By Kyle Shay, CEO at superspeedgolf.com
SuperSpeed 3 club Overspeed training system versus the new Counterweight Training club.
Overspeed training and Counterweight training are different in a few ways. Overspeed training increases the neuromuscular reaction speed of the body to a known motor program.
This training uses lightweight clubs first to create a faster reaction in the muscles from the signal sent by the brain. After a small number of repetitions, the brain remembers and begins to expect this faster reaction speed.
Then the nervous system is challenged with two progressively heavier clubs to permanently increase the player’s swing speed. On average this will create an immediate jump in speed after the first session with this change becoming more permanent after the completion of the full-length protocol.
Two professional players are shown below as examples of this initial jump in speed.
Counterweight training, in contrast, only uses one club which has a significant amount of weight moved to the end of the grip compared to a normal driver.
This changes the physics of the club, altering the MOI and the potential release velocity and acceleration. This promotes a significant increase in velocity of the hands and arms around impact.
These increases allow players who have both been working with overspeed training for some time and those who have never worked with overspeed training to see significant swing speed gains.
Detailed below are 3 examples of amateur players who have never done any SuperSpeed training showing their increases after the first session with the Counterweight club.
As with the three club Overspeed training system, the counterweight training will produce an immediate jump in clubhead speed after the first session with those gains becoming more permanent with the completion of the full protocol.
The TrackMan launch monitor system has been where most of the SuperSpeed testing data is tracked for speed, launch and impact numbers.
Every mph gained is equivalent to 2.5 yards if all things are equal.
The first SuperSpeed Overspeed protocol contains 39 total swings lasting 5-8 minutes total. SuperSpeed recommends performing the protocol 3 times per week for 6 weeks with a day off in between for optimal results. Each position contains dominant and non-dominant side swings.
Austin Cooke began working with the SuperSpeed 3 club OverSpeed Training System in 2017 while on the Korn Ferry Tour.
In 2017 he averaged 107.4 mph in his limited starts on the PGA Tour. Below are the numbers from his initial session where he maxed out driver speed at 106.5 mph.
After the session, he hit 109.8 clubhead speed, gained 6 mph in ball speed, and greatly increased carry and total distance. He has since averaged over 110 mph in both 2018 and 2019.
Anna Nordqvist went through her first SuperSpeed session with the 3 club OverSpeed training system in 2018. She was maxing out at 89.3 mph with driver.
After her first session, she maxed out at 93.3 mph as well as added 3.7 mph of ball speed. The strike wasn’t as consistent after the session but as that gets back closer to her 1.5 smash the translation to distance would show.
The first SuperSpeed Counterweight protocol contains 39 total swings lasting 5-8 minutes total. SuperSpeed recommends performing the protocol 3 times per week for 6 weeks with a day off in between for optimal results. Each position contains dominant and non-dominant side swings.
Counterweight club TrackMan results-1st three shots are max after speeds, 2nd three shots are max before speeds.
Player 1 maxed out at 107 mph and reached 110.4 after:
Player 2 maxed out at 89.7 mph before and 92.7 after:
Player 3 maxed out at 82.9 mph before and 86.4 after:
Have you tried any speed practice?
Feel free to share your insights in the comment section below.
Hi, this article looks like a “case report” explained by the CO of the company.
In the medical field, publications regarding a technique are made by searchers who declare at the begining of the article that they have no interest with the technique.
When will we have these types of articles in the golf world?
And more than that, why don’t we have double blind experiences?
That can create the base of a more rigorous approach.
The best measurement tool can be followed if the protocol is also the best.
Best regards
JM
Hi JM
Think about the drivers for research in the medical field – specifically drugs as an example. A successful drug has to be proven effective (or at least not harmful) to get approval. Lives are on the line. Big pharma invests billions of dollars into development, and get huge returns on that money if they find a product that works. That’s where the money comes from to do proper academic studies.
Taking a couple of strokes off your handicap just isn’t that important. Where do you think the money is going to come from to drive that sort of research? Yes, the evidence from these case studies is weak compared to a double blind research study from impartial academics, but these case studies are more evidence than you usually get in this field.
Hi
I don’t understand your answer.
Regarding an enquiry of Ernest and Young, Golf market is about 1.5 billions euro just in France in 2017.
14% of this amount concern material.
With such an amount of money, it seems that golf isn’t that poor that serious studies can’t be leaded.
Many web sites propose lessons, tips…
Sure that companies such as trackman can propose to lend these independant tester a machine to achieve these studies…
Independant pro could also be interested in providing serious studies in exchange of a trackman.
It depends if you work for the customers or to stay in the good graces of the major brands.
But that’s just an opinion…
There’s no monetary incentive to do this study though, right? What does the golf world have to gain buy including open sourced research in an environment where they’re in the business of maximizing profits, quarter after quarter, of their proprietary products in a cut throat world? What’s the control? Superspeed trainer? Something else? Why would Acushnet, Aldila, Mitsubishi, Tayormade, etc… pool their money to fund a research project when the answer is “practice” not “buy the new club?”
If my job was to maximize sales why would I put funding in “hey what you really should be doing is practice, stretch and training, you might not even need new clubs?” That’s be the dumbest sales pitch ever. But if you say “hey you suck, you know and it I know it, but what if I could straighten and lengthen your drives without you having to do the work.”
Ultimately if you wanted to be objectively better you’d forgo the driving range and work on your chipping and putting, you’ll immediately drop scores but again no monetary incentive for that either.