Why Understanding the Ball Flight Laws is Important

[Harmonious]

Couple of other things to consider about the pre-Trackman era on Tour:

1)  The guys who were on tour, with some exceptions, did not have full-time gurus watching their every swing.  They were guys who had honed their games at home, hustling, or some of them at college.  They learned to hit the ball the same way most of us learned, by trial and error.  If Jack Nicklaus said something you paid attention because he was, after all, Jack Nicklaus.  If you tried Jack's way to shape a shot and it didn't work perfectly the first time, you somehow adjusted your swing until you could shape your shots to your satisfaction. We aren't talking beginning golfers here, these were the best players in the world.  They figured out how to control their game by whatever method, whether it was "wrong" or it was "right" by today's standards.

2) If some no-name, non-golfer (Homer Kelley) came out with a scientific book that told them how to hit the ball, how much credence would he have had?  Zero.  I would guess that very few PGA Tour players even knew who Homer Kelley was, except maybe Mac O'Grady.  And he was considered a crackpot.

3)  Those guys grew up with balata balls, not the 3-, 4- or 5-piece ultra high tech balls we have today.  They were taught by gentlemen who played balata balls. If you have never hit them, you have no idea how soft they were.  I have read that those balls had a coefficient of restitution around 0.6, maybe as low as 0.5.  This compares to today's ball COR of around 0.73.

Why is this important, you may ask.  Well, the softer the ball, the more it compresses on the clubface, the less it rebounds off the clubface, and the more the initial direction follows the swingpath.  Today's ball gets about 75% of its direction from the clubface and 25% from the swingpath, right?  Are those percentages the same for the balata balls?  What if Trackman showed that the clubface accounted for 50% (or less) when hitting balata balls? Would be very interesting to find out.

Check out this article: http://www.bettergolfcoach.com/newballflightlaws.htm

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

They figured out how to control their game by whatever method, whether it was "wrong" or it was "right" by today's standards.

You continue to play this card when nobody's arguing that. Their swings were fine. Their feel was off, but their swings were fine. They weren't somehow violating the laws of physics. But again, golfers might have figured it out faster with the proper information, and additionally I know of several people who were quite literally "taught off the Tour" because of the incorrect ball flight laws. You don't hear about those guys because they didn't win 18 majors.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Zero.

By the 80s he had several teachers, including Ben Doyle, who were fairly famous and taught a number of students. Mike Bender came from the TGM tree.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Why is this important, you may ask.  Well, the softer the ball, the more it compresses on the clubface, the less it rebounds off the clubface, and the more the initial direction follows the swing path. Today's ball gets about 75% of its direction from the clubface and 25% from the swingpath, right?  Are those percentages the same for the balata balls?  What if Trackman showed that the clubface accounted for 50% (or less) when hitting balata balls? Would be very interesting to find out.

They've done the tests. The balata ball actually responds more to the clubface. It's about 85% with the driver these days. Used to be closer to 90%. It's odd, but a 9I is about 75% clubface, a 6I is about 80%, and a driver is 85%. The "compression" effect doesn't work the same way you think it does. In truth, the more a ball compresses against the clubface, the more likely it is to rebound at 90° to the clubface.

Nice try though.

[newtogolf]

I didn't know there were ball flight laws until I became a member of this site.  I've read the entire thread and I think you guys are in basic agreement that the ball flight laws of the past are inaccurate and the current ones are the correct model.  The issue is how important is it for a golfer and instructor to understand them.

Someone who drives a car doesn't need to understand how an electric or gas combustion engine works but if they are going to teach someone to repair it they do.  Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Seve, etc didn't have these new ball flight laws but were still outstanding golfers and it appears most agree you can become a good or even a pro golfer without knowing the proper ball flight laws through trial and error.

IMO, instructors and educators have an obligation to make sure the information they teach is current and correct.

[JetFan1983]

Harmonious,

It's really tough to compare great players like Jack to the world of the hacker. The hacker in general simply just can't get better by hitting balls over and over again. Not only does he need to know what the right things are, he needs to know why too. As humans, we've all been fleeced at some point in our lives due to a lack of information, be it on a small scale or a large one. The correct information is absolutely critical for the hacker's chance of improvement. Once he knows why, he can believe in it and then accept the inevitable struggles that still go along with improvement, even if he has all the right information.

And I'm not sure I'd ever call Homer Kelly a "no name" or Mac O'Grady "a crackpot." They were misunderstood by people with big egos and closed-minded mentalities. Galileo after all was put on trial for his scientific beliefs. Thankfully, we're well past that point as a species, but on some smaller level, it still exists today.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by iacas

You continue to play this card when nobody's arguing that. Their swings were fine. Their feel was off, but their swings were fine. They weren't somehow violating the laws of physics.

I was replying to Pharoah, who stated that Chamblee was a mediocre tour pro at best, and would have been much better had he known the ball flight laws.  I disagree. That's my "card".

Originally Posted by iacas

But again, golfers might have figured it out faster with the proper information, and additionally I know of several people who were quite literally "taught off the Tour" because of the incorrect ball flight laws. You don't hear about those guys because they didn't win 18 majors.

You've mentioned that before.  I just can't believe that would be the only reason they stopped playing well. Who were they?

Originally Posted by iacas
They've done the tests. The balata ball actually responds more to the clubface. It's about 85% with the driver these days. Used to be closer to 90%. It's odd, but a 9I is about 75% clubface, a 6I is about 80%, and a driver is 85%. The "compression" effect doesn't work the same way you think it does. In truth, the more a ball compresses against the clubface, the more likely it is to rebound at 90° to the clubface.

Do you have those results? That would fly directly in the face of the article I quoted.

Originally Posted by iacas
Nice try though.

I hope the smiley means you are complementary that I at least am trying to offer some different insights.  I know lots of folks in the "posse" wish I would .

[JetFan1983]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I hope the smiley means you are complementary that I at least am trying to offer some different insights.  I know lots of folks in the "posse" wish I would .

For the record, I personally am very happy to hear your insights. It's boring as hell when everyone agrees.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I was replying to Pharoah, who stated that Chamblee was a mediocre tour pro at best, and would have been much better had he known the ball flight laws.  I disagree. That's my "card".

No, your "card" is that pros did well believing the old ball flight laws. Nobody's saying they didn't. What people are saying is that they had to overcome that information. Or, rather, they didn't ever hear that information because they were just hitting balls and, as you said, didn't really have coaches. It wasn't until the 80s or so that the first ball flight laws became talked about, really. You can't find too many references prior to that. Hogan never talked about them.

Nobody who says "learn the correct laws" says you can't play good golf thinking the wrong ones are correct. They're just an impediment to improving. To some it's a bigger impediment than others.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

You've mentioned that before.  I just can't believe that would be the only reason they stopped playing well. Who were they?

I know who they are. Hell, one of 'em is Andy Plummer. He would be a good student, point his clubface at the target, and swing to the right. Ball kept curving left. So he'd swing MORE to the right. Ball curved farther left. He wasn't on the PGA Tour, but I know personally of some guys who blame the ball flight laws for being taught off the Tour. You can believe me or not - doesn't matter much to me. :-)

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Do you have those results? That would fly directly in the face of the article I quoted.

I don't have 'em. I read them, took the information in, and that was enough for me. I remember the study was done reputably and had a large sample size (far more than to produce statistically significant results). The article you quoted puts forth a hypothesis. I don't know if I'm going to try to dig up the old information or investigate this hypothesis because what good would it do me? We don't play balata balls these days. Even if it were true, and I don't believe it to be, but if it were, it still doesn't excuse the Brandels of the world, or an instructor that gives out the wrong information. The balls aren't balata anymore. Stop giving out bad advice. Learn - advance your understanding of the craft.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I hope the smiley means you are complementary that I at least am trying to offer some different insights.  I know lots of folks in the "posse" wish I would .

I'm glad for that, and I welcome the discussion, but it's always the same... I think you tend to over-react to these kinds of threads. Brandel is provably wrong, and if he's going to put the information out there, I'm going to try to correct it. I want golfers to get better, and though "ball flight laws" isn't going to PREVENT them entirely, it's an impediment. Why post in these threads? I'm not asking people to pile on Brandel. But these threads reach a few new people each time, and thus remove the impediment for a few people each time.

I doubt you really have a problem with that.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't think anybody's saying anything differently than that.

Whether Jacobs doesn't mention if club face or path is responsible for the bulk of the initial direction, could be a mistake or on purpose, but to have concretely stated either would have been guesswork considering the technology of the day. Suffice to say, a new golfer following his method from scratch, would have every chance to be successful.  Deviate from his method, or re(mis)interpret what he said based on different set of term definitions (e.g. open and closed) and voila - problems ensue.

To suggest that someone calling his method backwards is, well, backwards.

[tristanhilton85]

It was funny... I was playing golf today and was talking casually with the guy I got paired with...  He was commenting on my swing and if I took lessons.  I told him I didn't but I did take video and used that.  I also was saying that I'm starting to understand the physics of the swing better and if my shot has a certain shape I can figure out why now.  This conversation led to me bringing up Brandel and how he doesn't even get the ball flight laws.  I explained the way that Brandel said to hit a draw and the guy I was playing with basically agreed with him.  He then proceeded to try to hit a draw using this method and hit a duck hook into the canal on the left side of the hole.  AWESOME.

[Leftygolfer]

Fun thread to read.

The belief of Brandel and others in the incorrect information almost feels like political beliefs.  There is facts to back up the total opposite of what they believe but they just ignore them because they don't agree.  One example is that good people having guns makes our communities safer.  Tell a liberal that, they will say no way.  But the facts are there.  Look at states with conceal carry, violent crime has went down.  FYI I'm not looking for any debate on this.  I just thought reading this and him not letting Erik follow him on twitter made me think of politics and how your mind is so narrowed that you just can't believe anything is different.

Just as the same as the facts are there.  The ball starts whatever direction the face is pointing at impact.  Look at high speed video, trackman, whatever, it is factually accurate.  It is going to curve in relation to that angle of impact.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Whether Jacobs doesn't mention if club face or path is responsible for the bulk of the initial direction, could be a mistake or on purpose, but to have concretely stated either would have been guesswork considering the technology of the day.

To be clear, I've read quotes from John Jacobs where he says plainly that the club's path is responsible for the ball's initial direction. Again, he gets the curve right, but everybody gets the curve right. I guess I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. Jacobs had it wrong, too. Not a big deal. It's only really a big deal if, in the face of proof, you continue to insist it's path = start line. Jacobs getting it wrong doesn't mean he couldn't teach people to get better. Clearly he could. It just might mean that he'd take two steps (pulls, straight) to fix someone when one step (straight) might have sufficed.

Also, when you get to where you can hit playable pro-style draws and fades, the face angles and paths are not much more than about three degrees or so. Good luck figuring that stuff out by feel... It's no wonder "pros" could say the wrong things. Their bodies would just produce the right alignments and they could be off a few degrees in what they felt and get the ball flight laws wrong. Kenny Perry had one of the most extreme paths and he was still only six degrees out. Determining "face or path" when you're talking about a difference of one to three degrees or so is darn near impossible.

Still, getting it wrong is an impediment, and unfortunately it's going to affect the guy who hasn't hit 1,000,000 golf balls in his life a lot more than it's going to affect the guy who has and whose body has learned - in spite of what someone might have told him (or perhaps he's heard nothing) to do.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

And I'm not sure I'd ever call Homer Kelly a "no name" or Mac O'Grady "a crackpot." They were misunderstood by people with big egos and closed-minded mentalities. Galileo after all was put on trial for his scientific beliefs. Thankfully, we're well past that point as a species, but on some smaller level, it still exists today.

We should all be very grateful for Homer Kelley.  His influenced has produced the best instructors in the world.  More tour players have instructors with roots in the Golfing Machine than Harmon, Haney, Mclean, Leadbetter combined.  Now, Homer may not have been right about everything but what he did was very important.  We still use his terminology and measurements today.  Mac learned from him and did his own thing.  Mike and Andy learned from Mac and now they do their own thing.  Dave Wedzik learned from Bender, Mike and Andy and now we have Golf Evolution

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't have 'em. I read them, took the information in, and that was enough for me. I remember the study was done reputably and had a large sample size (far more than to produce statistically significant results). The article you quoted puts forth a hypothesis. I don't know if I'm going to try to dig up the old information or investigate this hypothesis because what good would it do me? We don't play balata balls these days. Even if it were true, and I don't believe it to be, but if it were, it still doesn't excuse the Brandels of the world, or an instructor that gives out the wrong information. The balls aren't balata anymore. Stop giving out bad advice. Learn - advance your understanding of the craft.

Come on Erik. You have a TrackMan, and I'm sure you could find a few balatas. For science!

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Whether Jacobs doesn't mention if club face or path is responsible for the bulk of the initial direction, could be a mistake or on purpose, but to have concretely stated either would have been guesswork considering the technology of the day.

To be clear, I've read quotes from John Jacobs where he says plainly that the club's path is responsible for the ball's initial direction. Again, he gets the curve right, but everybody gets the curve right. I guess I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. Jacobs had it wrong, too.

I can't dispuste that he had the initial path wrong for full shot and swing errors, but his fix is spot on either way. Practical Golf (the book) seems accurate enough for me to get things right in one step or as close as a hacker ever gets to doing anything in one step. His old videos (at least the one below) seems accurate enough.

See the bit from 1:55 onward in this video:

http://youtu.be/fmIO6c7Wt7E?t=1m50s

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Come on Erik. You have a TrackMan, and I'm sure you could find a few balatas. For science!

The problem is that Trackman can not show you the club face angle, even though it shows you the calculated result. You need something else for that.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Come on Erik. You have a TrackMan, and I'm sure you could find a few balatas. For science!

Clubface angle is "derived." So Trackman sees the ball flight and calculates the clubface angle. Their formulas are based on high speed video, physics, etc. but it's still a calculation in the end.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I can't dispuste that he had the initial path wrong for full shot and swing errors, but his fix is spot on either way.

I'm not sure how Jacobs really came into the discussion. He didn't just produce a show in 2011 getting the ball flight laws completely backwards.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

Come on Erik. You have a TrackMan, and I'm sure you could find a few balatas. For science!

Clubface angle is "derived." So Trackman sees the ball flight and calculates the clubface angle. Their formulas are based on high speed video, physics, etc. but it's still a calculation in the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I can't dispuste that he had the initial path wrong for full shot and swing errors, but his fix is spot on either way.

I'm not sure how Jacobs really came into the discussion. He didn't just produce a show in 2011 getting the ball flight laws completely backwards.

I referred to older teachers having more of a clue, but when an excerpt from one of his early books was quoted versus S&T; terminology it sort of, to be honest, totally pissed me off to be completely blunt.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by luu5

The problem is that Trackman can not show you the club face angle, even though it shows you the calculated result. You need something else for that.

Originally Posted by iacas

Clubface angle is "derived." So Trackman sees the ball flight and calculates the clubface angle. Their formulas are based on high speed video, physics, etc. but it's still a calculation in the end.

So...some of the angles are "calculated" rather than measured directly? Maybe I missed that explanation in other threads, but I had been led to believe that all the measurements (angle of attack, clubface angle, swingpath angle, initial ball direction) were actually, well, measured.