The influence of golf club shaft stiffness on clubhead kinematics at ball impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of shaft stiffness on the golf swing is not well understood. Studies in which golfers hit balls with clubs of varying shaft flex have reported changes in ball distance. The results of mathematical models suggest that shaft stiffness affects only the orientation of the clubhead at impact, not the speed of the clubhead, but there are no experimental results validating these findings. The purpose of this study was therefore to experimentally examine the influence of shaft stiffness on clubhead kinematics at ball impact. Forty golfers hit 10 balls with each of five drivers varying in shaft stiffness from 'Ladies' to 'Extra-Stiff', in a double-blind study design. The motions of three reflective markers attached to the clubhead were captured with a high-speed motion analysis system. At ball impact, shaft stiffness had a statistically significant influence on clubhead speed for 27 subjects, on loft angle for 11 subjects, and on lie angle for all 40 subjects. No effect was observed on face angle, in to out path angle, or attack angle. These results show that shaft stiffness can affect ball launch conditions by altering clubhead speed and/or loft angle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".