Let's talk ball flights

[Wangus94]

[RIGHT][/RIGHT][quote name="mvmac" url="/t/75950/lets-talk-ball-flights#post_1024198"] Correct, similar to what Ryan Moore and Fred Couples also do. Their body lines are aligned to "E", ball starts at "F" or "H"(push) and fades to "I". Also note that the amount of curve and distance between each letter is larger for emphasis and clarity. Nicklaus might only curve the ball 3-5 yards. [/quote] I think a lot of this semantics personally, but these charts are all assuming E is the flag ( assuming your hitting at it). Couples would be aligned somewhere left at like A, swinging toward C with the face pointing at D to get to his target of E. There's a push fade that accounts for alignment, path relative to alignment, and face relative to path. I do agree though that the ball flight laws completely fail to account for the body's role in creating these conditions. I think possibly because they were created based off radar data, and all this data is measuring against is a fixed target line. There should be an additional baseline measurement by these devices to confirm if the player is actually lined up square, otherwise the data seems like it would be misleading for a lot of folks.

[David in FL]

[RIGHT][/RIGHT] I think a lot of this semantics personally, but these charts are all assuming E is the flag ( assuming your hitting at it). Couples would be aligned somewhere left at like A, swinging toward C with the face pointing at D to get to his target of E. There's a push fade that accounts for alignment, path relative to alignment, and face relative to path. I do agree though that the ball flight laws completely fail to account for the body's role in creating these conditions. I think possibly because they were created based off radar data, and all this data is measuring against is a fixed target line. There should be an additional baseline measurement by these devices to confirm if the player is actually lined up square, otherwise the data seems like it would be misleading for a lot of folks.

It's only misleading to someone who insists on superimposing a fictitious target (and thus, target line) onto a chart where none exists....or is needed.

[Ernest Jones]

It's only misleading to someone who insists on superimposing a fictitious target (and thus, target line) onto a chart where none exists....or is needed.

QFT. :doh:

[Golfingdad]

It's only misleading to someone who insists on superimposing a fictitious target (and thus, target line) onto a chart where none exists....or is needed.

Bingo.

[billchao]

I think a lot of this semantics personally, but these charts are all assuming E is the flag ( assuming your hitting at it).

The chart assumes no such thing. It states explicitly that push and pull are relative to the stance line.

[iacas]

I think a lot of this semantics personally, but these charts are all assuming E is the flag ( assuming your hitting at it).

You do realize that I made that chart , right? It's my chart. I made it. You can find others like it, of course, but I made that one.

So I can say definitively that the chart does not assume that E is the flag. In fact, if I screenshot the text around the picture that I made , we find…

The fact that B (a pull) says "over the top" (outside-in) is only true if the golfer is pointed generally toward E. If he was at "A" that wouldn't be a pull - ball flight "B" would be a small "push."

Couples would be aligned somewhere left at like A, swinging toward C with the face pointing at D to get to his target of E.

If Couples' path was toward C with the face toward D, the ball would not end up anywhere near E. It might end up near A, or left of it.

But again, I can tell you definitively that E is not the target or the flag. E is the body alignment.

I think possibly because they were created based off radar data

The ball flight laws were not "created" based off radar data. The D-Plane comes from Theodore Jörgensen's 1990 book "The Physics of Golf." They were discovered and explained pretty well in that book. They weren't "created." They're physics. They just "are."

[Phil McGleno]

@Wangus94 -damn man-you just got skooled [sic].

[Wangus94]

Than why didn't anybody know them, yourself included, until the late 2000s? Lol. I didn't realize that was your chart, I've seen several dozen identical ones from multiple Trackman owners. What's funny is that we're not even disagreeing on most everything and yet somehow its 10 on 1. The path analogy was assuming a linear progression of A-I, which is why I went C path D face. This ' we're right, we'll prove you wrong" exercise in childishness is exactly what I'm talking about and why ( approved for audience )

[iacas]

Than why didn't anybody know them, yourself included, until the late 2000s? Lol. I didn't realize that was your chart, I've seen several dozen identical ones from multiple Trackman owners. What's funny is that we're not even disagreeing on most everything and yet somehow its 10 on 1. The path analogy was assuming a linear progression of A-I, which is why I went C path D face. This ' we're right, we'll prove you wrong" exercise in childishness is exactly what I'm talking about and why ( approved for audience )

Whatever, dude.

I'm not tired yet, so let's look at this piece by piece.

Than why didn't anybody know them, yourself included, until the late 2000s?

Plenty of people knew them. I was in college in the late 90s to early 2000s. Busy getting some degrees (two in the sciences, one in French). Again, 1990. TrackMan is pretty new, relatively speaking…

I didn't realize that was your chart

That didn't stop you from making a bunch of assertions (incorrect ones) about it.

from multiple Trackman owners

You keep mentioning "TrackMan owners" for some reason.

What's funny is that we're not even disagreeing on most everything and yet somehow its 10 on 1.

Then why do you continue to post as you do?

The path analogy was assuming a linear progression of A-I,

That was probably not a very wise decision given the graphic we've all been using. You made no indication that you were changing up the lettering. Why not just say "Oops, I goofed. Sorry."?

This ' we're right, we'll prove you wrong" exercise in childishness is exactly what I'm talking about and why ( approved for audience )

Ah, there we go. When in doubt, just call people (or their actions, or posts) names.

Are you in search of facts, or what? What's your purpose in starting this thread if not to discuss things?

[Wangus94]

Why is it that you suppose I mention Trackman owners Erik?

[iacas]

Why is it that you suppose I mention Trackman owners Erik?

Don't know. Don't care. Tired of the constant goalpost shifting. Not playing your games anymore.

P.S. I own a FlightScope, because after extensive testing, it was shown to me to be far more accurate.