How much do you trust tips from golf magazines?

[jc21539]

I was browsing the internet the other day, and I came across an article that stopped me in my tracks.

The article was written by David DeNunzio, managing editor of the instruction section for Golf Magazine. What really bugs me about this article is that the information in it is simply wrong. I am referring to the section where he describes what makes a ball slice. Unfortunitely, it appears that Mr. DeNunzio was just regurgitating common knowledge about the golf swing, and was not really interested in finding out the facts.

The article is found here at http://www.golf.com .

If the three diagrams where he explains the three different types of slices are true, then golf is apparently the only thing in the known universe that is able to defy the laws of physics. If the swing path is straight down the target line, and the clubface is open, the ball will NOT start out even remotely straight. The ball will start out, at the very least (according to the laws of physics), within 5/7 of the angle that the clubface is pointing, in relation to the angle between the clubface direction and the swing path direction. Here is a graphic representation of what I just described:



I can't help but wonder, if this guy is the managing editor of the instruction section for a magazine as widely published as Golf Magazine, what about the rest of the stuff that these guys spit out week after week?

[Dent]

If Also gotten really stupid advice from a magazine. Most are things that dont work at all. I can't remember what it what but I remember trying it and realized how stupid it was.

[CurtisBen]

I was talking to my father-in-law about this very thing this past weekend. I honestly believe that I have come to the point that reading this stuff has made me worse as a golfer. I know they probably try to have good intentions. But, the simply fact is garbage in equals garbage out.

[elchene]

Yeah, Golf Magazine has a bunch of wrong tips and facts. Golf Digest is a lot more trustworthy. There was an article about Tiger Woods and his putting in Golf Magazine. They said that he practices right-hand only putts to get the feel of "move[ing] straight down the target line" (Pg. 111 March 2008). Most people know that Tiger does this to practice the release of the toe of the putter. Golf Magazine makes a whole lot of stupid comments. They really need to get some credible sources!!

[iacas]

If the three diagrams where he explains the three different types of slices are true, then golf is apparently the only thing in the known universe that is able to defy the laws of physics. If the swing path is straight down the target line, and the clubface is open, the ball will NOT start out even remotely straight. The ball will start out, at the very least (according to the laws of physics), within 5/7 of the angle that the clubface is pointing, in relation to the angle between the clubface direction and the swing path direction. Here is a graphic representation of what I just described:

The

physics forum from which you've pulled your information has so many holes I can't even begin to list them all. They're basically making up numbers and guessing. Your graphic isn't true all the time, and for clubs from about a 6-iron or a 5-iron on down, the path of the club is the determining factor in the ball's initial direction. It contributes more than half, within reason (no 80 degree swing paths that practically go sideways across the back of the ball). In other words, a ball hit with a driver on a square path but with an open clubface will start out fairly straight, then slice. A ball hit with a square clubface (to the target) and cut across from outside to in will start left and cut back to the target (give or take a little). We just had a lengthy discussion on this topic several months ago, and most of the better players seemed to indicate that they believe what I've said to be the truth. Most of the higher handicappers seemed to fall back on what physics would seem to indicate - that the ball must come off perpendicular to the clubface. Instead, for lower-lofted clubs the friction of the ball on the clubface matters more than the actual position (angle) of the clubface itself. I will also say that my ability to diagnose problems with my swing, make corrections, and improve my practice and shotmaking took dramatic leaps forward after I flipped my thinking in this to what I've described here. I've seen it measured and tested on state-of-the-art launch monitors. I've heard virtually every respected teacher repeat it as such (including Tiger Woods and his coach Hank Haney), and the physics forum you've linked to may be great for general physics, but I think they're wrong on this one. The 5/7 number is as good as made up - friction can vary from golf ball to golf ball, and clubface to clubface. It varies by swing speed. There's no universal constant here, and to assume there is ignores far too much physics to be worth much at all. Which has more friction: a 100 pound block of wood sitting on concrete or a 1 pound block of wood sitting on concrete, both with the same surface area touching the concrete? How about a 100 pound block of wood and a 100 pound block of ice, same surface area? Swing speed matters, as does the material. The guys on the physics thread also say that "deformation certainly has an influence" and then goes on to guess that it's "probably very small." Ugh. Just what you want in a physics discussion - guessing! They also get this wrong: "The primary effect of deformation (more precisely: inner friction due to deformation) is a "loss" of speed. Without that, the ball's speed would be twice the clubhead's speed, in reality it is maybe ten, twenty percent smaller." The person who has told you "5/7" is pulling things out of his rear. Look up the other thread. Sure beats starting this discussion all over again. And don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Some pilots don't even think a plane can take off from a conveyor belt.

[iacas]

Found that thread: http://thesandtrap.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7153 . It's closed, but that doesn't mean we need to start it all over again.

FWIW, to answer the original question, it's not a matter of trust or not. It's a matter of "will this particular tip help me." I don't think they give out many tips that are "untrustworthy." Most are bound to work for someone, somewhere.

I personally rarely use the tips because I'm in the top 5% of all golfers, and most of those tips aren't geared towards me.

[Three Putt]

Magazines find ailments in your game...then follow up with the latest and greatest golf clubs to fix your game....buy products=more advertising= more confusion for the average golfer...but that's what fuels the industry.

sort of like Doctors in my book...show up for an appointment, you have something wrong with you...here is the latest and greatest drug medication.

Maybe I am just stupid, but I don't go to Doctors and I usually tee off with my 3 iron.

[jc21539]

If the logic that the clubhead path is more influential in determining the initial direction of the ball flight than the clubface is, then this logic must also hold true for the vertical flight as well.

That would mean that if you hit the ball at the exact bottom of your swing arc with a wedge, the ball would initially start out on the direction of the swing path, which would be parallel to the ground, and only after traveling in the "air" for a while would it start to move up, even though it would have to start out as a grounder.

In reality, we are usually hitting down on the ball, so the ball has to start downwards, the same direction the clubhead is traveling...right?

If you believe that this image holds true, then it must work the same way for the horizontal vector. Angles don't care whether they are facing up or down or right or left. There is no IF about it.



The website that you can find this information on is http://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/...lubmakeronline . But with a basic understanding of physics and some common sense, you can tell that this will hold true for the horizontal vector just as it does for the vertical vector.

If anyone can prove otherwise, besides saying that some golfers have agreed on it, please explain in scientific detail. I am open to any relevant arguments, as long as they have some basis in reality and not just intuition or personal perception.

I have read the previous threads about this on this forum. They are wrong. The information was probably taken out of a magazine. That's why I had to start a new one.

[elchene]

Can't wait to take physics next year... . My school golf coach is also our AP physics teacher.

[iacas]

If the logic that the clubhead path is more influential in determining the initial direction of the ball flight than the clubface is, then this logic must also hold true for the vertical flight as well.

No, it doesn't. Not many people cut across the ball at 21° like a 3-iron's loft (let alone the 8-iron or whatever you showed). The physics change dramatically when the clubhead's direction is only four or five degrees downward and the loft of the club is by at least 4x as much.

And the attack angle still matters. Tiger's pitching wedge has a loft of 48°. His typical forward lean of the shaft is about 8°. Yet his launch angle is about 33-34°. Why? Because his angle of attack is about eight° downward as well. The physics you've quoted are wrong. Obviously and provably wrong (2x the clubhead speed? That doesn't even make common sense.) The onus does not fall on us to try to disprove you. I'm confident in my position, the launch monitor results I've seen, the pros and teachers I've talked to (and read), as well as the improvements changing my understanding made to my game. It's going to be a waste of my time to further discuss this. Perhaps others will not see it that way, but again, I'm quite confident that you're wrong.

[Big_M]

Can't wait to take physics next year...

you should tell him to hit up this thread... put his 2 cents in. I have no comment on the physics discussion as my undergrad was history and my graduate studies are in law... not laws of motion. I have an opinion, but will choose not to stir the pot even more.

As to if I trust tips... I trust that most of them will work for some people, but overall I wish the tips section of the magazine was smaller and the golf gossip, equipment reviews, course profiles, etc. sections were larger. I think the tips are mostly well intended, but there is no one page solution for most golf swings... nothing can replace personal lessons, or the ability to analyze your own swing and make corrections.

[jc21539]

And the attack angle still matters. Tiger's pitching wedge has a loft of 48°. His typical forward lean of the shaft is about 8°. Yet his launch angle is about 33-34°. Why? Because his angle of attack is about eight° downward as well.

If I understand correctly, what's being said is that Tiger sets up with the clubface at about 40 degrees (48 degrees minus the 8 degrees forward lean) and strikes down at about 8 degrees. His ball flies up at about 34 degrees. The overall angle between the clubface and the angle of approach is 40 degrees up minus 8 degrees down, which equals a net sum of 48 degrees.

34/48=0.71 5/7=0.71 So the angle the ball flies up at is exactly 5/7 of the overall angle between the clubface direction and the swing path. I honestly couldn't have made this up if I wanted to, nor would I have any reason to.

The physics change dramatically when the clubhead's direction is only four or five degrees downward and the loft of the club is by at least 4x as much.

The laws of motion don't change with magnitude. I'm sorry, I don't think I can say this any more clearly.

I never said that the ball flies off the clubface at twice the speed of the clubhead. This is being quoted from one website that I used out of many different resources, a website that does happen to be about physics and not about golf. I wouldn't expect them to know everything about the elasticity of clubheads and golf balls. They were correct to say that the ball would fly off the face at a greater speed than the clubhead, and that the compression of the ball on the clubface would reduce the speed. I hope everyone is aware that the speed of the ball off the clubface is greater than the speed the clubhead is traveling. Just take a putter, and swipe at a golf ball at an extreme out-to-in or in-to out path, but keep the clubface pointing straight. See whether the ball goes closer to the clubface direction or the swing path direction. “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -Benjamin Franklin

[iacas]

The laws of motion don't change with magnitude. I'm sorry, I don't think I can say this any more clearly.

Yes, they do. A lot of functions of physics are mapped on curves. Very little of physics is a straight line graph.

The very putter example you cite later on is proof of it. The ball won't be carried much sideways because of the putter. But let's change the "magnitude" of friction twice. Once by putting some soft rubber on the face of the putter - wow, the ball goes further offline. Another time by swinging 110 MPH - wow, the ball goes offline more than the slow swing yet again! Magnitude of compression, of angle (and the resulting vector which can apply force in its direction) have a SERIOUS and MAJOR effect. To say otherwise is, once again, proof that you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Here's another example of the direction of an object striking a ball having a greater effect than the angle of contact. To put spin on a cue ball in pool, you strike the ball as much as about a tip off-center. If you simply connect the contact point (the "clubface") through the center of the cue ball, the ball will veer 10-15 degrees offline. Instead, what we see is the ball deflects only about a fraction of one degree, because the friction between the cue tip (and the chalk on it) and the pool ball is strong enough to grab it and push it forward, straight along the line of the cue stick.

I never said that the ball flies off the clubface at twice the speed of the clubhead.

No, but the bozo whose physics you've relied on does. Shows how good your sources are.

They were correct to say that the ball would fly off the face at a greater speed than the clubhead, and that the compression of the ball on the clubface would reduce the speed. I hope everyone is aware that the speed of the ball off the clubface

Uhm, you'd have to be pretty stupid not to think so. Unfortunately, that's about the only thing your physics pals got right. The simple fact that they said "2x the speed" ignores so much BASIC physics (like, say, mass of the two objects) that everything else they've said is void of any merit.

They were basically making things up that sounded good. But hey, you probably don't think the plane takes off either...

Just take a putter, and swipe at a golf ball at an extreme out-to-in or in-to out path, but keep the clubface pointing straight. See whether the ball goes closer to the clubface direction or the swing path direction.

See above. You've done nothing but disprove your own theory that magnitude doesn't matter.

At, say, an 80 degree angle, how much force do you think is put into compression (thus aiding the frictional "carrying" of the ball)? Very little. If you had read the other thread, you'd see that I said club path is the predominant force until you get to a certain loft, then clubface angle begins to take over, and even then only within a certain range. Your example is well outside the range of normal - if you're trying to figure out why you suck at golf and you're swinging on an "extreme out-to-in" swing path, the ball flight isn't going to be the first thing you look at. You won't need to - your flaw is obvious.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

Don't be an ass. Your insults aren't even as clever as you seem to think they are. Furthermore, I've already said I've "learned" - I used to think as you do, that clubface angle mattered more. I came to learn it does not.

Actually, I'm not going to give you the chance to keep being an ass. I'm closing this thread. If you'd like to start another thread that simply asks the question you tried to ask here, do so, but leave this portion of the discussion out of it.