At 04:22 PM 8/15/2006, Alan Brooks wrote:
What's difficult to do in the models is to accurately model all of
the possible variations in muscle contraction that are
possible. Most of the force/torque models in the physics models are
relatively simple (constant, triangular, square, sloped, etc.).
Max's program is more sophisticated than this. It allows you to
define a profile over time. The big-muscle forces have a granularity
of 50msec, and the small-muscle forces 20msec.
Whereas we humans can apply a very complex force/torque history to the club.
But a good swing doesn't get this complex. Yes, I do know a few
people with somewhat bizarre swings that would probably exercise this
feature to the limit of what Max built in. (Ever watch Charles
Barkley? I'm pretty sure I couldn't model his swing in SwingPerfect.)
But I don't care. I'm not sure how to fit swings like that anyway.
In a sense this defines 'feel'.
I disagree. "Feel" is not the complex force/torque history, which is
the golfer's OUTPUT. It is the feedback to the golfer from the
applied force/torque, the golfer's INPUT.
I suspect the true answer is somewhere in between. The golfer is
applying forces, to be sure. But those forces are being applied in
the service of accomplishing certain positions. So perhaps the
golfer's OUTPUT is the effort to achieve positions -- at least
partially -- and the INPUT is the force with which the club reacts to
the golfer's effort.
But even if that were the case, I think that "feel" has to be more
than that. Think about the wristwatch test I mentioned in my response
to Don. Whether the force/torque profile is input or output, it
doesn't explain why the wristwatch does not affect performance, while
backweighting does for some golfers. The force/torque profile would
be essentially the same for the two cases (wristwatch and backweight)
for the same club behavior. So the feel -- which MUST be causing a
swing change for golfers where backweighting makes a difference -- is
a lot more subtle than the force/torque profile we're discussing here.
Ah, the joys of human testing.
We can certainly agree on that.
But is human testing the only worthwhile testing in golf club research?
If physical models aren't worth anything, then neither is robot
testing. I'd be prepared to bet that backweighting doesn't create any
measurable difference in result if tested by a robot. That's because
the robot has been pre-programmed with a force/torque profile over
time, and the feedback -- the "feel" -- is not going to affect that
profile. So robot testing corresponds to the physical model, and
that's all it can test.
Cheers!
DaveT
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.10/418 - Release Date: 8/14/2006
