The influence of golf shaft stiffness on grip and clubhead kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of shaft stiffness on grip and clubhead kinematics. Two driver shafts with disparate levels of stiffness, but very similar inertial properties, were tested by 33 golfers representing a range of abilities. Shaft deflection data as well as grip and clubhead kinematics were collected from 14 swings, with each shaft, for each golfer using an optical motion capture system. The more flexible shaft (R-Flex) demonstrated a higher contribution to clubhead speed from shaft deflection dynamics (P < .001), but was also associated with significantly less grip angular velocity at impact (P = .001), resulting in no significant difference in clubhead speed (P = .14). However, at the individual level, half of the participants demonstrated a significant difference in clubhead speed between shafts. The more flexible shaft was also associated with significantly different magnitudes of head rotation relative to the grip. More specifically, both bend loft (P < .001) and bend lie (P < .001) were greater for the R-Flex shaft, while bend close (P = .017) was greater for the stiffer (X-Flex) shaft. However, changes in grip orientation resulted in no significant differences in face orientation, between the shafts, at impact.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".