Hitting a Fade (Ball Flight Question)

[Shanks A Million]

Erik, if your ~85% rule applies, then isn't it possible that with a square clubface and an attack angle of 80 degrees that one could bend a ball around a tree in front of them? That would theoretically yield an initial flight of ~13 degrees off the club face, and a ton of spin. So depending on the distance to the tree and conceding that this is an awful way to hit a golf ball, it seems as if it were in fact possible. Again, I agree with the basic message you're sending--my engineering mind is just curious.

The face angle in engineering terms is related to the line of force, not the feet. You can not have the clubface square to the line of force and turn the ball. Where the feet point is totally irrelevant. If my feet point south, and the direction of force is east, and the clubface is pointed SE, then my face is open, no matter where my feet point. The problem is that players think in terms of open/closed to their feet line. With an over the top slice, the clubface is still open, no matter where the feet are pointed. In the case of an over the top slice, the direction of force is straight, the clubface is open, and the feet are aimed way to the right.

This is why most people slice to begin with, the mind wants the feet to aim at the target, which means they're pointed right. The mind then corrects by looping the club over the top and toward the target. Then, when they slice, they try to swing even more left. It's a vicious cycle that can last for years, maybe for life. Go down to the driving range and look at where people are aimed, odds are, most of them are aimed right, swing left, and slice.

[iacas]

All these theories involve the ball hitting the center of the face, and being compressed properly by the club.

The "old rules" will never really work, no.

And we're talking about a swing that'll produce good contact. It's pointless to plan a shot for a particular kind of mis-hit, and it's pointless to discuss it.

But things like trapping the ball could change things.

How is trapping the ball going to change anything? You do realize, too, that only a topped golf ball is actually "trapped" at all, right? That a properly struck golf ball is going to immediately begin rising, right?

And I disagree: "science" isn't really up for debate. Theories in science are debatable, but empirical data gotten by advances in technology (science) aren't really "debatable." Science has given us tools that can measure things better than 50 years ago (or whenever) when the old laws were devised. We can better measure and thus get better data now. I don't know how they did it in the old days - their "equipment" might have been their eyes and their "feel" - not the most precise instruments around...

For instance, the only purely scientific contribution we have thus far is the Trackman article Erik posted (interesting by the way).

No, that's the only scientific data publicly, readily available.

Erik, if your ~85% rule applies, then isn't it possible that with a square clubface and an attack angle of 80 degrees that one could bend a ball around a tree in front of them? That would theoretically yield an initial flight of ~13 degrees off the club face, and a ton of spin.

I have several answers, the last of which is serious:

1) How do you intend to hit the golf ball, seeing as how the clubface is going to be hiding behind the shaft? 2) If you can swing like that, you don't have to worry about hitting the tree with that shot, because your [i]next[/shot] will still be from behind the tree after you advance the ball ten yards. 3) Plus, the 15% contribution from swing path drops as the compression time of the golf ball drops. If you're swinging across the ball at 80° then you might only get 5% contribution from the swing path. Besides, 80*.15 is 12 degrees.

So depending on the distance to the tree and conceding that this is an awful way to hit a golf ball, it seems as if it were in fact possible. Again, I agree with the basic message you're sending--my engineering mind is just curious.

I think the over-riding assumption is that we still want to make a realistic swing. A swing that goes across the ball 80° fails that basic test of common sense. Out of curiosity, the math says that to move in the forward direction 80 MPH (reasonable swing speed with a 6I IIRC), we'd have to swing a club going 80° across at ... 460.7 MPH.

And then the ball would slice so much it would boomerang around and hit us in the butt (assume we had a good follow-through position and could maintain it for that long).

The problem is that players think in terms of open/closed to their feet line. With an over the top slice, the clubface is still open, no matter where the feet are pointed.

Shanks, you have to be careful here. With a pull-slice:

a) the face is OPEN relative to the swing path b) the face is CLOSED relative to the target c) the face could be OPEN OR CLOSED relative to the stance (feet) Open and closed are relative terms, so you always need to say what they're relative TO. Balls curve depending on face angle relative to swing path - yes - but that's why you still want an open face... but also a face pointed left of the tree. Heck, you could even hit a pull-fade or a push-fade to get around the tree, but in both cases the club-face points left of the tree at impact... and "push" and "pull" in those situations imply "relative to your stance". The actual club could move and be positioned the same in both swings, but in one you might swing along the line of your feet (the push-fade) and in the other well across your body (the pull-fade). Relative terms need the thing they're relative TO or else everyone ends up confused.

In the case of an over the top slice, the direction of force is straight, the clubface is open, and the feet are aimed way to the right.

I think you've goofed some things up here. Over the top implies out-to-in. Slice tells us the clubface IS open relative to the swing path. But the clubface could be closed, open, or square to the target AND/OR the stance...

This is why most people slice to begin with, the mind wants the feet to aim at the target, which means they're pointed right. The mind then corrects by looping the club over the top and toward the target. Then, when they slice, they try to swing even more left. It's a vicious cycle that can last for years, maybe for life. Go down to the driving range and look at where people are aimed, odds are, most of them are aimed right, swing left, and slice.

I don't doubt that it's the majority, but I think the percentage of people who hit from their back foot is far greater and a far larger contributor to the slice than people pointing their feet right.

Either way, that's not entirely on topic... a good and interesting topic, just not in this thread, I think.

[Zeph]

Erik, if your ~85% rule applies, then isn't it possible that with a square clubface and an attack angle of 80 degrees that one could bend a ball around a tree in front of them? That would theoretically yield an initial flight of ~13 degrees off the club face, and a ton of spin. So depending on the distance to the tree and conceding that this is an awful way to hit a golf ball, it seems as if it were in fact possible. Again, I agree with the basic message you're sending--my engineering mind is just curious.

I'm sure you meant 13% off the clubface, not degrees. That could work, depending on where the tree was between you and the target. Regardless, if the ball barely passed the tree, chances are good that the ball would end up right of the target. Avoiding a tree depends on how thick it is and where it is between you and the target. The other part of this is where the ball comes down.

[Shanks A Million]

And I disagree: "science" isn't really up for debate. Theories in science are debatable, but empirical data gotten by advances in technology (science) aren't really "debatable." Science has given us tools that can measure things better than 50 years ago (or whenever) when the old laws were devised. We can better measure and thus get better data now. I don't know how they did it in the old days - their "equipment" might have been their eyes and their "feel" - not the most precise instruments around...

But science does change over time. We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, because it was the most logical. We used to believe that it was healthier to eat saccharine and cyclamate instead of sugar. Science is always up for debate, that's what makes it science and not religion. There could be a discovery tomorrow that shows the ballflight rules are once again, different. We never really know.

[Zeph]

With that analogy, we can never be sure about anything. Today, Trackman provides the most accurate data of the golf swing. High speed cameras and sensors are pretty reliable.

[iacas]

We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, because it was the most logical.

That wasn't science. That was an educated guess, which sounds about like what the old ball flight "theory" was. See what I did there, changing "law" to "theory"?

There could be a discovery tomorrow that shows the ballflight rules are once again, different.

If you feel you can accurately observe and measure a golf ball hitting a club and the resulting flight, I think it's safe to say it's not going to be "different." It may be more finely tuned, more precise, but not "different," no.

Theories are overturned. Laws rarely so, and when's the last time a "law" (in quotes for a reason) based on observed, measured empirical data was overturned?

[Crey23]

Wait, i clicked right instead of left.

Sorry man, there are no hanging chads in this poll!

[upah]

The face angle in engineering terms is related to the line of force, not the feet. You can not have the clubface square to the line of force and turn the ball. Where the feet point is totally irrelevant. If my feet point south, and the direction of force is east, and the clubface is pointed SE, then my face is open, no matter where my feet point. The problem is that players think in terms of open/closed to their feet line. With an over the top slice, the clubface is still open, no matter where the feet are pointed. In the case of an over the top slice, the direction of force is straight, the clubface is open, and the feet are aimed way to the right.

I don't believe I ever said relative to the feet. Open/closed are terms relative to the swing path.

I'm sure you meant 13% off the clubface, not degrees. That could work, depending on where the tree was between you and the target. Regardless, if the ball barely passed the tree, chances are good that the ball would end up right of the target. Avoiding a tree depends on how thick it is and where it is between you and the target. The other part of this is where the ball comes down.

No, I meant 13 degrees. This would be the (approximate, as Erik corrected) resultant vector assuming the ~85% contribution of the face angle versus the swing path given the parameters I suggested.

[Shanks A Million]

My whole argument is simply that the direction of force should always be the control. The face angle should be compared to the direction of force, as should the feet angle. This simplifies the open/closed face factor to a brutally simple degree. Open face = slice, closed face = hook. If you really wanted to go around the tree, your best option would be to open your face, aim out to the left, and swing straight. The ball would start right, and curve right. So long as you were aimed far enough left, you'd clear the tree and be home in time for Corn Flakes.

[Lefty-Golfer]

7 pages of replies to flight path....and to think that Fred Couples comment on flight path was along the lines of "i kind see it moving right and then hit moving right..." Sorry I realize this post adds virtualy nothing to the conversation outside of my belief in the KISS system.

[iacas]

My whole argument is simply that the direction of force should always be the control. The face angle should be compared to the direction of force, as should the feet angle. This simplifies the open/closed face factor to a brutally simple degree. Open face = slice, closed face = hook. If you really wanted to go around the tree, your best option would be to open your face, aim out to the left, and swing straight. The ball would start right, and curve right. So long as you were aimed far enough left, you'd clear the tree and be home in time for Corn Flakes.

I think the point is that when you use relative terms like "right" or "closed" you need to say what they're relative TO. I can hit a hook with an open face... if it's open to my stance but closed to my swing path. I get that. You get that. You just don't say it that way... and I think you should. It's important to define the frame of reference when using relative terms.

BTW, unrelated to you Shanks, but a good video clip I used in today's article on the main page:

[Shanks A Million]

I think the point is that when you use relative terms like "right" or "closed" you need to say what they're relative TO. I can hit a hook with an open face... if it's open to my stance but closed to my swing path. I get that. You get that. You just don't say it that way... and I think you should. It's important to define the frame of reference when using relative terms.

Ok, so we've got that... Here's my concern... What do we define as the base angle? Club path or foot line? I think club path should get top billing personally, because not everyone (indeed, rarely

anyone ) swings the club exactly along their foot line. I strike the ball with about a 3-5° in to out path. We need to agree on a definition of "straight". I think, as we're talking about ballflight , that club path gets top billing.

[Zeph]

BTW, unrelated to you Shanks, but a good video clip I used in today's article on the main page:

I would like to see the rest of this.

Andy Plummer must be one of the most comfortable people I've ever had the fortune of listening to. What's better, he knows what he's talking about. There's your contradiction to the quack Breed.

Ok, so we've got that... Here's my concern... What do we define as the base angle? Club path or foot line? I think club path should get top billing personally, because not everyone (indeed, rarely

Still, the problem is you don't define which of these you are talking about. The club path is of course what makes the ball curve. Most players hit close to square, or at least want to, perhaps with a few degrees in-to-out. When talking about the ball flight, we don't really need to know about the alignment. We only need to know the relationship between the club head and swing path. To use this in analysis, alignment is a big part of it. Perhaps you are aligned to the left, or to the right. Perhaps you are swinging over the top.

A straight swing path is just that, a straight swing path. Doesn't mention the body alignment.

[iacas]

Here's my concern... What do we define as the base angle? Club path or foot line?

We don't pick. We don't have to. You define it however you want at the time - that's the beauty of having a relative term. It's relative to whatever you want.

That said, swing path doesn't get top billing in my book because we need all three pieces of information to know much about the intent and quality of the shot: - The clubface (#1) is typically referred to relative to the swing path (#2) so we know how the ball curves. - The swing path (#2) is typically referred to relative to the intermediate target, which is typically where the golfer's stance (#3) is lined up. At this point, I feel like you're debating semantics nobody cares about. If you say what something is relative to, then people will know what you're trying to say. There's no "master frame of reference."