Why Understanding the Ball Flight Laws is Important

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

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.

Do I hear the gentle rustle of straws being grasped?

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Do I hear the gentle rustle of straws being grasped?

For the record, I have never disagreed with the ball flight laws as now presented.  But I always thought that Trackman actually measured the angles that are so prominent in the ball flight discussion.  I'm not arguing that the results are not valid; it just surprised me that they are derivative, and not direct.  Doesn't it surprise you?

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

For the record, I have never disagreed with the ball flight laws as now presented.  But I always thought that Trackman actually measured the angles that are so prominent in the ball flight discussion.  I'm not arguing that the results are not valid; it just surprised me that they are derivative, and not direct.  Doesn't it surprise you?

Trackman as a company, did measure the angles, but not just with Trackman radar. In basic the Trackman can only see the ball, it could see the back of the club but I dunno if that is used. As the ball flight is based on club path and club face angle, there has to be correlation. So Trackman took high speed cameras and such to find out how the club head behaves on different ball flights. Based on this study they provided the results we now have as new ball flight rules.

In normal Trackman use these results are used to calculate club head values based on ball flight. Same with Flightscope. The results should be accurate enough for real life use as that's where they were derived.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

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.

I was thinking about this comment on the way back from dropping my daughter off at kindergarten. For one, I exaggerated (a lot). It was more of an, "oh please" moment. And second, I was thinking of the Jacobs video on youtube and had an epiphany. He meant what he said, but "open and closed" verus the target is what he's actually demonstrating. That his path is along the target line in his example is perhaps purely coincidence.

I was also thinking about Ben Hogan yesterday after reading the Divots thread. What it the "secret" he'd dug out of the dirt wasn't regarding the swing, but ball flight laws? Not to completely go off tangent (too late I know) but think about Hogan's alley and his complete confidence in striping the ball down that narrow stretch. What if his secret related to club face angles swing paths?!?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

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.

Trackman is a radar system that sits behind the golfer. It can't "see" the clubface. It can only see the club head coming down into the ball, then begins tracking the golf ball. At any moment it's tracking the fastest moving thing. Clubhead until impact, ball after impact. Using the things it measures, it derives the rest of the data points.

But they spent a lot of time and money coming up with the math for those formulas, proving it empirically, etc. They in fact continue to do so.

They're not shy about it either...

[uttexas]

I was also thinking about Ben Hogan yesterday after reading the Divots thread. What it the "secret" he'd dug out of the dirt wasn't regarding the swing, but ball flight laws? Not to completely go off tangent (too late I know) but think about Hogan's alley and his complete confidence in striping the ball down that narrow stretch. What if his secret related to club face angles swing paths?!?

I like this, very interesting.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

For the record, I have never disagreed with the ball flight laws as now presented.  But I always thought that Trackman actually measured the angles that are so prominent in the ball flight discussion.  I'm not arguing that the results are not valid; it just surprised me that they are derivative, and not direct.  Doesn't it surprise you?

I admit I didn't know this either and the fact the club face angle is not measured, but derived, is not good. Does this mean someone has punched in the ball flight laws into TrackMan? I was under the impression we were grateful to TrackMan for actually determining the new ball flight laws as they had measured all the variables.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by luu5

Trackman as a company, did measure the angles, but not just with Trackman radar. In basic the Trackman can only see the ball, it could see the back of the club but I dunno if that is used. As the ball flight is based on club path and club face angle, there has to be correlation. So Trackman took high speed cameras and such to find out how the club head behaves on different ball flights. Based on this study they provided the results we now have as new ball flight rules.

In normal Trackman use these results are used to calculate club head values based on ball flight. Same with Flightscope. The results should be accurate enough for real life use as that's where they were derived.

Ah OK, now I understand how they came up with the new ball flight laws.

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

For the record, I have never disagreed with the ball flight laws as now presented.  But I always thought that Trackman actually measured the angles that are so prominent in the ball flight discussion.  I'm not arguing that the results are not valid; it just surprised me that they are derivative, and not direct.  Doesn't it surprise you?

Sorry, wasn't trying to rag on you. Just have a fondness the easy quip. A personal weakness.

I did know that TrackMan and other doppler systems calculated for both face angle and dynamic loft because I got to visit the FlightScope headquarters here in South Africa a while ago and they explained it to me in terms (roughly) simple enough for a former English major to understand.

Basically, the radar can track the movement of the club head in three dimensions (club speed, attack angle, club path) and movement of the ball in three dimensions (ball speed, horizontal launch angle, vertical launch angle). From these, it is relatively trivial to derive the face conditions given the known physics of the collision between the two.

Specifically, TrackMan claims a verified accuracy (established by both robot and 3D bio-mechanical testing with high speed cameras) of 1 mph for club speed, 0.5 to 1.0 degree for angle of attack, 0.3 to 0.7 degrees for club path and

[jamo]

For the record, I have never disagreed with the ball flight laws as now presented.  But I always thought that Trackman actually measured the angles that are so prominent in the ball flight discussion.  I'm not arguing that the results are not valid; it just surprised me that they are derivative, and not direct.  Doesn't it surprise you?

Nope, I already knew. That and I assumed Trackman employs scientists. Scientists and engineers know math. EDIT: That came out really sounding like an *******. Sorry if i didn't phrase that well.

[MacBooky]

Flightscope

I presume they do the same as trackman ... now

[B-Con]

For the record, I have never disagreed with the ball flight laws as now presented.  But I always thought that Trackman actually measured the angles that are so prominent in the ball flight discussion.  I'm not arguing that the results are not valid; it just surprised me that they are derivative, and not direct.  Doesn't it surprise you?

[quote name="iacas" url="/t/53958/why-understanding-the-ball-flight-laws-is-important/90#post_657068"] Trackman is a radar system that sits behind the golfer. It can't "see" the clubface. It can only see the club head coming down into the ball, then begins tracking the golf ball. At any moment it's tracking the fastest moving thing. Clubhead until impact, ball after impact. Using the things it measures, it derives the rest of the data points. But they spent a lot of time and money coming up with the math for those formulas, proving it empirically, etc. They in fact continue to do so. [/quote] I think that sometimes there's a fine line between "directly measuring" and "deriving". If they're tracking the ball the moment they register it leaving the clubface, they essentially have the ball's flight path for all practical purposes. Sure, nobody is measuring the ball at an instantaneously small time interval after contact (required for [i]perfect[/i] description of the ball's path), but it's unnecessary for approximate figures. If we knew the face angle, swing path, shot shape, and the ball's position every couple inches for the first few feet after impact, we know enough to get at least the gist of the ball flight laws, if not reasonably detailed percentages. At that point we're "directly measuring" for the purposes of the golfer who wants to know where the ball goes depending on how he hits it. He wants to know where the ball will be 2 feet after impact if he hits it with a clubface "like so". After that, we're just closing in between 84 and 86%.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by B-Con

I think that sometimes there's a fine line between "directly measuring" and "deriving". If they're tracking the ball the moment they register it leaving the clubface, they essentially have the ball's flight path for all practical purposes. Sure, nobody is measuring the ball at an instantaneously small time interval after contact (required for perfect description of the ball's path), but it's unnecessary for approximate figures. If we knew the face angle, swing path, shot shape, and the ball's position every couple inches for the first few feet after impact, we know enough to get at least the gist of the ball flight laws, if not reasonably detailed percentages. At that point we're "directly measuring" for the purposes of the golfer who wants to know where the ball goes depending on how he hits it. He wants to know where the ball will be 2 feet after impact if he hits it with a clubface "like so". After that, we're just closing in between 84 and 86%.

We don't really "know" (i.e. "measure") the face angle. They've done thousands of tests so the math is right, but the face angle is "derived" or what I call "calculated" based on the ball's flight.

Not really the topic, but not a bad thing to discuss anyway, since I think the more people understand the tools we have the better we're all off, too.

[mvmac]

Ok, back on track.

Just for fun I went to youtube and typed in "golf: how to hit a draw"   Brings up another good reason to know the ball flight laws, to know good information from bad.  I'm not going to focus on a specific instructor but I can't find the correct information.  They all get the path needs to be out, but they don't understand that the club face is a tool of projection.  Especially when they advocate the roll the forearms to rotate the club face.  I can hit draws all day long with a club face that never "turns over".

This is just me doing drill but both these ball drew, drawing it with the hands forward club face aimed right of my intended target.

On the left is a player "releasing" it, and Charlie Wi on the right, hands forward, not rolled over.  Player on the left has no chance to hit a draw that starts right of the target and curve back to it.

[shortstop20]

The ball flight laws is just another example that shows some people place a a high value on science, some are in the middle and some place no value on science. No matter how much you pound the latter group with facts, they won't believe you.

The fact that some people will take nothing more than a human's word over basic scientific principles and fact is mind boggling.

I was golfing with a friend a couple weeks ago, he is a total newb to the game. Only played ONCE before in his life. I told him, "Basically, the ball starts where the face is pointing at impact and the ball curves away from the direction of the path." He replied, "I know that".

Why/how did he know that? Because he knows science. I then proceeded to tell him the other line of thought out there and he was pretty dumbfounded how people could believe such.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by shortstop20

I was golfing with a friend a couple weeks ago, he is a total newb to the game. Only played ONCE before in his life. I told him, "Basically, the ball starts where the face is pointing at impact and the ball curves away from the direction of the path." He replied, "I know that".

Why/how did he know that? Because he knows science. I then proceeded to tell him the other line of thought out there and he was pretty dumbfounded how people could believe such.

It's funny how most people say, "I know that", but if they are an instructor continue to teach the wrong fixes a la Brandel Chamblee or if an amateur golfer continue to apply those wrong fixes to their games.

One of the reasons I left the Jim McLean Golf School in Madrid after only one month was due to this madness. The instructors there claimed they knew the ball flight laws, yet continued to 'cure' slicers by encouraging them to aggressively rotate their hands through impact and/or strengthen their grips.

[JetFan1983]

Originally Posted by shortstop20

Why/how did he know that? Because he knows science. I then proceeded to tell him the other line of thought out there and he was pretty dumbfounded how people could believe such.

It's the same thing with all my beginner friends, and I'm not sure their answer has much to do with a respect to science either. So far, I think, every beginner I've asked "what causes the initial direction of the ball? The face angle at impact or the swing path?" And they almost always look at me like I'm asking a stupid question. "Duuuh, face angle." They intuitively know it.

Now if you ask a pro or a scratch golfer that same question, so many of them give you the wrong answer. Weird, right?

[shortstop20]

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

It's the same thing with all my beginner friends, and I'm not sure their answer has much to do with a respect to science either. So far, I think, every beginner I've asked "what causes the initial direction of the ball? The face angle at impact or the swing path?" And they almost always look at me like I'm asking a stupid question. "Duuuh, face angle." They intuitively know it.

Now if you ask a pro or a scratch golfer that same question, so many of them give you the wrong answer. Weird, right?

Repeat something enough and people will believe it.