Square Setup ≠ Square Face at Impact

[jshots]

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Please film a video of this.

This hinging motion is more extension/flexion.

Trying to avoid any of this as much as possible. (camera balanced on standing desk as a new training aid?   )

I can tell there is a little bit of rotation in the first video but the point is it is more flexion extension focused and the club face does not rotate as much, though I see what you mean it could be different with a different grip.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

At what cost? And are you actually doing that once you move the club out of your field of vision?

False statement.

I don't see it.

I don't think it's necessarily doing what you think it's doing.

Most people aim way the f*** right, actually. 🙂 I wish I could get more people to be aligned on "train tracks." Almost nobody is set up square in the real world.

And I play my best golf with a slightly open stance… from which I hit a draw.

Yeah, no. Again, Tour players are not all aligned along train tracks. Their ribs, hips, shoulders, knees, and feet all point slightly different directions.

Look at this still frame 8:10 into this video:

The feet are the only thing that's relatively "square" or "on train tracks."

I don't see many people who demonstrate that they 'want to swing along that parallel arc." If that was the case… I don't even know. It's not the case, though.

Thanks for the detailed response.

That AMG video is super interesting. I see exactly what I am describing.

Swing 1 hits the ball nearly the bottom of the arc, probably took very little divot and hit a straight ball. 

Swing 2 hits the ball appears descending, in to out, does not close the face. I bet that ball went right of target and straight.

Swing 3 hits the ball appears descending, in to out,  managed to get the face more closed than the path, probably hit a draw.

I still don't see why its not possible all 3 of these players have unnecessarily learned to rotate the club that specific amount. I see what you are saying about the different body parts aligning differently at setup, but isn't that more because of one hand being lower and the club being forward at address - that doesn't mean the arc isn't parallel to the feet.

It would be interesting to know what the plane is doing around the ball. Since the arc/plane concept is more of an approximation than anything, if you just use the swing arc 2 feet behind low point and 2 feet in front of the low point and approximate that plane, Where is it oriented? Does it extend toward the target or somewhere else? Is it very different for good ball strikers?

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

And I play my best golf with a slightly open stance… from which I hit a draw.

That is also interesting because I don't think what I'm saying means you can't hit a draw, just means you'll be slightly more consistent. Like is it possible at address your face is a little closed?

 

I had implemented this whole idea in my swing years ago and I had the best ball striking I have ever had.  Very straight ball flight and it got me down to a 5 handicap. After an extended break I can't seem to find whatever it was I was doing so I have my doubts. I don't have the tools skills or knowledge to prove this and also..

I'm losing my mind a bit thinking about it....

Edited July 24, 2022 by jshots

[iacas]

10 hours ago, jshots said:

This hinging motion is more extension/flexion.

Two problems with that video.

• Your forearms are rotating.
• You're in ulnar deviation.

In other words, that is not just flexion and extension. Also, the face is opening and closing in the video.

10 hours ago, jshots said:

Trying to avoid any of this as much as possible. (camera balanced on standing desk as a new training aid?   )

Your grip is too far into the palm. That's why you move the club back and through more than you twist it.

And that just goes to prove my point: you're trying to consider things in some sort of perfect world where a person sets up square, then swings perfectly square to that… and hits straight shots. In fact, in summary, the biggest issues with what you're talking about seem to be:

• Your feet are almost the least relevant parts of your body with regards to "alignment" of things.
• The clubface rotates quite a bit in a golf swing relative to the plane or path.
• The clubface also moves OFF the plane quite a bit in the golf swing as there are several "out of plane" motions that are, for the most part, almost sort of "canceled" by some other motions (i.e. hinging is perpendicular to the plane, but if you've rolled the forearms… that can put hinging closer to the plane.
• Even if you did deliver a straight path (3D, true) into the hit… that's not necessarily the best way to play golf because you don't have a true pattern: if the face is not also 0°, the ball will be curving away from your target every time you don't deliver a face that's also 0°.

Again, I think you might be "more consistent" if you simply learned to grip the club better. And if you eliminated what is surely probably still an over-the-top deal:

(You already swing left and you want to open your stance up more? Your own swing argues against you: you do not swing anywhere close to where your feet are aligned.)

10 hours ago, jshots said:

Swing 1 hits the ball nearly the bottom of the arc, probably took very little divot and hit a straight ball. 

Swing 1:

A path that's 0.88° right with a face that's 0.30° left will not hit a straight ball. It's a pull-draw. Not a huge one, but a pull-draw all the same.

And the frame before that, which shows how much rotation is occurring in even the game's best players, is:

The path is 6.70° and the face is 1.10°. In other words, the path changed 5.82° in that tiny window of time and the face closed 1.40°.

"Very little divot and hit a straight ball"? First, you have no idea what his AoA was, and second, a face closed to the path 1.18° will not be a straight ball. Not unless he also heeled it a decent bit.

10 hours ago, jshots said:

Swing 2 hits the ball appears descending, in to out, does not close the face. I bet that ball went right of target and straight.

Swing two: face 4.99° right, path 3.56° right. Ball doesn't go straight, though mild gear effect may do that.

10 hours ago, jshots said:

Swing 3 hits the ball appears descending, in to out,  managed to get the face more closed than the path, probably hit a draw.

Face 0.59° right, path 2.89° right.

And what the video shows is how the face and path are varying quite a bit during the entire downswing. And that the face is nowhere near "square to the path" for more than a moment during the downswing (or even two different moments). Syncing up those moments to be at impact is going to be a fruitless endeavor.

So:

• You have no idea what the AoA on those strikes are.
• All three swings, which produced different impact parameters, are still among the game's most accurate players.
• Your comments about each of the three indicate that you may not understand the ball flight laws.

10 hours ago, jshots said:

I still don't see why its not possible all 3 of these players have unnecessarily learned to rotate the club that specific amount.

Of course they've learned to do it, but we disagree on the "unnecessarily" part.

10 hours ago, jshots said:

I see what you are saying about the different body parts aligning differently at setup, but (a) isn't that more because of one hand being lower and the club being forward at address - (b) that doesn't mean the arc isn't parallel to the feet.

a) no. Why would your hips or knees be aligned way left because your right hand is a couple of inches lower? Why do we have GEARS data
b) it's almost surely not, and the feet are the least important part of the equation here. They're so far from the stuff that's actually moving and swinging the club.

It's point B that almost renders this entire conversation moot. Lee Trevino swung well out to his feet line, but was pointed so far left of the target his path was just a little left for his little fade. Ditto (to a lesser extent) Nicklaus.

People do not swing parallel to their feet line, including you.

10 hours ago, jshots said:

It would be interesting to know what the plane is doing around the ball. Since the arc/plane concept is more of an approximation than anything, if you just use the swing arc 2 feet behind low point and 2 feet in front of the low point and approximate that plane, Where is it oriented? Does it extend toward the target or somewhere else? Is it very different for good ball strikers?

It's pretty planar from the 6 to 8.

And launch monitors tell you this stuff: it's the "swing direction" or "horizontal swing plane." It's almost never matching the alignment of the player's feet.

10 hours ago, jshots said:

That is also interesting because I don't think what I'm saying means you can't hit a draw, just means you'll be slightly more consistent. Like is it possible at address your face is a little closed?

The leading edge of my clubface is slightly open at setup (but due to lie angle, the true loft of the club is pointing slightly left). Regardless, the draws I hit are push-draws, so the face returns open. Again, you're worrying about shit that doesn't matter.

10 hours ago, jshots said:

I had implemented this whole idea in my swing years ago and I had the best ball striking I have ever had. 

I very much doubt it. As do you…

10 hours ago, jshots said:

I'm losing my mind a bit thinking about it....

Then stop thinking about it. It has no merit.

[jshots]

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

Two problems with that video.

• Your forearms are rotating.
• You're in ulnar deviation.

In other words, that is not just flexion and extension. Also, the face is opening and closing in the video.

Your grip is too far into the palm. That's why you move the club back and through more than you twist it.

And that just goes to prove my point: you're trying to consider things in some sort of perfect world where a person sets up square, then swings perfectly square to that… and hits straight shots. In fact, in summary, the biggest issues with what you're talking about seem to be:

• Your feet are almost the least relevant parts of your body with regards to "alignment" of things.
• The clubface rotates quite a bit in a golf swing relative to the plane or path.
• The clubface also moves OFF the plane quite a bit in the golf swing as there are several "out of plane" motions that are, for the most part, almost sort of "canceled" by some other motions (i.e. hinging is perpendicular to the plane, but if you've rolled the forearms… that can put hinging closer to the plane.
• Even if you did deliver a straight path (3D, true) into the hit… that's not necessarily the best way to play golf because you don't have a true pattern: if the face is not also 0°, the ball will be curving away from your target every time you don't deliver a face that's also 0°.

Again, I think you might be "more consistent" if you simply learned to grip the club better. And if you eliminated what is surely probably still an over-the-top deal:

(You already swing left and you want to open your stance up more? Your own swing argues against you: you do not swing anywhere close to where your feet are aligned.)

Swing 1:

A path that's 0.88° right with a face that's 0.30° left will not hit a straight ball. It's a pull-draw. Not a huge one, but a pull-draw all the same.

And the frame before that, which shows how much rotation is occurring in even the game's best players, is:

The path is 6.70° and the face is 1.10°. In other words, the path changed 5.82° in that tiny window of time and the face closed 1.40°.

"Very little divot and hit a straight ball"? First, you have no idea what his AoA was, and second, a face closed to the path 1.18° will not be a straight ball. Not unless he also heeled it a decent bit.

Swing two: face 4.99° right, path 3.56° right. Ball doesn't go straight, though mild gear effect may do that.

Face 0.59° right, path 2.89° right.

And what the video shows is how the face and path are varying quite a bit during the entire downswing. And that the face is nowhere near "square to the path" for more than a moment during the downswing (or even two different moments). Syncing up those moments to be at impact is going to be a fruitless endeavor.

So:

• You have no idea what the AoA on those strikes are.
• All three swings, which produced different impact parameters, are still among the game's most accurate players.
• Your comments about each of the three indicate that you may not understand the ball flight laws.

Of course they've learned to do it, but we disagree on the "unnecessarily" part.

a) no. Why would your hips or knees be aligned way left because your right hand is a couple of inches lower? Why do we have GEARS data
b) it's almost surely not, and the feet are the least important part of the equation here. They're so far from the stuff that's actually moving and swinging the club.

It's point B that almost renders this entire conversation moot. Lee Trevino swung well out to his feet line, but was pointed so far left of the target his path was just a little left for his little fade. Ditto (to a lesser extent) Nicklaus.

People do not swing parallel to their feet line, including you.

It's pretty planar from the 6 to 8.

And launch monitors tell you this stuff: it's the "swing direction" or "horizontal swing plane." It's almost never matching the alignment of the player's feet.

The leading edge of my clubface is slightly open at setup (but due to lie angle, the true loft of the club is pointing slightly left). Regardless, the draws I hit are push-draws, so the face returns open. Again, you're worrying about shit that doesn't matter.

I very much doubt it. As do you…

Then stop thinking about it. It has no merit.

I understand ball flight laws I wasn't looking at the exact numbers, it still demonstrates the thing I'm talking about. The AOA isn't shown but I was making a best guess from the image of the arc.  All the grip stuff is just sort of extraneous details anyways. Where you start and how you rotate the grip doesn't matter as much to me - the point is just that less closure rate is generally desired for consistency. Do you agree with that? I've heard that from other instructors (I thought it was AMG but can't find the video).

I don't think anything you've said means that I'm wrong about a couple of thing. A descending blow is in to out (literally only relative to the bottom of the impact arc, ignore everything else). A club face matching path will make the ball go straight. Given those 2 things the only way to hit a ball with a descending blow straight and at the target is an impact arc oriented to the left of target with an open face relative to the bottom of the arc. Whether its orienting your body that way not, it does not really matter.

 

I will say I think you have convinced me that is is probably irrelevant. There is always a specific amount of face closing you have to do/learn to hit the ball where you want and even if less closure rate is better for consistency and even if my idea requires slightly less closure rate to get back to the ball it is probably minor in comparison to the overall amount of closure.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

I understand ball flight laws I wasn't looking at the exact numbers, it still demonstrates the thing I'm talking about.

But you literally have no idea what their alignment was. And these are three of the most accurate ball strikers on the planet, AND the face relative to the path is moving all around - it's open to it, it's closed to it, etc.

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

The AOA isn't shown but I was making a best guess from the image of the arc.

Nearly impossible to do unless you're good with being within 3° and saying "that's good enough." It's an overhead view. You have no real idea what the AoA was.

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

All the grip stuff is just sort of extraneous details anyways.

No, it isn't, because that's your one way to hold the club and influence it.

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

Where you start and how you rotate the grip doesn't matter as much to me - the point is just that less closure rate is generally desired for consistency. Do you agree with that?

NO!

On 5/20/2022 at 8:46 PM, iacas said:

Also, there are:

• Accurate players with high and low rates of closure.
• Inaccurate players with high and low rates of closure.
• Long hitters with high and low rates of closure.
• Short hitters with high and low rates of closure.*

Nor does that have much of anything to do with how you align your feet.

 

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

I've heard that from other instructors (I thought it was AMG but can't find the video).

They definitely have not said that. They've said what I just quoted above.

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

A descending blow is in to out (literally only relative to the bottom of the impact arc, ignore everything else).

2+2=4, ergo, I'm right about everything else I've said.

Yes, relative to the swing direction, down = out, up = in.

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

A club face matching path will make the ball go straight.

And the odds of that happening are incredibly low, and with a straight path or a square clubface, deviation in the other will result in a ball curving AWAY from the target. A person delivering a square face or a straight path doesn't have a good pattern.

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

Given those 2 things the only way to hit a ball with a descending blow straight and at the target

Your problem is that you seem to think that's a good goal. Nobody's debating the geometry of the D-Plane here. It's assumed. It's not even table stakes - it's downloading the entry form from the website.

21 minutes ago, jshots said:

I will say I think you have convinced me that is is probably irrelevant. There is always a specific amount of face closing you have to do/learn to hit the ball where you want and even if less closure rate is better for consistency and even if my idea requires slightly less closure rate to get back to the ball it is probably minor in comparison to the overall amount of closure.

Okey dokey.

[iacas]

Also, the thread wasn’t a total waste. You should be able to make some big improvements to your grip based on the videos you filmed.

 

[jshots]

Closure rate is not that important, good to know. Had it in my head that someone said that somewhere and it made some sense to me. 

 

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Also, the thread wasn’t a total waste. You should be able to make some big improvements to your grip based on the videos you filmed.

 

Funny you mention that. I watched that video like 3-4 days ago under suspicion of grip problems and have been working on exactly that.

Focused on other swing things when the fundamentals had gone out the door.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, jshots said:

Closure rate is not that important, good to know. Had it in my head that someone said that somewhere and it made some sense to me.

I have said it, but when I said it it’s been localized to a late flipping or something to attempt to square the face.

In those videos you can see that the arrows don’t get too divergent but from some students the face might be 45° open to the path moments before they hit the ball and they have to try to flip it really fast just to have a chance of squaring it up and that timing can be quite difficult.

That’s almost a bit more overtaking rate than rate of closure but they’re both intermixed.

[phillyk]

Closure rate was the goal of all that? It’s funny how often it comes up, when people look at a swing, they see limbs, ones head and the club. Much of those pieces occur because of something else. Comparing results is ok, but the process is important. 

[iacas]

39 minutes ago, phillyk said:

Closure rate was the goal of all that? It’s funny how often it comes up, when people look at a swing, they see limbs, ones head and the club. Much of those pieces occur because of something else. Comparing results is ok, but the process is important. 

Seemingly?

Also, the direction the feet are pointing is soooooooo loosely tied to "closure rate" that it's not even really worth discussing.

[Big Lex]

On 7/23/2022 at 12:32 AM, iacas said:

You don't really want a square face or path, because they're so not repeatable, a face that's 0.0° and a path that's 1° right or left curves away from the target every time. Only the 0.0/0.0 shots track toward the target.

Huh. I'm not disputing the advice to choose either a right or left path. 

But I'm not sure I follow the logic of the quoted statement. I see the point about only the 0.0/0.0 tracking directly to the target. 

So to aspire to be a 0/0 golfer is to embrace a bad pattern because all errors move the ball away from the target.

But doesn't it depend on what type of error he makes? If the aspiring 0/0 golfer, on his next swing, repeats the face of 0.0 but swings a path of 0.5 R, won't the ball start a titch right and track back to target?

Anyway, as I said, I'm not disputing your swing advice or any other points of the thread. And on that subject...

Is it possible to make a general recommendation or describe guidelines for how much right or left path would be ideal for a golfer's swing? And will it tend to be the same for long and short clubs, or does tha vary? (Sorry for the OT request, but since you opened the door to this line of questioning, counselor, I thought it was ok to follow it on cross examination 🙂)

Edited July 28, 2022 by Big Lex
clarity

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

But if on his next swing, he repeats the face of 0.0 but swings a path of 0.5 R, won't the ball start a titch right and track back to target?

It will over-curve, and the amount it starts right of the target is imperceptible.

In other words, it will appear to start at the target and only ever curve away from the target.

[colin007]

On 7/23/2022 at 12:11 AM, iacas said:

Every one of 'em.

 

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, colin007 said:

 

Which swing arc? Tiger had like 3-4 swing changes over his career 😛 

[colin007]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Which swing arc? Tiger had like 3-4 swing changes over his career 😛 

They were all perfect in my heart.