56 or 60 club face in a bunker ( various lays)

[Slice of Life]

Show me a video of you hitting a 3 iron with a wide open face and then we can continue this discussion, it's impossible unless you're some sort of alien who can morph his arms and hands into awkward positions

Irrelevant. Even if you can stand awkwardly enough to hit that shot, it's a ridiculously stupid low percentage shot. There are different lofts for a reason. To say that loft doesn't matter is just ludicrous.

[nick1998bunker]

Irrelevant. Even if you can stand awkwardly enough to hit that shot, it's a ridiculously stupid low percentage shot. There are different lofts for a reason. To say that loft doesn't matter is just ludicrous.

How hard is it. When you talk about changing loft but opening you are really just changing other factors like lie angle and bounce. But you can have 2 clubs with different lofts but when opened up have the same bounce and lie angle. The more extreme you get the harder it is to find but when we are talking 4 degrees its not gonna make much of a difference. Now if you don't open up the face(which I don't recomend for the standard shot) then it's a whole nother story. And I will try and bring my 1 iron so you can see how the masters do it. Jk

[nick1998bunker]

Ok so whoever challenged me to get a 3 iron out of a bunker here it is. I took it a step farther as i don't have a 3 iron so I used my 1 iron. Large cavity so sits up a touch.

After 3 practice swings without a ball I hit my first shot shown. Easy as pi.

While looking for my video I found this lol.

He says it will help because it forces yoy to play the right shot

[Slice of Life]

Ok so whoever challenged me to get a 3 iron out of a bunker here it is. I took it a step farther as i don't have a 3 iron so I used my 1 iron. Large cavity so sits up a touch.

After 3 practice swings without a ball I hit my first shot shown. Easy as pi.

Nobody (AFAIK) challenged you to play a 3 iron out of a bunker.

I never said it was impossible, I said it was a stupid low percentage shot. And the way your club is positioned is definitive proof that you were completely wrong in your "friction" and "loft doesn't matter" analysis.

If loft didn't matter, you would stand the same way, hit the same exact shot, and get the same exact result regardless of the club. Give me enough takes and I'll hit my 3 wood out of a greenside bunker. Doesn't mean it's intelligent to do in a real round.

[nick1998bunker]

Nobody (AFAIK) challenged you to play a 3 iron out of a bunker. I never said it was impossible, I said it was a stupid low percentage shot. And the way your club is positioned is definitive proof that you were completely wrong in your "friction" and "loft doesn't matter" analysis. If loft didn't matter, you would stand the same way, hit the same exact shot, and get the same exact result regardless of the club. Give me enough takes and I'll hit my 3 wood out of a greenside bunker. Doesn't mean it's intelligent to do in a real round.

I never said it was practical. Just using extremes to point out loft isn't the variable that gets the ball up and out. And friction is what causes the ball to move foreword with 90 degree clubface as apposed to pop straight up. And it wasn't you but that ginger dude. And this was my first try with a ball [quote name="GingerGolfer" url="/t/69966/56-or-60-club-face-in-a-bunker-various-lays/30#post_900595"]Show me a video of you hitting a 3 iron with a wide open face and then we can continue this discussion, it's impossible unless you're some sort of alien who can morph his arms and hands into awkward positions [/quote]

[Slice of Life]

I never said it was practical. Just using extremes to point out loft isn't the variable that gets the ball up and out. And friction is what causes the ball to move foreword with 90 degree clubface as apposed to pop straight up. And it wasn't you but that ginger dude. And this was my first try with a ball

I'm no Newton, but I did get through enough high level physics courses to get my engineering degree. While I haven't studied the subject of sand shots in depth, a simple observation would show that the force of the club (I'm using force as a lazy and relative term...not necessarily F=ma), as well as the displacement of the sand behind/underneath the ball while struck, is what is responsible for popping it out. The club may be 90 degrees, but the club doesn't make contact with the ball, it makes contact with the sand in a forward motion, which propels the ball forward. Is there friction between the club and the sand? Yes...friction is involved in pretty much any contact...ever. Is it responsible for getting the ball out of the sand? Not directly.

Friction is the reason you need to swing all the way through to prevent the club from stopping...sure. If sand was frictionless, golf would be a lot different. So would a day at the beach.

Do yourself a favor...rest your left hand on your face. Now smack it as hard as you can with your right hand. Let us know what happens...I'm guessing your head moved even though your right hand never directly touched it. Think of your left hand as the sand, your right hand as the club, and your face as the ball.

Repeat as many times as necessary...

[jamo]

I never said it was practical. Just using extremes to point out loft isn't the variable that gets the ball up and out. And friction is what causes the ball to move foreword with 90 degree clubface as apposed to pop straight up. And it wasn't you but that ginger dude. And this was my first try with a ball

A) No one is arguing that low-lofted clubs like a 3-iron can't be turned into a high-lofted club if you open the face enough and mess with your stance and hand placement. But what I have said repeatedly is that static loft, the number on the sole of the wedge, does matter. The fact that you had to take such a ridiculous stance only proves that. The more you have to open the clubface, the more extra bounce you will expose. B) "Friction," by definition , opposes motion. The sand moves up and forward because of the delivered loft and the swing path at impact. Each of those tiny sand grains imparts a normal force on the ball, pushing it up and forward. And, no matter what the delivered loft is (including 90˚), you are not impacting the ball with the club. No force is imparted directly from the club to the ball. Not sure any way I/we can make this more clear.

[nick1998bunker]

What are you trying to say? I know how a bunker shot works, when you hit the sand, friction brings the sand with it and in turn the ball. That's all. Yes force is the main thing to get the ball out. But when I was talking about friction was when someone said that with a 90 degree clubface the ball would go straight up. I don't want to argue anymore

[Harmonious]

What are you trying to say? I know how a bunker shot works, when you hit the sand, friction brings the sand with it and in turn the ball. That's all.

Yes force is the main thing to get the ball out. But when I was talking about friction was when someone said that with a 90 degree clubface the ball would go straight up.

I don't want to argue anymore

You're still wrong. But I agree that further argument is pointless.

[RandallT]

Nick,

There isn't much of an argument: there are trained engineers here telling you that you are using a term "friction" improperly. Not a big deal, but you keep using the term "friction" as the force that is moving the ball.

Friction is a very specific force in physics. Friction is what brakes do for a car. Friction opposes the direction of motion. If movement is to the right, friction force is to the left. Friction on the club in the sand would slow the club down. Friction on the ball as it leaves a surface would add spin.

However, friction between the club and the sand does not move the sand in the same direction as the club. And friction would not lift a ball out of a bunker. Those are other forces. So this is not an argument. It's not a huge deal, as you grasp the bunker shot very well... but you are not grasping what people are telling you. You keep saying that friction moves the ball. Friction would oppose the direction of movement.

[saevel25]

If you ask yourself what moves the ball. Its the sand, the club will not make contact with the ball. Does friction help, yes. It allows the ball to be carried by the sand. But friction isn't the sole force responsible. Its the mass of the clubhead, the velocity of the clubhead, and how much momentum the sand behind the ball does to project it forward. Basically the ball is body surfing the sand onto the green.

Basically the club will compress the sand, push outward away from the clubface, compressing more sand until it explodes outward carrying the ball.

[rehmwa]

I don't want to argue anymore

you should stop -

what you meant (true enough and not really that hard to understand) is completely different than how people are trying to take it - at some point, it becomes a choice to purposely misrepresent the discussion -

so there's no point to continue, and that was about 2 pages ago.

as such - you guys are all talking past each other - just to win a snit fest on an anonymous golf forum

nice video - some stuff to learn from that

[Fourputt]

What are you trying to say? I know how a bunker shot works, when you hit the sand, friction brings the sand with it and in turn the ball. That's all.

Yes force is the main thing to get the ball out. But when I was talking about friction was when someone said that with a 90 degree clubface the ball would go straight up.

I don't want to argue anymore

No it doesn't.

Very basic physics (and you engineers go easy with me as I last studied this in 1964).  When force is applied to an object, motion is imparted in direct relationship to the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.  In the case of a golf swing, the force transference is not 100% because the force imparted by the moving clubhead is not applied directly to the centerline of the ball (all proper golf swings result in some sort of a glancing blow, except maybe the putter).  That percentage of energy transference becomes less the more lofted the club.  In the case of a greenside bunker shot, the force is applied to the sand, and the sand transfers the force to the ball.  Only a small amount of the clubhead's kinetic energy is transferred to the ball because most of it is wasted on the sand.  All friction does is it tries to stop the clubhead and robs if if most of its energy, but friction does not move the ball, energy transference does that.

By the way, friction does give the ball spin, but it doesn't cause it to move.

[saevel25]

No it doesn't.

Very basic physics (and you engineers go easy with me as I last studied this in 1964).  When force is applied to an object, motion is imparted in direct relationship to the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.  In the case of a golf swing, the force transference is not 100% because the force imparted by the moving clubhead is not applied directly to the centerline of the ball (all proper golf swings result in some sort of a glancing blow, except maybe the putter).  That percentage of energy transference becomes less the more lofted the club.  In the case of a greenside bunker shot, the force is applied to the sand, and the sand transfers the force to the ball.  Only a small amount of the clubhead's kinetic energy is transferred to the ball because most of it is wasted on the sand.  All friction does is it tries to stop the clubhead and robs if if most of its energy, but friction does not move the ball, energy transference does that.

By the way, friction does give the ball spin, but it doesn't cause it to move.

Yep, friction force is created by a normal force, and its perpendicular motion. Like a tire on the roadway. The friction force is opposing the direction the car is moving. So on a clubface you have an impact with the sand. Its normal to the clubface (loft). The friction only resists sand moving up the clubface, not in the direction of the normal force. So no matter what, even if you have a frictionless interaction, sand would be moved. It would just be totally in the direction of the sand. If the ball had a frictionless interaction with the sand, then the ball would move directly in the direction the sand pushes it, but with no spin at all.

[Ernest Jones]

Yep, friction force is created by a normal force, and its perpendicular motion. Like a tire on the roadway. The friction force is opposing the direction the car is moving. So on a clubface you have an impact with the sand. Its normal to the clubface (loft). The friction only resists sand moving up the clubface, not in the direction of the normal force. So no matter what, even if you have a frictionless interaction, sand would be moved. It would just be totally in the direction of the sand. If the ball had a frictionless interaction with the sand, then the ball would move directly in the direction the sand pushes it, but with no spin at all.

But...what if an airplane is on a conveyor belt?

[Slice of Life]

But...what if an airplane is on a conveyor belt?

Oh God...not that one...lol

There's no way of convincing some people that it would still takeoff.

[saevel25]

It wouldn't take off. Doesn't matter of you spin the conveyor belt at the required speed, the wings are not moving relative to the air, so no lift. Now, if you take the wheels of the plane, set it on a conveyor belt that is lets say quarter mile long, and then move the belt at the required speed, the plane would take off. But if the plane, no pun intended, spinning its wheels, no lift.

I hate those questions though. My highschool physics teacher was evil for them. He would do stupid shit as well, like,

"If a squirrel was sliding down a frictionless roof (covered in ice), how much force would he have to throw the nuts it was carrying each each arm to stop himself from sliding." Like, WTF man. I'm taking an exam, none of this crap.

[Ernest Jones]

It wouldn't take off. Doesn't matter of you spin the conveyor belt at the required speed, the wings are not moving relative to the air, so no lift. Now, if you take the wheels of the plane, set it on a conveyor belt that is lets say quarter mile long, and then move the belt at the required speed, the plane would take off. But if the plane, no pun intended, spinning its wheels, no lift.

I hate those questions though. My highschool physics teacher was evil for them. He would do stupid shit as well, like,

"If a squirrel was sliding down a frictionless roof (covered in ice), how much force would he have to throw the nuts it was carrying each each arm to stop himself from sliding." Like, WTF man. I'm taking an exam, none of this crap.

oops, didn't mean to start this again. LOL.