D-Plane Too Complicated? Pick This Apart

[Adam Young]

Warning - this is a lengthy article. Basically (if you have the time), I wanted to start a discussion on the relevance of the new ball flight laws. I have written an article on it, before posting it to my blog I wanted to post it here to get some discussion going. Feel free to attack the article on intellectual terms.

D- Plane

There is a lot of furore about the ball flight laws. Instigators of this squabble are citing something called d-plane – supposedly the new holy grail of golf, and the thing that is going to lead everyone to scratch golfers in months (sarcasm present here). Proponents of d-plane are arguing that we have been teaching golf incorrectly for years, and that this new information is going to revolutionise golf. Whilst I am sure that golf teaching has not been a precise science in its evolution, I am not so certain that this new information is going to lead to much better golf than the old ‘incorrect’ information. It still remains a fact that the best coaches are getting better at doing the simple things. Unfortunately, there are probably a lot of coaches out there that are also getting better at making things more complex. Whilst it is a common pattern for many coaches and pupils to love this extra information, please be reminded of Einstein’s quote

“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.”

Whilst there are certain things that Einstein and I disagree on (I do think you can do the same thing over and over and expect a different result – within reason), he makes a massive point that is applicable here. Just because we have items such as trackman, which allow us to collect much more intricate detail, this does not make it any better for us. I love trackman personally; I think it is a great tool. But the information should be, and needs to be, relayed in a simple manner. This information will likely be the same as what we as coaches have taught before.

Whilst the information collected has now become greater, the ball flight laws remain the same.

· A club path moving more to the right causes the ball to start more to the right

· A club path moving more to the left causes the ball to start more to the left

· If the clubface is left or right of the path, the ball will curve in that direction

· The greater the difference between path and face, the greater the curve

· This applies both vertically and horizontally

The new things that have come out from trackman and D-plane are that

· With the same swing plane

o The more you hit the ball on the downward part of the swing, the more the club is moving to the right (hence path)

o The more you hit the ball on the upswing, the more the club is travelling to the left

· Clubface determines starting direction and overall direction much more than path.

· If you change one thing in the swing, other elements change also

What does this information mean? The last point is unimportant. As a teacher, we should already know this. It does change the saying “Hitting down on the ball more makes the ball fly higher”, or “swing more right to make the ball curve more left”, but as a player we will already know this. For points one and two, we could say, perhaps, that we should be a little more over plane with an iron and under plane with a driver to get the ball to be square at impact – but the differences would be small. If we were focusing too much on whether our club is 2 or 3 degrees above or below plane, we are obviously working on the wrong things. The third point is mainly important to see that clubface control is one of the most vital elements in terms of directional control. Also, if you are trying to curve the ball around a tree, try to swing much more right or left of it than you think.

Tour players throughout the ages have been able to get the ball in the hole without this knowledge. Perhaps an implicit subconscious understanding is all that is needed. I myself know that if I move the ball further back in my stance and punch down on it, the ball will start more to the right. This makes sense with the new trackman information, but as a player I didn’t need it. I just aimed left a little to allow for that fact. My recommendations for players are to explore variants of path and face, angle of attack and other ball flight laws through experimentation in practice. Try to find the easiest way for you to achieve the results desired, then let it be subconscious through practice, repetition and correct mental behaviors on the course.

My recommendations for coaches are to keep doing the research, keep improving the knowledge, and keep learning as much as you can about golf. But take all information with a pinch of salt, and be as skeptical as you can of anyone claiming to have ground breaking secrets and guru type knowledge. Your main tool in this armory is the ability to question something and actually look for flaws in its argument. Looking for, and finding a flaw, does not mean you have to completely disregard the knowledge. But it does allow you to use the knowledge wisely, and stops you going headlessly down a road that is largely unimportant. Take all the information you have, and try to give it to someone in the simplest manner that they can understand. Allow your student to explore variants, rather than confine them to a single way of doing something. A paradox of learning is that we can actually get better at doing what we want to do by trying it in ways that are very different from what we actually want to achieve.

Take home knowledge – golf can be endlessly complicated if we analyze it to the Nth degree. It can get to the point where we think we need to understand everything about impact mechanics to hit a straight shot, and that these vary with club to club, shot to shot. But the overall message is, understand a few simple ball-flight RULES (path, face, strike, angle of attack), work on experimenting with them in practice and then let it all happen as naturally as possible on the course.

My Ball flight rules

· Hit the ground after the golf ball

· Hit the middle of the face

· Work on varying the speed of the swing

· Swing the club more to the right or left to start the ball more in that direction.

· Get the clubface more left or right at impact to control the spin

More complicated rules

· Hit the ball with varying attack angles

· Vary the loft at impact

· Face angle, in terms of face plane tilt

[iacas]

You wanted someone to beat it up, so here goes.

It's foolish to say that if you understand the D-Plane and apply that knowledge towards helping students that you're making the game more complex.

I could easily argue you're making the game simpler by giving the golfer the proper instruction from the start rather than some sort of backwards instruction.

The fact that you used a quote from Einstein should have clued you in to the fact that he didn't mean what you thought he meant, given that he didn't just accept the truths of the world and did a LOT of ground-breaking science and math.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Whilst there are certain things that Einstein and I disagree on (I do think you can do the same thing over and over and expect a different result – within reason)

By definition you didn't do the "same" thing. Something was different in the scenario, either your actions, the state of things, or the environment.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

I love trackman personally; I think it is a great tool. But the information should be, and needs to be, relayed in a simple manner. This information will likely be the same as what we as coaches have taught before.

a) Who says instructors aren't relaying the relevant information in a simple manner?

b) The information is in many cases exactly the opposite of what coaches have taught before.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Whilst the information collected has now become greater, the ball flight laws remain the same.

·         A club path moving more to the right causes the ball to start more to the right

·         A club path moving more to the left causes the ball to start more to the left

·         If the clubface is left or right of the path, the ball will curve in that direction

·         The greater the difference between path and face, the greater the curve

·         This applies both vertically and horizontally

That's misleading and poorly worded. I'm fairly certain that, like all scientists, Einstein was meticulous with his wording.

The primary determinant of the ball's initial flight is the face angle (vertically and horizontally). Your wording is misleading.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

It does change the saying “Hitting down on the ball more makes the ball fly higher”, or “swing more right to make the ball curve more left”, but as a player we will already know this.

Is that a typo? With everything else the same hitting down more will increase spin loft but decrease launch angle, and peak height may or may not be higher (it will tend to be lower).

As a player, the "old ball flight laws" tell us that "swing more right" will make the ball start more to the right and that the ball will curve more, but will finish where the clubface is pointing. Those are wrong.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Also, if you are trying to curve the ball around a tree, try to swing much more right or left of it than you think.

Nah. That'll have too little an effect. You'll hit the tree.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Tour players throughout the ages have been able to get the ball in the hole without this knowledge.

So? Golf instructors aren't Tour players, and the average golfer doesn't have time to hit 1000 balls a day for his body to learn to over-ride their knowledge (what their brain is telling them).

The earth continued to revolve around the sun while we thought the earth was the center of the universe. New knowledge has its purpose, and that purpose comes out in the application of that knowledge.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Tour players throughout the ages have been able to get the ball in the hole without this knowledge. Perhaps an implicit subconscious understanding is all that is needed. I myself know that if I move the ball further back in my stance and punch down on it, the ball will start more to the right. This makes sense with the new trackman information, but as a player I didn’t need it. I just aimed left a little to allow for that fact.

It was more because your face was pointing farther right, not because of the path primarily. If the face was in the same spot you'd start the ball a TEENY bit right and then over-draw it, which would only be exaggerated by you aiming more left. Bad example.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

But take all information with a pinch of salt, and be as skeptical as you can of anyone claiming to have ground breaking secrets and guru type knowledge. Your main tool in this armory is the ability to question something and actually look for flaws in its argument.

What's the flaw in the facts that Trackman has exposed? Because at some point, after you've been skeptical, you accept the new information and move on.

I'm a perpetual cynic. But at some point scientists go from being skeptical to accepting something as a truth.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

But it does allow you to use the knowledge wisely, and stops you going headlessly down a road that is largely unimportant. Take all the information you have, and try to give it to someone in the simplest manner that they can understand.

The game is about controlling your golf ball. What could be more important than understanding why it flies the way it does?

I use this example all the time, but a golfer is hitting pull-slices. Using the ball flight lies, an instructor has him close the face. The problem is, his face is already pointing left of the target. Better to adjust the path to be more to the right, not adjust the face farther left.

The application of correct information is important.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Allow your student to explore variants, rather than confine them to a single way of doing something.

Are physics somehow different if the student "explores variants"?

You know the answer to that.

Obviously if the student needs to get his path from -8 to +2, HOW you accomplish that may involve lots of variations, different feels, etc. But the actual underlying information doesn't vary.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Take home knowledge – golf can be endlessly complicated if we analyze it to the Nth degree. It can get to the point where we think we need to understand everything about impact mechanics to hit a straight shot, and that these vary with club to club, shot to shot. But the overall message is, understand a few simple ball-flight RULES (path, face, strike, angle of attack), work on experimenting with them in practice and then let it all happen as naturally as possible on the course.

And when you're struggling, good luck, because you don't know what causes a hook or a slice.

The ball flight laws are not complex. EVERY golfer can understand them. The ball starts generally where your face is pointing and curves away from the path. That's it, and it's not complex to the Nth degree.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

My Ball flight rules

·         Swing the club more to the right or left to start the ball more in that direction.

Aiming the face farther right or left is a far more reliable way to do that (and is much simpler than precisely changing your path from swing to swing).

FWIW, I think the D-Plane takes about five minutes to understand if you "get" the ball flight laws in two dimensions. It's important for instructors to "get it" because it applies to every golf swing (with reasonably solid contact) anyone ever makes. Golfers just do well to understand the simple sentence I posted above, and aiming the FACE to miss the tree, not trying to "swing more around it." One will work better than the other, and it's the way explained by physics. Golfers don't need to understand the physics, but they need to know how to apply the knowledge. Given bad information, they have less chance of applying the knowledge and getting the right results.

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by iacas

I could easily argue you're making the game simpler by giving the golfer the proper instruction from the start rather than some sort of backwards instruction.

regarding clubface and path - i would tend to agree. the backspin/sidespin thing though - i dont see hwo this is detrimental. I think I prefer a more instinctive approach. I prefer to developp the skills of path control and face control and then let the subconscious work it all out - just like every good player has and will do. Knowing this stuff can make things worse as people start thinking they need to develop a different swing for every club, rather than working on some simpler rules.

Originally Posted by iacas

By definition you didn't do the "same" thing. Something was different in the scenario, either your actions, the state of things, or the environment.

I was by no means comparing myself to Einstein – certainly not that intelligent. I was just referring to a different article I had written where I was saying not to go crazy changing things all the time. You can go into a shot with the same philosophy as before and expect a different result, rather than trying to constantly fix every bad shot you hit with a different swing thought. Obviously something changed (although quantum physics allows opportunities for random things occurring – hence why Einstein hated it).

Originally Posted by iacas

a) Who says instructors aren't relaying the relevant information in a simple manner?

I have seen lots of instructors relay this new trackman info awfully. some which is way too complex, and some information that is plain wrong (trackman meistro)

Originally Posted by iacas

b) The information is in many cases exactly the opposite of what coaches have taught before.

What is opposite exactly?

Originally Posted by iacas

That's misleading and poorly worded. I'm fairly certain that, like all scientists, Einstein was meticulous with his wording.

is the statement not correct though. I know it can be misleading but it is correct, no? Could you help me with a different, less misleading wording.... maybe if I say at the start "although clubface is the biggest influence for starting direction, swinging more to the right or left will start the ball more in that direction.

Again - as things are not changed in isolation, a player that swings to the right more, by whatever means (aiming their body more right or changing path), will also drag the clubface angle to the right more. by saying 'swing more right' the clubace AND path are changed in most cases. And in a case where it doesnt, understanding the next rule will help avoid confusion. I am just trying to find something that is 'correct' and also works functionally (in a feel sense). rather than have to go through the whole rigmorole of explaining it more in depth. Maybe i would do that for a more experienced player, but by that point they have the subconscious skills necessary to have an implicit understanding of this.

as an example of this, I never knew the 'real ball flight laws' explicitly. I only knew these simple rules. Didnt do me or any other top player throughout history too much harm. Even a good explanation could be misleading - by saying the clubface is the main cause of where the ball starts, i have seen plenty of 'forumers' confused about trying to draw it left around a tree by having the clubface open to their body line at address. Whilst this can function - your path would have to be much further right, and by swinging further right youa re probably going to bring the face more right relative to it.

Originally Posted by iacas

The primary determinant of the ball's initial flight is the face angle (vertically and horizontally). Your wording is misleading.

Is that a typo? With everything else the same hitting down more will increase spin loft but decrease launch angle, and peak height may or may not be higher (it will tend to be lower).

I was referring to the trackman info that says that if you hit down on a ball more – the dynamic loft almost always decreases at the same angle with it – producing a LOWER flight rather than higher. Also – as you said, it will tend to be lower. Could you give me an instance where it would be higher? Maybe in a player with extreme amounts of speed? Do you have any trackman data?

Originally Posted by iacas

As a player, the "old ball flight laws" tell us that "swing more right" will make the ball start more to the right and that the ball will curve more, but will finish where the clubface is pointing. Those are wrong.

yeah, they are.

Originally Posted by iacas

Nah. That'll have too little an effect. You'll hit the tree.

yeah, poor wording here. I was referring to the fact that the clubface is going to have 80% of the influence on starting direction, so make sure you swing far enough right to allow for that. Poor wording - will try to rephrase.

Originally Posted by iacas

So? Golf instructors aren't Tour players, and the average golfer doesn't have time to hit 1000 balls a day for his body to learn to over-ride their knowledge (what their brain is telling them).

The earth continued to revolve around the sun while we thought the earth was the center of the universe. New knowledge has its purpose, and that purpose comes out in the application of that knowledge.

good point, I do agree that better information can help, i would just like to see a simpler version of the info. the old rules were better than nothing, worked for the old guys (myself included) in practice, even if they were wrong in theory. There was a reason that they worked well in practice - changes don't occur in isolation. the new rules, although better in theory, can make people worse in practice as they try to hit draws with open face and fades with closed faces, not really understanding it all. But then i guess that's down to who explains it and how well they explain it.

Originally Posted by iacas

It was more because your face was pointing farther right, not because of the path primarily. If the face was in the same spot you'd start the ball a TEENY bit right and then over-draw it, which would only be exaggerated by you aiming more left. Bad example.

the ball starts more right and then draws back - sometimes overhooking. Good example....poor wording. I will change it.

Originally Posted by iacas

What's the flaw in the facts that Trackman has exposed? Because at some point, after you've been skeptical, you accept the new information and move on.

I'm a perpetual cynic. But at some point scientists go from being skeptical to accepting something as a truth.

true. But i am questioning the value of the new ball flight laws here rather than taking them for granted. As a result of this debate/convo with you, we will both probably learn a lot (i am) on how the best way to go about making this info valuable to others. then i will stop being skeptical, but have a better way to explain them. That's my goal at the end of this.

Originally Posted by iacas

The game is about controlling your golf ball. What could be more important than consciously understanding why it flies the way it does?

i edited your last statement to show you what i think you meant. my answer is 'a subconscious understanding'. But i agree. In order to get there it can go through a conscious route, and for a lot of people with little time, it has to. Again, it's not that i think the new information is wrong, just that it is relayed overly complicated

Originally Posted by iacas

I use this example all the time, but a golfer is hitting pull-slices. Using the ball flight lies, an instructor has him close the face. The problem is, his face is already pointing left of the target. Better to adjust the path to be more to the right, not adjust the face farther left.

being in the teaching industry, i do agree in a way. But this player's face is open in relation to his path. if you move the path 10 degrees more right, in about 80-90% of cases the clubface will go with it the same amount. CHANGES ARE NOT MADE IN ISOLATION. this is where theory meets real world.

by closing his face, a player can learn to curve the ball more left (pull draw). by aiming his body more ot the right, he can start the ball more right and control the ball coming back in. All the while, the player is developing the feel for what a 'clubface closed to the path' feels like. This will transfer over when (and if) you decide to change the path. This is generally much easier a change to do mentally than change path first - and have players hitting push slices - then work on clubface (although there are times when i may do this).

Some players wont have the ability to chnage their path as quickly and efficiently as their clubface either. So if i get a slicer, i may choose to just change face and get them hitting LESS of a slice. closing the face 3 degrees will make the ball move 'less to the right'

Originally Posted by iacas

The application of correct information is important.

agreed

Originally Posted by iacas

Are physics somehow different if the student "explores variants"?

You know the answer to that.

Obviously if the student needs to get his path from -8 to +2, HOW you accomplish that may involve lots of variations, different feels, etc. But the actual underlying information doesn't vary.

no it doesnt - but in a one hour lesson i dont have the time to fully explain the d-plane and get them experiementing with clubface and path.

Originally Posted by iacas

The ball flight laws are not complex. EVERY golfer can understand them. The ball starts generally where your face is pointing and curves away from the path. That's it, and it's not complex to the Nth degree.

LOVE IT - thats how it should be explained.

Originally Posted by iacas

Aiming the face farther right or left is a far more reliable way to do that (and is much simpler than precisely changing your path from swing to swing).

agreed

Originally Posted by iacas

FWIW, I think the D-Plane takes about five minutes to understand if you "get" the ball flight laws in two dimensions. It's important for instructors to "get it" because it applies to every golf swing (with reasonably solid contact) anyone ever makes. Golfers just do well to understand the simple sentence I posted above, and aiming the FACE to miss the tree, not trying to "swing more around it." One will work better than the other, and it's the way explained by physics. Golfers don't need to understand the physics, but they need to know how to apply the knowledge. Given bad information, they have less chance of applying the knowledge and getting the right results.

yes - agreed again. Thanks for the discussion.

The sentence you described above is and should be enough for most golfers. again - my main point is that things don't change in isolation, and that the old ball flight laws are not the devil that they are made out to be.

Thanks for the info - get back to me on the other points if you have time

[BWChuck]

Originally Posted by Adam Young

"CHANGES ARE NOT MADE IN ISOLATION"

Really? Maybe you are only referring to the swing itself or are referring to low handicappers, but I feel many things can be changed independently, in particular, at address. Shaft lean, face angle, head and hip position, spine angle, tilt, and others; which I feel can all be tweeked independently and then produce much different results with the same swing.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

My Ball flight rules

·         Hit the ground after the golf ball

·         Hit the middle of the face

·         Work on varying the speed of the swing

·         Swing the club more to the right or left to start the ball more in that direction.

·         Get the clubface more left or right at impact to control the spin

More complicated rules

·         Hit the ball with varying attack angles

·         Vary the loft at impact

·         Face angle, in terms of face plane tilt

Hmmm.. I've rewritten this sentence five times over, because this is a bit confusing.  A lot of it just seems to be in the wrong category to me!  The items in your "more complicated rules" seems as if they could often be fixed with changes at address, which I think is a lot easier to grasp and mimic than changing swing angles, face angles during the swing, and swing speeds.  Once again, just a couple of thoughts from a beginner....

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by BWChuck

Really? Maybe you are only referring to the swing itself or are referring to low handicappers, but I feel many things can be changed independently, in particular, at address. Shaft lean, face angle, head and hip position, spine angle, tilt, and others; which I feel can all be tweeked independently and then produce much different results with the same swing.

Hmmm.. I've rewritten this sentence five times over, because this is a bit confusing.  A lot of it just seems to be in the wrong category to me!  The items in your "more complicated rules" seems as if they could often be fixed with changes at address, which I think is a lot easier to grasp and mimic than changing swing angles, face angles during the swing, and swing speeds.  Once again, just a couple of thoughts from a beginner....

I suppose i just made too general a statement. I too can change some things independantly, but from a teaching point of view it doesnt always work like that. not only is there a physical component to a change, but a mental. Sometimes, if you wanted a player to close the face - it would be easy to suggest closing it at the start - but in a lot of cases this then mentally affects the swing path - some people swing more right because they see the face aim left and dont want it going there too much - others (more commonly) will then swing more left - along the line of the clubface. Others, like myself, can separate the swing path and face much easier.

The trackman studies that I have done have shown that if you ask a player to swing more right - their clubface goes that way too, usually the same amount as the path did (although wide variance).  So from a 'feel' point of view, just getting someone to swing more right can often fix both faults at once, with one simple feeling.

when i was talking about how things are not changed in isolation, i suppose i was referring to the spin loft and how, if you ask someone to hit down on it their dynamic loft decreases at the same amount as their angle of attack. Add to this the fact the path will also move more to the right and you have multiple impact changes from just one thought - hit more down.

as an example of wat you gave, changing spine angle would have an affect on multiple other factors, such as path, face, angle of attack, strike etc. Thats why it is so difficult to make a change. Even making the correct  change theoretically, doesnt always work out in real life. It could look a great change on paper and video, but a player can b so uncomfortable or physically unable to do it that they can even make contact wit the ball anymore. its interesting stuff

We are dealing with human beings not statistics. There is a human element, both conscious, subconscious as well as the physical.

But yes, i am reaising how complicated a topic all this is, and that the important thing here is your choice of words over your knowldge. But I am a teacer, so it is important i get picked to shreds on this as it will make me a better communicator of the information.

[Adam Young]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

None

Very very few people hit a "straight shot." Almost no PGA Tour players do. If your ball has any curve on it at all the ball will ALWAYS be working away from the target if you plan for a straight shot... it doesn't make sense.

The D Plane is the more accurate way to describe the new ball flight laws, but frankly I don't find it terribly useful. To put it another way, the D Plane is three dimensional, while the basic ball flight laws are two dimensional. Kind of... Anyway, I understand the D Plane. In fact, I understand it really well. But will I ever use it in teaching someone? Will I ever use it in diagnosing my own swing? No, not really. I could go on and talk more about what the D Plane is and so on, but I don't think it's important enough to do so. Diagnose your ball flight using the basic ball flight laws. Diagnose things like "are my divots too steep" or "is my driver attack angle appropriate" as you would normally. I think D Plane is useful knowledge to have, but one that you almost never directly apply.

I like what you say here,  makes sense to me and is along the same lines as my philosophy

[iacas]

It took me quite awhile to sort out your post and re-format it. I appreciate the efforts made to make your text red, but putting your response inside of my quote makes it virtually impossible for me to quote and respond.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

The trackman studies that I have done have shown that if you ask a player to swing more right - their clubface goes that way too, usually the same amount as the path did (although wide variance).  So from a 'feel' point of view, just getting someone to swing more right can often fix both faults at once, with one simple feeling.

We haven't found that at all. If that was the case we wouldn't be fixing pull slicers and turning them into push-drawers, they'd just become push-slicers. In no way do I agree with that. Then again, we don't "ask players to swing more right." Perhaps how you achieve that has a lot to do with the results you're seeing.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

when i was talking about how things are not changed in isolation, i suppose i was referring to the spin loft and how, if you ask someone to hit down on it their dynamic loft decreases at the same amount as their angle of attack. Add to this the fact the path will also move more to the right and you have multiple impact changes from just one thought - hit more down.

Their dynamic loft doesn't necessarily change the same amount. And so that I'm clear, is your instruction "hit more down"?

Originally Posted by Adam Young

regarding clubface and path - i would tend to agree. the backspin/sidespin thing though - i dont see hwo this is detrimental. I think I prefer a more instinctive approach. I prefer to developp the skills of path control and face control and then let the subconscious work it all out - just like every good player has and will do. Knowing this stuff can make things worse as people start thinking they need to develop a different swing for every club, rather than working on some simpler rules.

I disagree, and we haven't found that our students "start thinking they need to develop a different swing for every club" at all. Every club, with the exception of the driver, is hit before low point (and some people hit driver on a slight downward AoA as well). We've never had problems with this.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

You can go into a shot with the same philosophy as before and expect a different result, rather than trying to constantly fix every bad shot you hit with a different swing thought.

That's really neither here nor there. I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion. Keep one swing thought? Sure, I agree. Work on your swing off the golf course? Agree again. If that's what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

I have seen lots of instructors relay this new trackman info awfully. some which is way too complex, and some information that is plain wrong (trackman meistro)

Really? You think Joe relays it "plain wrong"? Please be specific. I've seen Joe's videos, and though I think they're entirely too long for what they are (again, D-Plane takes about five minutes to understand), but I haven't seen any that even approach being slightly wrong let alone "plain wrong."

Originally Posted by Adam Young

What is opposite exactly?

Instructors used to believe clubhead path was the primary determinant of the ball's starting direction. Fact is it's the face. That's the opposite.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

is the statement not correct though. I know it can be misleading but it is correct, no? Could you help me with a different, less misleading wording.... maybe if I say at the start "although clubface is the biggest influence for starting direction, swinging more to the right or left will start the ball more in that direction.

Why talk about path influencing starting direction at all? That's the misleading part. It sounds and smells too much like the "old" (wrong) way of doing things.

The ball starts generally where the face is pointing and curves away from the path.

That's it. Need to start the ball more to the right? Point the clubface over there. Don't swing more that direction.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Again - as things are not changed in isolation, a player that swings to the right more, by whatever means (aiming their body more right or changing path), will also drag the clubface angle to the right more.

That seems to be the disconnect. We don't experience this. We have plenty of experience changing someone's path without significantly altering their clubface angle. Oftentimes it'll change a little because we'll change the way the wrists roll over or some crap like that, but it's not a 1:1 and teaching them to "swing more right" just so you can change what actually mostly determines start angle strikes me as one of the least productive ways to do things.

Want to start the ball more right? The clubface needs to be pointed more right.

If you have students doing things the way you have them doing things, where the clubface moves in a 1:1 relationship (per your previous statement), then a pull-slicer is going to turn into a push-slicer, and you've not helped them. We'll often turn the pull-slicer into a push-drawer in a few balls, often without changing their grip (hands pushed forward and up a little, left arm pressure point maintained, hands trace inward). All of those things affect the clubface a little bit, but they primarily influence the path. The face only goes from -2 to +2, perhaps. The path might shift from -10 to +5.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

rather than have to go through the whole rigmorole of explaining it more in depth.

The ball starts generally where the face is pointed and curves away from the path. That's not "more depth," and my point is that it's closer to the absolute truth than "want to hit the ball more right? swing more to the right," especially as swinging more to the right makes the ball curve farther left. Your statements are thus, in my opinion, more confusing than mine.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

as an example of this, I never knew the 'real ball flight laws' explicitly. I only knew these simple rules. Didnt do me or any other top player throughout history too much harm.

You don't know that.

I know of several people who feel they were "taught out of the game of golf" by the wrong ball flight laws. Someone plays a draw that finishes left of the target, and his instructor tells him to swing more right to start the ball farther right. Like a good student, he does. He misses farther left because the ball curves more.

I know of a few people who have similar stories. They spent years practicing what amounted to the wrong things. Several were Nationwide-Tour level guys.

There's a point at which some players' bodies, if they hit a lot of balls, begins to over-ride their minds. They can tell you the wrong ball flight laws and believe them (Nick Faldo being a prime example here), but their bodies over-ride them at impact. Their feel isn't real, and their bodies produce the proper alignments to hit the shot they picture, even if their mind tells them the alignments were different and the clubface was pointing at the target when they hit that big cut into the back-right pin to seal that major or whatever.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

i have seen plenty of 'forumers' confused about trying to draw it left around a tree by having the clubface open to their body line at address.

You point the clubface right of the tree and aim your body farther right than that. The face is closed to the path (draw) and points RIGHT of the final target (and the tree).

Opposite for a fade around a tree. Not complex.

Point the clubface at the tree and just try to "swing more right" is bound to fail if the golfer actually does those things. And if your 1:1 relationship holds, all they'll do is hit their normal shot but one that starts way to the right instead.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

I was referring to the trackman info that says that if you hit down on a ball more – the dynamic loft almost always decreases at the same angle with it – producing a LOWER flight rather than higher. Also – as you said, it will tend to be lower. Could you give me an instance where it would be higher? Maybe in a player with extreme amounts of speed? Do you have any trackman data?

This is a few things.

I thought you were saying that hitting down makes the ball go higher. Typically that's not the case, and virtually all of the time the launch angle will be lower (you could hit down more with more dynamic loft, but it's rare).

If you meant peak height, then hitting down more even with a reduced launch angle CAN produce higher peak height because the ball will have more backspin and can climb higher. It's rare to have enough speed and enough difference in backspin but it can happen.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

yeah, they are.

I said "as a player, the 'old ball flight laws' tell us that 'swing more right' will make the ball start more to the right" and then said "those are wrong." You replied with "yeah, they are." Yet you've written "a club path moving more to the right causes the ball to start more to the right."

Do you not see why I'm picking that nit? Why not just say it properly: the ball's starting direction is primarily a result of where the clubface is pointing? Why make it sound like it has much to do with path let alone mostly to do with path?

I'm glad you'll re-phrase the tree thing. I think you should consider re-phrasing your "ball starts more right when you swing more right" bit too.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

good point, I do agree that better information can help, i would just like to see a simpler version of the info.

The ball starts generally where the face is pointing and curves away from the path. You can't make it any simpler while still being as correct as that.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

the old rules were better than nothing, worked for the old guys (myself included) in practice, even if they were wrong in theory. There was a reason that they worked well in practice - changes don't occur in isolation. the new rules, although better in theory, can make people worse in practice as they try to hit draws with open face and fades with closed faces, not really understanding it all. But then i guess that's down to who explains it and how well they explain it.

I disagree that the old rules were better than nothing. They weren't just wrong in theory, they were just plain wrong. They didn't "work well in practice" for everyone, and I think the golf community was greatly mis-served by the preaching of those rules. I think we'd ALL be better players, on average, if we hadn't been taught the wrong rules for a century.

We've changed the way we talk about things. We use "open" and "closed" to refer to the clubface relative to the path. We use "right" and "left" to refer to the direction the clubface points relative to the target.

A proper draw that finishes near the target is hit with a clubface that's right of the target and closed to the path.

Put another way, the clubface is right of the target and the path is farther right than that.

If you reverse all of the words it works for a fade. If you reverse right/left (not open/closed) these work for a lefty.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

i edited your last statement to show you what i think you meant. my answer is 'a subconscious understanding'. But i agree. In order to get there it can go through a conscious route, and for a lot of people with little time, it has to. Again, it's not that i think the new information is wrong, just that it is relayed overly complicated

I didn't mean that, no. It doesn't take a massive brain to consciously understand: "the ball starts generally where the face is pointing and curves away from the path."

I still don't think that's "overly complicated."

Again, I understand the D-Plane. It's not complicated. It's basic geometry. Maybe I'm better than most at understanding 3D geometry and the basic math that goes along with it, I don't know. Just because the information is out there and I understand it doesn't mean I blab it all to students. It's helpful to instructors to know it, but I don't think about D-Plane when I'm playing golf*. I just explain it to students using the single sentence I've posted a few times now.

* I do think about D-Plane when I'm playing golf occasionally. For example, I love to hit a low punchy cut sometimes, typically with a 7-iron on up (up being 8I, 9I, PW...). In order to do this I play the ball well back in my stance, which increases my AoA and shifts the club path well to the right, so I point my feet what feel like 45° left to compensate. Voilà, low punchy cut. But even in this case I'm not really thinking about the D-Plane, I just understand it and feel it and make appropriate adjustments.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

being in the teaching industry, i do agree in a way. But this player's face is open in relation to his path. if you move the path 10 degrees more right, in about 80-90% of cases the clubface will go with it the same amount. CHANGES ARE NOT MADE IN ISOLATION. this is where theory meets real world.

Again, I don't see this at all, ever. I don't know how you teach, but I think that's fundamental to the disagreement we have over this.

I will move someone's path without affecting their face very much at all. I do it every week. The face will often change 25% as much (because of the changes we made), but nowhere near "the same amount."

I agree that typically "changes are not made in isolation" (sometimes they are - changing a grip can produce a different alignment at impact without changing anything else) but disagree wholeheartedly with the "clubface will go with it the same amount." I never see that (and I don't throw around "never/always" lightly).

Originally Posted by Adam Young

by closing his face, a player can learn to curve the ball more left (pull draw). by aiming his body more ot the right, he can start the ball more right and control the ball coming back in. All the while, the player is developing the feel for what a 'clubface closed to the path' feels like. This will transfer over when (and if) you decide to change the path. This is generally much easier a change to do mentally than change path first - and have players hitting push slices - then work on clubface (although there are times when i may do this).

We don't see that type of behavior at all. We don't take anyone from hitting pull-slices to hitting push-slices. It simply doesn't happen.

I would suggest that your players aren't getting a feel for "clubface closed to the path" they're getting a feel for "clubface even more closed to their body."

I see absolutely no point in taking a pull-slicer and converting him to a pull-drawer as "step one." He'll hit the ball low, may not get his driver off the ground, and be just as frustrated with his new shot as he was with his old one. Additionally, a lot of slicers already aim to the right, and aiming a golfer's body more to the right will tend to make them swing more to the left because the target is over there.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Some players wont have the ability to chnage their path as quickly and efficiently as their clubface either. So if i get a slicer, i may choose to just change face and get them hitting LESS of a slice. closing the face 3 degrees will make the ball move 'less to the right'

You've also taken loft off the clubface and got them hitting lower pulls that still fade. You haven't really fixed anything.

We've never had anyone who couldn't stop slicing the ball in that lesson. Heck, most do it within a few balls. One of my sig files says "it ain't braggin' if you can do it." It's a quote I've seen attributed to the pitcher Dizzy Dean. Suffice to say I'm not saying this to brag. Just stating facts.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

no it doesnt - but in a one hour lesson i dont have the time to fully explain the d-plane and get them experiementing with clubface and path.

I almost never explain it.

But an hour is plenty of time to get a slicer to stop slicing, and we don't do it by "fixing the face" or giving them a band-aid of "just close the face more."

Originally Posted by Adam Young

LOVE IT - thats how it should be explained.

That's how we explain it.

But it's also important, as instructors, to know and understand the D-Plane. Some students will want to know it too, but they can find the information or talk with us about it.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

The sentence you described above is and should be enough for most golfers. again - my main point is that things don't change in isolation, and that the old ball flight laws are not the devil that they are made out to be.

Sure they are. They're not even close to correct. They're an impediment - for golfers and instructors - when no impediment needed to exist. They suck and they quite literally ruined some people's careers.

The "correct" rules are so easy to get, to understand, to know. There's no reason not to know them. They're no more complex - while having the benefit of being correct - than the old (incorrect) rules.

[Adam Young]

ok, if i reply to everything that is going to make it about 10 pages long. Unfortunately i dont have the time or the patience, and i haven't worked out how to do the multiple quote thing, cant seem to get it to work, hence why i did the other way with red ink. Sorry for that

I still don't think that's "overly complicated."

Again, I understand the D-Plane. It's not complicated. It's basic geometry. Maybe I'm better than most at understanding 3D geometry and the basic math that goes along with it, I don't know. Just because the information is out there and I understand it doesn't mean I blab it all to students. It's helpful to instructors to know it, but I don't think about D-Plane when I'm playing golf*. I just explain it to students using the single sentence I've posted a few times now.

* I do think about D-Plane when I'm playing golf occasionally. For example, I love to hit a low punchy cut sometimes, typically with a 7-iron on up (up being 8I, 9I, PW...). In order to do this I play the ball well back in my stance, which increases my AoA and shifts the club path well to the right, so I point my feet what feel like 45° left to compensate. Voilà, low punchy cut. But even in this case I'm not really thinking about the D-Plane, I just understand it and feel it and make appropriate adjustments.

I like your single sentence used to explain it - and will probably be using it in the future. I agree with the above quote also. I suppose this sums up a lot of my thoughts too.

regarding swing changes and changes in isolation, I get different results to you as I obviously teach and explain it in my own method. Im not saying my method is better or worse than any other, it's just a different way. I, too, have great success in changing a player from a slicer to a straighter or even drawer of the ball very quickly (if that's what is deemed by success), even though I go about it in a different way, so i must be doing something right. And with anything, there are advantages and disadvantages to all methods, I would sure like to here more of your philosophies though, as i am open to learning from all.

Personally I find that players are reluctant to make a path change to the right, unless they see a ball curving to the left first. This is not always the case, but in a lot of slicers, i find that getting them to hit a pull hook at first is an easier way to transition to the path change - its a much more thought out procedure than this, but again I dont want to write pages on this, perhaps we could discuss this through mail. A slicer seems to be reluctant to make a swing path more to the right when their ball is already going that direction, even if they are fully aware of the ball flight rules. But i have had success using both methods - it all depends on the person I see in front of me and what i imagine they can do (and what is the easiest change for them to make).

I dont know why it is that I get more of a bigger change in the clubface alongside the path change than you do. I see this in a lot of varying methods that have been used to make swing changes - instinctive approaches, technical approaches, drill approaches, certain task led approaches, set up changes etc. Maybe you could share some of your methods for path changes that have less  effect on face. Would be good to add them to my toolbox.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Adam Young

ok, if i reply to everything that is going to make it about 10 pages long. Unfortunately i dont have the time or the patience, and i haven't worked out how to do the multiple quote thing

You copy and paste.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

Personally I find that players are reluctant to make a path change to the right, unless they see a ball curving to the left first.

I don't tell people they're going to end up swinging more to the right. They don't have a chance to be reluctant. When they push and draw their third golf ball (for the first time in their life) they are happy.

Originally Posted by Adam Young

This is not always the case, but in a lot of slicers, i find that getting them to hit a pull hook at first is an easier way to transition to the path change

You do it in two steps. I do it in one. I'm not going to say one's better than the other, either; just that I don't see a reason to change what I do.

Again, the single biggest thing on which we seem to differ is that you say the face moves 1:1 with the path, while I almost NEVER see that.

[nobackswing]

when i have to convey D-plane concepts to a student who doesn't need (or want) all the detail, i say that the clubface should be pointing between the target line and the true club path at impact.

we then work within that zone to improve accuracy.