Club head speed

monkeybutter

ClutchIt wrote: »

I started this thread and it is indeed a mess

this is the answer

FixdePitchmark

monkeybutter wrote: »

this is the answer

The modern understanding, stats , and tours ..kinda say Daly was bizarrely right. Even if it was a show at the time.

And walked away with majors before anyone knew the impact.

Fair play to him.

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

Which is it greebo I thought power doesn't give more speed?

Umm what?
I think you misread the post you quoted.

monkeybutter

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

The modern understanding, stats , and tours ..kinda say Daly was bizarrely right. Even if it was a show at the time.

And walked away with majors before anyone knew the impact.

Fair play to him.

i think if you look back it worked when he managed to control it and himself



no one has ever deliberately tried to hit it shorter just a toss up with control, be it left and right or distance



who knows he might have been even better if he had dialed it back a bit or if those days he was on it that was what he was doing

GreeBo

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

Again there is an incredible amount of ambiguity tied up in what you're saying.

Right, so when I use the word power I'm ambigious, but when you are ShivasIrons use it its perfectly well defined somehow? :rolleyes:

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

Firstly the line you grabbed which I highlighted relates to "Explosive Strength", that is universally accepted definition of that.

Sorry I dont know what you are saying here?
I gave you the difference between strength and explosive strength, are you saying they are universally accepted as the same thing??

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

You have gone ahead and tried to bundle "Explosive Power" with that which isn't how explosive power is defined because there is no definition of that, it's an ambiguous term.

I have been talking about strength all along, ShivasIrons has been interchanging strength with power.

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

Power inherently includes time so defining this as "Power/Strength" vs "Explosive Power/Strength" is incorrect and is closer to "Strength" vs "Explosve Strength" or Strength vs Power.

Again your points are generally poorly defined. When getting into the weeds on a topic like this, you need to be clearer in what you're referring to because it reads as pretty nonsensical.

I am saying that strength alone wont make you swing the club faster, at best explosive strength will.

I actually literally replied to your post saying
"I'm specifically separating explosive strength from raw strength"

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, so when I use the word power I'm ambigious, but when you are ShivasIrons use it its perfectly well defined somehow? :rolleyes:

Not sure what you're rolling your eyes at here, I never suggested Shivairons used anything correctly?
Perhaps you might highlight where I said that.

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry I dont know what you are saying here?
I gave you the difference between strength and explosive strength, are you saying they are universally accepted as the same thing??

The definition you gave is of "Explosive Strength" is

GreeBo wrote: »

explosive strength/power is ability to exert maximum force over minimal time

This definiton does not cover Power, it covers only that which is highlighted. You're smuggling in Power here as you did in your definition of Strength/Power vs Explosive Strength/Power. That is wrong and ill-defined.

Furthermore your previous post which I actually asked for a definition on was when you used "Raw" further complicating things:

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you disagree though?
I'm specifically separating explosive strength from raw strength btw.

Adding explosive power/speed will enable you to swing faster (you might not swing faster due to other issues though!)

Again this further demonstrates the ambiguity in your terminology not to mention a failure to answer the actual question asked.

GreeBo wrote: »

I have been talking about strength all along, ShivasIrons has been interchanging strength with power.

Perhaps they have but I'm disagreeing on that at all so not sure why you've raised it twice now, I'm responding to you. Your definitions are wrong either way.

GreeBo wrote: »

I am saying that strength alone wont make you swing the club faster, at best explosive strength will.

Again there is ambiguity in what you're saying repeatedly hence the request for definition which as you can see from above wasn't really given.

GreeBo wrote: »

I actually literally replied to your post saying
"I'm specifically separating explosive strength from raw strength"

Again see above; largely ambiguous terms used interchangeably making your points largely nonsensical.


So based on what you're saying am I right in assuming that you are suggesting Raw Strength, Strength & Power are the same while Explosive Power & Explosive Strength are the same?

GreeBo

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

Not sure what you're rolling your eyes at here, I never suggested Shivairons used anything correctly?
Perhaps you might highlight where I said that.

Apologies, I took the fact that you didn't bring it up until my posts as meaning you had no issues with anyone elses use of terms.

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

The definition you gave is of "Explosive Strength" is


This definiton does not cover Power, it covers only that which is highlighted. You're smuggling in Power here as you did in your definition of Strength/Power vs Explosive Strength/Power. That is wrong and ill-defined.

I only added "power" last minute as others are using strength and power interchangeably, apologies.

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

Furthermore your previous post which I actually asked for a definition on was when you used "Raw" further complicating things:


Again this further demonstrates the ambiguity in your terminology not to mention a failure to answer the actual question asked.

I was using the term "raw" strength to distinguish from explosive strength, i.e. excluding any time element.
For golf (or I would say most sports other than maybe powerlifting) an increase in strength without an increase in power is of no use, and, going further, even an increase in power wont automatically result in increased clubhead speed or distance.
You might use "absolute" in place of "raw".

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

Perhaps they have but I'm disagreeing on that at all so not sure why you've raised it twice now, I'm responding to you. Your definitions are wrong either way.

Remove "Power" from my definition and its correct, as above, I added it in last minute since others were not distinguishing between strength and power.

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

Again there is ambiguity in what you're saying repeatedly hence the request for definition which as you can see from above wasn't really given.


Again see above; largely ambiguous terms used interchangeably making your points largely nonsensical.

"Strength is the ability to exert maximum force, explosive strength is ability to exert maximum force over minimal time."
that is my definition and the terms I am arguing under. Increasing strength but not explosive strength is not significantly beneficial to swinging a golf club faster.

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

So based on what you're saying am I right in assuming that you are suggesting Raw Strength, Strength & Power are the same while Explosive Power & Explosive Strength are the same?

No, see my answer above.
Strength is the maximal force you can exert, Power or "explosive strength" is the rate at which you can exert that force.
So there is a difference between moving 100KG @ 1m/s (raw) vs 50kg @ 5m/s (explosive) and its an improvement in the latter that *could* benefit a golfer.

ShivasIrons

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, so when I use the word power I'm ambigious, but when you are ShivasIrons use it its perfectly well defined somehow? :rolleyes:

Sorry I dont know what you are saying here?
I gave you the difference between strength and explosive strength, are you saying they are universally accepted as the same thing??


I have been talking about strength all along, ShivasIrons has been interchanging strength with power.



I am saying that strength alone wont make you swing the club faster, at best explosive strength will.

I actually literally replied to your post saying
"I'm specifically separating explosive strength from raw strength"

You are incorrect, I have not been interchanging strength with power, I have clearly said on many occasions that strength is a component of power and by increasing strength, power is increased which leads to more club head speed and distance.


Here's a definition of power in sport -


'Power in its simplest form is the product of force multiplied by distance, divided by time. In a sporting context, force can be substituted for strength, and time/distance indicated by the speed of movement'


You have not given one piece of evidence to show that increasing strength won't lead to increased distance. Can you please give evidence?


'Strength is the road to speed and power'

This a quote from the article https://www.mytpi.com/articles/fitness/the_best_exercises_to_increase_clubhead_speed which Redzerdrog linked earlier.


At TPI, they have tests for power to determine how to train a golfer, there is 4 power tests, after testing for power, strength is then tested, remember power is strength and speed of movement, so if strength is low that is worked on to increase power, if strength is sufficient and power is low, speed of movement is worked on to increase power. Strength is worked on first.


I helped out a fitness trainer with his thesis for a masters, the basis of the thesis was increasing club head speed in a group of golfers, he gave them a single strength based exercise to be performed 3 times a week over 8 weeks, all the golfers bar one increased their clubhead speed. The group had a wide range of handicaps too.

I am very confident in the assertion that increasing strength will lead to increased distance. There is evidence, as well as logic, to back this up.


I really don't know what Greebo is trying to say, early on in the thread he was trying to refute Mark Broadie's proven research that adding distance leads to lower scores, then it was strength didn't matter because other things matter too (which at no stage was any part of the discussion), now it seems to be that adding strength won't lead to increased distance. Yet, I see no evidence presented to back this up.


The three points I have made in this thread are


1) You should learn to swing as fast as you can
2) Longer distance from the tee (even with losing a little accuracy) will lead to lower scores
3) Increasing strength will lead to more club head speed.


I have seen zero evidence to show these points aren't true. I will gladly change my points and mind if evidence is given.


Where is the research to counter these points?

DuckSlice

redzerdrog wrote: »

That's a different point altogether. There is no point comparing highly skilled lpga tour members or senior tour member to your avarage hcap golfer.

As a general comparison hcap Male golfers and hcap female golfers have the same skill level regarding delivery and strike ect. Yet one group averages 70 yards further than the other, why is that?

I do agree that the ability to strike to ball with a faster swing speed is a skill in itself and not being argued here.

I was referring to Hcap golfers but i didnt specifically say that. If a male Hcap golfer is hitting it 70 yards further than a female Hcap golfer then it will be mostly down to swing speed. Unless the females strike is way way off.

Why do they swing it faster? They are probably stronger, But i dont want to get into that discussion as this thread is starting to confuse me now.

I will say is i have had two different programs while in the gym.
1 - Strength training, this was when i was trying to lose weight and was mainly high reps drop sets, no focus on speed of movement just get the reps and sets done, increase the weight as you progress through the sessions.

2- Speed training - the focus here was on low reps explosive movements, or move them as fast as you can whatever you want to call it.

Edit - both Gym programs gave me in increase in speed, but i didn't get long enough at the speed training before the gyms closed.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

GreeBo wrote: »

No, see my answer above.
Strength is the maximal force you can exert, Power or "explosive strength" is the rate at which you can exert that force.
So there is a difference between moving 100KG @ 1m/s (raw) vs 50kg @ 5m/s (explosive) and its an improvement in the latter that *could* benefit a golfer.

I've given this too much time here but you can clearly see my confusion then if you're now referring to "Strength" as different to "Power" but "Power" as the same as "Explosive Strength".

That is in direct contradiction to what you said already, the following you see Strength/Power as one in the same while Explosive Strength/Power are the same.

GreeBo wrote: »

Power/Strength is the ability to exert maximum force, -That's one definition



explosive strength/power is ability to exert maximum force over minimal time. This is another definition

You're changing in your most recent post not to mention the following where you're referring to "Raw" which was what I originally asked about....

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you disagree though?
I'm specifically separating explosive strength from raw strength btw.

Adding explosive power/speed will enable you to swing faster (you might not swing faster due to other issues though!)

TBH, it's just all over the place

RoadRunner

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you disagree though?
I'm specifically separating explosive strength from raw strength btw.

No, I don't disagree with you. We're not going to try deadlift up the back of our car to help us get better at golf. The term explosive power is difficult to measure or explain. It's like trying to put a measurement as to how 'cool' someone is. This probably only matters so much more now that that swing/ball speed can be so accurately measured now. (Though it reminds me of the defunct service called Klout which tried to measure social influence in numerical terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klout)

It's never clear as to what the best way to get better at golf is. Practice strength or finesse. Play more regularly, take a long break from it. Play with passion, stop caring. Play injured, drunk (more of this ). Overthink, overwork, maybe read up on previous champions or the motivational side of the game. Get angry, self criticise. Practice putting....

With stuff like track running we are at 99.9% at the ultimate level at how peak human can to being perfect. Heated arguments as to whether strength is good for swing-speed are so basic compared with the conundrums listed above. For all the talk of explosive power, then you have Inbee Park as the top female of the last decade. At portrush 2019 the current best golfers in the world were so far off the pace of Shane. Boom! Then he loses that incredible spark again just as quickly as it first showed up. You could put a line up of 10 random people in front of me and ask me to pick the best golfer among them - there's literally no way to tell not age, sex, body shape. There's amputees and blind and otherways physically disabled people with a better game then anyone on here. Traditionally a sport for the wealthy, less so now. There's no other sport like this. I don't think we even close to knowing how good a human can ever get at it.

RoadRunner

^ jesus that's goes off all over the place. I just miss the game now

DuckSlice

RoadRunner wrote: »

^ jesus that's goes off all over the place. I just miss the game now

Me too

RoadRunner

etxp wrote: »

Me too

No YOU shut up!

Russman

Lads, this is a poor show for an internet golf forum, can we not all just agree that we swing it at 120mph, carry it 290 and only our putting holds us back, like the rest of the golf forums...............:D:D

GreeBo

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

I've given this too much time here but you can clearly see my confusion then if you're now referring to "Strength" as different to "Power" but "Power" as the same as "Explosive Strength".

That is in direct contradiction to what you said already, the following you see Strength/Power as one in the same while Explosive Strength/Power are the same.

I've clarified a bunch of times now that
"Power/Strength is the ability to exert maximum force"
was me adding "power" due to others conflating the two. I have specifically posted the difference between power and strength again and again...

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

You're changing in your most recent post not to mention the following where you're referring to "Raw" which was what I originally asked about....

I can't follow that sentence at all I'm afraid...
Can you post a specific question that I can answer, its too hard to follow your references to references of other quotes.

GreeBo

RoadRunner wrote: »

No, I don't disagree with you. We're not going to try deadlift up the back of our car to help us get better at golf. The term explosive power is difficult to measure or explain. It's like trying to put a measurement as to how 'cool' someone is. This probably only matters so much more now that that swing/ball speed can be so accurately measured now. (Though it reminds me of the defunct service called Klout which tried to measure social influence in numerical terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klout)

It's never clear as to what the best way to get better at golf is. Practice strength or finesse. Play more regularly, take a long break from it. Play with passion, stop caring. Play injured, drunk (more of this ). Overthink, overwork, maybe read up on previous champions or the motivational side of the game. Get angry, self criticise. Practice putting....

With stuff like track running we are at 99.9% at the ultimate level at how peak human can to being perfect. Heated arguments as to whether strength is good for swing-speed are so basic compared with the conundrums listed above. For all the talk of explosive power, then you have Inbee Park as the top female of the last decade. At portrush 2019 the current best golfers in the world were so far off the pace of Shane. Boom! Then he loses that incredible spark again just as quickly as it first showed up. You could put a line up of 10 random people in front of me and ask me to pick the best golfer among them - there's literally no way to tell not age, sex, body shape. There's amputees and blind and otherways physically disabled people with a better game then anyone on here. Traditionally a sport for the wealthy, less so now. There's no other sport like this. I don't think we even close to knowing how good a human can ever get at it.

I think all that shows is that there is a huge difference between looking at the overall vs the constituent parts.
You could improve part i by 50% and see no improvement to your game or even a degradation, likewise you could improve part ii by 1% and see a larger improvement in your game.

And by "game" I mean your scores, since thats all that matters.


/edit and by "scores" I mean the numbers written on your card :pac:

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

On a related topic, it appears there are proposals today such as limiting shaft length to 46 inches from R&A but it will be local.


- Research topics include potential Local Rule and review of club and ball specifications to mitigate continuing distance increases
- Proposed changes to current Equipment Standards on club length, testing conditions for golf ball testing and tolerances for club spring-like effect to ensure effectiveness in relation to distance limits



Potentially players can use a longer driver in one tournament but not another: https://www.randa.org/News/2021/02/Distance-Update-2021

GreeBo

Kayson Gigantic Ferry wrote: »

On a related topic, it appears there are proposals today such as limiting shaft length to 46 inches from R&A but it will be local.


- Research topics include potential Local Rule and review of club and ball specifications to mitigate continuing distance increases
- Proposed changes to current Equipment Standards on club length, testing conditions for golf ball testing and tolerances for club spring-like effect to ensure effectiveness in relation to distance limits



Potentially players can use a longer driver in one tournament but not another: https://www.randa.org/News/2021/02/Distance-Update-2021

Arent most of them using 45 or under already though?

I dont know why they wont just tackle the damn ball

redzerdrog

GreeBo wrote: »

Arent most of them using 45 or under already though?

I dont know why they wont just tackle the damn ball

45/46 appears to be the most common. I think there is a bit of future proofing going on here. If someone like Bryson could get a 48 inch driver under control he could end up hitting ridiculous distances and that is before the next 6ft 7 genetic freak comes along and grows up hitting 48 inch drivers.

I think it is a good move

thecomedian

ClutchIt wrote: »

Hi, I have ordered a simple mini launch monitor today for use with my golf net.

If I wanted to play off a handicap of about 10, what distance should I be hitting the 5 iron?

And then what 5 iron club head speed would be good to achieve this?

Thanks all.

You have a lot to answer for! 😂

Jimbee

You know having better brakes on a race car allows you to drive faster. Just like having more strength creates better stability to allowing you to swing faster.

GreeBo

Jimbee wrote: »

You know having better brakes on a race car allows you to drive faster. Just like having more strength creates better stability to allowing you to swing faster.

I think if that analogy was stretched any thinner it would be a window

chalky_ie

etxp wrote: »

I was referring to Hcap golfers but i didnt specifically say that. If a male Hcap golfer is hitting it 70 yards further than a female Hcap golfer then it will be mostly down to swing speed. Unless the females strike is way way off.

Why do they swing it faster? They are probably stronger, But i dont want to get into that discussion as this thread is starting to confuse me now.

I will say is i have had two different programs while in the gym.
1 - Strength training, this was when i was trying to lose weight and was mainly high reps drop sets, no focus on speed of movement just get the reps and sets done, increase the weight as you progress through the sessions.

2- Speed training - the focus here was on low reps explosive movements, or move them as fast as you can whatever you want to call it.

Edit - both Gym programs gave me in increase in speed, but i didn't get long enough at the speed training before the gyms closed.

High reps would not be considered 'strength' training, what you have mentioned as 'speed' training is closer to the accepted definition of strength training. High reps is for hypertrophy, generally <5 reps would be considered strength training, i.e. corresponding to maximum power production for 1 rep max or similar.

GreeBo

etxp wrote: »

I will say is i have had two different programs while in the gym.
1 - Strength training, this was when i was trying to lose weight and was mainly high reps drop sets, no focus on speed of movement just get the reps and sets done, increase the weight as you progress through the sessions.

2- Speed training - the focus here was on low reps explosive movements, or move them as fast as you can whatever you want to call it.

For the speed training, were you just doing the same exercises with less weight and more speed or were you doing specific exercises (box jumps, push up claps etc)?

DuckSlice

GreeBo wrote: »

For the speed training, were you just doing the same exercises with less weight and more speed or were you doing specific exercises (box jumps, push up claps etc)?

Ill give a rundown of one of the sessions, it involved as much mobility as it did lifting etc.

1. 4 mobility exercises, 1 set each.
2. 4 mobility exercises, 4 sets each.
3. Superset of 3 sets of:
a. Vertical Jump - maximum explosiveness - 5 reps
b. Medicine Ball Slam 5kg - maximum explosiveness - 5 reps

4. Superset of 3 sets of:
a. Eccentric squat - 5 seconds to lower , up as fast as you can. 4-6 reps
b. single leg deadbug - 10 reps each side
c. Assisted Chin up (eccentric) - 4-6 reps

5. Superset of 3 sets of:
a. Single leg hip hinge with a dowel - 8 reps each side.
b. Kneeling cable rotation 8 reps each side
c. dumbbell bench press (eccentric) 4-8 reps.


You can see a lot of emphasis on the speed of the movements. When i was doing the "strength" training or whatever its called its was just emphasis on reps and increasing the weight session by session. I think with the "speed" training even if you aren't increasing the weight, if you are still giving maximum effort then it will be beneficial but I was also increasing the weight.

I'm no expert on fitness and gym work so apologies if some terms are incorrect.

GreeBo

etxp wrote: »

c. Assisted Chin up (eccentric) - 4-6 reps

Pffft! I stopped taking you seriously as soon as I saw "assisted"

Fair play, looks like an alright golf routine with lots of hip mobility etc thrown in.
Did you do any specific stretching etc?

I found when I focussed on pure strength building that my game suffered, I lost mobility and feel, I felt stronger and more powerful (and the lifting numbers backed that up) but I couldn't get that onto the ball (frankly my arms felt like they belonged to someone else a lot of the time!)

DuckSlice

GreeBo wrote: »

Pffft! I stopped taking you seriously as soon as I saw "assisted"

Fair play, looks like an alright golf routine with lots of hip mobility etc thrown in.
Did you do any specific stretching etc?

I found when I focussed on pure strength building that my game suffered, I lost mobility and feel, I felt stronger and more powerful (and the lifting numbers backed that up) but I couldn't get that onto the ball (frankly my arms felt like they belonged to someone else a lot of the time!)

:eek::eek: haha i cant lift my own bodyweight so have to be :D

I wish the gyms would open so I could get back to it, home workouts are not for me.

No i don't do any specific stretching, the mobility work is programed around what you will be lifting or throwing that day. i dont know could you call it dynamic stretching?

When i was doing the lifting i was losing weight so i was becoming more mobile so it improved my game quite a bit.

MarcusP12

I think this book was referenced much earlier in this thread but has anyone read every shot counts by Mark broadie? I think he started all this shots gained stuff....

Am reading mind games at the moment and he came up in reference to a piece on Fankie mollanari...

I see on Amazon it’s about 28 quid which is pretty pricey for a book by any standard so it is worth a read at that price I wonder?

MarcusP12

At the risk for plunging this thread further into a $hitstorm, just a couple of thoughts.....mentioned in my post above i'm reading mind games (still no feedback on every shot counts so appreciate any opinions on that) and it went into a little detail about how Frankie M improved so much when he be brought more speed into his game....one thing i found interesting is that it pretty much took 2 years to gain an extra 10mph club head speed from i think 106 to 115 or thereabout from memory (this is based on dates his swing was recorded. It was something like 112 after about 18 months and then 115 a few months later)...

my take away from that and which supports a comment i make a long time ago, is that its damn hard to add that kind of extra swing speed and bring it to the course....remember he's a pro and has the ability to work full time time on this and with access to the best coaches in the world but it took that long...what i found interesting is that my swing speed when i'm playing regular is 104mph so not a million miles off frankie's before he put the work in to increase it so for me, a bang average golfer with severely limited time to work on my game, adding 10mph, for example, whilst keeping the ball in play (i.e. i'm sure i could wildly swing it but could literally go anyway) is a serious ask for me at least.....

Second point to raise is, i wonder should people be conscious of their shaft spec when adding significant swing speed? If you're boarder line with a certain swing speed, you could push it into a different shaft spec which could influence the accuracy of your shot? so maybe a fitting could address any perceived loss of accuracy with increased speed? Just thinking off the top of my head.....