Advertisement

Sports Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 215–220 | Cite as

Golfers do not respond to changes in shaft mass properties in a mechanically predictable way

  • Daniel F. B. HaeufleEmail author
  • Jay Worobets
  • Ian Wright
  • Jenny Haeufle
  • Darren Stefanyshyn
Original Article

Abstract

A common belief in the golf community is that a lighter shaft allows the golfer to swing the club faster. From a mechanical point of view, reducing the mass of the shaft would result in a faster swing. However, a golfer is not a purely mechanical system, and so it is simplistic to assume that identical loads will be applied when swinging different clubs. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that golfers behave similar to a mechanical model when swinging clubs of varying mass. A torque driven model estimated the effects caused by the addition of 22 g to the shaft. Twelve golfers hit balls with a standard driver as well as a driver fitted with the same 22 g increase in mass. Club kinematics were collected with a high-speed motion capture system. The model predicted a 1.7 % lower club head speed for the club with additional mass. One subject showed a similar reduction (1.4 %), but one subject showed an increase in club head speed by 3.0 %. Ten subjects did not show any significant differences. These results suggest that golfers do not respond to changes in club mass in a mechanically predictable way.

Keywords

Club head speed Double pendulum model Driver Golf Shaft mass 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Geoff Smith for the assistance with the experimental setup, and all subjects for their participation in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Betzler N, Monk S, Wallace E, Otto SR, Shan G (2008) From the double pendulum model to full-body simulation: evolution of golf swing modeling. Sports Technol 1(4–5):175–188. doi: 10.1002/jst.60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daish CB (1972) The physics of ball games, 1st edn. The English University Press, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harper TE, Roberts JR, Jones R (2005) Driver swingweighting: a worthwhile process? Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 219(5):385–393. doi: 10.1243/095440505X32247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harwell MR, Rubinstein EN, Hayes WS, Olds CC (1992) Summarizing monte carlo results in methodological research: the one- and two-factor fixed effects ANOVA cases. J Educ Stat 17(4):315–339. doi: 10.3102/10769986017004315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jorgensen T (1994) The physics of golf. Contemporary physics, vol 35. American Institute of Physics, WoodburyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kenny IC, Wallace ES, Otto SR (2008) Influence of shaft length on golf driving performance. Sports biomech Int Soc Biomech Sports 7(3):322–332. doi: 10.1080/14763140802233249 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lampsa M (1975) Maximizing Distance of the golf drive: an optimal control study. J Dyn Syst Meas Contr 97:362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lix LM, Keselman JC, Keselman HJ (1996) Consequences of assumption violations revisited: a quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Rev Educ Res 66(4):579–619. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004579 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacKenzie SJ, Sprigings EJ (2009) A three-dimensional forward dynamics model of the golf swing. Sports Eng 11(4):165–175. doi: 10.1007/s12283-009-0020-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McDonald JH (2009) Handbook of biological statistics, 2nd edn. Sparky House Publishing, p 319Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nachtigall C, Wirtz M (2006) Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung und Inferenzstatistik, 4th edn. Juventa, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pelz D (1990) A simple, scientific, shaft test: steel versus graphite. In: Cochran AJ (ed) Science and golf. E & F N Spon, St. Andrews, pp 264–269Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Penner AR (2003) The physics of golf. Rep Prog Phys 66(2):131–171. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/66/2/202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pickering WM, Vickers GT (1999) On the double pendulum model of the golf swing. Sports Eng 2(3):161–172. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-2687.1999.00028.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reyes MG, Mittendorf A (1998) A mathematicsl swing model for a long-driving champion. In: Farrally MR, Cochran AJ (eds) Science and golf III. Human Kinetics, St. Andrews, pp 13–19Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Gheluwe B, Deporte E, Ballegeer K (1990) The influence of the use of graphite shafts on golf performance and swing kinematics. In: Cochran AJ (ed) Science and golf. E & F N Spon, St. Andrews, pp 258–263Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    White R (2006) On the efficiency of the golf swing. Am J Phys 74(12):1088. doi: 10.1119/1.2346688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Worobets JT, Stefanyshyn DJ (2007) Shaft stiffness significantly influences golf clubhead speed at impact. Program and Abstracts of the XXI Congress, International Society of Biomechanics. J Biomech 40(Supplement 2):S279. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(07)70275-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel F. B. Haeufle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jay Worobets
    • 2
  • Ian Wright
    • 2
  • Jenny Haeufle
    • 3
  • Darren Stefanyshyn
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Sports and Exercise-ScienceUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Human Performance Lab, Faculty of KinesiologyCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations