Ball Flight Laws, PGA of America and Dr. Gary Wiren

[mvmac]

As many of you Sandtrappers know a majority of students are taught the wrong ball flight laws because their instructors operates under the assumption that the ball start in the direction of the club path.  Check this out for the correct information on the Ball Flight Laws .

I wanted to share a great article here from John Graham about the PGA Ball Flight Laws and Dr. Gary Wiren .  John posts a lot of good information and I would recommend subscribing to his blog.

The PGA of America has to do something about this, spreading incorrect information to thousands of apprentices is irresponsible (to say the least).  Not only for actually trying to play shots but for problem solving.

[MiniBlueDragon]

I read that yesterday and shared it with my pro too. John, as usual makes excellent points on the matter and the blog is always worth reading.

It's also interesting to see how it's not so much "mis-information", it's "mis-understood information" based on the snippets in that blog, e.g. " The direction of the arc described by the clubhead in its travel away from and then back toward the target. Its line of travel at impact is one of the primary factors influencing direction for a full shot. " where the focus is drawn to the word "primary" and then assumed to be more important because of that phrase.

[Zeph]

Good article by John. Clears up the confusion pretty well. The manual is wrong and correct at the same time. Or perhaps; poorly phrased.

[jamo]

It's also interesting to see how it's not so much "mis-information", it's "mis-understood information"

And ambiguity.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

I read that yesterday and shared it with my pro too. John, as usual makes excellent points on the matter and the blog is always worth reading.

What was your pro's opinions?

[sean_miller]

I did read the blog.

I then read the section of the PGA magazine the blogger references. I read the portion starting on page 100 as per the blogger's insructions. The blogger clearly distinguishes between the 9 shot patterns and the 5 Ball Flight Laws.  The 5 Ball Flight Laws seem to state the face angle has the most influence on the initial direction. Not sure which element in those those 5 Ball Flight Laws would be considered spreading incorrect information.

Unless there's more information at hand, like the aforementioned 9 shot patterns, there's nothing my laymen eyes see that's different from fact.

People who wish to jump on the "The Old Ball Flight Laws are Wrong" bandwagon owe it to themselves to read the links provided by the blogger. They not exactly "wrong". Easily misinterpreted? Possibly, but those are not the words people are using, is it?!? So now who's really being misled?

[iacas]

The manual was "clear as mud" as Dave has said. I have the manual. It's within six feet of my desk. I agree, it's clear as mud.

Also, it's also potentially wrong in some ways: drivers are 85% clubface and yet a 9I is, oddly, 75% (or so) clubface. Path is a bigger determinant at slower swing speeds (and more loft, apparently). The manual says path is more important at higher swing speeds.

The picture showing the initial direction of flight is perhaps 60%, not 75-85%.

The diagram on page 33 is bad. It shows a club path "square" (in to square to in) with a "closed" face as a "hook" and an open face as a "slice." Really, they'd be a pull-hook and a push-slice. That's getting really nit-picky, though.

And it doesn't change the simple fact that Dr. Wiren let the PGA mis-educate instructors for 20+ years.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

The manual was "clear as mud." Also, it's also potentially wrong in some ways: drivers are 85% clubface and yet a 9I is, oddly, 75% (or so) clubface. Path is a bigger determinant at slower swing speeds (and more loft, apparently). The manual says path is more important at higher swing speeds.

That's what I'm talking about. Thanks for the example. Apparently "expanding on them" means both clarifying them, and even in some cases fixing them.

I'm old school and throwing the baby out with the bath water seems like a swim against the current for no good reason other than to put a brand name on the facts (which I guess the PGA of America is essentially doing - durr . . . )

[MiniBlueDragon]

Originally Posted by mvmac

What was your pro's opinions?

Actually I've not spoken to him since emailing the link over as I've been home with a cold and unable to get to the course. He's always agreed completely with the "new/understood" laws though so I'd imagine his opinion would be similar.

[John Graham]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I did read the blog.

I then read the section of the PGA magazine the blogger references. I read the portion starting on page 100 as per the blogger's insructions. The blogger clearly distinguishes between the 9 shot patterns and the 5 Ball Flight Laws.  The 5 Ball Flight Laws seem to state the face angle has the most influence on the initial direction. Not sure which element in those those 5 Ball Flight Laws would be considered spreading incorrect information.

Unless there's more information at hand, like the aforementioned 9 shot patterns, there's nothing my laymen eyes see that's different from fact.

People who wish to jump on the "The Old Ball Flight Laws are Wrong" bandwagon owe it to themselves to read the links provided by the blogger. They not exactly "wrong". Easily misinterpreted? Possibly, but those are not the words people are using, is it?!? So now who's really being misled?

Sean,

The article clearly states that the manual is mostly correct. Misleading maybe but not 'wrong'. It has 9 shot patterns and 5 Ball Flight Laws. The PGA of America was teaching us, the apprentices, their 9 Ball Flight Laws created by them in direct contradiction to the Manual that were incorrect. It is those 9 Ball Flight Laws taught by the PGA of America that are being called old and incorrect. Not Dr Wiren's 5 Laws in the Manual.

No one is throwing the Manual out with the bath water. It is the information taught and tested by the PGA of America that is being thrown out. The article also says that Dr Wiren and the Manual are not the issue.

Please tell me I didn't forge to say these things in the article.

JG

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by John Graham

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I did read the blog.

I then read the section of the PGA magazine the blogger references. I read the portion starting on page 100 as per the blogger's insructions. The blogger clearly distinguishes between the 9 shot patterns and the 5 Ball Flight Laws.  The 5 Ball Flight Laws seem to state the face angle has the most influence on the initial direction. Not sure which element in those those 5 Ball Flight Laws would be considered spreading incorrect information.

Unless there's more information at hand, like the aforementioned 9 shot patterns, there's nothing my laymen eyes see that's different from fact.

People who wish to jump on the "The Old Ball Flight Laws are Wrong" bandwagon owe it to themselves to read the links provided by the blogger. They not exactly "wrong". Easily misinterpreted? Possibly, but those are not the words people are using, is it?!? So now who's really being misled?

Sean,

The article clearly states that the manual is mostly correct. Misleading maybe but not 'wrong'. It has 9 shot patterns and 5 Ball Flight Laws. The PGA of America was teaching us, the apprentices, their 9 Ball Flight Laws created by them in direct contradiction to the Manual that were incorrect. It is those 9 Ball Flight Laws taught by the PGA of America that are being called old and incorrect. Not Dr Wiren's 5 Laws in the Manual.

No one is throwing the Manual out with the bath water. It is the information taught and tested by the PGA of America that is being thrown out. The article also says that Dr Wiren and the Manual are not the issue.

Please tell me I didn't forge to say these things in the article.

JG

I thought what I posted was both accurate and complementary to both you (i.e. the blogger) and the PGA of America Manual. You're referring to the 9 shot patterns, not the 5 Ball Flight Laws, also as ball flight laws so I assume that's how they've been presented. I appreciate wanting to fix that, but that doesn't appear on page 100 from the link you provided. I see also that this computer doesn't display ".png" files so there might be more there I'm missing.

Anyway, I was pretty sure my comments would have hit home to several regular posters at this forum (thesandtrap.com) who gave up this discussion long ago. The implication that everything that came before is wrong is a generalization made over and over by people on this site who couldn't possibly have your history and close association to the "issue".  Throw me under that bus too, because I'm a long distance observer, but when I read something which is essentially correct, then I'm told that it's essentially wrong, logic dictates I have to question the messenger - not the source.  I'll keep it to myself next time.

[Harmonious]

We have been told so many times in this forum that the PGA Manual was wrong, and that only recently have the "new" ball flight laws been developed.  Thanks to Mr. Graham for clearing up that bit of misinformation.

Question to Mr. Graham:  You said in the article that, although the PGA Manual in the early 90's was essentially correct, you were actually taught differently in the Apprentice class.  From your experience, you then state that thousands of other PGA Apprentices were likewise taught the wrong information. I have no way of disputing this contention, but it does seem odd to me that so many PGA instructors around the world would give out information at odds with the PGA Manual. How did you come up with your number of "wrongly-taught" PGA pros?

Anyway, it's a good article. I would encourage everyone to read it, as well as the PGA article referenced.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

We have been told so many times in this forum that the PGA Manual was wrong, and that only recently have the "new" ball flight laws been developed.

I don't think that's an accurate depiction. I think it's been said many times that the instructors (and famous golfers) have had them wrong. The PGA Manual is "clear as mud" and confusing, and the PGA has been teaching it wrong. That's been said.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I have no way of disputing this contention, but it does seem odd to me that so many PGA instructors around the world would give out information at odds with the PGA Manual. How did you come up with your number of "wrongly-taught" PGA pros?

That's the truth, though. They tested you on that. You had to answer "path = start line" questions on the tests. The manual was a reference, but all of the other official materials, tests, study guides, etc. were "path = start line."

[Tiger90]

That video is totally wrong.  Those ball flight laws are correct in every single way.  I have used those laws to teach myself how to hit draws and fades of all shapes and sizes.  The most highly rated golf instructor in the US, among many other amazing golf coaches.  Those rules dont just come into their heads and the best players in the worlds for no reason.

If the club is swung on an inside to outswing path, the force of the club going in that direction is much strong than that of the face slightly closed (to hit a draw), eventually the draw spin over powers the push and the ball draws back.  I dont understand how this guy can say those rules are wrong.  Where is his logic.

In fact, i used those exact rules to teach a friend of mine, today, how to hit a draw and a fade....soooooooo i dont understand

[Fried Egg]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't think that's an accurate depiction. I think it's been said many times that the instructors (and famous golfers) have had them wrong.

That's the truth, though. They tested you on that. You had to answer "path = start line" questions on the tests. The manual was a reference, but all of the other official materials, tests, study guides, etc. were "path = start line."

I think Mr. Graham said he went through the gptp in the '90s. I did in the early to mid 2000s and the examples Mr. Graham used for the testing were the same that I was given.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Tiger90

That video is totally wrong.

What video? Please tell us which one you mean.

Originally Posted by Tiger90

Those ball flight laws are correct in every single way.

Which laws? The ball starts where the path of the club is traveling and curves to where the face was pointing?

Originally Posted by Tiger90

The most highly rated golf instructor in the US, among many other amazing golf coaches.

Sorry... Butch Harmon is wrong. It's silly that he keeps saying it, but he's wrong.

Here's a video for you.

Here's a URL for you: http://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws .

Originally Posted by Tiger90

If the club is swung on an inside to outswing path, the force of the club going in that direction is much strong than that of the face slightly closed (to hit a draw), eventually the draw spin over powers the push and the ball draws back.  I dont understand how this guy can say those rules are wrong.  Where is his logic.

His logic is physics. What's yours?

Originally Posted by Tiger90

In fact, i used those exact rules to teach a friend of mine, today, how to hit a draw and a fade....soooooooo i dont understand

You think you did. You did not. I think you have some reading to do. Go ahead. We'll wait. :-)

[johnthejoiner]

The true ball flight laws tell us that a push-draw (G) is a result of an open clubface with a swing path that's more inside-out than the clubface is open. For example, if the clubface is 3° open at impact but the swing path is 6° inside-out, the ball will start right (open clubface relative to the target) and curve left (closed clubface relative to the swing path).

How would the old ball flight laws tell us to hit a push-draw (G)? They'd tell us to swing in-to-out while keeping the clubface square to the target. Basically, they'd tell us to hit shot D. Ouch.

The above is taken from this site.
The two shots mentioned are only achievable if the shot is hit with a zero degree angle of attack, which is not a good thing to be doing with an iron. Now here's the strange bit, when we start adding a negative angle of attack to both shots, the old ball flight example becomes correct and the new ball flight example becomes lets say Ouch

[sk golf]