Lesson With a Pro That Doesn't Understand Ball Flight Laws

[Hacker James]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

A-ha! Agree completely.

good, "glad we got that straight"  (movie Top Gun).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

To cut a long story short, I hope I'm not seen as defending crappy teachers here. All I'm saying is that they should be judged by their results.

I agree. The problem is we often don't get to see the results OR how they go about giving a lesson, so all we get is what they seem to know or say.

Originally Posted by Hacker James

If that particular instructor gave you something of value and useful to you, he did his job.

I agree. But you would probably agree that, all else equal, the instructor with the more correct knowledge is more likely to give the better lesson. It's far from a certainty - but it's more likely.

BTW, a big part of our 5SK development and authorization/certification/accreditation program includes making sure people not only KNOW the correct information (and continue to learn), but that they can teach. We are the only real accreditation system that we're aware of that stresses this and monitors it and makes it a key piece in determining whether someone "passes" or not.

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if there's a difference between us here, I imagine that it might be that you are so comfortable with the facts of impact that you can't envisage teaching ballflight any other way. Whereas, whilst it's a bit off-topic, I can envisage some ways golf could be taught effectively, even without being able to articulate the physics of impact. To give one example that seems relevant, a low-capper and one of the better ballstrikers at my club had what he describes as the lesson that made the most lasting benefits he's ever experienced - and it could be fairly characterised as a variation of the "roll the forearms" lesson, albeit with a touch of "running forehand" to counter the tendency to get the path going left.

My bigger gripe is just the tendency that I've seen in these sorts of discussion (in fairness, largely on other forums) to throw this teacher or that teacher under a bus based on their ability or otherwise to recite correctly the latest trendy facts or theory. I think the internet tends to facilitate the spread of the theory, divorced from the teaching practice, and suddenly everyone's an expert EXCEPT the frontline teacher. I'm not just picking on ballflight physics here - I've seen the same phenomenon with TGM, sports psychology, physiology, even the neuro-science of putting...[though if I had to guess, I'd say that what makes the ballflight laws debate different is the marketing $ supporting the sale of very expensive launch monitors.]

To cut a long story short, I hope I'm not seen as defending crappy teachers here. All I'm saying is that they should be judged by their results.

The problem with your example is that feel isn't real. For example, for years my swing has been get the clubhead way back in the swing, reroute the club with a slight over the top move, and have a slight pull cut. I was good at getting the club on plane, but its nearly impossible to get the clubhead to go from inside, to over the top, to drop back inside for a draw. Its easier to do something like Ricky Fowler, take the clubhead outside the hands, and then use gravity to drop the clubhead. My point is, for me to fix that swing path, my swing for a while had to feel like i was swinging like Fred couples, loop the swing. Then its now to the point were it doesn't feel like a loop. So for that player his FEEL might be roll the forearms, that may or may not be whats actually happen has to be seen by at least high speed camera to tell what happens.

Well facts are not trends, facts are facts. Trends are non-founded hypothesis that sound nice. So, i will throw teachers under the bus because they need a wake up call. But for teachers there has to be a fundamental knowledge. Its like math, you need to know how to do 2+2 before you can take the derivative of an equation. It builds on each other. So, i don't think its unreasonable for a teaching pro to understand that the ball starts were the clubface is pointing.

[birlyshirly]

Originally Posted by saevel25

The problem with your example is that feel isn't real. For example, for years my swing has been get the clubhead way back in the swing, reroute the club with a slight over the top move, and have a slight pull cut. I was good at getting the club on plane, but its nearly impossible to get the clubhead to go from inside, to over the top, to drop back inside for a draw. Its easier to do something like Ricky Fowler, take the clubhead outside the hands, and then use gravity to drop the clubhead. My point is, for me to fix that swing path, my swing for a while had to feel like i was swinging like Fred couples, loop the swing. Then its now to the point were it doesn't feel like a loop. So for that player his FEEL might be roll the forearms, that may or may not be whats actually happen has to be seen by at least high speed camera to tell what happens.

Well facts are not trends, facts are facts. Trends are non-founded hypothesis that sound nice. So, i will throw teachers under the bus because they need a wake up call. But for teachers there has to be a fundamental knowledge. Its like math, you need to know how to do 2+2 before you can take the derivative of an equation. It builds on each other. So, i don't think its unreasonable for a teaching pro to understand that the ball starts were the clubface is pointing.

To be honest - I don't see the problem with my example. I know feel's not real. But I also think that there are some facts about the golf swing that can get talked about in a level of detail that just seems to me to be of no practical value. E.g. I was always a little appalled to hear TGMers talking about the need to make contact "1 dimple" inside of centre, or taking account of clubface rotation during the impact interval. Not that I don't find some of that stuff interesting in theory, but that's another discussion.

On the other hand, the example I gave is of a low handicapper who still thinks that the best lesson he ever had, which turned his habitual fade into a stock draw, is now 18 months in the past and was conveyed in terms of feel and motion but never mentioned whether his clubface should be 2 degrees open to his target or 2 degrees closed.

I do take your point about how feels change as you build them into your swing. All I can do is work like crazy to try and make the change, and then try to forget about it, and see how my ballstriking holds up. Often I've reviewed progress with my teacher and had to ramp up the feelings of exaggeration again - but I'm always looking for the point at which things stick without being consciously monitored. It certainly helps in that situation to have some idea of where your ballflight might go if you underdo or overcook a particular change.

[Hacker James]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

To be honest - I don't see the problem with my example. I know feel's not real. But I also think that there are some facts about the golf swing that can get talked about in a level of detail that just seems to me to be of no practical value. E.g. I was always a little appalled to hear TGMers talking about the need to make contact "1 dimple" inside of centre, or taking account of clubface rotation during the impact interval. Not that I don't find some of that stuff interesting in theory, but that's another discussion.

On the other hand, the example I gave is of a low handicapper who still thinks that the best lesson he ever had, which turned his habitual fade into a stock draw, is now 18 months in the past and was conveyed in terms of feel and motion but never mentioned whether his clubface should be 2 degrees open to his target or 2 degrees closed.

I do take your point about how feels change as you build them into your swing. All I can do is work like crazy to try and make the change, and then try to forget about it, and see how my ballstriking holds up. Often I've reviewed progress with my teacher and had to ramp up the feelings of exaggeration again - but I'm always looking for the point at which things stick without being consciously monitored. It certainly helps in that situation to have some idea of where your ballflight might go if you underdo or overcook a particular change.

Nor do I, my friend....

[ReverseJinx]

It seems to me that it is the orientation of the club face in relation to the swing path. i.e., if you were to swing inside out with an open face, it would be a straight push, as the club face and swing path are in the same direction. If you were to swing inside out with a square face, the result would be a draw. If you were to swing dead straight with an open club face, the result would be a fade because the club would be coming "outside in" in relation to the club face. Thoughts?

[mdl]

Originally Posted by iacas

I have my doubts as to whether this "roll the forearms" trick will suffice - it tends to send the path more left, and is a "quick fix" type of instruction more often than not.

I 2nd this.  My biggest struggle with the golf swing is somewhat complicated but the result is that my most natural feeling swing results in a swing path that would hit a straight shot or a very playable fade with a square club face at impact, but instead more often than not leaves the face open.

When I've tried to fix it in what feels like the most direct, "manual" fashion, I find myself basically trying to roll the wrists.  This tends to result in a swing path way to the left at impact resulting either in huge pull draws or major slices, as the closing the of the club face is still inconsistent but the sending of the path to the left at impact is very consistent.  Very frustrating at the range when the "fix" makes things worse!

[cipher]

Originally Posted by ReverseJinx

It seems to me that it is the orientation of the club face in relation to the swing path. i.e., if you were to swing inside out with an open face, it would be a straight push, as the club face and swing path are in the same direction. If you were to swing inside out with a square face, the result would be a draw. If you were to swing dead straight with an open club face, the result would be a fade because the club would be coming "outside in" in relation to the club face. Thoughts?

Here is an exampl e of how a ball would start right of the target and draw back towards it.  The club face is not square but open a bit to the target, but also closed a bit to the path, or in other words it is in between the target and the path.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by ReverseJinx

It seems to me that it is the orientation of the club face in relation to the swing path. i.e., if you were to swing inside out with an open face, it would be a straight push, as the club face and swing path are in the same direction. If you were to swing inside out with a square face, the result would be a draw. If you were to swing dead straight with an open club face, the result would be a fade because the club would be coming "outside in" in relation to the club face. Thoughts?

This is true no matter which "laws" you want to believe.  This is the undisputed portion of ball flight.  Clubface square to path=straight in whichever direction those are pointing, clubface left of path equals draw/hook of some kind, and clubface right of path=fade/slice of some kind for a righty.

The key difference between the "old school" and "new school" ways of thinking are that the old school guys think that path determines the INITIAL direction, whereas it's actually the face.  Old school says point you clubface at your final destination and swing your club along the line you want it to start.  New school has realized that if you actually do that, you won't succeed.  Ball will start at your final destination and curve away from it.

While I agree that it's important (and sometimes even enough) for amateurs to understand the basic part of the laws as you describe them ... where you can run into big problems is with teachers diagnosing a problem based on the wrong "laws."  (Read mvmac's post above for an example of one of these diagnoses)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ReverseJinx

It seems to me that it is the orientation of the club face in relation to the swing path. i.e., if you were to swing inside out with an open face, it would be a straight push, as the club face and swing path are in the same direction. If you were to swing inside out with a square face, the result would be a draw. If you were to swing dead straight with an open club face, the result would be a fade because the club would be coming "outside in" in relation to the club face. Thoughts?

Open to what? Square to what? Closed to what? Face to path always governs curve. Always has, fortunately. To get that wrong would be extra -stupid.

Where the "old" rules go wrong is determining start direction (and consequently, finish location).

P.S. We prefer to use the words "open" and "closed" when relating face and path to one another, and "right" and "left" when discussing things relative to the target. A draw that finishes near the target must be hit with a right-pointing face at impact (right-pointing of the target) with a path more right-ward of the target (or where the face is pointing - same thing), thus making the face "closed" to the path.

[ReverseJinx]

Thank you for eloquently stating what I was trying to say. The swing path relative to the club face angle (left, right) is what determines ball flight. Would you agree with this statement?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ReverseJinx

Thank you for eloquently stating what I was trying to say. The swing path relative to the club face angle (left, right) is what determines ball flight. Would you agree with this statement?

Do a little research. This is an old, OLD topic.

"The ball starts generally where the face is pointed at impact and curves away from the path."

"Ball flight" is far more than the curve. As I just said above , the old (wrong) and "new" (correct) laws have always agreed on that. They've disagreed on start direction and finish location.

[maddog0512]

Originally Posted by iacas

Though I agree (and applaud) your characterization of it as a shibboleth, it's more than just a passphrase into some sort of club - it's kind of fundamental to instruction. It demonstrates that an instructor is willing to learn, in the case of an older instructor, and demonstrates that a younger one has a good first step. Most instructors throw enough stuff out there that one of them may stick, and I have my doubts as to whether this "roll the forearms" trick will suffice - it tends to send the path more left, and is a "quick fix" type of instruction more often than not.

I should be clear; this is not what the pro was telling me to do but rather what I was trying to feel as I was making swings.  If this is a "quick fix" then what would be the correct way to go about practicing a sound release?  I feel like this is a big problem I tend to have with all of my clubs.

[Hacker James]

Originally Posted by maddog0512

I should be clear; this is not what the pro was telling me to do but rather what I was trying to feel as I was making swings.  If this is a "quick fix" then what would be the correct way to go about practicing a sound release?  I feel like this is a big problem I tend to have with all of my clubs.

Now that you have determined what face angle and swing path do to the ball flight, if I understand you correctly you are concerned with your release. A few things that work ( FOR ME ):

1. stronger grip (not grasp but  hands orientation)

2. Light right hand. I have a rather loose "trigger finger" and thumb where at the start of the swing barely touching the grip and I seem to automatically tighten/grasp (a little) at the top of the swing.

3. Using a ten finger grip if I start having slicing problems usually gets me back on track. Even a "split" grip. Once timing is restored, I revert to my overlap grip.

Fred couples does something similar but he kind of loosens the trigger finger on the downswing.

What specifically did the pro tell you as a drill? (just curious)

[ReverseJinx]

I've done exhaustive research, and I agree with what you are saying (you cannot disagree with the laws of physics). I was after a simple and concise way to explain a relatively complex concept to a novice. (Mod: Name-calling and general stupidity removed.)

[ReverseJinx]

I do appreciate all of the helpful insight and diagrams above. Thanks for taking the time to explain the old and new concepts to me.

I had actually never heard anyone explain ball flight curvature in the "old school" way(other than in text), but I'm a relatively young buck and my father seemed to have a strong grasp on the "new school" even in the early 90s when I was learning the game. The "old school" makes no sense.

[cipher]

Originally Posted by ReverseJinx

Not going to quote it because I hate name calling around here. Grow up!  Nobody was being a "D" to you.   Should everyone have to go on and on about this every time someone comes on here asking about it without looking it up?  The information originally posted is sufficient.  If you had actually done extensive research on this you would have been able to explain it correctly.

[maddog0512]

Originally Posted by Hacker James

Now that you have determined what face angle and swing path do to the ball flight, if I understand you correctly you are concerned with your release. A few things that work (FOR ME):

1. stronger grip (not grasp but  hands orientation)

2. Light right hand. I have a rather loose "trigger finger" and thumb where at the start of the swing barely touching the grip and I seem to automatically tighten/grasp (a little) at the top of the swing.

3. Using a ten finger grip if I start having slicing problems usually gets me back on track. Even a "split" grip. Once timing is restored, I revert to my overlap grip.

Fred couples does something similar but he kind of loosens the trigger finger on the downswing.

What specifically did the pro tell you as a drill? (just curious)

It was basically the "extreme closed stance" drill, focusing on feeling my hands release the club.  To begin, my back was facing the target and the ball was positioned in line with the middle of my left foot.  My hands gripped the club about 2 inches off my left thigh.  I was using my 9 iron and teeing it up about 1/4 inch.  Once I was making solid contact and hitting it straight like this, I moved my stance to be about 45 degrees closed and teed the ball off my left toe.  Rather than try to hit it straight, I tried to hit get it to curve as far left as possible.  Once I was consistently getting serious right-to-left flight, I lined up normally and hit them straight.  At this point I tried to swing a little more in-to-out to keep the draw.  It really seems to be helping as I was getting real nice distance (150-155 yards consistently) and height on my shots.  When I am aligned normally, I will still get a few that fade right so when that happens I go back to a more closed stance and focus on my release.  My problem now is that I'm getting used to hitting my irons off tees, granted they're only 1/4 inch high, so that when I go to hit them off the grass I'm chunking the hell out of it.  Not sure what that's all about...