broomhandle

OK! Nice. THIS is logical argument. Good points about 14.3(probably) My follow up question is if 14.3 defines equipment and reserves the right to regulate it where is the actual current regulation of unusual usage? In decisions? Also there is a current section on method of stroke that forbids 'spooning' 'poking' and such. I think they're intending to change that section. 'Reserving the right' is probably redundant because we've already agreed they have the authority to do pretty much anything anyway,. At least to those of us without Karsten Solheim's capacity to hire lawyers. I think you're still assigning the burden of proof to the wrong side. Shouldn't the people proposing a rule change have the obligation to show some positive reason for the change? Even in the most autocratic of organizations the powerful usually feel some compulsion to publicly claim that their decisions are for the common good.

0 hybrids but no long irons either 15 19 23 27 degree metalwoods then 5 or 6 iron

Hey, if you've seen me in other threads you know I have NO problem with arguing. :) You have to stand 90* to the slope you're on or at least get your eyes in that position. Then your view along the target line is 90 degrees to the slope. The putter is zero degrees to gravity. The difference is slope/break. Put another way you have to get in a position where the putt looks level to your eyes. Then introduce the plumb and see that that picture really isn't in line with a true vertical. Alternatively, if you can visualize the slope 90 degrees across the putt as a geometric line you can see if the vertical shaft intersects that at 90 degrees. The brain is amazingly good at seeing 90 degree angles.

Yep. I think my face balanced ping hangs very close to vertical but I'm not sure how close. Also the shaft is too fat and too obviously tapered for ideal results. Longest iron I have is 5 maybe soon to be 6. I'll have to do some experimenting with a known vertical.

Thanks. I take it that A. is from a definitively authoritative source.

Comparing slope to a known vertical is a good engineering principle. The devil's in the details.

If you're doing it right in ideal conditions you see the shaft extending through the ball along the line you need to start the ball on. Very nice. The problem is that getting the pb lined up right can be as difficult as reading the darn putt w/o the pb ;)

First off let's make it clear one last time that I am at no point arguing that the rules can't change. If you think I am I didn't make my point clearly. Lots of people have used the word traditional. As far as I know you're the first to emphasize the word 'usual'. Nothing wrong with that. The specific verbiage you quoted though, has to do with non-club equipment like braces, rangefinders, whatnot. Maybe the principle applies to clubs also. Or 'should' :) I claim that many things are traditional while still not being usual. Chippers have been around forever but not very commonly used especially by pros. Split handed putting with a normal length putter is a very similar example. Cross handed putting and even cross handed full shots. Wrist putting(which could be considered anchored) went through one phase of being pretty usual around the 50s but for most of the history of golf has been traditional but not usual. Through most of the history of golf left handed play has been unusual to the point where some great players have been left hand people who played right handed(Hogan,Miller) Belly putting was invented at least as far back as the 40s by Paul Runyan. Maybe that's not enough for 'tradition' but he did mention it in his mass-market short game book in the 80's and nobody jumped on it and said this must not be legal because it's not usual. Things go from unusual to usual also. Metal shafts were existent but unusual for decades before they became usual. Sand wedges with bounce. Lob wedges. Hybrids. Graphite shafts. 'Spikeless' shoes. Obviously there is no compulsion on the part of the ra/usga that they need to make everything unusual illegal before it becomes usual.

I would suggest the option is on the tee. Hit the provisional and the drop option is gone.

Me too. I actually bought lofted woods as I used to use though. Still need to see if hybrids are better than 7-woods.

LOL, does this mean in the sense of they should insult you or they should euthanize you?

Can I carry a string with a nut on it to plumb bob my putts? If not, how about if I just happen to have my house keys on a chain?

Quote: would the golfer get to decide whether to use his provisional or take a drop? I thought that was one of the guiding principles of provisional rules. The Golfer NEVER puts himself in a position of selecting the better situation.

You jumped in in the middle and criticized me for my 'illogical' replies to other people. THEY were making arguments based on 'proper', 'traditional', whatever. My point was never that the rules can't change. It was that their REASON for saying the rules should change was questionable. The main point I've been trying to make is that the logic of a counter argument is related to what the original argument was. Sometimes mentioning facts about the history of the game is logical and relevant. Sometimes it's not. Of course this is all of no practical impact. We all yak about what we think should be done and it has no impact on what does happen.(Unless there is somebody in the thread with some political pull in usga and an open enough mind to be influenced) My opinion of what ra/usga 'should' do is nothing because there is no problem to fix. I think that congresspersons 'should' tell me the truth. I don't have much hope of either happening.

Good point. You could also go the other way and assume that every hole intrinsically has an OB on each side where you leave the boundary of that hole.

I also basically agree with your summary. This really is going to be a political battle to see if the fundamentalists can concentrate enough influence to force the rest of us to do what they deem proper. Logic will be irrelevant to the end result.

Look at it the other way around. Isn't any argument based on tradition that they should be banned basically the mirror image of what you're accusing me of? Since long putters weren't used 50 years ago they shouldn't be legal to use now? How can it be ok to say they should be banned because they weren't used 50 years ago but 'illogical and emotional' to say that they shouldn't be banned because they have been used for 20 years? I agree completely that what you're accusing me of would be totally illogical. That's why I"M NOT SAYING THAT. Any argument from 'tradition' or 'proper' or 'appropriate' involves facts of the history of the game. I'm not allowed to make a point about the last 20 years of the history of the game because that is superficially similar to an argument I completely reject?

the logic goes like this: If long putters aren't golf they should be banned They aren't golf. therefore: They should be banned. which in symbolic logic is if A then B A therefore B if I show that A is false then the conclusion B is not proven I claim that A is false because long putters have been golf forever implicitly and for 20 years explicitly. Logical argument would proceed to discuss if 20 years were enough to establish something as 'golf' and similar issues. Introducing the obviously false and non-sensical strawman of "you can't change the rules because they're the rules" is nothing but a waste of time. No functional human being doesn't know better so it's obviously not the point they are trying to make. Extend the same logic further- If Bob says "wooden tees should be banned because they're not golf" and Bill says they've been in the game for a hundred years who is being illogical? Would you think that Bill is saying the ra/usga have no right to ban wooden tees because they're legal today? If Bob's argument were specifically that wooden tees should be banned because golf should be played literally off the ground then a counterargument stating that they've been in the game 100 years would be totally illogical.

Imagine swinging a 20 degree chipper with a perfect one lever pendulum putting stroke. The shaft is perfectly vertical at low point/0 AoA. The dynamic loft at low point/0 AoA is 20 degrees. To get -5* AoA the ONLY possibility is to hit the ball 5 degrees before the single lever reaches low point. That MUST produce an effect of 5 degrees of 'shaft lean' and dynamic loft of 20-5 = 15. Spin loft = 15 - -5 = 20 For every degree around the circular arc the AoA changes 1 degree AND the dynamic loft changes 1 degree. The spin loft is always and only 20 degrees. These relationships stay true in a full swing. There are only other variables ADDED.

If A says 'Long putters should be banned because they are 'not golf' then B saying they have 'been golf' for 20 years is a very specific counter-argument to A's specific premise. It is eminently logical and nothing like saying the rules can't change because they've always been this way.

Well, that's not a good example because they've promised not to regulate length directly.(this time, anyway) They MIGHT indirectly kill 50" putters by leaving no legal practical way to use them. I think they -should- do nothing but I think they -probably- will kill belly putters qua belly putters but leave room for people with bad backs to have workable options.

They are related if we're talking about them in the context of a practical golf swing. In any useful golf swing if you swing down you inherently remove loft. You may do other things to get some back. In any useful golf swing if you swing up you inherently add loft. You may do other things to give some back. For 1 degree differences you can net out at 0. Swinging down at 10 degrees ain't hard. Show me any workable way to get all 10 degrees back.

I think that's specifically non-club devices. Like you cant wear a wrist brace to keep your wrist straight as a technique aid but you may be able to if you need it to function at all. Even then maybe not due to clause c.

Quote: 1. Spin loft does not equal static loft. 2. If we freeze dynamic loft at 10 degrees, a driver with AoA of -5° will have a spin loft of 15° and a LOT more spin than the same dynamic loft delivered with an AoA of +5° (spin loft = 5°). 3. The bold ones are wrong... 1. It does when the shaft is neutral by my definition. 2. But you can't. Dynamic loft and AOA are tied together in one equation. There are other variables but when those stay equal every degree of change of AOA changes DL a degree. 3. Not if the shaft is neutral by my definition. Ok, DL is simply actual loft at impact. Assume: 0 shaft flex and 0 clubface roll to simplify for now. Assume: 10 degree driver DL = club loft + shaft lean ~ that arbitrarily makes hands leading club negative shaft lean Shaft lean is determined almost entirely by left arm angle and angle between the clubshaft and left arm(call it lag or flip) SL = LAA + lag/flip So with a vertical left arm and 0 lag/flip SL = 0 + 0 DL = Club loft = 10 With left arm 5 degrees short of vertical and 0 lag/flip SL = -5+0 Dl = CL - 5 = 5 With left arm 5 degrees short of vertical and 5 lag SL = -5-5 DL = CL - 10 = 0 With left arm 5 degrees past vertical and 0 lag/flip SL = +5+0 DL = CL+ 5 = 15 With left arm 5 degrees pat vertical and 5 degrees flip SL = 5+5 DL = CL+10= 20 ****************************************************************************************************************************** Now for the connection with AoA Exact AoA is complex but certainly dominated by left arm angle.I think that left arm angle is a workable approximation. Low point is basically at left arm vertical and low point is by definition AoA = 0 It really should be shoulder-to-clubhead angle but I doubt if that makes 1 degree of difference in AoA. I'll do the trig sometime. AoA = Left Arm Angle Dynamic Loft = Club Loft + Shaft Lean Shaft Lean = Left Arm Angle + lag/flip so: Dynamic Loft = club loft + Left Arm Angle + lag/flip Dynamic Loft = club loft + AoA + lag/flip Spin Loft SL = DL - AoA so spin loft = club loft + AoA + lag/flip - AoA spin loft = club loft - lag/flip neutral shaft = lag/flip = 0 So for a neutral shaft spin loft = club loft summary of possibilities: Left Arm Angle lag/flip Shaft Lean(LAA+lag/flip) Dynamic Loft(CL+SL) AoA(LAA) Spin Loft(DL-AoA) -5 0 -5 5 -5 10 -5 -5 -10 0 -5 5 -5 +5 0 10 -5 15 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 -5 -5 5 0 5 0 +5 5 15 0 15 +5 0 5 15 +5 10 +5 -5 0 10 +5 5 +5 +5 10 20 +5 15 I think if you flip on a downward or level swing you have bigger problems than loft calculations. so the only time you could realistically increase spin loft above club loft would actually be on the ascending blow.

Quote: Originally Posted by Golfingdad OK, now you guys are getting into area of the things I mentioned kicking around in my head, so I'll jump in. How does dynamic loft relate to launch angle? From what I'm reading above, it sounds like they must be equal. (If launch angle is just degrees above the horizontal that the ball leaves the clubface, and dynamic loft is degrees behind the vertical of said clubface at impact, and the ball leaves the clubface in the direction it is pointing, then DL would equal LA) Which means that launch angle would be static loft - shaft lean. But with any decent amount of shaft lean and a typical driver (say, 10 degrees) then you'd be talking about 5-7 degrees launch? When I believe 10 or so is optimum, correct? So, what am I missing? Quote: a) The initial launch angle of the ball always falls between the dynamic loft and attack angle at impact. b) TrackMan data has shown for drivers, that dynamic loft normally accounts for about 85% of the launch angle, while attack angle accounts for the remaining 15%. For irons, the ratio is around 75% dynamic loft and 25% attack angle. For example, a 10° launch angle would result from a iron shot where the attack angle is -5 degrees and the Dynamic Loft is +15 degrees (15 * 75% plus -5 * 25% equals 10).