Are most amateur golfers being mislead on how to swing?

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Let it go, man, for a while.

Take a few days off and consider everything said and learned , if not for yourself, then for the sake of your students.

Are you my therapist? I think not. If you don't mind I'll make my own decisions about what I am going to do over the next few days.

I suggest you boil you head in a bucket of water but I fear you won't find one big enough.

[Tomboys]

Originally Posted by Tomboys

It doesn't matter how compelling our information is, the OP doesn't want to give credence to it.  The data presented is refuted with sophomoric responses.  At the end of the day, that says more about who he is than who we are.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Dry your eyes!

Checkmate.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by pjsnyc

Judging by the vocabulary and consistent gaffes from the posts I've seen by you, I'm a bit skeptical not only of your insistence on you being a coach, but of your age as well. First I saw you not know the word 'behoove', then I saw Homer Simpson, now I see 'add'?

And finally we see 'old laws' and 'new laws'

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word you're saying anymore (if I ever did). Either you're really a kid trying to get his kicks by trolling, or you're an ostrich with your head in the sand (waiting to get plunged by a cheetah)

Or my personal fave - All of the above.

I can't believe the pettiness of some of these comments. We all make typos. You've made a couple in your short post. Hey, hang me for not having used the word 'behoove' during my lifetime. Is it a Yankie word?  For goodness sake don't tell my students I didn't know the meaning of this word, they may think I won't be able to coach any more. Homer Simpson, I wonder how I could have possibly made that typo.

Do you actually have anything to say about golf?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Are you my therapist? I think not. If you don't mind I'll make my own decisions about what I am going to do over the next few days.

I suggest you boil you head in a bucket of water but I fear you won't find one big enough.

See, you don't even make sense. I've only shook my head at your antics during this thread.

It was just friendly advice.

Take it or leave it. Don't mistake me for someone who cares.

I had you banned on another golf forum even before all of his started.

After 10 years on these boards, it's easy to snuff out a troll.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Tomboys

Checkmate.

Do you actually have any golf related comments to make? All I hear is your non stop whining. Are you going to bark all day or are you going to post something with a little originality?

[Anjew]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I have documented my feelings on this and until I research it further, see no real advantage in knowing what happens with these super slow motion findings. Does someone actually have a video that really proves this. As I have already said, "The correct way to use these laws is to learn from the ball flight and not from a YouTube slow motion video. If the ball starts right and comes back to the centre with a slight draw and you did this with feel and can repeat it, that's all that matters. 'In to out' with a square to slightly closed club face - draw. It's easy.

Can someone tell me if this is actually correct, because I am imagining it, and from what I now know of the ball flight laws, this would be a fade. I'm super confused.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Just friendly advice.

Take it or leave it. Don't mistake me for someone who cares.

I had you banned on another golf forum even before all of his started.

After 10 years on these boards, it's easy to snuff out a troll, troll.

Sorry I am only going to answer golf related posts after this.

P.S. I have never been banned from a site. Why is he saying such a thing? That's rhetorical by the way. From now on I only want to answer or read golf related posts.

[Tomboys]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Do you actually have any golf related comments to make? All I hear is your non stop whining. Are you going to bark all day or are you going to post something with a little originality?

It's as golf related and original as, "Dry your eyes."  All I hear from you is the very poor musings of a very poor instructor.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Weight forward at impact confuses me a little. With the main upper body mass leaning away from the target at impact, this would be controversial.

Controversial? Only in your mind Patrick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Having Problems Sleeping?

Buy the Best Cure Known to Man!

Try reading more than half a page of

"The Golfing Machine"

by

Homer Kelley

Yeah, here's the thing. You're not in a position to make fun of people. I guarantee you that virtually all of the people who have done a little training in TGM know more about what causes a ball to fly the way it does than you do.

TGM is a bit outdated, and it's not perfect, but if it puts you to sleep that says a lot more about your interest in learning about the game of golf and the golf swing than it says about TGM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I explained briefly on an earlier post how I teach my students to shape the ball. I keep it very simple. I want to look at these new ball flight videos but I would be wary of confusing my students with super slow motion science. I like to keep it simple and the old laws - I take it these new laws are only recent - have served me very well. I find it hard to believe that a 4° path with 2° closed face would start a ball left of centre and I didn't see any of this evidence in the video I watched. It was too rough and inconclusive.

a) The "new" laws are decades old.

b) It has nothing to do with keeping things simple. "The ball starts roughly where the face is pointing and curves away from the path" (the correct version) is just as simple as "the ball starts on the path and curves towards where the face was pointing" (wrong, btw). You're just trying to rationalize your belief in something that's provably wrong by saying "it's simpler." It's no simpler and it has the kicker of being wrong .

c) I don't care what you find "hard to believe." It's fact. 2+2=4 whether you find it "hard to believe it's not -7" or not.

Do some research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Very ignorant?

It fits.

Quote:

ig·no·rant

[ ig -ner- uh nt ] Show IPA

adjective

1.

lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

2.

lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics .

3.

uninformed; unaware.

4.

due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

I'll allow it. Heck, if I get a fact wrong, I'll be okay with someone calling me ignorant too. Facts aren't opinions, and opinions aren't facts. He's not saying you're ignorant about everything, but about this particular topic, clearly, you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick57

P.S. I have never been banned from a site. Why is he saying such a thing? That's rhetorical by the way. From now on I only want to answer or read golf related posts.

You're temporarily banned here. I've placed you in the penalty box for a day. I'm not entirely sure whether that means you'll be let out at midnight (or in what time zone?) tonight or tomorrow night, but please consider using your time away to read and understand a bit about the way a golf ball flies.

When you get back, answer this question: Suppose a right-handed player has a good grip, posture, stance, alignment, etc. He hits a ball with a mid-iron that starts a little bit right of the flag then draws too much and finishes well left of the flag. What must this player do to hit a better golf shot? (Your answer cannot be be to simply turn his body to point farther right.)

[iacas]

Anjew, sorry, I missed your question.

We're assuming center contact on all ball flight law discussions, btw.

If the clubface is closed to the path the ball will always have draw spin. If it's open to the path the ball will always have cut spin.

So if you have a path that's six degrees to the right (for a righty), that's "in to out." If the clubface is 3 degrees to the right of the target, the clubface is simultaneously pointing RIGHT of the target while being CLOSED to the path. The ball starts a little over 3 degrees right of the target (roughly where the face is pointing), then draws back to the target (because the path is farther right, or the face is closed to the path).

[mvmac]

Quote:

Anjew, sorry, I missed your question.

We're assuming center contact on all ball flight law discussions, btw.

If the clubface is closed to the path the ball will always have draw spin. If it's open to the path the ball will always have cut spin.

So if you have a path that's six degrees to the right (for a righty), that's "in to out." If the clubface is 3 degrees to the right of the target, the clubface is simultaneously pointing RIGHT of the target while being CLOSED to the path. The ball starts a little over 3 degrees right of the target (roughly where the face is pointing), then draws back to the target (because the path is farther right, or the face is closed to the path).

Yes and a fade would be the opposite, clubface Left of the target, path further left.  Trevino, Jack and Fred Couples just align their bodies to the left to create a left path.

Originally Posted by Anjew

Can someone tell me if this is actually correct, because I am imagining it, and from what I now know of the ball flight laws, this would be a fade. I'm super confused.

Anjew, the shot Patrick described would be a pull or a straight draw.  Path out with the face square or closed, ball starts at or left of the target and draws, not a productive draw.  We need to have the face pointed Right of the target to hit a draw that curves into the target.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Quote:

Yes and a fade would be the opposite, clubface Left of the target, path further left.  Trevino, Jack and Fred Couples just align their bodies to the left to create a left path.

Which is more common or easier, to adjust swing path or to align the body to achieve the desired angle between path and line to target?

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by luu5

Which is more common or easier, to adjust swing path or to align the body to achieve the desired angle between path and line to target?

Definitely more easy to align the body right to help with more left curve and align body left for right curve.  You don't want to be trying to hit a fade by "swinging across it" or hit a draw by swinging more out to the right.  Too much chaos.  How much to adjust the body with the club face alignments is just practice, trial and error.  And understand that the club face alignments at address don't guarantee that's what it will be at impact, but it helps.  It's actually a lot of fun to practice.

Also, body alignments (shoulders and hips) are more important than where the feet are aimed.

[Anjew]

Though this thread has for the most part been a colossal s***storm, it has been exceedingly helpful (to me at least) in really opening my eyes to ball flight laws, and ways that you can get some different shots, so I would like to thank Iacas and mvmac for there really great information. I will be reading as much about this as I possibly can, and hope to begin working on it as soon as the last of the snow is gone!

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Anjew

Though this thread has for the most part been a colossal s***storm, it has been exceedingly helpful (to me at least) in really opening my eyes to ball flight laws, and ways that you can get some different shots, so I would like to thank Iacas and mvmac for there really great information. I will be reading as much about this as I possibly can, and hope to begin working on it as soon as the last of the snow is gone!

Every thread has a silver lining Glad to see you taken some time to look at what we've been sharing, thank you for being open minded and willing to learn.  I had to learn it just like you.  Good luck with your game

[mdl]

Just thought I'd point out what could be a clarification to Mike and Erik's answers to Anjew's question.

As I've been understanding Patrick's misunderstanding of ball flight laws, when he says "in-to-out with club face square or slightly closed", I think when he's referring to the alignment of the club face he means relative to the target line, not swing path.  I think Mike's answer was assuming relative to swing path.  Just in case Anjew was understanding Patrick's comment the way I think he meant it, relative to target line, then those two cases won't won't result in either a straight push that ends up right of the target or a push draw that ends up close to the target.

With swing path in-to-out and club face square to the target line, which of course is closed to the swing path line, the ball will start essentially at the target (really a tiny bit right because of the whole 85%/15% thing) and draw left of the target.  With the swing path in-to-out and the club face closed to the target line, you'll hit a nasty pull hook.

Don't want to split hairs, but I know from reading this board that the ball flight laws can be a bit confusing for those who haven't been exposed to them before, so I just wanted to make sure there's not multiple levels of misunderstanding confusing the issue for Anjew.

If you want to develop shots that end where you want, you really only have three choices:

1) Push draw that starts right and curves left back to the target.  Swing path that goes right relative to the target line (in-to-out) and a club face that is closed relative to the swing path but open relative to the target line.

2) Pull fade that starts left and curves right back to the target.  Swing path that goes left relative to the target line (out-to-in, negatively called over the top, OTT, when it's extreme and causing slices) and a club face at impact that's open relative to the swing path but closed relative to the target line.

3) Straight shot that starts at the target and doesn't curve appreciably.  Swing path right down the target line (but since you're swinging in a circle essentially, the path from directly above really is in-to-in through impact) with the club face at impact square to both the target line and the swing path line.

Note that all of these can actually look different ways.  Some players (including pros, I think Stenson does this) set up with their feet and hips and shoulders pointing on a line well right of the target, and then swing essentially parallel to their setup line with a closed club face at impact.  You might call the resulting shot a pull-draw, but because the player set up with the body alignment aimed well right, the ball actually starts right of the target and draws back to the target.  The same exact shot shape could be called a straight draw if the body alignment was shifted say halfway back to the target line, or a push draw if the body alignment started aiming at the target, but in either case the swing path and club face angle at impact remained the same.  Similar options exist for how to actually hit shots that start left or right or at the target and end at the target.  As noted, Nicklaus and others essentially hit push-fades as the stock shot, but because the body alignment was well left of the target line, the shot shape was one that would be called a pull-fade if the body alignment had been parallel to the target line.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by mdl

Just thought I'd point out what could be a clarification to Mike and Erik's answers to Anjew's question.

As I've been understanding Patrick's misunderstanding of ball flight laws, when he says "in-to-out with club face square or slightly closed", I think when he's referring to the alignment of the club face he means relative to the target line, not swing path.

No, I did mean relative to the swing path but I think that is where the misunderstanding lies. It is unnatural, for me at least, to address the target line, I have always set my club face relative to the path.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdl

.  As noted, Nicklaus and others essentially hit push-fades as the stock shot, but because the body alignment was well left of the target line, the shot shape was one that would be called a pull-fade if the body alignment had been parallel to the target line.

This one confuses me, surely the club head follows an 'in to out' path through impact. Can the body alignment change this condition.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by mdl

As noted, Nicklaus and others essentially hit push-fades as the stock shot, but because the body alignment was well left of the target line, the shot shape was one that would be called a pull-fade if the body alignment had been parallel to the target line.

Quote:

This one confuses me, surely the club head follows an 'in to out' path through impact. Can the body alignment change this condition.

He's simply saying that a stock Nicklaus shot was one that started right and curved right (push fade), from the persective of where his body is aligned.  But if you consider it from the perspective of where he wanted the ball to end up, it starts left and curves right (pull fade), landing (usually in Jack's case) right on the target.