Shot Cones

This will be guesswork perhaps, but how much of the shots outside the cone are a result of clubface angle?

In the first four cones, it looks to me like you would need different swing paths. That is if the black line is simply the target line or your alignment. If you have a swing that with a square alignment draws like in the first picture, the same swing path in the third picture would draw more like the one on the fifth picture (row 2).

What I'm trying to ask is how much the swingpath can change if someone were to hit 100 shots with the same club (not considering fatigue etc.). A swing will usually look the same if you record it 10 times, but will the swingpath also be pretty much the same, as long as the person is not working on something which can change things on those 10 swings? If the swing path stays on a somewhat similar plane, the deviation we see on shots is mostly a result of clubface angle.

This is where high handicappers struggle, having the two way miss. Flipping, timing the "release", rolling and turning the arms. Tiger's had some trouble with this, because his swing has relied on timing for a very long time. I know pretty much where my swing path is on most shots, but I can't predict for sure with some accuracy where my clubface will point at impact. Which is why I can hit one ball left of the green and one right. A few degrees off the optimal angle is enough to miss. Having a cone where you know you won't leave the clubface open is an advantage. This is why most recommend you always hit a curved shot, taking one side out of the equation. The problem with higher handicaps (including me) is that we don't have enough control over the swing to know for sure that the clubface will most likely never get past some point, or stay withing a small enough cone.

You can play good golf with a swing moving out-in or in-out, but if you don't have consistency in the clubface angle, you'll still end up spraying the ball all over the place. Once you get the clubhead past the hands on the downswing, anything can happen. A strong or weak grip can cause some issues, but ultimately it comes down to not manipulating the wrists through the downswing to square up, hold off or close the clubface, conciously or not and obviously the flying wedge, flat left wrist, forward leaning shaft etc. Of course, this shows how poor a lot of the golf instructions are when people are told to roll the clubface over to hit a draw.

Good post btw. I've been thinking about the same stuff from time to time and how I have a pretty large cone. Missing a green with some yards is fine, but missing it 10 yards right out of bounds or into a hazard is not.
The smaller cone, the better golf. This is ballstriking, which can be directly related to a person's handicap. It would've been interesting to have someone do an experiment with a number of people, handicaps ranging from + to 36. Measuring a number of shots both on distance and sidways disparity to see how the cone changes from high to low handicap.

Everyone hit a poor shot once in a while, the thing is to narrow down those shots to a minimum. The lower handicap, the less percentage of a player's shots will be poor.

Yesterday, when I was practicing, the majority of my shots stayed within the cone of which you speak. Only a few didn't, but they were very close (pulls left of the green) to being good. They were only about 15-20 yards left of my target. My cone has narrowed dramatically since I've started really working on Stack and Tilt.

This kind of goes along with something Tom Watson was talking about on a Golf Channel Show. He was stating only when you are playing your absolute best do you get anywhere close to playing to pin point targets. Most of the time it's more of a zone you want to hit through, he used football goalposts for a visual. When you are playing horrible you want to wide the goal posts (wider cone) as you improve you start to narrow those goal posts (narrow cone).

I have recently had a couple ah ha moments. The first was passive arms and body rotation. You really have to wait for the swing to develop. If you rush it "bad things" happen. The second was sliding the hips. I went from scooping to taking a divot in front of the ball.

Recently I had a poor ball striking day, it was not quite right but my misses for the most part were acceptable. I shot the best score to date on a difficult course and was really not feeling it that day.

I agree that good mechanics keeps you inside the cone, being inside the cone sure makes it easier.

The cone idea is great and should be mentioned to everyone who plays. Reason being, you aren't going to hit the perfect shot every time but there's no reason why you can't make the decent shot a very high amount of the time. I think we get stuck in trying to make that perfect shot every time and it hinders our ability to relax and make a consistent swing. It has taken me awhile to figure this out but now I try to focus on putting the ball in an area which will give me the best success. Me, being a hacker, sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn't. But, I can honestly say if the result is extreme (like in the 2nd row that Erik posted) then I already know it was a matter of swing discombobulation and I WILL rectify it on the next attempt. If it happens to be a little off, like the 1st row (which really isn't off, obviously) then I just live with the result as I executed the shot as I intended.

I use the shot cone at the driving range--keeps you focused, helps with target awareness, keeps you in tune with your swing and its impact on ball flight.

Pro's mostly use blades. muscle backs or players cavity backs, which are all known to be more on track (within the cone) by design only, GI and SGI are known to have a greater cone even on good hits, can you say anything about the difference in cone width based on club design ?

Yeah, that's right. On my course, you can hardly find a flat fairway to save your life. Always with the upphill, downhill or sidehill lies, some pretty extreme, real target golf. I'm talking about tee shots from a perfect lie and normal conditions. Aiming for a 20 yard wide fairway and still missing it left one shot and right one shot. If you can hit those shots within a small cone, it'll be easier to keep the cone small from different lies and under different conditions.

I agree, I just put myself in the group of those who flip and cast, which normally are higher handicaps. "Big part" is an understatement, it's a lot of the reason for it.

Definitely, but I would lose some distance as long as I'm flipping. Hitting 75% shots while trying to speed up the arms more is a challenge. Or do you mean 75% backswing length? But this thread is not about me, a small sidetrack here.

.. What? I was of the understanding that players use what they can work the best, not what has a better cone. That brings me to my next point: I also thought that GI/SGI clubs were used to keep the ball more in the cone for bad players. Also, if you hit SGI/GI clubs perfectly, you're saying that the cone is going to be wider? How does that make any sense?

@Zeph: I'm pretty sure that iacas meant that he wanted you to take a 3/4 swing (which would reduce power (the clublength difference he mentioned)). With the 3/4 swing you have more control over your club and yourself which would also add more control (and therefore more fairways and GIRs, etc..)

Got a question - looking at the # 2 and # 3 images under "Shots Leaving the Cone" (going from left to right), wouldn't these specific shots end up better than shot image # 4 (and possibly even # 2) above the ""Shots Not Leaving the Cone" section?

I follow the logic in your verbiage - guessing that there will be outlier shors that end up better (a low % of the time) than others, but that the teaching lesson here is to identify your cone zone, and then work to reduce it over time. In other words, not chance it that <5% of your shots will somehow end up ok.

If you hit a blade outside the sweetspot, you loose distance, but the direction is still on target. There has been some research on dispersion on "pure" hit GI irons, compared to "pure" hit blades (by using a robot, which can strike, pure after pure after pure, etc. ) .... and the general outcome was that pure hit shots with the blades are more accurate on target than the GI .....

I know most people think it would be the other way around, but it is just simply not the case......

I'm pretty sure that's not true. With any type of club, blade or not. But this isn't a blades thread so...

Is the point of "shot cones" just to say that you should keep your ball within a certain distance on the correct side of the hole throughout the ball flight? That's what it seems to mean to me.

That's how I understood it and at today's practice I started to try and picture where the cone would be for each shot. Don't know if it is because I focused on this but my curves seemed to get a lot smaller than the usual hook I've been hitting.

How would one know how big the cone should be?

Presumably the cone should be as narrow as your skill permits. Although the original post is clear and nicely illustrated, I am surprised that this concept seems new or novel to most golfers at an intermediate or better level. My "cone" is the right two-thirds of the fairway, so I aim the ball slightly to the right of the midline. I try to hit a power fade. If I do fade it properly, I am on the right side of the fairway. If I get a slight draw, I am on the left side. Relatively straight is somewhere in between. I really don't think this is rocket science.

from what I can gather in thinking about these "cones"..lol(had to snicker)..the right side of the cone if you're a draw player would be the furthest point right that you feel is a "good miss" and the straight line is always to the target you want to end up at. Flip it for a fader.

I think it would be silly to go out and then all the sudden start worrying about how big your cone is and where it should be and keeping the ball inside it. I dunno, maybe I'm just a K.I.S.S. person and I just don't feel like this would be a beneficial thing on the course. As Calboomer said, we pretty much should always already be doing this..no need to overcomplicate it.