Nick Faldo Proves You can be Good AND Oblivious

[Chas]

Yes, better they restrict themselves to describing a particular player's swing in detail and how that relates to outcome, play under stress etc etc.

I think that quite a few non-golfers watch at least some golf on TV. Like my wife, tho' she does it mostly coz she's married to me I suppose. But yes, it's probably less than in many other sports (tennis, football ...).

p.s. in #34 above, "obstance" = obstacle. Don't ask me how I came up with that one.

[misty_mountainhop]

Look, I didn't either until a few years ago, but facts are facts and Trackman and high-speed cameras have pretty much given us the facts on this. Initial path is 85% face angle, and that's with a driver. With lower speed or lower friction (like in the rough, which these guys were, not hitting drivers) the number goes up. The lowest that number ever gets is about 80% and that's with the long-drive guys.

Ah. Thanks. That was the bit I wasn't sure about. Knew when I posted it that the contribution due to friction may well have been somewhat less significant.

[OCdude12]

I think you've missed the point. It's not about your arms... it's about ball flight laws.

I don't know why you all get so worked up about a simple tip he's giving on a telecast, but as far as I can tell, he's absolutely right. Everytime I'm in a situation like these, I follow the exact same steps he mentions and most times it works just to plan. You are wrong when saying you should aim the clubface where you want the ball to start. That just forces you to compensate even more with the body. By doing what Faldo said, you are creating the balance of changing the club face angle with your body alignment in a way to make a more natural and easier swing as long as you have some feel for how the ball will leave the face. Faldo was just giving a tip for how to execute a shot and presented it in the easiest way for a viewer to visualize and imagine the feeling when hitting that type of shot.

The chicken wing reference for the left arm (RH golfer) can be also be practiced by letting your right hand off the club at the moment of impact and pulling with your left arm, (like you're elbowing someone behind you to your left) to create the feeling of an open clubface. Maybe I'm wrong like Faldo, but if I were having trouble with shots like these, I would definitely listen to someone that has won multiple tournaments worldwide rather than a know-it-all that feels the need to correct the teacher.

[iacas]

I don't know why you all get so worked up about a simple tip

I'm not worked up, and the reason I mentioned it at all is because I believe he's wrong.

but as far as I can tell, he's absolutely right.

Based on the scientific information currently available to us, Nick's not right.

You are wrong when saying you should aim the clubface where you want the ball to start.

Based on the scientific information currently available to us I'm right. I no longer believe the old information or understanding of ball flight laws. Those were basically guesses that "seemed" to work. They've since been proven untrue. The clubface is, by far, the determining factor in where the ball starts.

That just forces you to compensate even more with the body.

If you're going to hit the ball to the right and draw it, it makes sense that your swing has to be even FURTHER right.

And I never cared about the chicken wing bit. That's never been anything I've called "wrong" or picked on here. Watch the 'tude please. From where I sit, and perhaps given my background in the sciences, asking questions and pointing out holes in theories is not only okay, it's expected and necessary.

[OCdude12]

"If you're going to hit the ball to the right and draw it, it makes sense that your swing has to be even FURTHER right."

Agreed, but how do you make your swing go further right? (never heard the term "swing" go a direction before) By aiming your body to the right, like Faldo says, and swinging the club ALONG THAT LINE with the face aimed AT THE TARGET, that is what creates the HOOK spin on the ball which is what he was trying to teach.

"The clubface is, by far, the determining factor in where the ball starts." Also agree here, so by doing what he says, the club will be attacking the ball from an inside approach (because you're LINED UP TO THE RIGHT) with a closed club face (AT THE TARGET), creating the desired hook that is easy to control.

His goal was making it as simple as possible to hit these type of shots, and if you practiced this you can get the feel down since you're going to need some touch for these shots anyway.

[iacas]

Please use the quote capabilities of the forum.

Agreed, but how do you make your swing go further right? (never heard the term "swing" go a direction before)

You know what I was saying. You swing more "in-to-out" (to the right) than the clubface is open. This starts the ball on the correct line (which is not at the target) and, because your swing is "more to the right" than the clubface, produces draw/hook spin.

Reverse it all for an intentional fade/slice, of course.

By aiming your body to the right, like Faldo says, and swinging the club ALONG THAT LINE with the face aimed AT THE TARGET, that is what creates the HOOK spin on the ball which is what he was trying to teach.

The problem with that is that the ball won't have a chance to hook... it'll smack into the tree.

And if there was no tree and you were just trying to hit a hook into a flag, the ball would start at the target and then hook away from it. That's not what you want whether there's a tree in your way or not. If NIck had said the target was the opening and you were aiming the clubface at THAT, that'd be one thing. But he made a point of saying the target was the flagstick.

"The clubface is, by far, the determining factor in where the ball starts." Also agree here, so by doing what he says, the club will be attacking the ball from an inside approach (because you're LINED UP TO THE RIGHT) with a closed club face (AT THE TARGET), creating the desired hook that is easy to control.

If you agree with that statement, you can't agree with the advice he's offering. The ball will fly right into the tree. I'm not debating that the ball will get the proper spin - I'm suggesting the ball will hit the tree.

If you line the clubface up at the flag - and thus, at the tree that's causing you to have to hit some sort of big curving shot to begin with - you're gonna hit the tree regardless of which direction the ball's spinning. Again, if there was no tree at all, your ball would start at the target but then hook or spin away from it. I'll try it with numbers. Let's assume a positive number is to the right of the target, and 0 is at the target. To escape from a situation with a tree in the way with a big hook, you'd aim the clubface not at 0, but let's say ten degrees to the right of the target (and thus right of the tree). You'd align your body 20 degrees right and swing along that line. You'd put hook spin on the ball (-10° swing path relative to the clubface) and it'd curve back the 10 degrees it starts out to the right of the target. Nick was suggesting you line the clubface up at 0 - right at the tree - and aim your body 10 degrees to the right.

His goal was making it as simple as possible to hit these type of shots, and if you practiced this you can get the feel down since you're going to need some touch for these shots anyway.

The golfer that needs this kind of tip doesn't practice and won't have the "touch," and they shouldn't be told something that simply doesn't work and is untrue. A lot of well-respected people commented on this, including some of the top teachers in the game. It's not just me.

There's a story about Jack Nicklaus. A famous instructor asked Jack a few years ago what controlled the initial direction of the ball - the clubface or the swing path? He reflexively answered "swing path," probably because that's what everyone always believed. Then later that night he hunted the teacher down (it was a dinner ceremony type thing) and said "Y'know, I thought about it, and I'd like to change my answer. I thought about it and the clubface determines the starting line." He said he thought about several of his more memorable shots and it made him change his mind. That was before the science was truly well known like it is today. If anything else - and I wasn't denying that Nick Faldo isn't good, it's right there in the title - this just goes to show again how what a good player says and what a good player does are often two very different things. The Stack and Tilt guys want you to feel as if your weight stays left, and their Tour players probably feel as if their weight stays there, but really, if you measure it, the weight goes right just like in any other good swing. Other examples abound - what good players say and think they do is often not quite right. Sometimes it's not even close.

[Chas]

From where I sit, and perhaps given my background in the sciences, asking questions and pointing out holes in theories is not only okay, it's expected and necessary.

As a practicing scientist, I couldn't agree with you more. It is of course perfectly normal in the sciences for new technology to result in a reevaluation (and overthrow) of widely-accepted hypotheses, in fact it's a big part of the history of scientific progress over the ages. Major technological advances are almost always accompanied by some sort of a paradigm shift. So what is happening now in golf, resulting from the introduction of very powerful new imaging technology, is nothing new - except that we're talking golf and not molecular biology say, i.e. in the Ancient Game change is relatively slow and many pros are loathe to alter decades-long views of the world. This is understandable I suppose, but if you're going to be giving golfing tips to the masses as a TV commentator, it behoves you to stay up to date with the new data and adjust your advice accordingly - or leave it to others who keep up with the times.

I must say I find this all quite fascinating, there are so many angles to the discussion ... "clash of cultures (sport v science)", "perception vs reality" (gap between perceived and actual performance by a pro golfer), etc etc. There's a Golf Digest article in there somewhere, maybe even a Ph.D. in Sports Studies at XYZ State. I'm quite sure that Sir Nick, if he were to be brought to a clear understanding of the new imaging data (Trackman), would find a way to explain it rather simply to viewers. This is not rocket science IMHO. If I bump into His Honor, I'll make the attempt .... p.s. but also as a scientist I like to see the raw data whenever possible. Is there a website (Trackman or whatever) that clearly and unambiguously shows what we are talking about here, i.e. micro/nano/femtosecond image intervals showing ball flight off the clubface after a strong draw or slice? - preferably with all the relevant angles drawn in to aid in understanding.

[OCdude12]

I think we're agreeing on the same point and I'm probably falling into what was mentioned before, about saying one thing and thinking the body is doing it, when in reality it just feels like that. When I hit the same shot, I have that feeling of what Faldo describes and believe he is correct, however you can't argue with science, as mentioned above with respect to the face actually being pointed a certain direction. In the end does it really matter? We both agree the face has to be closed compared to the body and from there its all feel for how far you think you're body is aligned for how much you wish to hook the ball. This conversation got too scientific for me.

[Zeph]

What you feel doesn't matter, science has proven this theory wrong. The reason why you can hit a shot like Faldo explains is that the clubface can be some degrees more open at impact than address. It's also a matter of angles. If you aim the clubface at a narrow tree, and swing exactly like you set up, the ball might barely pass the tree, since we know that the ball will take off 15% right (for a draw) of the clubface angle. Also, the more you aim away from the target with the body, the further away from the tree the ball will start its initial flight. But the ball would spin behind the tree and over to the left.

A quote from a Trackman article:

The horizontal launch angle is determined by only two parameter the club path and the face angle. As a rule of thumb, the horizontal launch angle is 15% determined by the club path and 85% determined by the face angle. For example, assume a club path of +6.7 degrees (6.7 degrees inside-out for a right-handed played and a face angle of -1 degree (1 degree closed for a right-handed player). This would result in a horizontal launch angle of 0 degree (ball starting at the target line).

Source: Fredrik Tuxen According to the “old” ball fight laws, the initial direction of the ball (HLA) is 100% dictated by the club path. All the scientifc people in the golf industry know that this is very wrong

And, since I love graphics:

The upper graphics show how Trackman tells us to hit a draw around a tree. The lower graphics show how Nick Faldo tells us to hit a draw around a tree. Which ball would end up in a tree? A small note on the graphics: I'm not sure how you calculate the amount of spin and curve of a shot. It will vary depending on which club you use, and the different angles. Do you know if Trackman has written anything about this Erik? How to calculate the amount of angles needed to shape a ball around something and land at a desired target?

[Shorty]

I have always played these shots the way Faldo suggests. It wouldn't make sense to me not to. You impart spin on the ball the same way that a tennis player spins the ball.

[Zeph]

Why would you set up different from how you want to be at impact? And why wouldn't Faldo say you'd have to open the clubface a bit during the swing if he thought so?

The way Faldo explains has been the rule for decades by everyone. It's first with Trackman we see what actually happens. Setting up like Faldo explains probably works for most, but it relies on that you have to open the clubface at impact. I know I don't want to rely on the clubface being different at impact than it was at address.

What we feel at what happens are different, true, but why make it more complicated than necessary?

Faldo has taken some bashing from TST, but I don't see a problem with that. Should we praise every expert and commentator because they are probably such fine people? I don't know how the world of golf will react to the things Trackman tells us, but it will probably be a looong time before most get heads up. A lot probably don't even know about the findings of Trackman.

Just because this has been the rules since the 20s and has been praised by Hogan, Palmer, Tiger, Nicklaus etc. doesn't mean it's true. Fact is that we've never had the technology we got today. Nobody has been able to do scientifical research on the matter. Without high speed cameras and accurate equipment, you won't notice the subtle differences in clubhead angle and ball flight.

Another, probably even more important, side of this matter is swing diagnosis. By knowing the laws of ball flight, you can tell exactly what caused the ball to fly as it did. To take a very common example:

A golfer hitting a slice. The ball starts out straight and curves off to the right. With the old knowledge, everyone would say that the clubface was open, but since the ball started straight, the swingpath was square.

The truth has been revealed by Trackman. A ball starting off straight and curving to the right is because of a swing over the top, or out-to-in, with a square clubface. So, poor Joe 36 handicapper is told his clubface is open, so he will naturally start flipping the wrists and trying to close it, or taking a stronger grip, still swinging over the top. The result will be a swing with a closed clubface and coming over the top. The occasional shot may curve left to target, but chances are he'll just start hooking.

[Elvisliveson]

You need to aim the clubface where you want the ball to start, not where you want it to finish.

I have been doing that my whole golfing life and hitting a draw or fade shot out of trouble is something I actually do quite well. If you need to bend the ball to the right, you aim your clubface left of your target. If you need to bend the ball left, you aim your clubface right of target. That's golf 101 and hasn't changed in the 30+ years I've been playing. Maybe people are confusing a slightly open (for fade) or closed (for draw) clubface with the actual direction in which you are aiming of the clubface. For example, if I need an escape fade, I setup everything, including the clubface left of target. Then I may slighlty open (turn to the right) the clubface to promote a fade, but it's still pointing left of target.

[plugged]

I have been doing that my whole golfing life and hitting a draw or fade shot out of trouble is something I actually do quite well. If you need to bend the ball to the right, you aim your clubface left of your target. If you need to bend the ball left, you aim your clubface right of target. That's golf 101 and hasn't changed in the 30+ years I've been playing. Maybe people are confusing a slightly open (for fade) or closed (for draw) clubface with the actual direction in which you are aiming of the clubface.

I have to honest, the way you describe it here is very confusing. If I am correct, you are actually saying to aim the clubhead to the left or right, not the clubface. This is independent of the clubface being open, square, or closed, correct? IOW, if a right-handed player wanted to hit a draw around an obstacle, they would close their stance and by doing so, they would orient their swing plane to the right of the target line, but with the clubface still square.

I much prefer using the term swing plane to describe which way you are aiming.

[Elvisliveson]

I have to honest, the way you describe it here is very confusing. If I am correct, you are actually saying to aim the clubhead to the left or right, not the clubface. This is independent of the clubface being open, square, or closed, correct? IOW, if a right-handed player wanted to hit a draw around an obstacle, they would close their stance and by doing so, they would orient their swing plane to the right of the target line, but with the clubface still square.

That was my exact point, that aiming is independent or whether the clubface is open or closed. Using your example, whether the clubface was square or slightly closed it would still be aimed right of target, not at it.

[iacas]

I have been doing that my whole golfing life and hitting a draw or fade shot out of trouble is something I actually do quite well. If you need to bend the ball to the right, you aim your clubface left of your target. If you need to bend the ball left, you aim your clubface right of target. That's golf 101 and hasn't changed in the 30+ years I've been playing.

Well then I would suggest that you've known the truth far longer than virtually anyone, and roughly 30+ years longer than Nick Faldo, apparently. Good job.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not denying that Nick probably believes that's how he hits that shot. If we put Nick behind a tree and had him follow his advice, one of two things would happen: a) He'd hit the ball right into the tree. b) He'd naturally (but apparently unknowingly) compensate to hit the shot. I'd bet on b, but if we were able to measure things the science would show Nick his clubface was not aimed at the target at impact, and his swing path was more exaggerated than he suggested it should be. One of the most confusing things in learning golf and studying the golf swing, to me, is that really good players often feel something different than what's actually reality.

[Elvisliveson]

I'd also like to point out that I'm not denying that Nick probably believes that's how he hits that shot.

I know exactly what you mean. It's like what Ben Hogan said about Sam Snead: "Sam doesn't know a damn thing about hitting a golf ball, but he does it better than anyone else." And Mo Norman, who "owned his swing" according to Tiger, couldn't put together a coherent sentence when describing his swing theories.

[glenntwo]

I think he's great. He just comes off as being a little daft at times, and the serious people don't like that. He's a lot more fun to listen to than the "Mr. Hawaii" guy. Someone needs to tell Rolfing that boring an whiny is no way to be, especially when you've never really done anything other than hang around country clubs all your life.

[Shanks A Million]

I think people should set a baseline for one thing.

The direction of force is always straight. Even if the feet are aligned 20° off, the direction of force is always the base. The angle of the face then, would be the variable. Straight face means a straight shot. Open face means the ball starts right, and continues to turn right. Closed face means the ball starts left and continues to turn left. The actual ratio depends on the characteristic time more than anything. The longer the characteristic time, the straighter the ball will start (correct me if I'm wrong there).

So, now we add a second variable, where the feet are aimed. This to me, is being used as the control, but it shouldn't be.

The reason hackers slice the ball is because they swing with a face that's open. Remember, even if they come 10° over the top, the face is open to the DOF. The ball may start 7° right, but the feet are aimed 10° right, so in relation it starts 3° left. You cannot slice a ball with a face closed to the DOF, and you cannot draw a ball with a face open to the DOF.

So my thing is, the DOF should be the control. The angle of the feet, and the angle of the face are the variables.