Resisting impact is a "seems as if" if you believe some of the science presented in "Search for the Perfect Swing" and websites eg. Tutelman stuff ( he seems to have no agenda / no score to settle ) ... http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/De...wing4.php?ref=
If this is accepted as true then it makes the radius of the primary lever immaterial - at least for anything other than enhancing clubhead speed. The only thing that matters is the mass and velocity of the clubhead - not the length of the lever. ( although for a given angular velocity, the longer the lever the greater velocity of the clubhead) but why bring mass into the discussion?? Therefore "increasing effective clubhead mass" is unhelpful concept. There may be some benefit to alignmment and clubface control in keeping left wrist flat and hence extending lever from clubhead to left shoulder... but that is clubface control and not increasing effective mass.
The mix of pure science and "seems as if" is a potential weak point for TGM. Correction or peer-reviewed confirmation of the science strengthens TGM.
I , like Tongzilla, have found enormous benefits from studying Homer's works and learning how to read the book from this website. Very grateful for the opportunity to learn and discuss.
There's no doubt that the term "effective mass" could be somewhat criticized . . . BUT essentially what he is getting at is again inertia. Something with a longer radius has more resistance to change relative. Goes back to Conservation of Angular Momentum. Now there are some guys on other sites that say that COAM doesn't really play much part in the golf swing . . . I would like to hear about that. That would be the proverbial "blockbuster" that 6B spoke of. I'm "banned" in the U.S.A. . . . so I can't read that stuff. But I know that you frequent other places . . . . what's the scoop on COAM not really being a part of the golf swing?
Threaded Mode
