# Good science?

Joined: April 22nd, 2004, 9:58 pm

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am
Dave T did not DO science here but rather describes good science in a way to make it more accessible. Jorgensen and the studies he cites would be examples of good science.

Some may take issue with his use of the term 'centrifugal force' as a critique of the 'science' in his description however any who do should remember that he uses the term relative to an accelerated, not an inertial, frame of reference.

Peter

Joined: January 13th, 2001, 8:30 am
It might be interesting to apply Jack K's mathmatical description of why the big muscles don't have much effect on clubhead speed to the Trebuchet model...

Regards, Herbert

Joined: January 13th, 2001, 8:30 am

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am
It might be interesting to apply Jack K's mathmatical description of why the big muscles don't have much effect on clubhead speed to the Trebuchet model...

Regards, Herbert
the rope provides 50% of the velocity

Peter

Joined: August 7th, 2000, 12:41 pm
The arms are not strings.
I can accelerate a club by extending the trail arm using the tricep muscle. No wrist torque or "hand" action.How does this contribute to club speed in a swing?
Cheers
Mac

Joined: July 12th, 2001, 12:35 am
I can't even get into the article before I start seeing things that once again, IMO, oversimplify the process. In this article, they have taken the shoulders and arms as a single rigid unit. _NO WAY. The trail arm bends - The science is flawed from the onset of the discussion way too oversimplified.

From the beginning of the article:

The simplest model that makes any sense at all for the golf swing is a double pendulum. The two members of the pendulum are:
The golfer's shoulders and arms, taken as a single rigid unit. That's the green triangle in the diagram. We'll call that "the triangle" in the discussion that follows.
The golf club, also taken as a single rigid unit.
The triangle is hinged to the golfer's body (the tan elements in the diagram) so it can turn. Similarly, the golf club is hinged to the other end of the triangle.

The article immediately eliminates the main speed producer - the trail arm. (In my science IMS..LOL)

By the way, (contradicting the article), hockey players and baseball players are often the most powerful golfers I teach.

Todd

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am
The arms are not strings.
I can accelerate a club by extending the trail arm using the tricep muscle. No wrist torque or "hand" action.How does this contribute to club speed in a swing?
Cheers
Mac
to swing in a way where this is a power source. In doing so you also choose to hit the ball less far than you might using a different technique that does not use the trail arm triceps as a power source.

Peter

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am
I can't even get into the article before I start seeing things that once again, IMO, oversimplify the process. In this article, they have taken the shoulders and arms as a single rigid unit. _NO WAY. The trail arm bends - The science is flawed from the onset of the discussion way too oversimplified.

From the beginning of the article:

The simplest model that makes any sense at all for the golf swing is a double pendulum. The two members of the pendulum are:
The golfer's shoulders and arms, taken as a single rigid unit. That's the green triangle in the diagram. We'll call that "the triangle" in the discussion that follows.
The golf club, also taken as a single rigid unit.
The triangle is hinged to the golfer's body (the tan elements in the diagram) so it can turn. Similarly, the golf club is hinged to the other end of the triangle.

The article immediately eliminates the main speed producer - the trail arm. (In my science IMS..LOL)

By the way, (contradicting the article), hockey players and baseball players are often the most powerful golfers I teach.

Todd
you should attempt to have you 'science' peer reviewed to get a view of 'good' vs 'bad' science.

When science disagrees with your personal theory the answer is to do your own science and present the data that either disproves or brings a new interpretation to the existing science. Without that there is only a theory. Science is full of competeing theories and those debates are settled by data.

BTW - The double pendulum model has been verified as being accurate (per the published descriptiions) in that it accurately predicts reality (data). This is a mark of good science in much the same way that Einstein's theory was questionable until it was confirmed that it did accurately predict reality.

Peter
Last edited by sagf_moderator on January 19th, 2009, 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Joined: July 12th, 2001, 12:35 am
I agree. Time to get some data that would accurately describe what really happens anatomically.

I think Einstein would agree.

Todd