Breed's Ball Shaping Lesson

[jamo]

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Ive just provided you with a video taken in laboratory controlled conditions that according to the so called new ball flight laws cannot possibly happen. What people have to remember golf is not a science its a sport, there's way too many variables in equipment and people to take into account before we start quoting Einstein.

and on that note, here's a wee video for you

How many times does that stupid video have to be posted here and elsewhere before people realize that it's not real? Common sense man. That video just lost you any ounce of credibility you had.

And newsflash (wow, that was lame...), being a sport doesn't exclude you from complying with science. There actually aren't all that many variable in play at the impact of a golf ball, and the ones that exist can be accounted for.

And now we've gotten really far away from Breed's actual video... so whatever.

[talismand]

At this point I think that JTJ is just having fun with the topic at best, trolling at worst. After the 2nd video, it's pretty obvious he's just messing around.

[Shindig]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Wow. People still debating this?

Concrete evidence right there.

If B&P; announced that the sky is blue, you'd find golf "experts" telling you why it can't be.

Originally Posted by talismand

At this point I think that JTJ is just having fun with the topic at best, trolling at worst. After the 2nd video, it's pretty obvious he's just messing around.

I hope so.  My troll detector is starting to go off too.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Shindig

If B&P; announced that the sky is blue, you'd find golf "experts" telling you why it can't be.

Perhaps you've accidentally stumbled on many people's issue with S&T.;

B&P; discover the sky is blue then post graphs illustrating how it's a bit more blue since they announced their discovery.

[MasterP]

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Ive just provided you with a video taken in laboratory controlled conditions that according to the so called new ball flight laws cannot possibly happen. What people have to remember golf is not a science its a sport, there's way too many variables in equipment and people to take into account before we start quoting Einstein.

Baseball is a sport too, and it follows the same general ball flight laws as golf.  In fact most sports with a stick (or racket) and a ball follow the same laws, they aren't special to golf.  Physics is pretty universal...which is nice

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by MasterP

Baseball is a sport too, and it follows the same general ball flight laws as golf.  In fact most sports with a stick (or racket) and a ball follow the same laws, they aren't special to golf.  Physics is pretty universal...which is nice

Remember the "does a curveball really curve" debate?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Ive just provided you with a video taken in laboratory controlled conditions that according to the so called new ball flight laws cannot possibly happen

The video demonstrates no such thing (nor is that the purpose of the video). Nothing in the video demonstrates that the "old" ball flight laws are correct or that the "new" ones are incorrect.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Remember the "does a curveball really curve" debate?

Literally remember? No. Remember reading about it??? Yes. :-)

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by iacas

Literally remember? No. Remember reading about it??? Yes. :-)

"The less there is to justify a traditional belief, the harder it is to get rid of it." -- Mark Twain.

[dsc123]

I'm new around here, and i think this post was my first introduction to the "new" ball flight laws.  I had caught a few posts about ball flight elsewhere on here, but it was more tangential.

anyway, i just want to say that i feel like my mind has been blown.  Swing path, clubface, ball spin, ball direction, slices, hooks, fades, draws; i think i actually get it now.  Its not quite intuitive yet, but its making sense.  And man, its fun.

I took a copy of the chart that iacas linked to on here and pulled it out of my pocket a few times, haha.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Stretch

"The less there is to justify a traditional belief, the harder it is to get rid of it." -- Mark Twain.

I see that quote frequently in discussions about religion.

Ooops.

[johnthejoiner]

Getting back to what Breed spoke about in his video and echoed by 14 times major winner Tiger Woods and Ian Poulter, the reason they explain in such simple terms is because it works. I'm going to try and explain it with my very limited golfing terminology, now for the purpose of this demonstration i would like you to put your self into tigers shoes and try this at home. Address the ball as breed explains in his video and I'm going to call this the neutral position, at this moment in time the swing will bottom out at the ball, what i want you to do now is imagine you've swung the club like tiger in his prime and your in the perfect impact position with the hands well forward, the thing that you'll notice is the club is open to the target but its square to your swing path, now this is when the magic starts. A professionals swing will bottom out about four inches in front of the ball after hes done all his wee things, what i want you to do in this experiment is to continue with the swing to about four inches past the ball but make sure its still on the swing path and impact position, you will find that the club has come back square to the target. I know roughly what people are going to comment on but the purpose of this experiment "in which no golfers were hurt" was to help people understand how a traditional style golfer draws the ball, so next time Breed does a live broadcast and tells people how to draw the ball please believe him because it works, don't let the fact that "20 times major winner" Jack Nicklaus will tell you exactly the same thing cloud your judgment

[iacas]

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Getting back to what Breed spoke about in his video and echoed by 14 times major winner Tiger Woods and Ian Poulter, the reason they explain in such simple terms is because it works

For the last time, it doesn't "work" at all. They may or may not know it, but the clubface is NOT "pointing at the target" at impact and their path is NOT "along their feet" at impact. They're saying one thing and doing something completely different.

That's not "it works." That's "I say one thing but do something completely different."

P.S. Tiger knows the ball flight laws now. It's shocking he didn't know them until late 2010... but true.

[Stretch]

I like this video even though it makes my head hurt. Data, in my opinion, is preferable to either opinion or feel.

[Zeph]

I don't understand how anyone can defend such wrong information.

What Breed says makes as much sense as telling someone to aim the putter face one foot to the right of the hole on a straight putt and rely on you closing the face through the shot and getting it square to the hole.

He gives bad and wrong advice, as simple as that. His demonstration shot proved that, hitting a pull-hook that ended up way left.

If you want to hit the ball straight, do you aim the clubface square? Why would you ever aim the clubface anywhere but where you want it to be at impact? What's worse is that he doesn't say that you have to open the clubface through the shot for that swing to work, which he seems to think is not necessary, for some weird reason. If you go out on the course and do exactly what he says; aim your body right of the target, clubface at the target and get into that position at impact, you will miss your target 100% of the time.

Golf is difficult as it is, without amateurs being given wrong information like this.

As I'm writing this, Simon Holmes (british instructor, teaching Faldo, Langer, Suzann Pettersen) demonstrates why Phil Mickelson struggle with hitting a draw. He drew a line on his starting direction of the ball, starting well left. Then he goes on to say that Phil has to do a lot of hand action to make up for that big swing path to the left. Which tells us that he believe the ball starts along the swing path angle, and that Phil has to shut the clubface a lot to get the ball back on target.

[Shindig]

Interesting thing:  a few days ago, I was re-reading Floyd's Elements of Scoring , published in 1998.  In it, he references the modern ball flight rules correctly.  I guess he must have been using S&T; back in the day When I get home, I'll update this with the page reference.