John Jacobs Incorrect Ball Flight Laws

[2turnswish]

19 hours ago, iacas said:

There's a lot more to a golf swing than that, of course.

I think it goes well beyond just that, and think good instruction helps prioritize and helps students improve far better than they can get just by trying to teach themselves.

Which tempo? Nick Price? Freddie Couples?

Romano didn't get much better at all. Wasn't his goal to break 80 or something and then he never did it, or he did it from really short tees somewhere or something, weeks later?

Where's the hate? It's a discussion. I don't think Hank Haney's a great instructor, no. So you get to have an opinion, but I don't?

Jealousy? Not at all.

You sure about that?

Links and quotes… (the first has the relevant quote right there in the embed: "Unfortunately John Jacobs gets the ball flight laws wrong."

http://www.golfmagic.com/forum/golf-instruction/john-jacobs/43657

Recent technology has pretty well determined that : 1. The angle of the clubface determines ball flight direction. 2. Swing path determines the shape. Thus one can hit a draw with and open face. Jacobs seemed to have things the other way around. Comments?

http://adamkolloff.com/the-wong-ball-flight-laws/

For years players and teachers had it wrong. John Jacobs, one of the world’s top teachers from England, advocated that swing path had more influence than clubface in the ball’s starting direction. His theory was eloquently illustrated in one of the most influential golf books of all time, Practical Golf. Fortunately for him, there wasn’t enough advanced technology like we have today to test his widely accepted opinion.

http://forum.brianmanzellagolf.com/golfing-discussions/5612-john-jacobs-tom-watson-clubface-pull.html

John Jacobs was a very good teacher of golf. But HE DID influnence the BOGUS "Ball Flight Laws" that Gary Wiren and The Toski Flick combo promoted to the DETRIMENT of golf and golfers everywhere.

http://www.bettergolfcoach.com/newballflightlaws.htm

For almost the entire history of golf instruction, and certainly since the publication of John Jacobs’ Practical Golf in 1972, the ball flight laws have been set in stone. The PGA manual of golf, and generations of golf professionals have believed that, a well struck golf shot will start on the path that the club was swinging along, then change direction towards where the clubface was looking at impact.

Here's the problem… if you're going to base your entire teaching philosophy on ball flight, and you have what causes the ball flight almost entirely backward… doesn't that greatly inhibit your ability to teach properly?

Ball is starting a little right of the target and over-curving left. Fix using the "old" ball flight laws? Swing out more to the right!

Can you shed some light on the above?

Go to the Golftech chart and look at it. Compare it to what JJ's diagrams showed, there the same. Only now they say the club face is responsible for the initial ball path. Really? Then just what put the spin on the ball? The club path or the face of the club? The club pathway sends the ball left, right, or straight, the metal spins the ball. Pick a target line right of the pin. Now align yourself along that target line. Now close your club face and swing inside to out. Where does the ball go intially before turning left? Either along your target line or a bit further right and then it turns left. So what caused it to go straight or a bit out to the right? Clubface or path? 

(Moderator: This topic was split off from another topic which can be found here.)

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

Go to the Golftech chart and look at it. Compare it to what JJ's diagrams showed, there the same.

You're not reading what I'm typing.

JJ, from what I've read, thought the ball started on the path and curved to where the face was pointing. That's quite incorrect.

I'll assume you're referring to this chart:

That's not what Jacobs seems to have believed. He wrote that the ball started on the path and curved to where the face was pointing. The above shows "the opposite."

This is correct: https://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws

"The ball starts close to where the face is pointing and curves away from the path."

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

Only now they say the club face is responsible for the initial ball path. Really?

That's kind of a big deal!

And yes, that's right, except that by "only now" you mean since the 1990s.

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

Then just what put the spin on the ball? The club path or the face of the club? 

The relationship between the two.

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

The club pathway sends the ball left, right, or straight, the metal spins the ball.

No.

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

Pick a target line right of the pin. Now align yourself along that target line. Now close your club face and swing inside to out. Where does the ball go intially before turning left? Either along your target line or a bit further right and then it turns left. So what caused it to go straight or a bit out to the right? Clubface or path? 

Your ball probably starts close to the pin-line and hooks well left of it. It starts well left of your rightward "target" line.

To put some actual numbers on it: if you point the clubface at the target, and swing 6° to the right, the ball will start about 1° right of the target and curve well to the left of the target.

Jacobs would have the shot starting well right of the target and drawing back to it. That's wrong.

So my point remains: John Jacobs based his entire teaching philosophy on "ball flight" but didn't actually understand what causes the ball to fly the way it does.

Truth? Seems to be.

And this can cause some very dangerous and incorrect changes to be made. The player in your example would be told to swing out more and more to the right, despite that being the OPPOSITE of what they should do.

Edited December 21, 2017 by iacas
removed nine ball flights graphic

[2turnswish]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're not reading what I'm typing.

JJ, from what I've read, thought the ball started on the path and curved to where the face was pointing. That's quite incorrect.

I assume the "GolfTec" chart is simply one similar to the "nine types" one here:

That's not the "ball flight laws."

If you're referring to this:

Then that's what I'm saying is NOT what John Jacobs wrote. He wrote that the ball started on the path and curved to where the face was pointing. The above shows "the opposite."

https://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws

That's kind of a big deal!

And no, not "only now." Since the 90s this has been known.

The relationship between the two.

No.

If you point the clubface at the target, and swing 6° to the right, the ball will start about 1° right of the target and curve well to the left of the target.

So no, that's not the correct way to hit a draw, and my point remains: John Jacobs based his entire philosophy on "ball flight" but didn't actually understand what causes the ball to fly the way it does.

Read John Jacobs again and see if he was wrong. Now using your own words here I'll uphold JJ. Swing 5* right, clubface at target, which "Initial" direction did the the ball go? Right of target, not left of target line and the closed clubface, relative to the swing path made it go way left. JJ's assessment exactly. You're all trying to redefine "initial". Your senario had the ball going right, then left relative to the TARGET not trackman or any other monitoring device, THE TARGET. Okay?

[iacas]

Just now, 2turnswish said:

Read John Jacobs again and see if he was wrong.

He was wrong.

Jacobs, from everything I've read (and some of it was quoted earlier), said the ball started close to the path and curved relative to the face.

In truth, the ball starts much closer to where the clubface is pointing.

Just now, 2turnswish said:

Now using your own words here I'll uphold JJ. Swing 6* right, clubface at target, which "Initial" direction did the the ball go? Right of target, not left of target line and the closed clubface, relative to the swing path made it go way left.

JJ would say the ball would start 6° right. He would say it would finish at the target.

In truth, it starts much closer to the clubface (which is at 0°). The ball finishes well left of the target.

Just now, 2turnswish said:

JJ's assessment exactly.

No.

Just now, 2turnswish said:

You're all trying to redefine "initial".

With all due respect, no, we're not. The initial direction the ball travels is where it travels right off the clubface. That's been the same.

And it's not the "path" of the club as JJ said.

---

So again, I'll point out…

John Jacobs based his entire teaching philosophy on "ball flight" but didn't actually understand what causes the ball to fly the way it does.

[2turnswish]

Just now, iacas said:

He was wrong.

Jacobs, from everything I've read (and some of it was quoted earlier), said the ball started close to the path and curved relative to the face.

In truth, the ball starts much closer to where the clubface is pointing.

JJ would say the ball would start 6° right. He would say it would finish at the target.

In truth, it starts much closer to the clubface (which is at 0°). The ball finishes well left of the target.

No.

With all due respect, no, we're not. The initial direction the ball travels is where it travels right off the clubface. That's been the same.

And it's not the "path" of the club as JJ said.

Look is the ball on a line from it to the target? Yes. So you aim right and swing right, any degree you want. Now close the clubface. Now swing. Did the ball start intially right of the line from ball to target? Yes it did. Why? Because that's the direction you swung. THE INITIAL DIRECTION WAS RIGHT OF THE TARGET LINE DETERMINED BY CLUB PATH. Now the clubface orientation determines how terminal path. Sorry your mixing up your reference points in defining "initial" and building a faulty foundation to your "new laws". I'm exhausted for new arguments. I'll leave it to you. But if your correcting a slice you'd better aim left. It's always worked.

1 minute ago, 2turnswish said:

Look is the ball on a line from it to the target? Yes. So you aim right and swing right, any degree you want. Now close the clubface. Now swing. Did the ball start intially right of the line from ball to target? Yes it did. Why? Because that's the direction you swung. THE INITIAL DIRECTION WAS RIGHT OF THE TARGET LINE DETERMINED BY CLUB PATH. Now the clubface orientation determines how terminal path. Sorry your mixing up your reference points in defining "initial" and building a faulty foundation to your "new laws". I'm exhausted for new arguments. I'll leave it to you. But if your correcting a slice you'd better aim left. It's always worked.

Sorry, aim right, hell you got me confused!

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Look is the ball on a line from it to the target? Yes. So you aim right and swing right, any degree you want. Now close the clubface. Now swing. Did the ball start intially right of the line from ball to target? Yes it did. Why?

Okay, let's do this:

0° is directly at the flag/hole/pin/center-of-green. Positive numbers are to the right. Negative numbers are to the left.

You say: "aim right, any degree." Okay, I aim right 10°.

You say "close the clubface." Okay, I close it to -5° (left of the target).

You say "Now swing. Did the ball start initially right of the line from the ball to the target"? No. It did not. It started left of the target line and hooked way, way left.

4 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Because that's the direction you swung.

The ball is not influenced much by the direction you swing. John Jacobs got this wrong.

4 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

THE INITIAL DIRECTION WAS RIGHT OF THE TARGET LINE DETERMINED BY CLUB PATH.

No. It's much more determined by the clubface angle.

4 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

But if your correcting a slice you'd better aim left. It's always worked.

Sorry, aim right, hell you got me confused!

No.

Again, JJ's "laws" can lead to the exact opposite fix. Ball starts a tiny bit right and draws well left of the target? He'd tell you to swing more to the right, when that's the opposite of what you'd want to do.

These aren't opinions.

[2turnswish]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

Okay, let's do this:

0° is directly at the flag/hole/pin/center-of-green. Positive numbers are to the right. Negative numbers are to the left.

You say: "aim right, any degree." Okay, I aim right 10°.

You say "close the clubface." Okay, I close it to -5° (left of the target).

You say "Now swing. Did the ball start initially right of the line from the ball to the target"? No. It did not. It started left of the target line and hooked way, way left.

The ball is not influenced much by the direction you swing. John Jacobs got this wrong.

No. It's much more determined by the clubface angle.

No.

Again, JJ's "laws" can lead to the exact opposite fix. Ball starts a tiny bit right and draws well left of the target? He'd tell you to swing more to the right, when that's the opposite of what you'd want to do.

These aren't opinions.

No he'd have you square your stance for path, make sure where you were aiming the clubface, square, and maybe ease your grip.

3 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

No he'd have you square your stance for path, make sure where you were aiming the clubface, square, and maybe ease your grip.

Look if you aim 10* right, but have clubface 5* left, I guarantee the ball will go right before it goes left. Guaranteed. Now you have the monitors, go test it. The only way that ball is going right is if path is right. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

No he'd have you square your stance for path

Your stance is irrelevant.

None of that ultimately affects what the ball does. All the ball knows is what the clubface is doing. I know plenty of slicers who aim well to the right, and still manage to swing way left. Almost all of them even deliver a clubface pointing left of the target at impact.

Here's the problem:

Jacobs believed the ball started on the path. So if you hit the shot on the right, the "reality" shot, he'd have you swing more to the right. The ball would start a tiny bit further right… and then hook even further left.

Green is where the face is pointing, pink is the club path.

[2turnswish]

Look I appreciate your dedication. But your theory is flawed, as is your determination as to what JJ would recommend. Unfortunately he's passed. But having read all his books he'd not recommend further right to correct a hook, and make you a Bobby Locke, he'd set you straight by correcting the fundamentals and ball position. And yes I still solidily stand behind initial is path, terminal is face "relative to path". You are saying the same, but just cannot see it.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

But your theory is flawed

It's not. It's a known fact.

Jacobs said the ball started along the path. That's incorrect, and can lead to a whole host of diagnoses that are incorrect.

There's no harm in admitting that what someone thought in the 1970s was wrong. We didn't have the knowledge then that we have now.

6 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

You are saying the same, but just cannot see it.

I know what you're saying, but the amount of influence matters a great deal.

The ball starts more where the face is pointing, not where the path is, as Jacobs stated.

[dennyjones]

Trackman University would agree with @iacas

 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, dennyjones said:

Trackman University would agree with @iacas

Yeah, and with a wedge, that's about as much of an influence the path will ever have. With a driver, it's even closer to the face angle.

[iacas]

---

And, look, @2turnswish… this doesn't destroy Jacobs' legacy. He was still the father of modern instruction. He still contributed a LOT to the game of golf, and instruction specifically.

But he got the ball flight laws wrong, and when you're purporting to base your instruction around the ball flight, that can sometimes be a bit of a big deal.

Our knowledge has advanced quite a bit since 1972. Jacobs, were he alive now, would likely be right there leading the charge to know more. But he's not, and using ideas from 50 years ago… is potentially dangerous. We know more now.

[2turnswish]

I'm sorry, but in mind and others you have not disproved JJ and others concept of "ball flight laws", rather you have proved them. You're just confusing yourself. But it doesn't matter as the corrections will still be the same as taught by JJ. Good luck.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

I'm sorry, but in mind and others you have not disproved JJ and others concept of "ball flight laws", rather you have proved them. You're just confusing yourself. But it doesn't matter as the corrections will still be the same as taught by JJ. Good luck.

Dude… Jacobs said the ball started where the path of the club was going.

He was wrong.

Being wrong about that can cause some very faulty diagnoses and fixes.

It's that simple. I'm not "confusing" myself at all.

---

The thing that remains the same between the two is that if the face is left of the path, the ball curves left. But that's only part of the "ball flight laws." What determines where the ball starts is a BIG part of it, and Jacobs got that part wrong.

[2turnswish]

Dudie, JJ said the ball's initial path was relative to the swing path and he WAS EXACTLY RIGHT! And all your monitors will not be able to disprove that correct observation. And all you've done here was prove him right and confuse yourself. That's the facts. You hit a ball out to the right 5*, the clubface is 2* closed, the ball is going right 3* and then will turn left somewhere along the way, depending on other factors. Just as JJ described for many, many, years. And you can test this with any golfer. What you're missing or misdescribing is the influence of the 2* of the closed face. You're confusing yourself, but keep thinking, you'll get it. Maybe. Either way, if you're a good instructor you'll correct a slice or hook the same as JJ taught. Good luck.

[iacas]

Just now, 2turnswish said:

Dudie, JJ said the ball's initial path was relative to the swing path and he WAS EXACTLY RIGHT!

No, he wasn't. Jacobs, from what I've read, said the ball started along the path of the club.

If the clubface is 5° left, and the path is 10° right… the ball starts… LEFT.

1 minute ago, 2turnswish said:

And all you've done here was prove him right and confuse yourself.

:sigh: Dude, I'm not confused. I understand the Ball Flight Laws, the D-Plane, etc. quite well.

2 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

You hit a ball out to the right 5*, the clubface is 2* closed, the ball is going right 3* and then will turn left somewhere along the way, depending on other factors.

a) If you meant 5° and 3° right of the target (at 0°) for the path and face, you're close to correct. (It'll actually start at about 3.4° right.)
b) If you meant 5° right and -3° left (of the target line at 0°), then you're not correct.

Jacobs believed in the latter. He believed the ball's initial direction was determined primarily by the path. That's incorrect. It's determined primarily by the face.

Please watch your terminology. "Closed" needs a second term… closed… TO WHAT. The target line? The path? You need a second thing.

2 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Just as JJ described for many, many, years.

Jacobs believed the ball's initial direction was primarily influenced by the path. This is incorrect.

2 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

What you're missing or misdescribing is the influence of the 2* of the closed face. You're confusing yourself, but keep thinking, you'll get it. Maybe. Either way, if you're a good instructor you'll correct a slice or hook the same as JJ taught. Good luck.

You're doing yourself no favors with this constant "you're confusing yourself" bullshit. Enough. I'm not confused by any of this.

 

[nevets88]

We had a big discussion on ball flight laws around 2010, once in awhile, the whole thing seems to get rehashed again.