Acceptance of New Ball flight laws

[michaeljames92]

Just today I was speaking to a friend of mine who is a good player(1 HC) and another who is a 6 HC about the new ball flight laws. How club face angle is the main factor in where the ball starts not the swing path. And all I got were laughs and funny looks. For a whole hour I was trying prove these new laws to these guys and I got responses such as "Well I listened to tiger and said you aim face at target and open your stance and swing along your feet line." Then I said "What Tiger does and what he thinks he does are 2 different things and just because he is the top player in the world does not mean he knows the physics of the golf swing." Then I showed the slow motion video that was posted up here and then they say it is computer enhanced. After that I just gave up, they can be as ignorant as they want.

So after this ramble, my question is, Have you had any experience with misinformed people about the ball flight laws? Perhaps even golf pros?

[iacas]

Then I showed the slow motion video that was posted up here and then they say it is computer enhanced.

It was computer enhanced.

We drew lines on it so you could easily see that the "new" laws are correct.

[Zeph]

Ignorance is bliss. If people don't accept it, fine, not my problem that they aim at a tree when trying to hit around it.

I have demonstrated it to some people, but I guess some are not possible to convince. Have a little contest, aim somewhat like done on the video Erik and Dave made, make them swing and see what happens. One guy aims his body where he wants the ball to start, you aim the club face. Have the other one stand behind the one swinging to see the initial direction.

[michaeljames92]

It was computer enhanced.

Haha I like it.

[Titleist_ProV1x]

It was computer enhanced.

LOL ......... that's great hahaha

[shortstop20]

Then I showed the slow motion video that was posted up here and then they say it is computer enhanced. After that I just gave up, they can be as ignorant as they want.

It's a conspiracy to change the ball flight laws, sounds plausible. LOL

[atrapasuenos]

I tried the same thing with some buddies of mine and the local pro at my course. One of them plays a big push-draw I explained why and he didn't believed me. Before knewing this about the new laws, I wasn't able to draw the ball, I understand them now and now I can draw the ball. So I demonstrated to him and didn't believed me, he told me you are closing the face... NO! So I told him, I think you aren't able to square the face at impact, so you leave it a bit open and because you swing from the inside you get that push-draw, lets try this, close the face and make your nomal swing path -he made a nasty pull hook- now you believe me? Hahaha!

But I can tell you I don't care, as long as I know how this works and can apply it to my game... I have an advantage over them... yes sir! :D

Greetings!

[Jay-Bird]

Hypothesis, theory and law are NOT the same thing. This is a THEORY, not a LAW. (yet).

[shortstop20]

Hypothesis, theory and law are NOT the same thing. This is a THEORY, not a LAW. (yet).

This "theory" has far more science to back it up than the old ball flight laws ever dreamed of.

While the percentages could be somewhat off, there is no doubt that the clubface plays some part in the starting path of the ball, basic physics proves that. How people did/can believe that not to be true I will never understand. Unless the clubface is perfectly square to the swingpath, it will always "deflect" the ball somewhat in the direction that the clubface is pointing, whichever direction that may be. The contention that this is some new and profound theory is quite humorous, the only thing profound about it is that the clubface plays a much larger part in the starting path of the ball than many thought originally, or still believe.

[iacas]

Hypothesis, theory and law are NOT the same thing. This is a THEORY, not a LAW. (yet).

It's not a theory, and golfers don't apply the same level of strictness to terms like "law" as scientists do.

It's not a theory because it's been measured and, so far as golfers are concerned, "proven." The actual scientific "laws" of physics also back it up. You could scientifically "prove" that the observations and the data from launch monitors (etc.) were proper based on physics. Specifically, you could scientifically get a rather accurate number every time using known "laws" of physics given ball type, characteristic time, lie quality, iron swing speed, angle of attack, (and a few thousand other things). For golfers, "the clubface determines the starting line" is close enough to accurate that they call it a law. Good enough.

While the percentages could be somewhat off, there is no doubt that the clubface plays some part in the starting path of the ball, basic physics proves that. How people did/can believe that not to be true I will never understand. Unless the clubface is perfectly square to the swingpath, it will always "deflect" the ball somewhat in the direction that the clubface is pointing, whichever direction that may be. The contention that this is some new and profound theory is quite humorous, the only thing profound about it is that the clubface plays a much larger part in the starting path of the ball than many thought originally, or still believe.

I'd call that an accurate assessment of the situation. :)

[saevel25]

How many times have you scene someone hit a tree when they tried to play with the old method. I done it more times than not.

[sean_miller]

The only part of I may not completely accept is the term, "new laws", since they're often seen in itallics. What is definitely "new" however, is the technology used to prove it. Yet, there are non-believers. As we all know, scientific proof is proof of nothing, if someone chooses to ignore it or discount it out of ignorance.

Whether or not they were widely touted, these laws have been known by top players and instructors for a while now. I've read them in the past, but never made it my main focus, because until you have a repeatable swing, this knowledge, albeit invaluable, is hard to validate on the course. The instructors didn't seem to make it their main focuse either - it was like saying "water is wet". Why dwell on these simple facts? What was true then is still true. But, they're so important, they need to be brought to the forefront.

"Assembling a fine golf grip doesn't require a Ph.D. in physics, but it does help if you know a little about the cause and effect in the golf swing. Most important is an understanding of the effect hand alignment has on clubface alignment. If you hold the club with your hands turned well to the right as you set the clubface squarely behind the ball, more often than not the clubface will arrive back at the ball closed, or looking left of target, causing a pull or hook, depending on swing path. Conversely, if you hold the club with your hands turned well to the left at address, most of the time you will strike the ball with the face open, or looking right of the target, causing a push or a slice. The reason is the same in both cases. Human reflexes being what they are, when you make a golf swing your hands instinctively seek to return to a perpendicular plane as they apply club to ball."

Source: Jack Nicklaus, The Full Swing. Copyright 1982, by Golden Bear Inc

[Dr. Strangeclub]

So after this ramble, my question is, Have you had any experience with misinformed people about the ball flight laws? Perhaps even golf pros?

In the dark, dark days of USENET, on rec.sport.golf, I had a very long argument with players posting there who refused to believe it. Unluckily, I can't find that particular thread, apparently one lost in the bit bucket over the years. Pity. Wish I still had those perl scripts! There, the argument centered around whether or not friction pulls or pushes the ball offline when drawing or fading and when does it start curving back to the target. This sort of displacement is likely marginally possible with a tennis ball off a tennis racket, since the ball stays on the racket face tens of times longer than does a golf ball on the clubface, so there is time to accelerate in the direction of the racket face's motion. That component is almost non-existent when you strike a golf ball, since the ball stays on the clubface a mere half a millisecond or so.

During the course of that argument, I took the equations from "The Physics of Golf" and wrote a perl script to generate a table of angular deflections according to the angle of motion relative to where the clubface was pointing. The numbers are so tiny that they don't even come into play in the real world of human perception. The deflection is there, but really, really, really small. Posting the table and perl script which generated it, as well as the original equations from the book, had no appreciable effect. Half were on my side, half on the side of "I can feel it and see it happening!". Whatever. Within the limits of human perception, the ball starts off in the direction the clubface is pointed, period. For those who refuse to accept even the experiments of a physicist, a professor of physics and astronomy at that, there's really not much you can do. Sounds like you're in a similar crowd!

[saevel25]

Tell them to watch a tennis player. Or tee up a baseball on a practice tee. What dictates the direction of the tennis ball or baseball, the orientation of the impact surface with the ball. Look at a baseball player like Albert Pujols, he lines up facing the pitcher. He doesn't step to the right to hit it to right field or left to left field. He steps towards the pitcure keepnig square to the baseball. What causes him to hit a homerun to left field versus a homerun to right field. The position of his hands through impact with the baseball that causes the bat to be open to the pitcher or closed to the pitcher. Its the angle of the bat that causes the ball to fly to left or right field. What makes people think the golf swing is any different.

[Dr. Strangeclub]

Unless the clubface is perfectly square to the swingpath, it will always "deflect" the ball somewhat in the direction that the clubface is pointing, whichever direction that may be. The contention that this is some new and profound theory is quite humorous, the only thing profound about it is that the clubface plays a much larger part in the starting path of the ball than many thought originally, or still believe.

The deflection from the starting path relative to the clubface due to frictional forces is about as important as sticking your hand out the window of a car will be in determining the direction your car will roll. Yeah, you could calculate that the car would pull in that direction, but the magnitude of that drag would be overwhelmed by gyroscopic and inertial forces.

[sean_miller]

Tell them to watch a tennis player. Or tee up a baseball on a practice tee. What dictates the direction of the tennis ball or baseball, the orientation of the impact surface with the ball. Look at a baseball player like Albert Pujols, he lines up facing the pitcher. He doesn't step to the right to hit it to right field or left to left field. He steps towards the pitcure keepnig square to the baseball. What causes him to hit a homerun to left field versus a homerun to right field. The position of his hands through impact with the baseball that causes the bat to be open to the pitcher or closed to the pitcher. Its the angle of the bat that causes the ball to fly to left or right field. What makes people think the golf swing is any different.

Tennis is easy to see since the raquet head is big - I use one to practice my golf swing in the house. There's more timing involved with those sports, though. Not the best comparison - unless you're using ball position to determine your face angle. The reason someone pulls the ball is they hit it earlier than a person going opposite field. The head of the bat is closed, but the ball is moving too. Even though a right handed player can muscle an outside pitch into left field (or flare an insided pitch into right field), it's more efficient to go with the pitch and try to drive it in that direction.

But I digress . . . I'd like to suggest a project for iacas. Film some shots where the ball does not start perpendicular to the clubface and explain those within the ball flight laws. I'm talking specifically about flop shots and bunker shots, where you can open the clubface and stance in equal angles on either side of intended target - swing down the foot line with the face open (relative to both feet and target) and watch the ball start down the middle. Do try it at home.

[kilbyman]

Nothing profound here... think about billiard balls hitting the side of a billiards table. Angle of incidence=angle of reflection. Period. Or use a baseball swing. When the swing is late for a right handed hitter (bat is open to center field), it goes to right field. If swing is early, (bat is closed to center field) ball goes to left field.

[saevel25]

Well not totally true, because billiard balls are pretty inelastic, meaing they will not waste much energy between the ball and the surface. Were the golf ball is softer, and the clubface isn't the hardest material out there. So really two elastic surfaces, the ball does travel up the clubface when struck and does stick to the clubface for a small amount of time. But yes, the ball is stationary, the club moving in three axis, when struck by the clubface will come off in somewhat of prescribed angles, give or take a few degrees, nothing to discount the new laws of ball flight.