Nick Faldo Proves You can be Good AND Oblivious

[misty_mountainhop]

Very anti-Faldo thread and comments and I don't remember him being that short a hitter either. Amazingly, could he maybe have placed a premium on accuracy over bombing it? His Major wins would suggest he was doing something right now wouldn't they?

I'm assuming his "chicken wing" is on the downswing/follow-through? Anyway, it sounds to me like he's trying to do things which exaggerate the swing path which ever way is needed. The chicken wing (the way I'm thinking of it right now) seems to me a swing thought to promote an out-to-in path while the "swing on that line/rotate arms" is the same for a draw. Seem to recall some exaggerated swing thoughts to encourage a particular feeling/result being used in a new swing theory that's taking the Tour by storm.....

There are many ways to hit these shots and being dogmatic about one way or t'other is no more reasonable than Faldo's approach. At the end of the day, all you're trying to do is hit the ball with the club face open to the swing path (fade) or closed to the path (draw). I'm not at all convinced that initial launch direction is purely a function of face angle either; it takes no account of friction between ball and face.

[Tiger Spuds]

How is this thread Anti - Faldo?

People are just pointing out his flawed teaching and poor commentary.Which is well-founded in my opinion.He is pompous and arrogant - the countless stories from players and fans alike, and his Ryder cup speech alone prove that.There's nothing wrong with pointing out someone's flaws if they happen to be accurate.

And by the way, the 'He hit it like a p***y' comment was a reference to an altercation between Faldo and Phil Mickelson at the Champions dinner at Augusta last year.Thought most people were aware of it, but obviously not.

Paul Azinger said it best :

'You know, if you're going to be a p***k, and everybody hated you, why do you think because you're trying to be cute and funny on the air that they're all suddenly going to start to like you?'

[MSDOGS1976]

How is this thread Anti - Faldo?

I'm not aware of it. Please enlighten me or point me to an article. Thanks.

[Tiger Spuds]

I'm not aware of it. Please enlighten me or point me to an article. Thanks.

http://deadspin.com/5223306/beware-t...ults-of-figjam Not really an 'altercation'.But a few words.Phil being a bit of a douchebag, but you know.. it was Faldo, so no harm done.

[misty_mountainhop]

How is this thread Anti - Faldo?

My opinion. Based on the tenor of much that's posted here.

People are just pointing out his flawed teaching...

As they're such experts....

...and poor commentary. Which is well-founded in my opinion

Indeed. Your opinion.

He

Do you actually

know the man?

And by the way, the 'He hit it like a p***y' comment was a reference to an altercation between Faldo and Phil Mickelson at the Champions dinner at Augusta last year.Thought most people were aware of it, but obviously not.

Nope. I wasn't aware of it.

Paul Azinger said it best :

Pretty well said. I'm inclined to agree (I'm not Faldo's biggest fan) actually but then I'm quite prepared to believe that Faldo (the player) and Faldo (the ex-player) are two separate personas. He was trying to win at the end of the day. Sure I recall 'Zinger being a p***k at Kiawah and at other times (inc. the last RC). He and Faldo have a longstanding dislike so I'll take his opinion here with a bucket of salt.

Apologies to the OP; getting a bit off-thread maybe.

[MSDOGS1976]

http://deadspin.com/5223306/beware-t...ults-of-figjam

That's the kind of conversation I might have with one of my golf buddies. It's just in fun. But I have no idea if these 2 were joking around before hand, so hard to say how serious of an altercation this really was. It may be well known they hate each other, but I don't know.

[Tiger Spuds]

Do you actually

Come on, it's common knowledge what the man is like.Azinger is hardly the only player to speak of their dislike for him.And did you actually hear that Ryder cup opening speech?Europe had that Ryder cup lost before they even set foot on the course.

But you're right, this is getting off-thread, and you're entitled to your opinion of the man.

[iacas]

I don't like to call someone stupid for saying something that may have been incorrect.

Well now, be fair. I didn't. I called him oblivious.

Faldo is constantly berated by golfers. There have been several very negative comments about him in this thread.

And a good many of them aren't on the topic... I didn't talk about his announcing skills. I just said - and wish - he wouldn't say things that are factually incorrect.

You don't win 6 majors without knowing a thing or two about golf. He is teaching what he

Yeah, and he shouldn't. It makes him look bad and it does the opposite of help people.

His average driving distance in 2004 was 297.6 yards, not short, even by today's standards.

Dude, Tiger only averaged 301.9 that year. Corey Pavin averaged 268.2 and was dead last.

His PGA Tour stats (he didn't post enough rounds to qualify for the list) put him at 282.4 yards. http://www.pgatour.com/players/00/13/26/stats/2004.html His European Tour stats put him at 277.8 yards. http://www.europeantour.com/publish....d=53&viewId;=67 So no on the 297.6. But that's not even really what this thread's about.

So maybe he makes mistakes, but he's human. Any of us in that booth, and given that task would have hate threads about us as well.

Nah, sorry, not buyin' it. We're supposed to not point out the mistakes?

The dude's in a position where people might be inclined to listen to what he says, and he's chosen to put himself there. That doesn't mean he can't be questioned or have his mistakes brought to the attention of people (or him) so he doesn't keep passing out incorrect information.

Very anti-Faldo thread

Not my sense at all.

His Major wins would suggest he was doing something right now wouldn't they?

He's not telling people the right way. The thread title and my first post acknowledge that he was a good player. He's apparently not very good at accepting new truths.

"Aim at the target." Yeah, if you want to hit the ball right into the tree that's in the way.

I'm assuming his "chicken wing" is on the downswing/follow-through?

That part's irrelevant. I'd have cropped the picture but I thought people would understand I was talking mostly about points #1 with a little of points #2.

Anyway, it sounds to me like he's trying to do things which exaggerate the swing path which ever way is needed.

Yeah, his described setup is perfect if you want to hit the ball right at the tree with hook or fade spin. Except it won't have a chance to hook or fade because it'll be bouncing off the tree. I couldn't care less about the chicken win. It's irrelevant to the discussion and why he's wrong.

There are many ways to hit these shots and being dogmatic about one way or t'other is no more reasonable than Faldo's approach.

There are not "many ways" to the physics.

I'm not at all convinced that initial launch direction is purely a function of face angle either; it takes no account of friction between ball and face.

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.

How is this thread Anti - Faldo?

Because apparently it's "anti" to point out when someone's wrong.

People are just pointing out his flawed teaching and poor commentary.

Yep.

As they're such experts....

On this, yes. Facts are facts. Nick has his wrong.

Do you actually

Irrelevant. To you and Tiger Spuds. This isn't about Nick's attitude or his metamorphosis. I couldn't care less about his attitude when he was a player. It obviously worked for him.

Let's stick to the actual topic, gents.

[kleraudio]

Erik you said that you should aim your clubhead at where you want the ball to start and your feet should align with how you want the ball to curve??

Just tried this in my living room. Pretended I was trying to hit a hook (Im righty) around a tree in front of me. I set my clubhead to the right of the tree and my body lines open (left) because thats where I wanted the ball to curve.....

Seemed and felt to me like I was setting up to hit a big fade, vs a strong hook... Can you elaborate on this as Im kind of confused now.

When I needed to hit a big hook i would set up the opposite way, very closed club head and aiming right of trouble. Worked "most" of the time. But sometimes the ball would take off on the right line but never hook, which leads me to believe youve got something here.

I just cant fully grasp it right now

Jim

[iacas]

Erik you said that you should aim your clubhead at where you want the ball to start and your feet should align with how you want the ball to curve??

Yes - closed to make the ball hook. You set your feet for how you want the ball to curve relative to your clubface. So close them (relative to the clubface) for a hook.

These numbers aren't precise but here's the general idea: if you want to hook a ball 20 yards, aim 20 yards right of the final target with the clubface and 40 yards right with your stance (swing path). Let's stick to the topic here: Nick Faldo giving significance to the term "boob tube."

[FHopper]

I wish I understood the frame of reference for "closed or open" stance. I get the sense that moving your right foot back from parallel to the target is closed but why call that closed?

[MrKadash]

I'm late to the party, and I didn't see the telecast. I'm just curious if his definition of "target" is the flagstick?

[iacas]

I wish I understood the frame of reference for "closed or open" stance. I get the sense that moving your right foot back from parallel to the target is closed but why call that closed?

Because, from the target's perspective, you're closed off to it when more of your back is facing the target, and you're open to it more when the target can see more of your belly. You could probably also think about it in terms of the ball - you're closing off access to the ball when your stance is closed and you're opening access to the ball when your stance is not closed. If the target's at the top of the screen, which of these periods is more accessible or "open" from the target's perspective:

a) /. - or - b) \.

I'm late to the party, and I didn't see the telecast. I'm just curious if his definition of "target" is the flagstick?

Yes. He verbally confirmed that a few times.

[Zeph]

No high tech drawing, but it demonstrates the essentials. Don't heed too much notice to the degrees of my angles. They are made large to give an easy understanding of how the ball reacts to the clubface angle and swingpath.

Don't think too much about the target you want to hit. Just focus on what makes the ball spin in the air. It spins sideways because of a differential between clubface angle and swingpath angle. If the blue and red line were identical, the ball would always go dead straight, at the angle of the lines. The amount of spin is determined by the differential of the clubface angle and swingpath angle. Swingpath to the right of the ball cause spin from right to left. Swingpath to the left of the ball cause spin from left to right. The larger the diff angle is, the more spin will be imparted on the ball.

A recommended thread on the subject: http://thesandtrap.com/forum/threads...-Flight-Thread

[iacas]

No high tech drawing, but it demonstrates the essentials.

Don't change it based on what I'm going to say, but I found it funny because most people will describe nine shots, three of which are straight, while you described eight without a straight shot. Why? Because A1 is the same as B2, and A2 is the same as B1.

The nine shots are simply: a) pull-draw b) pull c) pull-fade d) straight-draw e) straight f) straight-fade g) push-draw h) push i) push-fade Your diagram illustrates the six (a, c, d, f, g, i) that aren't straight. This one uses slightly different terms (slice instead of fade, etc.) but illustrates it all quite well: Now, let's get back to talking about how Nick Faldo should stop telling us wrong information.

[Chas]

I'm a fan of Sir Nick's commentating but, if you accept the truth of the Trackman results (see other thread), I would agree that he isn't giving very accurate info in this case. According to Trackman, for a strong fade to avoid an obstance, Nick should be telling golfers to aim the clubhead somewhat left of it and then set up a swing path further left than that to achieve the desired initial launch direction and fading flight path. In Nick's defense, this is not what he was taught as a golfing lad and it's a relatively new concept to me as well - I've always read and been taught that swing path was the primary determinant of initial ball flight and that clubface angle (in relation to clubhead path) determined spin/degree of curvature in the air.

Last year at Torrey I walked past Faldo late in the day (near the 18th green), he must have recently finished commentating, was dressed very casually and looked to me to be heading for a bar somewhere (speculative .... ). If this happens again this year, I'll try to nobble him for a moment and say, "Sir Nick, Sir, pray tell: what in your honor's view is the primary determinant of initial ball flight in a strong fade (or draw) shot: swing path or clubface angle at contact? I'll buy you a G and T if you get it right Sir ......".

[sean_miller]

Why do ex (and current) professional golfers as commentators feel the need to tell people how to play specific shots? I can see if they're talking about strategy or options a player has during a trouble / recovery shot, but why do they feel the need to give instruction at all? Do all golf analysts think we're waiting for their next tip to use on the course? Hell, half the stuff they say is contradictory and misleading from one analyst to the next - and that's when I'm only half listening.

I don't see other sports telling us how play like the pros. If NFL analysts start telling me how to throw a tight spiral, NHL colour analysts start telling me how to make a saucer pass or time a slap shot, and MLB commentators tell me how to hold and deliver a spliiter, I'll watch them on mute too.

[iacas]

I don't see other sports telling us how play like the pros. If NFL analysts start telling me how to throw a tight spiral, NHL colour analysts start telling me how to make a saucer pass or time a slap shot, and MLB commentators tell me how to hold and deliver a spliiter, I'll watch them on mute too.

That's a good point. But I suppose the opposite is that people who watch golf tend to play golf, and virtually everyone who plays golf wants to improve.

People who watch football or hockey or whatever don't necessarily play football (aside from the game outside in the mud on Thanksgiving once a year or whatever). They watch because they root for their team. When's the last time you had buddies over to watch "The Big Golf!"? But yeah, they still don't need to instruct. I wish they'd do more to show what's unique about someone (like Steve Stricker's putter heel being so high, or Zach Johnson's grip) and leave it at that. They're not doing themselves any favors when they get stuff wrong, and if all you're doing is pointing out something you can see (like the two things I mentioned), you can't look bad or get it wrong.