John Jacobs Incorrect Ball Flight Laws

[Phil McGleno]

@2turnswish why are you using a book from 1972 to teach you if you just took up the game?-That is like using a rotary phone in the modern era of smart phones.-Learn from the modern day.

I taught with Jacobs a few times. He was good but he spent far too much time on a standard setup and things than I think was warranted.-And he definitely thought the ball flight was governed by path first for start dir.-No doubt a hole he would have fixed were he alive now.

[BaconNEggs]

3 hours ago, 2turnswish said:

No not talking about the stance, but the actual path of the club. I like your experiment, but lets substitute a 4 iron

 

Why substitute a 4 iron? The putter is going to simplify the experiment the most. And you can do it in the comfort of your home without some fancy ball monitor.

 

My guess is that you intuitively understand that with a flat face, the ball is going to start out almost immediately where the face is pointed. The rest of your post, about loft, swing speed, etc. dynamically affecting everything... it's just obfuscation. Yes, there are more factors than just the face angle and swing path-- e.g. a driver is going to be more face-dominant, versus a wedge-- but for the purposes of the thought experiment, the putter works perfectly to demonstrate why the face absolutely is the dominant factor in where a ball starts. It becomes less so as the clubs become more lofted, but still remains the most important factor.

 

I also think you need to slow down and fully comprehend what people are saying. Numerous times you've stated that people are saying the exact opposite of what they're actually saying. Half the posts in this thread seem to be people re-stating things that you continue to misinterpret.

[14ledo81]

I can't believe this is still an argument.

Oh well... I suppose there are still those out there that think the earth is flat...

[Ty_Webb]

I remember when I first learned that clubface dictates initial ball direction. This after lots of hitting it into trees in front of me when I was trying to hook it around them. It was quite eye opening. I was also quite resistant to the idea at first. It went against most everything I had heard. Then someone said this to me:

Quote

If path dictates initial direction and we hit down on the ball, why doesn't the ball start down into the ground.

Clearly it doesn't, so it must be face that predominantly determines initial direction. If you want to hit a flop shot, you have the clubface pointing up at the sky. You don't hit up on the ball more. You can't. The ground is in the way. There is absolutely no reason that the horizontal plane should be different from the vertical plane, so it makes perfect sense that the ball starts mostly in the direction the clubface is pointing. 

[Yff Theos]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

  Quote

If path dictates initial direction and we hit down on the ball, why doesn't the ball start down into the ground.

It cannot start down into the ground because of the built-in loft and friction between the face and the ball surface.

It is odd to discuss what has already been well proven, but many forget that the initial direction is not 100% where the face points, but ca. 80% or so. Sometimes it is easier to teach a not so advanced pupil to curve the ball with the image of closing/opening clubface instead of clubface/path relationship because it is rather difficult to change a grooved path on command.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It cannot start down into the ground because of the built-in loft and friction between the face and the ball surface.

The fact remains that the path of the club (downward, in the case of an iron) is understood to be a non-dominant factor in the vertical plane, yet others will still insist it is the dominant factor in the horizontal plane.

Then again, there were (still are?) people who think the ball is "trapped" or "squeezed" against the ground.

3 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It is odd to discuss what has already been well proven, but many forget that the initial direction is not 100% where the face points, but ca. 80% or so.

Nobody's said it's 100%.

[BogeySwine]

Is this possibly the most FRUSTRATING thread on the entire site?

[Missouri Swede]

2 minutes ago, BogeySwine said:

Is this possibly the most FRUSTRATING thread on the entire site?

Nah.  Plenty of others here, too. But lots of instructive and pleasant stuff as well.

[2turnswish]

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 1:26 PM, BaconNEggs said:

 

Why substitute a 4 iron? The putter is going to simplify the experiment the most. And you can do it in the comfort of your home without some fancy ball monitor.

 

My guess is that you intuitively understand that with a flat face, the ball is going to start out almost immediately where the face is pointed. The rest of your post, about loft, swing speed, etc. dynamically affecting everything... it's just obfuscation. Yes, there are more factors than just the face angle and swing path-- e.g. a driver is going to be more face-dominant, versus a wedge-- but for the purposes of the thought experiment, the putter works perfectly to demonstrate why the face absolutely is the dominant factor in where a ball starts. It becomes less so as the clubs become more lofted, but still remains the most important factor.

 

I also think you need to slow down and fully comprehend what people are saying. Numerous times you've stated that people are saying the exact opposite of what they're actually saying. Half the posts in this thread seem to be people re-stating things that you continue to misinterpret.

Hitting a ball slowly with a flat face club is a bit different from swinging much harder with a lofted club, so your experiment is flawed. And as for Jacobs and his ability to teach, diagnose, and correct, IT WORKED! What else needs to be said. Good luck to the modern teachers. I'll take Jacobs, Armour, Jones, Nelson, and good luck to all.

[iacas]

40 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Hitting a ball slowly with a flat face club is a bit different from swinging much harder with a lofted club, so your experiment is flawed.

The results are the same. The ball starts mostly in the direction of the clubface, not the path as Jacobs thought.

In fact, for irons, hybrids, woods, etc., the faster you swing, the more the face dominates the start direction of the ball.

This is in spite of the fact that the time the ball is on the clubface is relatively consistent at about 400 microseconds. Why? Because if a clubhead is swung harder, it's deformed more. A ball that's deformed will "re-form" and that reformation will be "normal" (perpendicular) to the clubface against which it is deformed.

Jacobs may have thought, as many who got the ball flight laws wrong, that the faster a club was swung, the more it "stuck" to the face and was "carried" by the path. Those people were wrong.

This video isn't of a putter swung slowly.

41 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

And as for Jacobs and his ability to teach, diagnose, and correct, IT WORKED! What else needs to be said.

Because there are times when it can lead to the WRONG diagnosis and fix. We've provided examples of this. You continue to keep your head firmly stuck in the sand. Open your mind. Learn a little. You only stand to gain here…

[2turnswish]

Show me how you hit a ball that starts left of the target line and then curves to the right of target line. Or conversely a ball to the right of line then back to the left. On the L to R I'll bet you swing to the left and to the right on the second one. You cannot do otherwise. And lay off the rude descriptions of my head being anywhere, you're supposed to be a moderator.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Show me how you hit a ball that starts left of the target line and then curves to the right of target line.

Hell, @2turnswish, the poster frame of the video above shows that shot:

So, there you go. The stick on the ground is the target line. The balls tarts left because the face is pointed left. The ball starts virtually perpendicular to the face, and then curves WAY RIGHT of the target.

Here's the other type of shot you wanted:

Here's one Jacobs would be telling you means you swung a little bit to the left because the ball started to the left:

I'll say that again: John Jacobs believed the ball started along the club's path, and so he would have said that the ball started left in this shot because the path was left.

12 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

On the L to R I'll bet you swing to the left and to the right on the second one. You cannot do otherwise. And lay off the rude descriptions of my head being anywhere, you're supposed to be a moderator.

No. Your head remains stuck in the sand.

You're missing the point that John Jacobs thought the ball would start along the path of the club, when it does not. Again, I've made this pretty clear in an earlier image:

On 12/21/2017 at 7:18 PM, iacas said:

Jacobs believed the ball started on the path.

Contrary to what you keep saying, this matters. It changes a diagnosis. It changes the way you fix something.

Jacobs was a good instructor, but he undoubtedly went down the wrong path with a few students because he was wrong about the ball flight laws.

Edited January 1, 2018 by iacas
Updated with additional images

[Ernest Jones]

Haven't high speed cameras and trackman/flightscopes put this whole debate to bed yet?

Seems to me that there exists an overwhelming amount of data proving that initial direction is almost entirely dictated by where the clubface is pointing. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Haven't high speed cameras and trackman/flightscopes put this whole debate to bed yet?

Seems to me that there exists an overwhelming amount of data proving that initial direction is almost entirely dictated by where the clubface is pointing. 

It has, but @2turnswish does not want to hear it.

[2turnswish]

Look Iacas why don't you stop with the ****'s sake and my head in the sand. In fact why don't you stay off my comments. You haven't proven a thing to my satisfaction.  Your "reality" diagram shows the ball going intially right with the face pointed dead down the target line! What made the ball go right? Huh? Now if you cannot reply civilly or need the use of more labels or profanity then ****you! Jacobs may have got it wrong, but he corrected a hell of a lot more golfers than you ever will. And he was a hell of alot more humble and gentlemanly than your arrogant a**.

[14ledo81]

13 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Look Iacas why don't you stop with the ****'s sake and my head in the sand. In fact why don't you stay off my comments. You haven't proven a thing to my satisfaction.  Your "reality" diagram shows the ball going intially right with the face pointed dead down the target line! What made the ball go right? Huh? Now if you cannot reply civilly or need the use of more labels or profanity then ****you! Jacobs may have got it wrong, but he corrected a hell of a lot more golfers than you ever will. And he was a hell of alot more humble and gentlemanly than your arrogant a**.

Would it be better if he (lied) told you that you were correct? 

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

In fact why don't you stay off my comments.

No thanks. It's my site, and I prefer that people get the correct information.

16 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Your "reality" diagram shows the ball going intially right with the face pointed dead down the target line!

The "reality" diagram shows the ball starting primarily in the direction of the clubface. The video shows the ball starting primarily in the direction of the clubface. The facts are that the ball starts primarily in the direction of the clubface.

This image contradicts what John Jacobs believed:

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

Ball starts left… because the clubface is left, while the path is WELL to the right. WAY right.

16 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

What made the ball go right?

With a path 8° right, and a clubface square (0°), the ball would start about 1° right. Jacobs believed it would have started about 8° right.

To a viewer, 1° is pretty much at the target, because it's going to start curving left quickly, and will quickly be LEFT of the target line.

16 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Now if you cannot reply civilly or need the use of more labels or profanity then ****you!

I don't accept your definition of "civility." Here's how you can be civil: admit that John Jacobs - and you - are wrong about this. Dare to learn something.

To be clear to others, yes, my post above originally said "For fuck's sake…" regarding your blatant stubbornness. That's an exclamation of exhaustion, of disbelief at how stubborn you're being. It's directed at the world, the air, like "oh my goodness!" It's not, unlike your comment right here, directed at you. So, oddly enough, it is you who is swearing AT someone.

16 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Jacobs may have got it wrong

No "may have" about it.

16 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

And he was a hell of alot more humble and gentlemanly than your arrogant a**.

The civility from you continues.

It's not braggadocios or arrogant to state the facts. I'm sorry that you don't like them, but… they're the facts. As Joe Friday would say… "Just the facts…" man.

[JetFan1983]

40 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Haven't high speed cameras and trackman/flightscopes put this whole debate to bed yet?

Seems to me that there exists an overwhelming amount of data proving that initial direction is almost entirely dictated by where the clubface is pointing. 

Happy 2010, everyone!