Are most amateur golfers being mislead on how to swing?

[Patrick57]

I see this post has been swapped to the instruction forum, probably because of the change of theme.

I've had a chance to read some of this article when I was in the Penalty Box...

http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/ballflight.htm

Almost as hard as reading 'The Golfing Machine' but I just read about the main differences between old and new.

Here's the old ones, I swear by these. It's what I feel I am doing and I'm sure most of the greats had and have a feel for this as well.



As I said before, I am of the opinion there is only one natural repetitive path back to the ball, 'IN to OUT', as described by the purple lines. (If we are going to start talking about realigning the feet then I have different views but lets just stick to square address.) 'OUT to IN' is more common but I don't teach this, I will easily alter a players tendency to make this mistake. 'IN to IN' although it sounds ideal, its difficult to achieve. Amateurs can control the ball well enough with the purple lines.

Now here's the new ball flight rule...



The two swing paths that don't interest me RED and GREEN are more or less the same as the old laws. But the BLUE path shows three significant difference to the old laws. Firstly the broken line with an open club face seems to suggest that a push fade is not possible. The straight line with a square club face seems to create a much more severe curve and a light draw does not seem possible with a square club face although I am glad to see the ball starting right of the target. Lastly the dotted line with the club face closed sends the ball of to the left of the target and creates what looks like a pull hook.

I promise to read the above article fully but its so boring I think that it will take a few days. I now know the differences between the old laws and the apparent new laws. I am not yet convinced but promise to keep my mind open. I do believe we should hide the intricacies of these laws from all amateurs and simplify the explanation by referring mainly to feel and the actual flight of the students ball.

EDIT.

I have always assuming that the club face is set relative to the swing path, and I now believe  the new laws detail this as relative to the target line. I have a bit more reading to do but I am satisfied that there are no huge differences. I will certainly be trying experiments of my own on the driving range to content myself that a ball can start left of centre from an in to out path with a moderately closed club face

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

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.

Using that logic you could call every fade a pull fade because every fade starts left of where they end up. Lets just drop swing path and call everything fade, straight or draw. Nicklaus hit these shot on an in to out path.

[Mr. Desmond]

Guess I have a problem with the word "natural."

I've heard Hank Haney say hundreds of times that 95% of golfers slice.

So what is natural?

Is natural what is practiced by 95% of golfers and we must overcome our "natural" swing to play golf in a more efficient manner?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Lets just drop swing path and call everything fade, straight or draw.

Swing path is extremely important to the discussion.  If we were to ignore it, then we are heading down a dangerous path.  Not all fades are the same.  My dad has an ugly over the top move that produces a giant pull fade.  I have a pretty good swing plane-wise, but sometimes produce an ugly push fade because of an open club face.  By your suggestion, we would require the same fixes.  I am NOT a teacher, and know a lot less than many on this site (why I am here - to learn/improve/have fun) but I certainly know that our problems are nothing alike.

Also, regarding the "new" ball flight laws ... they are new to me too.  When you get over your boredom and finish the articles, you will find that these were discovered with science.  They aren't "apparent" as you snarkily mentioned, but in fact, facts.

[saevel25]

Lets not because swing path dictates fade, straight or draw when its considered to the face angle. Lets say your hitting a pull slice, lets disregard the swing path, what would you fix, oh lets strengthen the grip, close the clubface faster. Now he squares it up and hits a pull. Now he has to aim 15-20 yards right to hit it straight. We didn't really solve the issue because we addressed one condition. Now he's stuck with a straight pull or a weak cut. I know i played this way for 10 years. But you have to address the swing path, because its what really matters. you can adjust the face angle easier than you can fix the swing path. Wonder why most teachers say, "Strengthen or weaken the grip" because its easier to fix that way, here's your easy 50 bucks for half an hour.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I promise to read the above article fully but its so boring I think that it will take a few days. I now know the differences between the old laws and the apparent new laws. I am not yet convinced but promise to keep my mind open. I do believe we should hide the intricacies of these laws from all amateurs and simplify the explanation by referring mainly to feel and the actual flight of the students ball.

EDIT.

I have always assuming that the club face is set relative to the swing path, and I now believe  the new laws detail this as relative to the target line. I have a bit more reading to do but I am satisfied that there are no huge differences. I will certainly be trying experiments of my own on the driving range to content myself that a ball can start left of centre from an in to out path with a moderately closed club face

Yes it should start left, so club face closed or aimed left 3* with a path to the right of 4*.  Will result in a pull draw with a decent amount of curve since the face is closed 7* to the path.

It's not as hard as reading the Golfing Machine, the face projects the ball and the ball curves away from the path, that's really it.

Now for a push draw, starts right and curves back, you may very well aim the face at the target, have the path right and produce this shot.  But there needs to be an understanding that at impact to get the ball to start right, the face HAS to be aimed to the right. I'm not here to tell you how to feel or produce these shots for yourself, just to inform what is actually happening.

Have to disagree that there is no "huge difference".  We don't want to end up like an acquittance of ours that had to quit the game.  He was a pro who started hitting balls that started at or left of the flag, then drew too much and finished well left of the flag.  He coach was and still is ranked in the top 20 and gave him advice that lead to him having to hit irons off the tee in order to keep it in play because he was snip hooking it so badly.

For everyone reading, what do you think the instructor told the player? The player was hitting pull hooks and the instructor was operating under the false ball flight laws, the "fix" made it worse

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Guess I have a problem with the word "natural."

I've heard Hank Haney say hundreds of times that 95% of golfers slice.

So what is natural?

Is natural what is practiced by 95% of golfers and we must overcome our "natural" swing to play golf in a more efficient manner?

As my post asks the question, "Are most golfers being mislead on how to swing?" it would suggest that there is a flaw in the system. If 95% of golfers slice - I am more inclined to say 70%, but that's not important - then the way golfers swing would appear to be unnatural. A natural power swing approaches its target from an 'in to out' path, as in tennis, baseball, chopping a tree with an axe etc etc.

Which path do you think is natural?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Here's the old ones, I swear by these. It's what I feel I am doing and I'm sure most of the greats had and have a feel for this as well.

That's a problem. You swear by something that is demonstrably, provably, 100% false. I can play good golf thinking there's no such thing as gravity if I want and that the ball only returns to earth because urethane is magnetically attracted to grass, but it doesn't make it true and it doesn't help me play better golf.

You "swear by" something that's provably false. It's quite literally like "swearing by" 2 + 2 = -7.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

The two swing paths that don't interest me RED and GREEN are more or less the same as the old laws. But the BLUE path shows three significant difference to the old laws.

The red and green lines are exactly as contradictory to the "old" laws as the blue lines.

There's never been disagreement on the straight shots. Obviously the path and the clubface line up. Even the Flat Earth Society gets those right.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Firstly the broken line with an open club face seems to suggest that a push fade is not possible.

It's entirely possible. All of those shots are entirely possible.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I promise to read the above article fully but its so boring I think that it will take a few days. I now know the differences between the old laws and the apparent new laws. I am not yet convinced but promise to keep my mind open. I do believe we should hide the intricacies of these laws from all amateurs and simplify the explanation by referring mainly to feel and the actual flight of the students ball.

It's very simple:

The golf ball's initial direction is determined primarily by where the clubface is pointing, and unless the path and face match, the ball will then curve AWAY from the path.

That's it.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I will certainly be trying experiments of my own on the driving range to content myself that a ball can start left of centre from an in to out path with a moderately closed club face

Any experiment you conduct without the aid of technology so that you know what actual impact alignments you created will likely be a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Using that logic you could call every fade a pull fade because every fade starts left of where they end up. Lets just drop swing path and call everything fade, straight or draw. Nicklaus hit these shot on an in to out path.

No, the use of the word "pull" and "push" is helpful.

Paul Azinger played a pull-fade, Lee Trevino played a push-fade (as did Hogan, and Nicklaus).

Given the same impact alignments (except clubface alignment), pulls (relative to our body alignments) go lower than pushes.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

As my post asks the question, "Are most golfers being mislead on how to swing?" it would suggest that there is a flaw in the system. If 95% of golfers slice - I am more inclined to say 70%, but that's not important - then the way golfers swing would appear to be unnatural. A natural power swing approaches its target from an 'in to out' path, as in tennis, baseball, chopping a tree with an axe etc etc.

Which path do you think is natural?

There's nothing natural about it. More golfers slice, and these are golfers who haven't taken lessons, by and large.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Yes it should start left, so club face closed or aimed left 3* with a path to the right of 4*.  Will result in a pull draw with a decent amount of curve since the face is closed 7* to the path.

It's not as hard as reading the Golfing Machine, the face projects the ball and the ball curves away from the path, that's really it.

Must we discuss face conditions relative to the target line. It's unnatural to address a ball on a path and set the club to another line. It would also cut out the confusion as to how much the face is actually closed at impact. When I close my face 2° then my intention is to have the face closed 2° to the path at impact and not target. My target is 5 yds right and I shape the ball back to the middle, the desired goal.

I glad I'm not the only one that finds TGM hard reading. I picked it up again earlier and fell asleep within minutes. LoL

Originally Posted by mvmac

Have to disagree that there is no "huge difference".  We don't want to end up like an acquittance of ours that had to quit the game.  He was a pro who started hitting balls that started at or left of the flag, then drew too much and finished well left of the flag.  He coach was and still is ranked in the top 20 and gave him advice that lead to him having to hit irons off the tee in order to keep it in play because he was snip hooking it so badly.

For everyone reading, what do you think the instructor told the player? The player was hitting pull hooks and the instructor was operating under the false ball flight laws, the "fix" made it worse

Of course there are bigger differences to the curve if we are using different paths to calculate how much the club face is closed at impact.

Last point, the new laws diagram seems to display that a push fade does not happen. On the in to out plane there's the pull hook, push hook and straight push. A draw has also not been

displayed as a possibility.

[Precis1on]

I think the mis-information comes from the ways of generating power in the swing. Personally, I was self-taught from the age of 7, and my natural tendency then was to use my upper body to generate power in my swing. Result = OTT swing, which took over 10 years to train myself out of.

I think OTT is a very natural flaw that many people have. They feel that it is the "natural" and fastest way to gain power in the swing, which is an overuse of the upper body. Some people naturally get that the inside-out move using the lower body and core to drive is the way to swing a club. However, I believe that most people FEEL the most natural way to gain power is to overuse their upper body in the swing, which is incorrect.

[newtogolf]

Exactly, without instruction, people believe to increase power (distance) they have to swing their arms faster and attempt to do this with their upper body.  This usually causes them to tighten their upper body, arms, and wrists and usually results in a slower club head speed.

Originally Posted by Precis1on

I think the mis-information comes from the ways of generating power in the swing. Personally, I was self-taught from the age of 7, and my natural tendency then was to use my upper body to generate power in my swing. Result = OTT swing, which took over 10 years to train myself out of.

I think OTT is a very natural flaw that many people have. They feel that it is the "natural" and fastest way to gain power in the swing, which is an overuse of the upper body. Some people naturally get that the inside-out move using the lower body and core to drive is the way to swing a club. However, I believe that most people FEEL the most natural way to gain power is to overuse their upper body in the swing, which is incorrect.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Must we discuss face conditions relative to the target line. It's unnatural to address a ball on a path and set the club to another line. It would also cut out the confusion as to how much the face is actually closed at impact. When I close my face 2° then my intention is to have the face closed 2° to the path at impact and not target. My target is 5 yds right and I shape the ball back to the middle, the desired goal.

Face and path conditions relative to the target, the flag stick, target line to me would be a straight line from the flag to the golfer.  Start line is where we want to start the ball.  So the face needs to be aimed right of the target, flag, for a push draw.  When you close your face 2* is it still aimed right of the flag?  Target line and start line are different things

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Of course there are bigger differences to the curve if we are using different paths to calculate how much the club face is closed at impact.

I don't get what you're saying, "different paths to calculate how much the club face is closed at impact."  You can have 1 face alignment and produce 3 different shots depending on what the path is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Last point, the new laws diagram seems to display that a push fade does not happen. On the in to out plane there's the pull hook, push hook and straight push. A draw has also not been

displayed as a possibility.

Yes the diagram illustrates a push fade, that is the red line that starts right of the target and curves right, the lower right arrow.  A draw would be the solid blue line that starts right of the green line and curves left.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Must we discuss face conditions relative to the target line. It's unnatural to address a ball on a path and set the club to another line

He's not talking about the different ball fllights in a sense of desirability, just of fact.  These aren't necessary what we are trying to do, but what is happening.  So we're not talking about address, we're talking about impact.

[Patrick57]

Why do I hear shouting when I read your replies? Maybe its just me.

Originally Posted by iacas

The red and green lines are exactly as contradictory to the "old" laws as the blue lines.

I said almost the same results. With 'in to in' there's still a slice and a hook, the only difference is the ball does not start straight like the old laws. Again 'out to in' there's the ball starting right of target with the open face. I don't want to go into every single detail but I find it relatively similar.

The biggest difference is how you are aligning the face. I mentioned in the last post how I do this in a less confusing and more natural manner.

Although the new laws are probably true, it doesn't alter how I create a draw. I line my club face to the in to out path 1° closed  and if these conditions are repeated at impact and that path is followed, my ball will start right and curve back slightly towards the centre.

Originally Posted by iacas

Any experiment you conduct without the aid of technology so that you know what actual impact alignments you created will likely be a waste of time.

I have enough technology for what I want to do. I only need some string and a super high speed camera. I've got them. I also have some balls and clubs.

Originally Posted by iacas

There's nothing natural about it. More golfers slice, and these are golfers who haven't taken lessons, by and large.

Yes but they have been contaminated by mags, videos, t.v. and other golfers. There's a least two part time instructors in every foursome out on the every course in the world.

'In to out' is a natural power swing motion on all inclined planes, in all sports.

[jamo]

. 'In to out' is a natural power swing motion on all inclined planes, in all sports.

Not really. Have you ever heard of a dead-push slugger in baseball?

[Patrick57]

Everyone gets confused with ball flight laws.

Its also not the theme I wanted to discuss, but I am enjoying it.

I align my club face to my intended line of flight, not to my target. Trying to line my club face to the target makes my hands shake and jerk. Sorry, I can't do it. So my 1° closed is relative to the line of flight. My intended line of flight is five yards right of centre 180 yds down the fairway. I don't know how many degrees this is and also don't work it out before I swing. I have honed my swing and tend to hit the ball on an 'in to out' path.

In other words I think we are more or less saying the same thing. This ball will start right of target and curve back towards the target. (Some people will say no Patrick, it sounds that bloomin' good I reckon it will be in the hole.)

Originally Posted by mvmac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Last point, the new laws diagram seems to display that a push fade does not happen. On the in to out plane there's the pull hook, push hook and straight push. A draw has also not been

displayed as a possibility.

Yes the diagram illustrates a push fade, that is the red line that starts right of the target and curves right, the lower right arrow.  A draw would be the solid blue line that starts right of the green line and curves left.

Yes my mistake, but I meant the 'in to out' swing path doesn't show the possibility of creating a push fade or a draw for that matter. Maybe I need to read more but the diagram does confuse me for these two possibilities.

EDIT.

I would describe the solid blue line as a more severe curve than a draw. I don't see a draw on the diagram.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by jamo

Not really. Have you ever heard of a dead-push slugger in baseball?

Sorry no. But push sounds like an in to out motion. Are most baseball players dead-push sluggers? Do they tend to right hook around the ball?

Every swing starts initially from the inside on the down swing, but if we get the right shoulder in front of the parallel path, or throw the club head out with the hands, then we can get outside the line before impact. And that's what I call unnatural. Not uncommon unfortunately!

[Precis1on]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Yes but they have been contaminated by mags, videos, t.v. and other golfers. There's a least two part time instructors in every foursome out on the every course in the world.

'In to out' is a natural power swing motion on all inclined planes, in all sports.

The power motion that is correct, but that's not the natural tendency of how people swing the club.

Even when I watched the club pros swinging correctly at the age of 7, I couldn't replicate what they were doing. Feel isn't real. With some self evaluation, I was able to figure out my problems, but fixing them felt unnatural. I think most pros and coaches understand the basic fundamental of swinging in to out. But if this was a natural movement for all of us, then there wouldn't be a need for all of these coaches and golf pros everywhere. I've talked and played with many people who still swing OTT even after many many lessons. When you FEEL that you generate power using your upper body, then it's a hard habit to break. Of course... it isn't real.