Compression?
 

I'm hoping this will help me understand Hinge Action/Motion (sorry, as I'm still working on my terminology).

If two players wind up at impact separation with the clubhead, face and shaft in the exact same alignments all at the same speed and hitting the ball in the same spot on the face with every other alignment matching with the only difference being that one player arrived there after a Horizontal Hinge action and other player arrived there after a Vertical Hinge Action.

Which shot has better compression and why?

I think they would be the same.

Great question, and I look forward to hearing the answer...

My first thought was that you can't create the same amount of club-head speed with vertical hinging as you can with horizontal hinging, but I always confuse horizontal hinging with the #3 accumulator... just can't get my head around the difference sometimes, and I know the difference is huge. See ya later, gotta go do a little studying myself, I shouldn't be this far behind! :)
:golfcart:
Kevin

I have nothing to offer as an answer, but I can join in by asking if compression and ballflight are related? The horizontal hinge action gives longer and lower shots with more roll than the vertical hinge action does, but that doesn't necessary mean that the compression is different? I don't know. But the force applied (if that is the same as compression?) - will behave differently and give different ballflights.
Testing, testing.

The short answer...

Horizontal hinge motion is more efficient, so given similar parameters leading up to impact, when the ball leaves the face horizontal hinge motion will impart more force to the ball than a vertical hinge.

There is a 'leak' of power inherent in a vertical hinge.

They would have the same compression!
True VH allows only manipulation of the loft (layback) HH allows manipulation of the clubface to the left or right (no layback). In other words it would be easy to hit a high soft shot with VH and a low hook with HH.

Im thinking there are factors, club loft for instance. But the compression would be different.

The more loft to the club the more the layback will induce a roll up the face or a roll off the face even for VH. Whereas HH will tend to see the point of contact between ball and face remain together, with "as if welded together" being the ideal.

Vertical and horizontal hinge both have very good ball compression characteristics.

Keeping the loft of the club out of the equation, the vertical hinge action itself will impose back spin while a horizontal hinge action will impose side spin. We're talking as perfec as it gets here, and then a horizontal hinge will produce a draw. This is layback without closing vs closing without layback.

If we're talking about a human golfer it is very difficult to anticipate that all other alingments can be the same. Dual Horizontal hinge has the largest clubhead to hands speed ratio, while vertical hinge has the smallest. So if the clubhead speed is the same, the vertical hinge will have greater hands speed, and thus a greater effective swing arch and more effective mass-velocity to back up the collision with the ball.

As long as the vertical hinge can keep up with the horizontal - which isn't very long - I guess you will get more ball compression due to the faster hands.

HB, I couldn't agree more.

Miss Otis Regrets
 

For those posting in this thread and here http://lynnblakegolf.com/forum/thread7695.html, please do not expect soon a reply from Mr. Graham.

He is, shall we say . . .

"Unable to lunch today".

At least in this incarnation!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQnl4TX5wOE

:laughing9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUfQF...eature=related
This is perhaps more in the MacDonald style we need to practice?

Velvet Gowns and Handguns
 

Threadjack complete.

:occasion:

All in fun with no sinester agenda.

Now back to our regular programming!

The question was based on all things being equal. The ball is on the clubface for 1/2 a millisecond. Therefore compression has to be equal. VH allows one to add loft versus HH. So for less compression the face would have to be layed back more at impact (therefore it is no longer equal).

Hey mb

But that wouldnt be "all things equal" exactly as you'd have to speed up Vertical's hands to get the clubspeed up to Horizontal's. The two arent "all things equal" assuming any #3 angle for the golfer standing on the tee.

The thing I dont get about the 1/2 millisecond logic is that its plenty of time for the ball get squished and rebound so why not roll on the face .......to varying amounts depending on layback or closing.

o.b.

Toto? . . . Toto?
 

Somehow, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

:confused1

Closing Doors and Hinge Pins
 

Busy week guys and may not be able to come back, but . .

Perfectly executed . . .

Both Vertical and Horizontal Action produce Backspin. This is what gets the ball in the air.

Neither produce a 'side spin'.

:salut:

"If two players wind up at impact separation with the clubhead, face and shaft in the exact same alignments all at the same speed and hitting the ball in the same spot on the face with every other alignment matching with the only difference being that one player arrived there after a Horizontal Hinge action and other player arrived there after a Vertical Hinge Action."

Exact same alignments, same spot on club face , same speed, etc.
The ball would have the exact same compression - how could it not?? That being said it is easier to add loft using a vertial hinge but that is not relevant to the question at presented.

Hey mb.

I know that the question as posted is not the one you really want answered. Change the question if you want.......

To spell it out.........how can "the clubhead, face and shaft ....all at the same speed" happen given any # 3 angle? It cant. The butt end and the head are not traveling at the same speed for HH vs Angled vs VH. .......Its impossible.

So his question must change. Which makes things more apples vs oranges ......to my mind.

Sorta like two cars doing 60 mph....one a vw beatle in fourth gear the other a porsche.....ya they're both assumed to be going 60 but does that mean they are equally powerful in a general sense? Of course not. Does this make the Porsche's power advantage "irrelevant" .......no , of course not. HH is the Porsche in this example which relates to velocity only. Id suggest that there are other considerations to compression for HH vs VH beyond this point.

too many answers
 

I have too many answers to answer! :confused1
However, I'm in complete agreement with EDZ and OB Left.

Impossible?
 

So, is the official answer that my hypothetical is an impossibility?

Even with a pitch?

or a chip?

Could I build an iron byron type machine to create it?

or is it against all the laws of physics that no combination of work or intelligence could make it happen?

JG

Yoda,

In the big scheme of things it's the loft of the club that gets the ball airborne and produces the back spin, not the hinge action. And it is basically the difference between plane line and club face orientation that creates the side spin. I was taking those major spin contributors out of the equation to amplify the differences between the two hinge actions. The hinge action creates a little spin too.

Perfect compression means that the center of contact point between the ball and the club face remains the same through the impact interval. Which means that the ball adopts how the clubface rotates.

With a horizontal hinge the club and the ball rotates horizontally. The closing without layback. This is easy to see in 2-c-1 #2a, #2B, #3, the "swingers hinging". With a vertical hinge the club and the ball rotates vertically. Layback without closing. And that is illustrated in 2-c-2.

The axis of the hinge rotation is imposed on the ball. You can't have perfect ball compression otherwise.

I know you know this so perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post above.
:salut:

Can compression even be measured? What machine could do this, super super slo motion camera.

It seems like if you could build a machine to create the hinges and had a way to test it that would be the only way to know beyond the theoretical.

John is that you pretending to be Mike O? Something seems weird here.

But thanks Mike if that is you. Hey Daryls got a present from your old home town for ya...coming later tonight right here on LBG. Stay tuned.

I am just me. No worries about that.

I agree with that.

I've got no idea how to measure it.

You could build an iron byron to recreate Hinge Action Id imagine ........but it would have to have some #3 Accumulator Angle....... the grip in the left hand under the heal of the thumb pad instead of running up through the life line. ( like one does when putting ..........and why do we do that when we're putting? Because it deadens the send applied to the ball......by zeroing out the clubhead travel associated with any rolling of the left wrist. Giving every Hinge Action the clubhead travel of Angled Hinging .......which is zero) Its interesting to me that golfers commonly adopt this putting grip , sometimes even when chipping without any knowledge of why .......but the physics of it is there for the ball to react to.

If you want more info on #3 angle check out Ted Forts golf channel video......there's a part where he talks about "distal" acceleration as I recall. Imagine doing that with a putting grip and notice how there wouldnt be any added clubhead acceleration for left forearm roll.

Compression isnt needed as part of Trackmans calculations then? Again like Hinge Action, Id imagine that though compression is irrelevant to their calculations, it is anything but irrelevant to the golfer.

There must be a lot of things like that Id imagine ...... things "up stream" of the measurements made by Trackman that though "irrelevant" are still causal. "Causal" , whats happening to me? Golf nut using big words, my apologies to the people who know better.

John my position is that I see the effects of Hinge Action and use them like a tool for a lot of shots. Especially around the green. It'd be a shock to find I could just set the face and alter the plane line to get the same results. A total shock. And what about Steering, Vertical Hinging for a driver say...... Wouldnt golf be a much easier game than it is if that had no adverse effect on the ball?

OB.

Interesting point.

If I remember correctly, the more #3 accumulator the more head travel for any forearm rotation. Am I saying that right?

So, for horizontal hinging which employs more #3 the club head is accelerating more then with vertical hinging?

Am I correct so far?

Would that mean that if I can accelerate the club more over a shorter time frame that I get more umf than going at a constant speed?

I hope I haven't just confused myself. Is this what you meant with your car analogy?

JG

The car analogy was a little different. It was more about assuming they ( beatle and 911) are going the same speed and then deducing they are equally powerful. They're different cars. For any given hand speed you get more clubhead speed with Horizontal.

The #3 angle is set when you grip the club really. So Horizontal and Vertical have the same amount of #3 angle. No difference there. But Horizontal (in simple terms) has the left arm rolling. Angled has it not rolling. Vertical has it reverse rolling. So Horizontal's clubhead travel is greater (than the other hinge actions) for any associated distance the hands travel . Vertical a reverse roll has the clubhead traveling less. Angled has zero cubhead hinge " travel".

Did i say that correctly ? Now Im getting confused.

Try this....hold out your left arm and hand as if to shake someones hand , now drop it down on the inclined plane. Now grip an imaginary golf club and take your hand back and forth a foot or so. No left arm roll equals Angled. Roll equals Horizontal , reverse roll is Vertical. Imagine how that change in roll changes the distance the head travels though your hands are only going back and forth a foot or so. Now adopt a putting grip with the club running up the life line.... hinging has zero influence clubhead speed, "zero travel" via a "zeroed #3 accumulator, just different clubface rotation.


So the hinge action employed influences clubhead speed and the rate of clubface closing and layback.

In regard to closing , the clubface is in the process of continuously closing through impact however brief that may be. The face will be more closed at separation than at impact unless impact is 0 seconds long. Same deal with layback, the clubface will be more lofted at separation. So the question is does this influence ball behaviour, compression? My chips and pitches suggest it does.

If you can measure swing speed and mass then compression would be the difference in ball speed. So measure ball speed using the same ball and club. I create a higher ball speed with HH than VH but that may not be true for everyone.

Hinge Axis Creates Clubface Motion
 

I like this, Bernt. Thanks!

:salut:

Never really saw a yes or no answer to the original question......

HH action produces more distance when compared to VH action which will cause the ball to get more air. so when talking about compression id say HH action would cause more compression due to the fact that better compression leads to more distance hence HH action

thoughts?

"If two players wind up at impact separation with the clubhead, face and shaft in the exact same alignments all at the same speed and hitting the ball in the same spot on the face with every other alignment matching"

Read the question as presented.
If the ball is on the clubface for 1/2 a millisecond how they be anything but equal?

I still maintain that for both Vertical and Horizontal Hinging to both display the same speed as per the original questions requisite "clubhead, face and shaft" (which includes the butt end) you'd have to zero out #3 angle. Zero out the clubhead travel associated with the various Hinge Actions. Normally, given any #3 angle , Horizontal will have a higher clubhead speed associated with any given hand speed. Not to mention the issues of "point of contact" wobble, dynamic layback, closing, etc.

1/2 a millisecond is an eternity for the golf ball. Mb you can clearly see the ball rolling up the face in high speed (compressing , rebounding too).

A Big "If"
 

And now at last:

Your question is nonsensical because it is based on a specious premise.

spe·cious (spshs)
adj.
1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.
2. Deceptively attractive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvotE-beoaI

Let's back up a bit and help me get this straight:

You think a Clubface could come through the incredibly violent Impact collision in two distinctly different ways -- one Closing Only and the other Laying Back Only -- and, even in just 3/4 of an inch and 4/10,000th of a second, there will be no difference in the Separation alignment?

Study Sketches 2-C-1 #3 and 2-C-2 #3, and learn the truth.

Oh, I forgot, all that Chapter 2 stuff is now just "junk science", right?

Wrong.

Nevermind . . . Let's leave the Land of Oz and head to the practice tee. Watch me hit two delicious little pitch shots. I'll hit both with the same descending blow (Clubshaft Control) and with an identical amount of force (Clubhead Control). Both shots will fly dead straight, but the second will fly distinctly higher than the first. Now . . .

Why would that be?

Answer:

Because, through Impact, my Left Wrist (Clubface Control) executed a totally different Motion. And that totally different Left Wrist Motion produced a totally different Clubface Motion. And that totally different Clubface Motion produced a totally different Separation alignment and Ball Response. Putting it simplistically . . .

Impact matters!

The fact that the ball is fifteen yards down the fairway before the player feels that Impact is immaterial. The pre-selected Left Wrist Motion is programmed as early as the Address Routine for flawless execution through Impact. The work -- the Computer's precision Programming -- was done long before and the Ball's flight is now its manifest result.

In no way does the brevity of Impact obviate the Left Wrist's vital function and predictable result.

It may, however, obscure it.

As apparently it does to those who would deny its role.


:golfcart2:

O.B.,

Am I understanding this quote correctly that when employing vertical hinging the clubface loft is increasing from impact to separation?

JG

Yes. Vertical Hinging is layback with no closing. Continuously. Although the collision does wreak havoc upon the underlying geometry and obscures things. The ball hits the face as hard as the face hits the ball.

Reverse it for horizontal .....closing only no layback. Two extremes. Two different ball responses. I do believe it effects ball response. Though the interval is short the dynamics are still present, you'd have to get impact to 0 seconds for it to not have an effect. Sort of like what part of curve is straight or ....

Hey man I wanna know about Aimpoint sometime.

Regards
OB.

There are some major issues I have with this idea. With an iron, the ball hits the face below the cog and since momentum must be preserved, the clubhead is deflected lower at separation than it was at impact. It has to deflect downwards thus reducing loft.

Check out this video.

I'm guessing the first one is vertical hinging and you can see it deloft during the impact interval.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dG9hb3_blo


JG

Yes , the collision of impact does have an effect. Some of those look like toe or heal hits which have an effect on the face rotation. Same, as you say with low hits. These sorts of things are obvious to a good golfer , he can feel 'em. These impact dynamics are maybe outside of the real issue at hand in regard to hinge action "real or perceived". I strongly assert that it is very real. The ball rolls on the face. The point of contact for horizontal tends to stay intact whereas for vertical it tends to roll up the face. Loft angle dependent of course. Slow mo film clearly shows the ball climbing the face to my eye.

Without a ball / clubhead collision, the dynamics of hinge action would be readily apparent on film or to the golfer for that matter. Add the collision and things do get obscured on film but the geometry still stands to my mind. Im not a scientist but I do see the effect in my own shot making, thats my proof so to speak.

The ball compresses, rebounds, climbs the face all in a fraction of a second. Its amazingly brief but why discount what the clubface is doing during that time? There are two players, after all. Its not just the ball on its own doing all that, its an interaction.

You're observing the Clubface tilting under the Ball. That would be a Lob Shot. It's a special application of Vertical Hinging whose purpose is an almost total loss of compression.

The following quote describes the requirements for Maximum Compression "On the Line of Compression" that only Hinge Action can provide. The Line of Compression may be far from the center of the ball, but maximum compression for that "Line" can be gained by following the Instructions below.

Most people assume that the Ball "Rolls" up the face of the inclined striker. And, for most people it does and the result is Loss of Compression. Hinge Action Solves that problem by providing a means where-by the contact and separations point remains the same and there-by maximizing the amount of compression for any given Shot or, if you prefer, eliminating compression as with the "Lob Shot".