Confusing Ball Flight Information - followup

[Zeph]

Whats confusing people is when Breed tells you how to shape a ball, what he should be saying is this is how a traditional golfer shapes the ball but if you S&T this wont work for you.

That's right, anyone saying or thinking they are using the S&T pattern got a whole different set of laws of physics than someone using a "traditional" swing. Of course S&T [b]is[/b] traditional, so it all becomes a big confusing mess. :doh: I don't see why it is so difficult to understand that how you swing the club doesn't matter to the laws of physics. You can hit the ball with one hand on your back, blindfolded and standing on one foot if you like to. As long as you got hte same CP/FA relationship at impact, the ball will curve the same way. It's got [b]nothing[/b] to do with S&T or any other swing pattern. It is simply linked so strongly to S&T because Mike and Andy contradicted pretty much everyone with their book many years ago. Since then, many have stopped using the wrong ball flight laws. It's not about setup or how you swing the ball, it's what direction the clubhead moves in at impact and the face angle. If you actually do what Breed says, there is no way on this earth or universe that the ball will end up at the target. The reason many are able to hit the desired shot with the wrong setup is by compensating somewhere in the downswing. They probably think that they hit the ball with a square clubface, but if the ball lands at the target, that is impossible. Except if the swingpath was so close to the face angle that you didn't give it a whole lot of right to left spin.

[johnthejoiner]

Originally Posted by Zeph

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Whats confusing people is when Breed tells you how to shape a ball, what he should be saying is this is how a traditional golfer shapes the ball but if you S&T this wont work for you.

That's right, anyone saying or thinking they are using the S&T pattern got a whole different set of laws of physics than someone using a "traditional" swing. Of course S&T is traditional, so it all becomes a big confusing mess.

I don't see why it is so difficult to understand that how you swing the club doesn't matter to the laws of physics. You can hit the ball with one hand on your back, blindfolded and standing on one foot if you like to. As long as you got hte same CP/FA relationship at impact, the ball will curve the same way.

It's got nothing to do with S&T or any other swing pattern. It is simply linked so strongly to S&T because Mike and Andy contradicted pretty much everyone with their book many years ago. Since then, many have stopped using the wrong ball flight laws. It's not about setup or how you swing the ball, it's what direction the clubhead moves in at impact and the face angle. If you actually do what Breed says, there is no way on this earth or universe that the ball will end up at the target. The reason many are able to hit the desired shot with the wrong setup is by compensating somewhere in the downswing. They probably think that they hit the ball with a square clubface, but if the ball lands at the target, that is impossible. Except if the swingpath was so close to the face angle that you didn't give it a whole lot of right to left spin.

Talk about missing the point completely

[iacas]

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Talk about missing the point completely

In what way did Zeph miss the point? In one sentence, what's your point?

How you set up is irrelevant to the physics of impact. It's about how you return to impact, and the old ideas talk about "swinging along your foot line" which isn't about impact at all.

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

if both swings are done correctly impact position will almost be exactly the same

You want to stick to that? That impact looks the same? It does not, unless you're speaking very generally. Jim Furyk's impact doesn't look like Tiger's. Impact positions vary greatly.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Jim Furyk's impact doesn't look like Tiger's. Impact positions vary greatly.

Not sure who's holding up Furyk's swing as an example of anything and Tiger's not officially an S&T guy, so . . .

Anyway, I think S&T gets unfairly linked to this discussion because a lot of people interested in S&T (newly or otherwise) are on the same page and using the same terminology when discussing how to hit (and work) a golf ball. Whether or not those players play well or struggle to make any kind of decent contact, they're saying ther same things.

Contrast those players with a few stubborn non-S&T folks who can hit a golf ball very well, and work it consistently both ways,  but do it in spite of how they think they're doing it .

Then there are those of us somewhere in the middle folk, who hit the ball okay, but represent various schools of thought on how to best swing a club. We have a pretty good grasp on the ball flight laws AND have found a way to incorporate those truths into an already somewhat solid golf swing. A lot of guys like me probably get very close to S&T the closer we get to the green, and it's mostly our driver and long irons swings that are unique. My anecdotal example of this is having recently read quite a few approach and short game tips from top players and realizing they could basically be describing an S&T swing.

I know - off topic - but this thread is a train wreck so what the H E double hockey stick, eh?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Anyway, I think S&T gets unfairly linked to this discussion because a lot of people interested in S&T (newly or otherwise) are on the same page and using the same terminology when discussing how to hit (and work) a golf ball.

Contrast those players with a few stubborn non-S&T folks who can hit a golf ball very well, and work it consistently both ways,  but do it in spite of how they think they're doing it.

Agreed.

Ball flight laws - the correct ones (including d-plane if you want to get that far into it) - apply regardless of your swing. They have nothing to do with how you get to impact, just what you're actually doing at impact.

Period.

[SpacklersEdge]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

The old, incorrect, ball flight laws have won nothing...  maybe some players that believed the old laws to be true won, but that is irrelavent.  I really can't believe that there is even a debate about this... there is high speed video that shows beyond a doubt that the old laws are incorrect and that the new laws are indeed true.  There is not room for opinions on this...  the old laws, no matter who believed them, were never right.  I mean, the world is round, it always has been even though at one time people believed it to be flat... same thing here; many people use to believe in the old way and now have been PROVEN wrong.

Is this high speed video on youtube someplace?  I am not debating the topic, just interested to see the video.

[SpacklersEdge]

Ok so after reading most of the thread, I just want to know, using this as the basis, what should a person actally be trying to do?I would assume if you want to play a draw, the best possible draw to play would be to swing in to out at a certain angle from the target line, but close the clubface to roughly half of that angle back to the target line, and just the opposite for a fade.  Reason I ask is, there must be some point at which the swing path angle - target angle becomes so large, that you must compensate too much using the face, and so you are effectively using a large % of the clubhead speed (power) and wasting it, so you end up hitting it not as far as you could if you could simply direct 100% of your power down the target line and have a square face.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by SpacklersEdge

Ok so after reading most of the thread, I just want to know, using this as the basis, what should a person actally be trying to do?I would assume if you want to play a draw, the best possible draw to play would be to swing in to out at a certain angle from the target line, but close the clubface to roughly half of that angle back to the target line, and just the opposite for a fade.  Reason I ask is, there must be some point at which the swing path angle - target angle becomes so large, that you must compensate too much using the face, and so you are effectively using a large % of the clubhead speed (power) and wasting it, so you end up hitting it not as far as you could if you could simply direct 100% of your power down the target line and have a square face.

Of all the paths to the way, I like yours the best.  Kudos.

[johnthejoiner]

http://www.playgolfamerica.com/Graphics/info_devo/ball_flight_laws.pdf

[SpacklersEdge]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Of all the paths to the way, I like yours the best.  Kudos.

Good!

Part II - I suppose math comes into play here.  I am facing a target in ideal conditions, no wind, lie angle etc.  So my target line we will call 90 degrees.  So I line up parallel to this line, and I hit a shot with a swing path at 100 degrees (10* in to out of the target line), and my club face is closed a bit, say 5* from the path line (making the club face at 95*).  Will this type of swing/club face combo bring the ball back across the target line by the time it lands?

I am not looking for this exactly scenario only, I am trying to figure out how to align my self if I want to hit a baby "fall left" draw.  If this particular scenario did bring it back across the line, I would have 2 options, I could repeat this exact swing, only turn my TL 5* right to start, OR, I could simply only have the club closed 2* more than the swing path line, instead of 5.  I would think in this case option 2 would be the better choice, but for most people probably harder to actually do.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by SpacklersEdge

Good!

Part II - I suppose math comes into play here.  I am facing a target in ideal conditions, no wind, lie angle etc.  So my target line we will call 90 degrees.  So I line up parallel to this line, and I hit a shot with a swing path at 100 degrees (10* in to out of the target line), and my club face is closed a bit, say 5* from the path line (making the club face at 95*).  Will this type of swing/club face combo bring the ball back across the target line by the time it lands?

I am not looking for this exactly scenario only, I am trying to figure out how to align my self if I want to hit a baby "fall left" draw.  If this particular scenario did bring it back across the line, I would have 2 options, I could repeat this exact swing, only turn my TL 5* right to start, OR, I could simply only have the club closed 2* more than the swing path line, instead of 5.  I would think in this case option 2 would be the better choice, but for most people probably harder to actually do.

I think it depends on what club you have in your hand and your swing plane a bit as well. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I see happening.

Driver with level contact - ball lands left of centre

Driver with negative angle of attach  - ball lands on centre line

Driver with +ve angle of attack - ball lands left of centre

3-iron - near centre, but probably left of centre once it stops rolling

6-iron slightly right of centre

Sand wedge - who works a sand wedge?!?

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpacklersEdge

Ok so after reading most of the thread, I just want to know, using this as the basis, what should a person actally be trying to do?I would assume if you want to play a draw, the best possible draw to play would be to swing in to out at a certain angle from the target line, but close the clubface to roughly half of that angle back to the target line, and just the opposite for a fade.  Reason I ask is, there must be some point at which the swing path angle - target angle becomes so large, that you must compensate too much using the face, and so you are effectively using a large % of the clubhead speed (power) and wasting it, so you end up hitting it not as far as you could if you could simply direct 100% of your power down the target line and have a square face.

The more you curve the ball, the more "glancing" the blow and the less compression you get, yes.

Technically a straight ball flight is the best ball flight if all else is equal, but a straight ball flight isn't ideal because the ball is always working away from the target. That's why most pros, whether it's a small draw or fade, play one stock shot 95% of the time. They know the ball will go left, for example, and so they start the ball to the right so it's always working towards the target.

They give up a yard or two of distance, again, but it's worth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

http://www.playgolfamerica.com/Graphics/info_devo/ball_flight_laws.pdf

Yes, that's similar to what the PGA Teaching Manual gave us in 1990 or so. It's confusing and could have been made so much simpler. For example:

Quote:

For a right-hand- ed golfer, if a shot goes to the left (a pull) the club was moving along a path that traveled to the left at impact.

What does that mean? If a shot "goes to the left"? Is a pull-hook such an example? They show a "pull-hook" but I can guarantee you I can hit a pull-hook with the club traveling RIGHT at impact. What about a pull-slice? That ball "goes to the left" but you could also say it "goes to the right" as well. If they're talking about start line only, they're wrong about the path doing that.

It's confusing, and could have been made simpler. Even now in 2011, this Play Golf America PDF could be better by being less confusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpacklersEdge

Will this type of swing/club face combo bring the ball back across the target line by the time it lands?

It may be anywhere from just short of being "across" to actually crossing and ending up left (assuming you're a righty) of the target, depending on the club used. I gave some numbers above. "Back to the target line but not across it" is about 1:1.5 with the driver, but much more with a PW...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpacklersEdge

I am not looking for this exactly scenario only, I am trying to figure out how to align my self if I want to hit a baby "fall left" draw.  If this particular scenario did bring it back across the line, I would have 2 options, I could repeat this exact swing, only turn my TL 5* right to start, OR, I could simply only have the club closed 2* more than the swing path line, instead of 5.  I would think in this case option 2 would be the better choice, but for most people probably harder to actually do.

Baby draw, assuming a 1:2 ratio: path 3-4 degrees out, face 1.5-2 degrees closed relative to that (also, of course, 1.5-2 degrees right of the target).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Driver with level contact - ball lands left of centre

Driver with negative angle of attach  - ball lands on centre line

Driver with +ve angle of attack - ball lands left of centre

Not really. If the path is actually the path then this won't change. If the path he gave is what's actually called the horizontal swing plane... (or used to be called that in Trackman terms), then the one hit downward will also be hit more outward, and the one hit upwards will have the club traveling more left through impact.

But that's getting into things which are slightly more complicated.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by SpacklersEdge

Is this high speed video on youtube someplace?  I am not debating the topic, just interested to see the video.

[johnthejoiner]

Originally Posted by Zeph

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Whats confusing people is when Breed tells you how to shape a ball, what he should be saying is this is how a traditional golfer shapes the ball but if you S&T this wont work for you.

That's right, anyone saying or thinking they are using the S&T pattern got a whole different set of laws of physics than someone using a "traditional" swing. Of course S&T is traditional, so it all becomes a big confusing mess.

I don't see why it is so difficult to understand that how you swing the club doesn't matter to the laws of physics. You can hit the ball with one hand on your back, blindfolded and standing on one foot if you like to. As long as you got hte same CP/FA relationship at impact, the ball will curve the same way.

It's got nothing to do with S&T or any other swing pattern. It is simply linked so strongly to S&T because Mike and Andy contradicted pretty much everyone with their book many years ago. Since then, many have stopped using the wrong ball flight laws. It's not about setup or how you swing the ball, it's what direction the clubhead moves in at impact and the face angle. If you actually do what Breed says, there is no way on this earth or universe that the ball will end up at the target. The reason many are able to hit the desired shot with the wrong setup is by compensating somewhere in the downswing. They probably think that they hit the ball with a square clubface, but if the ball lands at the target, that is impossible. Except if the swingpath was so close to the face angle that you didn't give it a whole lot of right to left spin.

Forget about ball flight laws for one second what I'm trying to tell people is not to mix together swing mechanics for a one plane, two plane or S&T swing, whats good for one can be disastrous for another

[johnthejoiner]

Originally Posted by Zeph

All that video shows is when things are taken to extremes it disproves that the original ball flight laws and the new "which are both the same".

PGA Manual of Golf it states that  the ball's starting path will always fall in between the face and path direction favoring the face angle
The new ball flight laws backed up by the trackman data says that the ball's starting path will favor the face angle compared to swing path by around 75%

[SpacklersEdge]

It may be anywhere from just short of being "across" to actually crossing and ending up left (assuming you're a righty) of the target, depending on the club used. I gave some numbers above. "Back to the target line but not across it" is about 1:1.5 with the driver, but much more with a PW...

First off thanks for replying to most of my questions.  This statement above left me a little confused, not sure what the ratios you are describing mean?

Are you saying in the situation I described, you would have 1:1.5 odds of the ball making it back to the line with a driver, but much LESS chance with a PW?

Guess what I am asking is, all angles the same, TL, Clubhead, and swing path, which will go across the line more, less loft or more loft, and why?

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by johnthejoiner

Forget about ball flight laws for one second what I'm trying to tell people is not to mix together swing mechanics for a one plane, two plane or S&T swing, whats good for one can be disastrous for another

Swing mechanics in general or specifically for shaping the ball? People shape the ball different. Some take a stronger grip, weaker grip, rotate the clubface, put the back foot back etc. But the end result is always the same. The basic information you want for shaping the ball is the same in any swing. If you don't shape the ball like you want to, more of one thing or less of the other is always the answer. How you get there is a whole other topic and will differ with each individual, especially if it's about fixing a flaw. Still, the original question in this topic was whether OPs instructor was right or not. And that is not a matter of one plane, two plane, S&T or any swing pattern, that's laws of physics.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Driver with level contact - ball lands left of centre

Driver with negative angle of attach  - ball lands on centre line

Driver with +ve angle of attack - ball lands left of centre

Not really. If the path is actually the path then this won't change. If the path he gave is what's actually called the horizontal swing plane... (or used to be called that in Trackman terms), then the one hit downward will also be hit more outward, and the one hit upwards will have the club traveling more left through impact.

But that's getting into things which are slightly more complicated.

Thank you. That's great information. I was hoping someone would proofread that bit and don't worry making things too complicated, just because they're over my head doesn't mean they are for everyone.