My Swing (Patrick57)

[Patrick57]

I like Patrick's forum status/title. Is Patrick's whole time on this forum a long, ironic, performance art joke?  Did he find a smug looking guy with a s**t swing just so he could then post that ridiculous swing, claim that a silly pose beforehand disproved the laws of physics, and then brag about how he usually breaks par with the swing of a player who breaks 100 only on his lucky days?

Shooting between 34 and 39 0n a par 36, suggests that more often than not, I shoot over par. If you think that the swing in the OP is that of a 30 handicapper then you're the one who hasn't got a clue/brain/eye for a solid swing. BTW my video proves that the ball started a few degrees right of target and ended up over 30 yards left at the end. Erik reckons the clubface wasn't closed to the target but at the same time he can't explain the resultant hook. Can you explain this anomaly?

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Shooting between 34 and 39 0n a par 36, suggests that more often than not, I shoot over par. If you think that the swing in the OP is that of a 30 handicapper then you're the one who hasn't got a clue/brain/eye for a solid swing. BTW my video proves that the ball started a few degrees right of target and ended up over 30 yards left at the end. Erik reckons the clubface wasn't closed to the target but at the same time he can't explain the resultant hook. Can you explain this anomaly?

The club face wasn't closed to the target line, it was open and that's why it started to the right, but it was closed to the path of the swing resulting in the hook.... there you go... explained!

[iacas]

BTW my video proves that the ball started a few degrees right of target and ended up over 30 yards left at the end. Erik reckons the clubface wasn't closed to the target but at the same time he can't explain the resultant hook. Can you explain this anomaly?

I already did. The face pointed just right of the target at impact and your path was well to the right. Not very difficult to understand and highly unlikely that the laws of physics cease to exist in your kitchen.

[Patrick57]

I already did. The face pointed just right of the target at impact and your path was well to the right. Not very difficult to understand and highly unlikely that the laws of physics cease to exist in your kitchen.

I'll just have to get a better camera and record a more convincing video. BTW According to the NBFL a clubface that is open to the target on an in to out path starts right of target and remains right. The video is unfortunately inconclusive as to the degree of swing path or face conditions at impact. To summarise... [COLOR=FF00AA]We're all guessing[/COLOR]

[Bullitt5339]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I'll just have to get a better camera and record a more convincing video.

BTW According to the NBFL a clubface that is open to the target on an in to out path starts right of target and remains right. The video is unfortunately inconclusive as to the degree of swing path or face conditions at impact. To summarise...

We're all guessing

No "We're" not all guessing.

I'm a 15 handicap and even I know better than that, but with the advent of all these wonderful modern technologies like high speed cameras, it has been PROVEN that the ball-flight laws that people have been following for 40 years are all wrong.  There is no guess when you take high speed shots of hundreds of thousands of golf balls being hit and actually see what happens upon contact.  Then you can track the ball-flight with these great radars that they've developed.  Maybe you've heard of TrackMan?

So through modern technology, the modern golf instructor has the CORRECT information to diagnose the face angle and swing path simply from seeing the ball-flight.  Something that I've noticed is that most guys who've been teaching golf for 40 years can't accept that everything they thought was right has been proven wrong by technology.

You can argue with a camera or physics, but somehow you think they don't apply to you because you've been playing golf for 40 years.  Open your mind, and I bet you'll actually learn something instead of being a troll on a golf message board.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

BTW According to the NBFL a clubface that is open to the target on an in to out path starts right of target and remains right.

Wrong. Face +1. Path +10. Ball starts right and draws/hooks well left of the target. Face is right of the target, closed to the path.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

The video is unfortunately inconclusive as to the degree of swing path or face conditions at impact. To summarise...

We're all guessing

You're guessing. I'm using basic science. If the ball starts right and curves left, we can pretty accurately describe the impact conditions.

[Kapanda]

You guys can't complain about a troll if you keep feeding him.

[Bullitt5339]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

You guys can't complain about a troll if you keep feeding him.

I guess I'm just hoping that he will see the light and do the research and finally realize that all these people aren't wrong.  Modern golf instruction has evolved greatly in the past 10 years and some people have trouble embracing the tools that are there nowadays. I have dealt with a few of my playing partners who are both over 60 years old and have been playing golf for over 40 years.  They assumed what they had learned over the last 40 years was correct.  One of them was easy to convert.  A few high speed photos of what was really going on, and he was a convert.  What he thought he was doing wasn't actually what was happening and his game improved a lot once he realized what was really going on.  Another was a bit of a challenge, but he's slowly coming around.  I just don't think his memory is good enough anymore to remember what we've been teaching him, so he forgets and goes back to what he's been told from years ago.  He's also the guy that thinks on a good shot, he's actually pinching the ball between the ground and the club.

[Patrick57]

I guess I'm just hoping that he will see the light and do the research and finally realize that all these people aren't wrong.

With the greatest respect, I have fully researched this subject and agree that there are slight differences in ball flights than I/we were led to believe. [quote name="Bullitt5339" url="/t/58950/my-swing-patrick57/36#post_730900"]Modern golf instruction has evolved greatly in the past 10 years and some people have trouble embracing the tools that are there nowadays. I have dealt with a few of my playing partners who are both over 60 years old and have been playing golf for over 40 years. They assumed what they had learned over the last 40 years was correct. [/quote] But is modern golf instruction really better. Are golfers improving? We can now see what's happening in super slow motion but does that enable us to play better or are we falling deeper into a crazy pit of swing control using conscious directives instead of subconscious feel. You may be plausibly eloquent with modern instruction but if the student doesn't get it, its all nonsense. I can turn a ball round a tree using old methodology and the modern instruction doesn't make this task any easier, au contraire, I find the opposite to be true. [quote name="Bullitt5339" url="/t/58950/my-swing-patrick57/36#post_730900"]One of them was easy to convert. A few high speed photos of what was really going on, and he was a convert. What he thought he was doing wasn't actually what was happening and his game improved a lot once he realized what was really going on. Another was a bit of a challenge, but he's slowly coming around. I just don't think his memory is good enough anymore to remember what we've been teaching him, so he forgets and goes back to what he's been told from years ago. He's also the guy that thinks on a good shot, he's actually pinching the ball between the ground and the club. [/quote] This is typical on this board. The old method guy is a plonker, probably has altsheimers and is so stupid he thinks the ball is being pinched against the turf. What he feels and what is actually happening doesn't reallly matter, I also love that pinching feeling and my eyes don't really see it anyway. I'm sure Nicklaus also thought this was happening and modern devices wouldn't have made him any better. BTW Luke Donald also gets this wrong/right!

[JetFan1983]

I'm sure Nicklaus also thought this was happening and modern devices wouldn't have made him any better. BTW Luke Donald also gets this wrong/right!

If you read Jack's book you will see he got the ball flight laws correct. The only major thing he got wrong had to do with the trail knee, if I remember correctly. Jack has also used trackman and loves learning about all the latest stuff. He even got a lesson from Sean Foley recently. Jack's open-mindedness is as impressive as his major record.

[Patrick57]

If you read Jack's book you will see he got the ball flight laws correct. The only major thing he got wrong had to do with the trail knee, if I remember correctly. Jack has also used trackman and loves learning about all the latest stuff. He even got a lesson from Sean Foley recently. Jack's open-mindedness is as impressive as his major record.

I would love to read some of his comments on this stuff. ;-)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

With the greatest respect, I have fully researched this subject and agree that there are slight differences in ball flights than I/we were led to believe.

The differences aren't "slight." Again, guy is hitting pull-hooks. Old way says "swing more right," which would just make the hooks worse.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I can turn a ball round a tree using old methodology and the modern instruction doesn't make this task any easier, au contraire, I find the opposite to be true.

You're not using "the old methodology." The laws of physics did not change. You're simply doing something that's contrary to what you think you're doing.

[Patrick57]

The differences aren't "slight." Again, guy is hitting pull-hooks. Old way says "swing more right," which would just make the hooks worse. You're not using "the old methodology." The laws of physics did not change. You're simply doing something that's contrary to what you think you're doing.

Without confusing this issue. I aim 5° right of my target with my clubface 2° closed to that path (OBFL) what's wrong with this thinking. You call it 3° open to target and I call it 2° closed to path. New laws refer face to target and old refers face to path. Can we leave it at that? ;-)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Without confusing this issue. I aim 5° right of my target with my clubface 2° closed to that path (OBFL) what's wrong with this thinking. You call it 3° open to target and I call it 2° closed to path. New laws refer face to target and old refers face to path.

Can we leave it at that?

Those are not the OBFL.

There's never been disagreement about why a ball curves. The OBFL had it wrong when they said where the ball starts and where it finishes.

[Bullitt5339]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

But is modern golf instruction really better. Are golfers improving? We can now see what's happening in super slow motion but does that enable us to play better or are we falling deeper into a crazy pit of swing control using conscious directives instead of subconscious feel. You may be plausibly eloquent with modern instruction but if the student doesn't get it, its all nonsense. I can turn a ball round a tree using old methodology and the modern instruction doesn't make this task any easier, au contraire, I find the opposite to be true.

It may not instantly make your swing better, but knowing WHY something is happening makes it easier to correct the problem or work on a certain shot-shape.  A good example would be my driver swing for the past couple months.  I was constantly hitting low pull hooks.  I knew WHY I was hitting them that way, which went a long way to figuring out how to fix it.  Did knowing instantly allow me to fix it?  Of course not.  But working it out on the range with a video camera for the past month, I finally have the feeling that I need to hit the ball straight with a small fade, which is what I wanted.  The video camera allowed me to see my swingplane and compare it with others and then make corrections until it "looked" right, which amazingly was what worked.  Then I repeated the feeling that I needed to get that swing until I didn't have to think about every move and went and played a round.  Driver was 70% fixed.

Using technology and a knowledge of what I needed to be doing to get the ball to fly the way I wanted.  Of course I'm not a scratch golfer, so I can't accurately do it every time.  But when things go awry, at least I know what I'm doing wrong.

[Limpinswinger]

Originally Posted by iacas

. . . Face +1. Path +10. Ball starts right and draws/hooks well left of the target. Face is right of the target, closed to the path. . . .

This is a concept I first understood about a month ago.  Ain't the internet great?  But, it's amazing how many online "golf pros," are, seemingly, still teaching that the club face angle is what determines the curve of the ball, and swing path determines direction.  I even saw a farely recent (within the past few years), video of Jack teaching this way.

[GaijinGolfer]

Originally Posted by Limpinswinger

This is a concept I first understood about a month ago.  Ain't the internet great?  But, it's amazing how many online "golf pros," are, seemingly, still teaching that the club face angle is what determines the curve of the ball, and swing path determines direction.  I even saw a farely recent (within the past few years), video of Jack teaching this way.

Martin Hall on Golf Channel does it too.

[Jeffrey71]

I heard somewhere that the straight shot is the hardest in golf.....