I plan on doing a Pro Golf Synopsis on an annual basis. As I mentioned on the blog, I plan on developing the Pro Golf Synopsis in the future and estimate I will charge $12.95 for the e-book.
However, the inaugural Pro Golf Synopsis is free. If you would like to donate to the blog, my PayPal e-mail address is rhuntccu@yahoo.com. You can also go to the blog (http://3jack.blogspot.com) and click the donate button on the upper right corner of the page. Any donation would be greatly appreciated.
Lastly, I wanted to thank all of the people that helped me with information on the book and my readers for their great support.
Here's a video that I thought was interesting, discussing a stock shaft vs. a 'true' aftermarket shaft.
On another forum this was discussed and most of the clubmakers stated that they had never seen this happen with their shaft pulls before.
I actually tend to agree with this video as recently I removed a stock shaft in a Cleveland 3-wood, re-aligned the spine of the shaft and re-installed it. When I hit it, the shaft broke.
Now, I used a shaft puller and low heat from a heat gun. I've used this method on 'true' aftermarket shafts and not one of them has splintered, but the Cleveland 'stock' shaft (Fujikura) was different.
That doesn't mean that all graphite shafts are this way (contrary to the video). The reason why a $300 driver may have a legitimate $300 'true' aftermarket shaft is that the shaft company and the OEM may come to a deal where they may pay a little above cost for each shaft. Let's say Aldila does this with Adams Golf (according to clubmakers, Adams Golf does have 'true' aftermarket Aldila shafts as their stock shafts).
Anyway...Aldila knows that Adams will purchase hundreds of thousands of shafts from them, if the price is low enough. But, other OEM's may be happy with just a stock shaft that is not of the same quality, but only costs them $10 per shaft.
Here’s my annual statement in regards to these awards
I kind of do this with some caution. I am averse to taking myself too seriously. Years of playing golf will create that in a person because just as soon as you think you're hot stuff, the game will rear its ugly head right back at you. However, I thought it would be *fun* to go over the stuff I've reviewed this year and came up with my own "3Jack Awards." This is basically awards for things I watched, read or used during this year. Thus, it's not important as to when the product, video, book etc came out...it's whether or not I reviewed it this year. Anyway, you'll get the point soon enough.
Best Training Aid Device
Second Runner Up: Orange Whip
Runner Up: Compression Board
Winner: The Can’t Miss Putting Aid
(3JACK NOTES: The training aid market has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years, but the Can’t Miss Putting aid incorporates a lot of the same principles of the GyroSwing into the putting stroke and makes the stroke feel more natural than using an aid where the shaft of the putter head is being guided. It will also help with the rhythm of the stroke as well.)
BEST YOUTUBE VIDEO
Second Runner Up: Kelvin Miyahira ‘Zach and Dustin, A Tale of 2 Johnsons’
Runner Up: AimPoint Golf’s ‘How Wide is the hole?’
Winner: Martin Chuck’s ‘An Afternoon With Moe.’
(3JACK NOTES: All 3 are excellent videos from Miyahira’s analysis of the differences in swings that create different amounts of power between Zach and Dustin Johnson, to AimPoint Golf’s video showing the importance of delivery speed and its effect on capture width of the cup to Martin Chuck’s fantastic video of the time spent with the legendary Moe Norman.)
BEST PREMIUM INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO
Second Runner Up: Pete Cowen Golf Academy DVD’s
Runner Up: Steve Elkington’s ‘Tour Quality Short Game’
Winner: Brian Manzella’s ‘Anti-Summit I’
(3Jack Notes: Like the training aids, instructional DVD’s have decreased over the past couple of years as well. I put a YouTube video of Elkington’s Short Game video because there was no trailer for Manzella’s Anti-Summit. I found Cowen’s DVD to have some interesting points to it, but also to be lacking. The Elkington video goes over a lot of basic TGM stuff and how it creates different shots. The Anti-Summit video is more informational than instructional.)
BEST EQUIPMENT
Second Runner Up: Tour Edge CB4 Tour Driver
Runner Up: Wishon 555C and 555M irons
Winner: Edel Putters
(3JACK NOTES: Tour Edge continues to impress with their ability to make top-caliber drivers and fairway woods. The CB4 Tour has a great look to it and performs very well. My personal choice of irons, the Wishon irons have far exceeded my expectations. They look, feel and perform great and are designed to prevent digging. Dollar for dollar, the best stuff on the market right now. Finally, Edel Golf continues to make the best putters on the market.)
BEST EQUIPMENT COMPONENT or CLUBMAKER TOOL
Second Runner Up: Talamonti Shafts (www.talamontishafts.com)
Runner Up: GolfMechanix Auditor MOI Machine (www.golfsmith.com)
Winner: Harrison ShotMaker Insert (www.harrison.com)
(3JACK NOTES: Talamonti Shafts are designed by Phil Talamonti, the co-founder of SST Pure. They are high caliber, affordable shafts that are worth trying. It was a coin flip on the winner, but I chose the Harrison ShotMaker because I find it to be such a revolutionary and important component for golf since graphite shafts are pretty much mandatory in woods these days and the stability and quality control factors often ruin how they perform for the golfer. I had been playing with the ShotMaker in my 3-wood and recently inserted one in my driver and my driving quickly improved. The main reason I took the ShotMaker over the MOI Machine is that the Shotmaker is cheaper and can be taken out and put into new club. But, the MOI Machine has been a fantastic piece of equipment, well worth the $500.)
BEST EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER
Second Runner Up: Miura Golf (www.miuragolf.com)
Runner Up: Wishon Golf (www.wishongolf.com)
Winner: Titleist (www.titleist.com)
(3JACK NOTES: Titleist comes away with the award for the second year in a row. While I do not use Titleist equipment myself, it’s difficult to dethrone them when their entire range of offerings is top notch, from the drivers to the fairway woods to the hybrids to the muscleback irons to the game improvement irons to the Vokey wedges to the Cameron putters and the golf ball. I think Wishon makes a great line of equipment, particularly their irons, wedges and drivers. I plan on trying out their fairway woods (949MC and 929HS) which have the same high COR that Taylor Made is raving about with their Rocketballz line.)
BEST GOLF WEB SITE
Second Runner Up: Secret In The Dirt (www.dirters.com)
Runner Up: The Sand Trap (www.thesandtrap.com)
Winner: My Golf Spy (www.mygolfspy.com)
(3JACK NOTES: 3 excellent golf sites filled with information and fun for golfers. Again, it was a bit of a coin flip for the winner as The Sand Trap has great articles and reviews on the world of golf and equipment. I went with My Golf Spy because they continually amaze me how much inside information they can get on the equipment world and they actually have much more information than they publish, but legal issues prevent them from coming forward with that information.)
BEST GOLF BLOG
Second Runner Up: Sara Dickson PGA (http://saradickson.wordpress.com)
Runner Up: Top 100 Courses in the World (http://top100golf.blogspot.com)
Winner: Gotham Golf Blog (www.gothamgolfblog.com)
(3JACK NOTES: Before anybody says anything…thanks for the kind words, but I can’t vote for myself due to an obvious bias. Sara Dickson is a 3Jack Golf Blog Certified D-Plane Instructor. I think she’s just a great writer and I usually leave with something very insightful that makes me think about it further after reading her posts. She had one post in particular discussing her thoughts on caddying for a friend at the LPGA Q-School and saying that she realized that pretty much every player had talent, it was just a question of who trusted their talent more than anything. That’s far more intuitive than most stuff I read about golf, even by seasoned writers.
The Top 100 Courses Blog is one man’s quest to play each of the top 100 courses in the world. Currently, he has played all but Augusta National. He then reviews each course with great detail and excellent pictures as well. One of the things I’ve wanted to go over more in my own blog is with course design and architects. I’ve gotten some preliminary information on the subject, but this blog can teach you a lot about that aspect of the game.
I think most know about Ralph Perez’s ‘Gotham Golf Blog’ which is similar, but still different from my own blog. I think he does such a tremendous job of getting the opinions and theories of so many golf instructors.)
BEST LOOKING SWING (CURRENTLY) ON YOUTUBE
Second Runner Up: Gary Woodland
Runner Up: Robert Rock
Winner: Mike McNary (www.mcnarygolf.com)
(3JACK NOTES: Woodland is pretty obvious. He generates incredible power and does it rather effortlessly with nothing really goofy standing out. Oh, how I would love to see Rock come over from Europe to play on the PGA Tour full-time. And Mr. McNary continues to be tough to be for this title.)
I am pleased to announce that I am almost finished with my e-book, 2012 Pro Golf Synopsis, a look at using advanced statistical analysis towards the game and the PGA Tour.
Initially, I had planned to charge $12.95 for a purchase of the e-book, in a .pdf file. But after much consideration, I have decided that I will be giving the e-book away for free for this year.
While I'm quite pleased with the progress I've made so far, I would like to get the book finished before the first tournament of the PGA Tour season (January 6th - Hyundai Tournament of Champions).
Pro Golf Synopsis will be a bit lengthy and thus it will require a lot of editing and while I had offers for free editing services, I don't want to burden those people with so much editing work and wanting them to do it in such a short period of time.
Furthermore, I have some ideas as to how I want the Pro Golf Synopsis to look in the future and I cannot do it for this past season because I didn't start my statistical research until about May of this year.
All in all, I just feel that there is too large of a learning curve for the initial 'offering' of the e-book and I didn't want to charge readers for that.
What I will probably do is put a 'PayPal Donation' tag on the blog and those who would like to contribute money for my effort, can feel free to do so.
In the end, I feel this is the best route to take as I can make alterations to the e-book based on feedback and other ideas I have in mind and then charge a fee for the e-book.
In the meantime, if somebody has a Web site where I could host the 2012 Pro Golf Synopsis file for free downloads, please let me know. I can be PM'd on the forum or e-mailed at Richie3Jack@yahoo.com
In the meantime, enjoy this rare Ben Hogan swing video that I recently spotted on YouTube.
A nice video from 3Jack Golf Top 20 Putting/Short Game Instructor, Shawn Clement. If there was one thing that I liked from Hank Haney's 'The Haney Project', it was how he went over various difficult shots with each student (Barkley, Romano and Limbaugh). These are the shots that often kill good rounds and send rounds immediately into a tailspin for a golfer. You can wind up with a tricky short game shot on the 2nd hole, flub a couple into the bunker, take a 9 and pretty much ruin the rest of your day.
For more experienced and skilled golfers like myself, we have hit those difficult shots many times and have the ability to figure it out when we haven't. So, it's always good to learn these shots and if you can, practice them as well so you will be prepared if the situation occurs.
This comes from Tom Wishon (www.wishongolf.com) in his latest eTech Report with regards to MOI matching vs. Swingweight matching.
TWGT was the first company in 2003 to introduce the equipment and procedures for matching golf clubs by their moment of inertia (MOI) as an alternative to the traditional method of building clubs to a matched swingweight. Since that time, more than 700 clubmakers worldwide have invested in the MOI measurement and matching equipment with which to build golf clubs to offer golfers a means of matching clubs in a set based on an actual amount of force generated by golfers during their swing.
Invented in the 1920s, swingweight has been the predominant method used by all golf companies for assembling golf clubs to a form of weight distribution balance. Swingweight has been agreed by technical experts in the golf industry to be an arbitrary form of weight feel matching, based simply on the use of a specific scale and not related to an actual physical effort generated by golfers during the swing. TWGT’s MOI matching is based on building each club in the set to require the same amount of effort from the golfer to swing the club to unhinge the wrist-cock angle and release the club to hit the ball.
One of the common questions we hear about MOI matching is the subject of this month’s technical article, “how does swingweight compare to the MOI of an assembled golf club, and vice versa?” From this come other questions such as, “Does swingweight offer the same weight feel if it is duplicated for different lengths and different total weights in golf clubs?” In other words, “is D2 at one length and total weight the same as D2 at a different length and different total weight?” Or, “If D2 is a golfer’s best swingweight, will all clubs built for this same golfer need to be built to the same D2 swingweight?”
To come up with a means to answer the question in a technical manner and illustrate the relationship of swingweight and MOI, TWGT conducted a series of simple exercises to compare the swingweight and the MOI in a series of different drivers. Drivers were built with 4 different weight shafts at 3 different lengths with 3 different swingweights for each length, with the MOI for each measured. Below is a table that reveals the MOI for each different example driver.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
In this test, please understand we are operating on the basis that the MOI of the assembled clubs is a fair indicator of similar to identical swing feel among the clubs. We base this premise on not only our experience with golfers and clubs built to MOI, but from feedback we have received from many of the clubmakers who have built MOI matched clubs for many golfers. Therefore, the above chart information can be taken to show that when drivers of different length and different shaft weight are made to the same swingweight, because their MOI’s are different, the actual swing feel of the drivers will also be different. In other words, D2 at 46” with a 76 gram shaft will not swing and feel the same as D2 at 45” with a 68 gram shaft. The same is true for any other comparison of clubs of identical swingweight but different length and different shaft weight. As playing length and shaft weight both decrease, the MOI also decreases, which has the effect of changing the swing feel of the club as well as changing the force required by the golfer to release the club to impact with the ball.
Next in our test we tackled the question, “if we know that clubs of the same swingweight but different length and shaft weight do not have the same swing feel, what then could be done to the swingweight to allow these clubs of different length and shaft weight to feel closer to the same when they are swung?”
Again, for this answer we turn to the MOI of the test drivers for a possible answer. Note the data in the following chart
CLICK TO ENLARGE What the above chart says is that as playing length and shaft weight decrease, to achieve the same swing feel in the club, the swingweight should be increased. In other words, if you build clubs to swingweight and you are decreasing the length of an existing driver for a golfer or building a new driver for the golfer, as length and shaft weight decrease in the club, the swingweight needs to increase slightly to restore the same swing feel at the longer length and heavier shaft weight.
Finally, as a result of all this work to test assemble drivers to a wide assortment of different lengths and shaft weights, we felt it might also be beneficial to simply share the information gathered for what a;; these different combinations of headweight, shaft weight, grip weight and length came out to be with respect to the swingweight, MOI and total weight. Or as one Clubmaker told us not too long ago, “there is no such thing as too much technical information about golf clubs!”
Have fun, and of course we welcome any comments or questions you may have either through our clubmaker forum or by email at contact@wishongolf.com
After my latest get-together with David Graham (david.graham@vacationclub.com) working on AimPoint, I had some new thoughts on the subject:
1. If you went to an AimPoint clinic awhile ago, you need to go to the Advanced clinic or to an AimPoint instructor who is up-to-date on AimPoint.
I won't get into it too much, but David calls it 'chunking' and I refer to it as 'fragmenting the read.' Mark Sweeney has come up with a new method to help calculate the read that is simpler, quicker and makes even more sense. Even if you are quite good at AimPoint, learn how to 'fragment the read' and you'll thank me later for pointing this out to you.
2. AimPoint is about more than learning how to read greens.
What I've realized is that AimPoint is really a system that helps the golfer understand putting as a whole.
Not only the read of the putt, but what does it take for this putt to go in?
What putts are the toughest to make?
What putts are the easiest to make?
Why is speed so important?
That and many other questions that can now be answered much more accurately.
So, teaching people where to aim and how to read greens is only part of the equation.
3. Practice, practice, practice.
This is really where it's at. You need to practice because:
A. It helps you develop better feel with your feet.
B. Helps with understanding how to calculate the read faster and more accurately.
C. Helps get your routine down quicker.
D. Helps you develop more trust with the reads and the speed required to make the putt.
E. Helps with the execution of the putt.
4. 3Jack's way of figuring out the perceived read
Part of the issue one will face with AimPoint is being able to figure out what the read looks like. Let's say I have a putt that says 6 inches outside the right edge of the cup. That 6 inches will look different from 20 feet away than it would 5 feet away or 50 feet away.
One thing I do is I will walk up to the cup and stand nearly over the cup. I will then try to figure out what the distance looks like at the edge of the cup. In this instance, I may see that 6 inches from the right edge of the cup is where this lighter green colored spot is.
Then, I will focus on that spot as I walk back to my ball and that is the point where I will aim at.
5. Classifying User Errors
Here's how I classify my errors on putts missed (provided that they are a physically makeable putt).
General Read Error - This the worst of the errors to make because you are giving yourself almost no chance of making the putt. A good example is if I have a putt that I read to break to the right and it breaks left...that's an error.
After awhile, those type of errors will become less and less. But, you might still find these errors if you read a break to the right and it is straight or if you read a 1-way break and it has a double break to it.
For instance, Sunday on #13 at Eastwood Golf Club, I read a 10 inch break to the right and what it did was it broke to the right and about 3 feet to the cup it broke slightly left and then straightened out. That's a 'general read error' in my book. I didn't notice the slope going the other way the last 3-feet to the cup. But, that's more acceptable than a reading a putt to break one way and then it breaks the other way.
Calculation Error - This is when you make the general read correct, but your calculations are a bit off. You might read the putt at 6 inches, but mis-calculated the amount of slope and it actually breaks 10 inches. Or you might think you are at 4 o'clock on the fall line, but you are actually at 5 o'clock, and thus your read of 36 inches is actually at 10 inches.
For those who understand the fragmenting concept, sometimes I find that I screw up the math because I forget the numbers. But again, practice makes perfect.
Execution Errors - When the general read and calculation is correct, now it comes down to execution. There are a bunch of execution errors...here are some of them:
Perception Error - your perception of 6 inches outside the left edge is actually 10 inches outside the left edge.
Aiming Error- Perception is correct, but you aimed left or right of the target.
Speed Error - Putt hit too hard or too soft.
Mis-Hit Error - Putt hit off the toe or heel moves the ball off-line.
However, one of the great aspects of AimPoint is that it is designed for the putt to go to the middle of the cup. So even if you are off on any of these aspects of execution, you can still have a shot at making the putt. I just like to classify the errors to help with my AimPoint skills.
- Clubhead Speed - Downswing Transition - Wrist-cock release position
The only thing about this is that it recommends Wishon's own type of shafts, but he does have a variety of them in different characteristics.
The other thing we have to remember is that when we 'tip trim', it makes the shaft stiffer and will make the ball launch higher with more spin.
But, what we'll see is that the faster the clubhead speed or the harder the transition or the later the wrist cock, the stiffer the shaft tends to become. The only thing that has a bit of variance to it is the tip trimming.
I tell people this:
I can hit some tremendous shots with a shaft that is too weak of a flex for my golf swing. But, the issue is the consistency of being able to to hit those shots. That's because it becomes more difficult for me to time when that shaft is going to kick. IIRC, Dr. Sasho Mackenzie (http://people.stfx.ca/smackenz/publications.html) states for every 1 cm of that shaft kicking, it will close the face by 0.7* and add to the dynamic loft. That's in part why we tend to hit it higher and hook shafts that are too weak for us. The shaft kicks too much, too soon for us to handle.
Thus, somebody like Senden with the snap release, that club is accelerating much quicker than Bertsch'es full sweep release. Even if they were swinging the same clubhead speed, the difference in acceleration has to be accounted for. Thus, somebody like Senden needs a stiffer flex shaft to help the club not kick too much, too soon. And Bertsch needs a weaker flex so he can get the proper amount of kick.
WEIGHT
In the past, we've generally seen Tour golfers with more of a snap release have heavier swingweights. And that's typically what clubfitters do for golfers.
While the principle was somewhat logical, what we now know about MOI matching, I think we have a far superior alternative.
Swingweight of course...is a measurement of the dynamic weight of the club when we are swinging it.
MOI (for these purposes) measures the amount of force required to swing the club.
So swingweight is measuring the gravitational pull of the club as we swing it. But, MOI (for these purposes) is measuring the force required which is Mass x Acceleration.
Since I purchased my MOI machine, I am simply amazed at the accuracy of readings it gives. For instance, I hit my Wishon 555C 4-iron extremely well, but stuggled with the 3-iron. Finding out, the MOI for the 4-iron was 2,702. The 3-iron was 2,625 (they should be +/- 5 from the base MOI). I put some lead tape on the 3-iron and started hitting the 3-iron instantaneously better.
I also have a set of Mizuno TN-87 irons. I always struggled with the 8 thru PW, but hit the 3 thru 7-irons quite well. When I measured them on the machine, the 3 thru 7-iron were all in the range between 2,727 - 2,740. When I measured the 8 thru PW, they were in the range fo 2,655 - 2,670.
The concept of using swingweight was a good attempt as well as making the swingweight heavier for 'snap' release swings. If the club is too light for a snap release swing, the club could be accelerating too quickly for that light of a weight and then the golfer may wind up making a drastic adjustment to their swing.
But, since we have ways to measure the MOI, we can get a more accurate and important measurement.
We also have to remember this...I can have 2 different Mizuno MP-68 6-irons. I can make them the the same length and the same exact swingweight. But, they can have very different MOI readings.
I could simply put a heavier shaft in one of the 6-irons and backweight it enough until the swingweight matches the other 6-iron with the lighter shaft in it. But, the mass in both clubs is different and it could possibly affect the acceleration quite a bit as well.
MOI matching does make you hit the ball great. But, what it does is it helps get rid of those clubs you always seem to not hit as well as the rest of the clubs in the bag. Why? Because you don't have to alter your swing to get the right amount of force required to swing the club.
Here's an updated list of the Certified D-Plane instructors. I've recently added the following instructors:
Sam Quirke (United Kingdom) Chris Lutes (Canada) Josh Boggs (Ohio) Tim Cooke (South Carolina) Justin Blazer (Florida) Matt Diedrichs (Canada) Tony Trace (Ohio) Stephan Kostelecky (Oklahoma) Rob McGill (Tennessee) Dennis Sales (Rhode Island) Matthew Wilson (Canada)
Alabama
Mark Blackburn Guntersville, AL www.blackburngolf.com
Alaska
Arizona
Denny Alberts Tuscon, AZ www.dennyalbertsgolf.com
Steve Bishop Scottsdale, AZ contact info not available
Chuck Evans Mesa, AZ www.chuckevansgolf.com
Arkansas
Australia
Steve Khatib Carlton, Sydney and Melbourne, Australia www.golfdynamics.com.au
California
Dana Dahlquist Long Beach, CA www.dahlquistgolf.net
Paul Gorman Fairfax, CA Phone: 415-699-9117
Chris Gustin San Juan Capistrano, CA www.axisonball.com
Andrew Marr San Diego, CA www.andrewmarrgolf.wordpress.com
Bill McKinney Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Phone: (949) 702-2022
Michael McLoughlin San Diego, CA Phone: (858) 602-8608
Mike McNary Santa Ana, CA www.mcnarygolf.com
Mac.O.Grady Palm Springs, CA www.macogradygolfschools.com
Canada
Matt Diederichs Victoria, BC mattd@highlandpacificgolf.com
Chris Lutes Coquitlam, BC 778-968-4653
John Randle Victoria, BC www.randlegolf.com
Nick Starchuk Toronto, ON www.nrsgolf.com
Matthew Wilson Toronto, ON mattwilsongolf@gmail.com
One of the questions I received from readers on my putting stroke mechanics series was 'why do heavier putters work better on faster greens and lighter putters work better on slower greens?'
The main point behind that concept is this: we want to make it so the golfer does not have to adjust their stroke too much going from one green speed to another.
This is a concept that companies like Edel Golf, who have interchangeable weight system in their Vari-Weight putter line, utilize.
So, let's go over some brief putting stroke concepts:
Tempo - The rate at which the putterhead swings in the stroke. Tempo can be fast, slow or somewhere in-between.
Rhythm - Keeping the tempo of the putter the same going back as it does thru. Not being able to do that is 'poor rhythm.'
Stroke Length - The length that the golfer swings the putterhead back. Typically, the longer the putt the longer the stroke length.
Now remember, we really want to keep the rhythm in tact. It doesn't quite matter what type of stroke you utilize or grip you use or if it's a fast tempo or a slow tempo, we want to have 'good' rhythm in our putting stroke.
Thus, what tends to alter as the green speed changes is the tempo and the stroke length. And that's where chaning putter weight can play a big role.
But, we have to go back to 'force.'
Force = Mass x Acceleration
Now, what do we know about green speeds and putting?
Faster Greens = less force required to get the ball to the cup.
Slower Greens = more force required to get the ball to the cup.
So, when we are on a faster putting surface, we increase the weight because that slows down our acceleration, which creates less force for a putt that requires less force.
Conversely, on slow greens we make the putter lighter because that increases our acceleration. This creates more force for a putt that requires more force.
AN EXAMPLE
Let's say you have a 30 foot putt. Your first time putting it's an 8 on the stimpmeter. The second time you putt, it's the same putt except the speed has been alterd to a 10 on the stimpmeter.
If you appropriately change the weights, and make the putter heavier with the faster stimp, you will have to make less of an adjustment to your putting stroke length and tempo. Your tempo will more naturally slow down because the putter is heavier, so will your acceleration.
So let's say you take that 30 foot putt on an 8 stimp and your backswing is 15 inches long. With the same putt on a 10 stimp, with the weight changed, that backswing may be 13 inches long.
But, if you didn't change the weights, you may go from a backstroke of 15 inches long on the 8 stimp to a backstroke of 7 inches long on the 10 stimp.
Thus, the change in weight allows the golfer to do less alteration of their putting stroke and that tends to make it easier for them.
FORCE AND PUTTING STROKE TECHNIQUE
We'll go back to part I where I discussed more of a 'full sweep' release versus 'snap' release in the golf swing.
Here's John Senden with the 'snap' release.
Here's Shane Bertsch with a 'full sweep' release.
There's a similar type of concept in putting. Somebody with a wristy stroke, like Arnold Palmer, is more like John Senden (snap). Somebody with a swinging/pendulum-esque stroke, like Ben Crenshaw, is more like Bertsch (full sweep).
The acceleration is different as well. Arnie's wristy stroke is more likely to accelerate more than Crenshaw's swinging, pendulum-esque stroke.
That's why most good wristy putters employ shorter and faster tempo strokes. While one could use a wristy stroke that is long and slow in tempo, it's a bit difficult to do since the wrists really want create more acceleration. Conversely, the swinging stroke usually creates less acceleration and the golfer has to find a way to get the ball to the cup, so they create a larger stroke.
In the end, the idea is that one can putt well with a wristy or swinging stroke, but they should probably try to find the compatible stroke length and tempo with that stroke action, otherwise they will fight consistently applying the right amount of force on the ball.
First up, I wanted to direct some readers over to Ralph Perez’s Gotham Golf Blog with reference to a new technology called ‘4D Swing.’ I am a big fan of Ralph’s blog, but I try to keep the topics different because I think that allows readers to get more information for them. I would check out these links on 4dswing:
One more note, for those instructors looking to become D-Plane certified, please be patient as I’ve been very busy with the holidays. I will get everybody up to date in the next week or two.
In this series I will be discussing ‘Force’ in the golf swing. I was discussing this with a friend of mine and we agreed that not only is force crucial in the golf swing, but golfers could benefit from learning about force and then understand how to apply it in their game. But, force actually goes beyond the golf swing, which is what I will discuss in parts II and III.
So, what is force?
Force = Mass x Acceleration
First, let’s start with Mass.
What is mass?
Mass is the amount of matter in an object. This is different from weight because weight is the amount of gravitational pull an object has. Thus, if an object weight 200 pounds on earth, it will have much more gravitational pull than if the object is placed on the Moon. However, it’s mass will still be the same.
What is acceleration?
Acceleration is the increase in the rate of speed. If we are driving a car that is going 60 mph and then we press on the gas to make it go 80 mph, the velocity of the car is 80 mph, but the acceleration is 20 mph.
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: I’m probably not phrasing this technically correct…but, acceleration has more influence on force than mass. That’s why we can’t just make our drivers super heavy in order to increase power off the tee. While the mass increases, the acceleration will likely be less and that dip in acceleration dampens the amount of force we can deliver to the club.
FORCE IN THE GOLF SWING
A big part of this I will get into in part III. But, let’s take a look at a golfer with more of a ‘full sweep release’ versus a golfer with more of a ‘snap release.’
Here’s a ‘full sweep release’ executed by Shane Bertsch.
As you can see, Bertsch ‘releases’ the clubHEAD, downward pretty early. To the layman golfer, they would probably think that Bertsch was bordering on ‘casting’ the club.
Now, let’s take a look at a ‘snap’ release by John Senden.
With Senden’s swing, he waits until the very last second to release the clubHEAD. To the layman golfer, it would appear that he has a lot of lag and is ‘driving the butt of the club past the ball.’
Now, it’s not to say that one is better than the other (in fact, Bertsch’s ballstriking metrics came out better than Senden’s in 2011). But, it’s to say that they are different swings that produce very different amounts of acceleration. In fact, Bertsch generates about 107 mph of clubhead speed compared to Senden’s 116 mph of clubhead speed.
And that difference in clubhead speed is probably, in large part, due to the different style of releases between Bertsch (full sweep) and Senden (snap).
The Golfing Machine discussed this for a bit with its Endless Belt Concept (2-K in TGM). Let’s say you have a rock that is tied to a length of string. Let’s say you want to twirl the rock in a circle from the other end of the piece of string. If you twirl it around in a big circle, like somebody trying to use a lasso, the amount of acceleration will be less, than if you ‘tighten’ the circle. Essentially, Bertsch has a much larger circle than Senden. In TGM, they would say that Bertsch’s ‘pulley’ is larger than Senden’s ‘pulley.’
Let’s say Bertsch wanted to greatly increase his clubhead speed. One way he could achieve this is by developing more of a snap type release like Senden has. That would increase his acceleration and create more force.
The problem is that golf is not based solely upon clubhead speed and power, it also has to do with accuracy and precision. Thus, somebody like Bertsch who attempts to go to more of a snap release, could struggle to do so. Lastly, it’s not that a full sweep release player cannot hit the ball long, but they will require more from their body pivot to help with the acceleration of the club.
Cejka's driving ranking is nothing to write home about, but it's more about his lack of clubhead speed than actual precision and accuracy. He actually finished 37th in fairway percentage, but 123rd in distance to the edge of the fairway on shots that wound up in the rough. This indicates that he was usually accurate off the tee, but when he missed he had a tendency to miss big. However, he was an elite mid to long iron player in 2011.
Here's a look at his swing.
Cejka is a Stack and Tilt player who utilizes a slightly more upright backswing than your typical S&T player uses. His swing is rather simplistic although he does appear to swing well out to the right with the driver, probably because if you look at his radar stats he appears to hit well up with the driver and by swinging out to the right (in this instance) it makes the path more square to the target.
Honorable Mention of Underrated Golf Swings:
Charles Warren - can't find a video of his swing, supreme ballstriking statistics.
Kyle Stanley - can't find a video of swing, young, but excellent ballstriking statistics
John Rollins - excellent driver of the ball and a solid iron player.
Robert Garrigus- More than just a bomber. Historically an *elite* mid to long iron player who also is a good short iron and wedge player.
Billy Mayfair - Probably the most underrated ballstriker and overrated putter of our generation.
.jpg)
