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 ....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
JG
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.
Quote:
2-C-0 LINEAR FORCE The ball will respond to non-linear (angular) force exactly the same as to linear forces only if the application produce forces equally linear to the ball but not necessarily linear to anything external to the ball.
Briefly stated, it is necessary to find a way to compress the ball through a particular point along a particular line, and maintain this compression through the same particular point along this same particular line straight line, through the entire arc of the Impact Interval, and with geometrical precision for consistent control. Study 2-K and 2-N.
To maintain compression at a particular point that point, then, must rotate around the same center that the rotating force does. Not just the physical center of the ball nor the gravitational center – just the point of compression. In other words, the original contact points of the Clubface and ball must remain in contact throughout the entire Impact Interval. This is possible only if the motion – or arc – is uniform. Therefore there must be a perfectly centered action – or a compensating manipulation.
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".
I am talking about the loft of the face increasing during the impact. In every one of those irons shots, it is quite visible that the face is delofting upon impact (even the lob shot). Sure a bunch are miss hit and they also rotate.
Because the ball is going up, the face must be going down.
Where in 2-c-* is the CG of club head mentioned?
I can't find it.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying hinge action can't happen.
Saying that the clubface is adding loft during impact is all I am discussing.
__________________
Make Everything.
Last edited by John Graham : 11-09-2010 at 02:08 AM.
The sketches in 2-C-1/2/3/4 assume a "centered (Sweet Spot) Impact". See 2-D-0.
In Sketch 2-C-1 #1, the two Impact Points are clearly shown to be on the Sweet Spot Plane. This fact is explicitly stated in 2-N-0: "In Sketch #1, the Impact Points are on the Sweet Spot Plane".
For further explanation of the Sweet Spot Plane, i.e., the assumed "Center of Gravity application", see 2-F.
Finally, always remember this:
"In the interest of brevity, regardless of how often any point is mentioned, every effort has been made not to discuss any one aspect more than once. So a complete definition can only be the sum of the comments about it." (1H)
I am talking about the loft of the face increasing during the impact. In every one of those irons shots, it is quite visible that the face is delofting upon impact (even the lob shot). Sure a bunch are miss hit and they also rotate.
Because the ball is going up, the face must be going down.
Where in 2-c-* is the CG of club head mentioned?I can't find it.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying hinge action can't happen.
Saying that the clubface is adding loft during impact is all I am discussing.
Sir,
Although, it may appear to some that "we" may muse about aimlessly upon occasion it shall be accepted, lacking equivalent contrary demonstration, Mr. Kelley diagrams are accurate. Had he desired to demonstrate that the clubface-ball contact was other than the ideal he certainly would have included those additional resultant vectors. There is neither a need nor opportunity for us to attach additional hypotheticals to Mr. Kelleys work in this instant.
Q.E.D.
I am talking about the loft of the face increasing during the impact. In every one of those irons shots, it is quite visible that the face is delofting upon impact (even the lob shot). Sure a bunch are miss hit and they also rotate.
Because the ball is going up, the face must be going down.
Where in 2-c-* is the CG of club head mentioned?
I can't find it.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying hinge action can't happen.
Saying that the clubface is adding loft during impact is all I am discussing.
Interesting point but does that necessarily discount the net variances? Layback only vs closing only given the delofting you mention. There must still be a difference no?
Interesting point but does that necessarily discount the net variances? Layback only vs closing only given the delofting you mention. There must still be a difference no?
The difference would come from club head speed and impact location.
I continue to be reminded to look at the picture in 2-C-2 and every time I do I see more questions.
For example, in 2-C-2 #2 and #3 it clearly shows a leaning forward shaft at impact and a vertical shaft at separation.
Surely, we can all agree that is an inaccurate representation of what happens in the time frame while the ball is on the face as depicted in these pictures.
I certainly agree with everyone, that vertical hinge action can be a wonderful teaching tool in the real world.
Am I the only one that see's this and has a desire to question it and learn more about it.
Is the picture an exaggeration?
If it is, is the whole thing an exaggeration or just the shaft depiction?
How would I know if just reading the book?
Should this picture be changed in the 8th edition?
Hybrid Mode
