The New Ball Flight Laws Are Right, but Misleading

[dkjestrup]

Hi all,

One thing I'm surprised there is little conversation about online, is that the New Ball Flight Laws (i.e. face sends, path bends), are very misleading. Factually correct, but misleading.

They work well if you're setting up to hit a draw/fade etc. with your set-up. Aim your clubface in your chosen starting direction, choose how much fade/draw you want with your feet/body position, then grip the club and swing like normal.

The problem is, the ball flight laws are outright misleading when it comes to how you dynamically open/close the clubface throughout your swing. Most golfers are opening the clubface on the backswing, and closing it on the downswing. But this opening/closing is not happening relative to your target, it's happening relative to your path.

Imagine that due to your wrist action in your swing, you are closing the clubface in your hands by 5 degrees. This will stay 5 degrees closed, relative to whatever swing path you have. Neutral swing? 5 degrees closed to target, slight pull draw. 10 degrees in-to-out swing? 5 degrees open to target, nice push draw.

Closing or opening the clubface during your swing is already happening relative to path.

This is why when you have someone hitting pull slices, and you have them fix their over the top action, they will start hitting the ball straight or even right of target. They will not suddenly hit pull draws. Despite them pulling it previously and you not touching their clubface. 

A more accurate version of the ball flight laws is this:

Starting direction = Clubface direction relative to target = Path Direction + Clubface direction relative to path.

Spin direction = Clubface direction relative to path (unchanged).

Your out-to-in swing isn't causing your slice, it's causing you to pull it, by redirecting your clubface - which is open relative to your swing path - until it is closed relative to target. Fix the clubface closing in your hands properly first (to hit pulls/pull-draws), and then fix your swing path in order to hit the ball straight.

Edited 11 hours ago by dkjestrup
typo

[iacas]

I disagree.

I "share" the ball flight laws in this form: "the golf ball starts in the general direction of the clubface at impact and curves away from the path."

That describes all you need to know:

• For a pull-slice, the ball starts left (face left of target) and the path is farther to the left.
• For a push-draw, the ball starts right (face right of target) and the path is farther to the right.
• For a push-slice, the ball starts right (face right of target) and the path is farther to the right.

The only clarity is that, for example, Lee Trevino played a push-fade, he just lined up well to the left, so the words "push" and "pull" can sometimes, depending on the context, mean relative to the body alignment.

Your point about the clubface opening and closing throughout the swing is moot. The ball doesn't care whether the face is open or closed to the path at P2 or even P6.9. It cares at P7.

Your "more accurate version" just muddies the water and makes it more confusing, when we know that for almost every full swing club where you're worried about curve… the start line is 75%+ clubface angle. So again: "the golf ball starts in the general direction of the clubface at impact and curves away from the path."

Yes, when I'm working with someone who hits a pull-slice, I often fix the clubface first, because I see their natural reaction to the ball going right to try to subconsciously swing left… but there are times I will teach people to change the path first and tell them to keep doing that and aim left and play a push-fade like Trevino. It comes down to knowing the student, and/or knowing how far off they are.

But that's teaching.

The ball flight laws as we share them are perfectly fine. Sure, as you get to advanced students you start to talk about the rare times the face can be closer to 60% of the starting direction, or you start to talk about the gear effect.

But for 99% of situations, the ball flight laws are fine, and nothing you shared, regardless of the bold text, does anything to convince me otherwise. You're just muddying it up, making a simple sentence that works into a muddier, more complex sentence that doesn't actually give us any benefits.

[dkjestrup]

Quote

I "share" the ball flight laws in this form: "the golf ball starts in the general direction of the clubface at impact and curves away from the path."

I agree, this is correct. I'm not disagreeing that this is how the ball moves.

Quote

our point about the clubface opening and closing throughout the swing is moot. The ball doesn't care whether the face is open or closed to the path at P2 or even P6.9. It cares at P7.

I also agree with this. I don't mean to imply that the movement of the clubface in the grip throughout the swing (i.e the opening/closing) matters, only at impact.

Quote

Your "more accurate version" just muddies the water and makes it more confusing, when we know that for almost every full swing club where you're worried about curve… the start line is 75%+ clubface angle. So again: "the golf ball starts in the general direction of the clubface at impact and curves away from the path."

Yes, the start line is 75% clubface angle at impact. I'm also not disagreeing with this.

What I'm saying though, is that the clubface angle at impact, is created by both the clubface angle in your hands, and the direction of your swing. The clubface angle in your hands moves with your swing - obviously, because your hands are attached to your arms/body. 

To give another example, if you closed the clubface 5 degrees in your hands, then gripped the club. And then you aimed 10 degrees right of target. Your clubface is 5 degrees open to the target at impact, correct?

If you instead grip the club at neutral/0 degrees and aim straight at the target. Throughout your swing you will create a clubface angle relative to your swing path by some combination of wrist movement. If you put a camera on your lead forearm looking at the clubface, you would see this angle. If this is 5 degrees closed, and your swing path is 10 degrees in to out, then your final clubface angle relative to target is still 5 degrees open.

Quote

Yes, when I'm working with someone who hits a pull-slice, I often fix the clubface first, because I see their natural reaction to the ball going right to try to subconsciously swing left

I agree that when it comes to coaching there's an individual part of it for the student. But my argument here is that you're agreeing with me on the root cause. Fixing the clubface - relative to path, which is the angle of the clubface relative to your forearms - fixes the slice, fixing the swing path fixes the pull. And often the pull is caused by someone trying to overcompensate for their slice in the first place.

Edited 7 hours ago by dkjestrup

[iacas]

2 hours ago, dkjestrup said:

What I'm saying though, is that the clubface angle at impact, is created by both the clubface angle in your hands, and the direction of your swing.

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.

2 hours ago, dkjestrup said:

To give another example, if you closed the clubface 5 degrees in your hands, then gripped the club. And then you aimed 10 degrees right of target. Your clubface is 5 degrees open to the target at impact, correct?

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.

2 hours ago, dkjestrup said:

If you instead grip the club at neutral/0 degrees and aim straight at the target. Throughout your swing you will create a clubface angle relative to your swing path by some combination of wrist movement. If you put a camera on your lead forearm looking at the clubface, you would see this angle. If this is 5 degrees closed, and your swing path is 10 degrees in to out, then your final clubface angle relative to target is still 5 degrees open.

Let's stipulate that we're all capable of doing basic math. 😄 

2 hours ago, dkjestrup said:

I agree that when it comes to coaching there's an individual part of it for the student. But my argument here is that you're agreeing with me on the root cause. Fixing the clubface - relative to path, which is the angle of the clubface relative to your forearms - fixes the slice, fixing the swing path fixes the pull. And often the pull is caused by someone trying to overcompensate for their slice in the first place.

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.

[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.

Edited 3 hours ago by dkjestrup

[iacas]

1 hour ago, dkjestrup said:

To answer "so what?", it's to make it easier to diagnose swing problems.

No, it doesn't. Your "version" if you want to call it that just makes a pretty simple statement and complicates it.

1 hour ago, dkjestrup said:

As you describe, the current ball flight laws are perfect, if you're trying to model ball flight in a simulator.

They have nothing to do with "being in a simulator" or not.

1 hour ago, dkjestrup said:

Ironically the old ball flight laws, while wrong, did a better job of explaining how ball flight feels relative to a golfer's swing.

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.

1 hour ago, dkjestrup said:

Essentially all I've done is explain the ball flight laws relative to the golfers swing, instead of relative to the target.

So again… so what? The golfer has to make the ball go to the target.

1 hour ago, dkjestrup said:

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.

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.

1 hour ago, dkjestrup said:

You will never slice the ball if you have a closed clubface relative to you as the golfer.

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.

1 hour ago, dkjestrup said:

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).

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.

1 hour ago, dkjestrup said:

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.

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.

[dkjestrup]

I don't refer to a simulator  to mean that the ball flight laws are only theoretical or something, just that I think they're better at describing how the ball moves relative to the club face, than they are at describing how the ball moves relative to the swing. It's a minor distinction but I think it's helpful. You're free to disagree.

Obviously the golfer has to make the ball go to the target. To be honest I would agree with you that the ball flight laws might be more useful for describing how to intentionally hit a draw around an obstruction etc. on a course, but I think they're worse for describing why someone who is trying to hit the ball straight is failing.

I agree that where we're measuring relatively from might be a bit confusing - I'm not wording things well. It's clubface relative to the swing. This is exactly the same as in the current ball flight laws. If it's not a problem there, then how is it a problem here?

As to hitting a push draw. Obviously it's a feel thing at this point, however I'd say that if I swing in-to-out but use my wrists the same as I would on a regular shot, I would push the ball (as my wrists would end up neutral to by club path that my arms are swinging on), unless I intentionally made an effort to close my wrists during my swing more than I usually would. Maybe a player that doesn't feel the swing through their wrists as much would have a different feel, that's very possible.

I can also just tell a twelve year old to grip the clubface more closed to fix a slice, that's entirely what I'm saying here. All I'm trying to show is that the way the path influences the ball is predominantly by modifying the club face to target angle (and therefore start direction), rather than by modifying the clubface to path direction (as this slightly independent of path).

Again it's easy to speak in absolutes here, I don't want to imply that these factors are working completely independently, but they certainly are more than most people give them credit.

 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, dkjestrup said:

I don't refer to a simulator  to mean that the ball flight laws are only theoretical or something, just that I think they're better at describing how the ball moves relative to the club face, than they are at describing how the ball moves relative to the swing.

And I think the old ball flight laws are good at describing how the ball moves relative to the target, which is ultimately what matters.

3 minutes ago, dkjestrup said:

You're free to disagree.

I do. And I've shared why.

Your version is needlessly complicated and lacks a true reference.

3 minutes ago, dkjestrup said:

I think they're worse for describing why someone who is trying to hit the ball straight is failing.

I don't. They simply describe why the ball is doing what it's doing.

The golfer than has to change how the club behaves — where it points and the path on which it travels — to change the physics that create the ball flight.

Saying that the club face is "open" to your body is silly to me, as your pelvis might be 40° open to the target line, the clubface might be 2° open to the target line, and the face can still be closed to the path and hit a great push-draw.

Needlessly complicated and lacking a true reference.

3 minutes ago, dkjestrup said:

It's clubface relative to the swing. This is exactly the same as in the current ball flight laws. If it's not a problem there, then how is it a problem here?

Because, as I said, "the swing" and the body are going in all different directions. They're changing constantly.

The target line never changes.

And #FeelAintReal

3 minutes ago, dkjestrup said:

Obviously it's a feel thing at this point, however I'd say that if I swing in-to-out but use my wrists the same as I would on a regular shot, I would push the ball (as my wrists would end up neutral to by club path that my arms are swinging on), unless I intentionally made an effort to close my wrists during my swing more than I usually would.

Dude.

Thanks for joining the site.

[dkjestrup]

You're clinging onto it being more complicated, but it's just simply not.

The literal only change I'm talking about, is this:

Clubface to target = Path + Clubface to Path.

Clubface to Path is literally already in the ball flight laws. All your comments about how it's hard to measure relative to body or legs etc or lacks a true reference don't make sense. It's literally already in the existing laws you use and that you have no problem with.

Path isn't complicated either, I'm sure you agree.

Nothing I'm talking about is any more complicated than what we currently have. The only difference is that it makes explaining why someone is pulling or pushing or slicing or hooking easier. You practically agreed with me by accident when talking about how you fix a lot of slices by starting with the clubface. 

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, dkjestrup said:

You're clinging onto it being more complicated, but it's just simply not.

It simply is. It also lacks a reference. I see no value in this. I’m glad you do for you.

I disagree that path isn’t complicated. People struggle like crazy to understand path and subconsciously manipulate path when they should be manipulating the face.

[dkjestrup]

Not much fun to discuss things on this forum if the only answer is that you're always right and you're not even going to engage in or humour other points of view lol.

[iacas]

I responded exactly as you did:

34 minutes ago, dkjestrup said:

it's just simply not.

I said “it simply is” in response but I’m the one who is “always right?”

And I’ve engaged and humored you through several posts now.

At the end of the day I think what you’re saying has little value. I disagree with your opinion on this.

But you want to feel personally attacked, I guess, so have at it. We can all read. 😀