Note: This thread is 1191 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!
-
Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap
-
- 214 replies
- 60,080 views
-
- 90 replies
- 62,510 views
-
- 8,146 replies
- 349,777 views
-
- 3 replies
- 162 views
-
- 22 replies
- 1,072 views
-
-
TST Partners
Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.
Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code). -
Posts
-
-
By iacas ·
@Jim Venetos is not worth the time. He plays 142 x 3 shots with his pitching wedge? Okay, what's the technique difference between his 125-yard shot and his 124-yard shot and his 126-yard shot? Oh, there is none, and he's nowhere near precise enough to hit those carry yardages to ± 0.5 yards anyway? So you play 142 x 3 = 426 shots with your pitching wedge but only four with your driver, Jim? That's the critique: not worth the time. -
-
By iacas ·
You did a poor job of explaining that, then. But also… so what? I agree that if someone delivers delivers a straight path and a 5° right-pointing face, they're going to start to swing left some amount, and that the face will "travel" with that. Not 1:1, as in if they swing 10° left the face will be 5° left, but it's often not far off from 1:1. The relationship isn't perfectly steady, but it's somewhat steady, generally. But… so what? That's not the ball flight laws. Those are what they are, and your version simply complicated what can be a pretty simple way of understanding it. You're talking about instruction, or how you go about fixing a ball flight, not the actual physics itself. Not necessarily, given that you can do a lot of things in the swing to change that relationship. I get what you're saying, though, I just don't agree that I'd call them the "ball flight laws." The ball flight laws are not "misleading" at all and you've failed to demonstrate the title of your topic. Let's stipulate that we're all capable of doing basic math. 😄 That's why I said this just above: But… so what? That's not the ball flight laws. Those are what they are, and your version simply complicated what can be a pretty simple way of understanding it. You're talking about instruction, or how you go about fixing a ball flight, not the actual physics itself. And… I disagree that "fixing the face" first isn't always the way to go. It might be most of the time, but it's not over 80% if I had to put a number on it. There's nothing wrong with the "ball flight laws" and I try to, at some point, make sure every student is aware of it, as well as being aware of their clubface and their start lines, as that's a big part of self-solving some things when they arise. "Coach, I'm missing everything right." "Okay, what's the start line?" Big question, and the answer changes quite a bit based on the response. Sometimes it's the face (most of the time, probably), but sometimes it's a path change, particularly as players get better. -
By Vinsk ·
Oh boy….JV’s explanation as to why ‘modern golf’ teaches to hit up on the ball is a little silly. Looks like he’s still preaching how short game is far more important than long as well. And of course we got no ball flight data from his hits. Just him saying how what the ball did.
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now