Confusing Ball Flight Information - followup

[pound puppy]

Originally Posted by iacas

I could be wrong, but you don't seem to have a grasp of the ball flight laws: http://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws .

The instructor would tell you to aim the face where you want the ball to start and to make the ball curve by swinging to the right of the face.

There's no "instant effect on the ball direction." The face is responsible for roughly 85%... period.

I saw the video and what he seems to be saying is that when I want to start the ball down the right side of the fairway and draw it back to the middle, I should square the club face with the right side of the fairway because that will be the launch path, regardless of swing path.  Is that right, and if it is, how does one control the amount of draw?  By adjusting the in~out angle of the swing?

[johnthejoiner]

Originally Posted by Zeph

As you can see, the initial direction of the ball never drops down to 60%. On average with a 9 iron it's around 70%, 75% with 6 iron and 85% with the driver.

If you aim the clubface at the target with a 6 iron and swing 10º in-to-out, the ball will start around 2-3º to the right of the target. Because of the sidespin, it will cross the target line over to the left side.

Would i be correct in saying, if the so called new ball flight laws were 100% true all the numbers in that chart would be at 100%

[jamo]

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Would i be correct in saying, if the so called new ball flight laws were 100% true all the numbers in that chart would be at 100%

No. The "so called new ball flight laws" stipulate that the face angle determines ~85% of the ball's initial direction. It's just easier to say that the ball starts "basically" along the direction of the face to simplify the math.

Arguing anything else is getting bogged down in semantics. I'd rather be 15% wrong and say that the ball starts along the line of the face than be 85% wrong and say that the ball starts along the line of the swing path.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by pound puppy

I saw the video and what he seems to be saying is that when I want to start the ball down the right side of the fairway and draw it back to the middle, I should square the club face with the right side of the fairway because that will be the launch path, regardless of swing path.  Is that right, and if it is, how does one control the amount of draw?  By adjusting the in~out angle of the swing?

Yes, that's pretty much correct.

Amount of curve is dictated by the difference between the face angle and the path. So if you wanted to start the ball right, the clubface should point right. If you want it to draw, the path should be more right than that. Farther right = bigger draw.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

OK, Eric, I'm going to mess with you a little bit, so take it as such.  Why is it OK for you to say "the ball starts GENERALLY (my emphasis) where the face is pointing, but someone else who says to "aim the clubface GENERALLY toward the target" is wrong, a bad instructor, etc.  I understand the  ball flight laws, and it sure seems that you are trying to have it both ways.

Who's Eric?

"Generally" = a majority, and Breed was applying the word "generally" to the 25% part. I'm applying it to the 75% (or higher) part.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Example: I want to draw around a tree.  I set the clubface "generally" toward the target, say 2 degrees right of it.  I set up so my swing path is 10 degrees right of target. The ball should start out about 25-30% between the two, thus around 4 degrees right. Assuming I've done my calculating correctly, I'll make it around the tree and curve the ball to the target.

If you actually do those things, you'll miss the target well to the left.

And odds are you probably hit the tree. And that's if you are liberal in applying "generally" at the target, which Breed didn't say each time he said "at the target" and which most instructors don't say at all when they say "point the clubface at the target." Breed has demonstrated time and time again that though he can "recite" the ball flight laws, his teaching implies that he doesn't truly understand their application. You're trying to use the fact that he said "generally" once or twice when referring to something that's never higher than 30% (and again, that's with a 9I which you don't curve a lot anyway).

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Assuming I've done my calculating correctly, I'll make it around the tree and curve the ball to the target.  Your advice is to set up "generally" about 4 degrees right in order to miss that darn tree, make the swing path somewhere further right (how much, I don't know, I don't think you have ever said) in order to curve the ball exactly to the target.

I've given examples plenty of times, and will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not sure I should. Sounds snippy.

The math is simple: if you want to hit a big hook with the face 4 degrees right of the target, then the path should be about five degrees farther outside of that. I'm assuming a mid-iron, reasonable contact, etc.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Which one of us gets closer to the target?  If you are honest, you can't say for sure.  And that is my point

My ball will. Yours is well left. I don't need "honesty," I know how the science works out. Get on a Trackman sometime and you'll see how the science works out too.

2/10 is left of the target. 4/9 is a fairly good sized draw that ends up within a few yards of the target (right or left, depending on a few things).

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Zeph has already said that my shot would be too far left, but can you be certain that your shot wouldn't be too far right?  There are so many variables in this type of shot, that trying to use hard and fast ball flight laws to determine the outcome is, as you said, "pointless".

The real-world physics aren't as dependent on these mysterious "variables" as you seem to think. A few yards here or there but "good enough for government work" as they say. Your ball will finish well to the left.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

This is getting way into theoretical realms, but I think it's important for others, like the OP,  to understand that golf instruction shouldn't have to come with a ball flight litmus test.  I know you disagree, but if an instructor can get a beginning golfer to understand the fundamentals (grip, posture, alignment, impact) and to start to make consistently good contact, then he/she is doing a good job, IMO.

And I'd agree. But that instructor should do nothing but teach beginners if that's where his knowledge taps out. As soon as someone comes to him and says "why am I pull-slicing everything" and he tells them to release the clubface more he's out of his depth.

Clearly this topic agitates you, so perhaps you can accept that we'll have to agree to disagree. You would probably say that I continue to harp on this issue, yet you always pop into these discussions as well so I would say the same. How about this: if you don't want to talk about this, don't post. Stop engaging me (or this "Eric" fella) if you don't want to hear what I have to say or, if you want to respond with a tinge of attitude about how I've "never said" things.

I'm not trying to say any of that with any attitude. I feel like you're picking at nits just to be argumentative, all the while complaining about how these discussions go on and on. You're a part of that! You help them to go on and on!

I will conclude by saying this: all of my/our (Golf Evolution's) students appreciate knowing the ball flight laws, and if we err on the side of keeping things simple it's "face determines start line, ball curves away from path." That's a hell of a lot more accurate than "path is start line, ball ends up where face is pointed" and not only helps us to accurately diagnose what's happening in the swing, but it helps students self diagnose.

And it's more accurate regardless of how many times one says "generally."

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Would i be correct in saying, if the so called new ball flight laws were 100% true all the numbers in that chart would be at 100%

No. The "new ball flight laws" don't say the ball starts perfectly perpendicular to the face.

[westcyderydin]

If you have a tree 0 degrees in front of you and aim the face 5* left of it and swing 10 * left of the tree then the ball would start like 6.5* left of the tree.  correct?

and if that is true is it really worth the confusion to add the 15-30 pecent deal?

then if you take the old ballflight laws' way to work the ball with a tree 0 degrees and face pointed at 0 degrees...or straight at the tree...and then swing 10 degrees to the left, then the ball will start 1.5 degrees to the left of the tree....that would barely miss or hit the tree and then over fade your target.

So in effect...saying to start the ball with the face angle and curve it with the path would work, and doing the opposite of that would not work.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by iacas

Clearly this topic agitates you, so perhaps you can accept that we'll have to agree to disagree. You would probably say that I continue to harp on this issue, yet you always pop into these discussions as well so I would say the same. How about this: if you don't want to talk about this, don't post. Stop engaging me (or this "Eric" fella) if you don't want to hear what I have to say or, if you want to respond with a tinge of attitude about how I've "never said" things.

I'm not trying to say any of that with any attitude. I feel like you're picking at nits just to be argumentative, all the while complaining about how these discussions go on and on. You're a part of that! You help them to go on and on!

EriK:  That's not fair, and you know it.  I exited the Bash Breed thread when I said I would. I think that was on the first page of five or so pages of posts.

The topic of ball flight laws does not cause me agitation.  Heck, I can turn it left, right, up, down, no problem. I only used the example of Zeph's graph, as a way to emphasize what I think are erroneous and damaging assessments of golf instructors by certain members here.  I attempted to show how there are many ways to offer valuable instruction to a student - and not just beginners - that go far beyond reciting the ball flight laws. I personally think that having a sound grip is the single most important part for the beginner to learn, so much so that Hogan devoted 17 pages to it in his "Five Lessons".  But it would be silly of me to say that only those instructors who emphasize the grip should be considered knowledgeable and all others ridiculed.

The OP asked the opinion of SandTrap members regarding his first lesson.  I offered mine.  It was much later turned (again) into a ball flight law discussion, but not by me.

[cbalf]

Why are the fundamentals grip, posture, alignment the first thing a golfer should learn? Are they really the fundamentals?  Yes it's important to grip the club in some beneficial way, stand with decent posture, and have an idea of how you are aligning yourself but is it more important than hitting the ball first? I think sometimes we teach backwards...I may stand slightly closed with my Driver but slightly open with my wedges.  If I stood the same way (assume square) for both I might hit my wedge a bit left and my driver right.

I like "iacas" reply  in that most people just need to understand that the face determines starting lines - for 90% of golfers that's a good enough starting point.  Mainly because most golfers still think otherwise because of how they were taught back in the day.

Some will need more detail, others won't.  We are still individuals.

[newtogolf]

I appreciate all the feedback and discussion to my OP.  Admittedly some of it was beyond me in terms of application.  I understand the math, but do not have enough control of my swing and skill to see the results first hand.  I spoke to some of his former students without his knowledge and they all had favorable things to say about the results they saw with him.  Given Harmonious and Iacas agree that for a beginner like me his lack of understanding of new ball flight laws wouldn't impact his ability to help me I have decided to pay by the lesson and see how it goes instead of commit to the six hours up front he was suggesting.

If not for the SandTrap I wouldn't likely know anything about the new ball flight laws, always seem to learn something new here, thanks.

[saevel25]

Lets not get what is a fundamental, we had this dicussion in anothe thread. I love though how this all comes up over and over, and more people have there pride hurt. Believe me, i was a believer in the old ways, until i was scientifically proven wrong.

Oh, lets ask Tom Watson,

In Tom's new book, he talks about Aim and Alignment,

Determine: how much you think your ball will curve or drive from start to finish

Aim the clubface square this aim line

Then align the body to the aim line

Basically what he is saying, know how much you curve it, aim the clubface to were the ball will start down that line, line up perpendicular to that, and let your natural curve to take over. So he aims his club were he wants the ball to start off, and aligns to that line as well.

So its knowing how much you curve it, then lining up to allow for that curve.

Hmmm...

[bunkerputt]

Wow.  Trying to strongarm his viewpoint by directing the ball with his release...  That's pretty low for a teacher.  It reminds me of something I experienced with two other friends a few years back.  I told them about the "Monty Hall" problem:  you are presented with 3 doors, behind one is a million dollars, behind the other two is a head of lettuce.  Assuming you prefer the million over the lettuce, you are allowed to pick a single door.  Now, since we know that there is at least one head of lettuce behind one of the other doors, lets go ahead and reveal that door to you.  Now you're down to two doors:  a million dollars and a head of lettuce.  You can stay with your first choice, or you can switch.  What do you do and why?  It's 50/50, right?  Wrong.  You are twice as likely to win by switching doors.  Now, one friend believed it, and another didn't.  Then an argument started and ended with the dialogue,

Friend 1:  "I'm going to write a program to simulate this experiment and prove you wrong."

Friend 2:  "Alright, you go write your program and I'll go write mine and we'll compare results."

When the results came back, the guy who believed the probability was 50/50 had a program that generated the incorrect result!:  50/50.  And the guy who believed it was 66.6/33.3, had the right result:  66.6/33.3.  The 50/50 guy, who was dead wrong, believed he was right and made a program to prove it.  That's basically what this teacher did when you saw his ball flight.

Now, welcome to life trying to find a decent instructor post learning about the swing on the sandtrap.....

[pound puppy]

I will admit that everything I can find on the subject does indeed say that face angle is the most important part of launch path.  For some reason it looks like the vectored forces would favor the swing path because of the high speed.  I guess not.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

Wow.  Trying to strongarm his viewpoint by directing the ball with his release...  That's pretty low for a teacher.  It reminds me of something I experienced with two other friends a few years back.  I told them about the "Monty Hall" problem:  you are presented with 3 doors, behind one is a million dollars, behind the other two is a head of lettuce.  Assuming you prefer the million over the lettuce, you are allowed to pick a single door.  Now, since we know that there is at least one head of lettuce behind one of the other doors, lets go ahead and reveal that door to you.  Now you're down to two doors:  a million dollars and a head of lettuce.  You can stay with your first choice, or you can switch.  What do you do and why?  It's 50/50, right?  Wrong.  You are twice as likely to win by switching doors.  Now, one friend believed it, and another didn't.  Then an argument started and ended with the dialogue,

Friend 1:  "I'm going to write a program to simulate this experiment and prove you wrong."

Friend 2:  "Alright, you go write your program and I'll go write mine and we'll compare results."

When the results came back, the guy who believed the probability was 50/50 had a program that generated the incorrect result!:  50/50.  And the guy who believed it was 66.6/33.3, had the right result:  66.6/33.3.  The 50/50 guy, who was dead wrong, believed he was right and made a program to prove it.  That's basically what this teacher did when you saw his ball flight.

Now, welcome to life trying to find a decent instructor post learning about the swing on the sandtrap.....

The only way to prove the odds in your example is with an experiment. Since ~ 1/3 or the responders would have chosen the door which had lettuce, and would have been wrong, the real choice is between two doors. Whether the person chooses the same door twice is irrelevant.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with golf and now I'm craving lettuce, so I'm outta here . . .

[pound puppy]

Originally Posted by saevel25

Lets not get what is a fundamental, we had this dicussion in anothe thread. I love though how this all comes up over and over, and more people have there pride hurt. Believe me, i was a believer in the old ways, until i was scientifically proven wrong.

Oh, lets ask Tom Watson,

In Tom's new book, he talks about Aim and Alignment,

Determine: how much you think your ball will curve or drive from start to finish

Aim the clubface square this aim line

Then align the body to the aim line

Basically what he is saying, know how much you curve it, aim the clubface to were the ball will start down that line, line up perpendicular to that, and let your natural curve to take over. So he aims his club were he wants the ball to start off, and aligns to that line as well.

So its knowing how much you curve it, then lining up to allow for that curve.

Hmmm...

That sounds to me like he's saying you have no control over the amount of fade or draw you produce.  Your swing has certain characteristics and that is that.  Find out what you have and learn to live with it.  Suppose I need 5 yards of fade and I naturally have 25 yards of fade?  Do I just live with it?

Not likely.

For years, I went between a nice fade on good days to a severe slice on bad days.  In the last two years, I've converted to hitting a fairly well controlled draw on demand, simply by changing my body and club alignment.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by saevel25

Lets not get what is a fundamental, we had this dicussion in anothe thread. I love though how this all comes up over and over, and more people have there pride hurt. Believe me, i was a believer in the old ways, until i was scientifically proven wrong.

Oh, lets ask Tom Watson,

In Tom's new book, he talks about Aim and Alignment,

Determine: how much you think your ball will curve or drive from start to finish

Aim the clubface square this aim line

Then align the body to the aim line

Basically what he is saying, know how much you curve it, aim the clubface to were the ball will start down that line, line up perpendicular to that, and let your natural curve to take over. So he aims his club were he wants the ball to start off, and aligns to that line as well.

So its knowing how much you curve it, then lining up to allow for that curve.

Hmmm...

I'll have to read Tom's exact words some day. Your interpretation doesn't seem very Watsony, but I could be wrong.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I appreciate all the feedback and discussion to my OP.  Admittedly some of it was beyond me in terms of application.  I understand the math, but do not have enough control of my swing and skill to see the results first hand.  I spoke to some of his former students without his knowledge and they all had favorable things to say about the results they saw with him.  Given Harmonious and Iacas agree that for a beginner like me his lack of understanding of new ball flight laws wouldn't impact his ability to help me I have decided to pay by the lesson and see how it goes instead of commit to the six hours up front he was suggesting.

If not for the SandTrap I wouldn't likely know anything about the new ball flight laws, always seem to learn something new here, thanks.

Good luck to you.  Hope you will continue to improve.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by saevel25

Oh, lets ask Tom Watson,

In Tom's new book, he talks about Aim and Alignment,

Determine: how much you think your ball will curve or drive from start to finish

Aim the clubface square this aim line

Then align the body to the aim line

Basically what he is saying, know how much you curve it, aim the clubface to were the ball will start down that line, line up perpendicular to that, and let your natural curve to take over. So he aims his club were he wants the ball to start off, and aligns to that line as well.

So its knowing how much you curve it, then lining up to allow for that curve.

That method works for hitting your standard shot, which depends on if you are swinging out-in, square or in-out. You can't shape the ball both ways by doing that though Setting up alignment at clubface at the same angle require a swingpath going out-in or in-out to shape the ball in the air. Knowing how much to shape the ball comes from how much you swing out-in or in-out. If you want more or less curve, you'll have to alter the clubface.

For me, what he explains works pretty well. I swing in-out and will with a square or slightly open clubface draw the ball. As long as I set up properly and keep both swing path and clubface angle how I intended it, the result will be good.

[EverythingGolf]

Read this sentence: eht woc depmuj revo eht noom.

Look at it long enough you will get it.

I am sure eveyone that reads it will get it. The mind is a powerful thing. So let say I know how to shape the ball draw, fade, etc. and I tell someone I am going to hook the ball by closing the face and hitting it, but I am showing them that it will not hook and just draw. So now the mind kicks in and makes are body and hands ect. take over and we hit the draw and not the hook. So you close the face to hit the hook but instead hit the draw, its all in our mind. The new ball flight laws show what the club face is acually doing at impact not what we think or feel it is doing.

[Clambake]

I'm not sure why it irks me, but I don't care for calling them the "new ball flight laws".    It has this connotation that people got together and legislated something different from the way it had been done in the past, like changing a speed limit on the road.   It also makes it sound like everyone used to believe in one thing, and now everyone believes in something different.   The reality is that this isn't something that changed; the physics are the same.   Always have been, always will be.     There are those that used to understand the proper laws many years ago, and yet many that don't understand them today.       My campaign is to call them the " Correct Ball Flight Laws " versus the " Incorrect Ball Flight Laws ".