Oostie's Albatross vs. Bubba's Winner

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

The ball doesn't suddenly change spin mid-flight. The ball was always rising, and always drawing. His description makes the shot sound more difficult only if you believe he actually hit a ball that started low and straight, then rose suddenly and started hooking.

I'm sure you have some opinion contrary, but I respectfully disagree with the implication of your statement, if not the exact language.

The forces acting on the ball can have varying impact on ball flight at different times during it's trajectory.  A ball hit extremely hard on a certain starting path will maintain that initial flight path due to the strength of that initial force, which will nullify the effect of competing forces.  The ball will begin to slow down due to the effect of wind drag, and the other competing forces (i.e. spin) will be able to influence ball flight more.  So it's perfectly reasonable that a ball hit extremely hard on a 10* launch angle with extremely high backspin and hook-spin will stay low to the ground for the first third of its trajectory, then as air resistance slows down the ball speed, the effect of the backspin will cause lift, while the sidespin will cause hook.  It's always spinning at the same rate, and it is always moving up and to the right, but the severity of the climb and hook will change several times during the flightpath.  As the spin lessens towards the end of flight, for example, the ball will straighten out, then drop out of the sky.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

And spin certainly does change mid-flight - it decreases the farther you are from impact.  Maybe what you're trying to say is the *trajectory* doesn't change mid-flight, but that's not true either. We all know fades and draws can start straight but then turn as the speed of the ball through the air decreases, resulting in the sidespin then having a greater effect.

I think you know that I know spin decreases during a shot. That's obvious to everyone isn't it?

A ball hit with a non-horizontal spin axis is always curving, just as a putt on a slope is always breaking. Just because you can't notice it curving doesn't mean it's not curving. Initial ball speed hides the curve but it's not traveling on a straight line.

Originally Posted by k-troop

A ball hit extremely hard on a certain starting path will maintain that initial flight path due to the strength of that initial force, which will nullify the effect of competing forces.

See the above. It's wrong. The ball will begin curving immediately. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Yes, I'm being a bit anal about it, but I reject the description of the shot because it makes the shot sound "magical" - everyone hitting that shot would produce a similar ball flight. Bubba didn't hit the shot straight and low, then magically make it both climb and hook.

He hit a huge hook with a wedge. That's how they fly, especially at his swing speed.

[Zeph]

I'm very confused.  Who else "hit the same shot Bubba did"?  From 150 yards, 15 feet off of the ground for the first 50 yards to stay under a tree, then climbing in the air, turning right 40 yards, and landing softly on a severely sloping green and stopping 10 feet below the hole.

The ball flight depends on launch angle, spin axis and spin rate. You can't hit balls that magically moves barely off the ground for 1/3 of the flight and then suddenly takes off up and to the right. Bubba plays golf with the same laws of physics as anyone else. His clubface was probably a bit shut at impact too, which will launch the ball lower. I've seen a few golf tournaments on TV and it's not a shot I haven't seen before.

[brocks]

A ball hit extremely hard on a certain starting path will maintain that initial flight path due to the strength of that initial force, which will nullify the effect of competing forces.  The ball will begin to slow down due to the effect of wind drag, and the other competing forces (i.e. spin) will be able to influence ball flight more.  So it's perfectly reasonable that a ball hit extremely hard on a 10* launch angle with extremely high backspin and hook-spin will stay low to the ground for the first third of its trajectory, then as air resistance slows down the ball speed, the effect of the backspin will cause lift, while the sidespin will cause hook.

Think about what you are saying. Slowing down is not going to increase the lift. And there is air resistance to the spin, too, so the ball will spin more slowly the longer it's in the air. The best thing you can hope for is the illusion that it is rising faster because the forward speed is decreasing more rapidly than the upward speed.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

See the above. It's wrong. The ball will begin curving immediately. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Yes, I'm being a bit anal about it, but I reject the description of the shot because it makes the shot sound "magical" - everyone hitting that shot would produce a similar ball flight. Bubba didn't hit the shot straight and low, then magically make it both climb and hook.

He hit a huge hook with a wedge. That's how they fly, especially at his swing speed.

My post clearly says that it's always climbing, and always hooking, but that the rates of directional change will increase as the ballspeed decreases, until the spin begins to fizzle out.  So while the ball isn't "straight" during the first 50 yards, it is totally possible and consistent with the laws of physics to hit a shot that is much "straighter" for the first 50 yards than the second 50.

Originally Posted by k-troop

I'm sure you have some opinion contrary, but I respectfully disagree with the implication of your statement, if not the exact language.

The forces acting on the ball can have varying impact on ball flight at different times during it's trajectory.  A ball hit extremely hard on a certain starting path will maintain that initial flight path due to the strength of that initial force, which will nullify the effect of competing forces.  The ball will begin to slow down due to the effect of wind drag, and the other competing forces (i.e. spin) will be able to influence ball flight more.  So it's perfectly reasonable that a ball hit extremely hard on a 10* launch angle with extremely high backspin and hook-spin will stay low to the ground for the first third of its trajectory, then as air resistance slows down the ball speed, the effect of the backspin will cause lift, while the sidespin will cause hook.  It's always spinning at the same rate, and it is always moving up and to the right, but the severity of the climb and hook will change several times during the flightpath.  As the spin lessens towards the end of flight, for example, the ball will straighten out, then drop out of the sky.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by brocks

Think about what you are saying. Slowing down is not going to increase the lift. And there is air resistance to the spin, too, so the ball will spin more slowly the longer it's in the air.

The best thing you can hope for is the illusion that it is rising faster because the forward speed is decreasing more rapidly than the upward speed.

Slowing down won't increase the lift.  The initial directional force will lose "force" as the ballspeed decreases, and the spin will then have a greater effect on flightpath.  All forces are acting on the ball at all times, but the greater force will win.  For the first part of the flightpath, the "greater" force is the initial directional force (which, as we know, is primarly dictated by face angle).

If you graph out what you're saying, the curve that you depict will show that you agree with me.  It's not an illusion--it is, in fact, rising at a greater rate (relative to run) in the middle of the flightpath.

[brocks]

All forces are acting on the ball at all times

I think this is where you're going wrong. The ball is a ballistic object. The only forces on it in flight are gravity and drag (which can vary in direction due to spin). Once it leaves the clubhead, it has all the lift and forward velocity it will ever have, and they both start decreasing from that point.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by brocks

I think this is where you're going wrong. The ball is a ballistic object. The only forces on it in flight are gravity and drag. Once it leaves the clubhead, it has all the lift and forward velocity it will ever have, and they both start decreasing from that point.

If that were true, no golf ball could ever curve sideways in flight.  The fact is that the principle of "lift" exists because the pressure can be different on different sides of the same object traveling through a fluid, depending on the surface characteristics of the object or other things (such as spin).  These are "forces" just like initial launch angle/speed (initial directional force), drag, and gravity.

[brocks]

If that were true, no golf ball could ever curve sideways in flight.  The fact is that the principle of "lift" exists because the pressure can be different on different sides of the same object traveling through a fluid, depending on the surface characteristics of the object or other things (such as spin).  These are "forces" just like initial launch angle/speed (initial directional force), drag, and gravity.

I was clarifying my post while you posted this. Drag can be from any direction, according to how the ball is spinning. The dimples in the ball cause friction against the air, which can make the ball move in any direction -- up, down, or sideways --- from its nominal path. But the ball is spinning at its maximum rate when it leaves the clubhead. From that moment on, the spin decreases, and so the deviation from the nominal ballistic parabola decreases. It will never have more vertical speed, or sideways speed, than it does when it first leaves the clubhead.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by brocks

I was clarifying my post while you posted this. Drag can be from any direction, according to how the ball is spinning. The dimples in the ball cause friction against the air, which can make the ball move in any direction -- up, down, or sideways --- from its nominal path.

But the ball is spinning at its maximum rate when it leaves the clubhead. From that moment on, the spin decreases, and so the deviation from the nominal ballistic parabola decreases. It will never have more vertical speed, or sideways speed, than it does when it first leaves the clubhead.

Well, the physics is sound.  I haven't graphed out an equation, so I don't know specifically what the spin rate (or initial ballspeed) would have to be in order to generate an L which would exceed 9.8m/s^2, but I promise you that the laws of physics allow for it.  And what I've been seeing with my eyes for the last 25 years playing golf, watching golf on television, and seeing ShotTracker confirms my thinking on this--at least to me.  It is possible that the spin rate would have to be something ridiculous like 15,000RPM, in order to create a coefficient of lift that overcomes gravity (although it wouldn't have to completely overcome gravity, since the ball already has enough vertical directional force to overcome gravity due to the IDF, so you'd just have to bend it a bit), and what has appeared to me all of these years to be the effect of "lift" is really some grand illusion.

Everyone has seen this effect.  You've tried to hit a knockdown shot into the wind, and it starts low, but you hit it too hard and the spin causes it to "balloon" into the wind.  The ball will keep climbing into the wind, eventually traveling almost straight up, and then backwards.  This is an extreme version of lift overcoming the IDF, becuase the wind resistance is amplified by the headwind, so less actual spin rate is required to achieve the same effect.

[brocks]

This article http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/golf.html explains it well enough that I didn't get completely lost: "The Magnus force can be thought of as due to the relative drag on the air on the top and bottom portions of the golf ball: the top portion is moving slower relative to the air around it, so there is less drag on the air that goes over the ball. The boundary layer is relatively thin, and air in the not-too-near region moves rapidly relative to the ball. The bottom portion moves fast relative to the air around it; there is more drag on the air passing by the bottom, and the boundary (turbulent) layer is relatively thick; air in the not-too-near region moves more slowly relative to the ball. The Bernoulli force produces lift. (Alternatively, one could say that "the flow lines past the ball are displaced down, so the ball is pushed up.")" In the case you mentioned, the headwind quickly kills the forward speed, while having much less effect on the upward velocity and lift, so the ball appears to go straight up. But if there were no wind, the ball would go just as high, but it wouldn't look like it, because it's going away from you so fast that you don't have to look up to see it.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

My post clearly says that it's always climbing, and always hooking, but that the rates of directional change will increase as the ballspeed decreases, until the spin begins to fizzle out.  So while the ball isn't "straight" during the first 50 yards, it is totally possible and consistent with the laws of physics to hit a shot that is much "straighter" for the first 50 yards than the second 50.

The ball is always curving. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. Reference my putt example: speed plays a role, but the ball will actually curve more over the same period of time when it's traveling faster than when it's traveling slower. Just like with a putt.

Part of why you don't see it? The same change of direction (say, five degrees) when the path is directly away from you (call it 0°) is less noticeable than the same 5° delta when the ball is moving 15° from "straight away" from you because we track curvature as left/right.

Anyway, the physics of hitting a curved shot aren't really the topic here, so let's put a cap on all of that.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by eich41

Which was more impressive?

Obviously the double eagle is the rarest thing in golf, and his shot was incredible.

However, given the setting, the pressure, and circumstances, I'm leaning towards Bubba's shot.  To be able to drop it to 10 feet from that lie with that much pressure is amazing.

What are your thoughts?

Even Oosthuizen would admit that the double eagle was just dumb luck - aim, grip and rip, while Bubba's shot was intended.  Perhaps the result was better than he expected, but none the less it was a planned shot.

[Grndslmhttr3]

I've pulled off the type of shot Bubba hit -  intentionally, too - and it was a couple years ago when I was considerably worse than I am now. However, I've tried quite a few other times with less-than-desirable results.

That's not to take away from Bubba's shot, though. When I saw it live I was pretty excited that he executed it so well. Out of Oosthuizen's and Bubba's shots, I would say Bubba's, solely because of the circumstances. Had it been during any other moment of the tournament, I probably would have reacted much differently, but it becomes a lot more special when it's an incredibly clutch shot to win The Masters.

I can't really pick one over the other, though. Both were extremely important in achieving the final result of the tournament. Had Oosthuizen not made his albatross, there would not have been a playoff. Had Bubba not executed his shot as well as he did, there may have been a different result of the playoff.

[rossvanwyk]

Both were amazing shots to be honest. I don't understand where the degrees of luck come in. We could say that for so many golf shots. What about the 2 hole in ones? Luck?

Obviously with that sunday pin position guys are purposefully aiming for that bank to bring it back down to the cup. That's not to say they are genuinely trying to hole out from the tee, but that is kinda the intention.

Louis knew the pin position and there's no other way to really get the ball down there with the pin tucked away as it is. And he hit literally the perfect shot to do so. Kuchar's shot on 15. Luck? Or a great shot? He was trying to land it short of the pin and roll it up? Where it ended up we were all saying amazing shot. If it went it we'd have been saying luck. It's the same thing to me. Luck is a tricky old wench to work out. But Louis was intentionally playing to those contours of the green and pulled it off. Just as intentionally as Bubba was playing his on 10th. So I think it's a little unfair to differentiate them in terms of luck.

Both were epic epic shots.

[jshots]

Woa I don't even know how people are comparing the two. Okay a double eagle is good... but it's not something you can repeat. Louis hit a good solid shot and it happened to go in. I think other people probably hit shots just as good on that hole, theirs just didn't go in. That doesn't really sound right... but I just feel there is more luck involved.... think of the difference... I feel like with enough luck I could even get a double eagle on that hole, its just a straight iron shot that you hit to a very exact spot. On the other hand there is no way in hell that I could do what Bubba did with a thousand golf balls.... I guess maybe that means I should practice that shot, but in my experience I would have a lot of trouble with that shot.

all of this has really already been said but that is what I think.

Oh.. and one other minor detail.... OOSTHUIZENS SHOT WAS NOT ON THE SECOND PLAYOFF HOLE!

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by jshots

Woa I don't even know how people are comparing the two. Okay a double eagle is good... but it's not something you can repeat. Louis hit a good solid shot and it happened to go in. I think other people probably hit shots just as good on that hole, theirs just didn't go in. That doesn't really sound right... but I just feel there is more luck involved.... think of the difference... I feel like with enough luck I could even get a double eagle on that hole, its just a straight iron shot that you hit to a very exact spot. On the other hand there is no way in hell that I could do what Bubba did with a thousand golf balls.... I guess maybe that means I should practice that shot, but in my experience I would have a lot of trouble with that shot.

all of this has really already been said but that is what I think.

Oh.. and one other minor detail.... OOSTHUIZENS SHOT WAS NOT ON THE SECOND PLAYOFF HOLE!

The question could be which shot is more repeatable and I say it's Bubba's not Louie's. The chances of a pro golfer hitting the controlled hook that Bubba hit are better than hitting Oostie's iron to that exact spot. Yes it was lucky but that was the shot he wanted to hit and he pulled it off. Of course this takes out the pressure factor but I think Oostie's shot was the better one.

[Topper]

Originally Posted by jamo

Impressive? Bubba's shot. Louis hit a fantastic shot, don't get me wrong, but most of that was luck. Bubba's shot was simply amazing.

+1!