Curve the Ball Less to Hit It Farther

[billchao]

PING - Blogs

---

 

Pretty good article from Chris Broadie, the head of fitting science at Ping, showing the advantage of hitting the ball straighter.

Quote

The majority of us fight an unpredictable fade/slice or the tendency to hit a snap hook. Furthermore, our player test data shows that better golfers tend to have minimal curvature on their drives. On average, tour pros curve the ball only 11 yards on a 290-yard drive. 

Outliers like Bubba Watson (he's mentioned in the article) aside, better players tend to curve the ball less.

That makes sense. Straighter shots are more accurate and more predictable, so it would lead to better golf scores.

Chris demonstrates the effect of large curves by using a tour pro's impact variability and simulating straight shots ( average of 0° face-to-path) vs a big draw (average of -6° face-to-path) 

So if the average tour player were to hit drives with large curves, he would lose 24 yards off the tee and gain 12% accuracy. People always like to have the distance vs accuracy debate, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that 12% accuracy is worth losing 2-3 clubs for on the second shot.

Quote

The curving shot shape travels on average 24 yards shorter than a straight ball flight. Interestingly, the shaped shots do have a 12% tighter stat area. This may explain why it is the shot of choice for Bubba; he is plenty long, so he can afford to sacrifice a little distance for hitting the fairway. And on a standard hole with no serious trouble, the added yards more than make up for a little more dispersion. Likewise, on par 5’s, where distance is a huge advantage, Bubba will often opt for a long, straight ball. From a strokes-gained perspective, the straight condition would expect to perform 1.1 strokes better per round.

He does point out that the accuracy can be advantageous. I suppose if you hit the ball 320 yards, you can afford to hit it 296 yards to get a better chance at hitting the fairway when you really need to. The 1.1 strokes per round is significant though. That's a lot of strokes the simulated tour player is giving up off the tee with the bigger curve.

A more realistic scenario for a tour player looks like this:

Here you can see the difference between the straight shot vs the curved shot is negligible. So a curve is not bad in and of itself, but too much curve and you're not getting the most out of your drives.

[Bonvivant]

This is awesome. Cool stats and a great article. Makes me think of Moe Norman. There are certainly shots where shaping is advantageous, but they are outliers in my mind, and if you know how to hit it dead straight, closing or opening the face a couple of degrees does the trick for these shots. 

[GolfLug]

Makes sense. I rarely see a sub 5 hcp player curve more than 3-4 yards. No coincidence that hitting  0 path + 0 face consistently is also the hardest shot in golf.

For me rope straight shots are as Ben Hogan said once, 'merely an accident'. 

[billchao]

2 hours ago, GolfLug said:

I rarely see a sub 5 hcp player curve more than 3-4 yards.

For a wedge? The chart shows the average 5 handicap would curve the ball about 18 yards on a 250 yard drive.

[saevel25]

It makes sense from a physics standpoint. When curving the ball the strike is more of a glancing blow. Even if the velocity is the same, the ball can only travel a certain distance. So, adding a horizontal vector will take away from the other vectors. 

[Zippo]

3 hours ago, GolfLug said:

Makes sense. I rarely see a sub 5 hcp player curve more than 3-4 yards. No coincidence that hitting  0 path + 0 face consistently is also the hardest shot in golf.

For me rope straight shots are as Ben Hogan said once, 'merely an accident'. 

I don't understand how it's harder to hit 0 path + 0 face consistently than it is to hit 0 path and -2 face (or any other combination) consistently?

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Zippo said:

I don't understand how it's harder to hit 0 path + 0 face consistently than it is to hit 0 path and -2 face (or any other combination) consistently?

It may not be harder, but a zero path and -2 face allows you have a consistent shape if your face angle varies from zero to -4. If you have a zero path and zero face, it means you probably vary -2 to +2. Also your swing path may vary a bit. This can cause your intended straight ball to either fade or draw. Most golfers like to see the ball curve towards the target. 

[GolfLug]

3 hours ago, billchao said:

For a wedge? The chart shows the average 5 handicap would curve the ball about 18 yards on a 250 yard drive.

18 yards curve in an average??? Wow, I need to have my mental camera caliberated. 

2 hours ago, Zippo said:

I don't understand how it's harder to hit 0 path + 0 face consistently than it is to hit 0 path and -2 face (or any other combination) consistently?

Because we don't push club from behind. We move it from the side. Easier to push draw or pull fade since leverage is asymmetric. Same for face. Unlike other 'tools' like baseball bat, shaft does not pass through center of club mass. Most good players adopt the natural asymmetry instead of fighting it. 

I think it is harder to overcome and play a consistent 0+0 in that sense.

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

 Most golfers like to see the ball curve towards the target. 

Yes.

[billchao]

7 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

18 yards curve in an average??? Wow, I need to have my mental camera caliberated. 

The chart is ball curve per hundred yards of carry. So a tour player that falls in the 5 yard range would curve the ball 15 yards on a 300 yard drive.

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

The chart is ball curve per hundred yards of carry. So a tour player that falls in the 5 yard range would curve the ball 15 yards on a 300 yard drive.

I see the chart and usually I am not one to challenge something published by a company of Ping's caliber, but 18, or even 15 yards average seems a lot. They're not saying upper end of range, which would be somewhat palatable. This means there are plenty that curve 25+yards AND put it out there 250 plus. Maybe on open linksy courses that might be be fine but on tight tree lined courses? IDK...

Of course, this is purely conjecture in my part.

Edited June 25, 2020 by GolfLug

[iacas]

I think, Vishal, you're under-estimating. Look at the "feet of curve" on a PGA Tour broadcast when they have the launch monitors showing the ball flight.

Consider also a fairway might be 35 yards wide. A ball that starts at the right rough line and is obviously going to draw… often finishes in the center or left-center of the fairway.

[Zippo]

13 hours ago, saevel25 said:

It may not be harder, but a zero path and -2 face allows you have a consistent shape if your face angle varies from zero to -4. If you have a zero path and zero face, it means you probably vary -2 to +2. Also your swing path may vary a bit. This can cause your intended straight ball to either fade or draw. Most golfers like to see the ball curve towards the target. 

Thanks for the info.