Martin Hall sounded completely wrong!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by plugged

In any case, please educamate me on what causes a slice, because as an engineer, I look at things pretty logically.  And logically, I don't see how you slice the ball if the club face is not open at impact.  The one exception I can envision is an extreme outside-in swing plane might impart enough side-spin to partially overcome a pull shot, but I have a hard time believing even that.  I am sure that there have been plenty of studies done on ball flight using mechanical swing machines, so please enlighten me.

Google "ball flight laws" and click the first link you get. You'll end up back at this site, but go for it.

You'll find that "an extreme outside-in swing plane" does not result in a "pull" by itself. Go ahead... read... we'll wait.

Originally Posted by plugged

I would also add that the Golf Channel held open auditions for the position that Martin Hall now holds, so if you really feel like he and the rest of the golf instructing universe is so far offbase on their teaching, I encourage you to apply.

The auditions were a sham. Of the three finalists, only one actually submitted a video, and it appeared on the site about two minutes before the contest ended. Additionally, Martin Hall (and the others) were not "new" instructors - Martin's been on Golf Channel (and lives nearby) over a hundred times.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by plugged

OK, from what I've gathered from these posts is that somehow the braintrust of expertise on ball flight laws (which I see a lot of references to on TST) is somehow concentrated all on this site, which is pretty amazing.

Read up on it yourself, this has been discussed and explained dozens of times.

http://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws

http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/34949/clear-up-new-ball-flight-laws-for-me

http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/34283/ball-flight-laws-video

http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/27083/definitive-club-face-angle-swing-path-on-ball-flight-thread

Edit: I've got to stop replying before noticing there are multiple pages.

[plugged]

Originally Posted by iacas

Google "ball flight laws" and click the first link you get. You'll end up back at this site, but go for it.

You'll find that "an extreme outside-in swing plane" does not result in a "pull" by itself. Go ahead... read... we'll wait.

The auditions were a sham. Of the three finalists, only one actually submitted a video, and it appeared on the site about two minutes before the contest ended. Additionally, Martin Hall (and the others) were not "new" instructors - Martin's been on Golf Channel (and lives nearby) over a hundred times.

Listen, I'm glad the understanding of ball flight laws is eveolving to a more science-based model and your article (and those of many others on the net) are a good contribution towards this.  That is not my argument.  My argument is that folks either don't understand the ball flight laws and or simply like to throw that term around in constant criticism of just about every instructor because of what often seems to be a perceived misstatement on their part.  I.e., let's pile onto this instructor because I heard what I wanted to hear and not what he actually said.  The OP's post is a good example:

I was watching the school of golf the came on yesterday and a few things sounded wrong and contradicted the new ball flight laws( or i believe so). First he said all slices are caused by an open club face. But with the new laws hasn't it been concluded the club face angle determines where the ball starts and swing path relative to target line determines spin? With that he said the way to correct a slice was to close the face earlier and just use a stronger grip, which really is just short-term "bandaid" cures rather than a solution. Lastly he said hitting more down on the ball does not cause higher ball flight rather getting rid of your lag earlier/ releasing the club earlier in the down swing will get you higher ball flight. That's pretty much saying flipping the club is good? Any one else see this or am I completely wrong?

First, the new ball flight laws confirm what Martin Hall said, which is that an open club face (i.e., CFA) is the predominate factor in a slice.  He didn't say an outside-in SP is the predominate factor.  Second, the OP is wrong about spin.  Spin is imparted by an deflection of either the SP or CFA to the target line.  That is not in question, and I haven't seen any responses that attempt to clear this up.  This is just more of "yeah, let's pile on the criticism of a well-known golf instructor" instead of taking the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding.  The fact that no one has cleared this up tells me that folks agree with tis misunderstanding.  Now, whether SP or CFA dominates on spin I don't know.  I haven't had to read all the articles on the physics of a ball flight, which I will.  But this is an important point.  Spin plays an important part in ball flight, whether it is a club face that is parallel to the target line with a SP that is not parallel, or the opposite.

[jamo]

Originally Posted by plugged

Listen, I'm glad the understanding of ball flight laws is eveolving to a more science-based model and your article (and those of many others on the net) are a good contribution towards this.  That is not my argument.  My argument is that folks either don't understand the ball flight laws and or simply like to throw that term around in constant criticism of just about every instructor because of what often seems to be a perceived misstatement on their part.  I.e., let's pile onto this instructor because I heard what I wanted to hear and not what he actually said.  The OP's post is a good example:

First, the new ball flight laws confirm what Martin Hall said, which is that an open club face (i.e., CFA) is the predominate factor in a slice.  He didn't say an outside-in SP is the predominate factor.  Second, the OP is wrong about spin.  Spin is imparted by an deflection of either the SP or CFA to the target line.  That is not in question, and I haven't seen any responses that attempt to clear this up.  This is just more of "yeah, let's pile on the criticism of a well-known golf instructor" instead of taking the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding.  The fact that no one has cleared this up tells me that folks agree with tis misunderstanding.  Now, whether SP or CFA dominates on spin I don't know.  I haven't had to read all the articles on the physics of a ball flight, which I will.  But this is an important point.  Spin plays an important part in ball flight, whether it is a club face that is parallel to the target line with a SP that is not parallel, or the opposite.

Without taking sides, I think this argument is kind of inconsequential. No one here knows whether Martin Hall actually knows the ball flight laws, because no one knows whether or not he meant open to the swing path or open to the target line. From what I have been gathering from here and elsewhere, I believe the jury is still out on whether or not Hall knows the correct ball flight laws.

EDIT: Though I must say, the ambiguity helps no one.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by plugged

Listen, I'm glad the understanding of ball flight laws is eveolving to a more science-based model and your article (and those of many others on the net) are a good contribution towards this.  That is not my argument.  My argument is that folks either don't understand the ball flight laws and or simply like to throw that term around in constant criticism of just about every instructor because of what often seems to be a perceived misstatement on their part.

I obviously see where you're going with all this, but you've got to realize that a lot of us are tired of the average golfer not being aware of these basics. To some, including me on occasion, there's no excuse for being vague or for mis-stating things that are so basic to the game of golf and understanding what's wrong with your swing.

Why be vague when giving the right information won't take any longer and will be that much better? Why shouldn't we ask this of our instructors and teaching professionals? I know I strive to give every student I teach the best information and to explain it so that it's crystal clear to them. What's wrong with asking those who reach tens of thousands (or more) to do the same?

Originally Posted by plugged

First, the new ball flight laws confirm what Martin Hall said, which is that an open club face (i.e., CFA) is the predominate factor in a slice.  He didn't say an outside-in SP is the predominate factor.  Second, the OP is wrong about spin.  Spin is imparted by an deflection of either the SP or CFA to the target line.  That is not in question, and I haven't seen any responses that attempt to clear this up.

That's the part he's vague about... and the part he could better explain. When the average golfer hears "open clubface" they assume "to the target."

Yet the vast majority of slicers do so with a clubface square to or closed to the target, so telling them to roll the clubface more (which sends the path MORE to the left) is bad advice, and confusing advice at best.

Originally Posted by plugged

This is just more of "yeah, let's pile on the criticism of a well-known golf instructor" instead of taking the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding. The fact that no one has cleared this up tells me that folks agree with tis misunderstanding.

I disagree and think it's been made perfectly clear. Sidespin comes from the difference between SP and CFA. But again, the vast majority of slicers have a SP way left of the target and a CFA that's square to left of the target. They need to fix their SP, not their CFA. Yet if you say "open clubface" to a group of golfers, they'll hear "to the target."

I disagree with your statement of fact - I think it has been made abundantly clear. The people you're talking to here know where sidespin comes from...

[Zeph]

There is no doubt that a lot of instructors and golfers doesn't know the ball flight laws. I didn't myself either until a year ago when the topic emerged on this forum. While it is understandable that a 20 handicapper doesn't know them, you really would expect the worlds most known instructors to know, especially those sharing their knowledge through TV and magazines.

It's not about attacking everyone that got them wrong, they may not even have them wrong, they are perhaps just using the wrong terminology. The problem is that there are thousands of golfers out there that read, listen and watch this information and hope it will make an impact on their game. For my own part it doesn't matter, I've got Erik, GE, S&T; and this forum to help me understand more about the golf swing. I do however not apprechiate that information going out to the entire world to be wrong. If I can at least help the users of this forum by pointing out things that are wrong, it may help someone.

I don't know what Martin Hall meant with "open clubface", but I have yet to see anyone talk about an open clubface as reference to the swingpath without informing about this. Statistically, an out-to-in swingpath is 99 times more likely to be the problem than an open clubface. When Martin says on The Golf Channel that the most common cause is an open clubface, I don't think that is true. It may be the cause for one out of a hundred players, but I'd rather give a tip to the 99.

Additionally, most players that start pushing it with an open clubface will usually figure out they have to square up the clubface by themselves. A feat far easier than changing the swingpath.

It is a teaching and learning game, the more wrong or poor information going out there, the less golfers will improve.

[sean_miller]

Many older instructors and non-S&T; players are actually referring to the swing path when they refer to whether or not the clubface is open or closed. Personally I refer to both (path and target) so I always make sure to clarify which one I'm referring to. Anyone on TV should add that clarification even if it's redundant. If someone chooses to use other terminology than you do, they're not necessarily wrong, but who knows for sure, so why not add some words or a line on the TV screen?

Originally Posted by Zeph

There is no doubt that a lot of instructors and golfers doesn't know the ball flight laws. I didn't myself either until a year ago when the topic emerged on this forum. While it is understandable that a 20 handicapper doesn't know them, you really would expect the worlds most known instructors to know, especially those sharing their knowledge through TV and magazines.

It's not about attacking everyone that got them wrong, they may not even have them wrong, they are perhaps just using the wrong terminology. The problem is that there are thousands of golfers out there that read, listen and watch this information and hope it will make an impact on their game. For my own part it doesn't matter, I've got Erik, GE, S&T; and this forum to help me understand more about the golf swing. I do however not apprechiate that information going out to the entire world to be wrong. If I can at least help the users of this forum by pointing out things that are wrong, it may help someone.

I don't know what Martin Hall meant with "open clubface", but I have yet to see anyone talk about an open clubface as reference to the swingpath without informing about this. Statistically, an out-to-in swingpath is 99 times more likely to be the problem than an open clubface. When Martin says on The Golf Channel that the most common cause is an open clubface, I don't think that is true. It may be the cause for one out of a hundred players, but I'd rather give a tip to the 99.

Additionally, most players that start pushing it with an open clubface will usually figure out they have to square up the clubface by themselves. A feat far easier than changing the swingpath.

It is a teaching and learning game, the more wrong or poor information going out there, the less golfers will improve.

[plugged]

Quote:

Sidespin comes from the difference between SP and CFA.

You're right.  I did misstate this.  To clarify, sidespin develops whenever there is a deviation from the SP and CFA.  Te target line has nothing to do with it.  I do, however, re-iterate my objection to the OP's statement that spin results from SP alone.

Quote:

Yet the vast majority of slicers do so with a clubface square to or closed to the target, so telling them to roll the clubface more (which sends the path MORE to the left) is bad advice, and confusing advice at best.

I agree that he should have clarified that "open" is relative to the SP.  I also agree that rolling the clubface on an outside-in SP is bad advice because it would create a pull shot.  But it would reduce sidespin, which is what causes a slice, no?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Many older instructors and non-S&T; players are actually referring to the swing path when they refer to whether or not the clubface is open or closed.

They may be, but as you go on to say, it's not hard to add the clarifying details: open to the swing path .

That's all anyone's asking - that they say "open" relative to what? (or "closed" relative to what?).

[jamo]

Originally Posted by plugged

You're right.  I did misstate this.  To clarify, sidespin develops whenever there is a deviation from the SP and CFA.  Te target line has nothing to do with it.  I do, however, re-iterate my objection to the OP's statement that spin results from SP alone.

The OP never said that spin results from swing path alone, he said that:

(emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by kennay92

I was watching the school of golf the came on yesterday and a few things sounded wrong and contradicted the new ball flight laws( or i believe so). First he said all slices are caused by an open club face. But with the new laws hasn't it been concluded the club face angle determines where the ball starts and swing path relative to target line determines spin? With that he said the way to correct a slice was to close the face earlier and just use a stronger grip, which really is just short-term "bandaid" cures rather than a solution. Lastly he said hitting more down on the ball does not cause higher ball flight rather getting rid of your lag earlier/ releasing the club earlier in the down swing will get you higher ball flight. That's pretty much saying flipping the club is good? Any one else see this or am I completely wrong?

That's still slightly incorrect (it should be "...swing path relative to face angles determines spin."), but he never said that swing path alone causes side spin.

[delav]

Originally Posted by plugged

Now, whether SP or CFA dominates on spin I don't know.  I haven't had to read all the articles on the physics of a ball flight, which I will.

Spin is created by the differential between the swing plane and clubface angle.  Yes, it's very possible to hit a slice with an open clubface, however the largest contributor to the differential for most amateurs is swing path rather than clubface angle.  Hop on out to your local range and have a look for yourself.

[Harmonious]

Here's the scenario:  Mr. "Average Golfer" comes seeking advice.  After one swing, you see that he comes over the top, outside-in with an open clubface and hits a pull slice.  How do you treat the patient?

1) First, tell him to strengthen his grip, because an open clubface causes most slices.  He does so and hits a perfect pull shot.  You then say to get his swingpath to align with the target.  He does so and hits a perfect straight shot at the target.

2)  First, tell him to get his swingpath to align with the target, because that is what causes most slices.  He does so and hits a push slice.  You then say to strengthen his grip.  He does so and hits a perfect straight shot at the target.

From the opinions discussed here and in other threads, one of the above answers is from someone who clearly doesn't understand the "new" ball flight laws and is performing a disservice to the golf community.

The question is --- Why does it matter?  Mr. Average Golfer got his swing corrected.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

2)  First, tell him to get his swingpath to align with the target, because that is what causes most slices.  He does so and hits a push slice.  You then say to strengthen his grip.  He does so and hits a perfect straight shot at the target.

We just had this conversation elsewhere, and it turned into a whole big thing, so I'm going to say this very plainly and very clearly: the clubface is not glued to the path.

A 10 degree adjustment in path often results in a 0, 1, or 2 degree adjustment in face. A golfer with a square (to target) clubface and a path -10 degrees (left) can swing 3 degrees to the right and have a clubface angle that's only 2 degrees open. We see it day in and day out. We fix the path in four swings...

"He does so and hits a push slice" is a fabrication. We fix the path - and make huge strides to where we can work on some other piece the next time - all the time. The path does not force the face to move a similar amount if done properly.

That's why your first solution is bogus. First you get the guy matching his face to his path - okay, so his clubface is 10 degrees left at impact, has no loft, etc. Then you adjust his path... and his clubface is still 8 degrees left at impact. So then you have to fix the clubface angle again.

Three steps versus one. I'll take the one step every time.

Does that mean we never fix the face? No. But fixing the path - the actual cause of the large, vast majority of slices - is so much easier and quicker.

P.S. If the face angle and path were magically glued, why in your first example doesn't the path move farther left when the clubface angle moves left? Why aren't they glued together there?

P.P.S. The average amateur's grip is too strong as it is. That's why their clubface angle is too closed at impact. They come across the ball so much they've learned to at least start the ball to the left so their slice has a chance of curving back and staying inside the fairway.

[Parker0065]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'd watch. Couldn't be worse than what's out there now. ;-)

Iacas,

How come you don't demand a spot on the show to correct all these infidels who blaspheme the sacred ball flight riles?

Surely you care about those poor unknowing students of the game out there being mislead by such erronious instruction. Aren't you a master instructor yourself? Shouldn't you be standing up for what's right if you truely love this game!

I'll spot you a couple and still smoke you on the course!

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by iacas

We just had this conversation elsewhere, and it turned into a whole big thing, so I'm going to say this very plainly and very clearly: the clubface is not glued to the path.

A 10 degree adjustment in path often results in a 0, 1, or 2 degree adjustment in face. A golfer with a square (to target) clubface and a path -10 degrees (left) can swing 3 degrees to the right and have a clubface angle that's only 2 degrees open. We see it day in and day out. We fix the path in four swings...

"He does so and hits a push slice" is a fabrication. We fix the path - and make huge strides to where we can work on some other piece the next time - all the time. The path does not force the face to move a similar amount if done properly.

That's why your first solution is bogus. First you get the guy matching his face to his path - okay, so his clubface is 10 degrees left at impact, has no loft, etc. Then you adjust his path... and his clubface is still 8 degrees left at impact. So then you have to fix the clubface angle again.

Three steps versus one. I'll take the one step every time.

Does that mean we never fix the face? No. But fixing the path - the actual cause of the large, vast majority of slices - is so much easier and quicker.

P.S. If the face angle and path were magically glued, why in your first example doesn't the path move farther left when the clubface angle moves left? Why aren't they glued together there?

P.P.S. The average amateur's grip is too strong as it is. That's why their clubface angle is too closed at impact. They come across the ball so much they've learned to at least start the ball to the left so their slice has a chance of curving back and staying inside the fairway.

Good post and that is exactly what I have learned from some pros who really know what they are talking about, i.e. not those who follow a textbook and lead their pupils astray. How else the lower hand wrist angle at the top of BS would matter? Those who want to learn more dig up how some top10 players control their draw and fade and you'll be amazed (and even more puzzled...).

If controlling the side spin of a ball would be as easy as Harmonius describes, we'd all be playing under par frequently.

[tm22721]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Isn't that what best golfers tend to do...? Keep the angle as long as possible? They in fact tend to work with their muscles against early release. Or am I getting something wrong here?

The wrists should load and unload naturally. Any manipulation with the smaller muscles (ie wrists or hands) is likely to be less consistent due to more critical timing. The body and the core (large muscles) can be employed to load/unload the right arm flying wedge.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Parker0065

Surely you care about those poor unknowing students of the game out there being mislead by such erronious instruction. Aren't you a master instructor yourself? Shouldn't you be standing up for what's right if you truely love this game!

Uh, I have stood up for what's right. I've done it in this very thread. Your post immediately follows one such post. What have you contributed?

[ghalfaire]

Originally Posted by plugged

OK, from what I've gathered from these posts is that somehow the braintrust of expertise on ball flight laws (which I see a lot of references to on TST) is somehow concentrated all on this site, which is pretty amazing.

In any case, please educamate me on what causes a slice, because as an engineer, I look at things pretty logically.  And logically, I don't see how you slice the ball if the club face is not open at impact.  The one exception I can envision is an extreme outside-in swing plane might impart enough side-spin to partially overcome a pull shot, but I have a hard time believing even that.  I am sure that there have been plenty of studies done on ball flight using mechanical swing machines, so please enlighten me.

I would also add that the Golf Channel held open auditions for the position that Martin Hall now holds, so if you really feel like he and the rest of the golf instructing universe is so far offbase on their teaching, I encourage you to apply.

I'm an engineer and I can tell you what causes a slice.  It is a side spin component of the rotational velocity vector of the ball that causes the ball to veer to the right of the club's linear velocity vector at impact with the ball for a RH golfer.  This spin component is created when the face of the club is at an angle greater than perpendicular to the linear velocity vector of club face at the instance of impact with the ball (an open club face).  This assumes the clubs are fitted for you and that the groves on the club face are parallel to the ground at impact with the ball.  If the groves are not parallel to the ground this too can create a side spin component to the ball;s rotational velocity vector, even if the club face is square to the linear velocity vector.  In addition unfitted clubs can cause the sole of the club to not impact the ground evenly (e.g. the toe or heel of the club might strike the ground first twisting the club into a closed or open position at impact.  Clubs that are to upright for you causes to toe of the club to impact the ground first causing the slice I believe).

By the way I'm an Electrical Eng and not an expert at high g impact physics or golf but I think I got this right.