How would you hit this shot? (high and low shots using same ball position)

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

I realize it's kind of an esoteric ..err.. goofy question . . . but it's definitely true that some golfers can hit it higher or lower without changing their set-up...whether it's necessary or not . .I'm still curious.  

But they don't.

[boogielicious]

@Rainmaker,

I was watching the WebEx.com tournament down in the Bahamas a couple of weeks ago. This was the one with constant 30 mph winds. There was one ocean side hole that was really short, 130 yards, for a par 3 for pros. It was pretty much into the wind so the players wanted to have a lower flight shot.

Every single player on the tee used the partial swing technique that others have described in this thread. They played the ball back a bit, used a 3/4 back swing and shorter finish. 

The best part of this technique is you are using your same swing, only shorter. So you only have to work to perfect one swing style.

[natureboy]

18 hours ago, natureboy said:

If I were to do it, I'd focus on these elements:

• extra emphasis on forward weight shift / slide
• extreme hands ahead / de-lofting
• more/extra lead wrist bow through impact (w/ trail wrist more extended) than stock swing
• sawed off finish (low left intention with hands)
• more 'covering ball' feel with lower left shoulder through impact / FT & possibly slight upper body slide toward target (but the latter will likely change path slightly relative to target line)
• intentionally thin contact (hard for me to do consistently)

Forgot to include the element added in bold.

[Rainmaker]

I've been thinking about this a bunch . .and practicing some...not because I think I'll use a shot like this but because I think/hope it might improve my understanding, generally, of why golf balls react as they do and in what ways I might manipulate that reaction.

After a trip to the range . .what I realized is that although I was launching, for example, my 9iron low . .it was spinning up quite high.  This is a case where my net fooled me . .I could see they were launching low and I assumed they were flying low . .at least lower . . but, in real life, the difference was not really detectable with naked eyes.  I wanted one that would launch low, stay low and go far.  

Here's what I figured out . . when I was trying just to hit more down on it and throw my arms out ahead of it -  I was coming down on it really steeply and putting a lot of spin loft on it.  I needed to shallow out my attack to both deliver as low a dynamic loft as I could and also create a minimal amount of spin loft.  So - what I figured out was . .make a normal swing but get back on the inside of your right foot and stay back.  In the downswing - hit down on it and throw your hands forward - but stay back a bit.    

Not a useful shot except maybe in a one-club tournament or something . . but it did help me increase my understanding of spin-loft . .which I will definitely make use of in my normal shots.  

 

[natureboy]

14 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

Here's what I figured out . . when I was trying just to hit more down on it and throw my arms out ahead of it -  I was coming down on it really steeply and putting a lot of spin loft on it.  I needed to shallow out my attack to both deliver as low a dynamic loft as I could and also create a minimal amount of spin loft.  So - what I figured out was . .make a normal swing but get back on the inside of your right foot and stay back.  In the downswing - hit down on it and throw your hands forward - but stay back a bit.

It may work for your swing / setup, but I've generally heard it's not ideal to hang back. Maybe it's just a personal feel and you're not shifting forward as much. Most of the pros I've seen hit low penetrating irons tend to have the weight pre-set forward and move further forward on the downswing. It seems like they keep the angle shallow through other means (hand path e.g.)

For a shorter, spinny low shot a little hang back might help you catch it a touch thin for some extra lowering due to gear effect. If it's as or more consistent than other approaches you've tried and helps you score better, seems worth sticking with.

[Rainmaker]

22 minutes ago, natureboy said:

It may work for your swing / setup, but I've generally heard it's not ideal to hang back. Maybe it's just a personal feel and you're not shifting forward as much. Most of the pros I've seen hit low penetrating irons tend to have the weight pre-set forward and move further forward on the downswing. It seems like they keep the angle shallow through other means (hand path e.g.)

For a shorter, spinny low shot a little hang back might help you catch it a touch thin for some extra lowering due to gear effect. If it's as or more consistent than other approaches you've tried and helps you score better, seems worth sticking with.

Well . .this is not a shot I would actually hit...and what I ultimately want is that penetrating flight . .but hanging back, I don't think, is the way to get it.  I think if I worked on this shot I could end up with, for example, a PW that flies really low .  .travels 100-ish yards and then rolls a long way.  I *thought* I was getting a penetrating flight with my knock-down type swing but because of the steepness and lack of speed (weep) . . this only works if there's a net 4 feet in front of me to stop the ball.  

My teacher has a much more penetrating iron flight than me . .and the way I think he gets it is by dropping his arms a lot lower than I do before rotating through.  He's also got a lot more speed than me which keeps it lower for longer.  That's what I think, anyway.  I try, periodically, to work on dropping my arms lower....not having a ton of luck with that at this point.  

I can think of a handful of times when my lack of understanding of this concept has cost me strokes . . . I used to have this "phenomenon" happen to me whenever I was faced with trying to hit under and obstacle . .I would hit it too high and hit the obstacle . .a high percentage of the time.  This is because I was trying to hit down on it . .but actually chopping down on it steeply causing it to fly up . . into whatever I was trying to miss.   Edit . .even though I didn't realize the reason why I did it at the time . .I switched to using a fairway wood for this type of punch . .because . .the inclination would naturally be to make more of a shallow, sweeping type stroke.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Rainmaker

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Well . .this is not a shot I would actually hit...and what I ultimately want is that penetrating flight . .but hanging back, I don't think, is the way to get it.  I think if I worked on this shot I could end up with, for example, a PW that flies really low .  .travels 100-ish yards and then rolls a long way.  I *thought* I was getting a penetrating flight with my knock-down type swing but because of the steepness and lack of speed (weep) . . this only works if there's a net 4 feet in front of me to stop the ball.  

My teacher has a much more penetrating iron flight than me . .and the way I think he gets it is by dropping his arms a lot lower than I do before rotating through.  He's also got a lot more speed than me which keeps it lower for longer.  That's what I think, anyway.  I try, periodically, to work on dropping my arms lower....not having a ton of luck with that at this point.  

I can think of a handful of times when my lack of understanding of this concept has cost me strokes . . . I used to have this "phenomenon" happen to me whenever I was faced with trying to hit under and obstacle . .I would hit it too high and hit the obstacle . .a high percentage of the time.  This is because I was trying to hit down on it . .but actually chopping down on it steeply causing it to fly up . . into whatever I was trying to miss.   Edit . .even though I didn't realize the reason why I did it at the time . .I switched to using a fairway wood for this type of punch . .because . .the inclination would naturally be to make more of a shallow, sweeping type stroke.

It takes time.

Once you get a consistent and more ideal ball flight on a normal swing, you can consider doing all these other things. In the meantime, just try to get the proper flight.

[natureboy]

41 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

This is because I was trying to hit down on it . .but actually chopping down on it steeply causing it to fly up . . into whatever I was trying to miss.

Yeah, if you weren't getting much de-loft relative to your normal strike, you probably increased/widened the spin loft so the extra climb may have offset any de-lofting you had achieved with the attempt to hit low.

If you're trying to hit it hard & low under an obstacle, you're better off taking a club with less loft like you did.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

I think if I worked on this shot I could end up with, for example, a PW that flies really low .  .travels 100-ish yards and then rolls a long way.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a long way" but the amount of backspin you have to put on a ball with a PW to make it travel 100 yards in the air - at any height - is not going to permit much roll.

If you want to hit a a shot that flies under trees and such and rolls more, take less loft, move it back in your stance, and swing easier.  And I've never really liked fairway woods or hybrids for these types of shots because they're built to help you get the ball up.  If the rough isn't too long, just take a 5 iron and put your weight forward and the ball in the middle of your stance and swing easy.  You'll get plenty of "penetration" and roll and the ball won't go too high at all.  (If the rough is thicker, then this type of shot is trickier because now you're trying to hit it through too much grass.)

[colin007]

On 1/19/2017 at 1:24 PM, David in FL said:

Much of controlling dynamic loft is in the setup itself.

I've always been a fan of this thread, and it provides a good example of my point...

 

Ugh...I hate that thread because I suck at doing it....

[zero]

Simple, I skull it :)

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, zero said:

Simple, I skull it :)

Yeah, although, I prefer to call them "thin" shots, and reserve the term "skull" for shanked and thinned or something equally "egregious"

 

Quote

To "skull" the ball, or to hit a "skulled shot," means to contact the golf ball with the leading edge of the iron or wedge. Skulling is a synonym, in other words, for "blading the shot" or "hitting it thin," although skull is typically a term reserved for the more egregious types of those mishits.

http://golf.about.com/od/golfterms/g/bldef_skull.htm

 

On 1/19/2017 at 8:44 AM, Lihu said:

Easy, choke up the club by mistake and hit that shot too thin! Of course, this randomly happens to me at least once per round.

To do a "controlled" low shot I would setup nearer the back of my stance. If I needed to punch a shot I would also abbreviate the finish as well.

 

[Rainmaker]

That's actually the beauty part of my "hang slightly back" approach :). .you have a high probability of thinning it . .so, even if you mess up, you could still play it off like you meant to do that . . the "precision thin" . . . 

[iacas]

On 1/19/2017 at 3:24 AM, Rainmaker said:

1.  Set up like you're going to hit a high shot . .but don't actually hit it

2.  Without changing your set-up . .hit a low shot.  

I still don't understand why you'd want to do this.

Why, @Rainmaker?

If I wanted to hit a low shot, why would I set up to hit a high shot?

[sirhacksalot]

Watch some Mike malaska videos about controlling the clubface.  He used the example of having a club in your right hand, to hit high- turn up/back or right , low- turn down/forward or left.  I would swing exaggeratedly in to out, leading the club head with my hands turning the club head left and down. To hit a low low hook.

[Rainmaker]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

I still don't understand why you'd want to do this.

Why, @Rainmaker?

If I wanted to hit a low shot, why would I set up to hit a high shot?

I didn't really think it through before asking . .but I think the reason I asked it that way is that I'm wanting to know about ways we can alter flight characteristics other than set-up.  I understand how and why the set-up changes work . .at least kinda . . but the swing alterations are a mystery to me.  And I just turned a corner in my swing where I can actually start to do some different things in my swing . .so . .I wanted to know more about why balls react . .or don't react . .certain ways . .particularly with regard to trajectory and distance control . . .I have an understanding of the draw/fade laws . . .you know . .kinda, lol.  

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Rainmaker said:

I didn't really think it through before asking . .but I think the reason I asked it that way is that I'm wanting to know about ways we can alter flight characteristics other than set-up.  I understand how and why the set-up changes work . .at least kinda . . but the swing alterations are a mystery to me.  And I just turned a corner in my swing where I can actually start to do some different things in my swing . .so . .I wanted to know more about why balls react . .or don't react . .certain ways . .particularly with regard to trajectory and distance control . . .I have an understanding of the draw/fade laws . . .you know . .kinda, lol.  

Less loft, ball goes lower. More loft, ball goes higher.

Steeper AoA, ball goes lower. Less AoA, ball goes higher.

The former has more effect than the latter.

[Rainmaker]

Just now, iacas said:

Less loft, ball goes lower. More loft, ball goes higher.

Steeper AoA, ball goes lower. Less AoA, ball goes higher.

The former has more effect than the latter.

 

See. .that shows how confused I still am . .I'm thinking . . steeper AoA . .ball goes higher . . .