-
Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap
-
- 5 replies
- 183 views
-
- 214 replies
- 60,089 views
-
- 90 replies
- 62,535 views
-
- 8,146 replies
- 349,782 views
-
- 22 replies
- 1,081 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 ·
No, it doesn't. Your "version" if you want to call it that just makes a pretty simple statement and complicates it. They have nothing to do with "being in a simulator" or not. I disagree I think they led to a lot of golfers hitting the tree or bush directly in front of them. Golfers had to actively learn to do something different than what the "old" ball flight "thoughts" (you can't really call them laws) said. So again… so what? The golfer has to make the ball go to the target. I don't see any advantages to viewing it that way. The face is still left of the target, dragged there a little bit by the path, but it's still closed to where the golfer is trying to hit the ball. It has to be, because given the path… it's going to curve right. I disagree it's "open relative to the golfer". The golfer is rotating around faster than he can process, and golfers who then try to "close" the face often do so incorrectly. That's simply not true. You can heel it. And you're leaning heavily on "relative to you as the golfer." What if your stance is open? Etc. The only true landmarks are the target, so basing everything on things that are rotating seems like folly to me. Additionally, your feet don't really move, and your pelvis, chest, and shoulders are all pointing in very different directions throughout the golf swing. That strikes me as needlessly backward. To hit a functional push-draw, we must deliver a face that's slightly right of target, and a path that's a bit farther right than that. Every golfer is a bit different. Some definitely benefit from "fixing the face" first, but some will benefit from just understanding the path and how it needs to change. The golfer's swing isn't fixed, so I disagree that it's "way clearer" or even "a little bit clearer." If you want to think of it this way, go for it. And in a lesson, we get into the details a little bit. But there's no doubt to me having had you explain this a bit more that your way needlessly complicates the simple sentence that explains the physics behind the ball flight (leaving aside the gear effect). I can tell a 12-year-old that the ball starts where the face is pointing and curves away from the path, and they can grip the clubface a little more closed to get through the round where they're hitting straight slices before looking for a bigger fix after the round. -
By dkjestrup ·
To answer "so what?", it's to make it easier to diagnose swing problems. As you describe, the current ball flight laws are perfect, if you're trying to model ball flight in a simulator. Ironically the old ball flight laws, while wrong, did a better job of explaining how ball flight feels relative to a golfer's swing. Essentially all I've done is explain the ball flight laws relative to the golfers swing, instead of relative to the target. Following this actually gives pretty different results: For example, following the modified ball flight laws I mentioned above, a slice is caused by an open clubface (relative to the golfer) and a pull is caused by an out-to-in swing path. You will never slice the ball if you have a closed clubface relative to you as the golfer. This is the same in the new ball flight laws, but is less obvious. It's also not obvious the role of your swing path. The reason an in-to-out path is desirable if you want to hit a draw, is that it's the only way to get the ball to start right of target without slicing it (i.e. open clubface). As for this being complicated, I disagree: Current laws: Start direction = absolute clubface direction Spin = relative clubface direction My version: Start direction = relative clubface direction + path Spin = relative clubface direction As above, all I'm doing is explaining the ball flight laws in terms relative to the golfer's swing instead of relative to the target. But doing this makes it way clearer what part of the swing is causing what movement. -
-
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. -
-
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