.com > wrote in message
news:MPG.1f95b9ba1e85f38d989f50@news.iol.ie...
> In article <QELWg.56535$0H5.1003279@wagner.videotron.net>, vac3
> @REMOVEvideotron.ca says...
>> I disagree with everything you wrote.
>>
> Indeed. Speed does nothing for your game. It's about the 'application'
> of force, not the swing speed. I have colleagues who have high swing
> speed with ferocious hooks and fades, and they have h/c of +25.
> Also the length of the swing is important here. Many high h/c players
> have two third swings like me. This can be because of back restrictions
> and/or confidence factors.
> Most amateurs try to apply the force that they generate to 'push' and
> 'lift' the ball toward the hole.
> I play best when I imagine myself chopping down on the ball as if to hit
> it down and forward into the ground. I also play best when I place my
> hands forward of the normal stance position with a slight cock in my
> wrists as a result.
> --
> Howard
Note the first sentence, Howard. I made the
proviso; speed with control. This is the essence
of the matter. Clubhead speed applied squarely
is what golf is about. There is square contact at
80mph and square contact at 125mph and the
difference is truly phenomenal. Tiger versus a
half decent lady golfer. Don't disparage speed.
It is the single element that distinguishes the great
golfers from the also rans. It is the holy grail of
golf. Anything else is mediocrity.
Alan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 19:51:42
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:rKmdnWcKTLg2bLbYRVnyvw@bt.com...
> "Howard9" <fictional@email.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f95b9ba1e85f38d989f50@news.iol.ie...
>> In article <QELWg.56535$0H5.1003279@wagner.videotron.net>, vac3
>> @REMOVEvideotron.ca says...
>>> I disagree with everything you wrote.
>>>
>> Indeed. Speed does nothing for your game. It's about the 'application'
>> of force, not the swing speed. I have colleagues who have high swing
>> speed with ferocious hooks and fades, and they have h/c of +25.
>> Also the length of the swing is important here. Many high h/c players
>> have two third swings like me. This can be because of back restrictions
>> and/or confidence factors.
>> Most amateurs try to apply the force that they generate to 'push' and
>> 'lift' the ball toward the hole.
>> I play best when I imagine myself chopping down on the ball as if to hit
>> it down and forward into the ground. I also play best when I place my
>> hands forward of the normal stance position with a slight cock in my
>> wrists as a result.
>> --
>> Howard
>
> Note the first sentence, Howard. I made the
> proviso; speed with control. This is the essence
> of the matter. Clubhead speed applied squarely
> is what golf is about. There is square contact at
> 80mph and square contact at 125mph and the
> difference is truly phenomenal. Tiger versus a
> half decent lady golfer. Don't disparage speed.
> It is the single element that distinguishes the great
> golfers from the also rans. It is the holy grail of
> golf. Anything else is mediocrity.
>
> Alan
>
I persist in my disagreement with everything you wrote before and in this
post as well.
Speed does not determine ability. Ability determines proper application of
speed. Any failure can be remedied with practice.
Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?
Martin Levac
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 04:36:55
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
On 10--2006, "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> Speed does not determine ability. Ability determines proper application of
> speed. Any failure can be remedied with practice.
I think you are misreading Alan. I believe he said that those that can
"properly apply" @ 125mph have a great advantage over those of us that can
sometimes "properly apply" @ 100mph.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 08:04:14
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
In article <452c74de$0$18866$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
assimilate@borg.org says...
> I think you are misreading Alan. I believe he said that those that can
> "properly apply" @ 125mph have a great advantage over those of us that can
> sometimes "properly apply" @ 100mph.
>
>
Except..... he never actually said that. This is the quote:
" If you can swing a driver
above 125mph you could probably be a tour pro,
about 110mph a club pro or top amateur, about
100mph a single figure amateur, around 80mph
anywhere between 18 and 20 handicap, and below
75mph you're a hacker. End of story. What's new?"
--
Howard
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 11:36:08
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"Howard9" <fictional@email.com > wrote in message
news:MPG.1f96a7ccf364667b989f56@news.iol.ie...
> In article <452c74de$0$18866$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> assimilate@borg.org says...
>> I think you are misreading Alan. I believe he said that those that can
>> "properly apply" @ 125mph have a great advantage over those of us that
>> can
>> sometimes "properly apply" @ 100mph.
>>
>>
> Except..... he never actually said that. This is the quote:
>
> " If you can swing a driver
> above 125mph you could probably be a tour pro,
> about 110mph a club pro or top amateur, about
> 100mph a single figure amateur, around 80mph
> anywhere between 18 and 20 handicap, and below
> 75mph you're a hacker. End of story. What's new?"
> --
> Howard
Don't be pedantic, Howard. And you have
disingenuously snipped a qualifying sentence
from the quoted excerpt.
What do you think was the point of the sentence:
"All golfers have a maximum swing speed beyond
which they lose control.", which was placed at the
head of the above paragraph?
BTW I don't think more than 10% golfers could
achieve a clubhead speed of more than 100mph
no matter how hard they swing and regardless of
the result. Present rsg company excepted, of
course :-)
Alan
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:13:44
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
In article <37-dnU8VBLeFVLHYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com >,
afmccl@btinternet.com says...
>
> > " If you can swing a driver
> > above 125mph you could probably be a tour pro,
> > about 110mph a club pro or top amateur, about
> > 100mph a single figure amateur, around 80mph
> > anywhere between 18 and 20 handicap, and below
> > 75mph you're a hacker. End of story. What's new?"
> > --
> > Howard
>
> Don't be pedantic, Howard.
Don't be so sensitive, Alan.
> And you have
> disingenuously snipped a qualifying sentence
> from the quoted excerpt.
Actually I have not. I have quoted the exact sentences accurately and
fairly. The first sentence was left hanging with no application to the
later generalisations. It may have been nice had those generalisations
been not been made, but they were. It's not the end of the world :)
>
> What do you think was the point of the sentence:
> "All golfers have a maximum swing speed beyond
> which they lose control.", which was placed at the
> head of the above paragraph?
It was a sensible statement that was then let down by the following
generalisations which I and some others don't agree with.
>
> BTW I don't think more than 10% golfers could
> achieve a clubhead speed of more than 100mph
> no matter how hard they swing and regardless of
> the result. Present rsg company excepted, of
> course :-)
>
I agree. And certainly not by me. But many of the fastest swingers ..I
know are some of the worst players.
>
--
Howard
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:05:13
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
On Tue, 10 2006 11:20:53 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
>All golfers have a maximum swing speed beyond
>which they lose control. If you can swing a driver
>above 125mph you could probably be a tour pro,
>about 110mph a club pro or top amateur, about
>100mph a single figure amateur, around 80mph
>anywhere between 18 and 20 handicap, and below
>75mph you're a hacker. End of story. What's new?
I can lose control at low speed - and I can have control at high
speed.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 00:30:04
From: Schwachgolfer
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
Martin Levac schrieb:
> No, I'm sure I discovered the contrary. Less force = more control = better
> contact = better transfer of momentum = more distance + more accuracy.
> Martin Levac
You`re definitely right.
Thomas
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 00:29:43
From: Schwachgolfer
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
Martin Levac schrieb:
> No, I'm sure I discovered the contrary. Less force = more control = better
> contact = better transfer of momentum = more distance + more accuracy.
> Martin Levac
You`re definitely right.
Thomas
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 18:46:24
From: dsc
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
> What one should be trying to do in the swing is to maximize
> effieciency, and I think you are on the right track practice-wise to do
> that. If you think you are getting pretty confident with what you are
> doing, then why not try to up it a notch power wise, at least once in
> awhile?
Or even take it down a little (and smooth it out)... the less is more
approach. But once (and if) he finds his "perfect tempo" he should stop
experimenting and just grove it. I've recently been on a parallel path
to his... less with better contact is more (and more consistent). I do
think it holds a lot of promise.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 06:29:18
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1160531184.671148.111640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>> What one should be trying to do in the swing is to maximize
>> effieciency, and I think you are on the right track practice-wise to do
>> that. If you think you are getting pretty confident with what you are
>> doing, then why not try to up it a notch power wise, at least once in
>> awhile?
>
> Or even take it down a little (and smooth it out)... the less is more
> approach. But once (and if) he finds his "perfect tempo" he should stop
> experimenting and just grove it. I've recently been on a parallel path
> to his... less with better contact is more (and more consistent). I do
> think it holds a lot of promise.
>
These comments were told me by other players during the same practice
session:
A lady and her husband had just finished their bag of balls:
"Let's watch him." Speaking to her husband, refering to me.
"You've got a nice smooth swing." To me directly.
A gentleman a couple of stalls besides me:
"Hi, you've got this sort of lag with your head that you do. You look like
you're still looking at where the ball was even though it's gone and only
after a while do you look up to see where it's gone. Smooth swing you got
there." I went over for a discussion on the matter explaining why I did that
lag with the head and stuff.
The club pro, Jerry, passed by there and sort of creeped up on me in silence
with the cart trying to watch my ball flight as I was hitting the 9 iron
mostly to the flag. I caught sight of him in the corner of my eye so I
turned around and said hi. He just nodded, stopped and watched some more.
I used to reply that it wasn't what the swing looked like that mattered, it
was the result, where the ball ended up that mattered. Most people I've
spoken to about that don't really understand that concept of result and I
eventually got tired of explaining so now I just smile and say thank you.
The point is, smooth and good tempo aren't what I'm focusing on. Smooth and
good tempo are a side effect of what I'm focusing on.
Martin Levac
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 13:50:03
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:%H3Xg.40463$HE.1114722@weber.videotron.net...
>
> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
> news:1160531184.671148.111640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> What one should be trying to do in the swing is to maximize
>>> effieciency, and I think you are on the right track practice-wise to do
>>> that. If you think you are getting pretty confident with what you are
>>> doing, then why not try to up it a notch power wise, at least once in
>>> awhile?
>>
>> Or even take it down a little (and smooth it out)... the less is more
>> approach. But once (and if) he finds his "perfect tempo" he should stop
>> experimenting and just grove it. I've recently been on a parallel path
>> to his... less with better contact is more (and more consistent). I do
>> think it holds a lot of promise.
>>
>
> These comments were told me by other players during the same practice
> session:
>
> A lady and her husband had just finished their bag of balls:
> "Let's watch him." Speaking to her husband, refering to me.
> "You've got a nice smooth swing." To me directly.
>
> A gentleman a couple of stalls besides me:
> "Hi, you've got this sort of lag with your head that you do. You look
> like you're still looking at where the ball was even though it's gone and
> only after a while do you look up to see where it's gone. Smooth swing
> you got there." I went over for a discussion on the matter explaining why
> I did that lag with the head and stuff.
>
> The club pro, Jerry, passed by there and sort of creeped up on me in
> silence with the cart trying to watch my ball flight as I was hitting the
> 9 iron mostly to the flag. I caught sight of him in the corner of my eye
> so I turned around and said hi. He just nodded, stopped and watched some
> more.
>
> I used to reply that it wasn't what the swing looked like that mattered,
> it was the result, where the ball ended up that mattered. Most people
> I've spoken to about that don't really understand that concept of result
> and I eventually got tired of explaining so now I just smile and say
> thank you.
>
> The point is, smooth and good tempo aren't what I'm focusing on. Smooth
> and good tempo are a side effect of what I'm focusing on.
>
>
> Martin Levac
>
Careful! You're starting to sound like Larry.
Alan <g >
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 09:04:14
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:VpidnQbMzOzmdbHYRVnysw@bt.com...
> "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:%H3Xg.40463$HE.1114722@weber.videotron.net...
>>
>> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1160531184.671148.111640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> What one should be trying to do in the swing is to maximize
>>>> effieciency, and I think you are on the right track practice-wise to do
>>>> that. If you think you are getting pretty confident with what you are
>>>> doing, then why not try to up it a notch power wise, at least once in
>>>> awhile?
>>>
>>> Or even take it down a little (and smooth it out)... the less is more
>>> approach. But once (and if) he finds his "perfect tempo" he should stop
>>> experimenting and just grove it. I've recently been on a parallel path
>>> to his... less with better contact is more (and more consistent). I do
>>> think it holds a lot of promise.
>>>
>>
>> These comments were told me by other players during the same practice
>> session:
>>
>> A lady and her husband had just finished their bag of balls:
>> "Let's watch him." Speaking to her husband, refering to me.
>> "You've got a nice smooth swing." To me directly.
>>
>> A gentleman a couple of stalls besides me:
>> "Hi, you've got this sort of lag with your head that you do. You look
>> like you're still looking at where the ball was even though it's gone and
>> only after a while do you look up to see where it's gone. Smooth swing
>> you got there." I went over for a discussion on the matter explaining why
>> I did that lag with the head and stuff.
>>
>> The club pro, Jerry, passed by there and sort of creeped up on me in
>> silence with the cart trying to watch my ball flight as I was hitting the
>> 9 iron mostly to the flag. I caught sight of him in the corner of my eye
>> so I turned around and said hi. He just nodded, stopped and watched some
>> more.
>>
>> I used to reply that it wasn't what the swing looked like that mattered,
>> it was the result, where the ball ended up that mattered. Most people
>> I've spoken to about that don't really understand that concept of result
>> and I eventually got tired of explaining so now I just smile and say
>> thank you.
>>
>> The point is, smooth and good tempo aren't what I'm focusing on. Smooth
>> and good tempo are a side effect of what I'm focusing on.
>>
>>
>> Martin Levac
>>
> Careful! You're starting to sound like Larry.
>
> Alan <g>
>
>
You're a funny guy, Alan.
Martin Levac
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:38:03
From: pete z
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
Alan Murphy wrote:
> "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:xSxWg.56431$0H5.614431@wagner.videotron.net...
> >I went to the practice range yesterday.
> >
> > I went out at around 11am, came back home at around 3pm. I hit quite a
> > few bucket fulls of balls. I hit them deliberately without any hurry or
> > undue delay. The clubs that saw the most use was the 3 iron and the 9
> > iron. The 3 iron was the most satisfying to hit well but the most
> > difficult to use while the 9 iron was the easiest to hit well therefore
> > the most effective.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion about those two
> > clubs?
> >
> > Anyways, to make a long story short, proper contact is what I was
> > focusing on. The more I focused, the more accurate I was. The more I
> > focused, the less force I needed to apply. The less force I needed to
> > apply, the better control I had. The better control I had, the better
> > contact I was able to achieve. The better contact I was able to achieve,
> > the more accurate I was.
> >
> > Etc.
> >
> > I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
> > to be more accurate.
> >
> > A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance
> > from the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the
> > clubhead to the ball.
> >
> > So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
> > contact, to be more accurate and to be longer.
> >
> > For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of
> > more power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
> >
> > Martin Levac
> >
> All golfers have a maximum swing speed beyond
> which they lose control. If you can swing a driver
> above 125mph you could probably be a tour pro,
> about 110mph a club pro or top amateur, about
> 100mph a single figure amateur, around 80mph
> anywhere between 18 and 20 handicap, and below
> 75mph you're a hacker. End of story. What's new?
>
> Alan
Ridiculous. There are several older members of my club who are in their
70's and their
swing speed is about the same, and they are 4 to 8 handicaps. Play
them for some bucks,
and call them hackers, and they'll suddenly become scratch golfers. :-}
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:01:52
From:
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
Martin Levac wrote:
> I went to the practice range yesterday.
>
> I went out at around 11am, came back home at around 3pm. I hit quite a few
> bucket fulls of balls. I hit them deliberately without any hurry or undue
> delay. The clubs that saw the most use was the 3 iron and the 9 iron. The 3
> iron was the most satisfying to hit well but the most difficult to use while
> the 9 iron was the easiest to hit well therefore the most effective.
>
> Perhaps I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion about those two
> clubs?
>
> Anyways, to make a long story short, proper contact is what I was focusing
> on. The more I focused, the more accurate I was. The more I focused, the
> less force I needed to apply. The less force I needed to apply, the better
> control I had. The better control I had, the better contact I was able to
> achieve. The better contact I was able to achieve, the more accurate I was.
>
> Etc.
>
> I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact, to
> be more accurate.
>
> A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance from
> the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the clubhead to
> the ball.
>
> So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
> to be more accurate and to be longer.
>
> For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of more
> power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
>
>
> Martin Levac
What one should be trying to do in the swing is to maximize
effieciency, and I think you are on the right track practice-wise to do
that. If you think you are getting pretty confident with what you are
doing, then why not try to up it a notch power wise, at least once in
awhile? I like too that you are using different clubs. They are of
different lengths and weight, and using that should help you or anyone
determine some differences in backswing length, and overall time to hit
the shot, etc. The 3 iron is the hardest to hit for most, so you
should pat yourself on the back for doing a lot of things right.
CJ
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 00:03:56
From: JJK
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
<curtjester@webtv.net > wrote <snip>
> the shot, etc. The 3 iron is the hardest to hit for most, so you
> should pat yourself on the back for doing a lot of things right.
I'm glad to hear that. I'll replace my 3-iron with a 2-iron.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:20:16
From: damnyankee
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
Martin Levac wrote:
> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
> news:1160531184.671148.111640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> What one should be trying to do in the swing is to maximize
> >> effieciency, and I think you are on the right track practice-wise to do
> >> that. If you think you are getting pretty confident with what you are
> >> doing, then why not try to up it a notch power wise, at least once in
> >> awhile?
> >
> > Or even take it down a little (and smooth it out)... the less is more
> > approach. But once (and if) he finds his "perfect tempo" he should stop
> > experimenting and just grove it. I've recently been on a parallel path
> > to his... less with better contact is more (and more consistent). I do
> > think it holds a lot of promise.
> >
>
> These comments were told me by other players during the same practice
> session:
>
> A lady and her husband had just finished their bag of balls:
> "Let's watch him." Speaking to her husband, refering to me.
> "You've got a nice smooth swing." To me directly.
>
> A gentleman a couple of stalls besides me:
> "Hi, you've got this sort of lag with your head that you do. You look like
> you're still looking at where the ball was even though it's gone and only
> after a while do you look up to see where it's gone. Smooth swing you got
> there." I went over for a discussion on the matter explaining why I did that
> lag with the head and stuff.
>
> The club pro, Jerry, passed by there and sort of creeped up on me in silence
> with the cart trying to watch my ball flight as I was hitting the 9 iron
> mostly to the flag. I caught sight of him in the corner of my eye so I
> turned around and said hi. He just nodded, stopped and watched some more.
>
> I used to reply that it wasn't what the swing looked like that mattered, it
> was the result, where the ball ended up that mattered. Most people I've
> spoken to about that don't really understand that concept of result and I
> eventually got tired of explaining so now I just smile and say thank you.
>
> The point is, smooth and good tempo aren't what I'm focusing on. Smooth and
> good tempo are a side effect of what I'm focusing on.
>
>
> Martin Levac
Okay, you're hitting the ball good on the range. How's your game? Are
you able to hit as well on the course?
Bryan
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:24:42
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"damnyankee" <bryanberguson@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160702416.430659.225200@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martin Levac wrote:
>> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1160531184.671148.111640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >> What one should be trying to do in the swing is to maximize
>> >> effieciency, and I think you are on the right track practice-wise to
>> >> do
>> >> that. If you think you are getting pretty confident with what you are
>> >> doing, then why not try to up it a notch power wise, at least once in
>> >> awhile?
>> >
>> > Or even take it down a little (and smooth it out)... the less is more
>> > approach. But once (and if) he finds his "perfect tempo" he should stop
>> > experimenting and just grove it. I've recently been on a parallel path
>> > to his... less with better contact is more (and more consistent). I do
>> > think it holds a lot of promise.
>> >
>>
>> These comments were told me by other players during the same practice
>> session:
>>
>> A lady and her husband had just finished their bag of balls:
>> "Let's watch him." Speaking to her husband, refering to me.
>> "You've got a nice smooth swing." To me directly.
>>
>> A gentleman a couple of stalls besides me:
>> "Hi, you've got this sort of lag with your head that you do. You look
>> like
>> you're still looking at where the ball was even though it's gone and only
>> after a while do you look up to see where it's gone. Smooth swing you got
>> there." I went over for a discussion on the matter explaining why I did
>> that
>> lag with the head and stuff.
>>
>> The club pro, Jerry, passed by there and sort of creeped up on me in
>> silence
>> with the cart trying to watch my ball flight as I was hitting the 9 iron
>> mostly to the flag. I caught sight of him in the corner of my eye so I
>> turned around and said hi. He just nodded, stopped and watched some more.
>>
>> I used to reply that it wasn't what the swing looked like that mattered,
>> it
>> was the result, where the ball ended up that mattered. Most people I've
>> spoken to about that don't really understand that concept of result and I
>> eventually got tired of explaining so now I just smile and say thank you.
>>
>> The point is, smooth and good tempo aren't what I'm focusing on. Smooth
>> and
>> good tempo are a side effect of what I'm focusing on.
>>
>>
>> Martin Levac
>
> Okay, you're hitting the ball good on the range. How's your game? Are
> you able to hit as well on the course?
>
> Bryan
>
Yes, I am. I guess that's what happens with practice.
Martin Levac
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:18:44
From: KnighT
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
Recognize that there are two valid methods to create power with a golf
club. Swinging utilizes centripetal force to create 'effortless
power'; exactly like a gyroscope.....exactly like pulling on a rope.
The other method is hitting, which uses muscular thrust to power the
golf club, like chopping down a tree with a heavy axe.
Both methods are valid.
Martin Levac wrote:
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160434406.949929.317070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
> >> to
> >> be more accurate.
> >>
> >> A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance
> >> from
> >> the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the clubhead
> >> to
> >> the ball.
> >>
> >> So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
> >> contact,
> >> to be more accurate and to be longer.
> >>
> >> For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of
> >> more
> >> power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
> >
> > As you discovered, all other things being equal, more power does = more
> > distance. But if more power means poorer contact, you'll trade off
> > accuracy and distance.
> >
> > Personally, I hit the ball straighter and more solid the harder I
> > swing, at least for 7 iron and longer clubs. Reason being is I let
> > physics do the work instead of trying to manipulate the club with my
> > hands and arms.
> >
>
> No, I'm sure I discovered the contrary. Less force = more control = better
> contact = better transfer of momentum = more distance + more accuracy.
>
> Unless force is different than power?
>
> Your second paragraph sounds like you're trying to let the club control
> itself or counting on chance for the good shots. Last time I checked, there
> wasn't a club that could do that and chance is, well, a chancy thing. I used
> to think something along the same line but I decided that it just didn't
> work as often as I wanted so I took control. Golf is a game of ability, not
> a game of chance.
>
> I'm trying to develop the ability to strike the ball squarely in the middle
> of the clubface thereby sending the ball to the target.
>
> I'm not trying my luck.
>
>
> Martin Levac
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:29:14
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
I wasn't talking about creating power, I was talking about transmitting it
to the ball.
Martin Levac
"KnighT" <bryanjunk777@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160702324.397476.242340@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Recognize that there are two valid methods to create power with a golf
> club. Swinging utilizes centripetal force to create 'effortless
> power'; exactly like a gyroscope.....exactly like pulling on a rope.
> The other method is hitting, which uses muscular thrust to power the
> golf club, like chopping down a tree with a heavy axe.
>
> Both methods are valid.
>
> Martin Levac wrote:
>> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160434406.949929.317070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
>> >> contact,
>> >> to
>> >> be more accurate.
>> >>
>> >> A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance
>> >> from
>> >> the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the
>> >> clubhead
>> >> to
>> >> the ball.
>> >>
>> >> So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
>> >> contact,
>> >> to be more accurate and to be longer.
>> >>
>> >> For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine
>> >> of
>> >> more
>> >> power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
>> >
>> > As you discovered, all other things being equal, more power does = more
>> > distance. But if more power means poorer contact, you'll trade off
>> > accuracy and distance.
>> >
>> > Personally, I hit the ball straighter and more solid the harder I
>> > swing, at least for 7 iron and longer clubs. Reason being is I let
>> > physics do the work instead of trying to manipulate the club with my
>> > hands and arms.
>> >
>>
>> No, I'm sure I discovered the contrary. Less force = more control =
>> better
>> contact = better transfer of momentum = more distance + more accuracy.
>>
>> Unless force is different than power?
>>
>> Your second paragraph sounds like you're trying to let the club control
>> itself or counting on chance for the good shots. Last time I checked,
>> there
>> wasn't a club that could do that and chance is, well, a chancy thing. I
>> used
>> to think something along the same line but I decided that it just didn't
>> work as often as I wanted so I took control. Golf is a game of ability,
>> not
>> a game of chance.
>>
>> I'm trying to develop the ability to strike the ball squarely in the
>> middle
>> of the clubface thereby sending the ball to the target.
>>
>> I'm not trying my luck.
>>
>>
>> Martin Levac
>
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:16:28
From: KnighT
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
As long as it works for you and you know what you are doing....that is
all that matters. But there are laws of physics that dictate the
motion required to move a golf ball.
So, you are talking about transmitting power to the ball ? If that is
the case, when you transmit power to the ball, where does it come from.
What happens to the ball when power is transmitted to it ? Where is
your clubface in relation to the target when it first touches the ball
?
these are all very important facts.
Martin Levac wrote:
> I wasn't talking about creating power, I was talking about transmitting it
> to the ball.
>
>
> Martin Levac
>
> "KnighT" <bryanjunk777@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160702324.397476.242340@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Recognize that there are two valid methods to create power with a golf
> > club. Swinging utilizes centripetal force to create 'effortless
> > power'; exactly like a gyroscope.....exactly like pulling on a rope.
> > The other method is hitting, which uses muscular thrust to power the
> > golf club, like chopping down a tree with a heavy axe.
> >
> > Both methods are valid.
> >
> > Martin Levac wrote:
> >> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160434406.949929.317070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
> >> >> contact,
> >> >> to
> >> >> be more accurate.
> >> >>
> >> >> A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance
> >> >> from
> >> >> the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the
> >> >> clubhead
> >> >> to
> >> >> the ball.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
> >> >> contact,
> >> >> to be more accurate and to be longer.
> >> >>
> >> >> For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine
> >> >> of
> >> >> more
> >> >> power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
> >> >
> >> > As you discovered, all other things being equal, more power does = more
> >> > distance. But if more power means poorer contact, you'll trade off
> >> > accuracy and distance.
> >> >
> >> > Personally, I hit the ball straighter and more solid the harder I
> >> > swing, at least for 7 iron and longer clubs. Reason being is I let
> >> > physics do the work instead of trying to manipulate the club with my
> >> > hands and arms.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, I'm sure I discovered the contrary. Less force = more control =
> >> better
> >> contact = better transfer of momentum = more distance + more accuracy.
> >>
> >> Unless force is different than power?
> >>
> >> Your second paragraph sounds like you're trying to let the club control
> >> itself or counting on chance for the good shots. Last time I checked,
> >> there
> >> wasn't a club that could do that and chance is, well, a chancy thing. I
> >> used
> >> to think something along the same line but I decided that it just didn't
> >> work as often as I wanted so I took control. Golf is a game of ability,
> >> not
> >> a game of chance.
> >>
> >> I'm trying to develop the ability to strike the ball squarely in the
> >> middle
> >> of the clubface thereby sending the ball to the target.
> >>
> >> I'm not trying my luck.
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin Levac
> >
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 11:28:11
From: damnyankee
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
Martin Levac wrote:
> "damnyankee" <bryanberguson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160702416.430659.225200@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Martin Levac wrote:
> >> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:1160531184.671148.111640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >> What one should be trying to do in the swing is to maximize
> >> >> effieciency, and I think you are on the right track practice-wise to
> >> >> do
> >> >> that. If you think you are getting pretty confident with what you are
> >> >> doing, then why not try to up it a notch power wise, at least once in
> >> >> awhile?
> >> >
> >> > Or even take it down a little (and smooth it out)... the less is more
> >> > approach. But once (and if) he finds his "perfect tempo" he should stop
> >> > experimenting and just grove it. I've recently been on a parallel path
> >> > to his... less with better contact is more (and more consistent). I do
> >> > think it holds a lot of promise.
> >> >
> >>
> >> These comments were told me by other players during the same practice
> >> session:
> >>
> >> A lady and her husband had just finished their bag of balls:
> >> "Let's watch him." Speaking to her husband, refering to me.
> >> "You've got a nice smooth swing." To me directly.
> >>
> >> A gentleman a couple of stalls besides me:
> >> "Hi, you've got this sort of lag with your head that you do. You look
> >> like
> >> you're still looking at where the ball was even though it's gone and only
> >> after a while do you look up to see where it's gone. Smooth swing you got
> >> there." I went over for a discussion on the matter explaining why I did
> >> that
> >> lag with the head and stuff.
> >>
> >> The club pro, Jerry, passed by there and sort of creeped up on me in
> >> silence
> >> with the cart trying to watch my ball flight as I was hitting the 9 iron
> >> mostly to the flag. I caught sight of him in the corner of my eye so I
> >> turned around and said hi. He just nodded, stopped and watched some more.
> >>
> >> I used to reply that it wasn't what the swing looked like that mattered,
> >> it
> >> was the result, where the ball ended up that mattered. Most people I've
> >> spoken to about that don't really understand that concept of result and I
> >> eventually got tired of explaining so now I just smile and say thank you.
> >>
> >> The point is, smooth and good tempo aren't what I'm focusing on. Smooth
> >> and
> >> good tempo are a side effect of what I'm focusing on.
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin Levac
> >
> > Okay, you're hitting the ball good on the range. How's your game? Are
> > you able to hit as well on the course?
> >
> > Bryan
> >
>
> Yes, I am. I guess that's what happens with practice.
>
>
> Martin Levac
That's what it's all about!
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 09:24:28
From: adam henry
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
On Mon, 9 2006 15:59:40 -0400, "Martin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>I went to the practice range yesterday.
>
>I went out at around 11am, came back home at around 3pm. I hit quite a few
>bucket fulls of balls. I hit them deliberately without any hurry or undue
>delay. The clubs that saw the most use was the 3 iron and the 9 iron. The 3
>iron was the most satisfying to hit well but the most difficult to use while
>the 9 iron was the easiest to hit well therefore the most effective.
>
>Perhaps I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion about those two
>clubs?
>
>Anyways, to make a long story short, proper contact is what I was focusing
>on. The more I focused, the more accurate I was. The more I focused, the
>less force I needed to apply. The less force I needed to apply, the better
>control I had. The better control I had, the better contact I was able to
>achieve. The better contact I was able to achieve, the more accurate I was.
>
>Etc.
>
>I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact, to
>be more accurate.
>
>A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance from
>the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the clubhead to
>the ball.
>
>So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
>to be more accurate and to be longer.
>
>For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of more
>power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
>
>
>Martin Levac
>
i want my 5 seconds back spent reading that crap. please stop
posting.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 09:59:05
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: So, I've been practicing.
|
"adam henry" <ahole@here.com > wrote in message
news:37p1j2lj7piovql65p0bssclflk65ra206@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 2006 15:59:40 -0400, "Martin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>I went to the practice range yesterday.
>>
>>I went out at around 11am, came back home at around 3pm. I hit quite a few
>>bucket fulls of balls. I hit them deliberately without any hurry or undue
>>delay. The clubs that saw the most use was the 3 iron and the 9 iron. The
>>3
>>iron was the most satisfying to hit well but the most difficult to use
>>while
>>the 9 iron was the easiest to hit well therefore the most effective.
>>
>>Perhaps I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion about those two
>>clubs?
>>
>>Anyways, to make a long story short, proper contact is what I was focusing
>>on. The more I focused, the more accurate I was. The more I focused, the
>>less force I needed to apply. The less force I needed to apply, the better
>>control I had. The better control I had, the better contact I was able to
>>achieve. The better contact I was able to achieve, the more accurate I
>>was.
>>
>>Etc.
>>
>>I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better contact,
>>to
>>be more accurate.
>>
>>A direct result of this focus on proper contact was the added distance
>>from
>>the better transfer of momentum of the better contact from the clubhead to
>>the ball.
>>
>>So, I was applying less force, to have more control, to make better
>>contact,
>>to be more accurate and to be longer.
>>
>>For some reason, my experience goes contrary to established drine of
>>more
>>power = more distance = lower score. Don't you think?
>>
>>
>>Martin Levac
>>
>
> i want my 5 seconds back spent reading that crap. please stop
> posting.
You are entitled to your opinion, thank you for sharing it.
Martin Levac
|
|
