Ball flight laws and misinformation

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by iacas

The point is simply this, and you, Harmonious, and all of the other "Nick Faldo won six majors using this 'bad' information" people can surely understand it: I think it's downright stupid to give people incorrect or at the best misleading information when good, correct information is so easy to say and understand. Bad information must be overcome, good information leads to instant and lasting growth and understanding*.

That's it. That's all I've ever said about the ball flight laws. Someone who believes what Nick Faldo says (just to use him as an example since he's in our ball flight laws video) and manages to produce impact somewhat similar to what Nick Faldo says they should try to do will nail the tree they're trying to curve the ball around just about every time.

It's a boring Friday night and my bball bracket is totally shot and, since you dragged me into this discussion :

Let's take poor old Nick stuck behind that bad old tree.  Let's assume the flag is directly in line with the center of the trunk, and Sir Nick is 20 yards away from that nasty trunk he wants to miss.  He points his iron at the flag (center of trunk).  He lines up, let's say, 5 degrees (5 feet in 20 yards +/-) out to the right to hit a hook. To ensure he hits a big hook he, purposely or not, swings a little more in-to-out than normal (I know I do in those situations), let's say another two degrees. Now his clubface is actually aimed two degrees to the right of the target. Also, since Nick is a professional golfer who always hits the ball before the bottom of his swing, at impact his club path is another couple of degrees out to the right (D-plane, right?). I won't add those two degrees to the clubface.

So Sir Nick takes his swing.  His path is 9 degrees to the right (5 plus 2 plus 2).  The clubface is 2 degrees to the right.  The ball takes off approximately 30% between those two, or about 4 degrees to the right of the target.  Using these assumptions, and if the ball flight data and my calculations are correct, when the ball passes the tree  it is over 4 feet from the center of the trunk. Unless Nick is playing in the redwoods (big trees) he misses the trunk easily.

I'm not saying that his shot will fly to the flag.  Of course it won't, it will hook further left. But the claim that he will hit the tree just about every time is just not accurate.

Now, back to Kentucky-Indiana.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Now his clubface is actually aimed two degrees to the right of the target.

I'm not saying that his shot will fly to the flag.  Of course it won't, it will hook further left. But the claim that he will hit the tree just about every time is just not accurate.

The claim, what Erik said highlighted below, is if a player does what Nick says to do, he is going to hit the tree.  Not talking about producing similar impact conditions to what Nick actually does but what Nick SAYS because Nick believes path controls start line and the ball ends up where the face was pointed at impact.  Like you pointed out, highlighted above, he's not doing what he thinks he is.  Path is not the major contributor to start line.

Someone who believes what Nick Faldo says (just to use him as an example since he's in our ball flight laws video) and manages to produce impact somewhat similar to what Nick Faldo says they should try to do will nail the tree they're trying to curve the ball around just about every time.

The point is, having information is powerful, otherwise you'll believe what this guy, below, is talking about.  I just typed in "golf what controls start line" and this is a video that showed up.  It's on start line, never mentions club face and is clear that he believes path is start line.  So if a player is hitting a pull hook, they should swing more out the the right?  Bad info

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by mvmac

The claim, what Erik said highlighted below, is if a player does what Nick says to do, he is going to hit the tree.  Not talking about producing similar impact conditions to what Nick actually does but what Nick SAYS because Nick believes path controls start line and the ball ends up where the face was pointed at impact.  Like you pointed out, highlighted above, he's not doing what he thinks he is.  Path is not the major contributor to start line.

OK, this time Nick aims  5 degrees right of that same blasted tree. He doesn't purposely swing further to the right. He still wants to hit the ball before the bottom of the swing, so the extra 2 degrees from the D-plane data still applies, right?  His club path is then 7 degrees right, his clubface is perhaps 0 degrees (I'm not sure whether the D-plane would also add a couple of degrees to the clubface). Anyway, 30% of the difference results in a ball flight 2 degrees right of target. At 20 yards, that is still 2 feet right of the center of the tree. A close call, but Nick still doesn't hit the trunk of that tree (and if the trunk is larger than 4 feet across, I imagine Sir NIck would aim more than 5 degrees right, just to be safe).

I don't dispute the path/clubface laws. Only showing that aiming the clubface at the tree and swinging out a considerable amount will not automatically hit that pesky tree.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

OK, this time Nick aims  5 degrees right of that same blasted tree. He doesn't purposely swing further to the right. He still wants to hit the ball before the bottom of the swing, so the extra 2 degrees from the D-plane data still applies, right?  His club path is then 7 degrees right, his clubface is perhaps 0 degrees (I'm not sure whether the D-plane would also add a couple of degrees to the clubface). Anyway, 30% of the difference results in a ball flight 2 degrees right of target. At 20 yards, that is still 2 feet right of the center of the tree. A close call, but Nick still doesn't hit the trunk of that tree (and if the trunk is larger than 4 feet across, I imagine Sir NIck would aim more than 5 degrees right, just to be safe).

I don't dispute the path/clubface laws. Only showing that aiming the clubface at the tree and swinging out a considerable amount will not automatically hit that pesky tree.

Ok, when you mention aiming 5 degrees right, is that the clubface or the body?

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Awful video. And he's Justin Rose's instructor! Scary.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Ok, when you mention aiming 5 degrees right, is that the clubface or the body?

Body (Swingpath) is 5 degrees right.  Clubface stills aims at the target, which is still behind the center of the tree trunk.

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Awful video. And he's Justin Rose's instructor! Scary.

Rose works with Sean Foley.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Rose works with Sean Foley.

I stand corrected. Rose used to work with Rick.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

So Sir Nick takes his swing.  His path is 9 degrees to the right (5 plus 2 plus 2).  The clubface is 2 degrees to the right.  The ball takes off approximately 30% between those two, or about 4 degrees to the right of the target.  Using these assumptions, and if the ball flight data and my calculations are correct, when the ball passes the tree  it is over 4 feet from the center of the trunk. Unless Nick is playing in the redwoods (big trees) he misses the trunk easily.

Few problems with that:

1) 30% is too high. If he's curving the ball around a tree he's probably in the rough, which will reduce the percentage that path contributes quite a bit. You get up to the 85/15 or even 90/10 in the rough. Additionally, it's still only about 20% with a 6-iron, the 30% is with a 9-iron, and it's unlikely we're drawing a 9I around a tree 20 yards away.

2) You have him 20 yards from a tree, but you have him only missing the trunk. I haven't seen many trees with just a trunk and not leaves, branches, etc. I know of plenty of trees that are eight feet wide or wider. The goal is to miss the tree , not just miss the tree trunk .

3) Even in your example, this fictitious golfer is not doing what he says - he's arriving at impact with a face and path 2° farther right.

4) A face that's +2° and a path that's +9° is not a playbable draw either (as you noted). It'll miss left unless the rough prevents even a moderate amount of sidespin from hitting the ball (irrelevant, though, since the golfer hitting the ball +2° right has hit the tree anyway).

What should this fictitious golfer really do? Face +5° perhaps, path (not swing direction, path) +9-12° or so (will vary slightly depending on how thick the rough is - he might need +12° if the rough is going to reduce sidespin a good bit).

Basically, this: the golfer has to miss the tree, so he needs to aim the face at the very edge of the tree knowing the path isn't going to add much more to it.

Longer response is hidden in the spoiler above, but frankly, I don't understand your persistence on this. Again, it takes two (or more) to have a back and forth. We all live with the same laws of physics, and if Nick Faldo does something differently than what he says, then that's a problem in my opinion, and I don't understand continually arguing that what he says is fine. It's not - it's bad information, and an impediment to learning:

Originally Posted by iacas

The point is simply this, and you, Harmonious, and all of the other "Nick Faldo won six majors using this 'bad' information" people can surely understand it: I think it's downright stupid to give people incorrect or at the best misleading information when good, correct information is so easy to say and understand. Bad information must be overcome, good information leads to instant and lasting growth and understanding*.

[Harmonious]

Did you really think that Sir Nick would aim into the tree, rather than 5 degrees from the edge of the tree?  You really don't give him any credit at all. I used the trunk for simplicity's sake, of course if it were a bushy tree I would have had Nick aim 5 degrees to the right of the edge of the tree. I didn't imagine anyone would have Nick aiming at the tree.

I laid out a reasonable scenario and tried to explain (with physics, as you say) why Sir Nick wouldn't hit that tree. If you (or anyone else) can show, using Trackman data, D-Plane data, or Euclidian geometry ,  how he would hit that tree with a swingpath +5 and a face +0 from the target line (the edge of the tree, or the tree trunk, or a point in space, whatever you want to choose) then great.

You're the one who called me out in this thread. If you don't want to continue the back-and-forth, that's fine.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Did you really think that Sir Nick would aim into the tree, rather than 5 degrees from the edge of the tree?  You really don't give him any credit at all. I used the trunk for simplicity's sake, of course if it were a bushy tree I would have had Nick aim 5 degrees to the right of the edge of the tree. I didn't imagine anyone would have Nick aiming at the tree.

Uhm, what? Nick says aim at the tree. So yes, I "really think that Sir Nick would aim into the tree" to the extent that he says to do it. He says point your clubface where you want the ball to finish. If the flag is behind the tree, then you're "aiming" at the tree. Yes. Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I laid out a reasonable scenario and tried to explain (with physics, as you say) why Sir Nick wouldn't hit that tree. If you (or anyone else) can show, using Trackman data, D-Plane data, or Euclidian geometry,  how he would hit that tree with a swingpath +5 and a face +0 from the target line (the edge of the tree, or the tree trunk, or a point in space, whatever you want to choose) then great.

The target is not the edge of the tree. The target is the flag (or the green). But that's not at all what he's always telling people to do, and you've changed the math. Earlier you had him setting up to point the clubface directly at the trunk, then making it +2 at impact. Now you're making the target "the edge of the tree."

Again: good information trumps bad information. Period.

[sean_miller]

I think discussing the incompetence of Nick Faldo in this particular thread about Luke Donald video is doing both Donald and his fans (and possibly Mizuno?) a disservice. Maybe if somebody who knows a guy who knows a guy over at Mizuno could send them a friendly critique, perhaps they could edit in a blurb about clubface angle at impact to illustrate what Luke does start to finish, and how his club face angle at impact (i.e. impact being the most important part of the process) differs from his club face angle at address. It might do everyone a favour.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by iacas

Uhm, what? Nick says aim at the tree. So yes, I "really think that Sir Nick would aim into the tree" to the extent that he says to do it. He says point your clubface where you want the ball to finish. If the flag is behind the tree, then you're "aiming" at the tree. Yes. Absolutely.

The target is not the edge of the tree. The target is the flag (or the green). But that's not at all what he's always telling people to do, and you've changed the math. Earlier you had him setting up to point the clubface directly at the trunk, then making it +2 at impact. Now you're making the target "the edge of the tree."

Again: good information trumps bad information. Period.

Whatever, Erik. If you don't want to address the hypothetical situation I posed, fine. I explained the extra 2 degrees, but whatever.  Suit yourself.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Whatever, Erik. If you don't want to address the hypothetical situation I posed, fine. I explained the extra 2 degrees, but whatever.  Suit yourself.

I feel as though I did discuss the "hypothetical" already. If you feel differently tell me what else I needed to address. It's still not what Nick Faldo says to do. Even your hypothetical in which he doesn't do what he says he does (bad or misleading information) has incorrect math (the 30%) and still has him hitting the tree (but missing a hypothetical "trunk"). So what more could you want to discuss about it?

If your ball has any curve at all, if the clubface is pointed at the target at impact the ball will never finish at the target.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think discussing the incompetence of Nick Faldo in this particular thread about Luke Donald video is doing both Donald and his fans (and possibly Mizuno?) a disservice.

The title of the thread indicates that this isn't just about Luke Donald. It was just started with his video.

Good information trumps bad information.

[VolkerDaum]

I have read this post with interest and was quite surprised to read about the ball flight laws, as they have never been explained to me. I have learned to draw a ball from my pro and I think I have been using the old laws. He tell me to swing from out to in, a path away from the target and to have my face closed to this path at impact. It works but occasionally I do hit a quick hook when I overdo the face closing. My feet are however relatively square to the target (1-2° closed) and my club head path creates the in to out direction of flight. I would guess that my path is about +5° and that my face is less than -4° relative to the path. As I say, my ball starts right of target and returns to teh target with these conditions.

I am having great difficulty understanding the comments from DG below.

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

Exactly which is why you see people aim way right to curve into the target when setting up based on the old ball flight laws.

With the proper setup based on the new proper ball flight laws, you can setup in line with the target and hit a draw with an open face that starts right and curves into the target.

If you can hit a draw with an open club face, which I doubt, surely DG is making a weak argument for " the new proper ball flight laws "

[Zeph]

If you can hit a draw with an open club face, which I doubt, surely DG is making a weak argument for " the new proper ball flight laws "

You can hit a draw with a clubface that is open to the body alignment , but never with a clubface that is open to the swing path . The problem in discussions like these is that people mix together body alignment and swing path. Aligning square does not mean your swing path is square. Exactly where you aim to hit a draw (ball moving right to left) depends on where your swing path is going. If you're in the extreme end with a +10 swing path, you could even align left of the flag and hit a draw that lands by it. It's not about making an "argument for the new ball flight laws". They are a result of the laws of physics. We shouldn't call them "new" since they've always existed and always will. At least in this universe. Read this article: http://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Zeph

You can hit a draw with a clubface that is open to the body alignment, but never with a clubface that is open to the swing path.

The problem in discussions like these is that people mix together body alignment and swing path. Aligning square does not mean your swing path is square. Exactly where you aim to hit a draw (ball moving right to left) depends on where your swing path is going. If you're in the extreme end with a +10 swing path, you could even align left of the flag and hit a draw that lands by it.

See Freddy Couples.  His entire body is aligned left, he drops the club to the inside when he initiates the downswing, and hits a draw that starts right of the target and works back to the left.  His body is open; his clubface is "open" both to the target line and to his body, but it is "closed" relative to the swingpath.

[xmanhockey7]

I don't care what the machine says as long as I shoot low scores. That said I can't wait to work with the Trackman system over the summer.