Power accumulators - relative value?
 

A statement about power in the swing by touring pros often includes something along the line of “swinging at 80% of full speed”. This got me thinking about the relative contribution to the power in the swing by the four accumulators. Are they created equal or are some more prominent than others? In essence, the pro claiming 80% is actually a triple barrel power player, and his 20% power reserve is the remaining fourth accumulator.

Now, if a player has a club head speed of 100 mph with a triple barrel – and assuming equal contribution – this would imply that each accumulator is responsible for a third of the power or 33.3 mph. If the fourth accumulator is added, would the player then reach a club head speed of 133.3 mph? The only players reaching those numbers I can think of would be Bubba Watson or Hank Kuehne (I guess long driving contestants should be included). But surely most of the pros are accomplished enough to create a four barrel power accumulated swing? Or are most of them limited to triple barrel swings?

If the concept that power accumulators are equal, then all of us tripe barrel swingers would actually have a 33% power reserve waiting in the fourth accumulator. Truth, or wishful thinking?

I have read 10-4-D a few extra times and Homer Kelley’s statement that:

“This high performance Four Accumulator Combination can produce many problems during its mastery by the player. But it can make the difference in top competition. Well controlled Double or Triple Barrel Combinations have little to fear from the Four Barrel Combination that is less than fully mastered.”
In other words, his focus is on the mastery, not the difference in accumulated power. Is that an indirect statement that the power accumulators are not created equal? Or simply that mastery is a Sisyphean task?

Rolling the Rock
 

Golf is sisyphean...after all we roll the rock! Interesting question...the answer to which I do not know! An added thought related to 4 barrels, as opposed to 3 barrels...I think this is where strength and conditioning becomes front and center factors. There are many machines that cannot handle the added pressure of a fourth accumulator without the power package disintergrating...especially when they have no earthly clue that such things exist!

I work with high school players. I have a 100 pound (after a fully clothed dip in the pool) freshman. His swing looks like sputnik upon re-entry; it does not take much to get his machine to start popping rivets. I have had a little success helping him zero out accumulators for better control. He gets his most playable results with just 2 accumulators. Dad insists that he learn to bust it first...a traditional approach for some. I told him that it was just a matter of adding a power source when his paper mache like frame can handle it! Just like the traditional tenet of swinging at 85% of max, the fourth barrell is perhaps better for wide open spaces distance freak drives!

Accumulators
 

Since most tour players have no idea about accumulators, I would tend to think they are talking about their perception of effort. They use a variety of accumulators around the green, but probably think about the club staying low to the ground rather than zeroing # 3 and minimizing #2. Or whatever.

When they talk about 100%, their feet tend to come off the ground. Think wide open, barely reachable par five.

Completely agree with Hennybogan that their terminology is non-TGM, but their perception of "power effort" at 80% (should be 75% if my hypothesis stand up) is the equivalent of a triple barrel, whereas a four barrel is driver on a long par 5.

My opinion is that they're thinking more in terms of a percentage of "lag pressure" they're trying to attain (or sustain). That should be independent of the number of accumulators. I don't know how many pro's are using 4 barrels, but I suspect many have fully mastered 3 and are able to swing at varying levels of lag pressure with those 3.