The invention relates to technique practice implements for golf and is distinguished from exercise devices utilizing weight resistance for weight training, strength training or muscle conditioning.
The balance, felt heft and swinging weight of golf clubs have been measured and compared since around the year 1934 by measuring the moment (torque, or moment of force) of the golf club produced by the weight of the golf club acting at its center of gravity about an axis (or fulcrum) that is a predetermined distance from the butt end (proximal end) of the golf club. This moment has been known since about 1934 as the swinging weight, swingweight moment or simply the swingweight of the club. The most widely used predetermined distance from the butt of the club is 14 inches, but any other distance could be used; and 12 inches was proposed around the year 1948 but has not gained widespread favor in the golf club industry. The swingweight moment is directly expressed in terms like inch-grams. The golf club industry widely uses the “Lorythmic” swingweight scale to translate these inch-gram measurements into a letter and number scale like D2 which is equal to a 14 inch fulcrum swingweight moment of 6150 inch-grams. Each numerical step equals a 50 gram change in the swingweight moment. Swingweight moment is distinguished from moment of inertia which is very sensitive to the length of the golf club and is expressed in terms like gram-inches squared (gram-inches squared).
There are few, if any, neutrally weighted full length golf training aides, that is to say few that are not overly heavy and not substantially eccentrically off balanced relative to a conventional club. If a user desires a full size implement for practicing the golf swing that is weighted like and, when swung in the manner of a golf club, feels like a conventional golf club, the user is likely to choose a conventional golf club, with which the user can either practice his swing or hit balls on a driving range. Most golf swing training devices are consistently relatively heavy compared to a conventional golf club because their objective is muscle strengthening or muscle training. There is no shortened golf swing practice implement available that is weighted and balanced to feel like a conventional golf club and yet is substantially smaller than conventional golf clubs.
The prior art devices are typically either 1) heavier than a regular golf club for weight training, muscle training or muscle building, or 2) axially offset to exaggerate the release of the wrists in the swing. The devices disclosed by Matthews (U.S. Pat. No. 1,524,196) are both shortened and stated to be intended to feel like a regular golf club. However, the Matthews device is based on the calculation of the moment of the implement around the fixed point of the left shoulder of a golfer. This use of moment calculation of golf implements is inadequate to determine the “heft” or “swinging weight” of the implement which is believed to be a better determinant of the perceived feel of a club.
In 1934, Robert Adams patented the first “Apparatus for Measuring the Moments of Golf Clubs and the Like” (Adams, U.S. Pat. No. 1,953,916). Adams disclosed that the “heft” or “swinging weight” of a golf club could be measured and compared by determining the moment of the golf club “about a point a fixed distance from one end of the implement”; and then “found in actual practice that satisfactory results are realized if the fixed point is fourteen inches from the grip end.”
The Adams swingweight moment calculation is sensitive to changes in the center of gravity in the club itself. The Matthews' moment calculation is relatively insensitive to changes in the center of gravity in the club itself. The relatively long moment arms in the Matthews device reduce the importance of the balance, mass distribuition and feel of the practice implement itself. As a result, the Matthews moment calculation is not effective for determining how the exercise implement will “feel” when swung by a golfer. The resulting device “feels” like a regular golf club only if the wrists are not cocked in the backswing or uncocked in the downswing. The required stiff armed swing is not a golf swing. When swung like a regular golf club, with a regular golf swing, including the cocking of the wrists in the backswing, the uncocking of the wrists in the downswing, and the refolding of the wrists in the followthrough, the Matthews device would feel extremely light; its “heft” or “swinging weight” are not at all similar to a regular golf club. It offers too little of the swingweight moment of a regular length golf club around the center of motion of the hands and wrists. The center of gravity of the Matthews device is very near the end weight, and therefore not balanced like a regular golf club.
Neither the techniques used by Matthews and Adams are useful for very short clubs. For example, the Adams 14 inch fulcrum point swingweight scale cannot be used to measure the “heft” or “swinging weight” of very short practice implements when the total length of the device is shorter than the 14 inch fulcrum point or when the center of gravity of the device is at, near or inside the 14 inch fulcrum point.
Examination of other prior art devices does not reveal a training device that is both substantially shorter than conventional golf clubs and yet retains the feel of a conventional club when used in typical golf swings. What is needed is a training device that can be swung in the exact manner of golf motions while the user is in limited space and that at the same time provides the user with the same feel of a conventional golf club.
The current invention is an indoor golf swing practice implement that is weighted and balanced to feel like a regular golf club but having a very short length which can be used indoors in very small spaces such as are found in nearly all homes, apartments or offices.
The inventive device is distinguished from prior art by the smaller size and neutral weighting of the inventive device. The weighting is neutral both in terms of user-perceived heft, balance, swinging weight and in regard to weight offset from the axis of the shaft of the device. In view of the foregoing, it is the object of this invention to produce an indoor golf swing practice implement of simple construction which feels like a conventional golf club but is approximately 18 inches in total length and therefore useable indoors in very small spaces.
The current invention balances the weight of the shaft and an end weight in such a way as to place the center of gravity of the device in the proportionally similar position to a conventional golf club of longer length resulting in the feel of an actual conventional golf club when swung by a skilled golfer.
The inventor has found that using a fulcrum point four inches from the butt of the very short practice implement produces satisfactory and useful comparative “heft” and “swinging weight” moment calculation for very short practice implements. In preferred embodiments, the current invention includes an elongated shaft with a concentrated weight secured to one end. Adjacent the other end, the shaft has a grip similar to a standard golf grip. The combined moments of the components of the implement, about a point four inches from the proximal or butt end of the implement, is in the range of 9,500 to 11,000 inch grams. At the same time, the center of gravity of the implement is located at a distance from the distal end of the club equal to 20 to 25 percent of the total length of the implement. These parameters have been found to satisfy the objective of the invention in a novel way.
The inventive implement provides a unique structure and method of personal golf practice and training unavailable in prior devices. Additional aspects and advantages of the inventive implement are made clear in the following discussion of exemplary embodiments and the accompanying figures.
The first embodiment of the practice implement is illustrated as
With reference to
The distal end of the cylindrical end weight 14 preferably has a flat surface on which the practice implement can stand when stored on a flat surface.
With reference to
The inventive practice implement has a moment of between 9,500 and 11,000 inch grams resulting from the total mass of the practice implement at its center of gravity 18 acting around a four inch (from the proximal end of the implement) swing weighting fulcrum point 34 as shown in
The above 9,500 to 11,000 inch gram moment is substantially similar to the respective moment of a conventional golf club resulting from the total mass of the golf club at its center of gravity 18a acting around its respective four inch swing weighting fulcrum point 34a as shown in
Experimentation has shown that an implement of only twelve inches in length is not long enough to create the feel of a regular golf club. Experimentation has shown that a length of approximately 18 inches is required to recreate the feel of a regular golf club. The total length dimension 52 of the embodiment of the practice implement shown in
When swung by a skilled golfer, the practice implement shown in
The conventional method in the prior art of determining the heft and swinging weight of golf clubs involves the calculation of the moment from the total mass of the golf club at its center of gravity acting around the fulcrum point 14 inches from the club proximal end. This does not work for very short practice implements. Very short practice implements, such as desired in the invention, have a center of gravity that is too near this associated fulcrum point for useful calculations.
The inventor's experiments and investigation have determined that the four inch swing weighting fulcrum point 34 as shown in
A skilled golfer can grasp the inventive practice implement shown in
The neutral weighting of the practice implement also allows the golfer to practice the smaller swings in the game that do not involve a full release. These smaller chipping swings are widely understood to involve a less aggressive cocking of the wrist in the backswing and then a holding of the wrist cock through the impact area. The neutral weighting of the inventive practice implement does not introduce overweighted momentum. Many prior art practice devices are very heavy or have a heavy weight offset from the axis of the shaft to induce unnatural momentum into the practice swinging. This unnatural momentum is undesirable in the present invention. Heavy weights do not produce the “soft hands” required for a good short game.
The indoor golf swing practice implement shown in
As shown in
An alternative embodiment shown in
An alternative embodiment shown in
From the description above, a number of advantages of some embodiments of my practice implement become evident:
(a) The current invention reproduces the feel of full sized conventional golf is a very short practice implement which can be used indoors in very small spaces;
(b) The current invention is neutrally weighted with respect to both the feel of the total weighting and the eccentricity of the total weighting in relation to the shaft of the implement. The current invention will not induce in the hands of a golfer using the implement an exaggerated release or excessive momentum due to overweighting for muscle building or training.
(c) The current invention can be used all year long indoors by golfers in northern climates with limited access to outdoor golf facilities for many months of each year. The current invention can be used indoors in the kinds of very small spaces that are found in most single family homes, apartment or offices. This will allow skilled golfers to maintain their golf swings and golf fitness through the winter.
(d) The current invention can be stored standing vertically on its flat distal end. This very compact storage posture will allow it to be stored on any flat surface like a floor, a is table, a desk or a window sill.
Accordingly, it can be seen that the various embodiments of the indoor golf swing practice implement allow a golfer to practice indoors in very small spaces with a device that feels like a conventional golf club. The above embodiments are provided as exemplary of the invention and alternative configurations are contemplated and will become clear. For example, the cylindrical end weight could have other shapes, such as a chamfered edge, or an eased or rounded edge. Thus the scope of the embodiments should be determined by the appended claims rather than by the examples given.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1524196 | Matthews | Jan 1925 | A |
1953916 | Adams | Apr 1934 | A |
2462955 | Glancey | Mar 1949 | A |
2595717 | Smith | May 1952 | A |
3231281 | Wallo | Jan 1966 | A |
3351346 | Strahan | Nov 1967 | A |
3414260 | Gust | Dec 1968 | A |
3743297 | Dennis | Jul 1973 | A |
3999765 | Bishop | Dec 1976 | A |
4118033 | Miyamoto | Oct 1978 | A |
4511147 | Olsen | Apr 1985 | A |
4602788 | Wendt | Jul 1986 | A |
4809975 | Lee | Mar 1989 | A |
4878673 | Pollard | Nov 1989 | A |
5026063 | Rhodes | Jun 1991 | A |
5083790 | Wheatley | Jan 1992 | A |
5121925 | Blundo | Jun 1992 | A |
5215307 | Huffman | Jun 1993 | A |
5582407 | Sorenson | Dec 1996 | A |
5989131 | Burkholder | Nov 1999 | A |
6186904 | Bass | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6217495 | Yalch | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6358157 | Sorenson | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6379261 | Hart | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6475098 | Nemeckay | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6780118 | McCartney | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6955610 | Czaja et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6966844 | Welles | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7553239 | Pullaro | Jun 2009 | B2 |
20020132678 | Matzie | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030224867 | Ota | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040009826 | Aisenberg | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20050148402 | Welles | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050261075 | Pullaro | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20120077611 | Lorince | Mar 2012 | A1 |