Bryson DeChambeau

First Up · 12-07-2020 08:41AM

Golf is my Game wrote:

Yes. There are the primary factors, of which speed is one. The others are loft, clubface cor, and the dynamic of the clubhead while in contact with the ball.

Fair enough. Now if two players swing the same club in the same way and the same speed, does the golfer's weight matter?

Golf is my Game wrote:

Then the secondary factors which is what the poster is referring too which are the things that affect clubhead speed and dynamic. These are club length, muscle, muscle speed, technique and timing which influence the effectiveness of turning muscle energy into clubhead speed, and its variation during impact. He right enough strictly in that weight if its muscle can make a club head go faster, but not in that mass which is the proper scientific term for weight from what Ive read, as hes using it here in itself contributes to hitting the ball further if its just a beer gut.

Of course there are factors influencing clubhead speed. That isn't in dispute. The question is about golfers of different weights hitting a ball at the same speed.

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 10:31AM

First Up wrote: »

Have you any data that shows that any variable other than clubhead speed is a factor in how far a golf ball travels?

I don't but it's easily found online.

At any stage have I denied that clubhead speed is an important factor in determining the distance a ball goes? No. I've explicitly stated it's an extremely important factor.

I don't know what your point is here. All I'm saying is the weight of a golfer is a factor. The peer-reviewed journal paper linked above shows its true for baseball. The other peer-reviewed journal paper above shows that the angular momentum of the club-body system is positive along the z-axis of the swing plane at the moment of impact (both the angular momentum of the club and the body). As the law of conservation of momentum must be preserved through impact and the mass of the golfer is in the equation, the mass of the golfer has an effect on the momentum of the ball after impact. Hence, on it's speed.

Golf is my Game · 12-07-2020 11:17AM

First Up wrote: »

Fair enough. Now if two players swing the same club in the same way and the same speed, does the golfer's weight matter?

Not a bit of it.

First Up wrote: »

Of course there are factors influencing clubhead speed. That isn't in dispute. The question is about golfers of different weights hitting a ball at the same speed.

Fair play yeh, I was just answering you question of whether there was any other factors apart from speed as if you was questioning that there was nothing only speed. But agree with you.

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 11:24AM

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Not a bit of it.

Fair play yeh, I was just answering you question of whether there was any other factors apart from speed as if you was questioning that there was nothing only speed. But agree with you.

How are you explaining that the angular momentum in the paper above is shown to be positive along the z-axis of the swing plane? Why would the kinetic energy be zero? If angular momentum is positive, kinetic energy is positive. That's if you want to use the law of conservation of energy. This directly contradicts what you wrote earlier.

GreeBo · 12-07-2020 01:30PM

bren2001 wrote: »

In theory means theres a mathematical basis behind it. Are you saying the Penn State researchers mathematics is incorrect? If so, can you please point out where in the mathematics they have made a flaw in their assumptions? Why didn't the peer-review process pick this up? The purpose of peer-review is to ensure scientific integrity.

It is harder for a bigger guy to generate the power. I have not refuted this and been clear that the only variable I am considering is weight. All other variables are the same when comparing the two hypothetical golfers. In this case, the bigger guy will hit it further. The above research for a baseball confirms this: "in theory, if a bigger guy is just as fast or strong as another guy, he should be able to hit the ball further".

Can you please explain what passive means? The body of a golfer resists the golf ball. The golf ball "consumes" some of the kinetic energy. A baseball will just consume more as it's heavier and moving with a negative velocity. Both are actively resisting.

If in theory is not sufficient, then I don't believe you are willing to admit you are wrong.

Please also see Figure 2 of the following paper:
"Changes in angular momentum during the golf swing and their association with club head speed" by Yoka Izumoto, Toshiyuki Kurihara, Takahiko Sato, Sumiaki Maeo, Takashi Sugiyama, Hiroaki Kanehisa & Tadao Isaka.

They consider the body-club as one system and show the angular momentum of the club and body. The angular moment of the body is positive along the z-axis of the swing plane which clearly shows that the body has an impact on distance. If the angular momentum had no impact, then it's momentum is zero or would not be taken into account in the body-club system.

So far I have tried to demonstrate my point through:
The law of conservation of momentum.
Statics theory.
The law of conservation of energy.
A peer-reviewed paper relating to baseball.
A peer-reviewed paper relating to angular momentum in a golf swing.

Aside from the last, you have claimed none of the above are relevant yet have provided no mathematical reasoning as to why the mass of the golfer is not relevant. You have said that "in-theory" is not sufficient and not a fact, even though there is mathematical reasoning to back up this point. You have provided zero mathematical evidence to back up your position. Nor have you demonstrated that you have sufficient training or understanding of the laws of kinematics or those mentioned above to say how I am wrong or why I am wrong.

Based on the above, I believe you are either refusing to listen to another point of view or refuse to admit you are incorrect in your statement.

If it's so blindingly obvious that you are right, it should be trivial to find some research that explicitly backs you up... Right?

I can find hundreds of papers on the physics of golf, they all talk about the mass and speed of the clubhead. No one mentions the mass of the player. Your own baseball paper days that in theory a heavier player should be able to generate more power, and then goes on to point out how this doesn't happen due to momentum of the player themselves.

You keep posting points that while scientific in themselves, don't corroborate your theory with regards to golf.

Where are all the papers that have determined the ideal mass of a golfer or at a minimum define the impact the golfers mass has? Where are the tests using robotic swings that prove adding mass to the machine changes the result?

Basically, why are you the only one talking about this in a sport that gets minutely analysed repeatedly?
The reason papers include the mass of the player is because it's clearly relevant to the speed of their swing, but we have agreed multiple times that the surf is the same, hence it's irrelevant at this point.

I also note that you now believe it's not negligible and is instead very significant? Surely if this is true all professional golfers would be strapping on the weight belt before every shot?

Passive hands:
https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-a-golf-swing.html

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 01:52PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If it's so blindingly obvious that you are right, it should be trivial to find some research that explicitly backs you up... Right?

I can find hundreds of papers on the physics of golf, they all talk about the mass and speed of the clubhead. No one mentions the mass of the player. Your own baseball paper days that in theory a heavier player should be able to generate more power, and then goes on to point out how this doesn't happen due to momentum of the player themselves.

You keep posting points that while scientific in themselves, don't corroborate your theory with regards to golf.

Where are all the papers that have determined the ideal mass of a golfer or at a minimum define the impact the golfers mass has? Where are the tests using robotic swings that prove adding mass to the machine changes the result?

Basically, why are you the only one talking about this in a sport that gets minutely analysed repeatedly?
The reason papers include the mass of the player is because it's clearly relevant to the speed of their swing, but we have agreed multiple times that the surf is the same, hence it's irrelevant at this point.

I also note that you now believe it's not negligible and is instead very significant? Surely if this is true all professional golfers would be strapping on the weight belt before every shot?

Passive hands:
https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-a-golf-swing.html

Why am I the only one saying it? Because a golfer increasing their mass and maintaining their swing is quite difficult. A golfer increasing their mass by a few kg's will have a negligible effect. You cannot vary your weight substantially on a course. A weight belt would change your swing. The easiest variable to control is clubhead speed and loft. They are also the variables with the most significant impact. Hence, they are heavily researched.

Hence, researching the effect of the mass of the player is not worth researching. It's effect can be shown mathematically. As it has been done for baseball in the paper linked. The second paper shows how you would do it for golf. Adding to the fact that the additional weight would change your swing. The gains through weight are theoretically possible but not practical to implement.

However, if you removed all of the mass of a golfer. It would have a significant factor on how far their hit it i.e. 80kg to 0 kg. I think you would notice that in distances. It's why I think weight does have a significant impact but realistic increases in mass are negligible. The significant angular momentum along the z-axis of the swing path in the second paper I link demonstrates that it is not negligible. I've stated several times, I don't think it's negligible but if someone accepts weight does have an effect but its negligible, I wouldn't argue over semantics.

It's really quite simple, if a ball is suspended in mid air and a child and an adult run into it at the same speed. The ball will move through the air and land a certain distance. The adult will move the ball further because they have more momentum as they weigh more.

If you put a club in their hand and they hold it out in front of them. The club hits the ball. The adult will move it further because they have more momentum. Assuming same speed etc.

If you put a club in their hand, they hold it out in front of them and they thrust the club forward both at the same speed. The adult will move it further as they still have more momentum.The faster they move the club, the further the ball goes. The additional distance the adult gets will remain around the same but the further the ball goes, the less you would care (why it's not researched).

Why would that change due to rotation? If the body has angular momentum along the path, it will transfer to the ball and the heavier player will hit it further.

Is your argument now, since it hasn't been researched it must not be true? There may very well be a paper, I didn't look very hard. You wouldn't accept it anyway as it would be "in theory" and not a "fact" (even though kinematics is well studied, well proven, and ancient).

GreeBo · 12-07-2020 03:09PM

bren2001 wrote: »

Why am I the only one saying it? Because a golfer increasing their mass and maintaining their swing is quite difficult. A golfer increasing their mass by a few kg's will have a negligible effect. You cannot vary your weight substantially on a course. A weight belt would change your swing. The easiest variable to control is clubhead speed and loft. They are also the variables with the most significant impact. Hence, they are heavily researched.

Hence, researching the effect of the mass of the player is not worth researching. It's effect can be shown mathematically. As it has been done for baseball in the paper linked. The second paper shows how you would do it for golf. Adding to the fact that the additional weight would change your swing. The gains through weight are theoretically possible but not practical to implement.

However, if you removed all of the mass of a golfer. It would have a significant factor on how far their hit it i.e. 80kg to 0 kg. I think you would notice that in distances. It's why I think weight does have a significant impact but realistic increases in mass are negligible. The significant angular momentum along the z-axis of the swing path in the second paper I link demonstrates that it is not negligible. I've stated several times, I don't think it's negligible but if someone accepts weight does have an effect but its negligible, I wouldn't argue over semantics.

It's really quite simple, if a ball is suspended in mid air and a child and an adult run into it at the same speed. The ball will move through the air and land a certain distance. The adult will move the ball further because they have more momentum as they weigh more.

If you put a club in their hand and they hold it out in front of them. The club hits the ball. The adult will move it further because they have more momentum. Assuming same speed etc.

If you put a club in their hand, they hold it out in front of them and they thrust the club forward both at the same speed. The adult will move it further as they still have more momentum.The faster they move the club, the further the ball goes. The additional distance the adult gets will remain around the same but the further the ball goes, the less you would care (why it's not researched).

Why would that change due to rotation? If the body has angular momentum along the path, it will transfer to the ball and the heavier player will hit it further.

Is your argument now, since it hasn't been researched it must not be true? There may very well be a paper, I didn't look very hard. You wouldn't accept it anyway as it would be "in theory" and not a "fact" (even though kinematics is well studied, well proven, and ancient).

If you dropped a golfers weight to 0kg then they wouldn't be able to generate the speed to begin with, but that's s totally different argument.

So you think it's very significant, but just no golfer has ever find it and no one had ever researched it?

It's far easier to add mass then add speed for a golfer btw. I'd called cakes.
Adding speed will also impact your swing, but yet golfers do it all the time as distance is key, yet you have a simple way to add very significant distance and no one is doing it...I think that kinda speaks for itself really.

dennyire · 12-07-2020 04:08PM

Ah Jaysus lads can we not enjoy a game of golf without bringing Bryson / Science/Physics into it. I think this topic has been done to death. Just enjoy the games.take lessons...eenjoy the freedom and fresh air...golf is a hobby...enjoy

First Up · 12-07-2020 04:52PM

dennyire wrote:

Ah Jaysus lads can we not enjoy a game of golf without bringing Bryson / Science/Physics into it. I think this topic has been done to death. Just enjoy the games.take lessons...eenjoy the freedom and fresh air...golf is a hobby...enjoy

Lessons in how to swing faster don't include advice to put on weight.

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 04:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If you dropped a golfers weight to 0kg then they wouldn't be able to generate the speed to begin with, but that's s totally different argument.

So you think it's very significant, but just no golfer has ever find it and no one had ever researched it?

It's far easier to add mass then add speed for a golfer btw. I'd called cakes.
Adding speed will also impact your swing, but yet golfers do it all the time as distance is key, yet you have a simple way to add very significant distance and no one is doing it...I think that kinda speaks for itself really.

If you dropped the golfers weight to 0kg, then they wouldn't exist. It's purely hypothetical.

Yeah, I've explained why I think it's significant. I think adding realistic mass adds negligible distance. The baseball paper explains why adding mass is a bad idea in baseball. The same holds true for golf.

I don't know if someone hasn't researched it. I have not done a literature survey and scrapped all databases. Do you have evidence to show it has never been researched? If someone were to research it, the maths would show why adding realistic mass is negligible but your overall mass is not. Mass being a factor being my only point.

Can you explain why the adult child example I proposed above applied when they run through the ball but not when they rotate through it. The law of conservation of momentum or energy applies in both cases.

It's clear we're just not going to agree. I'm confident I'm correct and have a variety of different mathematical theories to back up my view along with relevant peer-reviewed papers. Along with the training and expertise to correctly apply them. You have your own reasons for thinking your correct.

First Up · 12-07-2020 05:42PM

bren2001 wrote:

It's clear we're just not going to agree. I'm confident I'm correct and have a variety of different mathematical theories to back up my view along with relevant peer-reviewed papers. Along with the training and expertise to correctly apply them. You have your own reasons for thinking your correct.

There is quite a lot of analysis available. Take a look at swingmangolf.com for example.

Exhaustive studies based on Trackman data on the swing speeds and distance achieved by male and female amateurs, LPGA and PGA tour pro's and long drive contestants. And guess what? The weight of the golfers is not mentioned. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

A driver hitting a ball at 100mph will make it travel approximately 260 yards. At 120mph it will travel approximately 314 yards. The only variable is loft. It doesn't matter who is hitting it.

Of course many factors contribute to clubhead speed, including muscular strength. But that only matters if it translates into clubhead speed.

DeChambeau isn't putting on weight. He is adding muscle to increase clubhead speed.

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 05:57PM

First Up wrote: »

There is quite a lot of analysis available. Take a look at swingmangolf.com for example.

Exhaustive studies based on Trackman data on the swing speeds and distance achieved by male and female amateurs, LPGA and PGA tour pro's and long drive contestants. And guess what? The weight of the golfers is not mentioned. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

A driver hitting a ball at 100mph will make it travel approximately 260 yards. At 120mph it will travel approximately 314 yards. The only variable is loft. It doesn't matter who is hitting it.

Of course many factors contribute to clubhead speed, including muscular strength. But that only matters if it translates into clubhead speed.

DeChambeau isn't putting on weight. He is adding muscle to increase clubhead speed.

Cool, we disagree.

The analysis isn't available if they don't actually consider weight. Show me where someone explicitly states the weight of a golfer doesn't matter and has mathematics or data to back up the point. You can't.

You think the weight of the golfer isn't mentioned because it's not relevant. In these exhaustive studies, can you point out where that's explicitly stated? No, you can't. You're assuming that with no mathematical reasoning to back up your point. I believe it's not mentioned because the differences in weight and resulting distance gain between two male golfers of differing weight is negligible. Clubhead speed is more important as it's a squared relationship. I have mathematics to back up that theory.

I do note you use the word approximately. You accept that there are other factors (even though you continue to state the only variable is loft). Of these other factors, I believe the mass of the golfer is one of them. The mathematics is there to back up that point.

Mass matter because it has to be taken into account in the law of conservation of momentum or energy. The golfer has angular momentum along the z-axis of the swing plane. Their connected to the club and contribute to the angular momentum of the system hitting the ball.

I'm not going to continue trying to explain why mass matters because nobody has outlined why the mathematics is incorrect. You think you're right and I think I'm right.

Golf is my Game · 12-07-2020 06:09PM

bren2001 wrote: »

Cool, we disagree.

The analysis isn't available if they don't actually consider weight. Show me where someone explicitly states the weight of a golfer doesn't matter and has mathematics or data to back up the point. You can't.

You think the weight of the golfer isn't mentioned because it's not relevant. In these exhaustive studies, can you point out where that's explicitly stated? No, you can't. You're assuming that with no mathematical reasoning to back up your point. I believe it's not mentioned because the differences in weight and resulting distance gain between two male golfers of differing weight is negligible. Clubhead speed is more important as it's a squared relationship. I have mathematics to back up that theory.

I do note you use the word approximately. You accept that there are other factors (even though you continue to state the only variable is loft). Of these other factors, I believe the mass of the golfer is one of them. The mathematics is there to back up that point.

Mass matter because it has to be taken into account in the law of conservation of momentum or energy. The golfer has angular momentum along the z-axis of the swing plane. Their connected to the club and contribute to the angular momentum of the system hitting the ball.

I'm not going to continue trying to explain why mass matters because nobody has outlined why the mathematics is incorrect. You think you're right and I think I'm right.

Absense of data or research isnt proof that something is true. Thats sort of a "I'm not saying I am Batman, I am just saying no one has ever seen me and Batman in the same room." as an implied proof that you must be Batman.
So what we have then is :
- no litterature that justifies what your saying
- no pro/teachers/gurus greats of the game ever refer to weight being a factor in their shots being longer or shorter as they gain or loose weight
- lots of science and physics and dynamics analysis done by univerities and the like that goes into very complicated maths to try to understand whats going on in the golf swing and what makes a difference to the distance its hit but not of them look into this. All consider the mass of the clubhead and some consider the mass of the club head and shaft and take the arms and body out of the energy and momentum equation because the wrists are free hinging and the shoulders also decouple the body motion from the club at impact (not before it - thats what creates the swing speed, but in the impact zone, all the literature says that the shaft is swinging free)

So a lot of evidence that it not only matters very little, but that it matters not at all is a more sensible conclusion. You seem to be the only one supporting this idea and even then can only find a baseball research thing that you might argue, and some might not, that it supports your argument. So at best very weak evidence. And it has to be recognised that a baseball hit is much more and arms/wrist active swing, and that a bat isnt so much hitting head and shaft but one single rigid body. So very different.https://books.google.ie/books?id=5BKnCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=conservation+of+momentum+golf+physics+mass+body+club+face&source=bl&ots=hPVODGrXM3&sig=ACfU3U2aMowQvlA5typf3eJsjo_CTRqVUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja6uqri8jqAhVcXRUIHWFJDkYQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=conservation%20of%20momentum%20golf%20physics%20mass%20body%20club%20face&f=false

I think your case would be left like they do in courts in scotland - 'Not proven'.

First Up · 12-07-2020 06:19PM

bren2001 wrote:

The analysis isn't available if they don't actually consider weight. Show me where someone explicitly states the weight of a golfer doesn't matter and has mathematics or data to back up the point. You can't.

It doesn't mention the colour of their hair either.

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 06:21PM

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Absense of data or research isnt proof that something isnt true.
So what we have then is :
- no litterature that justifies what your saying
- no pro/teachers/gurus greats of the game ever refer to weight being a factor in their shots being longer or shorter as they gain or loose weight
- lots of science and physics and dynamics analysis done by univerities and the like that goes into very complicated maths to try to understand whats going on in the golf swing and what makes a difference to the distance its hit but not of them look into this. All consider the mass of the clubhead and some consider the mass of the club head and shaft and take the arms and body out of the energy and momentum equation because the wrists are free hinging and the shoulders also decouple the body motion from the club at impact (not before it - thats what creates the swing speed, but in the impact zone, all the literature says that the shaft is swinging free)

So a lot of evidence that it not only matters very little, but that it matters not at all is a more sensible conclusion. You seem to be the only one supporting this idea and even then can only find a baseball research thing that you might argue, and some might not, that it supports your argument. So at best very weak evidence. And it has to be recognised that a baseball hit is much more and arms/wrist active swing, and that a bat isnt so much hitting head and shaft but one single rigid body. So very different.https://books.google.ie/books?id=5BKnCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=conservation+of+momentum+golf+physics+mass+body+club+face&source=bl&ots=hPVODGrXM3&sig=ACfU3U2aMowQvlA5typf3eJsjo_CTRqVUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja6uqri8jqAhVcXRUIHWFJDkYQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=conservation%20of%20momentum%20golf%20physics%20mass%20body%20club%20face&f=false

I think your case would be left like they do in courts in scotland - 'Not proven'.

You've avoided my question. You stated that velocity of a golfer is zero at the point of impact along the direction of the target. I linked a peer-reviewed paper which clearly shows that the angular momentum is positive along this axis at the point of impact. You're an engineer, explain why the kinetic energy is zero?

The lack of data doesn't prove your theory either. If I wrote out the maths, you'd just say I was wrong

If it were the courts, I'd like to think the judge would take the opinion of someone with a degree and PhD in engineering who also lectures kinematics but hey, what would I know?

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 06:22PM

First Up wrote: »

It doesn't mention the colour of their hair either.

Your point is because they don't mention weight, it's not relevant. I think thats a silly assumption. I'll stick with my mathematical approach which doesn't make such a wild assumption.

DuckSlice · 12-07-2020 06:29PM

Jaysus lads if ye are getting all technical ye could at least use the right Units for weight!

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 06:31PM

etxp wrote: »

Jaysus lads if ye are getting all technical ye could at least use the right Units for weight!

Haha, pretty loose with the units all right!

BoldReason · 12-07-2020 06:38PM

As far as I can see the most incorrect assumption made in this thread is that GreeBo has a 4 post limit.

GreeBo · 12-07-2020 06:49PM

BoldReason wrote: »

As far as I can see the most incorrect assumption made in this thread is that GreeBo has a 4 post limit.

Nope, I'll only ask the same question 4 times, just to give the benefit of the doubt.
But at this stage it's into conspiracy theory territory.

One lone poster on boards.ie has the secret to success at golf. Subscribe now and hear the facts that the industry doesn't want you to hear!!

GreeBo · 12-07-2020 06:51PM

etxp wrote: »

Jaysus lads if ye are getting all technical ye could at least use the right Units for weight!

It's more correct to talk about units of mass in this case, since some of the arguments are out of this world...

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 06:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Nope, I'll only ask the same question 4 times, just to give the benefit of the doubt.
But at this stage it's into conspiracy theory territory.

One lone poster on boards.ie has the secret to success at golf. Subscribe now and hear the facts that the industry doesn't want you to hear!!

I've said several times that adding weight will add negligible distance to your drive but you don't want to listen to that. It doesn't suit your argument. Good to know mathematics is now a conspiracy. I'm not the one who questioned the Penn State university theory claiming a mathematical derivation wasn't proof.

I'd also prefer not to make a snide remark about you.

GreeBo · 12-07-2020 06:54PM

bren2001 wrote: »

Your point is because they don't mention weight, it's not relevant. I think thats a silly assumption. I'll stick with my mathematical approach which doesn't make such a wild assumption.

If weight was relevant they would be talking about it everywhere!
Your current argument relies on others not being able to prove a negative... The defence rests your honour

bren2001 · 12-07-2020 06:56PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If weight was relevant they would be talking about it everywhere!
Your current argument relies on others not being able to prove a negative... The defence rests your honour

My point relies on you being able to explain why the law of conservation of momentum or energy doesn't apply. I'm satisfied if you can explain that. You don't need to prove a negative.

GreeBo · 12-07-2020 06:57PM

bren2001 wrote: »

I've said several times that adding weight will add negligible distance to your drive but you don't want to listen to that. It doesn't suit your argument. Good to know mathematics is now a conspiracy. I'm not the one who questioned the Penn State university theory claiming a mathematical derivation wasn't proof.

I'd also prefer not to make a snide remark about you.

Actually you said "relatively significant and in no way negligible".

Keano · 12-07-2020 06:59PM

And so another thread ends.

Bryson DeChambeau

Comments