Wangus94

Why is it that you suppose I mention Trackman owners Erik?

Than why didn't anybody know them, yourself included, until the late 2000s? Lol. I didn't realize that was your chart, I've seen several dozen identical ones from multiple Trackman owners. What's funny is that we're not even disagreeing on most everything and yet somehow its 10 on 1. The path analogy was assuming a linear progression of A-I, which is why I went C path D face. This ' we're right, we'll prove you wrong" exercise in childishness is exactly what I'm talking about and why ( approved for audience )

[RIGHT][/RIGHT][quote name="mvmac" url="/t/75950/lets-talk-ball-flights#post_1024198"] Correct, similar to what Ryan Moore and Fred Couples also do. Their body lines are aligned to "E", ball starts at "F" or "H"(push) and fades to "I". Also note that the amount of curve and distance between each letter is larger for emphasis and clarity. Nicklaus might only curve the ball 3-5 yards. [/quote] I think a lot of this semantics personally, but these charts are all assuming E is the flag ( assuming your hitting at it). Couples would be aligned somewhere left at like A, swinging toward C with the face pointing at D to get to his target of E. There's a push fade that accounts for alignment, path relative to alignment, and face relative to path. I do agree though that the ball flight laws completely fail to account for the body's role in creating these conditions. I think possibly because they were created based off radar data, and all this data is measuring against is a fixed target line. There should be an additional baseline measurement by these devices to confirm if the player is actually lined up square, otherwise the data seems like it would be misleading for a lot of folks.

Totally..... But I think the chart was made to be simplified and describe ball flights as it's often referred to as the 'new ball flight laws". I think it is assuming your lining up square with E as the desired target. Swiveling would majesty's it more complicated than it was intended in my opinion. There's definitely exceptions like Trevino but for most players with decent set up positions these ball flights are consistent with E being the straight shot. It would be interesting to hear the official stance from companies like Flightscope or Trackman

So E is not the target line in the chart? It's the general direction the player is aiming? I was told by a Trackman pro that E in these charts represents zero'd numbers... 0 face /0 path or a perfectly vertical d plane. He told me Trackman doesn't care what or how you create those numbers and that a straight ball flight is when you deliver the face square to your target with the clubs path moving down the line toward the target. I was taught that as long as you aren't needing to make compensations to get to the correct impact alignments, than the little idiosyncrasies don't matter

This chart is classifying these ball flights assuming a fixed target line of E

There are obvious examples where a player might align himself 45* right of target then route the club over the top and still manage to produce impact conditions that would allow the ball to start right and draw. That scenario obviously wouldn't be able to classified as a push draw. But what about the grey areas... for example where do you draw the line and start changing the definitions? A guy could literally date up square or parallel left and drop his right for back 3 inches and the 'push' changes to 'straight'. The way I see it, it all boils down to intention. If a player is looking at going for the flag that's tucked back left, but looks 10 yards right with intention of starting it 10 yards right and drawing it back in, then he's not really hitting a 'straight' draw using the ball flight laws. It may start relatively straight against his alignment but he clearly intending to send the ball right with a draw. There are obvious exceptions. But I guess the real question is where do you draw the line? A couple minor tweaks at address could both produce +4 /+2 numbers and identical flights and have totally different definitions.

Ok I tried to discuss this earlier and it wasn't in the correct place so I thought aid give it a go again. I'm curious how people here identify and define what their ball flight truly is. With my recent exposure to Trackman in the last several months I've come to change how I look at things. According to the so calked new ball flight laws, straight, push and pull definitions are very simplified and based solely on where the ball starts in relation to its target line. The radars simply measure the direction the club is moving and where the face pointing against the target line. Can't see how the golfer takes the club back, where the golfer is aligned, or what the intention of the golfers flight is. I want to know how you guts define the coveted push draw and how and what you have to do to achieve it. Do you need to be open or square and really swing out to the right or could you achieve the same desired result from a slightly closed stance? My opinion is that these questions show the limitations of using these new radar technologies because they fail to account for the body's role in how the club moves. Or, on the flip side, have these technologies and newer laws demonstrated that it doesn't matter what golfers do with their bodies to achieve conditions that get a ball to start right and curve back to the target for example. It could literally be the exact opposite ball flight but still be defined a number if ways. I would think using many different definitions to define ball flights would be somewhat confusing to the average recreational golfers. All thoughts debates welcome, at least on my end.

Ok it appears that your issue stems with set up or a path that's not far enough rightward of your face angle, and your face angle not far enough right. You need a more open face and more inside out path.

I wasn't defining it anyway. I was offering multiple points of view. We can move on no problemo but arbitrarily deleting posts you disagree with is a bit censory

Pissing match? I was offering my uneducated opinion trying to help the poster and the convo turned into definitions of push ect, but still totally relevant to he conversation. It appears the issue is that you don't like any debate lol

How is discussing what a push draw is or how it's defined off topic? It's all in the nature of discussion and some healthy debate can't hurt anybody. It's seems to be off topic only if you disagree;-) I don't get it?

I've been frequently this site periodically and on several occasions my posts have been edited and erased. Seems as if every time I say something that the moderators of this site disagree if disapprove of they simply erase/delete the content. Anybody else have this problem on this site?

Yea I get the definition thing based on body.... I thought it was off that the poster was concerned hitting the ball solidly and straight. Comments were made that he had issues or potential issues in his swing because he wasn't 'pushing' the ball. It sounds like his stock shot is straight...lol. Trying to fix something that ain't broken doesn't make sense to me

diesnt the term push draw simply mean a ball flight that starts out to the right of the desired target and curve back? Either way, if he's hitting the ball straight doesn't that mean his path and face are both square to his desired target( and by target I mean where he is trying to land the ball- not start it)? If he's hitting it solid and straight maybe he's better off not trying to swing further right than the face. My 2cents

Lots of guys do hit those draws. The poster still has to be doing something that pushes his path further right than the face though. Maybe that pattern just doesn't fit him?

It's pretty straightforward.... if the ball is flying straight or very close to it than your swing path and club face are both square to each other and working more down the line. The push draw in the SnT swing comes from staying over the front/left side and and exaggerating an inside out swing with a ton of side bend. Why do yo have to 'push' it for it to be a good swing? Straight ain't bad ?

Thx man that makes a lot of sense.... I seem to be best around that -1 number.

Deleted? Really? This is related to the topic of using Trackman and it's applications. Nearly every post I make you say is off topic or will be deleted. It appears that if I don't post something pre-approved it's considered off topic. Kinda suspect. I have to work on my pivot and get more rotational, my right shoulder drops when I get hands too deep and too the inside and I come out of my posture. I bend too much to the right, causes me to swing too far from the inside. The fix ilies in my right shoulder and feeling it work out more, less down. The result is the club stays on a better plane and the path doesn't shallow as much. The #s I posted were the result of that move, but the resulting ball flight and contact improved. That's my fix.... go ahead and delete this post for being 'off topic'

I'm just confused because you said I was " down and left' but then in the video Streelman talks about a 0 attack angle and mine was -1. This thread was supposed to be about feels and how the data correlates I thought. For me, it felt like I was really trying to swing left and as the pro pointed out, I really wasn't vey left at all. It also didn't feel like I was down despite the fact my attack changed changed 3 degrees ( from +2 to -1) I do swing pretty fast however ( 110-112) and I could see how a slower swinging player could really be hurt if they were steep. I was told not to focus on the up vs down swing and just work on my pivot and posture and make sure I stay behind the ball. I don't care what the numbers say so long as Imcan hit that SOB straight and play my approach from the fairway and not in the left trees at my hone course. Priority #1 for me.... I do agree that the machine confirms or denies if what you feel is happening really is or not and feel is definitely not always real.

So he's not hitting up then?

What does I already have my mind made up mean? I'm talking about my own swing, not anyone else's. I think your exaggerating your words buddy when you say ' swinging down and left' as -1 isn't down and -3 really isn't that far left. I get better contact feeling like I'm swinging more leftward and the pro told me the attack angle is just a byproduct. I know my numbers aren't good.... that was my entire point fellas. I didn't tell anyone they can't get upward and rightward swings that are effective but for me, I'm better off the other way. It kinda sounds like you guys think everyone should swing the same way based on these responses. I also don't try to hit up and out, that naturally happens in my swing with a teed up ball.

That's what I do... toe balls. My path was 5 right and my face 6 right and the ball going left. -12 spin axis. I don't need a radar to see the ball hooks lol, but the radar at least guess closely that my face must have rotated or as the gurus call it 'geared' open to 6 by being struck somewhere on the toe. +5 path +6 face +2 attack. Not bad numbers other than the gear effect but I know it's a stuck move where I lose my posture and hit on the toe apparently. I get better numbers with a -2 or 3 oath and -1 attack... better posture and less gear effect.

Nothing lol. The question was can you get decent numbers from a bad swing... I said I get positive path and attack from a bad position, what's confusing about that?

Look at it this way... If all the machine was 'looking' at was the swing numbers... and someone didn't see the ball flight, you could assume the numbers were good . Thats why you can't say hitting up or down is what you 'should' do or swinging right or left, ect.