Club position relative to the golfer's swing plane meaningfully affects swing dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research indicates that the motion of the golf club is not planar and that the plane traced out by the club is different than that of the golfer's hands. The aim of the present study was to investigate how the position of the club, relative to the golfer's swing plane, influences the motion of the club by using a four-segment (torso, upper arm, forearm, and club), three-dimensional forward dynamics model. A genetic algorithm optimized the coordination of the model's four muscular torque generators to produce the best golf swings possible under six different conditions. The series of simulations were designed to demonstrate the effect of positioning the club above, and below, the golfer's swing plane as well as the effect of changing the steepness of the golfer's swing plane. The simulation results suggest that positioning the club below the golfer's swing plane, early in the downswing, will facilitate the squaring of the clubface for impact, while positioning the club above the plane will have the opposite effect. It was also demonstrated that changing the steepness of the golfer's swing plane by 10 degrees can have little effect on the delivery of the clubhead to the ball.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".