by Ded2Journey » Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:59 am
I think it all depends on the kind of wind. I played yesterday in 2540mph windsgreat practice, but now I'm exhaustedhaha. This is what I've learned over the years of playing in Alabama, Texas, California, Cape Cod, Florida, New York, and Colorado. I still have a long way to go, but I feel the below strategy keeps me in the lowmid 70's. I'd love to knock a few strokes off this, but wind play is rough!
0. Under 5 mph (enjoy the breeze, mother nature is happy!) 1. 510 mph ( only really matters with short wedges, so I ignore it until I get closebut give it plenty of respect if I have to float anything) 2. 1020mph ( I found it works best to work the ball back into the wind and typically club up. If I'm struggling working it both ways I play a 3/4 punch to stay under the wind and minimize any mistakes) 3. 20+ mph ( I tend to play this wind from the tee box. I just let it carry, knock down or hold up my ball as it sees fit. Basically, I simplify everything to club selection/targetthis allows me to at least swing freely. Sometimes mother nature deserves respect, and in these conditions I just try to tune into nature and let it take me for a ride. I really enjoy using my imagination in these conditions too. This of course can be a bit of a guessing game so it takes patience. Pars are great scores on these days...the occasional birdies are oh so sweet.)
All in all, I stick to two major fundamentalsstay attached to the ground and have GREAT tempo=play within yourself!
OF NOTE: Dry winds are much easier to navigate than humid winds. Heavy air can really move the ball around...even 12 mph should be respected in Florida/Texas for example.
"People have always been telling me what I can't do. I guess I have wanted to show them. That's been one of my driving forces all my life." Ben Hogan

Ded2Journey

 Posts: 792
 Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:54 pm

by NRG » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:09 pm
Bodanis goes on to make another interesting point about E=mv2 Athletes perform these complex calculations all the time. Most school children can toss a ball at 20 mph, but only a few professional athletes can throw a ball at 100 mph. It's "only" five times as fast, but since the energy goes up as a square of the speed (E=mv2), the athlete has to generate 25 times as much energy
What's more, she has to do it in 1/5 the time.. To pour out 25 times more energy, in 1/5 the time, means she needs to generate 25 x 5 or 125 times more power.

NRG

 Posts: 1078
 Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:19 pm

by Mashie72 » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:27 am
NRG wrote:Bodanis goes on to make another interesting point about E=mv2 Athletes perform these complex calculations all the time. Most school children can toss a ball at 20 mph, but only a few professional athletes can throw a ball at 100 mph. It's "only" five times as fast, but since the energy goes up as a square of the speed (E=mv2), the athlete has to generate 25 times as much energy
What's more, she has to do it in 1/5 the time.. To pour out 25 times more energy, in 1/5 the time, means she needs to generate 25 x 5 or 125 times more power.
Thanks for posting..Need to think about this and maybe download the book...
"The secret is on the deck"

Mashie72

 Posts: 993
 Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:42 am

by NRG » Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:26 pm
It's a good book, I enjoyed it, and I'm thicker than a castle wall. What is energy? Voltaire had covered the seemingly ordained truths in his own popularizations of Newton: the central factor to look for when you are analysing how objects make contact is simply the product of their mass times their velocity or their mv1. If a 5 pound ball is going at 10mph, it has 50 units of energy.
But Du Chatelet knew that there had once been a famous competing view to Newtons... The important factor to focus on was their mv2. If a 5 pound ball is going at 10mph, it has 5 times 10 squared or 500 units of energy...
Which View is true?
.. a Dutch researcher who'd been letting weights plummet onto a soft clay floor. If the simple E=mv1 was true, then a weight going twice as fast as an earlier one would sink in twice as deeply. One going three times as fast would sink three times as deep. But that's not what 'sGravesande found. If a brass sphere was sent down twice as fast as before, it pushed in four times as far into the clay. If it was flung down three times as fast, it sunk in nine times as far into the clay.
Which is just what thinking of E=mv2 would predict. Two squared is four. Three squared is nine.
Not sure how useful that is to us golfers, but interesting non the less.

NRG

 Posts: 1078
 Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:19 pm

by LesMurray » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:14 pm
Does the book talk about the effects of acceleration on E=mv2? Meaning, these measurements are at a constant acceleration (gravity). What about if there is a higher rate of acceleration, where there any experiments done for that case?

LesMurray

 Posts: 1317
 Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:32 pm
 Location: Burbank, CA

by NRG » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:37 pm
No it doesn't. The book is about E=mc2 and this chapter was just explaining why squaring a velocity is more fundamental in nature than simple velocity is, and therefore why Einstein ended up with C squared instead of just C.

NRG

 Posts: 1078
 Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:19 pm

Return to Public Forum Concepts in Advanced Ball Striking
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
