Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by George Hibbar » Tue, 24 Oct 2000 04:00:00


Answer to below:  Chris, for a full driver impacting a ball producing the
distance of an 8 iron, there is only ONE explanation.  You are NOT striking
the ball with perfect impact --i.e., you are hitting off center where the
effective mass of the club is a LOT less than its full weight.    mv  before
collision = mv after collision, so if the v is greater with the driver on
well hit shots, the m is less than its optimum, obviously, on these bad
ones.

Most mishits with drivers are on the toe.  Most of these are for the reason
that the natural turnaway of the left shoulder due to the mechanics of the
forward swing means that during the downswing the club passes "closer to
your feet" than where your extended left arm placed your clubhead at setup.

Try the following protocol the next time you practice:

Set yourself up to an imaginary ball, with your usual setup for a drive.
But instead of teeing the ball there, put your teed ball 1 1/2" closer to
your feet than where the imaginary ball is located.  Then swing away.
(Fuzzy Zoeller's measurement is closer to 5 inches than 1 1/2.)

I will be very surprised if this is not the reason for your problem.

If you have access to John Daly's book "Grip It And Rip It", read page 23.
He does it, DL III does it, Fuzzy does it, and tons of players do it.  It's
something that occurs naturally for many simply because a teed ball is
closer to your left shoulder than the ground under it... In other words, the
tee automatically puts the ball closer to your left shoulder than where a
clubhead sits on the ground beside it.

George


Quote:
> Lately I've been in a horrible slump.  Shooting in the mid to high 80s
> when I'm accustomed to breaking 80 more often than not.  The main
> problem seems to be getting off the tee.  I cannot hit any of my woods
> to save my life.  But I'm killing my irons, getting better distance and
> about the same accuracy than I ever have.  These are the same woods
> I've been playing most of the summer (Big Bertha 3+, 4, 7).  I hit them
> all about 150 yards carry, and get 30 - 50 yards roll.  For reference,
> I get 150 yards carry with a well struck 8 iron.  At the range today, I
> was hitting my 7-iron (carry and roll) longer than any of my woods.
> Does anyone have any suggestions to help get my woods going again?  I'm
> desperate.

> --
> ****************
> Chris Fairchild
> http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/pepine/
> Go O's!!!!

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by Chris Fairchil » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:33:46

Lately I've been in a horrible slump.  Shooting in the mid to high 80s
when I'm accustomed to breaking 80 more often than not.  The main
problem seems to be getting off the tee.  I cannot hit any of my woods
to save my life.  But I'm killing my irons, getting better distance and
about the same accuracy than I ever have.  These are the same woods
I've been playing most of the summer (Big Bertha 3+, 4, 7).  I hit them
all about 150 yards carry, and get 30 - 50 yards roll.  For reference,
I get 150 yards carry with a well struck 8 iron.  At the range today, I
was hitting my 7-iron (carry and roll) longer than any of my woods.
Does anyone have any suggestions to help get my woods going again?  I'm
desperate.

--
****************
Chris Fairchild
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/pepine/
Go O's!!!!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by rbstri.. » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:34:53

I think it's time to see a pro...could be any number of problems.  But
here are a couple of quick tips:

* Ball position!
* Hit "up" and through drives, tee shots.
* full extension/shoulder turn.  You could be punching your irons, but
  woods may be suffering as a result.
* Try to NOT KILL your woods.  Get back to a feeling of smooth swings.
  Let the club do the work, just put it back through the ball.
*** see a pro ***

Ron



Quote:
> Lately I've been in a horrible slump.  Shooting in the mid to high 80s
> when I'm accustomed to breaking 80 more often than not.  The main
> problem seems to be getting off the tee.  I cannot hit any of my woods
> to save my life.  But I'm killing my irons, getting better distance
and
> about the same accuracy than I ever have.  These are the same woods
> I've been playing most of the summer (Big Bertha 3+, 4, 7).  I hit
them
> all about 150 yards carry, and get 30 - 50 yards roll.  For reference,
> I get 150 yards carry with a well struck 8 iron.  At the range today,
I
> was hitting my 7-iron (carry and roll) longer than any of my woods.
> Does anyone have any suggestions to help get my woods going again?
I'm
> desperate.

> --
> ****************
> Chris Fairchild
> http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/pepine/
> Go O's!!!!

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by David Lavill » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:27:36

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:02:22 -0400, "George Hibbard"

Quote:

>Answer to below:  Chris, for a full driver impacting a ball producing the
>distance of an 8 iron, there is only ONE explanation.  You are NOT striking
>the ball with perfect impact --i.e., you are hitting off center where the
>effective mass of the club is a LOT less than its full weight.    mv  before
>collision = mv after collision, so if the v is greater with the driver on
>well hit shots, the m is less than its optimum, obviously, on these bad
>ones.

What Mr. Kelley is trying to say is that you're not hitting the ball
on the sweet spot.

Quote:
>Most mishits with drivers are on the toe.  Most of these are for the reason
>that the natural turnaway of the left shoulder due to the mechanics of the
>forward swing means that during the downswing the club passes "closer to
>your feet" than where your extended left arm placed your clubhead at setup.

The left shoulder has nothing to do with it and club being closer to
your feet  in the downswing is pure bunk.  If the player is hitting it
on the toe it's probably because he's swinging with an outside-in
path.

Quote:
>If you have access to John Daly's book "Grip It And Rip It", read page 23.
>He does it, DL III does it, Fuzzy does it, and tons of players do it.  It's
>something that occurs naturally for many simply because a teed ball is
>closer to your left shoulder than the ground under it... In other words, the
>tee automatically puts the ball closer to your left shoulder than where a
>clubhead sits on the ground beside it.

But if they use your left shoulder to ball measuring system you've
been advocating why are you telling them to address an imaginary ball
outside the real one for sweet spot impact?  You don't even trust your
own advice?
 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by George Hibbar » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:01:39

Reply to David's comments herebelow and about other stuff:

David, it looks like a lot of what I say goes over your head, or you bring
to it an expectation that I'm saying "a" when I am actually saying "b".

Tell me why Zoeller places the ball 5 " closer to his feet than where he
sets his club.

Tell me that John Daly is lying with what he writes on pg. 23 of his book.

Tell me that when you place your driver on the ground behind the ball at
address position, and the ball is on a tee, that there is not a DIFFERENCE
between the distance of your left shoulder to the ball than its distance to
the center of the clubface.  (One inch is enough difference to be pretty
critical - how much forgiveness do you get with a 1" miss on YOUR
driver...?)

Why do you continue to throw Kelley obfuscation into everyday English?

Can you tell me that if you stand with your shoulders parallel to a wall in
front of you so that the fingertips of your left hand just barely touch the
wall, and then you rotate your upper body to the left while your head
remains exactly in the same place, that that action will not pull your
fingertips away from the wall?  In other words, are your fingertips the same
distance from the wall when you are parallel to it than when you stand there
without moving your head while you rotate your upper body to the left?  Or
are you able to make your arm get longer while your left shoulder turns
away, allowing you to keep your fingertips touching the wall...?

Do you pretend that the only way to swing back closer to you than where the
ball is sitting is with an outside-in swing path?

What if I placed a ball 2" further from the path of the Iron Byron than
where the club travels when it swings.  Your logic is that it is because IB
is swinging outside-in.

David, what's wrong with your ability to see this very simple reality?

What are you missing?

George


Quote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:02:22 -0400, "George Hibbard"

> >Answer to below:  Chris, for a full driver impacting a ball producing the
> >distance of an 8 iron, there is only ONE explanation.  You are NOT
striking
> >the ball with perfect impact --i.e., you are hitting off center where the
> >effective mass of the club is a LOT less than its full weight.    mv
before
> >collision = mv after collision, so if the v is greater with the driver on
> >well hit shots, the m is less than its optimum, obviously, on these bad
> >ones.

> What Mr. Kelley is trying to say is that you're not hitting the ball
> on the sweet spot.

> >Most mishits with drivers are on the toe.  Most of these are for the
reason
> >that the natural turnaway of the left shoulder due to the mechanics of
the
> >forward swing means that during the downswing the club passes "closer to
> >your feet" than where your extended left arm placed your clubhead at
setup.

> The left shoulder has nothing to do with it and club being closer to
> your feet  in the downswing is pure bunk.  If the player is hitting it
> on the toe it's probably because he's swinging with an outside-in
> path.

> >If you have access to John Daly's book "Grip It And Rip It", read page
23.
> >He does it, DL III does it, Fuzzy does it, and tons of players do it.
It's
> >something that occurs naturally for many simply because a teed ball is
> >closer to your left shoulder than the ground under it... In other words,
the
> >tee automatically puts the ball closer to your left shoulder than where a
> >clubhead sits on the ground beside it.

> But if they use your left shoulder to ball measuring system you've
> been advocating why are you telling them to address an imaginary ball
> outside the real one for sweet spot impact?  You don't even trust your
> own advice?  (DAVID -- YOU GOT IT BACKWARDS.  THE REAL BALL YOU ARE ABOUT

TO HIT IS TO BE PLACED CLOSER TO YOUR FEET THAN WHERE YOU NORMALLY ADDRESS
THE BALL.  THE IMAGINARY BALL IS  WHERE YOU    U S E D   TO PLACE THE ONE
YOU ARE ABOUT TO HIT.  THE ONE YOU WILL HIT IS CLOSER TO YOU.  SO THAT THE
LEFT SHOULDER TURNAWAY'S REROUTING OF THE CLUB CLOSER TO YOUR FEET HITS THE
BALL YOU WANT TO HIT, NOT THE IMAGINARY ONE YOU "ADDRESSED")
 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by bighornb.. » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:37:46



Quote:
> Lately I've been in a horrible slump.  Shooting in the mid to high 80s
> when I'm accustomed to breaking 80 more often than not.  The main
> problem seems to be getting off the tee.  I cannot hit any of my woods
> to save my life.  But I'm killing my irons, getting better distance
and
> about the same accuracy than I ever have.  These are the same woods
> I've been playing most of the summer (Big Bertha 3+, 4, 7).  I hit
them
> all about 150 yards carry, and get 30 - 50 yards roll.  For reference,
> I get 150 yards carry with a well struck 8 iron.  At the range today,
I
> was hitting my 7-iron (carry and roll) longer than any of my woods.
> Does anyone have any suggestions to help get my woods going again?
I'm
> desperate.

Just a shot in the dark, but maybe your grip is too strong, and you
are delofting your clubs too much.  How well are you hitting your
3 iron?

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by Joseph N. Hal » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>   mv  before
> collision = mv after collision, so if the v is greater with the driver on
> well hit shots, the m is less than its optimum, obviously, on these bad
> ones.

Uhm.  That 'm' to which you refer is 'mass,' which is not something you
normally see change from one swing to the next.  :-)

Momentum alone ("mv") isn't enough to characterize an collision.  You also
have to know the coefficient of restitution and the angles at which the
bodies are colliding.  In a perfectly elastic collision, both momentum and
energy are conserved.  In any other situation, some energy is lost after
impact (as heat).  Momentum is always conserved, but that fact alone
doesn't tell you what the state of the system after impact will be.  In
fact, many physically impossible outcomes conserve momentum--for example,
a collision between two bodies of equal weight where they approach one
another at one speed and depart at a faster speed!  Momentum is conserved
because the vectors cancel out, but this particular example is physically
impossible because it requires a CR greater than 1 (thus the impact
"creates" energy).  In other words, it won't work without flubber.

  -joseph

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by George Hibbar » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 04:00:00



Quote:

> >   mv  before
> > collision = mv after collision, so if the v is greater with the driver
on
> > well hit shots, the m is less than its optimum, obviously, on these bad
> > ones.

> Uhm.  That 'm' to which you refer is 'mass,' which is not something you
> normally see change from one swing to the next.  :-)

Joe: the EFFECTIVE mass of an off center hit IS less.  That is the reason
that something off the sweetspot leaves the clubface so slowly in
comparison.

Boy, I do get convoluted -- my wife wasn't here to tame me.

Hey, I don't remember my English teacher's name either -- and I'm sure she
is rolling her eyes...
 George

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by Joseph N. Hal » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 04:00:00

I think it's a bit of a perversion to use terms like "effective mass."
Or, well, relatively speaking, maybe it's not.  To say that the effective
mass of a clubhead is reduced in an offcenter impact is correct ...
in the sense that a fairytale with a sensible m***is true.

  -joseph

Quote:



> > Uhm.  That 'm' to which you refer is 'mass,' which is not something you
> > normally see change from one swing to the next.  :-)

> Joe: the EFFECTIVE mass of an off center hit IS less.  That is the reason
> that something off the sweetspot leaves the clubface so slowly in
> comparison.

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by George Hibbar » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 04:00:00

I didn't originate that phrase, effective mass, Joe.  Got it from physics
(college minor, Ivy League school).  The mass of the clubhead on a scale is
x ounces.  But the ball feels less than that if impact is not on the center
of gravity.

Anyway, regardless of the words used to describe the reality, the reality is
that impact off center propels the ball with less separation velocity than a
perfect impact golf shot.  And since the two swings being compared had the
same swingspeed at impact, how do you explain the reality of the difference
in ball velocity..........if not due to "mass"....???
George



Quote:
> I think it's a bit of a perversion to use terms like "effective mass."
> Or, well, relatively speaking, maybe it's not.  To say that the effective
> mass of a clubhead is reduced in an offcenter impact is correct ...
> in the sense that a fairytale with a sensible m***is true.

>   -joseph



message

> > > Uhm.  That 'm' to which you refer is 'mass,' which is not something
you
> > > normally see change from one swing to the next.  :-)

> > Joe: the EFFECTIVE mass of an off center hit IS less.  That is the
reason
> > that something off the sweetspot leaves the clubface so slowly in
> > comparison.

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by Joseph N. Hal » Wed, 25 Oct 2000 04:00:00

"Less efficient."

It's not true that the mass has changed.  However it is true that an
offcenter collision is less efficient at transferring forward momentum
to the ball.

  -joseph

Quote:

> I didn't originate that phrase, effective mass, Joe.  Got it from physics
> (college minor, Ivy League school).  The mass of the clubhead on a scale is
> x ounces.  But the ball feels less than that if impact is not on the center
> of gravity.

> Anyway, regardless of the words used to describe the reality, the reality is
> that impact off center propels the ball with less separation velocity than a
> perfect impact golf shot.  And since the two swings being compared had the
> same swingspeed at impact, how do you explain the reality of the difference
> in ball velocity..........if not due to "mass"....???

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by David Lavill » Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:44:04

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 06:34:31 -0400, "George Hibbard"

Quote:

>Joe: the EFFECTIVE mass of an off center hit IS less.  That is the reason
>that something off the sweetspot leaves the clubface so slowly in
>comparison.

Don't you mean "center of mass"?  Seems that "center of mass" leap to
"sweetspot" you accused me of wasn't so big after all, huh Mr.
Hibbard?  What size shoe does your mouth take?
 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by David Lavill » Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:44:04

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:01:39 -0400, "George Hibbard"

Quote:

>David, it looks like a lot of what I say goes over your head,

If it goes over my head why am I able to expand on it?

Quote:
>or you bring
>to it an expectation that I'm saying "a" when I am actually saying "b".

Perhaps it's because you're saying both A and B.

Quote:
>Tell me why Zoeller places the ball 5 " closer to his feet than where he
>sets his club.

Because it's an individual thing for him.  Tell me why most of the
pros don't do it.

Quote:
>Tell me that John Daly is lying with what he writes on pg. 23 of his book.

I'm not going to call him a liar, he's just mistakenly wrong and most
of the pro's don't do it.

Quote:
>Tell me that when you place your driver on the ground behind the ball at
>address position, and the ball is on a tee, that there is not a DIFFERENCE
>between the distance of your left shoulder to the ball than its distance to
>the center of the clubface.  (One inch is enough difference to be pretty
>critical - how much forgiveness do you get with a 1" miss on YOUR
>driver...?)

I didn't say there wasn't a difference.  A) You're telling people to
extend the left arm (Inkster???? and even you said you did it)  to
measure the distance between the left shoulder and ball for perfect
impact.   B) You're telling them to address an imaginary ball outside
the real one for perfect impact because of some flawed misconception
you have about the down swing path.  B contradicts A, so which one is
it????????

Quote:
>Why do you continue to throw Kelley obfuscation into everyday English?

Why do I do it???????  You're  the one trying to mimic his writing
style and rhetoric.  Do you know what "obfuscation" means or did you
just throw it out to sound intelligent?

Quote:
>Can you tell me that if you stand with your shoulders parallel to a wall in
>front of you so that the fingertips of your left hand just barely touch the
>wall, and then you rotate your upper body to the left while your head
>remains exactly in the same place, that that action will not pull your
>fingertips away from the wall?

And if I did the same thing with my right hand the fingers would be
pushed into the wall so we have a net gain or loss of 0.  Your example
show us what happens after impact, not the downswing, and it
demonstrates linear motion not angular.

Quote:
>  In other words, are your fingertips the same
>distance from the wall when you are parallel to it than when you stand there
>without moving your head while you rotate your upper body to the left?  Or
>are you able to make your arm get longer while your left shoulder turns
>away, allowing you to keep your fingertips touching the wall...?

What about your right hand, isn't it holding the club too?  Are you
trying to tell us as the right arm straightens in the down swing and
through impact that it gets shorter as your right shoulder gets
closer?

Quote:
>Do you pretend that the only way to swing back closer to you than where the
>ball is sitting is with an outside-in swing path?

No, you can do it if you have a hacker swing, but hitting the ball on
the toe is caused by swinging outside-in because that is the only path
that swings the club closer to your toes.  Everything else is swinging
it parallel too or away from the toe line.

Quote:
>What if I placed a ball 2" further from the path of the Iron Byron than
>where the club travels when it swings.  Your logic is that it is because IB
>is swinging outside-in.

Of course Mr. Hibbard, if you place the ball 2" outside of Iron
Byron's FIXED swing path he's going to hit it on the toe. You really
have a knack for pointing out the obvious.

Quote:
>David, what's wrong with your ability to see this very simple reality?

With your example above I think you're the one without the ability to
see simple reality.

Quote:
>What are you missing?

Hopefully a lot of your bullshit.
 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by oconn.. » Thu, 26 Oct 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
> I didn't originate that phrase, effective mass, Joe.  Got it from
physics
> (college minor, Ivy League school).  The mass of the clubhead on a
scale is
> x ounces.  But the ball feels less than that if impact is not on the
center
> of gravity.

   Okay, but I think you might be slightly abusing the word in
this context.  Effective mass is typically used to describe
the amount of mass involved in dynamic events.  But your
description of momentum is basically for perfectly elastic
impacts, and presumes that all the mass is effective.
What you are really apparently doing is equating
effective mass with "apparent" mass.  Apparent
mass is merely a way of describing inefficiency in
mass terms.  An off center hit is an inefficienct impact
which could "apparently" result in less momentum transfer
than "mv" would indicate.  Apparent mass would be the
ammount of mass that would combine with the actual
velocity to result in the actual momentum transfer.
I guess effective mass might end up being part of
that mass reduction in some bad hits.  It would
depend upon the frequencies of the ball/club/impact.

Quote:
> Anyway, regardless of the words used to describe the reality, the
reality is
> that impact off center propels the ball with less separation velocity
than a
> perfect impact golf shot.  And since the two swings being compared had
the
> same swingspeed at impact, how do you explain the reality of the
difference
> in ball velocity..........if not due to "mass"....???

[snip]

    Well, you could express it all in terms of energy transfer
instead of momentum transfer. This would allow you to account for
poor coefficients of restitution.  Energy is lost in all
sorts of manners from poor hits.  You loose energy in heat
from elastic deformation of the ball, club, and shaft.  You
actually lose energy from the sound the impact makes.  There
is friction between the ball and club face.  Any nonelastic
(i.e. permanent deformations) will rob energy.  Off center
hits cause the shaft to deform differently.  It causes
torques in the head and shaft which require rotational
accelerations of the head and torsional strain energies
in the shaft that will be different than hits on the
"sweetspots".  And none of this analysis would require
you to mention effective mass.

     Of course, you could point out that energy itself
has mass and since you are transfering energy from the
club to the ball, you increase the mass of the ball,
and decrease the mass of the club.  But since it is
by the ratio of m=E/c^2 don't expect anyone to
measure it.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Hitting my irons better than ever, can't hit my woods

Post by George Hibbar » Thu, 26 Oct 2000 04:00:00

Words are less than adequate sometimes (usually...).  My whole point was, if
the impact velocity of the clubhead is the same for an on-center hit in one
case and an off-center hit in the other, and since momentum going in equals
momentum going out, the only thing that changed was "m" in the formula mv =
mv.  The distance of the shot is greatly related to the integrity of impact
("perfect impact").  Hence back to the analogy of the tack hammer vs. the
sledge hammer driving a nail--  the heavier sledge has more oomph.

Which gets back to the point originally made in this string: SUPPORT
(whether it is mass or applied force on the shaft...) DURING THE IMPACT
INTERVAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AMOUNT OF DECELERATION OF THE CLUBHEAD DUE
TO ITS IMPACT WITH THE BALL.  Ball velocity leaving the clubface is added to
the velocity of the clubface itself  to arrive at ball velocity relative to
the ground/air.

Since the ball leaves the clubface in either instance with approximately the
same efficiency (66%, 75?, I don't know the exact numbers and COR's for any
particular balls and impact velocities--testers know this stuff routinely),
then obviously the difference in velocity of the ball in the air is due to
the separation velocity of the clubhead.  In other words, in a mishit shot
the club "GOT SLOWED DOWN BY THE BALL" more than by a well hit shot.

Any problem with this logic?

George


Quote:


> > I didn't originate that phrase, effective mass, Joe.  Got it from
> physics
> > (college minor, Ivy League school).  The mass of the clubhead on a
> scale is
> > x ounces.  But the ball feels less than that if impact is not on the
> center
> > of gravity.

>    Okay, but I think you might be slightly abusing the word in
> this context.  Effective mass is typically used to describe
> the amount of mass involved in dynamic events.  But your
> description of momentum is basically for perfectly elastic
> impacts, and presumes that all the mass is effective.
> What you are really apparently doing is equating
> effective mass with "apparent" mass.  Apparent
> mass is merely a way of describing inefficiency in
> mass terms.  An off center hit is an inefficienct impact
> which could "apparently" result in less momentum transfer
> than "mv" would indicate.  Apparent mass would be the
> ammount of mass that would combine with the actual
> velocity to result in the actual momentum transfer.
> I guess effective mass might end up being part of
> that mass reduction in some bad hits.  It would
> depend upon the frequencies of the ball/club/impact.

> > Anyway, regardless of the words used to describe the reality, the
> reality is
> > that impact off center propels the ball with less separation velocity
> than a
> > perfect impact golf shot.  And since the two swings being compared had
> the
> > same swingspeed at impact, how do you explain the reality of the
> difference
> > in ball velocity..........if not due to "mass"....???
> [snip]

>     Well, you could express it all in terms of energy transfer
> instead of momentum transfer. This would allow you to account for
> poor coefficients of restitution.  Energy is lost in all
> sorts of manners from poor hits.  You loose energy in heat
> from elastic deformation of the ball, club, and shaft.  You
> actually lose energy from the sound the impact makes.  There
> is friction between the ball and club face.  Any nonelastic
> (i.e. permanent deformations) will rob energy.  Off center
> hits cause the shaft to deform differently.  It causes
> torques in the head and shaft which require rotational
> accelerations of the head and torsional strain energies
> in the shaft that will be different than hits on the
> "sweetspots".  And none of this analysis would require
> you to mention effective mass.

>      Of course, you could point out that energy itself
> has mass and since you are transfering energy from the
> club to the ball, you increase the mass of the ball,
> and decrease the mass of the club.  But since it is
> by the ratio of m=E/c^2 don't expect anyone to
> measure it.

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.