nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Bryson DeChambeau

Matmania

Just watching highlights of his driving last week just off the charts. Put on muscle but also had increased his ball speed and using a five and a half degree driver. He was hitting on average 345 i think. Ball speed was 190 miles per hour. These numbers are unreal.

He's obviously looked at the science. He's well known for his scientific approach to the game. All clubs the same length etc. So on the driving he's looked at what limits he can hit the ball long while not effecting accuracy to much. This is a game changer. Many golfer commented on it. Even Rory was shocked by it. He looks so much bigger. Fair play to him for upping his game. He has a unique approach to the game but will golfers coming up see this and think this is the way forward. Exciting and also worrying times ahead. As if the game go's towards a 340 plus average drive it may kill the game.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

gypsy79

Mod delete
There is no freedom of speech here so please avoid the implied accusation
Thank you

downthemiddle

There’s an upside and a downside to golf getting back going ahead of most of the other TV sports. The upside, obviously enough, is the return itself. It’s a simple pleasure that has more going for it than might seem the case. We all need something to cling to. Whether that’s a nervy first lunch back at your favourite café or a night in front of the Rocket Mortgage Classic, the urge is the same. To find a little reassurance, to season the new normal with the flavours you remember enjoying in the old one.

The downside for golf is that its warts are all on show. More of its curios are magnified now that it has so little competition for eyeballs. Ordinarily, a dog-day mid-summer tournament like the Rocket Mortgage Classic would be completely lost in the mix of everything else that was going on. A non-Major at this time of the year would be strictly Vauxhall Conference. It wouldn’t be mapped.

Instead, yesterday morning, you couldn’t move for chat about Bryson DeChambeau. At least in my admittedly golfy little timeline you couldn’t. By the time you read this, he may very well have won the tournament outright but that wasn’t what the kerfuffle was about. Instead it was an incident halfway through his third round, in which he berated a cameraman for, well, being a cameraman.

On the seventh hole of a fairly mixum-gatherum front nine, DeChambeau made a hames of a bunker shot and left himself 20 feet from the hole. He had just come off a bogey on the sixth and was clearly raging with himself, belting his club into the bunker in a fit of temper. When he was finished the hole, he marched over to the masked-up cameraman at the side of the green and berated him for a full minute. Golf Channel reporter Will Gray asked him about it after his round.

“He was literally watching me the whole entire way up after getting out of the bunker, walking up next to the green,” DeChambeau whined. “And I just was like, ‘Sir, what is the need to watch me that long?’ I mean, I understand it’s his job to video me, but at the same point, I think we need to start protecting our players out here compared to showing a potential vulnerability and hurting someone’s image. I just don’t think that’s necessarily the right thing to do.”

Hmm. Okay Bryson. The notion that the literal recording of reality is a biased move against you is pretty paranoid, even by the out-there standards of the professional sportsman. Ultimately, though, it’s a small piece of nonsense that has no particular fall-out with which to be detaining ourselves. Golf Arsehole Punches Down is the Dog Bites Man of the sports world.
DeChambeau is an interesting enough in other ways, especially given his recent, eh transformation. He has always come across as a bit of a tosser. It’s just that now, he’s a massive one.

If golf isn’t your bag, consider the following scenario for someone in your own sport. Imagine an athlete doesn’t compete in public for two months, as was the case with DeChambeau between October and December of last year. Imagine that upon his return – at the President’s Cup team event in Australia – the clothes for which he’d been fitted earlier in the year are now too tight. His neck size has gone out by an inch, his chest size by two. Imagine this athlete putting on a stone and a half of muscle mass in two months and not stopping there.

Spin the tape along and imagine the pandemic hitting the following spring and giving everyone – said athlete included – three months to go away and prepare however they pleased for the resumption of their sport. Imagine that athlete then coming back with another stone and a half of muscle on him, making it somewhere in the ballpark of three stones added in nine months.

Now imagine it in a sport with a notoriously toothless anti-doping record. One whose laxness on the issue has prompted Rory McIlroy to lament that he could take human growth hormone and get away with it. One that has a policy of not even making public the occasional drug suspension that comes along.

Given all that context, imagine this athlete coming back after the pandemic and outstripping the competition in the most power-based aspect of the sport every day he goes out. DeChambeau’s driving in the four tournaments since the resumption has been cartoonishly dominant. Pick any driving stat you like, he leads it. Going into the final round yesterday, he had 10 drives of over 350 yards for the week. Nobody else in the field had more than five.

It’s at this point where the libel laws insist that it is made clear that there is no suggestion that DeChambeau has done anything untoward in gaining all this bulk. His social channels have been all over his transformation from the start, posting footage of his daily gym sessions and so on. Every second reference to him on TV broadcasts seems to mention protein shakes and a revolutionary gym routine and all that jazz. Until we hear otherwise, that must all be taken in good faith.

Doesn’t mean the question shouldn’t be asked, all the same. The transcripts of every DeChambeau tournament press conference are up online and in four weeks, there hasn’t been a single doping question put to him. Not even, ‘Have you been tested since the restart?’ This may be doing a disservice to the journalists on the ground who could very well be asking him these questions ad-hoc in the locker-room or wherever. But if they are, none of the answers have made it into print.

In any other sport, this would be a huge talking point. A player making such an enormous physical transformation away from prying eyes and parlaying it into such a dominant show of power upon his return would cause rampant suspicion. For whatever reason, golf seems completely fine with it.

That should make us far more uneasy than a tantrum at a cameraman.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/golf/tipping-point-dechambeau-s-transformation-raises-questions-but-who-will-ask-them-1.4296716?fbclid=IwAR3Sxlx1V8TBrSeY2bkIR4N6TS9Xc7eB1IXTPd70ew66-sAT_OqtkDQQyXw

Henry Ford III

Interesting character.

I admire the fact that he's changed things in pursuit of an improvement in his game. I don't understand how all his irons are the same length (wouldn't that mean they all hit it the same distance only higher or lower?).

You'd wonder how will his body cope with the amount of torque and power going through it. His power is impressive and his accuracy even more so considering the speeds being generated.

I just wonder is he a bit dim tbh - similar to Bubba Watson.

PokeHerKing

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Interesting character.

I admire the fact that he's changed things in pursuit of an improvement in his game. I don't understand how all his irons are the same length (wouldn't that mean they all hit it the same distance only higher or lower?).

You'd wonder how will his body cope with the amount of torque and power going through it. His power is impressive and his accuracy even more so considering the speeds being generated.

I just wonder is he a bit dim tbh - similar to Bubba Watson.

You can't figure out why his irons don't go the same distance and you're calling him dim:pac:

gypsy79

gypsy79 wrote: »

Mod delete
There is no freedom of speech here so please avoid the implied accusation
Thank you

Apologies. But I was just pointing out that there previously was a thread about drugs in golf. I actually didn’t name him in that thread. But others here have directly questioned him

I am confused

Linking on a BDC thread directly to a Drugs thread has an implied meaning so I deleted it.
I have not noticed others directly accusing drugs use but I'm human so feel free to report such post.
Thanks

Golf is my Game

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I don't understand how all his irons are the same length (wouldn't that mean they all hit it the same distance only higher or lower?).

No. Becuase the length the ball will travel is set by two characters of the club, the loft on the face and the length of it. So normally to go longer like 15 yards for normal lads between two clubs the balance is half and half. So you could get the 15 yard by slope alone or by the length alone. But its been found that the best compromise is to do it with a bit of each. For someone of Bryson level it doesnt make any difference so while the change of slope does it all for him and he keeps the length the same, he get away with that when for most lads it would make hitting the shorter irons more difficult and there difficult enough as it is. But low slope on a club isnt a prblem for the top golfers beacuse they have so much club head speed even with the shorter shaft.
He goes with it on the idea that it keeps the swing the same. But that all in his head. Its neither a benefit nor a disavantage for him. I think your right in that hes not the smartest, but goes with this half baked idea that theres science behind his thinking. Theres not. But its also part of his image and marketing like Payne Stewart and the knickers.

bren2001

Golf is my Game wrote: »

No. Becuase the length the ball will travel is set by two characters of the club, the loft on the face and the length of it.

That's incorrect. The length of the club has no direct impact on the distance a ball will travel. Assuming a square and perfect strike, the most important factors would be loft, clubhead speed, and to a smaller degree weight. The length of the club can have an effect on clubhead speed but it has an indirect effect on distance traveled as with varying shaft length, a persons swing may change.

Nor does Bryson let the loft do all the work. He uses the clock system to control speed at impact.

He goes with it on the idea that it keeps the swing the same. But that all in his head. Its neither a benefit nor a disavantage for him.

It's actually not all in his head. By using the same length clubs for all his irons, the biomechanics of his swing is the same for each iron. This, in effect, reduces the number of variables in his swing meaning he is less likely to introduce some form of error into his swing. When an error is introduced, it is easier to identify and fix for all irons. It is science and it's all contained in biomechanics.

I am yet to hear a coherent argument against his approach with the exception of clubhead speed. He reduces the number of degrees of freedom in his swing but I don't see a negative side to that at all.

I think your right in that hes not the smartest, but goes with this half baked idea that theres science behind his thinking.

I don't know how anyone can determine if he is smart or not. Certainly all the science he discusses in interviews has always appeared correct to me. In fact, all of it is rather basic. He doesn't discuss anything beyond our LC in physics or a first year university physics/mechanics module. There is plenty of science behind his thinking and all of it appears correct.

I don't like the guy but what he is trying makes engineering or scientific sense in theory.

First Up

bren2001 wrote: »

I don't like the guy but what he is trying makes engineering or scientific sense in theory.

I don't like him either but no question he has advanced the thinking on the mechanics of golf and his own increased length shows he is on to something.

But I wouldn't start worrying about changing golf courses or limiting clubs or ball performance just yet. Let's see how long and how well he can maintain the physical demands he has put on himself. He looks like a weightlifter/long drive contestant now; I don't think that is the ideal physique for a long golfing career.

Golf is my Game

First Up wrote: »

I don't like him either but no question he has advanced the thinking on the mechanics of golf and his own increased length shows he is on to something.

Different to no question, not only is there a question, there is no evidence he has advanced the thinking on golf mechanics. His lengthening himself in the last 6 months is very impressive. But that's now mechanics. That's just muscle. He has realised that there is now a fundamental falw in golf to exploit by long hitting on courses that was never made with that in mind so fair play to the lad on that and also for building himself to take advantage of it but he hasn't changed or added anything to the understanding of the golf swing nor is anything he's doing on that part of why he's doing so well. Just because he's playing with single length irons (and theirs some think like all of his clubs are same length which they re not at all so it's not as if he isn't changing his swing at all with different clubs like) doesn't mean hes doing something better. Just that he's doing something different. But then so do did Jim Furik, John Daly and so on and so forth.

bren2001

Golf is my Game wrote: »

but he hasn't changed or added anything to the understanding of the golf swing nor is anything he's doing on that part of why he's doing so well.

Golf is my Game wrote: »

it's getting the results. and it had implications for the whole game truly for those who care about it

Which is it?

Golf is my Game

bren2001 wrote: »

Which is it?

Its both.

He is adding nothing to the understanding of the golf swing. Which is your first quote of me previous one. He is just playing different spec clubs. There is no proven cause and effect between what he is doing with his clubs and his Bryson-the-physics-guy image, and his good golf. Tigers played better. With differently lengthed clubs. So what.

And also, 'it', which refers to putting on mussle, is getting results. That stronger hits further is no breakthrough in golf swing understanding.

Golf is my Game

bren2001 wrote: »

That's incorrect. The length of the club has no direct impact on the distance a ball will travel. Assuming a square and perfect strike, the most important factors would be loft, clubhead speed, and to a smaller degree weight. The length of the club can have an effect on clubhead speed but it has an indirect effect on distance traveled as with varying shaft length, a persons swing may change.

No its correct. Read the likes of your man Wishon who while he has a lot to answer for a lot of the nonsense behind the hole clubfitting thing has in fairness done a lot of testing and has lots of numbers on this. What your saying isnt even correct physics their in fairness. Your right about clubheads speed but that is influenced by shaft length. So it doesnt matter whether its direct or indirect because the ball doesnt care, so it has an effect. To get useful gaps with his 7 iron length club for the rest of them Bryson has the lofts spread out more and differntly because if he didnt there would be too small a spread in his 4 iron to wedge distance. The traditional gap was 3degrees for the lower irons stretching a little as you rise to 4 to5 degrees as the last gaps. Bryson has 5 degree gaps between 4 5 and 6 iron. And different to most then the gaps get smaller than normal clubs as you go above 7 iron and he only has 4 degree gaps between the 8 9 and wedge. Thats because the shorter than normal shaft shortens the length he would hit a normal loft 4 iron and lengthens the distance of his wedge. Because length on its own makes a difference. So he compensates with the non standard lofts. You here the commentators talk about this at times and Ive seen it in the golf magazines.

bren2001

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Its both.

He is adding nothing to the understanding of the golf swing. Which is your first quote of me previous one. He is just playing different spec clubs. There is no proven cause and effect between what he is doing with his clubs and his Bryson-the-physics-guy image, and his good golf. Tigers played better. With differently lengthed clubs. So what.

And also, 'it', which refers to putting on mussle, is getting results. That stronger hits further is no breakthrough in golf swing understanding.

Firstly, if it's not a breakthrough or advancement in golf yet it has "implications for the whole game"? What are the implications as "stronger hits further is no breakthrough".

Secondly, if it's a case of strength only, how did Bryson get so strong in such a short space of time relative to the field i.e. Koepka? Why can Koepka not hit the ball as far if not further than Bryson? Is he not as strong? Loads of other golfers have put on muscle, how come Bryson hits it further than everyone?

What cause and effect would you like to see? He's statistically very good in nearly every category. His stats are proof that his methods work.

Golf is my Game wrote: »

No its correct. Read the likes of your man Wishon who while he has a lot to answer for a lot of the nonsense behind the hole clubfitting thing has in fairness done a lot of testing and has lots of numbers on this. What your saying isnt even correct physics their in fairness. Your right about clubheads speed but that is influenced by shaft length. So it doesnt matter whether its direct or indirect because the ball doesnt care, so it has an effect. To get useful gaps with his 7 iron length club for the rest of them Bryson has the lofts spread out more and differntly because if he didnt there would be too small a spread in his 4 iron to wedge distance. The traditional gap was 3degrees for the lower irons stretching a little as you rise to 4 to5 degrees as the last gaps. Bryson has 5 degree gaps between 4 5 and 6 iron. And different to most then the gaps get smaller than normal clubs as you go above 7 iron and he only has 4 degree gaps between the 8 9 and wedge. Thats because the shorter than normal shaft shortens the length he would hit a normal loft 4 iron and lengthens the distance of his wedge. Because length on its own makes a difference. So he compensates with the non standard lofts. You here the commentators talk about this at times and Ive seen it in the golf magazines.

Can you point out exactly where I'm incorrect in my understanding of physics. What I'm saying influences distance assuming a perfect strike is speed, loft, and weight. Which one of those is incorrect?

You specifically stated that distance is "set by two characters of the club, the loft on the face and the length of it". That specific statement is wrong. When you make a statement like that, whether it is a direct or indirect makes a difference. Distance is not determined by the length of shaft. Length is a factor determining clubhead speed but there are other variables that influence the clubhead speed.

You keep stating that there is no science behind Brysons methods yet you have shown a complete and utter lack of knowledge of basic physics.

Golf is my Game

bren2001 wrote: »

Can you point out exactly where I'm incorrect in my understanding of physics. What I'm saying influences distance assuming a perfect strike is speed, loft, and weight. Which one of those is incorrect?

Weight, is incorrect. Speed and loft are all that matters.

Weight can influence speed. Shaft length influence speed. Muscle influence speed. Loft is independent of those. And So your mixing things of different order. The first three factor into speed and arent of the same order as speed and loft. It all comes down to speed and loft. (and cor but thats a fixed data in this discussion)

Golf is my Game

bren2001 wrote: »

You specifically stated that distance is "set by two characters of the club, the loft on the face and the length of it". That specific statement is wrong. When you make a statement like that, whether it is a direct or indirect makes a difference. Distance is not determined by the length of shaft. Length is a factor determining clubhead speed but there are other variables that influence the clubhead speed.

Sure there are other variable, but the all influence speed. So once thats the case then it, and loft, are the only things that matter for the length the ball will fly.

Golf is my Game

bren2001 wrote: »

Firstly, if it's not a breakthrough or advancement in golf yet it has "implications for the whole game"? What are the implications as "stronger hits further is no breakthrough".

Secondly, if it's a case of strength only, how did Bryson get so strong in such a short space of time relative to the field i.e. Koepka? Why can Koepka not hit the ball as far if not further than Bryson? Is he not as strong? Loads of other golfers have put on muscle, how come Bryson hits it further than everyone?

Firstly, muscle is the thing that has influence for the whole game. Not Brysons scientific schtick and same length clubs which is just external visual thing and doesnt make a difference one way or the other. Hed be just as good golfer with a regular set and all. So its the driver particularly and the ball that have opened the door to out and out muscle becoming a far more dominant influence on golfing success than they were in the past, particularly on courses that were not designed to defend against 370 yard drives. Not only are not defined to defent that, their defences they do have are actually taking out of play so the long lad is getting compounded returns is his one thing which is length, much more than was the case in the passed. Smaller, older woods kept this in check with a nice balance of reward between precision and power. Now power is running free in the field with control left in the shed.

Secondly, he put on loads of muscle in the last 6 months. No mystery how to do that. And Im not talking about PEDS here, its not complication for an obviously athletic guy like him with the right coach and willing to pump the iron to put on muscle. Thats not even a golf thing. Thats just modern sport and gym training.

bren2001

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Weight, is incorrect. Speed and loft are all that matters.

Weight can influence speed. Shaft length influence speed. Muscle influence speed. Loft is independent of those. And So your mixing things of different order. The first three factor into speed and arent of the same order as speed and loft. It all comes down to speed and loft. (and cor but thats a fixed data in this discussion)

Weight can influence speed. Exactly. So increasing the shaft length also increases the weight which may slowdown a swing. Hence, the link between shaft length and speed is not direct but indirect. That's why that distinction is important. Thank you.

However, you've completely missed the point on weight. I'm saying weight directly impacts the ball speed.

F = ma and the formula for momentum is m1u1 + m2u2 = m1v1 + m2v2 where m1 and m2 are the mass of the golf ball and (club+golfer*), u1,2 is the speed of the golf ball and clubhead before impact and v1,2 after impact.

Hence, weight and speed combined decide the initial ball speed after impact along with other factors which are of decreasing importance. Again, I'm assuming a square perfect strike. The loft decides the launch angle. These are what determine distance (obviously friction, gravity etc. have to be taken into account).

Can you please explain exactly why the above is incorrect? I never stated an order and specifically stated earlier that weight was to a smaller degree.

Can you also explain how all of those things mentioned are a factor but "it all comes down to speed and loft.". I'll say it again, your understanding of basic physics is flawed.

*the golfer is connected to the club and clubhead. I'm not saying the full weight of the golfer has to be taken into account but it would be a factor. I am unsure to the extent but I doubt it is negligible.

Golf is my Game

bren2001 wrote: »

Weight can influence speed. Exactly. So increasing the shaft length also increases the weight which may slowdown a swing. Hence, the link between shaft length and speed is not direct but indirect. That's why that distinction is important. Thank you.

However, you've completely missed the point on weight. I'm saying weight directly impacts the ball speed.

F = ma and the formula for momentum is m1u1 + m2u2 = m1v1 + m2v2 where m1 and m2 are the mass of the golf ball and (club+golfer*), u1,2 is the speed of the golf ball and clubhead before impact and v1,2 after impact.

Hence, weight and speed combined decide the initial ball speed after impact along with other factors which are of decreasing importance. Again, I'm assuming a square perfect strike. The loft decides the launch angle. These are what determine distance (obviously friction, gravity etc. have to be taken into account).

Can you please explain exactly why the above is incorrect? I never stated an order and specifically stated earlier that weight was to a smaller degree.

Can you also explain how all of those things mentioned are a factor but "it all comes down to speed and loft.". I'll say it again, your understanding of basic physics is flawed.

*the golfer is connected to the club and clubhead. I'm not saying the full weight of the golfer has to be taken into account but it would be a factor. I am unsure to the extent but I doubt it is negligible.

Im talking about club weight. Are you talking about golfer weight ?

bren2001

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Im talking about club weight. Are you talking about golfer weight ?

Both combined. However, I am unsure on how much the weight of a golfer has on the ball speed. It may be negligible but I don't think it is.

Golf is my Game

bren2001 wrote: »

Both combined. However, I am unsure on how much the weight of a golfer has on the ball speed. It may be negligible but I don't think it is.

None at all at all I think.

I quote from one book I have on it, The Scientific Truth of the Golf Swing, so OK it may be wrong but it does have written in the chapter Club Meets Ball :

Clubhead Mass
Studies of the initial velocity of the ball versus clubhead mass show that the mass of the clubhead is of minor importance compared to the speed at which the club is travelling at impact. In other words swinging a very heavy club doesnt produce a longer shot. Therefore the trend is to make clubs very light using high tech materials like carbon fibre and titanium giving even untrained amateurs the best chance of obtaining high clubhead speed.

So OK weight matters but only in that it influence speed and not that the weight matters in itself.

bren2001

Golf is my Game wrote: »

None at all at all I think.

I quote from one book I have on it, The Scientific Truth of the Golf Swing, so OK it may be wrong but it does have written in the chapter Club Meets Ball :

Clubhead Mass
Studies of the initial velocity of the ball versus clubhead mass show that the mass of the clubhead is of minor importance compared to the speed at which the club is travelling at impact. In other words swinging a very heavy club doesnt produce a longer shot. Therefore the trend is to make clubs very light using high tech materials like carbon fibre and titanium giving even untrained amateurs the best chance of obtaining high clubhead speed.

So OK weight matters but only in that it influence speed and not that the weight matters in itself.

Well none is again incorrect. Negligible is possible.

Weight matters in terms of ball speed directly. I provided the law of conservation of momentum above.

That explanation and study didn't investigate the weight of the golfer so doesn't contractdict what I've said in the slighist.

Again, you've stated that all of Brysons changes are in his head. I'm just making the point that there is science behind his appraoch. It's quite simple but it is scientific. That was the original point. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of the basic laws of physics.

Mantis Toboggan

https://twitter.com/BKoepka/status/1280576856601833472?s=09

Has this been mentioned here?
Is this Brooks having a go at Bryson?
Pretty big accusation if so!

GreeBo

bren2001 wrote: »

Well none is again incorrect. Negligible is possible.

Weight matters in terms of ball speed directly. I provided the law of conservation of momentum above.

That explanation and study didn't investigate the weight of the golfer so doesn't contractdict what I've said in the slighist.

Again, you've stated that all of Brysons changes are in his head. I'm just making the point that there is science behind his appraoch. It's quite simple but it is scientific. That was the original point. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of the basic laws of physics.

Unless there is a direct, fixed connection between the body and the club, then the weight of the body is irrelevant.
How the golfers weight may/will impact their *ability* to generate speed, but thats a different argument.
A club swinging at 100mph will have the same impact on the ball irrespective of the person swinging the club being 60kg or 160kg or an inanimate object.

First Up

GreeBo wrote:

Unless there is a direct, fixed connection between the body and the club, then the weight of the body is irrelevant. How the golfers weight may/will impact their *ability* to generate speed, but thats a different argument. A club swinging at 100mph will have the same impact on the ball irrespective of the person swinging the club being 60kg or 160kg or an inanimate object.

It isn't the weight that matters, it's what the weight is comprised of. DeChambeau isn't putting on weight, he is building muscle to increase power.

It seems to work.

bren2001

GreeBo wrote: »

Unless there is a direct, fixed connection between the body and the club, then the weight of the body is irrelevant.
How the golfers weight may/will impact their *ability* to generate speed, but thats a different argument.
A club swinging at 100mph will have the same impact on the ball irrespective of the person swinging the club being 60kg or 160kg or an inanimate object.

Your hands are the direct fixed connection. The body and club are one interconnected mass at the point of impact. Unless a golfer throws the club and releases it from their hands at the point of impact, a golfers weight does matter.

The bit in bold is incorrect, otherwise, can you explain how the law of conservation of momentum holds true with your statement?

It may be the case that the weight of the golfer is relatively negligible. I'm not stating that a 10% increase in body-weight leads to a 10% increase in distance or anything of the sort. I'm merely saying it's a factor.

First Up

[quote=bren2001I'm not stating that a 10% increase in body-weight leads to a 10% increase in distance or anything of the sort. I'm merely saying it's a factor.[/quote]

Only if added weight translates into added power (ie added muscle.) Fat golfers don't usually do well.

Distance is the result of clubhead speed, which is achieved through technique and power. I'm guessing DeChambeau is satisfied with his technique and has added muscle to increase power.

Not weight - muscle.

bren2001

First Up wrote: »

Only if added weight translates into added power (ie added muscle.) Fat golfers don't usually do well.

Distance is the result of clubhead speed, which is achieved through technique and power. I'm guessing DeChambeau is satisfied with his technique and has added muscle to increase power.

Not weight - muscle.

The point has kinda spiraled into something else. The original comment was in response to someone saying the only two factors determining distance is loft and club length which is incorrect. I added in weight here.

From a mechanics and dynamical theory perspective, the golf club and golfer are connected and would be considered one mass. The entire weight of the golfer would not contribute to the mass at impact. Hence, the weight of the player has to be taken into account in determining the the ball speed. Now, to what extent, is questionable.

Yeah, fat players typically won't perform well but if they had the exact same swing as a much lighter golfer. I would expect the fat golfer to hit it further. Obviously, the additional weight changes your swing, your flexibility and your clubhead speed etc.

GreeBo

bren2001 wrote: »

Your hands are the direct fixed connection. The body and club are one interconnected mass at the point of impact. Unless a golfer throws the club and releases it from their hands at the point of impact, a golfers weight does matter.

The bit in bold is incorrect, otherwise, can you explain how the law of conservation of momentum holds true with your statement?

It may be the case that the weight of the golfer is relatively negligible. I'm not stating that a 10% increase in body-weight leads to a 10% increase in distance or anything of the sort. I'm merely saying it's a factor.

Your hands are no more a fixed connection than a rope would be, the club has no idea what mass is being used to swing it.

Put it this way, if they add 50KG of dumbbells to Iron Byron would the ball suddenly go further? How about 250KG?, 2500KG?

Conservation of momentum doesn't really come into it, the golfers weight is a force into the ground (gravity)
All the other forces are applied to your arms, the club and ultimately the ball. Conservation of momentum is about collisions, what is your body colliding with?

By your logic me wearing heavier shoes will make the ball go further...do you really think it will?

GreeBo

bren2001 wrote: »

From a mechanics and dynamical theory perspective, the golf club and golfer are connected and would be considered one mass.
The entire weight of the golfer would not contribute to the mass at impact. Hence, the weight of the player has to be taken into account in determining the the ball speed. Now, to what extent, is questionable.

The two bold sentences would seem to contradict each other?
If the weight of the golfer doesnt contribute to the mass at impact, why is it take into account? The player doesnt hit the ball, the clubhead does.

You've no doubt seen trick shots where the shaft of the club is a rubber hose...how is the golfers weight or mass being transferred to the ball in that scenario?

bren2001

GreeBo wrote: »

Your hands are no more a fixed connection than a rope would be, the club has no idea what mass is being used to swing it.

Put it this way, if they add 50KG of dumbbells to Iron Byron would the ball suddenly go further? How about 250KG?, 2500KG?

Conservation of momentum doesn't really come into it, the golfers weight is a force into the ground (gravity)
All the other forces are applied to your arms, the club and ultimately the ball. Conservation of momentum is about collisions, what is your body colliding with?

By your logic me wearing heavier shoes will make the ball go further...do you really think it will?

"The club has no idea what mass is being used to swing it" - what does that even mean? The clubs an inanimate object. It's not about what the club knows, its about really basic maths. The club and the body are one system, they are connected at the hands. Regardless of how much you dispute it, it is still a fixed connection (whatever the word "fixed" means in this context). In any collision mass is important. Your body moves through impact, hence, your weight has an effect. If your body was still, it would be different.

Conservation of momentum doesn't come into a dynamical system where two bodies collide. Right. Care to explain that one? That's actually the formula you would use to calculate initial ball speed. How else would you calculate it? What else would you use? F=ma? Funny enough, mass is in there and the conservation of momentum is just an expansion of that.

Care to draw a free body diagram and outline how that's the case? You feel the impact and your body is what keeps the club on line. The club pushes back against your hand as the ball is struck. Your body, not just your hands, resists this and pushes against the club and the ball. Hence, your weight has to be taken into account. If you generate 90 mph clubhead speed but your body stays perfectly still while your arms move, you won't hit the ball as far as someone who generates 90 mph clubhead speed but turns through the shot. Why? The golfers weight.

If you added 250kg to yourself and, in the exact same manner, then yeah, the ball goes further. If you add it to your feet, then yes, in theory the ball will go further. However, adding weight above your centre of gravity will have a larger effect.