Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4905 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

OK so if what I am reading is correct - direction is approximately 85% of the clubface aim - where it is pointing. Clubface swing path??? determines curve.

So to hit a draw, you setup square, open the clubface a little, swing inside to outside or "to the right".

But if the "true" ball flight rules say that an open clubface curves the ball right, then what exactly is happening with the clubface when you swing inside to out? What exactly is making the ball curve??? From the True flight laws, it would seem the clubface is closed. So it's closed according to the path of the club swing path, but pointed to the right of the target??

I am confused as to the difference between an open face (which is supposed to make the ball go right), and an open face at impact which makes the ball curve right. What does the swing path do to the ball at impact and how is that different from the clubface being open or closed?

Thanks in advance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
There are some confusion out there on this subject. We have to differentiate between two relationships. A: Clubface relative to swing path B: Clubface relative to stance alignment To hit a draw (ball moving in the air from right to left), without regard to [i]where[/i] it is going, the clubface must be closed to the path. If you align square to the target and wants to hit a draw that ends up by the target, you have to hit a push-draw. A push-draw starts to the right of your alignment and curves back towards it. Since we know the clubface has to be closed to the path to hit a draw, and the clubface has to be open to your alignment, we can make out how to hit this shot. The clubface must be aimed to the right of your alignment to get the ball starting in that direction initially and the path must be to the right of the clubface, which is farther right of the alignment. Push = ball starts to the right of your stance alignment Pull = ball starts to the left of your stance alignment Square = ball starts parallell to your stance alignment Try reading the material that exist out there before asking more questions. It's all there, you just have to read and understand it. Not just the "85%" part, but the reason behind it. http://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws

Ogio Grom | Callaway X Hot Pro | Callaway X-Utility 3i | Mizuno MX-700 23º | Titleist Vokey SM 52.08, 58.12 | Mizuno MX-700 15º | Titleist 910 D2 9,5º | Scotty Cameron Newport 2 | Titleist Pro V1x and Taylormade Penta | Leupold GX-1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 2 months later...
Posted

i was shocked to hear yesterday that it is the club face angle that has 85 percent baring on the initial start of ball diection.Its a fact and been scientificly proved by trackman. So i went straight down the range to  see if it worked. wel im not a pro so obviously there was no massive change  but i will continue use the new flight law concept. jus one thing though. can anyone explain to me, why  then when in the past, i have had to play a hook around a tree, its worked .why has the old flight worked for all the pros. surely the old flight lws would never have worked but did and does,so has trackman made a mistake?


  • Administrator
Posted
Originally Posted by filco123

i was shocked to hear yesterday that it is the club face angle that has 85 percent baring on the initial start of ball diection.Its a fact and been scientificly proved by trackman. So i went straight down the range to  see if it worked. wel im not a pro so obviously there was no massive change  but i will continue use the new flight law concept. jus one thing though. can anyone explain to me, why  then when in the past, i have had to play a hook around a tree, its worked .why has the old flight worked for all the pros. surely the old flight lws would never have worked but did and does,so has trackman made a mistake?

Because your body knew that if the face was pointed at the tree it'd drill it, so your body didn't aim the face at impact where your brain was telling it to. The "old stuff" didn't "work" for anyone - that would defy physics - their bodies just knew to over-ride what their minds were saying in order to hit the shot.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Because your body knew that if the face was pointed at the tree it'd drill it, so your body didn't aim the face at impact where your brain was telling it to. The "old stuff" didn't "work" for anyone - that would defy physics - their bodies just knew to over-ride what their minds were saying in order to hit the shot.

I would not say their "body" over rode their mind. Maybe "sub conscious mind" over rode.

-Matt-

"does it still count as a hit fairway if it is the next one over"

DRIVER-Callaway FTiz__3 WOOD-Nike SQ Dymo 15__HYBRIDS-3,4,5 Adams__IRONS-6-PW Adams__WEDGES-50,55,60 Wilson Harmonized__PUTTER-Odyssey Dual Force Rossie II

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
Originally Posted by 14ledo81

I would not say their "body" over rode their mind. Maybe "sub conscious mind" over rode.

For the purposes of this discussion, same thing. Either way they delivered the face and path at impact in a way that varied from what they thought they were trying to do.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

ok so i subconciously changed my set up to what the new ball flight laws say? maybe thenwe should never geta pro to help teach us ,we can teach our selves subconciously by just trial and error. if this was known befor trackman came long why wasnt everyone taught it.ould it be that this i secret to golf that so many of us are chasing?


Posted

Not sure about these ball flight laws in terms of implementation. The old way worked for a lot of people and it was a relatively simple thing to do. The new way seems just "iffy" in terms of implementation and due to the path AND club face open/close - still make for a complex relationship.

If the swing path were perfect, then yeah, it's easy to just aim the club face, but the swing path rarely is (for normal people), so it's not so easy. IMO.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
Originally Posted by 808hacker

Not sure about these ball flight laws in terms of implementation. The old way worked for a lot of people and it was a relatively simple thing to do. The new way seems just "iffy" in terms of implementation and due to the path AND club face open/close - still make for a complex relationship.

If the swing path were perfect, then yeah, it's easy to just aim the club face, but the swing path rarely is (for normal people), so it's not so easy. IMO.

As Erik said:

Originally Posted by iacas

The "old stuff" didn't "work" for anyone - that would defy physics - their bodies just knew to over-ride what their minds were saying in order to hit the shot.

Just because you "believe" in something doesn't mean that's what actually happens.

You don't need a perfect swing path (whatever that is).  The face projects the ball and the ball curves away from the path. The easiest way to hit a fade is to aim the body left of the target, the easiest way to create an outward path is to have the weight forward, handle forward at impact with the handle raising.  You can even aim the body right if you need to put in all the draws pieces.  Don't need to swing left or right to change path.

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I'm not contesting the laws. All I am saying is IMO that it's not as simple to do as some people say and whatever the reality is, many people seem to be able to do things the old way. Now that we know the truth, I'd like to know many people are actually doing any better because of it? Has it transformed anyone's playing? Why isn't this the most major breakthrough in golf? In print it seems to be an incredible find.
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Oh I see so much of myself in some of these posts because I was that same person who doubted the new ballflight laws. Once I understood the new ball flight laws and the D Plane you quickly see that the old BFL's are completely nowhere close to correct.  From experience I can say without a doubt that the old BFL's will give you the shot shape.....but it will be nowhere close to the target unless you manipulate the shot either knowingly or unknowingly.

I looked at videos on youtube until completely understood.  D Plane is important to know because it explains basically why ball position is so important to executing shot shapes and then the New BFL's allow you to put a governor on the amount of draw or fade the shot has by changing the clubface/clubpath relationship.  I always explain draws and fades in relation to the target line because it is the easiest for me to explain and that is how most of the instruction that I've seen does it.  I have been on both sides of this arguement and Iacas got me straightened out and I haven't looked back since. Take the time to learn them and apply them along with the D Plane and it will definately pay off.


Posted

I thought you just aimed the face where you want the ball to wind up and just either open or close your stance. Isn't this the way Nicklaus did it?


  • Moderator
Posted
Originally Posted by onesome

I thought you just aimed the face where you want the ball to wind up and just either open or close your stance. Isn't this the way Nicklaus did it?

Read this

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

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
Originally Posted by 808hacker

All I am saying is IMO that it's not as simple to do as some people say and whatever the reality is, many people seem to be able to do things the old way. Now that we know the truth, I'd like to know many people are actually doing any better because of it? Has it transformed anyone's playing? Why isn't this the most major breakthrough in golf? In print it seems to be an incredible find.

To answer the two bold things:

1) NOBODY did things the old way. What they thought they did was not reality. It's that simple.

2) Yes. Lots of people.

Originally Posted by onesome

I thought you just aimed the face where you want the ball to wind up and just either open or close your stance. Isn't this the way Nicklaus did it?

No. Physics did not exist differently for Jack Nicklaus than everyone else.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Originally Posted by onesome

I thought you just aimed the face where you want the ball to wind up and just either open or close your stance. Isn't this the way Nicklaus did it?

That's how Nicklaus thought he did it. I know a pro who still uses the old train of thought "club path determines where the ball starts and face where it ends up". He is a good player and knows that it is no longer true but for him, when he plays, that's how he thinks of it.

 913 D2 8.5* with V2 66g stiff shaft

 910F 14.25 with Diamana stiff shaft

 i20 17, 20, and 23 hybrid 

 AP2 712 5-PW with Dynamic Gold S300 shaft

 54 and 60

 D66

 Tournament Edition 1600

 

 


Posted

Like I said, I am not contesting the laws. All I am saying is that just because it's a law and it makes sense (after studying and studying) doesn't mean it's easy to understand or apply. If this is so easy, why do we have to watch youtube videos and do all this when it's so easy? If it's transforming players, why isn't the info drawn out in an easy to understand way? Why not sell it since everyone else seems to sell the same tips over and over? Maybe....

1: People enjoy being the only ones that know and enjoy telling others that they are wrong and the usual answer - go figure it out yourself applies.

2: It's not that easy to apply or understand and maybe the old way although theoretically wrong - did work _seem_ to work - even though it's technically incorrect.

3: Some people want to make money - the same people that keep on saying golf is easy - or that all you have to do is this or that - and it will happen.

4: insert your own.

If all of this were so easy we would all be great players.

It SEEMS as if the answer is simple:

Aim club face for direction

Swing path determines curvature

Now try and do it consistently. Try it the old way or the new way.

Does it really matter which way you do it if it works for you?

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Here's a 40 minute explanation of the new ball flight laws. 40 minutes to explain this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepMzddHpas

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

This one is only 10 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR2zLVBSQm4&feature;=related

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4905 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.