Wangus94

Why is it that you suppose I mention Trackman owners Erik?

Than why didn't anybody know them, yourself included, until the late 2000s? Lol. I didn't realize that was your chart, I've seen several dozen identical ones from multiple Trackman owners. What's funny is that we're not even disagreeing on most everything and yet somehow its 10 on 1. The path analogy was assuming a linear progression of A-I, which is why I went C path D face. This ' we're right, we'll prove you wrong" exercise in childishness is exactly what I'm talking about and why ( approved for audience )

[RIGHT][/RIGHT][quote name="mvmac" url="/t/75950/lets-talk-ball-flights#post_1024198"] Correct, similar to what Ryan Moore and Fred Couples also do. Their body lines are aligned to "E", ball starts at "F" or "H"(push) and fades to "I". Also note that the amount of curve and distance between each letter is larger for emphasis and clarity. Nicklaus might only curve the ball 3-5 yards. [/quote] I think a lot of this semantics personally, but these charts are all assuming E is the flag ( assuming your hitting at it). Couples would be aligned somewhere left at like A, swinging toward C with the face pointing at D to get to his target of E. There's a push fade that accounts for alignment, path relative to alignment, and face relative to path. I do agree though that the ball flight laws completely fail to account for the body's role in creating these conditions. I think possibly because they were created based off radar data, and all this data is measuring against is a fixed target line. There should be an additional baseline measurement by these devices to confirm if the player is actually lined up square, otherwise the data seems like it would be misleading for a lot of folks.

Totally..... But I think the chart was made to be simplified and describe ball flights as it's often referred to as the 'new ball flight laws". I think it is assuming your lining up square with E as the desired target. Swiveling would majesty's it more complicated than it was intended in my opinion. There's definitely exceptions like Trevino but for most players with decent set up positions these ball flights are consistent with E being the straight shot. It would be interesting to hear the official stance from companies like Flightscope or Trackman

So E is not the target line in the chart? It's the general direction the player is aiming? I was told by a Trackman pro that E in these charts represents zero'd numbers... 0 face /0 path or a perfectly vertical d plane. He told me Trackman doesn't care what or how you create those numbers and that a straight ball flight is when you deliver the face square to your target with the clubs path moving down the line toward the target. I was taught that as long as you aren't needing to make compensations to get to the correct impact alignments, than the little idiosyncrasies don't matter

This chart is classifying these ball flights assuming a fixed target line of E

There are obvious examples where a player might align himself 45* right of target then route the club over the top and still manage to produce impact conditions that would allow the ball to start right and draw. That scenario obviously wouldn't be able to classified as a push draw. But what about the grey areas... for example where do you draw the line and start changing the definitions? A guy could literally date up square or parallel left and drop his right for back 3 inches and the 'push' changes to 'straight'. The way I see it, it all boils down to intention. If a player is looking at going for the flag that's tucked back left, but looks 10 yards right with intention of starting it 10 yards right and drawing it back in, then he's not really hitting a 'straight' draw using the ball flight laws. It may start relatively straight against his alignment but he clearly intending to send the ball right with a draw. There are obvious exceptions. But I guess the real question is where do you draw the line? A couple minor tweaks at address could both produce +4 /+2 numbers and identical flights and have totally different definitions.

Ok I tried to discuss this earlier and it wasn't in the correct place so I thought aid give it a go again. I'm curious how people here identify and define what their ball flight truly is. With my recent exposure to Trackman in the last several months I've come to change how I look at things. According to the so calked new ball flight laws, straight, push and pull definitions are very simplified and based solely on where the ball starts in relation to its target line. The radars simply measure the direction the club is moving and where the face pointing against the target line. Can't see how the golfer takes the club back, where the golfer is aligned, or what the intention of the golfers flight is. I want to know how you guts define the coveted push draw and how and what you have to do to achieve it. Do you need to be open or square and really swing out to the right or could you achieve the same desired result from a slightly closed stance? My opinion is that these questions show the limitations of using these new radar technologies because they fail to account for the body's role in how the club moves. Or, on the flip side, have these technologies and newer laws demonstrated that it doesn't matter what golfers do with their bodies to achieve conditions that get a ball to start right and curve back to the target for example. It could literally be the exact opposite ball flight but still be defined a number if ways. I would think using many different definitions to define ball flights would be somewhat confusing to the average recreational golfers. All thoughts debates welcome, at least on my end.

Ok it appears that your issue stems with set up or a path that's not far enough rightward of your face angle, and your face angle not far enough right. You need a more open face and more inside out path.

I wasn't defining it anyway. I was offering multiple points of view. We can move on no problemo but arbitrarily deleting posts you disagree with is a bit censory

Pissing match? I was offering my uneducated opinion trying to help the poster and the convo turned into definitions of push ect, but still totally relevant to he conversation. It appears the issue is that you don't like any debate lol

How is discussing what a push draw is or how it's defined off topic? It's all in the nature of discussion and some healthy debate can't hurt anybody. It's seems to be off topic only if you disagree;-) I don't get it?

I've been frequently this site periodically and on several occasions my posts have been edited and erased. Seems as if every time I say something that the moderators of this site disagree if disapprove of they simply erase/delete the content. Anybody else have this problem on this site?

Yea I get the definition thing based on body.... I thought it was off that the poster was concerned hitting the ball solidly and straight. Comments were made that he had issues or potential issues in his swing because he wasn't 'pushing' the ball. It sounds like his stock shot is straight...lol. Trying to fix something that ain't broken doesn't make sense to me

diesnt the term push draw simply mean a ball flight that starts out to the right of the desired target and curve back? Either way, if he's hitting the ball straight doesn't that mean his path and face are both square to his desired target( and by target I mean where he is trying to land the ball- not start it)? If he's hitting it solid and straight maybe he's better off not trying to swing further right than the face. My 2cents