limoric

Moe Norman -25 Francis Ouimet -25 Bobby Jones -25

Yes, I saw it and I just now followed the link. Very cool! I'm going to play around with it when I get to a pc. Also I know a pilot who's brain I'm going to pick, he flies small planes. I'll ask him if there's areas of the lower main land that consistently have Lower or higher air density... Thanks!

Why have you narrowed it down to these two drivers? I've hit them both on a launch monitor and played my buddy's D2 along mine on the course. My 4 year old FT-iZ was longer than both. Between the 2, I liked the D2 much more, but launch quite high. The D3 should get you more distance if you're not needing that extra forgiveness in a driver, I'm looking forward to giving it a go this summer, might knock the FT-iZ out of the bag...

Hey, I'm not too far from you, just across the border; will be playing North Bellingham tomorrow. Stretch the Hips man, do a quick walk around the block to warm up and then attack those hips. I stretch the hips 2X per day. Find the Youtube vids for titleist fitness, you'll find some great stretching routines!!

Sorry to say, you waisted your time when you suggested a calculation that would see air pressure fall to a level that is not possible. You could have chosen to put what I was trying to say into context or ask for clarification if you really wanted to be helpful; instead of trying to teach me how to calculate a percentage which was irrelevant to the query. Nope, you'd rather argue, adamantly state I'm wrong and then offer no evidence to the contrary. Your departure will not be missed...cheers.

I dropped my $120 package down to $30, essentially losing most channels. I got Netfix which I really love. I had also planned to get an entena for OTA HD, but found out I'd only get a couple channels. The plan was to get rid of cable all together. After a month I was dying to watch the golf channel. I cave in and all of a sudden I don't have Boomberg anymore. Buggers took it away, even though I pay more. I really, really hate the cable company!!!

The percentage change doesn't matter and I don't care what it is. I'm after the percentage change in air density or the percentage change that an object is affected by when passing through that air density. It's the point of the whole thread, you could have chosen to look at it a different way, despite how you understood my description..

It might very well, but I would be very surprised if the effect on air density was just 0.9% and that's what this thread is about. The physics professor in the link I posted previously made reference to a 10% change in air pressure and the influence on golf ball distance (a 240 yard drive would be 267). He also made references to change in air pressure not being more than 5-10% usually. Since it is impossible for the air pressure to drop 10% by the way you are calculating it, he must be talking about a different unit of measure. The lowest recorded non-hurricane barometric pressure in the lower 48 is 95.6 and it most certainly did not get to that value overnight.

So I played in an event today at Swan-E-Set Golf course just north of Pitt Meadows BC, this is about 30 minutes north east of Vancouver. Even though the course is around a 1 hour drive from the nearest coastline, the area is below sea level. It's a place where golfers now their ball is not going to fly as far, the same goes for Golden Eagle golf course which is 10 minutes from it. I played with 7 cap, an 8 cap and of course I'm a 6 for this course. Where I was hitting wedge 135 just 2 days ago (10 minutes from the coastline, but a few feet above sea level), today I was lucky to hit a wedge 115 and my playing partners were no different, we were all talking about loss of distance. 160 approach shots required 5 iron; even in the winter, 5 iron goes about 170-175 for me at most Vancouver courses. The temperature was exactly the same today as Sunday. The humidity was roughly the same, 93% in the nearest town, 10 minutes away. Sunday it was 88-90% in North Vancouver. I don't know what the barometric pressure was, since I was not carrying a barometer, but in the nearest town it was 100.2 today, which is lower than normal, we are in the middle of a low pressure system which started Sunday. Since the course is below sea level and sea level pressure in 101.34, I can only imagine the pressure was higher, perhaps 2 points higher than Sunday's 99.4. For those who have participated in this thread, and those who will. It's a fact that air pressure fluctuate greatly in some areas of the planet and very little in others. If you don't see a significant change in golf ball distance from one week to the next, it's very likely the air pressure in your area does not change much. If on the other hand, you wonder why the ball just doesn't fly sometimes, it may be the air pressure, but as others have already said, temperature and humidity can be influencers. I'm more interested in ball flight distance changes when the temp and humidity are constant

Wow, awesome info...thanks.

Please prove this. Your stock example was an attempt to make me understand how to calculate percentage, but clearly, even in your example, the math would not be possible. Air Pressure can change 5-10%, the professor of physics I linked to said as much, but if I apply your math to this change, you get a number that isn't even possible. So where my math is clearly not correct and I said it wasn't from the start, your math is absurd and your posts have done absolutely nothing to explain the effects of Air Pressure on golf ball flight. I fully expect to get an arguement from you without a single attempt to prove your possition...

Since my last post, some people have added to the actual theme of the thread; it was my intention to draw these smart people in. Yes, it's said it went the way it did. I did not start this thread to Argue, I made it very clear I was no expert from the beginning. Some have also pointed out the rudeness of just a few posters, (they are not referring to me). Please re-read this thread and consider who was actually being the jerk. If the "owner" and "moderator" of this board will not defend those who would try to have civil conversation, then they have no choice but to defend themselves in whatever fashion they feel effective. I'll admit ignored the moronic behavior might have been more effective...these guys are still auguring moot points which have nothing to do with the subject matter. Mod Edit: Parts where you call other people "jackasses" have been removed. Behave maturely.

The funny thing is, we are agreeing with the process more than we are disagreeing. My very first post stated very clearly that when I draw the ball, my face starts open and right to the target, the opposite is true for a fade. It was a later post in which I stated I disagreed that you cannot start the ball right with a closed face (closed to what is the question, I did not elaborate). So at the end of the day, you explained the process by which I work the ball, I've managed to feel my way into the correct position, I'm only one of many examples who figured it out this way. I will agree with you that for some and I wouldn't know the ratio, they need a more technical understanding. I have a friend who's like this, he's anal about the technical side and I don't know that he'll ever be better than a 25 handicap, it takes him literally 30 seconds to hit every shot... BTW, the reference to Faldo was for you, not the OP. You see, I actually followed the link you provided and references were made, I thought you'd pick up on it. Where I do disagree with you; is that Faldo and the the other greats of the game have had it wrong all along. I think their explanation could be technically wrong, put the reasoning was and still is correct; otherwise, Faldo, Seve, etc, would not have been amazingly creative ball strikers. Their methodology did not prevent their students from learning. Is your way better? Perhaps. I and likely a few others don't care as much how it works, as long as it does work...(I know, I come across as a dinosaur) Now Myrtle, I never once said the face was closed to the target line. Another poster (scratch handicap), picked up that I meant closed to the swing path and Erik has acknowledged that is possible, as he picked up on it too. You still think I'm wrong, when I'm actually in agreement. They picked up on it, because they are good players, regardless of their understanding of the fundamentals. In a year I'll be near scratch as I'll be taking my first lessons ever with an ex-tour player; I've taken my game as far as it will go without a coach. I don't say this to brag, I actually think I'm a poor player, as I compare my game to the lower handicap players I compete against. What's worse, a mid handicap understanding the ball flight laws better or a "pretty good" player understanding the technical science worse? I think the answer to that question lies in your index. I don't say this to put you down, but ask yourself another question. What do you think the ratio is in understanding the technical side of the ball flight laws between low handicaps and mid handicaps? In my experience, the good players just play, the mid handicaps just won't shut up about why such and such happened the way it did. Go play a few Pepsi Tour events, you'll see what I mean...

Wrong about what? So you are not agreeing with me that it is not possible for barometric pressure to fall from 101.34 (standard) to 91.2, 10% as you would calculate percentages. You are not agreeing with me, even though the lowest non hurricane barometric pressure recorded in the lower 48 is 95.6. OK, thanks for the arguement.