Hi there. thanks for the work that went into that post. Much appreciated.
I had been walking around for a while after seeing that video and working towards a similar response to it, albeit mentally.
I think Michael and many Golf Teachers believe that leaving out detail benefits the majority; by leaving a mental image the job is done. It doesn't suit me, I need to know the nitty gritty.
One thing is left unanswered, or still not illustrated for me: (if you can CC michael.c.hunt@gmail.com if possible, forum might do that I guess)
BLADING THE BALL versus a 'CRISP, CONTROLLED CHIP' (there is blading, chunking, clicking, crisp - I want to know what others feel about these terms and how they approach it. I like to be a clicker, but that makes me less of a crisp shot man - what am I losing out on?)
Call me a perfectionist, but I want to choose where I hit the ball precisely because I feel I can. Matt Kuchar sets up and hovers his club HALFWAY down the ball, allowing his strong turn I believe to dip the ball 'enough below the ball equator'. But why not make a science of this - WHERE IS THE BEST PART OF THE BALL TO HIT EXACTLY?
Low loft clubs don't really count in this question, if you place a driver next to a ball, even trying to hit at a specific place will have little effect - the club really does all the work with low loft. It slaps it, with slight backspin. OK no complaints.
Higher loft clubs can hit at the equator, and blade the ball deliberately, like a putt with interest. A little lower results in a low compressed chip? A little lower results in a less compressed chip? I've found that I can hit the ball only slightly under the equator and get a really nice high chip, being careful as this shot has a lot of distance on it. I feel in control at this point. I've removed all the funk of mud and grass underneath, but I am hitting as close to the equator as I can without blading the ball.
Is there any written stuff on this, I can't find it anywhere. Even Stan Utley mentions nothing about where on the ball one should aim. It's sort of assumed under the umbrella of 'compression', 'pinching the ball against the ground' etc. This isn't clear to me. Is hitting the ball as close to the equator without blading it recognized under 'pinching' and 'compressing' or is it considered way too 'dangerous' for the irrepressible amateur?
Some other thoughts, ignore if you are busy..
All golf shots impart backspin
. Nick Faldo does a good job in his "Swing for Life" in talking about
backspin
imparted which points to the left ( \ ), resulting in a shot to the left (and a draw), and the opposite for backspin imparted to the right ( / ). The image of this, taking a view from the ball at ground level from behind along the target line, is of a line running from 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock, like this: \ for a draw; and like this / for a fade.
It strikes me that using the quadrant image achieves the entire opposite, as it implies for me at least that a draw uses topspin and a fade uses backspin. If you think that both use backspin it sort of helps.
However,
you don't even need to do this to create a fade
..as the swing arc will impart clockwise spin naturally (as the arc enters and leaves all on the left side doing it for you, without any added affect), all you have to do is keep the right wrist neutral, and have a middle follow through with your left elbow and the ball will fade, bit like a cricket shot. Increasing the fade is about increasing the amount of spin which is achieved through club speed, not necessarily by hitting further 'right' on the ball, opening the stance, or making the swing steeper.
Removing variables is how to play golf better, not increasing them.