• Announcements

    • iacas

      Introducing TST "Clubs!"   08/28/2017

      No, we're not getting into the equipment business, but we do have "clubs" here on TST now. Groups. Check them out here:
Sign in to follow this  
Patrick57

Are most amateur golfers being mislead on how to swing?

Recommended Posts



Originally Posted by mdl

Just wow.  How many different irrefutable arguments that prove what you're saying is wrong can you ignore with continuing assertions that your'e right.



Millions of people still believe God exists despite no evidence whatsoever, so it is hardly surprising there are 1000s of Patrick57s floating around. At the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe based on what they've been told to believe by others, instead of doing the research themselves or heeding the advice of smarter people that have done the research for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

The science is there to help you diagnose what's going wrong in your swing. If you practice with a Trackman (or similar), and understand ball flight laws and understand the numbers you are seeing, you will understand where your swing is going wrong... yes! BY SCIENCE!

But to fix it, it is still all in the proper feel (or feel for positions), and the proper repetitions that you put in. Before you can understand what you need to be feeling, you need to understand what is incorrect about your ball flight and how you are creating it, which yes, science and Trackman are currently the most accurate measurement of what you're doing to the ball.

I don't think anyone on the forum is saying that feel is irrelevant to the swing (unlike you, who are essentially saying that science is irrelevant to the swing). Science is there to help us track our issues, monitor our path, face angle, and swing speeds. Feel, is how we place ourselves in the most optimal swing position(s) to give us the best return from science.

The face in relationship to the path determines how our ball will fly in the air, but the face alone (85%ish) determines where the ball will start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is highly educational, though not in the way the OP intended...

I am wondering if the pages on the site with info about the ball flight laws have been stickied somewhere? And if not, what are the best ones to read. Sounds like some really interesting information, that might help me with any potential ball flight issues that I have in the upcoming year. Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by Anjew

I am wondering if the pages on the site with info about the ball flight laws have been stickied somewhere? And if not, what are the best ones to read. Sounds like some really interesting information, that might help me with any potential ball flight issues that I have in the upcoming year. Thanks in advance.



http://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws

http://thesandtrap.com/t/53958/why-understanding-the-ball-flight-laws-is-important

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Millions of people still believe God exists despite no evidence whatsoever, so it is hardly surprising there are 1000s of Patrick57s floating around.



More like people disbelieve God exists in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but yeah, point taken (cf. http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission not to thread-jack here Pharaoh, but since you opened the can of worms.. ).

I'm finding it odd how ironic the whole thing is.  It's as if, because golf is so difficult and generally poorly understood, people are more dogmatic about mis-information.  I'd think if I sucked at something and knew it was hard, I'd be really eager to hear good evidence for what was going on and less apt to drink whatever kool-aid the driving range pro of the month served me that day.  But it seems like the opposite happens.  People just grab on to whatever whim or fancy blows their way, and it just happened to be stuff like the old ball flight laws that came along that day.

I also find the argument that knowing the ball flight laws isn't useful for practical play hillarious.  Just yesterday I was at the range and had my selection of a cornucopia of shot shapes at my command simply because I knew I could just alter my aim line and face angle at address and make my normal swing.  Compare that to the complicated process of trying to alter your release and downswing path with the old misinformation, and it's no wonder most people marvel at anyone who can "work" the ball on command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Does understanding what happens in ridiculous levels of slow motion mean you can translate this into instructions which could help the golfer improve at what he is trying to do.

Absolutely yes.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

But don't tell me I should be telling my student to attempt to hit a ball with a 2° open club face along a 4° path.

Absolutely yes, but not by saying "2 degrees" or "4 degrees." I'm fairly certain you'll misunderstand this, but you absolutely should be teaching people to swing the club with those numbers... but without using the numbers. You can not hit a draw that finishes at the target by swinging "out" at the ball and pointing the clubface AT the target.

BTW, the Homer Simpson comment made my week , maybe my month!!! Thanks for that!

P.S. No more posts on religion or God in this thread. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by saevel25

Actually Bobby Jones copied two golfers of his time that he idiolized, so really his swing wasn't something that just came to him, its something he worked at. Do we all have interesting swings, unique to us, yes, no swing is the same. But all the swings have certain tendencies that are similar. Weight forward at impact, steady head, flat left wrist (wrist ahead of ball) at impact..

As for the ball flight laws,

http://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/ballflight.php

http://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/slice.php

Look at the video with the putter, there is no difference between the putter and the other golf clubs with regards in how the ball interacts with the clubface. Its just on a smaller scale. If you keep the face angle constant to the swing path, the ball will go about 80-90% in the direction of the clubface, not the swing path. The pro's might have thought they were right, but what they had was countless hours of practice and muscle memory. They knew how to curve the ball and how much they wanted to curve it, so i doubt they really set up with the clubface pointing at there target. It was probably somewere left of it, or there body adjusted for it in the swing, and they thought the set up to results were correlated. Its more likely they just knew how to curve and went more on instinct. You can't cheat physics, period, its fact, laws, documented, scientific proof.

We all learn something from our peers, and yes Bobby Jones was no different. Having a natural swing does mean you don't have to practice and hone it. 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. Weight transfering towards the target at impact sits better with me.

TigerWoodsImpactConditions.jpg

The ball flight law conversation has been covered and I have I suggest you go back to read my comments on this, unless you have something new to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by iacas

P.S. No more posts on religion or God in this thread. Period.


Ha.  I almost took the bait after that link was posted, but thought better of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by mdl

Ha.  I almost took the bait after that link was posted, but thought better of it.



yeah, me too.  i read back in the thread a bit to discover the god angle only came up recently.  i thought this whole thread got jacked, but i see its just the persistence of a very ignorant Patrick_57.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by iacas

BTW, the Homer Simpson comment made my week, maybe my month!!! Thanks for that!

Yes you should place an add on the site...

Having Problems Sleeping?

Buy the Best Cure Known to Man!

Try reading more than half a page of

"The Golfing Machine"

by

Homer Kelley

Originally Posted by iacas

Absolutely yes, but not by saying "2 degrees" or "4 degrees." I'm fairly certain you'll misunderstand this, but you absolutely should be teaching people to swing the club with those numbers... but without using the numbers. You can not hit a draw that finishes at the target by swinging "out" at the ball and pointing the clubface AT the target.

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.

P.S. I did find your FO swing... Tidy, loved your exaggerated finish with your right shoulder turned nicely to the target. A bit too posy for me though.  LoL

Originally Posted by iacas

P.S. No more posts on religion or God in this thread. Period.


Religion?

God?

Not me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.



Dry your eyes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by ejimsmith

yeah, me too.  i read back in the thread a bit to discover the god angle only came up recently.  i thought this whole thread got jacked, but i see its just the persistence of a very ignorant Patrick_57.

I am very pleased to meet you too.

Very ignorant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Quote:

Originally Posted by ejimsmith View Post

yeah, me too.  i read back in the thread a bit to discover the god angle only came up recently.  i thought this whole thread got jacked, but i see its just the persistence of a very ignorant Patrick_57.

I am very pleased to meet you too.

Very ignorant?

Now you're calling people ignorant? There's no reason for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Millions of people still believe God exists despite no evidence whatsoever, so it is hardly surprising there are 1000s of Patrick57s floating around. At the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe based on what they've been told to believe by others, instead of doing the research themselves or heeding the advice of smarter people that have done the research for them.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by walk18

Now you're calling people ignorant? There's no reason for that.


Didn't you notice the question mark? I'll expand on what I meant by the original sentence.

Can you elaborate on why you described me as very ignorant?

P.S. Look at your post,  'Now you're calling people ignorant', isn't a question, so why have you put a ? at the end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Patrick57

Yes you should place an add on the site...

...

I like to keep it simple and the old laws - I take it these new laws are only recent ...



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this