# My Study of OBFL versus NBFL



## Patrick57 (Jul 9, 2012)

I am not the most  experienced or involved golf instructor/player when it comes to many of  the scientific studies and developments involving equipment or the  subtleties of the biological mechanics of the golf swing. I do believe  that these studies are important and I should perhaps look into them  more but I have tried to read the three most revered publications on  this, â€œThe Science of Golfâ€ by Dave Williams; â€œThe Golfing Machineâ€ by  Homer Kelley, and â€œSearch for the Perfect Swingâ€ by Cochran and Stobbs,  from over forty years ago, and they all make very difficult and  complicated reading.

So, I have a decision to make, ''What's more important for my students,  my understanding of these fine details or my understanding of what they  need to know?'' I found the answer to this question by directing the  same question to myself. As a player and coach, I have reached a  satisfying level of competence by describing and demonstrating the golf  swing in a language that 99% of my students can understand. If Kelley  decided that 'maintaining the line of compression' was probably the most  important factor of pure ball striking then I would prefer that he  found an uncomplicated way of explaining exactly what this short  sentence meant.

But nothing has caught me more unprepared than the revelations of the  NBFL. How could all of the greats of the last 30-40 years have been so  wrong. My jaw dropped as I read the articles on this and heard comments  like, ''It is now evident that what we believed from the OBFL is almost  opposite of what actually happens.'' I could have accepted slightly  different or even different but the use of the word opposite just riled  me. I have put many hours of study into this new revelation and would  like to present my findings.

There are two main points being made...

Faldo, Donald, Harmon and many more describe the old laws as...

Align the club face to the target and align the feet to where you would  like the ball to start. I can understand these short descriptions but  they have little to do with what has been detailed in the OBFL charts.








But nothing has confused me more than, what I consider to be, the  deliberate misleading directives of the NBFL. The OBFL describes a  flight path and explains the alignment of the club face to this path and  explains what happens in very simple terms. E.g. ''Club face aims left  of in to out path. Ball starts left and curves further left.'' Now what  Faldo and co. said was different to this but definitely along similar  lines.

The NBFL...








I accept that the face angle has more to do with the initial flight path  than the OBFL lead us to believe but the claims of the NBFL that a ball  can start wildly different to what we have until recently believed,  stretches my understanding of what I am doing too far. This led me to  delving a little deeper into these new laws. I decided to clarify the  above diagram changing two factors. Firstly, in order to make better  comparisons to the OBFL both diagrams require similar face alignments  and secondly more exact and comprehensible path and face conditions  should be described.








Although the OBFL assume more path dominance, the flights are very  similar. I believe these parameters are standard path and club face  conditions and to seek more extreme face conditions would be  unrealistic. I believe these diagrams to be relatively accurate and  welcome any comments on any of the nine possible outcomes.


----------



## brendy (Jul 9, 2012)

I can just see a load of guys sat in their office eating their lunch reading this with still mouths, lettuce hanging out.


----------



## Mattyboy (Jul 9, 2012)

Blimey! Technical stuff which has been the subject of much debate on here.

As you say in your post, as far as teaching is concerned I dont think the science is the issue. Its more the language used so that the pupil undertstands and the end result.

Just from personal experience, if I hit a cut into a pin, the old laws suggest aiming the face at the target and an outside path, from which I manage to hit a push fade with this, which suggests to me the new laws are more appropriate (whether I actually do that is another question of course!). 

Science or no science, as with all things relating to this game, its what works best for you (or your pupil).


----------



## Mattyboy (Jul 9, 2012)

brendy said:



			I can just see a load of guys sat in their office eating their lunch reading this with still mouths, lettuce hanging out.


Click to expand...

OK - so you caught me with my BLT!


----------



## JustOne (Jul 9, 2012)

Welcome to stack and tilt...... 



We're pretty adept to understanding/arguing ball flight laws on the forum...

...at least 5 of us understand them! :whoo:




Glad the penny has dropped with you and hopefully it will benefit your students tremendously :thup:


----------



## RGDave (Jul 9, 2012)

So, I have a decision to make, ''What's more important for my students, my understanding of these fine details or my understanding of what they need to know?''
		
Click to expand...

I believe if you teach anything, your understanding is paramount. From there, you can decide how to teach them and what they need to know.

There are always going to be things which are just too complicated for anyone less educated or experienced than yourself. Learn how to break down the essentials.

In regard to BFLs I don't really follow the old, I truly trust the new as the correct way. However, on the course or down the range, I must admit to thinking in a mostly non-technical way. If I want to bend a ball I'll set up with my feet where I consider I want to start the ball and feel the clubface aiming between there and the target/flag.

From there, it's down to talent (or not!)

Faldo never honestly believed his clubface was at the flag at impact surely? It was always just a method of finding a starting place for deliberately moving the ball?  It has and always will be down to skill and practise...?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 9, 2012)

Substance over style is what my pro teaches. If the ball is behaving then he isn't fussed how the swing looks. I'm all understanding what the club does - indeed it's essential - but as long as the ball goes where I want it we can work on refining it bit by bit


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 9, 2012)

RGDave said:



			Faldo never honestly believed his clubface was at the flag at impact surely? It was always just a method of finding a starting place for deliberately moving the ball?  It has and always will be down to skill and practise...?
		
Click to expand...

I'm as certain as I can be that he did!

Of course, if he'd read and absorbed Cochran&Stobbs, he'd have had a different view - as in the NBFLs. So they are onlt really 'new' to American coaches!


----------



## RGDave (Jul 10, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			I'm as certain as I can be that he did!

Of course, if he'd read and absorbed Cochran&Stobbs, he'd have had a different view - as in the NBFLs. So they are onlt really 'new' to American coaches!
		
Click to expand...

OK, so if that's the case. Was he and many others assuming that by hitting a ball on a specific path it would actually counteract the angle of the face at impact. In other words, it doesn't matter if the face is aimed at the flag, if the path is 5 degrees from the inside, the ball will start 5 degrees right?

I'm not arguing with you, I'm confused how someone might think that. If a good player stands on a medium par 3 with, say, a 6 iron and aims at the flag with the clubface but aligns himself at the bunker, he/she wouldn't need to hit many to realise the flaw in the theory.

??


----------



## duncan mackie (Jul 10, 2012)

I think the real issue is contained in here - 

"I accept that the face angle has more to do with the initial flight path  than the OBFL lead us to believe"

I would suggest that it was the way the OBFL were illustrated that leads to this rather than the laws themselves - if you take the 'push hook' example given it's hard to visualise that the clubhead illustrated is actually aligned right of the target line at impact! Of course, some would just call this a draw...

I think you have done an excellent job of illustrating that there really aren't new laws - but that the way you consider what's happening (will happen if etc) should be done in a way that can best be understood (or communicated!).


----------



## DCB (Jul 10, 2012)

As Scotty once said  "ye cannae change the laws of physics cap'n"


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 10, 2012)

Mattyboy said:



			Blimey! Technical stuff which has been the subject of much debate on here.

As you say in your post, as far as teaching is concerned I dont think the science is the issue. Its more the language used so that the pupil undertstands and the end result.
		
Click to expand...

Here! Here!



Mattyboy said:



			Just from personal experience, if I hit a cut into a pin, the old laws  suggest aiming the face at the target and an outside path, from which I  manage to hit a push fade with this, which suggests to me the new laws  are more appropriate (whether I actually do that is another question of  course!). 

Science or no science, as with all things relating to this game, its what works best for you (or your pupil).
		
Click to expand...

I am of the belief that the OBFL don't really refer to the target, its just how many people translate them. A cut would be produced by swinging from the outside with the clubface open to the path.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 10, 2012)

JustOne said:



			We're pretty adept to understanding/arguing ball flight laws on the forum...

...at least 5 of us understand them! :whoo:
		
Click to expand...

Ha! Ha! I have still to meet one person that understands them.



JustOne said:



			Glad the penny has dropped with you and hopefully it will benefit your students tremendously :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but i still refer to face angles relative to path and not target.

Is that naughty?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 10, 2012)

RGDave said:



			In regard to BFLs I don't really follow the old, I truly trust the new as the correct way.
		
Click to expand...

I have one problem with the NBFL and that is referring to the face in regard to the target. Surely its easier to feel face conditions in regard to the swing path. Telling my students to have the face +3 to the target with a +5 path suggetss that an open clubface creates a draw but in reality the face is -2 to the path.  

Surely referring face conditions to path is easier to digest.


----------



## DaveM (Jul 10, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong! But I thought the face angle was in relation to the swing path in th NBFL? But in relation to the target in the OBFL?


----------



## North Mimms (Jul 10, 2012)

Is the answer 42?


----------



## duncan mackie (Jul 10, 2012)

DaveM said:



			Correct me if I'm wrong! But I thought the face angle was in relation to the swing path in th NBFL? But in relation to the target in the OBFL?
		
Click to expand...

I believe it's the other way round. Sorry.


----------



## Kellfire (Jul 10, 2012)

Patrick, didn't posting this sort of false information get you banned/suspended from another golf forum? I recognised your post the instant I saw the pictures. A quick look showed it's word for word!


----------



## JustOne (Jul 10, 2012)

Kellfire said:



			Patrick, didn't posting this sort of false information get you banned/suspended from another golf forum?
		
Click to expand...

Which part is the false part? It must have gone over my head 

The issue with the ball flight laws (and swings in general) is that it's a huge case of Chinese whispers, or it certainly has been up until things like Youtube, SwingVision cameras, Protracer and Trackman have come along. If someone says you need to roll your wrists there was never a definition of how much... 5% became 50% became 100%, likewise with the face/path ratio... someone says that face and path are both responsible and then just by how much gets distorted and before you know it were lining up right and closing the face whilst wondering why we're hitting low hooks.

Understanding the ball flight laws doesn't hit the ball for you, it's just a small step in understanding the principles if not the mechanics... I can still slice it


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 10, 2012)

I'm confused by all this 'new' laws and 'old' laws. The laws of physics haven't changed just because someone has drawn a load of coloured lines on a bit of paper.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 10, 2012)

drive4show said:



			I'm confused by all this 'new' laws and 'old' laws. The laws of physics haven't changed just because someone has drawn a load of coloured lines on a bit of paper.
		
Click to expand...

No they haven't.... and the world isn't flat even though we thought it was for a millenia or so. *Misinformation*. :thup:


----------



## connor (Jul 10, 2012)

Wow this is the most confusing topic ever lol...
So in reality would me knowing all this make me a better golfer or is it just something that's interesting to know and understand?


----------



## JustOne (Jul 11, 2012)

connor said:



			So in reality would me knowing all this make me a better golfer or is it just something that's interesting to know and understand?
		
Click to expand...

It might knock 10 shots off your round.....


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2012)

connor said:



			Wow this is the most confusing topic ever lol...
So in reality would me knowing all this make me a better golfer or is it just something that's interesting to know and understand?
		
Click to expand...

It helped me!

I no longer aim the face at the pin that is directly behind the tree when I want to draw/hook the ball round the tree. Now when I aim the face a little to the right of the tree (but a little to the left of my swing path), it gets past the tree! Likewise, my 'cuts' end up on the green rather than in the rubbish to the right of it!


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

Kellfire said:



			Patrick, didn't posting this sort of false information get you banned/suspended from another golf forum? I recognised your post the instant I saw the pictures. A quick look showed it's word for word!
		
Click to expand...

The post didn't get me banned but my disagreements with the site administrator got me penalty boxed for a week. I no longer take part in boards where free speech is not allowed. What's false about the information I have posted. Its my opinion of the difference between N & OBFL.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

JustOne said:



			No they haven't.... and the world isn't flat even though we thought it was for a millenia or so. *Misinformation*. :thup:
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it misinformation but slightly inaccurate at worst. Its the new law conquistadors who confused things by insisting on using face to target parameters to make the differences seem greater.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			It helped me!

I no longer aim the face at the pin that is directly behind the tree when I want to draw/hook the ball round the tree. Now when I aim the face a little to the right of the tree (but a little to the left of my swing path), it gets past the tree! Likewise, my 'cuts' end up on the green rather than in the rubbish to the right of it!
		
Click to expand...

This is not an argument. There is no mention of aligning face to target for a slice or hook in the OBFL. You are making up your own laws to make them sound wrong.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

JustOne said:



			It might knock 10 shots off your round..... 

Click to expand...

Or add 10 on because you're too much in your head.


----------



## DaveM (Jul 11, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			The post didn't get me banned but my disagreements with the site administrator got me penalty boxed for a week. I no longer take part in boards where free speech is not allowed. What's false about the information I have posted. Its my opinion of the difference between N & OBFL.
		
Click to expand...

Free speach is always welcome. Everyone has their own views and long may it continue.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 11, 2012)

But the simple fact is...the laws HAVEN'T changed! If you line up a clubface and swing on a certain path, the ball will go in the same direction today as it always has.


----------



## DaveM (Jul 11, 2012)

duncan mackie said:



			I believe it's the other way round. Sorry.
		
Click to expand...

 Are you sure? OBFL face square to target. Lets say the flag. Then stance open/shut to target line depending on Fade/Draw. thats how I read it!


----------



## bobmac (Jul 11, 2012)

How can people get this soooooo wrong and confused


----------



## Region3 (Jul 11, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			This is not an argument. There is no mention of aligning face to target for a slice or hook in the OBFL. You are making up your own laws to make them sound wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't read the OBFL as such so maybe not qualified to comment, but aligning the face to the target is exactly how Luke Donald & Nick Faldo (2 Youtube videos off the top of my head) describe playing a fade/draw.


----------



## Region3 (Jul 11, 2012)

drive4show said:



			But the simple fact is...the laws HAVEN'T changed! If you line up a clubface and swing on a certain path, the ball will go in the same direction today as it always has.
		
Click to expand...

True, but not the way it used to be taught.

As someone else pointed out, the earth has always been round but there was a time when people thought it was flat. Didn't make it right.


----------



## BoadieBroadus (Jul 11, 2012)

bobmac said:



			How can people get this soooooo wrong and confused 

Click to expand...

probably because people have been taught so many different variations and magazines are still full of single page hints and tips, and what is most confusing is that some of them seem to work. it still confuses me trying to relate the NBFL to what i've been taught, which certainly does allow me to fade and draw and push and pull where necessary. (though i still don't really use these on the course as i feel that above a hcap of 5, most of what you really need to do can be accomplished just by trying to hit it straight)

i have been taught to aim my feet along the target line i.e. at the flag, but to change ball position to alter the swing path as my shoulders open and close as the ball is forward / back in the stance. that takes care of the push / pull.

then hold the club face open to hit the fade or close the face at the top of the backswing to hit the draw.

when i was shown that i was drawing the ball with an open clubface becasue it was closed in relation to the path (he was trying to correct a swing path which had got excessively in to out and we were on a trackman) then i understood that we couldn't be ignoring NBFL altogether, but i still find it tricky to relate the techniques i've been taught to the descriptions of the NBFL that appear here periodically. 

are they right or wrong? not sure. am i doing what i really think i'm doing? not sure. do they work? yes they do appear to. am i confused. sure am...


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 11, 2012)

Region3 said:



			True, but not the way it used to be taught.

As someone else pointed out, *the earth has always been round* but there was a time when people thought it was flat. Didn't make it right.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you, emphasises my point perfectly. People may or may not have known years ago but if you swing on any given swing path with the clubface pointing in a particular direction then the ball will end up in the same place today as it would have done 50 years ago.

Nothing has changed.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 11, 2012)

drive4show said:



			People may or may not have known years ago but if you swing on any given swing path with the clubface pointing in a particular direction then the ball will end up in the same place today as it would have done 50 years ago.

Nothing has changed.
		
Click to expand...

Such a childish response to something that is more complex than point and shoot.... if you're told to point the club in the *wrong direction* it ain't gonna go where it's supposed to.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 11, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Such a childish response to something that is more complex than point and shoot.... if you're told to point the club in the *wrong direction* it ain't gonna go where it's supposed to.
		
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me, what is childish about it? Are you saying that 50 odd years ago (Hogan, Snead, Sarazen, Palmer, Nicklaus et al) were incapable of hitting the ball where they intended just because someone has drawn a load of lines on a chart trying to prove they were wrong?


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2012)

Now now kiddies. No fighting.

Just treat this thread as it's been treated elsewhere! 

http://thesandtrap.com/t/57169/my-study-of-obfl-versus-nbfl


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

drive4show said:



			But the simple fact is...the laws HAVEN'T changed! If you line up a clubface and swing on a certain path, the ball will go in the same direction today as it always has.
		
Click to expand...

I couldn't have put it any better.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Now now kiddies. No fighting.

Just treat this thread as it's been treated elsewhere! 

http://thesandtrap.com/t/57169/my-study-of-obfl-versus-nbfl

Click to expand...

I would suggest the memberss of Golf Monthly Forum have their own minds and don't need to follow the cleek like the patrons on TST


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Thank you, emphasises my point perfectly. People may or may not have known years ago but if you swing on any given swing path with the clubface pointing in a particular direction then the ball will end up in the same place today as it would have done 50 years ago.

Nothing has changed.
		
Click to expand...

Golfers dont always do what they say they do.   The OBFL were incorrect and if you used them verbatim then the ball would end up in the wrong place.  That has never changed but some of the very skilled golfers knew how to shape a ball by feel but taught the incorrect theory that was common at the time.

The OBFL are wrong and physics (which I guess you would not disagree with) proves them wrong.   If you really want to understand how ball flight works then read up on 'D' Plane.  This shows you in a way that has been proved what actually affects the way a golf ball reacts to the collision with a golf club.

After reading it then please come back and discuss it further.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Golfers dont always do what they say they do.   The OBFL were incorrect and if you used them verbatim then the ball would end up in the wrong place.  That has never changed but some of the very skilled golfers knew how to shape a ball by feel but taught the incorrect theory that was common at the time.

The OBFL are wrong and physics (which I guess you would not disagree with) proves them wrong.   If you really want to understand how ball flight works then read up on 'D' Plane.  This shows you in a way that has been proved what actually affects the way a golf ball reacts to the collision with a golf club.

After reading it then please come back and discuss it further.
		
Click to expand...

OBFL: 

Path - In to Out - Clubface closed to path - Draw/hook

path - out to in - Clubface open to path - fade/slice

Explain to me what is so wrong with the Old laws?

BTW, D-plane is for scientists with sensitive machinery and not for golfers standing over a ball on the range/golf course.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Jul 11, 2012)

I don't get it? Why are we discussing how to hit bad shots?


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			OBFL: 

Path - In to Out - Clubface closed to path - Draw/hook

path - out to in - Clubface open to path - fade/slice

Explain to me what is so wrong with the Old laws?
		
Click to expand...

Not a lot there.

But OBFL stated that initial ball flight was along swing path - which has been proven to be wrong.

NBFL state that initial ball flight is perpendicular to face angle and swing path has approx 15% influence on (later part of) flight.

Proof is where out-to-in swing, clubface closed to path and (2 choices) either open or closed to target. Likewise, In to out, with clubface closed to path but (2 choices)  either open or closed to target. NBFLs work; OBFLs don't.

D-plane may have been researched etc by scientists with sensitive machinery (does Trackman/Flightscope count?) but the results/findings are certainly relevant to golfers!


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

ScienceBoy said:



			I don't get it? Why are we discussing how to hit bad shots?
		
Click to expand...

On that theme could you please describe what a good shot would be in your opinion.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2012)

ScienceBoy said:



			I don't get it? Why are we discussing how to hit bad shots?
		
Click to expand...

Are you saying Bubba's shot FROM the trees in The Masters playoff was a bad shot? Certainly the one that put him there was though!


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 11, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Not a lot there.

But OBFL stated that initial ball flight was along swing path - which has been proven to be wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Blah! Blah! Blah! The same old same old. If I swing from in to out with normal face angles, my ball will start right of target and curve back towards the target. You can use intricate extremities and prove this fact to be wrong but my problem on the course is not avoiding the tree or obstacle, but actually curving the ball enough that it returns to the target.



Foxholer said:



			D-plane may have been researched etc by scientists with sensitive  machinery (does Tackman/Flightscope count?) but the results/findings are  certainly relevant to golfers!
		
Click to expand...

Then I must be in the minority because I can shapoe shots very efficiently without using the fine parameters detailed by D-plane



Foxholer said:



			Not a lot there.

But OBFL stated that initial ball flight was along swing path - which has been proven to be wrong.

NBFL state that initial ball flight is perpendicular to face angle and  swing path has approx 15% influence on (later part of) flight.

D-plane may have been researched etc by scientists with sensitive  machinery (does Tackman/Flightscope count?) but the results/findings are  certainly relevant to golfers!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## DaveM (Jul 11, 2012)

I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to Pat57! As I said in one of his other threads. But now I feel he just wants to blow his own trumpet and stir the poo poo. This guy could be the first on my ignore list!


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2012)

DaveM said:



			I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to Pat57! As I said in one of his other threads. But now I feel he just wants to blow his own trumpet and stir the poo poo. This guy could be the first on my ignore list!
		
Click to expand...

Could be sensible. And thread is misnamed anyway. It's not 'Study' so much as '(Lack of) Understanding'.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 11, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Blah! Blah! Blah! The same old same old.
		
Click to expand...

That's such a strange thing to say considering YOU started the thread and say....




			I accept that the face angle has more to do with the initial flight path than the OBFL lead us to believe
		
Click to expand...

If you were mislead in ANY WAY would it not be prudent to state the FACTS?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			OBFL: 

Path - In to Out - Clubface closed to path - Draw/hook

path - out to in - Clubface open to path - fade/slice

Explain to me what is so wrong with the Old laws?

BTW, D-plane is for scientists with sensitive machinery and not for golfers standing over a ball on the range/golf course.
		
Click to expand...

If you are just a wind up then don't bother answering.  If you honestly want to learn something then make an effort to listen to people that understand the subject

The 'D' Plane is not just a subject that is of interest to Scientists, it is the truth of what creates side spin on a golf ball.   It's not too difficult to understand and if you look up the subject on UTube then you will find many many Vids explaining it.  If you cant be bothered then dont keep arguing a subject that you are ignorant of and one that you started the thread by asking others for advice.

The OBFL stated that you should aim the clubface to the point you wish the ball to finish on and swing the club in the direction you want the ball to start on.  THIS IS WRONG, IT WILL NOT WORK.  The ball will take of mainly in the direction of the clubface and the differential between the clubface direction and the swingpath will create the sidespin.   NOW!!! If  you wont read up on the 'D' Plane then you will not understand how this works and will be arguing from a position of ignorance.

Do you want to understand the subject or just make an argument based on your personal prejudices.


----------



## AmandaJR (Jul 12, 2012)

I so want to understand ball flight laws (NEW!) but read this thread and wish we had chosen an emoticon with fingers in ears - this will have to do...:blah:

Can someone (Bob/James/SR etc) point me to a good source of information that might clear my confused mind?!


----------



## bobmac (Jul 12, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			I so want to understand ball flight laws (NEW!) but read this thread and wish we had chosen an emoticon with fingers in ears - this will have to do...:blah:

Can someone (Bob/James/SR etc) point me to a good source of information that might clear my confused mind?!
		
Click to expand...

Amanda, imagine this
You are about to hit a shot into a green with a greenside bunker  and you want to fade/draw the ball into the flag.
Old BFL
Aim your body at the bunker and point your clubface at the flag.
The old laws said the ball will start where you are aiming your body and swing and will finish where your clubface is pointing (the flag)
We now know that is wrong.
NBL
Aim your body at the bunker but point your clubface IN BETWEEN  the bunker and the flag. The ball will start where your clubface is pointing and your swing will fade/draw the ball back to the flag.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			I so want to understand ball flight laws (NEW!) but read this thread and wish we had chosen an emoticon with fingers in ears - this will have to do...:blah:

Can someone (Bob/James/SR etc) point me to a good source of information that might clear my confused mind?!
		
Click to expand...

Amanda.

Here's the best 'complete' explanation I've seen. 

http://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws

And for simplicity, Bob's explanation is fine. No need to complicate things any further.

However:   

Target at 12 o'clock blocked by tree. Swing at 2 (or 10) with club-face pointing at 1 (or 11 resp).

Old laws would have you aiming the clubface at 12 in both cases - and ball would hit the tree (unless an unconscious adjustment is made)


----------



## bobmac (Jul 12, 2012)

And for simplicity, Bob's explanation is fine. No need to complicate things any further.

However:
		
Click to expand...

However? wtf?

This is a classic example of too much information.
Despite there being umpteen threads on these new/old laws, there are still people confused.
Foxholer just gave a confused Amanda an article with videos, graphics and 30-40 paragraphs of information. Too much for most folk.
For the vast majority of golfers, thats way to much information.
All they want to know is how to fade/draw the ball.
The scientists among you all give a good explanation of the new laws but it leaves the average golfer confused AND THAT IS NOT GOOD.
This has proved my point. Months of lengthy threads and explanations and still people dont know what's what.
Fox, you may say my explanation was just "fine" but it's exactly what the golfer on the range wants to know...how to fade/draw the ball. It is of course impotant the coach knows the new laws inside out in case the student wants to know more but the majority dont.
K I S S


----------



## GreiginFife (Jul 12, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			On that theme could you please describe what a good shot would be in your opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Simple, the ball goes where I want it to go. regardless of which physical law it used to get there.


----------



## DaveM (Jul 12, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Amanda, imagine this
You are about to hit a shot into a green with a greenside bunker and you want to fade/draw the ball into the flag.
Old BFL
Aim your body at the bunker and point your clubface at the flag.
The old laws said the ball will start where you are aiming your body and swing and will finish where your clubface is pointing (the flag)
We now know that is wrong.
NBL
Aim your body at the bunker but point your clubface IN BETWEEN the bunker and the flag. The ball will start where your clubface is pointing and your swing will fade/draw the ball back to the flag.
		
Click to expand...

That is the best explanation I have read. Like most likely 90% of golfers. I'm not to bothered why it works. But that it does work.

K.I.S.S. every day for me. Thanks Bob. Voice of simplicity and reason again.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

Here's my take 

some think the OBFLs are "laws"
something the NBFLs are "laws"
some think the D-plan is a "Law"

None of them are Laws (of Physics) - and this is because they all have in-built simplifying assumptions, e.g.  on physical interaction of club and ball - and the OBFL's simplifying assumption is different from the NBFL's simplifying assumption, and it is why both are valid.  Also the D-plane is valid, but it too contains an assumption about interaction of club and ball.

Most people presume (in these and similar debates elsewhere) that the impact between clubhead and ball is perfectly elastic and perfectly rigid (coefficient of restitution -1).  i think the NBFLs theoretically assume this, wheras the OBFLs are based on physical observation.  
Lets imagine 2 extreme impacts - 1) a cast golf club hitting a billiard ball, and 2) a (forged?) golf club hitting a golf ball sized piece of dog pooh. Both are hit with an open face on a straight clubhead path - the billiard ball will start off in the direction of the face, and the "pooh" ball will start off in the direction of the swing plane.  Reality (i.e. the plastic compressing inefficient impact of a real club on a real ball) is somewhere between the 2, and will depend on the nature of the golf ball and the golf club.  Different balls, different results.

Perhasps (and i dont know whether this is the case) in the older days of forged clubs and soft balata balls, they started off more dominated by clubhead path; maybe today with springy clubs and balls designed to spin less and penetrate more, they start off closer to the face angle ? I'm not sure, but it might be an interesting reasson why the OBF"L"s used to be "right" and the NBF"L"s might now be "right!" 

So you are all both right and all both wrong (also the D-plan guy)

Try and explain OBFLs and NBFLs to David Beckham and Christiano Ronaldo.  DB wraps his foot around the ball to spread the area of impact and get good frictional contact to impart spin.  CR hits the ball with the (small area) toe of his boot, accordnigly deforms the football into an odd shape and then relies on the aerodynamic instability that causes the ball to wobble in flight.   Impact conditions are key here.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

And here's one that no-one has flagged up yet.
It is related to the impact conditions post above.

Neither the OBFLs nor NBFLs consider what the face of the club is doing DURING impact - i.e. whether the face is closing or opening through impact. 

We know from photography (and physics) and the ball manufacturers and club manufacturers' blurb, that the ball is compressed on impact and stays on the face for a finite period of time

During that time, a closing or opening face will impart spin to the ball.  It is called "Gear Effect" and club makers have known about it for greater than 100 years - it is why the face of woods/long irons are curved in plan.

Oddly however a "closing" face generates Fade/Slice spin, and an "Opening" face generates drawspin !!!!

You can try this :
Put a putter right up against a ball on a smooth surface (wood floors are good for this), and (without taking the putter back or away from the ball) just rotate its face with your fingers.  An anti-clockwise rotation (closing face) will spin the ball off the the right (fade) and a clockwise rotation (opening face) will spin the ball off the the left (draw spin).

This is another reason why neither the OBFL nor the NBFL are actually a "Law".


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

And if you want to practise OBFL and NBFL to make your own mind up you can do this with a putter, because exactly teh same argument has been going on in putting theory for decades - is putter swing path more important than face angle ?

Get a putter and some balls and see what happens to balls when you approach them from inside, from outside, straight, with open, closed and neutral face angles to those paths. 
Then make up your own mind.

However ...(he he he) this is the interesting bit, when face inserts get involved.  Because you can get the same Gear Effect with putters.  It is quite easy to impart side spin to a putt, particularly with a saoft insert or a coarse milled face, or with one of those NIKE Method or Yes putters with non-horizontal grooves.  Because of the Gear Effect an impact closer to the Toe of the putter will create a draw spin taking teh putt right to left (and similarly for one close to the toe).  This is less so for face balanced putters but does still apply)

So you can also decide after doing that experiment and various balls whether you want a soft face insert/groooved putter or a hard faced one.   And that's a further discussion  - ho ho


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 12, 2012)

Anyone got an email address for Jack Nicklaus so I can inform him he spent his entire career hitting the ball incorrectly?


----------



## AmandaJR (Jul 12, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Amanda, imagine this
You are about to hit a shot into a green with a greenside bunker  and you want to fade/draw the ball into the flag.
Old BFL
Aim your body at the bunker and point your clubface at the flag.
The old laws said the ball will start where you are aiming your body and swing and will finish where your clubface is pointing (the flag)
We now know that is wrong.
NBL
Aim your body at the bunker but point your clubface IN BETWEEN  the bunker and the flag. The ball will start where your clubface is pointing and your swing will fade/draw the ball back to the flag.
		
Click to expand...

Ok now that is making sense and is easy to remember. But....what is my swing doing through this? Am I manipulating that or is the club face angle together with a normal swing creating the shot shape?


----------



## Region3 (Jul 12, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Anyone got an email address for Jack Nicklaus so I can inform him he spent his entire career hitting the ball incorrectly?



Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're trying to say D4S. (Unless you're fishing and I've just bitten?)

Are you saying that the players hitting the shots are correct rather than the LM's and HS cameras?

I believe that's what they _think_ they're doing, but science says that they can't be doing what they think they are.


----------



## bobmac (Jul 12, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			Ok now that is making sense and is easy to remember. But....what is my swing doing through this? Am I manipulating that or is the club face angle together with a normal swing creating the shot shape?
		
Click to expand...

Because your swing is going one way and your clubface is pointing another way, that will be sufficient to shape the ball for you.....if your swing is straight. If not, you may need to experiment to get it right.
For example, if your normal swing path is out to in, you may not need to aim left at all as your swingpath is allready going towards the bunker


----------



## AmandaJR (Jul 12, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Because your swing is going one way and your clubface is pointing another way, that will be sufficient to shape the ball for you.....if your swing is straight. If not, you may need to experiment to get it right.
For example, if your normal swing path is out to in, you may not need to aim left at all as your swingpath is allready going towards the bunker
		
Click to expand...

Ok that makes sense to me. Swing path is definitely inside the line on the downswing and my normal iron shape is straight or a soft draw unless I close the club face at impact!!


----------



## Region3 (Jul 12, 2012)

Ok, I'll bite again, just to keep you entertained though you understand.




Different balls, different results.​

Click to expand...



Balls.
A billiard ball and brussell sprout, yes, but golf balls no (or not enough to notice)






I'm not sure, but it might be an interesting reasson why the OBF"L"s used to be "right" and the NBF"L"s might now be "right!" 

Click to expand...



Plenty of players have played the shots the same way through the ball changes. Maybe (just maybe) they're not doing what they think they are?






DB wraps his foot around the ball

Click to expand...



<lost for words></lost for words>






It is called "Gear Effect" and club makers have known about it for greater than 100 years

Click to expand...



Gear effect only applies to clubs with the centre of gravity significantly behind the impact point. It doesn't happen with irons.
I'd argue that even on the biggest mallet on the longest putt it's so small as to be insignificant with putters as well.






Get a putter and some balls and see what happens to balls when you approach them from inside, from outside, straight, with open, closed and neutral face angles to those paths. 
Then make up your own mind.

Click to expand...



Try this with a putter.

Put a ball about 2' from the hole on a flat line and address it with the putter face pointing 45Â° to the right of the hole.

Use any swing path you like and come and tell us the old laws are correct when you've holed one.​


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 12, 2012)

Region3 said:



			I don't understand what you're trying to say D4S. (Unless you're fishing and I've just bitten?)

Are you saying that the players hitting the shots are correct rather than the LM's and HS cameras?

I believe that's what they _think_ they're doing, but science says that they can't be doing what they think they are.
		
Click to expand...

No, certainly not trying to get anyone to bite or wind anyone up. 

My point is quite simply this....

For years golfers have been able to line up their clubface and swingpath to hit a specific shape of shot or hit the ball to a specific target. We now have high speed cameras and slowmo and suddenly someone decides that we have all been doing it wrong.

Well sorry but the next time I fade or draw my ball to 12 inches from the flag from 150 yards out, try convincing me that I've been doing it wrong. I've been playing this game for 40 years. Hitting a draw/fade/slice/hook/push/pull or any other shot is exactly the same now as it's always been.


----------



## USER1999 (Jul 12, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Well sorry but the next time I fade or draw my ball to 12 inches from the flag from 150 yards out, try convincing me that I've been doing it wrong. I've been playing this game for 40 years. Hitting a draw/fade/slice/hook/push/pull or any other shot is exactly the same now as it's always been.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it hasn't changed. That would be impossible.

What has changed is our understanding of how it happens.


----------



## bobmac (Jul 12, 2012)

suddenly someone decides that we have all been doing it wrong.
		
Click to expand...

If you fade or draw the ball onto your target, you're not doing it wrong.
However, you may not be doing what you think you are doing.
I'll give you an example.....
You may aim your body at the left hand bunker and think your clubface is pointing at the flag but it may only be pointing half way to the flag


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 12, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			Of course it hasn't changed. That would be impossible.

What has changed is our understanding of how it happens.
		
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!

Which means there are no NEW or OLD laws. Just because we have a different understanding of something doesn't mean that it has changed. My point all along has been that the laws of physics CANNOT change.


----------



## One Planer (Jul 12, 2012)

My point all along has been that the laws of physics CANNOT change.
		
Click to expand...

... But peoples' understanding can!


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

Region3 said:



			Balls.
A billiard ball and brussell sprout, yes, but golf balls no (or not enough to notice)

Gear effect only applies to clubs with the centre of gravity significantly behind the impact point. It doesn't happen with irons.



Try this with a putter.

Put a ball about 2' from the hole on a flat line and address it with the putter face pointing 45Â° to the right of the hole.

Use any swing path you like and come and tell us the old laws are correct when you've holed one.[/COLOR][/LEFT]
		
Click to expand...


Fair point on the Gear Effect and CoG - it doesnt disappear it is just less pronounced, but i will grant you that.


Just did your test 
 - you are right i couldnt sink any 2' putts at 45 degrees
 - but i did sink all ofteh 10 degrees, most of the 20 degrees and only some of the 30 degrees ones

Which again suggests that teh ball starts somewhere in between the face angle and the clubhead path. So somewhere in between OBFL and NBFL. and closer to NBFL face angle

But this is nothing new - i have just picked up my 1968 copy of the Gofl Society of Great Britain's "Search for the perfect swing" and it states  "a ball will always leave a clubface somewhere between these 2 directions, but usually nearer the direction alongwhcih the clubface is pointing"

my point (overall) being that the "laws" are too simplistic to define exactly what happens


----------



## Imurg (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			"laws" are too simplistic
		
Click to expand...

So they get more complicated...?
God help us.......


----------



## Val (Jul 12, 2012)

drive4show said:



			EXACTLY!!!

Which means there are no NEW or OLD laws. Just because we have a different understanding of something doesn't mean that it has changed. My point all along has been that the laws of physics CANNOT change.
		
Click to expand...

:clap:

If you can hit a draw or fade and know how you are doing it do you really NEED to understand how it's happening?

I put my foot on the clutch of my car and move from 1st to 2nd gear, I couldn't give a monkeys how it happens as long as it does.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			Of course it hasn't changed. That would be impossible.

What has changed is our understanding of how it happens.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst i agree in principle, in fact "it" has happened several times in golf history.

We no longer use hickory shafts, and we no longer use gutta percha balls, etc  etc 
People played different shots with different swings with different equipment.  And manufacturers developed materials and products, and then golfers learned to play new shots that exploited them

But that's just me being argumentative for the sake of it


----------



## Region3 (Jul 12, 2012)

drive4show said:



			EXACTLY!!!

Which means there are no NEW or OLD laws. Just because we have a different understanding of something doesn't mean that it has changed. My point all along has been that the laws of physics CANNOT change.
		
Click to expand...

One final question.

Imagine you have a 12yr old son (you might have, I don't know), and you are out playing golf with him.

His drive lands in the right hand rough about 6' behind a foot wide tree trunk and he has to fade the ball around it. It is going to hurt if it goes wrong.

You line his feet up left of the target (as both 'laws' agree), do you tell him to line his club up at the tree or to the left of it?


----------



## Val (Jul 12, 2012)

Region3 said:



			One final question.

Imagine you have a 12yr old son (you might have, I don't know), and you are out playing golf with him.

His drive lands in the right hand rough about 6' behind a foot wide tree trunk and he has to fade the ball around it. It is going to hurt if it goes wrong.

You line his feet up left of the target (as both 'laws' agree), do you tell him to line his club up at the tree or to the left of it?
		
Click to expand...

Id tell him to chip out


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

Region3 said:



			One final question.

Imagine you have a 12yr old son (you might have, I don't know), and you are out playing golf with him.

His drive lands in the right hand rough about 6' behind a foot wide tree trunk and he has to fade the ball around it. It is going to hurt if it goes wrong.

You line his feet up left of the target (as both 'laws' agree), do you tell him to line his club up at the tree or to the left of it?
		
Click to expand...

I would tell him to aim his club face exactly 22.5% of the distance between his feet line and the tree/hole   he he 

Really i would tell him to chip out sideways 
Or give himself a margin of safety from the tree because none of us can line ourselves up accurately enough


----------



## JustOne (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Here's my take 

some think the OBFLs are "laws"
something the NBFLs are "laws"
some think the D-plan is a "Law"

None of them are Laws (of Physics) - and this is because they all have in-built simplifying assumptions, e.g.  on physical interaction of club and ball - and the OBFL's simplifying assumption is different from the NBFL's simplifying assumption, and it is why both are valid.  Also the D-plane is valid, but it too contains an assumption about interaction of club and ball.

Most people presume (in these and similar debates elsewhere) that the impact between clubhead and ball is perfectly elastic and perfectly rigid (coefficient of restitution -1).  i think the NBFLs theoretically assume this, wheras the OBFLs are based on physical observation.  
Lets imagine 2 extreme impacts - 1) a cast golf club hitting a billiard ball, and 2) a (forged?) golf club hitting a golf ball sized piece of dog pooh. Both are hit with an open face on a straight clubhead path - the billiard ball will start off in the direction of the face, and the "pooh" ball will start off in the direction of the swing plane.  Reality (i.e. the plastic compressing inefficient impact of a real club on a real ball) is somewhere between the 2, and will depend on the nature of the golf ball and the golf club.  Different balls, different results.

Perhasps (and i dont know whether this is the case) in the older days of forged clubs and soft balata balls, they started off more dominated by clubhead path; maybe today with springy clubs and balls designed to spin less and penetrate more, they start off closer to the face angle ? I'm not sure, but it might be an interesting reasson why the OBF"L"s used to be "right" and the NBF"L"s might now be "right!" 

So you are all both right and all both wrong (also the D-plan guy)

Try and explain OBFLs and NBFLs to David Beckham and Christiano Ronaldo.  DB wraps his foot around the ball to spread the area of impact and get good frictional contact to impart spin.  CR hits the ball with the (small area) toe of his boot, accordnigly deforms the football into an odd shape and then relies on the aerodynamic instability that causes the ball to wobble in flight.   Impact conditions are key here.
		
Click to expand...




sev112 said:



			And here's one that no-one has flagged up yet.
It is related to the impact conditions post above.

Neither the OBFLs nor NBFLs consider what the face of the club is doing DURING impact - i.e. whether the face is closing or opening through impact. 

We know from photography (and physics) and the ball manufacturers and club manufacturers' blurb, that the ball is compressed on impact and stays on the face for a finite period of time

During that time, a closing or opening face will impart spin to the ball.  It is called "Gear Effect" and club makers have known about it for greater than 100 years - it is why the face of woods/long irons are curved in plan.

Oddly however a "closing" face generates Fade/Slice spin, and an "Opening" face generates drawspin !!!!

You can try this :
Put a putter right up against a ball on a smooth surface (wood floors are good for this), and (without taking the putter back or away from the ball) just rotate its face with your fingers.  An anti-clockwise rotation (closing face) will spin the ball off the the right (fade) and a clockwise rotation (opening face) will spin the ball off the the left (draw spin).

This is another reason why neither the OBFL nor the NBFL are actually a "Law".
		
Click to expand...




sev112 said:



			And if you want to practise OBFL and NBFL to make your own mind up you can do this with a putter, because exactly teh same argument has been going on in putting theory for decades - is putter swing path more important than face angle ?

Get a putter and some balls and see what happens to balls when you approach them from inside, from outside, straight, with open, closed and neutral face angles to those paths. 
Then make up your own mind.

However ...(he he he) this is the interesting bit, when face inserts get involved.  Because you can get the same Gear Effect with putters.  It is quite easy to impart side spin to a putt, particularly with a saoft insert or a coarse milled face, or with one of those NIKE Method or Yes putters with non-horizontal grooves.  Because of the Gear Effect an impact closer to the Toe of the putter will create a draw spin taking teh putt right to left (and similarly for one close to the toe).  This is less so for face balanced putters but does still apply)

So you can also decide after doing that experiment and various balls whether you want a soft face insert/groooved putter or a hard faced one.   And that's a further discussion  - ho ho
		
Click to expand...

Holy cow Sev! I bow to your posting prowess!!

.....however the ballflight laws are calculated assuming a centered strike off the sweetspot ..... so your point (whatever it was)....is moot!

:rofl:


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

Actually i've just spend half an hour doing that putting exercise i mentioned and it does work out about 25% of the difference in angle between club path and face angle.  (i.e. the ball starts off closer to the face angle than the clubhead path


----------



## JustOne (Jul 12, 2012)

drive4show said:



			EXACTLY!!!

Which means there are no NEW or OLD laws. Just because we have a different understanding of something doesn't mean that it has changed. My point all along has been that the laws of physics CANNOT change.
		
Click to expand...

Did someone say physics had changed? I think you're out of your league when it comes to understanding some basic concepts... such as cause and effect.


----------



## Val (Jul 12, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Did someone say physics had changed? I think you're out of your league when it comes to understanding some basic concepts... such as cause and effect.
		
Click to expand...

JO I think we would all accept you are pretty knowledgeable on the subject but that comment is rude to say D4S is out his depth.

D4S has stripped the basics back by saying people are still doing now what they did years ago when swinging the club to shape the ball, laws haven't changed it's peoples understanding that may have changed hence all these new graphs etc. If I can hit a draw or fade without thinking about it too much and get the desired result I wouldnt care too much how it happened.

Remember the post and video im sure you put up about Luke Donald using old ball flight laws? He knew what he needed to do and executed the shot, im sure he won't really care about which laws he thought he followed.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 12, 2012)

Valentino said:



			D4S has stripped the basics back by saying people are still doing now what they did years ago when swinging the club to shape the ball,
		
Click to expand...

When it comes to teaching it's not good enough to say "Do what D4S does" when he doesn't even know what he does himself.

When Bobmac sells a V-Easy does it come with the putting instructions: "Just hit it in the hole, D4S does, physics hasn't changed!"

.... OR is there a correct way?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			And here's one that no-one has flagged up yet.
It is related to the impact conditions post above.

Neither the OBFLs nor NBFLs consider what the face of the club is doing DURING impact - i.e. whether the face is closing or opening through impact. 

We know from photography (and physics) and the ball manufacturers and club manufacturers' blurb, that the ball is compressed on impact and stays on the face for a finite period of time

During that time, a closing or opening face will impart spin to the ball.  It is called "Gear Effect" and club makers have known about it for greater than 100 years - it is why the face of woods/long irons are curved in plan.

Oddly however a "closing" face generates Fade/Slice spin, and an "Opening" face generates drawspin !!!!

You can try this :
Put a putter right up against a ball on a smooth surface (wood floors are good for this), and (without taking the putter back or away from the ball) just rotate its face with your fingers.  An anti-clockwise rotation (closing face) will spin the ball off the the right (fade) and a clockwise rotation (opening face) will spin the ball off the the left (draw spin).

This is another reason why neither the OBFL nor the NBFL are actually a "Law".
		
Click to expand...

The ball sits on the clubface for around six milliseconds at impact. This has been proven by high speed cameras.   How can an opening or closing clubface affect the impact conditions in this period of time.  It cannot.    It is the way the clubface is cutting across the ball at this exact moment that creates the balls axis of rotation.

Gear effect is a result of clubhead deflection and is amplified by clubfaces with a curved surface.   it is nothing to do with whether the clubface is opening or closing at the moment of impact.

Regarding the putter face:  The ball will leave the face mainly in the direction that the clubface points with a very small influence of the swingpath.   Its exactly what the NBFL say it will do.  AND, yes it is a law, a law of physics, its part of ballistic science.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The ball sits on the clubface for around six milliseconds at impact. This has been proven by high speed cameras.   How can an opening or closing clubface affect the impact conditions in this period of time.  It cannot.    It is the way the clubface is cutting across the ball at this exact moment that creates the balls axis of rotation.

Gear effect is a result of clubhead deflection and is amplified by clubfaces with a curved surface.   it is nothing to do with whether the clubface is opening or closing at the moment of impact.

Regarding the putter face:  The ball will leave the face mainly in the direction that the clubface points with a very small influence of the swingpath.   Its exactly what the NBFL say it will do.  AND, yes it is a law, a law of physics, its part of ballistic science.
		
Click to expand...

Presumption
Presumption
Presumption

nice science


----------



## JustOne (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:





sev112 said:



			Presumption
Presumption
Presumption

nice science
		
Click to expand...

Are we back to the OLD ballflight laws now? 

Click to expand...


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Presumption
Presumption
Presumption

nice science
		
Click to expand...

No presumption at all.

If you wish a grown up debate on the subject then present me with your arguments in detail and I will address them for you.


----------



## Val (Jul 12, 2012)

JustOne said:



			When it comes to teaching it's not good enough to say "Do what D4S does" when he doesn't even know what he does himself.

When Bobmac sells a V-Easy does it come with the putting instructions: "Just hit it in the hole, D4S does, physics hasn't changed!"

.... OR is there a correct way?
		
Click to expand...

That is a fair comment on teaching but again thats all in the concept of understanding how it happens which is what a teacher does. 

If 2 players do the same thing and hit the same shot and 1 knows how it happens and 1 cant explain it does that make 1 shot right and 1 shot wrong?


----------



## JustOne (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			If 2 players do the same thing and hit the same shot and 1 knows how it happens and 1 cant explain it does that make 1 shot right and 1 shot wrong?
		
Click to expand...

If one player stands on his hands and gets the ball in the hole should we teach that?

In terms of instruction it would be far easier if we all sang from the same hymn sheet... or at least from the same book!


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

Table tennis
Face angle usually very skew to bat path 
Ball foolows much closer to bat path than face angle
Take the rubber off teh bat and play with a wooden bat and the ball leaves the bat much closer to the bat face angle.

It's all to do with collision conditions

Billairds/snooker/pool
Put chalk on a snooker cue and you can hit teh cue ball very off centre (i.e. large face angle) and make the cue ball still go in teh direction of the cue.  Have no chalk on a pub pool cue with a hard wooden tip and the same shot will send the ball off at the highly skew "face angle" *i.e. the line between the contact point on teh surface of the ball and the centre of the ball"

i am sure the laws of physics still apply to those 4 cases


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The ball sits on the clubface for around six milliseconds at impact. This has been proven by high speed cameras.   How can an opening or closing clubface affect the impact conditions in this period of time.  It cannot.    It is the way the clubface is cutting across the ball *at this exact moment* that creates the balls axis of rotation.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, it can. 

But the effect is insignificant in relation to the effect of the club-face cutting across the ball  - *for this period*.

Spin imparted depends on the time that the two entities are actually touching. That's why Molitors and other rocks spin less - they are in contact with the club-face for a shorter period of time.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Table tennis
Face angle usually very skew to bat path 
Ball foolows much closer to bat path than face angle
Take the rubber off teh bat and play with a wooden bat and the ball leaves the bat much closer to the bat face angle.

It's all to do with collision conditions

Billairds/snooker/pool
Put chalk on a snooker cue and you can hit teh cue ball very off centre (i.e. large face angle) and make the cue ball still go in teh direction of the cue.  Have no chalk on a pub pool cue with a hard wooden tip and the same shot will send the ball off at the highly skew "face angle" *i.e. the line between the contact point on teh surface of the ball and the centre of the ball"

i am sure the laws of physics still apply to those 4 cases
		
Click to expand...

I don't think friction is applied after the ballflight laws.. the laws are there *because* of it. Each impact has it's own friction circumstances and each object ball has it's own compression/friction/weight properties etc, so comparing to a different ball/impact situation is like comparing Mars bars to Snickers. 

I'm sure the impact/ballflight laws for tennis would be more like 60/40 face to path than the 85/15 for golf.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			If you are just a wind up then don't bother answering.  If you honestly want to learn something then make an effort to listen to people that understand the subject

The 'D' Plane is not just a subject that is of interest to Scientists, it is the truth of what creates side spin on a golf ball.   It's not too difficult to understand and if you look up the subject on UTube then you will find many many Vids explaining it.  If you cant be bothered then dont keep arguing a subject that you are ignorant of and one that you started the thread by asking others for advice.
		
Click to expand...

I studied D-Plane and it all went a little over my head. Striking the ball on the downswing causes a 1-2Â° kick to the right and there's even a scale that allows you to work out this effect. Add this to the calculations needed for face and path angles for the ball flight.

I get my golf calculator out to work out what's supposed to happen and my buddies always interupt me and tell me to get on. with it  



SocketRocket said:



			The OBFL stated that you should aim the clubface to the point you wish  the ball to finish on and swing the club in the direction you want the  ball to start on.  THIS IS WRONG, IT WILL NOT WORK.
		
Click to expand...

The old ball flight laws don't portray these instructions. I think you have been listening to someone who states the OBFL incorrectly.






SocketRocket said:



			NOW!!! If  you wont read up on the 'D' Plane then you will not  understand how this works and will be arguing from a position of  ignorance.

 Do you want to understand the subject or just make an argument based on your personal prejudices.
		
Click to expand...

I think the OP made constructive statements that haven't yet been specifically challenged by anyone. All I hear is the old is completely wrong and the new is right. I say they are only a little more accurate, Kelley wasn't far off the mark you know.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Amanda.

Target at 12 o'clock blocked by tree. Swing at 2 (or 10) with club-face pointing at 1 (or 11 resp).
		
Click to expand...

Best and simplest explanation I have ever heard. So why confuse issues with the new complicating parameters and tell everyone that the old style teachers were and are idiots.



Foxholer said:



			Amanda.

Old laws would have you aiming the clubface at 12 in both cases - and  ball would hit the tree (unless an unconscious adjustment is  made)
		
Click to expand...

I have never hit the tree using the old laws and I know thousands of people who manage this task using the same. I bet you would say Trackman and D-plane would have helped Beckham bend balls.  Hey we've got a free kick, lets get the calculator out.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 12, 2012)

Swinging down is 1 degree right with every degree down, assuming the shaft is on a 45 degree plane... which happens to change club by club.

here's a vid....

[video=youtube;N8WdW_kCjXQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8WdW_kCjXQ[/video]



You still have to swing the club though! ....


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Actually, it can. 

But the effect is insignificant in relation to the effect of the club-face cutting across the ball  - *for this period*.

Spin imparted depends on the time that the two entities are actually touching. That's why Molitors and other rocks spin less - they are in contact with the club-face for a shorter period of time.
		
Click to expand...

Well we will just have to disagree on the rotating clubface at impact.   I didnt see any specific evidence to suggest this when I was studying the ballistics of golf ball impact. I would be interested in looking at any data that shows this to be the case though.

I do agree that the elasticity of the ball affects spin rates due to the way it deforms, compresses onto the clubface, then springs off (Coefficient Of Restitution)  The ball in it's compressed state starts sliding up the face due to club loft and the force vector giving it no where else to go.  This sliding is what generates spin.  Where the ball is struck with an acute force it is this deflection that tips the axis of rotation such that sidespin is created.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

bobmac said:



			It is of course impotant the coach knows the new laws inside out in case the student wants to know more but the majority dont.
K I S S
		
Click to expand...

You're dead right.

I know the new laws inside out and have yet to get past using old directives. I use -3 to +3 path parameters and -3 to +3 face parameters. A bit like the clock parametres in an earlier post.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

GreiginFife said:



			Simple, the ball goes where I want it to go. regardless of which physical law it used to get there.
		
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that. A simple explanation of how you achieve this may be helpful for the other posters.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 12, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			You're dead right.

I know the new laws inside out and have yet to get past using old directives. I use -3 to +3 path parameters and -3 to +3 face parameters. A bit like the clock parametres in an earlier post.
		
Click to expand...

You're teaching a student who is hitting draw shots and he says..

"I'd like to start the ball 5yds further to the right"

what do you tell him?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Amanda, imagine this
You are about to hit a shot into a green with a greenside bunker  and you want to fade/draw the ball into the flag.
Old BFL
Aim your body at the bunker and point your clubface at the flag.
The old laws said the ball will start where you are aiming your body and swing and will finish where your clubface is pointing (the flag)
We now know that is wrong.
NBL
Aim your body at the bunker but point your clubface IN BETWEEN  the bunker and the flag. The ball will start where your clubface is pointing and your swing will fade/draw the ball back to the flag.
		
Click to expand...

This description doesn't even make sense. I am picturing the flag behind the bunker, so I would aim away from the bunker and curve the ball around it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			The old ball flight laws don't portray these instructions. I think you have been listening to someone who states the OBFL incorrectly.
		
Click to expand...

This Video shows someone stating the OBFL's  the way I suggested.  And Mr Rose is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0wPnLYNy4


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

Wow!

Brilliant, clever and he shuts the lot of us up.

I think we're getting too scientific and these micro dimentional findings account for about 1% of our ability to curve a ball. 

I believe physical observation is paramount and will stick to simple parameters.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Here's my take 

some think the OBFLs are "laws"
something the NBFLs are "laws"
some think the D-plan is a "Law"

None of them are Laws (of Physics) - and this is because they all have in-built simplifying assumptions, e.g.  on physical interaction of club and ball - and the OBFL's simplifying assumption is different from the NBFL's simplifying assumption, and it is why both are valid.  Also the D-plane is valid, but it too contains an assumption about interaction of club and ball.

Most people presume (in these and similar debates elsewhere) that the impact between clubhead and ball is perfectly elastic and perfectly rigid (coefficient of restitution -1).  i think the NBFLs theoretically assume this, wheras the OBFLs are based on physical observation.  
Lets imagine 2 extreme impacts - 1) a cast golf club hitting a billiard ball, and 2) a (forged?) golf club hitting a golf ball sized piece of dog pooh. Both are hit with an open face on a straight clubhead path - the billiard ball will start off in the direction of the face, and the "pooh" ball will start off in the direction of the swing plane.  Reality (i.e. the plastic compressing inefficient impact of a real club on a real ball) is somewhere between the 2, and will depend on the nature of the golf ball and the golf club.  Different balls, different results.

Perhasps (and i dont know whether this is the case) in the older days of forged clubs and soft balata balls, they started off more dominated by clubhead path; maybe today with springy clubs and balls designed to spin less and penetrate more, they start off closer to the face angle ? I'm not sure, but it might be an interesting reasson why the OBF"L"s used to be "right" and the NBF"L"s might now be "right!" 

So you are all both right and all both wrong (also the D-plan guy)

Try and explain OBFLs and NBFLs to David Beckham and Christiano Ronaldo.  DB wraps his foot around the ball to spread the area of impact and get good frictional contact to impart spin.  CR hits the ball with the (small area) toe of his boot, accordnigly deforms the football into an odd shape and then relies on the aerodynamic instability that causes the ball to wobble in flight.   Impact conditions are key here.
		
Click to expand...

Wow!

Brilliant, clever and he shuts the lot of us up.

I think we're getting too scientific and these micro dimentional findings account for about 1% of our ability to curve a ball. 

I believe physical observation is paramount and will stick to simple parameters.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			And here's one that no-one has flagged up yet.
It is related to the impact conditions post above.

Neither the OBFLs nor NBFLs consider what the face of the club is doing DURING impact - i.e. whether the face is closing or opening through impact. 

We know from photography (and physics) and the ball manufacturers and club manufacturers' blurb, that the ball is compressed on impact and stays on the face for a finite period of time

During that time, a closing or opening face will impart spin to the ball.  It is called "Gear Effect" and club makers have known about it for greater than 100 years - it is why the face of woods/long irons are curved in plan.

Oddly however a "closing" face generates Fade/Slice spin, and an "Opening" face generates drawspin !!!!

You can try this :
Put a putter right up against a ball on a smooth surface (wood floors are good for this), and (without taking the putter back or away from the ball) just rotate its face with your fingers.  An anti-clockwise rotation (closing face) will spin the ball off the the right (fade) and a clockwise rotation (opening face) will spin the ball off the the left (draw spin).

This is another reason why neither the OBFL nor the NBFL are actually a "Law".
		
Click to expand...

Can't get my head round this one but I will try it tomorrow. No backswing just agains the ball and push with closed ot open face?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 12, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Anyone got an email address for Jack Nicklaus so I can inform him he spent his entire career hitting the ball incorrectly?



Click to expand...

Remember to tell him that he's also an idiot.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I'm sure the impact/ballflight laws for tennis would be more like 60/40 face to path than the 85/15 for golf.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on - this is precisely my point on all tehse posts.  But there is no way that the unique circumstances of a steel golf club and a plastic golf ball are unique and are the only ones that follow" the laws of physics"

 


i think we are all getting somewhere and we are beginning to appreciate each others views as well   No bad thing


----------



## kid2 (Jul 12, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Because your swing is going one way and your clubface is pointing another way, that will be sufficient to shape the ball for you.....if your swing is straight. If not, you may need to experiment to get it right.
For example, if your normal swing path is out to in, you may not need to aim left at all as your swingpath is allready going towards the bunker
		
Click to expand...



I wanted to reply to this at lunch time but on my phone it would have taken an age......

For me Bob has hit the nail on the head here.....
One thing most have slightly overlooked is the fact that for these so called laws to even have an effect on our game we'd need to have a practically perfect swing....Which im pretty sure most dont....
And to be honest i reckon the only one that can have a decent say is Bob....In fairness the man teaches the game for a living so he knows how to hit these shots.....
How many of you would actually put these laws into practice in a medal round if the situation arose...
I think that anyone 5 and below probably does have enough skill to be able to pull these shots off but for the rest of use.....Well just make sure that tree aint in the way:rofl:

My take is im not getting wrapped up in the new or old ball flights....If it goes in the general direction that im aiming the face at then im happy out....
My swing is knowhere near repeatable enough to even contemplate whether or not to start a ball with the face 5 degrees open or closed or what path the club takes....
I have just recently started changing bits in my swing and im starting the ball to the right of my target instead of all along starting it to the left.....
I know roughly how far right i need to get my body and the clubface pointing for where i want it to end up.......
While it makes very interesting reading i think for the most part people should let it go over their head and not worry too much about the whole thing.....


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Spot on - this is precisely my point on all tehse posts.  But there is no way that the unique circumstances of a steel golf club and a plastic golf ball are unique and are the only ones that follow" the laws of physics"

 


i think we are all getting somewhere and we are beginning to appreciate each others views as well   No bad thing
		
Click to expand...

The tremendous force between the golfball and clubface is nothing like that of tennis and ping pong balls.  Thats why the golf ball is so hard.

All ball collisions follow the laws of physics but to consider them all identical is wrong.   The way a golf ball compresses, slides and reforms is not the same as the others mentioned.   You seem to be trying to disagree with a science that you dont understand.  That is no way to come to an answer.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The tremendous force between the golfball and clubface is nothing like that of tennis and ping pong balls.  Thats why the golf ball is so hard.

All ball collisions follow the laws of physics but to consider them all identical is wrong.   The way a golf ball compresses, slides and reforms is not the same as the others mentioned.   You seem to be trying to disagree with a science that you dont understand.  That is no way to come to an answer.
		
Click to expand...

H'mm! 

But who cares that the speeds involved are pretty similar really - at least with tennis and golf (along with softball, baseball and cricket), even if the entities involved aren't.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			H'mm! 

But who cares that the speeds involved are pretty similar really - at least with tennis and golf (along with softball, baseball and cricket), even if the entities involved aren't.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't mention the speed, I was talking about the forces.  There is around one ton of force between the ball and clubface.   Quite a bit less with tennis and ping pong.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 12, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The tremendous force between the golfball and clubface is nothing like that of tennis and ping pong balls.  Thats why the golf ball is so hard.

All ball collisions follow the laws of physics but to consider them all identical is wrong.   The way a golf ball compresses, slides and reforms is not the same as the others mentioned.   You seem to be trying to disagree with a science that you dont understand.  That is no way to come to an answer.
		
Click to expand...

Now you are starting to be ignorantly insulting of me - you have no idea of my knowldge, background or qualifications.  Stop being so insulting and be open minded like all good scientists are and should be.  if you dont understand what another person is postulating, do them the service of trying to understand what their point of view if rather than telling them they are wrong and you are right .  

i cannot for the life of me work out why you cant understand that i know that the numerous different examples of ball collisions that i have posted are different - i dont know ho wmany times i can say exactly that, but you insist on telling me exactly the same and insult me at teh same time. .  But i am prepared to listen to everyone's viewpoint on here and learn from them .  You shoudl try it - it is very beneficial and humbling at times.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 12, 2012)

JustOne said:



			When it comes to teaching it's not good enough to say "Do what D4S does" when he doesn't even know what he does himself.
		
Click to expand...

What a ridiculously crass statement. How can you possibly know how much I understand about my own swing?


----------



## Val (Jul 12, 2012)

drive4show said:



			What a ridiculously crass statement. How can you possibly know how much I understand about my own swing?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think he meant it personally buddy just in reply to a comment of mine and used your name as an example.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			I didn't mention the speed, I was talking about the forces.  There is around one ton of force between the ball and clubface.   Quite a bit less with tennis and ping pong.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should consider how much force there is when a 7 oz Softball travelling over the plate at 85mph is struck by a bat weighing over 1.5 pounds travelling at 120mph. I'm pretty sure that's a huge amount more than when a 10oz club travelling at 120 mph strikes a 1.6 oz stationary ball.

In Tennis, the racquet weighs a bit less and the speed is a bit less, but the ball is about 30% heavier, so the forces are not significantly (factor of 10) different. That 30% heavier ball goes at about 2/3rds the speed of a golf ball (130mph cf 180mph).

Table Tennis is a low force sport.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 13, 2012)

OK here is my last post on this subject (which i will add i have learned a lot from)

A club face approaches a ball on a neutral face angle to the target.
It's path is (say 10 degrees) from the inside.

At the point of impact the neutral club face imparts force the the point/area of contact with the ball.

Like all good theroretical mechanics students we resolve this force into 2 orthogonal directions, and for simplicity we choose axes of target line and 90 degrees to that.  

We therefore have 2 forces acting in 2 orthogonal directions - one acting directly through the centre of the ball (on a line from the point of contact along the target axis) and one acting orthogonally acting at a tangent to the point of contact on the surface of teh ball.

Newton tells us that any unresolved force generates an accelaration in that direction, and accordingly a displacement in that direction.  Hence there is a displacement in the direction of the target /face, and a disaplcement in the direction of the other orthogonal action.  The resolved force of these two force/displacement vectors will determine the resolved disaplcement of the object/ball, and the angle between the two vectors/axes will be a function of the relative magnitude of the two forces. 

Because the "impact" force (along the target/face angle axis) is much greater than the "spinning" force on the orthogonal tangent (my words) the subsequent displacement vector will be much closer to the target/face angle axis .  
But it wont be precisely along that axis. 

The ball cannot spin without that orthogonal force.
(the only way you can spin an object without displacing it is to apply a torgue to it - i.e. 2 equal moments either side of the centre of gravity)


OK  - i said that was my last word in this thread and it will be if i can possibly help it .   PLease feel free to citique this post as well - i am sure there must be something wrong with it 
However i will continue to read and learn from others' analysis and experience and i look forward to that 
Enjoy your golf everybody


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

^
^
^
Interesting.... 

Not wanting to drag you back into it Sev but wouldn't there be 3 vectors?... forwards, sideways and UPWARDS?


----------



## sev112 (Jul 13, 2012)

Bugger.....
Yes, (i was working in Plan only, because i can replicate that with my indoor putter experiements that i have been continuing today)but then you have to add the gravitational force on the ball at impact as well 
(and that's all before the ball actually takes off from the club, and then you have to start including drag as well  - aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhh)

you won - i hate you


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 13, 2012)

The whole argument stall hasn't changed. There are no 'new' or 'old' laws, just the same ones that have always existed but with a greater understanding of them due to high speed cameras, slow motion etc.

Live with it.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

drive4show said:



			The whole argument stall hasn't changed. There are no 'new' or 'old' laws, just the same ones that have always existed but with a greater understanding of them due to high speed cameras, slow motion etc.

Live with it.
		
Click to expand...

That's incorrect..... nothing has changed UNTIL you follow one or other set of instructions... then something HAS changed.

Then you have 3 choices....  right, wrong or neither.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			That's incorrect..... nothing has changed UNTIL you follow one or other set of instructions... then something HAS changed.

Then you have 3 choices.... right, wrong or neither.
		
Click to expand...

How can the laws of physics change?


----------



## Val (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			That's incorrect..... nothing has changed UNTIL you follow one or other set of instructions... then something HAS changed.

Then you have 3 choices....  right, wrong or neither.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing has changed physically it's the understanding thats changed thats all.

Golfers are doing the same thing now as they did years ago.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 13, 2012)

Valentino said:



			Nothing has changed physically it's the understanding thats changed thats all.

Golfers are doing the same thing now as they did years ago.
		
Click to expand...

:clap:


----------



## Snelly (Jul 13, 2012)

I find this thread absolutely amazing. Honestly and truly gob-smacking.

I was with two friends last night at our squash club and both play county golf in Sussex. I mentioned that I had read this thread on this forum with hundreds of responses on ball flight laws, old and new. 

It quickly became clear that none of us knew what the old, new or any other ball flight law was.  And I mean that we didn't have anything to say on the subject - not even the slightest clue.  No inkling of where to even start the conversation.  Totally outside our sphere of understanding.  Utterly, completely and forever ignorant on these laws. 

However, what I can also state as absolute fact is that all 3 of us can hit a draw, fade or straight shot, pretty much whenever we want to by doing a bit of this and that.   And all three of us can play to par or better pretty often.  We don't often lose at golf... we are good golfers. 1,2 and 3 handicap. 

So what is my point? 

Not much more than simply this - the ball flight laws - old, new or anything else - have absolutely nothing to do with playing well at this game.  They are 100% irrelevant.  You don't need to know one iota about them or ever think about them in order to play to a very high standard.  My two mates and perhaps me too prove this conclusively.

Now I am not saying that you should not take an interest in basic physics if it is what interests you.  And if applying science to the golf swing helps you to enjoy either the game or the science more then that is great.  

I am just drawing the line at the implication that you cannot play well, understand or improve your golf game without a basic understanding on the ball flight laws be they old or new.  

Because that implication is total and utter nonsense.  Absolutely 100% untrue.

Which leads me neatly to my second observation - what is the point of discussing the ball laws? Or old vs new?  It seems to be a completely worthless exercise from a practical perspective.


----------



## User20205 (Jul 13, 2012)

Snelly said:



			Which leads me neatly to my second observation - what is the point of discussing the ball laws? Or old vs new?  It seems to be a completely worthless exercise from a practical perspective.
		
Click to expand...

agree with you 100% Snelly (apart from the last point). There is no relation to the ball flight laws and playing ability. Understanding theory won't help you hit the ball better, hitting balls and developing feel will. 

These threads/discussions are useful.....

they are a cracking cure for insomnia,


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 13, 2012)

Snelly

you are absolutely, 100% correct my friend. We do not need to have the slightest understanding of the laws of physics to play this game. We just need to know that to hit a draw you align your body this way and your clubface that way then swing along whatever line. 

That hasn't changed. 

:thup:


----------



## sev112 (Jul 13, 2012)

Good question that will be a debate in its own right.  We all no doubt get something different.

i ski,  i'm quite good - probably an equivalent of my golf handicap.  I am miles better because i try and work out the forces involved and how teh technology (the shape of the ski) and how they interact with snow of different types.  It helps to stop me falling over, or even getting injured.

i've been watching the tour de france a lot in recent years, and this year some of the other tours.  I havent got into it other than as a viewer but it seems there is a lot of technology and science that guys in cycle clubs get engaged in.

i used to play chess quite well  - i found that reading about opening and middle game strategies made my game much better.

Don't know about squash  - i used to only hope to still be walking at the end of 40 mins.

For me it's a nice (mainly) engineering/technological debate and i (mainly) enjoy seeing/hearing other people's interpretations and logic, as that (more often than not) improves my own knowledge.  As i've said i dont believe either of them.  I have though found out why i tend to hit trees when i try to fade around them, and so that has hopefully helped my game a bit.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

Snelly said:



			I find this thread absolutely amazing. Honestly and truly gob-smacking.

I was with two friends last night at our squash club and both play county golf in Sussex. I mentioned that I had read this thread on this forum with hundreds of responses on ball flight laws, old and new. 

It quickly became clear that none of us knew what the old, new or any other ball flight law was.  And I mean that we didn't have anything to say on the subject - not even the slightest clue.  No inkling of where to even start the conversation.  Totally outside our sphere of understanding.  Utterly, completely and forever ignorant on these laws. 

However, what I can also state as absolute fact is that all 3 of us can hit a draw, fade or straight shot, pretty much whenever we want to by doing a bit of this and that.   And all three of us can play to par or better pretty often.  We don't often lose at golf... we are good golfers. 1,2 and 3 handicap. 

So what is my point? 

Not much more than simply this - the ball flight laws - old, new or anything else - have absolutely nothing to do with playing well at this game.  They are 100% irrelevant.  You don't need to know one iota about them or ever think about them in order to play to a very high standard.  My two mates and perhaps me too prove this conclusively.

Now I am not saying that you should not take an interest in basic physics if it is what interests you.  And if applying science to the golf swing helps you to enjoy either the game or the science more then that is great.  

I am just drawing the line at the implication that you cannot play well, understand or improve your golf game without a basic understanding on the ball flight laws be they old or new.  

Because that implication is total and utter nonsense.  Absolutely 100% untrue.

Which leads me neatly to my second observation - what is the point of discussing the ball laws? Or old vs new?  It seems to be a completely worthless exercise from a practical perspective.
		
Click to expand...

Hi Snelly.

Interesting take but you probably wont be surprised to hear that I totally disagree with you.

You are a golfer who plays close to scratch, has probably played for many years and has worked out somehow to shape the ball.  I would imagine this ability didn't come natural to you when you first attempted to do it.  You probably improved your skill over time by finding out what worked then improving it bit by bit.  Either that or you are an exceptionally gifted player with way above normal abilities.

If it's the latter then you would accept that it was easier for you and lesser mortals will take much longer (if ever) to master ball shaping.   If it's the former then would you not think there should be a better way for newer golfers to learn the skill. Should they keep hitting into the trees for maybe a year, two years or even for ever, or should there be a way they can be taught that actually works and that can give results fast.

The technical debates on 'D' Plane, Science of golf ball ballistics etc  are just something that a number of us are interested in and like to debate, maybe much the same as you and your mates may sit in the bar and talk about how to hit certain squash shots (I know we used to do that when I was a prolific squash player in my former clothes).    The New ball Flight Laws are not really that new, they just happen to be newer than the incorrect ones that confused so many people over the years (me included).

Teaching a golfer to shape the ball is quite a straight forward thing to do, you explain how they should point the clubface and how your swingpath in relationship to it creates side spin.  They then just have to go out and practice it for a bit to get the idea.

Now, I do understand that you have previously stated that you prefer to learn by hitting golf balls and seeing what happens but I think again you must accept that you are someone who has above average ability to play golf (The average handicap is around  23, why do you think that is?)    MOST people don't have natural coordination and hand eye skill so will get very frustrated and maybe give up on the game if they dont improve.  Teaching these people a shortcut to obtain the skills is a good way of keeping their interest and improving their enjoyment of the game.

That's my take on it, I hope you can see my point.  If you cant then have a nice weekend anyway.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Snelly

you are absolutely, 100% correct my friend. We do not need to have the slightest understanding of the laws of physics to play this game. We just need to know that to hit a draw you align your body this way and your clubface that way then swing along whatever line. 

That hasn't changed. 

:thup:
		
Click to expand...

With respect I dont think anyone has suggested that you need to be taught the physics to shape a ball.   Some of us are interested in them and like to debate it.   I don't see why that should be a problem, if you are not interested in the science then just ignore it.


----------



## User20205 (Jul 13, 2012)

I think we have to respect the fact that some may enjoy the discussion Socket  but I am slightly confused; 

As an experience golfer how did you learn to shape the ball if what you were taught was fundamentally wrong ? 

Also I strongly believe that someone of the average ability doesn't need to shape shots. Learning to hit it straight will be good enough to get down to low single figures. Surely modern equipment/balls are actually a barrier to shot shaping anyway. 

(Can't believe I've got drawn into a ball flight law discussion, I'll be drawing diagrams and selling my soul to the god of stack & tilt next )


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The New ball Flight Laws are not really that new, they just happen to be newer than the incorrect ones that confused so many people over the years (me included).
		
Click to expand...

As I said in the OP, the diferences between the new and old laws have been hugely exagerated. In the last diagram in the OP I have drawn realistic comparisons and they look very similar to me. I would like to hear someone's views on this diagram and tell me what's so confusing and incorrect about the old laws.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

bobmac said:



			If you fade or draw the ball onto your target, you're not doing it wrong.
However, you may not be doing what you think you are doing.
I'll give you an example.....
You may aim your body at the left hand bunker and think your clubface is pointing at the flag but it may only be pointing half way to the flag
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, we don't have trackman available when we are carry out these shots on the course and in the endits down to plain old subconscious feel.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

therod said:



			I think we have to respect the fact that some may enjoy the discussion Socket  but I am slightly confused; 

As an experience golfer how did you learn to shape the ball if what you were taught was fundamentally wrong ? 

Also I strongly believe that someone of the average ability doesn't need to shape shots. Learning to hit it straight will be good enough to get down to low single figures. Surely modern equipment/balls are actually a barrier to shot shaping anyway. 

(Can't believe I've got drawn into a ball flight law discussion, I'll be drawing diagrams and selling my soul to the god of stack & tilt next )
		
Click to expand...

I wanted to learn how to shape golfballs so that I could place the ball in the best positions in doglegs, pull the ball around objects, hit soft fades into greens, draw balls to give maximum run out etc. It is a very important part of playing good golf IMO.

I asked my coach at the time to teach me and he explained the Old Ball Flight Laws method to do it.  I practiced this and tried using it but all it did was put me in a lot of trouble on the course.  I then took another lesson with a different Pro who explained it exactly the same way.

I decided to find out more as there must have been a  better way, or I was a bit stupid and not doing what I was told (I knew that wasn't the case though)   I read a number of publications and the first that really helped me was the book 'The search for the perfect golf swing' by Cochran and Stobbs, this book said something different.   I tried out their theory and it worked  !! GREAT!!     I then researched quite a lot on the theory of golf ball ballistics (I am an Engineer after all) and learned that many things I had been taught were not true.   There is a wealth of information on the subject these days and especially on the internet.

As Bob has said before, the GB PGA has taught the NBFL for some time now but the US PGA still teach the OBFL, this is why there are still so many getting it wrong.

Well, that's my story and I guess I am sticking with it


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			As I said in the OP, the diferences between the new and old laws have been hugely exagerated. In the last diagram in the OP I have drawn realistic comparisons and they look very similar to me. I would like to hear someone's views on this diagram and tell me what's so confusing and incorrect about the old laws.
		
Click to expand...

OK.

The old laws say that the clubface decides the direction the ball will end on and the swingpath decides the direction the ball takes off on.    This is completely wrong and you only need to try it out to see this.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

Region3 said:



			One final question.

Imagine you have a 12yr old son (you might have, I don't know), and you are out playing golf with him.

His drive lands in the right hand rough about 6' behind a foot wide tree trunk and he has to fade the ball around it. It is going to hurt if it goes wrong.

You line his feet up left of the target (as both 'laws' agree), do you tell him to line his club up at the tree or to the left of it?
		
Click to expand...

Yawn! It's the old tree comparison again. I have been using simple instructions for years and manage to get my students to avoid that damn tree every time. As long as they line the feet properly and don't overdo the face angles, they are going to avoid harming themselves.

My students have more trouble getting the ball to curve back towards the target so maybe I should exagerate the face angles.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The ball sits on the clubface for around six milliseconds at impact. This has been proven by high speed cameras.
		
Click to expand...

I must be doing something wrong my ball only stays on the clubface for 4/10 of a millisecond.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			No presumption at all.

If you wish a grown up debate on the subject then present me with your arguments in detail and I will address them for you.
		
Click to expand...

Please address the last diagram in the OP.


----------



## Region3 (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			As I said in the OP, the diferences between the new and old laws have been hugely exagerated. In the last diagram in the OP I have drawn realistic comparisons and they look very similar to me. I would like to hear someone's views on this diagram and tell me what's so confusing and incorrect about the old laws.
		
Click to expand...

This may get lost in all the other posts, but I will give my opinion on your diagrams, and then ask a question of you.

The diagrams look almost identical. I don't agree with the left hand one showing your depiction of the NBFL.
Just taking one of the lines as an example, the red dashed one. Swing path 5Â° out-to-in with the face 8Â° open to the path.

NBFL says the initial direction is affected most (around 85%) by face angle.
Difference between path and face is 8Â°.
85% of 8Â° is 6.8Â°.
If the path is only 5Â° out-to-in, why does your starting line point left of straight?

Now my question.
If I want to fade a ball into a right-side pin, what do the OBFL say I should do, and what would really happen if I did that assuming NBFL are correct.

I'm not worried about giving specific angles/distances etc. Descriptions of left/right of target/path/face will be fine.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			You're teaching a student who is hitting draw shots and he says..

"I'd like to start the ball 5yds further to the right"

what do you tell him?
		
Click to expand...

Is this a trick question? Do you mean the student would prefer to start the ball 1Â° further to the right and still achieve a draw curve or do you mean he would prefer to lose the draw?


----------



## bobmac (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick, the PGA says the clubface dictates 85% the direction the ball starts and the swing path imparts the sidespin.
Would you like to comment on that please?


----------



## User20205 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Well, that's my story and I guess I am sticking with it 

Click to expand...

thanks for the insight Brian :thup:

I guess it's the way you're put together, I can hit a fade on demand, and a draw that sometimes turns into a hook. I know what they feel like. 

Faced with the tree 6 foot away scenario, I'd probably take my medicine, or if I was really brave just blast through it.

I'm not exactly analytical in mindset so most of it is lost on me! I do suspect in my simple way that this could lead to paralysis by analysis


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			I wanted to learn how to shape golfballs so that I could place the ball in the best positions in doglegs, pull the ball around objects, hit soft fades into greens, draw balls to give maximum run out etc. It is a very important part of playing good golf IMO.

I asked my coach at the time to teach me and he explained the Old Ball Flight Laws method to do it.  I practiced this and tried using it but all it did was put me in a lot of trouble on the course.  I then took another lesson with a different Pro who explained it exactly the same way.

I decided to find out more as there must have been a  better way, or I was a bit stupid and not doing what I was told (I knew that wasn't the case though)   I read a number of publications and the first that really helped me was the book 'The search for the perfect golf swing' by Cochran and Stobbs, this book said something different.   I tried out their theory and it worked  !! GREAT!!     I then researched quite a lot on the theory of golf ball ballistics (I am an Engineer after all) and learned that many things I had been taught were not true.   There is a wealth of information on the subject these days and especially on the internet.

As Bob has said before, the GB PGA has taught the NBFL for some time now but the US PGA still teach the OBFL, this is why there are still so many getting it wrong.

Well, that's my story and I guess I am sticking with it 

Click to expand...

Which directives did the pros give you that were wrong? 

e.g. path 3Â° in to out, face closed 1Â° to path, ball starts right of target and curves back towards the target.

What's wrong with these simple old instructions?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			OK.

The old laws say that the clubface decides the direction the ball will end on and the swingpath decides the direction the ball takes off on.
		
Click to expand...

I work with the OBFL diagram and I can't find the above sentence on this chart. Please state what is wrong with the actual chart.


----------



## Region3 (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Which directives did the pros give you that were wrong? 

e.g. path 3Â° in to out, face closed 1Â° to path, ball starts right of target and curves back towards the target.

What's wrong with these simple old instructions?
		
Click to expand...

Are they the old ones? Really?

I thought the old ones would say path 3Â° in to out, face closed *3Â°*â€‹ to path. No?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Which directives did the pros give you that were wrong? 

e.g. path 3Â° in to out, face closed 1Â° to path, ball starts right of target and curves back towards the target.

What's wrong with these simple old instructions?
		
Click to expand...

I was taught to aim the clubface where the ball needed to finish and swing down the line the ball should start.  

Are you saying this is correct?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

therod said:



			thanks for the insight Brian :thup:

I guess it's the way you're put together, I can hit a fade on demand, and a draw that sometimes turns into a hook. I know what they feel like. 

Faced with the tree 6 foot away scenario, I'd probably take my medicine, or if I was really brave just blast through it.

I'm not exactly analytical in mindset so most of it is lost on me! I do suspect in my simple way that this could lead to paralysis by analysis
		
Click to expand...

No one is going to bend a ball around a tree 6 foot away.  60  yards away may give you a chance.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

Region3 said:



			Are they the old ones? Really?

I thought the old ones would say path 3Â° in to out, face closed *3Â°*â€‹ to path. No?
		
Click to expand...

I agree. The old ones would say clubface at target and swingpath 3 deg closed. 

Result: Ball would end up right of target.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick:

Here is a Video I posted previously, it's from Justin Rose and he is explaining how to hit a Draw and Fade.  he is using the OBFL method, I guess from his USA learning.

Do you agree with his explanation of how to make the shots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0wPnLYNy4


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

Region3 said:



			This may get lost in all the other posts, but I will give my opinion on your diagrams, and then ask a question of you.

The diagrams look almost identical. I don't agree with the left hand one showing your depiction of the NBFL.
Just taking one of the lines as an example, the red dashed one. Swing path 5Â° out-to-in with the face 8Â° open to the path.

NBFL says the initial direction is affected most (around 85%) by face angle.
Difference between path and face is 8Â°.
85% of 8Â° is 6.8Â°.
If the path is only 5Â° out-to-in, why does your starting line point left of straight?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I get your point. But when I start this red line 1.8% right of the target the flight is very severe and the shot is extremely weak with a huge banana slice. I've also tried to hit this shot and just can't achieve it without opening the face at ridiculous levels. I know what I feel and what I actually do is different but starting a ball right of target on this path is a powder puff shot. perhaps my feeling is that the face ius open 25Â° when it is actually 8Â° open.



Region3 said:



			Now my question.
If I want to fade a ball into a right-side pin, what do the OBFL say I  should do, and what would really happen if I did that assuming NBFL are  correct.

I'm not worried about giving specific angles/distances etc. Descriptions of left/right of target/path/face will be fine.
		
Click to expand...

The OBFL suggest using either a push slice or straight slice. In a nutshell they suggest aiming at the left side of the green with the clubface aiming right of this path and the ball will curve to the right.

The NBFL would confuse this advice because they would refer clubface to target rather than to path...

Aim to the left side of green with the club closed to the target but not more closed than the parameters of path.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Patrick, the PGA says the clubface dictates 85% the direction the ball starts and the swing path imparts the sidespin.
Would you like to comment on that please?
		
Click to expand...

I am not going to argue with the physics. I am of the opinion that our bodies have realised subconsciously that whenever the face is open or closed to a greater degree than path left or right of target, things just get silly.

That's why I use simple descriptions like path -3 to +3 and face conditions -3  to +3. I am also not referring to these parameters in degrees but -1 is a little left, -3 a lot left and -2 somewhere in between. The same with clubface, -1 a little closed etc.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

Region3 said:



			Are they the old ones? Really?

I thought the old ones would say path 3Â° in to out, face closed *3Â°*â€‹ to path. No?
		
Click to expand...

The OBFL don't mention degrees.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			I was taught to aim the clubface where the ball needed to finish and swing down the line the ball should start.  

Are you saying this is correct?
		
Click to expand...

Once again I can't find this sentence on the OBFL charts.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Yes I get your point. But when I start this red line 1.8% right of the target the flight is very severe and the shot is extremely weak with a huge banana slice.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl: That's quite funny. Do you teach Snelly?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Patrick:

Here is a Video I posted previously, it's from Justin Rose and he is explaining how to hit a Draw and Fade.  he is using the OBFL method, I guess from his USA learning.

Do you agree with his explanation of how to make the shots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0wPnLYNy4

Click to expand...

Of course not! If you read my OP, I work with the directives of the Old diagram and many people have put words in that just aren't there in the diagrams. Please look at the descriptions of each flight and you'll see that Rose is adding his feel for these instructions.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			:rofl: That's quite funny. Do you teach Snelly?
		
Click to expand...

I think if Snelly can actually hit this shot he deserves a medal. I rarely see a banana slice that starts right of target. The guys that perform this particular shot always start the ball left of target.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			I rarely see a banana slice that starts right of target. The guys that perform this particular shot always start the ball left of target.
		
Click to expand...

Unless they follow YOUR chart :thup:


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Unless they follow YOUR chart :thup:
		
Click to expand...

At least using my chart they can try to perform the shot within 15 seconds of the command. They would need a calculator for the directives issued from a NBFL/Trackman/D-Plane geek and would be disqualified for slow play or experience explosions in the head.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			At least using my chart they can try to perform the shot within 15 seconds of the command. They would need a calculator for the directives issued from a NBFL/Trackman/D-Plane geek and would be disqualified for slow play or experience explosions in the head.
		
Click to expand...

Your chart is wrong.  If you can make a reasoned argument against 'D' Plane then I will listen to you and consider your view.  If you keep plugging back to that onerous chart that is wrong then I see no reason to continue.

You are convinced that you are correct and the NBFL are not.  Keep on teaching people to hit into the trees if you can get away with it.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

Why would they use your method instead of just knowing the correct ballflight laws and using them? I don't get why they would choose a method like yours that is wrong... even your chart is wrong... unless you don't tell them that yours is wrong of course 

If your clubface is to the right of the target that ball is going to *start* to the right of the target (even if it's only by one inch)... that's undisputed.... apart from BY YOU.... and your chart.


----------



## Snelly (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Now, I do understand that you have previously stated that you prefer to learn by hitting golf balls and seeing what happens but I think again you must accept that you are someone who has above average ability to play golf (The average handicap is around  23, why do you think that is?)    MOST people don't have natural coordination and hand eye skill so will get very frustrated and maybe give up on the game if they dont improve.  Teaching these people a shortcut to obtain the skills is a good way of keeping their interest and improving their enjoyment of the game.

That's my take on it, I hope you can see my point.  If you cant then have a nice weekend anyway.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I see your point but I would guess that where we differ radically is in the realms of the practical rather than theoretical.  What I mean by that is that I don't think understanding the physics behind what causes the ball to do something helps you to score better.  I accept that it may, if you have an enquiring, logical, scientific mind, help you hit the ball better but that is not the same thing and nor does hitting better logically equate to scoring better.  

Average handicaps are high in my opinion because golfers haven't played enough golf to become adept.  We learn by doing.  

And I could go on but will just say that we can agree to disagree on whether understanding ball flight laws is a short cut to improvement.  I am certain it isn't but I can only truly comment about me I guess.  If it works for you (as I said in my previous post) then good luck to you and I wish you all the best.

And yes, have a good weekend yourself.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

Snelly I have a question for you........ typing it now....... 2 mins....


----------



## Snelly (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			:rofl: That's quite funny. Do you teach Snelly?
		
Click to expand...

:thup:  No-one teaches me but if they did, it would be a snap hook in my case.  I find a slice difficult to master! 

Banana slice is more your area of expertise isn't it mate??? :cheers:


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

A man takes his son to a RIFLE RANGE..... the man is an 18 h/cap rifleman and his son shows good promise but doesn't have a shooting h/cap yet... they are shooting fast moving clay pigeons from 100m away... he hits a few but misses loads, whilst they are there the following things happen....

a) Smiffmeister Chopper who is a 28 h/cap rifleman passes by and comments that he read in a magazine that his grip on the trigger needs to be lighter and he needs to press the butt of the gun into his shoulder a little more

b) James Tilt (Stack to his friends) passes by and explains that the boy needs to shoot in FRONT of the pigeon by 2 feet at that range to allow time for the pigeon to fly into the bullet, he also needs to aim 1 foot above the pigeon as gravity at that range means the bullet will drop 1 foot... basically the 'Bullet flight Laws'

c) Wing Commander Snelly complete with flared shorts and handlebar tache walks past and says he just aims straight at the pigeon never in front and never above, and has a shooting h/cap of 2 and has been shooting for 20yrs

Given that there's a certain thing to be said for the 'Bullet flight laws' (gravity is a fixed force) which person should the man choose to give his son a lesson? The one who reads mags for tips, the one who knows the 'bullet flight laws' or the one who THINKS he aims straight at the pigeon?


----------



## Region3 (Jul 13, 2012)

You forgot a bit...

_All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

_


----------



## Snelly (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			A man takes his son to a RIFLE RANGE..... the man is an 18 h/cap rifleman and his son shows good promise but doesn't have a shooting h/cap yet... they are shooting fast moving clay pigeons from 100m away... he hits a few but misses loads, whilst they are there the following things happen....

a) Smiffmeister Chopper who is a 28 h/cap rifleman passes by and comments that he read in a magazine that his grip on the trigger needs to be lighter and he needs to press the butt of the gun into his shoulder a little more

b) James Tilt (Stack to his friends) passes by and explains that the boy needs to shoot in FRONT of the pigeon by 2 feet at that range to allow time for the pigeon to fly into the bullet, he also needs to aim 1 foot above the pigeon as gravity at that range means the bullet will drop 1 foot... basically the 'Bullet flight Laws'

c) Wing Commander Snelly complete with flared shorts and handlebar tache walks past and says he just aims straight at the pigeon never in front and never above, and has a shooting h/cap of 2 and has been shooting for 20yrs

Given that there's a certain thing to be said for the 'Bullet flight laws' (gravity is a fixed force) which person should the man choose to give his son a lesson? The one who reads mags for tips, the one who knows the 'bullet flight laws' or the one who THINKS he aims straight at the pigeon?
		
Click to expand...

Lovely post!  Nice one James!

But first things first my townie friend!   Pigeons, even clay ones, are despatched with lead shot from shotguns, not bullets from rifles.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

Snelly said:



			Lovely post!  Nice one James!

But first things first my townie friend!   Pigeons, even clay ones, are despatched with lead shot from shotguns, not bullets from rifles.
		
Click to expand...

Damn, I thought you were going to query which gun they were using!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Damn, I thought you were going to query which gun they were using! 

Click to expand...

Maybe it was the Old Bullet Flight Laws Gun.  That one had a bent barrel.    You aim at the pigeon and shoot his mate.


----------



## Snelly (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Damn, I thought you were going to query which gun they were using! 

Click to expand...

That said, I love the eloquence of your example and I think I understand the point you are making. 

The shooting analogy is a very interesting one and does have comparisons to golf and this argument albeit to a lesser extent.

In general terms, if someone asked me about learning to shoot or play golf, my advice would be exactly the same really.  Have a couple of lessons from a professional teacher who comes highly recommended.  Gain a genuine understanding of fundamentals to success, etiquette and safety and then when you feel ready, venture out into the field or onto the course and hit balls / fire shots.  

You will have good and bad days.  Remember the things that work and practice them and discard the elements that are not working.  Periodically, return to your teacher for a tweak here and there.  If you put the effort and hours in, you will become a proficient shot or player.


That said, if I try and relate your analogy to this thread specifically, I am not sure I would have a different view to the one I have posted above.  Basically, I don't think a detailed understanding of the effect of physics on a shot pattern is going to make you a better shot.  What would make you hit more clays is pulling the trigger at the right moment as you swing through the flight line of the bird.  Best way to learn this is to shoot at a lot of clay pigeons and when you find a method (there are three main techniques by the way) that works for you then stick to it and basically, remember that practice makes perfect.


Not sure if this furthers the debate or not but I enjoyed reading your post very much! 


And lastly, I am not the greatest shot - far from it!  Need more practice!


----------



## JustOne (Jul 13, 2012)

Snelly I *think* the point I was making is that even though you're a great shot it has taken time to master through making mistakes whereas if the 'bullet flight laws' are pointed out then the trial and error part can quickly be eliminated (or reduced) by the child. It would be wrong to dismiss them even though you're a 2 h/cap rifleman who can get the job done his own way (whatever that may be).

Clearly you don't need them yourself but it wouldn't be right to try and 'encourage' everyone not to bother... or would it?


----------



## Snelly (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Snelly I *think* the point I was making is that even though you're a great shot it has taken time to master through making mistakes whereas if the 'bullet flight laws' are pointed out then the trial and error part can quickly be eliminated (or reduced) by the child. It would be wrong to dismiss them even though you're a 2 h/cap rifleman who can get the job done his own way (whatever that may be).

Clearly you don't need them yourself but it wouldn't be right to try and 'encourage' everyone not to bother... or would it?
		
Click to expand...

The bullet flight laws are incredibly complex and it does help me to shoot better if I understand them.  BUT, the same goes for everyone who shoots rifles.  You need to know in order to be able to hit a target at a given distance.  

Where you and I differ is that in terms of golf, I don't think the ball flight laws are a necessary part of the learning process but I guess you do?  

I don't think they are a short cut to improvement at all but maybe you and others do?

Either way, I reiterate my previous point which is if golfers are helped by understanding the new ball flight laws then that is great for them and I wish them well.  However there are more ways to skin a cat and I am I would hope, providing a considered alternative perspective to yours.

Because as I am sure we both agree, there isn't just one way to learn to play golf and what works for you might not work for me.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Your chart is wrong.  If you can make a reasoned argument against 'D' Plane then I will listen to you and consider your view.  If you keep plugging back to that onerous chart that is wrong then I see no reason to continue.

You are convinced that you are correct and the NBFL are not.  Keep on teaching people to hit into the trees if you can get away with it.
		
Click to expand...

why do the NBFL followers need to mention that damn tree as if they are making a brilliant point.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Why would they use your method instead of just knowing the correct ballflight laws and using them? I don't get why they would choose a method like yours that is wrong... even your chart is wrong... unless you don't tell them that yours is wrong of course 

If your clubface is to the right of the target that ball is going to *start* to the right of the target (even if it's only by one inch)... that's undisputed.... apart from BY YOU.... and your chart.
		
Click to expand...

I've answered this question!


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

JustOne said:



			A man takes his son to a RIFLE RANGE..... the man is an 18 h/cap rifleman and his son shows good promise but doesn't have a shooting h/cap yet... they are shooting fast moving clay pigeons from 100m away... he hits a few but misses loads, whilst they are there the following things happen....

a) Smiffmeister Chopper who is a 28 h/cap rifleman passes by and comments that he read in a magazine that his grip on the trigger needs to be lighter and he needs to press the butt of the gun into his shoulder a little more

b) James Tilt (Stack to his friends) passes by and explains that the boy needs to shoot in FRONT of the pigeon by 2 feet at that range to allow time for the pigeon to fly into the bullet, he also needs to aim 1 foot above the pigeon as gravity at that range means the bullet will drop 1 foot... basically the 'Bullet flight Laws'

c) Wing Commander Snelly complete with flared shorts and handlebar tache walks past and says he just aims straight at the pigeon never in front and never above, and has a shooting h/cap of 2 and has been shooting for 20yrs

Given that there's a certain thing to be said for the 'Bullet flight laws' (gravity is a fixed force) which person should the man choose to give his son a lesson? The one who reads mags for tips, the one who knows the 'bullet flight laws' or the one who THINKS he aims straight at the pigeon?
		
Click to expand...

None of the above!

but 10 out of 10 for assimilation.

I'm now going to rack my brains for a similar example.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

Snelly,

I do like your angle on the subject, although it's different to mine and Jo's you do reason it well.  That is a bit of a breath of fresh air against some of the dross being posted here.

I would just like to point out that I do not suggest that the average golfer needs to understand anything about the Physics of golf.  That's for anoraks like me who need to get into subject matter up to the armpits.    These ball flight laws are quite easy to teach, Bob made a few simple explanations earlier and I think these were just about right.    James also has explained the basic concepts in a fairly straight forward manner and I am sure if he was teaching someone on the range they would pick it up very quickly.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

OK, 

Assimilation time...

A man takes his son to the pub..... the man is an 18 h/capat darts  and his son shows good promise but doesn't have a h/cap at darts yet... they are playing 501 from 8 feet away from the board... he hits a few winning doubles but misses loads, whilst they are there the following things happen....

a) Smiffmeister Chopper who is a 28 h/cap dart player passes by and  comments that he read in a magazine that his grip on the dart needs  to be lighter and he needs to bend more at the elbow during the throwing motion

b) James Tilt (Stack to his friends) passes by and explains that the boy  needs to aim 6"  above the double as gravity at that range means the dart will drop 6"... basically the 'dart flight Laws'

c) Wing Commander Snelly complete with flared shorts and handlebar tache  walks past and says he just aims straight at the double, never to the side  and never above, and has a dart playing h/cap of 2 and has been throwing good darts for  20yrs

Given that there's a certain thing to be said for the 'Dart flight  laws' (gravity is a fixed force) which person should the man choose to  give his son a lesson? The one who reads mags for tips, the one who  knows the "dart flight laws' or the one who THINKS he aims straight at  the double?

I would say this scenario is similar and also inconclusive as to who the boy should choose.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2012)

As interesting these allegorical examples are none of them have  a property similar to sidespin.  The bullet rises and falls like a golfball, as does the dart but neither turns sideways in flight while rising and falling.

Now! I look forward to the story where young Becks is watching his dad try to bend the ball.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 13, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			As interesting these allegorical examples are none of them have the a property similar to sidespin.  The bullet rises and falls like a golfball, as does the dart but neither turns sideways in flight while rising and falling.

Now! I look forward to the story where young Becks is watching his dad try to bend the ball.
		
Click to expand...

yes, golf is the only dead ball sport I can think of that involves a club and an ascending/descending flight where the ball also curves. 

That makes a better assimilation difficult.


----------



## kid2 (Jul 14, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			yes, golf is the only dead ball sport I can think of that involves a club and an ascending/descending flight where the ball also curves. 

That makes a better assimilation difficult.
		
Click to expand...


Hurling!:thup:


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 14, 2012)

kid2 said:



			Hurling!:thup:
		
Click to expand...

dead Ball sport?


----------



## kid2 (Jul 14, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			dead Ball sport?
		
Click to expand...


Sideline cut:
The ball is static on the ground....When hit it can have either sidespin left or right depending on the hit....And also ascends and descends in flight.....
So i would assume its a dead ball before being hit?


----------



## JustOne (Jul 14, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			As interesting these allegorical examples are none of them have  a property similar to sidespin.  The bullet rises and falls like a golfball, as does the dart but neither turns sideways in flight while rising and falling..
		
Click to expand...

Not sure what point our new found golf coach is trying to make by taking clay pigeon shooting and substituting it with darts... seeing as it's exactly the same principle as mine 

Weird!



Socket, the point I was trying to make is nothing to do with golfballs or clay pigeons or even the ball flight laws, just a point about learning/teaching and knowing the *facts* in order to do so.

If someone can get by without knowing the facts or being instructed in some way by somebody who DOES know the facts then good for them... for all others it would be advisable NOT to learn (or take advise) from someone who just says "point the club and hit it, that's what I do", and even worse by someone who knows the WRONG facts and teaches those!


----------



## sev112 (Jul 14, 2012)

Sorry, i said i wouldn't but i'm getting so much info out of this.
I think these "things" are useful to some/many, not because they necessarily teach you how how to do play a new shot, but they help you stop doing a bad shot.  And lots of people are interested in that 
Presumably Pros use these "laws" and things when they look at a player and help them to eradicate swing faults.
Many top pros, big names, say "i look at ball flight - that's all i need to know what the fault is " 
But it's no longer simple any more  
e.g. 
I stand on the tee, i hit a ball that goes 225 yards, starting on a line 25 yards to the right and curves back another 12.5 yards back towards the left  - some might say a good shot.
What is my club face doing at impact and where are my feet aiming (assuming my clubhead path is parallel with my feet) for any/all of the following cases :
1) A Big faced driver, with the ball hit 1.5" closer to the toe (i.e Gear Effect maximum)
2) A Draw biased driver
3) a straight faced 1 iron (no gear effect)

Hmmm.... I'm confused now  - each of those would have my feet and face in different places and combinations and generate the same shot ?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Not sure what point our new found golf coach is trying to make by taking clay pigeon shooting and substituting it with darts... seeing as it's exactly the same principle as mine 

Weird!



Socket, the point I was trying to make is nothing to do with golfballs or clay pigeons or even the ball flight laws, just a point about learning/teaching and knowing the *facts* in order to do so.

If someone can get by without knowing the facts or being instructed in some way by somebody who DOES know the facts then good for them... for all others it would be advisable NOT to learn (or take advise) from someone who just says "point the club and hit it, that's what I do", and even worse by someone who knows the WRONG facts and teaches those!
		
Click to expand...

Yes James, I see what you meant.  I was referring more to the additional posts.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2012)

I know some of us have been discussing the details of ball shaping, the physics and mechanics of what works, what doesn't and why,  but that's for some of us that are interested in such things, for those that aren't then as I said previously 'just ignore that bit'.

Some are suggesting the NBFL and OBFL are complicated and to be honest some of the discussion has made it seem that way.  People don't stand by their ball when needing to move it in flight and consider how many degrees left or right  their clubface should point and how many degrees this way or that way they must swing.  How on earth could you measure somthing like that?  Would you consider that you need a push draw or a pull hook etc and mentally look up all Patricks drawings in your mind so that you can hit ball into a tight green?   No!  all you need to do is ensure the clubface is pointing in the direction you want the initial flight then swing to the right or left of that by the desired amount to create a suitable sidespin.    It's not too difficult, OK it needs a bit of practice before you use it, just like hitting out of a bunker or chipping onto a green does.

The OBFL were the same, you didnt need a manual of examples to do it, just aim yje clubface where you want the ball to finish and swing in the direction you wanted the ball to start.  It does not work but the method is simple enough.

It takes a bit of understanding to become very proficient at ball shaping as different clubs work in slightly different ways.  More loft creates less sidespin for example.     The basics are easy to learn and the average player should pick it up fairly fast.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 14, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The OBFL were the same, you didnt need a manual of examples to do it, just aim yje clubface where you want the ball to finish and swing in the direction you wanted the ball to start.  It does not work but the method is simple enough.
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant!!  Always used to work until someone decided we needed 'new' laws

:rofl:


----------



## kid2 (Jul 14, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			It takes a bit of understanding to become very proficient at ball shaping as different clubs work in slightly different ways.  More loft creates less sidespin for example.     The basics are easy to learn and the average player should pick it up fairly fast.
		
Click to expand...

SR.... Good post....As you say i think for the most part it would be good for people to understand them anyway at least me included but for the average Joe also me included i think that it makes the game more technical than it needs to be.....
The average player isnt trying to shape the ball around the course....They want a starightish shot (Something thats near impossible to pull off) but they are happy if they have a controllable flight...Be it left to right or right to left......
I think that trying to shape your ball both ways for some can be a recipe for disaster.....It brings too much thinking into the equation....
As well as that i believe that as you get lower then maybe you'll need the required shots to hit into greens to flags left and right but even then that may not be the right choice....

The game is riddled at all levels with players trying to hit the ball the opposite way from what they naturally do...
If you can embrace the shape you play with get it under control then i dont think that all these Ball flight laws are going to matter one bit....

I also think that most club golfers maybe dont realize that they do it but are actually hitting the ball with these NBFL's.... 
Its when the science comes into it i have a tendency to switch off and do what feels natural to me....

For my irons im aiming the clubface 6 or 7 yards right of the pin and aiming the rest of me parallel to this a few yards inside that line....
My ball flight starts straight and then sometimes draws a little back to the pins....
Its different with me for the driver...
Today i was aiming the clubhead at the left edge rough and opening my body a few degrees to that target and fading the ball back into the fairway...A managable flight at last and i couldnt tell you if any of the 2 shapes fall into the OBFL's or the NBFL's.....

I just do what feels natural..... :thup:


----------



## duncan mackie (Jul 14, 2012)

kid2 said:



			....

For my irons im aiming the clubface 6 or 7 yards right of the pin and aiming the rest of me parallel to this a few yards inside that line....
My ball flight starts straight and then sometimes draws a little back to the pins....
		
Click to expand...

sorry but this makes even less sense than most of what's in this, and other posts, on the subject!

1. you can't have something parallel to and inside
2. you can't have a ball flight that starts straight and then curves back to the pin

you do however support the principle that there isn't any difference between the 'laws' only how they are presented and interpreted. excellent!


----------



## kid2 (Jul 14, 2012)

duncan mackie said:



			sorry but this makes even less sense than most of what's in this, and other posts, on the subject!

1. you can't have something parallel to and inside
2. you can't have a ball flight that starts straight and then curves back to the pin

you do however support the principle that there isn't any difference between the 'laws' only how they are presented and interpreted. excellent!
		
Click to expand...


Which is also why i said in my post that when the science comes into it i switch off Duncan....And do what feels natural to me....

I dont care what the clubface is doing or why it starts straight and curves back....For me its what i can control and what i know.....Simples....


----------



## duncan mackie (Jul 14, 2012)

kid2 said:



			Which is also why i said in my post that when the science comes into it i switch off Duncan....And do what feels natural to me....

I dont care what the clubface is doing or why it starts straight and curves back....For me its what i can control and what i know.....Simples....
		
Click to expand...

then why post the bo**ox bit then?


----------



## kid2 (Jul 14, 2012)

duncan mackie said:



			then why post the bo**ox bit then?  

Click to expand...

:cheers: :thup:....Just thought that there might be someone else thinking along the same lines....
As interesting as all this thread is......It'll confuse the crap out of a lot.....


----------



## duncan mackie (Jul 14, 2012)

kid2 said:



			:cheers: :thup:....Just thought that there might be someone else thinking along the same lines....
As interesting as all this thread is......It'll confuse the crap out of a lot.....

Click to expand...


unfortunately - yes!

:whoo:


----------



## Region3 (Jul 14, 2012)

The direction that the ball moves in the air is the same regardless of new or old ideas.

For me at least, it's all about trial and error. I can't believe anyone stands there and tries to guess angles and degrees. You have a general idea then play around with it on the range to find what works.

Even if a coach tried to teach someone the wrong way and they found it wasn't working out surely they'd play around with path and face until the ball did what they wanted it to.

I think where a good understanding of the ball flight laws is invaluable is in understanding what the club was doing around impact based on the observed flight of the ball.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 14, 2012)

My OP argues that new and old laws are not as different as the few would want us to believe. How golfers perform ball shaping on the golf course is much less complicated...

In order to shape balls, a golfer must have a feel for a closed and/or open clubface. I refer to this as either toe pressure or heel pressure. Once they have this skill, then they just have to align the feet to the desired path and swing away.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			My OP argues that new and old laws are not as different as the few would want us to believe. How golfers perform ball shaping on the golf course is much less complicated...

In order to shape balls, a golfer must have a feel for a closed and/or open clubface. I refer to this as either toe pressure or heel pressure. Once they have this skill, then they just have to align the feet to the desired path and swing away.
		
Click to expand...

Your first statement is completely wrong.  They are not the same.

Your second statement is just mumbo jumbo that will help no one.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Brilliant!!  Always used to work until someone decided we needed 'new' laws

:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

So! explain to us, if you can how it used to work?   I am waiting with baited breath for your pearls of wisdom that will reveal the sacred cow of ball shaping that you seem to think whe rest of us elude to.    Come on then, please amaze us. I dont think I will hold my breath though.   :rofl:


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 14, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Your first statement is completely wrong.  They are not the same.
		
Click to expand...

My first statement claimed they are not as diferent as people make out. If you read that as me stating that they are the same, then I can't win.



SocketRocket said:



			Your second statement is just mumbo jumbo that will help no one.
		
Click to expand...

These simple instructions work for most of my students which is a greater success rate than the 'it will work for no one' that you suggest.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 14, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			So! explain to us, if you can how it used to work?   I am waiting with baited breath for your pearls of wisdom that will reveal the sacred cow of ball shaping that you seem to think whe rest of us elude to.    Come on then, please amaze us. I dont think I will hold my breath though.   :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

I would like to take a stab at this one...

Shaping shots is something that is achieved using intuition and instinct. Its a subconscious skill like, throwing, catching etc and not a scientific formula.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			These simple instructions work for most of my students which is a greater success rate than the 'it will work for no one' that you suggest.
		
Click to expand...

 If you teach clubface direction creating sidespin and swingpath creating initial direction, most of your students must be ignoring or misunderstanding your instructions then.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			I would like to take a stab at this one...

Shaping shots is something that is achieved using intuition and instinct. Its a subconscious skill like, throwing, catching etc and not a scientific formula.
		
Click to expand...

Ah!  So its a black art.

I have previously asked you to debate 'D' Plane.  This is not intuition or instinct, its a physical action that can be explained.    You seem to have a Luddite  attitude to it.  If you have a problem understanding exactly what forces create ball flight then just ask and I will try my best to educate you.   If you just want to dismiss this and use the argument that it's some kind of instinct then I despair at the thought that you make people pay to be confused.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 15, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			If you teach clubface direction creating sidespin and swingpath creating initial direction, most of your students must be ignoring or misunderstanding your instructions then.
		
Click to expand...

No they work out the angles with a thing called touch. Its difficult to curve a ball abck to the middle of the fairway if you start it on the wrong path. Now if you are going to use silly face angles then you could argue that the face is more improtant than path but that's not my experience. I aim at the side of the fairway and curve the ball back with sufficient face conditions.



SocketRocket said:



			Ah!  So its a black art.
		
Click to expand...

If you consider simple motor skills to be a black art then, yes!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			No they work out the angles with a thing called touch. Its difficult to curve a ball abck to the middle of the fairway if you start it on the wrong path. Now if you are going to use silly face angles then you could argue that the face is more improtant than path but that's not my experience. I aim at the side of the fairway and curve the ball back with sufficient face conditions.



If you consider simple motor skills to be a black art then, yes!
		
Click to expand...

Yadeyadeya.   You are speaking round in circles and not answering the question.    I will try again:   

1) Do you believe that clubface direction affects sidespin.

2)  Do you believe that swingpath affects initial ball direction.

OR

3) Do you believe in neither and say its is all a matter of 'FEEL'


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 15, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Yadeyadeya.   You are speaking round in circles and not answering the question.    I will try again:   

1) Do you believe that clubface direction affects sidespin.
		
Click to expand...

Of course. 



SocketRocket said:



			2)  Do you believe that swingpath affects initial ball direction.
		
Click to expand...

Of course.



SocketRocket said:



			3) Do you believe in neither and say its is all a matter of 'FEEL'
		
Click to expand...

I have enough understanding of the laws to let my feel take care of the flights.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Of course. 



Of course.



I have enough understanding of the laws to let my feel take care of the flights.
		
Click to expand...

In that case I feel further discussion with you is a complete waste of time.   Why on earth do you start these discussions on Golf Forums when you have no intention of accepting others opinions.

I suggest you just take your Luddite self off and keep taking the money from your gullible students while you can.

The end.


----------



## Smiffy (Jul 15, 2012)

Serious question for James.......

If you know so much about ball flight laws, why do you hit so many trees????


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 15, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			In that case I feel further discussion with you is a complete waste of time.   Why on earth do you start these discussions on Golf Forums when you have no intention of accepting others opinions.

I suggest you just take your Luddite self off and keep taking the money from your gullible students while you can.

The end.
		
Click to expand...

I have tried to answer everyone's opinions and I am mainly saying that a good golfer has always been able to shape shots and the slight tweaking that the scientists have made and discovered over the last two decades hasn't aided their ability to do this. I believe the contrary and the new laws with D_plane findings are further complicating the directives. I couldn't imagine a scenario where I would explain the effects of d-plane to my students.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 15, 2012)

Smiffy said:



			Serious question for James.......

If you know so much about ball flight laws, why do you hit so many trees????
		
Click to expand...

Because I can reach them off the yellows!


----------



## JustOne (Jul 15, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			In that case I feel further discussion with you is a complete waste of time.
		
Click to expand...

+1 :thup:

Funny..... now he's added 'Top 100 Coach' into his forum sig... oh dear.


----------



## Scouser (Jul 15, 2012)

Did GM not do a video on this a couple of moths back and every one agreed it was right?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 15, 2012)

JustOne said:



			+1 :thup:

Funny..... now he's added 'Top 100 Coach' into his forum sig... oh dear.
		
Click to expand...

I was asked to state my qualifications and now you are doubting them. Typical. I was happy to remain anonymous.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 15, 2012)

Scouser said:



			Did GM not do a video on this a couple of moths back and every one agreed it was right?
		
Click to expand...

Video? Everyone?


----------



## Scouser (Jul 15, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Video? Everyone?
		
Click to expand...

Congrats you can read .....thats what I said!


----------



## JustOne (Jul 15, 2012)

This one I think Scouser.....

[video=youtube;xRBurF9yIaU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRBurF9yIaU[/video]


About 1min 50sec he descibes the shot properly.


----------



## Scouser (Jul 15, 2012)

Thats the one .....:thup:


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 15, 2012)

Scouser said:



			Congrats you can read .....thats what I said!
		
Click to expand...

Yes reading is my forte... Liverpudlians are better at fiddling the lecky meter! LOL


----------



## Scouser (Jul 15, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Yes reading is my forte...
		
Click to expand...

Good because coaching obviously isnt! :rofl:


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 15, 2012)

JustOne said:



			This one I think Scouser.....

[video=youtube;xRBurF9yIaU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRBurF9yIaU[/video]


About 1min 50sec he descibes the shot properly.
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything that is being said here and its just how I would desribe the shot. I have never advised pointing the clubface at the tree and the OBFL don't do this either. I did however wrongly believe that path had more influence on initial flight than face. 

My arguement is... even with this new understanding I have made no conscious mental or physical alterations as to how to perform shot shaping. In a nutshell, teachers using OBFL still teach ball shaping very well and they are not idiots because they still use the old laws.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 15, 2012)

Scouser said:



			Good because coaching obviously isnt! :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

That's where you are wrong, wide boy!


----------



## JustOne (Jul 15, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			I did however wrongly believe that path had more influence on initial flight than face.
		
Click to expand...

Glad that's settled.


----------



## bobmac (Jul 15, 2012)

I'm still curious what qualifications you have.
Top 100 coach is as far as I know just someone's opinion.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 15, 2012)

bobmac said:



			I'm still curious what qualifications you have.
Top 100 coach is as far as I know just someone's opinion.
		
Click to expand...


As voted by people in his street?



Luckily I'm in the Top 5 coaches in my house :thup:

..... out of 4


----------



## Region3 (Jul 15, 2012)

Patrick, do you consider this explanation of shot shaping to be OBFL, NBFL, or something else altogether?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0wPnLYNy4


----------



## G1BB0 (Jul 15, 2012)

god knows but makes it sound a lot more bloody understandable than all them diagrams etc etc


----------



## Region3 (Jul 15, 2012)

G1BB0 said:



			god knows but makes it sound a lot more bloody understandable than all them diagrams etc etc
		
Click to expand...

But only useful if it's right young man


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

Region3 said:



			Patrick, do you consider this explanation of shot shaping to be OBFL, NBFL, or something else altogether?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0wPnLYNy4

Click to expand...

It's OBFL and is wrong.   I am not suggesting Justin cant shape balls but he was taught in the USA where the USPGA teach the old incorrect ball flight laws.   He does not do what he says though.

These two videos may help.  The first is a discussion on the topic the other is an explanation of what happens with differing impact conditions.

I hope they help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AlFVMmBLcQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnq6TiXw7wU&feature=related


----------



## bobmac (Jul 15, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			It's OBFL and is wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I think Gary wanted Patrick's thoughts on the Justin Rose video


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

bobmac said:



			I think Gary wanted Patrick's thoughts on the Justin Rose video
		
Click to expand...

Probably Bob, does that mean no one else can comment.  Just trying to be helpful.

I thought he had given it though.


----------



## kid2 (Jul 15, 2012)

Smiffy said:



			Serious question for James.......
		
Click to expand...




Smiffy said:



If you know so much about ball flight laws, why do you hit so many trees????

Click to expand...










Iv been reading away down through the posts and iv spat tea all over the place after reading that Smiff!.......:rofl::thup:


----------



## sev112 (Jul 15, 2012)

STOP PRESS

JUst had a thought

Where does shaft stiffness come in to this ?



Ho ho ho


----------



## kid2 (Jul 15, 2012)

sev112 said:



			STOP PRESS

JUst had a thought

Where does shaft stiffness come in to this ?



Ho ho ho 

Click to expand...

Im putting on the kettle......


----------



## bobmac (Jul 15, 2012)

sev112 said:



			STOP PRESS

JUst had a thought

Where does shaft stiffness come in to this ?



Ho ho ho 

Click to expand...

Not to mention how the speed of the club may have an influence on how the swingpath affects the balls initial direction


----------



## sev112 (Jul 15, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Not to mention how the speed of the club may have an influence on how the swingpath affects the balls initial direction  

Click to expand...

Oooh dangerous - you are just a plain trouble maker 
Evryone knows that a slowly hit ball doesnt spin

(actually...  there might be something in that ....?!)


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Not to mention how the speed of the club may have an influence on how the swingpath affects the balls initial direction  

Click to expand...

Really Bob.  Please explain, I am interested.


----------



## Region3 (Jul 15, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Probably Bob, does that mean no one else can comment.  Just trying to be helpful.

I thought he had given it though.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone is welcome to comment, and yours Brian is one of the opinions I take seriously, but I was just trying to get clarification from Patrick.

Unless I've missed it in the plethora of otherwise 'politicised' posts, he has never agreed that the OBFL state to aim the face where you want the ball to finish.
Whether that is by accident or design I don't know.

It seems a bit odd to argue that the 2 schools of thought aren't that far apart if you don't understand what each is saying to begin with.


----------



## One Planer (Jul 15, 2012)

kid2 said:








Iv been reading away down through the posts and iv spat tea all over the place after reading that Smiff!.......:rofl::thup:
		
Click to expand...

Did you read James' retort?


----------



## kid2 (Jul 15, 2012)

Gareth said:



			Did you read James' retort?
		
Click to expand...


You wouldnt want to be sensitive would you?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

Region3 said:



			Everyone is welcome to comment, and yours Brian is one of the opinions I take seriously, but I was just trying to get clarification from Patrick.

Unless I've missed it in the plethora of otherwise 'politicised' posts, he has never agreed that the OBFL state to aim the face where you want the ball to finish.
Whether that is by accident or design I don't know.

It seems a bit odd to argue that the 2 schools of thought aren't that far apart if you don't understand what each is saying to begin with.
		
Click to expand...

It's just that I posted that same video of Justin Rose earlier in the thread and asked Patrick if he agreed with what Justin said, but true to form I got a bit of an indirect reply.


----------



## bobmac (Jul 15, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Really Bob.  Please explain, I am interested.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously lost interest now :angry:


----------



## Region3 (Jul 15, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			It's just that I posted that same video of Justin Rose earlier in the thread and asked Patrick if he agreed with what Justin said, but true to form I got a bit of an indirect reply.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, hadn't noticed it had already been posted. I may have been slipping in and out of consciousness searching for 'the truth'.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2012)

Region3 said:



			Sorry, hadn't noticed it had already been posted. I may have been slipping in and out of consciousness searching for 'the truth'. 

Click to expand...

Its not difficult to sort out.  At the range take a mid iron, make some shots with the clubface pointing straight ahead and try swinging out-to-in, In-to-out, by varing degrees.  Try opening the face and swinging the same way, try closing the face and doing the same.   You will soon find out what works and what doesn't.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

Region3 said:



			Patrick, do you consider this explanation of shot shaping to be OBFL, NBFL, or something else altogether?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0wPnLYNy4

Click to expand...

As he is aligning his clubface to the target, it can't be OBFL.

And I know it not NBFL because his explanations aren't that complicated.

So its neither.

P.S. Am I right?


----------



## bobmac (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			As he is aligning his clubface to the target, it can't be OBFL.

And I know it not NBFL because his explanations aren't that complicated.

So its neither.

P.S. Am I right?
		
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking that you think when Nicklaus, Faldo and more  recently Justin Rose said the clubface at the target and the body where you want the ball to start. that they have all been mis-quoting the  OBFLs?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Am I right in thinking that you think when Nicklaus, Faldo and more  recently Justin Rose said the clubface at the target and the body where you want the ball to start. that they have all been mis-quoting the  OBFLs?
		
Click to expand...

If you take a look at the OBFL charts in the OP you won't see any reference to the target for the curved flights. Is it me or does everyone have different charts?


----------



## bobmac (Jul 16, 2012)

I dont think I saw any charts when I learned my golf back in the late 60s/early 70s.
But all the teachers at the time and lots to this day taught the same rules...body left and clubface at the target. Ball starts on the swing path and finishes on the club face.

The NBFL obviously contradict those old rules.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

bobmac said:



			I dont think I saw any charts when I learned my golf back in the late 60s/early 70s.
But all the teachers at the time and lots to this day taught the same rules...body left and clubface at the target. Ball starts on the swing path and finishes on the club face.

The NBFL obviously contradict those old rules.
		
Click to expand...

My arguement is based on the charts and not false interpretation of these charts. I always refer to clubface relative to swing path, just like the OBFL do. I also think its very unnatural to line the clubface to anything other than swing path.

I honestly believe the NBFL followers have misread or deliberately ignored the actual directives of the OBFL charts.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 16, 2012)

i spent a chunk of time on Sunday at teh range playing with face angles and swing paths.  I had clubs on the ground, the V-easy setting out the face angle or swing path angle.

i hit a draw.  It's a low draw but not too low.  Occasionally it turns into a slinging hook.  

i started opening my face up, first 5 degs, then 10, then 15 then 20.  At 20 i started shanking most shots.  
Even at 15 degrees open face angle i was hitting draws !! All starting to the right, and then drawing/hooking back to the middle.  

Wow !  That certainly teaches me something.  i.e. that even though my feet are aligned straight/neutral, i must be swinging with a face closed to my actual swing path (at impact); so with my feet aligned i miust be REALLLLLY coming from the inside.

10 minutes later, a slightly weaker grip, and a much quieter hip action, and i started hitting lovely straight shots with increased distance and high.

Thanks to the NBFLs and OBFLs debate, i am a better golfer


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

sev112 said:



			i hit a draw.  It's a low draw but not too low.  Occasionally it turns into a slinging hook.  

i started opening my face up, first 5 degs, then 10, then 15 then 20.  At 20 i started shanking most shots.  
Even at 15 degrees open face angle i was hitting draws !! All starting to the right, and then drawing/hooking back to the middle.
		
Click to expand...

Hi Sev,

I can do many things but hitting draws with an open clubface isn't one of them. Were you practising with a left hander and he was confusing you by calling your slices - draws.


----------



## bobmac (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Hi Sev,

I can do many things but hitting draws with an open clubface isn't one of them. Were you practising with a left hander and he was confusing you by calling your slices - draws.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect he meant the face was open to the target but closed to the swing path


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

I have deliberately invited the NBFL the chance to correct my last statement. They will say an open face to the target but closed to path will indeed create a draw. 

I already know that but as I only refer to path, like the OBFL, then a closed face is required for a draw.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

bobmac said:



			I suspect he meant the face was open to the target but closed to the swing path
		
Click to expand...

Bob,

When you are playing, do you align your clubface to path or target?


----------



## bobmac (Jul 16, 2012)

I already know that but as I only refer to path, like the OBFL, then a closed face is required for a draw.
		
Click to expand...

But if the path is to the right and the face is closed to the path, it can still be open to the target



Patrick57 said:



			Bob,

When you are playing, do you align your clubface to path or target?
		
Click to expand...

If I want to hit a draw, neither


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

bobmac said:



			But if the path is to the right and the face is closed to the path, it can still be open to the target
		
Click to expand...

Obviously!



bobmac said:



			If I want to hit a draw, neither
		
Click to expand...

Misprint. Correction

When you are playing, do you align your clubface relative to path or target?


----------



## bobmac (Jul 16, 2012)

But if the path is to the right and the face is closed to the path, it can still be open to the target
		
Click to expand...





			Obviously!
		
Click to expand...

So why did you  question Sev and say




			I can do many things but hitting draws with an open clubface isn't one of them
		
Click to expand...





			Misprint. Correction

When you are playing, do you align your clubface relative to path or target?
		
Click to expand...

I used to aim the clubface at the target but learned that was unwise and now align it in between the path and the target.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Seriously lost interest now :angry:
		
Click to expand...

Bob, that was not a sarcastic comment. I really am interested on your ideas on how swingspeed affects it.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			So! explain to us, if you can how it used to work?   I am waiting with baited breath for your pearls of wisdom that will reveal the sacred cow of ball shaping that you seem to think whe rest of us elude to.    Come on then, please amaze us. I dont think I will hold my breath though.   :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

It used to work...and continues to work......in exactly the same way it always has. Nothing has changed, particularly not the laws of physics.

I've been playing this game for 40 years. I started with wooden woods and balata balls and today I use metal woods and modern balls. The same principles apply to shape the ball, it's just a bit harder these days due to the forgiveness of modern oversize clubs.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

bobmac said:



			I used to aim the clubface at the target but learned that was unwise and now align it in between the path and the target.
		
Click to expand...

My goodness, its like trying to get blood out of a stone.

I align my clubface relative to the path and that's why I can confidently say that I can't hit a draw with a face that is open to the path. 

Using NBFL, they refer to clubface conditions relative to target, so surely you align your face - closed/square/open - to target. Is that not the case?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			It used to work...and continues to work......in exactly the same way it always has. Nothing has changed, particularly not the laws of physics.

I've been playing this game for 40 years. I started with wooden woods and balata balls and today I use metal woods and modern balls. The same principles apply to shape the ball, it's just a bit harder these days due to the forgiveness of modern oversize clubs.
		
Click to expand...

You still have not explained how it works.  I know the physics of golf ball ballistics and the old method of pointing the club face where you want the ball to finish and swinging in the direction you want the ball to start does not work.   IT DOES NOT WORK!!

If you have the ability to shape the ball then you do not do this, you may think you are but you will not be doing what it says on the tin.

Just look at this video and comment on it please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEHiY5iv5u4


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			My goodness, its like trying to get blood out of a stone.

I align my clubface relative to the path and that's why I can confidently say that I can't hit a draw with a face that is open to the path. 

Using NBFL, they refer to clubface conditions relative to target, so surely you align your face - closed/square/open - to target. Is that not the case?
		
Click to expand...

No they don't.   The clubface and ball know nothing about the target.   They only know clubface direction and swingpath at impact.

To hit a draw I aim the clubface to the right of the target and direct the swingpath further right of that.   The amount depends on the desired sidespin and the loft of the club.

'D' Plane shows us that increased loft reduces the plane resulting in less tilt in the balls axis of rotation.

How do the OBFL explain higher lofts creaing less sidespin?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			I know the physics of golf ball ballistics and the old method of pointing the club face where you want the ball to finish and swinging in the direction you want the ball to start does not work.   IT DOES NOT WORK!!



Click to expand...

If you know so much on the subject then I suggest you contact all the great golfers of yesteryear and explain to them that they have been doing it wrong all their careers   :thup:


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Just look at this video and comment on it please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEHiY5iv5u4

Click to expand...

Yawn!

BTW Faldo isn't quoting N or OBFL.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Yawn!

BTW Faldo isn't quoting N or OBFL.
		
Click to expand...

Whats it to do with Faldo?   Look at the video and comment.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			If you know so much on the subject then I suggest you contact all the great golfers of yesteryear and explain to them that they have been doing it wrong all their careers   :thup:
		
Click to expand...

You stated that you cant change the laws of physics and neither could they.  

Did you know the OBFL are only taught by the USPGA.  The British PGA has been teaching the NBFL for decades.   Are you saying they dont know what they are talking about?

Did you bother to look at the video.   I asked you to comment on it, why have you not said anything?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			No they don't.   The clubface and ball know nothing about the target.   They only know clubface direction and swingpath at impact.
		
Click to expand...

I was kind of taking it for granted that the golfer himself was part of the equation and he knows where the target is.



SocketRocket said:



			To hit a draw I aim the clubface to the right of the target and direct  the swingpath further right of that.   The amount depends on the desired  sidespin and the loft of the club.
		
Click to expand...

I think most golfers could follow these parameters.





SocketRocket said:



			'D' Plane shows us that increased loft reduces the plane resulting in less tilt in the balls axis of rotation.
		
Click to expand...

Whoa down there cowboy. You have just managed to baffle about 99% of all golfers with this geeky rubbish.



SocketRocket said:



			How do the OBFL explain higher lofts creaing less sidespin?
		
Click to expand...

They don't, thank God, and that's why I'm glad to stick with the workable, simpler and less confusing old laws.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Did you know the OBFL are only taught by the USPGA.  The British PGA has been teaching the NBFL for decades.   Are you saying they dont know what they are talking about?
		
Click to expand...

So what are YOU saying? The yanks have got it wrong and we have got it right? If so, I find that hard to believe when you look at the number of quality golfers they have produced.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			So what are YOU saying? The yanks have got it wrong and we have got it right? If so, I find that hard to believe when you look at the number of quality golfers they have produced.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, TheSandTrap is a mainly Yankee board and they claim that the Brits are the ones who are teaching the old ways and they have in fact been teaching the new for decades.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			If you know so much on the subject then I suggest you contact all the great golfers of yesteryear and explain to them that they have been doing it wrong all their careers   :thup:
		
Click to expand...

They weren't doing what they thought/said they were doing.... quick example for you...

When drawing a ball out to the right of the green that curves back onto the pin Faldo would say that his clubface was pointing at the flag at impact where as science shows us that the clubface was actally pointing to the RIGHT (where the ball started) and not where Faldo THOUGHT it was.

It doesn't make a sniff of difference to Faldo as long as he maintained what he _thought_ he was doing however in modern instruction you wouldn't tell someone to have the face pointing at the target when it needs to be pointing to the right... would you?


If you got into car and someone said "right I want you to swerve round the car in front and keep the steering wheel straight at all times" *you'd think they were mad wouldn't you*? That is effectively what Faldo was saying... however he never realised that he was actually 'twitching' the steering wheel to the right. :thup:


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			So what are YOU saying? The yanks have got it wrong and we have got it right? If so, I find that hard to believe when you look at the number of quality golfers they have produced.
		
Click to expand...

The UK have changed because physics, the high speed camera, Trackman, all prove the NBFL are what actually happen.

Look.  If you want to kid yourself that the old stuff works then thats your problem.   I just showed you a video that shows the ball taking off in slow motion is following the clubface.   You still have not commented on it.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Actually, TheSandTrap is a mainly Yankee board and they claim that the Brits are the ones who are teaching the old ways and they have in fact been teaching the new for decades.
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish... the sandtrap helped show the new ball fight laws to most instructors (and doubters like yourself) via their site and Golf Evolution and their posts on GolfWrx. The key (modern) debate was triggered by Bennett/Plummer via their stack and tilt pattern.

Both the Brits and the Yanks have taught the wrong flights for 50 yrs as the truth got totally misinterpreted ..... probably by people like yourself!!!!


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Look.  If you want to kid yourself that the old stuff works then thats your problem.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do because where the ball finishes up doesn't lie.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Whoa down there cowboy. You have just managed to baffle about 99% of all golfers with this geeky rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

Prove it's rubbish.  You cant.

I was talking to you not 99% of golfers.   You are the one putting yourself out there as someone who knows better than that modern technology proves to be correct.

If you cant be bothered to look up 'D' Plane then you are missing the actual science of how all this stuff works.  It's like someone saying "the Sun rotates around the Earth because it looks like that and even though people tell me I am wrong I don't want to look at anything that shows me to be wrong"

I ask you again to comment on the video I showed you on slow motion ball impact.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The UK have changed because physics, the high speed camera, Trackman, all prove the NBFL are what actually happen.

Look.  If you want to kid yourself that the old stuff works then thats your problem.   I just showed you a video that shows the ball taking off in slow motion is following the clubface.   You still have not commented on it.
		
Click to expand...

The modern devolopements have merely explained the flights more accurately. I am not arguing this point. But using normal face and path conditions - without getting silly - there isn't really much difference in the outcomes. 

I'm sure I clarified this point in the OP.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do because where the ball finishes up doesn't lie.
		
Click to expand...

Do you also believe in fairies, the Easter bunny and Father Christmas?

You really should step back and listen to yourself - this stuff has been PROVED, it's NOT make believe, so every time you repeat yourself you are doing yourself a diservice... go read the facts and stop being so naive.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			But using normal face and path conditions - without getting silly - there isn't really much difference in the outcomes.
		
Click to expand...

There is... if you aim the face at the target it will ALWAYS MISS.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			I am not arguing this point. But using normal face and path conditions - without getting silly -
		
Click to expand...

What does that mean?   "Without getting silly"  I guess "silly" would be anything you don't agree with.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Do you also believe in fairies, the Easter bunny and Father Christmas?

You really should step back and listen to yourself - this stuff has been PROVED, it's NOT make believe, so every time you repeat yourself you are doing yourself a diservice... go read the facts and stop being so naive.
		
Click to expand...

This post makes no sense, what are you trying to say?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Prove it's rubbish.  You cant.

I was talking to you not 99% of golfers.   You are the one putting yourself out there as someone who knows better than that modern technology proves to be correct.

If you cant be bothered to look up 'D' Plane then you are missing the actual science of how all this stuff works.  It's like someone saying "the Sun rotates around the Earth because it looks like that and even though people tell me I am wrong I don't want to look at anything that shows me to be wrong"

I ask you again to comment on the video I showed you on slow motion ball impact.
		
Click to expand...

Effects of D-Plane can only be seen using Trackman and the like. I can't really apply or verify this information in real time when I am playing the game.

I can't help my students with this info either unless I purchase this expensive equipment and they agree to partake in geeky experiments that they don't understand anyway.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do because where the ball finishes up doesn't lie.
		
Click to expand...

Well that's something we can agree on.  I guess in your case its in the trees.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

JustOne said:



			There is... if you aim the face at the target it will ALWAYS MISS.
		
Click to expand...

Not always!

Down the line path - face at target - I think this would go to the target.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Well that's something we can agree on. * I guess in your case its in the trees*.
		
Click to expand...

That's a pretty dumb thing to say seeing as you have never seen me hit a ball.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			What does that mean?   "Without getting silly"  I guess "silly" would be anything you don't agree with.
		
Click to expand...

If you agree that the differences between the old and new with moderate path and face conditions are conciderably less than the NBFL experts are trying to lead us to believe, I will concede that with extremer parametres there are actually big differences.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			That's a pretty dumb thing to say seeing as you have never seen me hit a ball.
		
Click to expand...

You have convinced me you don't understand how to shape a ball and if you did what you are suggesting then you will hit off target.  If you can do it then you don't do what you think you do.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			You have convinced me you don't understand how to shape a ball and if you did what you are suggesting then you will hit off target.  If you can do it then you don't do what you think you do.
		
Click to expand...

OK, I don't know how to shape a ball. I hit it in the trees all the time. Happy now? 

I'll stick to what I'm doing, as a 5 handicapper I must be doing something right. And I haven't actually suggested what I do.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Not always!

Down the line path - face at target - I think this would go to the target.
		
Click to expand...

Only if you also hit with a ZERO ANGLE OF ATTACK... irons are hit on the way down though (7-iron is about -5 degrees I think)... and an 'optimum' drive is hit on the way up... there is no optimun shot that is hit with ZERO degrees angle of attack.

If you hit down on a ball the true path of the face is a few degrees to the right so you'd never hit a straight shot from there, and vice versa for an upward strike.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			Effects of D-Plane can only be seen using Trackman and the like. I can't really apply or verify this information in real time when I am playing the game.

I can't help my students with this info either unless I purchase this expensive equipment and they agree to partake in geeky experiments that they don't understand anyway.
		
Click to expand...

That's not correct.  'D' Plane is geometry and can be understood without Trackman.   I just cant understand why you don't just make an attempt to understand it.   You don't have to teach it to students, you just will be better armed with information on the subject.      It's not that difficult to understand and many would actually like to understand what goes on when their ball does something they didn't expect.

IMO you do yourself a disservice by taking such a Luddite attitude.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			I'll stick to what I'm doing, as a 5 handicapper I must be doing something right. And I haven't actually suggested what I do.
		
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting you should change. We are talking amongst ourselves about the FACTS, it really has no bearing on your game unless you let it. Personally I'd suggest as a decent golfer you should sit up and take notice!

I have many friends off low h/caps that don't know the ballflight laws, I was off 1.4 myself without knowing them..... however I wish I'd known them before I spent all those 1000's of hours on the practice ground trying to get the ball started more to the right by swinging OUT on it..... when all I had to do was open the face 

It is however my firm belief that anyone who makes it to Category 1 should take the time to understand the ballflight laws as they are clearly the most talented players and have the most to benefit :thup:... 90% of golfers can't even hit a decent drive!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			OK, I don't know how to shape a ball. I hit it in the trees all the time. Happy now? 

I'll stick to what I'm doing, as a 5 handicapper I must be doing something right. And I haven't actually suggested what I do.
		
Click to expand...

5 handicapper or not you don't listen well.   I have said that if you can shape a ball correctly then you cant be doing what you think you are doing.   You are in great company though, Jack Nicklaus  didnt do what he said he did, Justin Rose, Nick Faldo, etc all didn't do what they said they did.

I think you made it clear enough you do what the old guys said you should do.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			5 handicapper or not you don't listen well.   I have said that if you can shape a ball correctly then you cant be doing what you think you are doing.   You are in great company though, Jack Nicklaus  didnt do what he said he did, Justin Rose, Nick Faldo, etc all didn't do what they said they did.

I think you made it clear enough you do what the old guys said you should do.
		
Click to expand...

OK mate, I'll rely on you to keep me right. What will you charge me for lessons so I can finally sort my game out after 40 years?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			OK mate, I'll rely on you to keep me right. What will you charge me for lessons so I can finally sort my game out after 40 years?
		
Click to expand...

As I said.  You don't listen well.   I will repeat again:  IF you can shape a ball correctly and you think you are aiming the clubface at the target and swinging the club where you want the ball to start *then you are not doing what you think you are.*   I hope you got that this time!

I have been playing a bit longer than you with a slightly lower handicap and by understanding the reality of ball flight it has made me a better player, a much better player.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 16, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			As I said.  You don't listen well.   I will repeat again:  IF you can shape a ball correctly and you think you are aiming the clubface at the target and swinging the club where you want the ball to start *then you are not doing what you think you are.*   I hope you got that this time!

I have been playing a bit longer than you with a slightly lower handicap and by understanding the reality of ball flight it has made me a better player, a much better player.
		
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with my listening ability and a lot more to do with facts. I find it bizarre that you are implying that some of the greatest golfers that have ever lived don't understand what they are doing. What planet are you on?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2012)

drive4show said:



			It's got nothing to do with my listening ability and a lot more to do with facts. I find it bizarre that you are implying that some of the greatest golfers that have ever lived don't understand what they are doing. What planet are you on?
		
Click to expand...

Earth actually.   Yes, that's exactly what I am saying, they did something different to what they thought they did.   They used a 'feel' for the shot but thats not what they had been told to do.

I guess you have heard of Jim McLean, he has coached some of the best in the world.  Take a look at this video where he actually says he did it wrong for 30 years on ball flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPyadnDm_E

I look forward to your comments.


----------



## Region3 (Jul 17, 2012)

drive4show said:



			It's got nothing to do with my listening ability and a lot more to do with facts. I find it bizarre that you are implying that some of the greatest golfers that have ever lived don't understand what they are doing. What planet are you on?
		
Click to expand...

Talking of facts, did you watch the video that SocketRocket posted earlier showing the first inches of flight after impact?

If you didn't, it shows that the ball initially takes (near as dammit) the same path as the angle the club face is pointed at.

If Donald, Rose, Faldo, Nicklaus and whoever else REALLY has the face pointing at the target at impact, and is swinging to the right of that direction, where is the ball going to end up?

So which is the fact?

A high speed camera recording showing the ball and club, or some of the best golfers of their time describing what they think they are doing.

No-one is disputing the fact that they could play whatever shot they wanted, just that the club wasn't where they thought it was at impact.

I don't even think anyone is suggesting that you (or anyone else who can shape the ball at will) should change what they're doing. Just that people trying to learn the skill should be taught in line with what technology has shown.


----------



## richart (Jul 17, 2012)

I learnt to fade and draw the ball from reading one of Johnny Millers books back in the 70's. Classic OBFL, he could play all the shots, but he didn't realise because there wasn't the same camera technology, that he didn't actually have the face where he thought he did at impact. His swing would adjust to have the face actually aiming to the right (for a draw) or left (for a fade) of the target at impact, despite it being addressed at the target.

I didn't believe James at first, but if nothing else he does know his ball flights.:thup:


----------



## JustOne (Jul 17, 2012)

richart said:



			I didn't believe James at first, but if nothing else he does know his ball flights.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

 I'm flattered Richart.



(what's this 'nothing else' you talk of?) 
:rofl:


----------



## bobmac (Jul 17, 2012)

Good morning. Have I missed anything?


----------



## AmandaJR (Jul 17, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Good morning. Have I missed anything? 

Click to expand...

Not sure. I have blisters from too much tummy rubbing though :mmm:


----------



## Whereditgo (Jul 17, 2012)

The OP has to be the finest example of trolling I have ever seen!

Each and every time the 'flat earth society' are presented with an example of how the OBFL were (and in some cases still are) taught they steadfastly ignore it and refuse to comment and the thread rumbles on - brilliant! :rofl:


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 17, 2012)

Question for socketrocket and justone:

I have hit fades and draws for the last 40 years that worked perfectly well. 

Are you saying that today I have to change my technique to achieve the same results that I have had for the past 40 years?

A simple yes or no is all that is required.


----------



## jdchelsea (Jul 17, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Question for socketrocket and justone:

I have hit fades and draws for the last 40 years that worked perfectly well. 

Are you saying that today I have to change my technique to achieve the same results that I have had for the past 40 years?

A simple yes or no is all that is required.
		
Click to expand...

just one said yesterday at 11:12 - "No one is suggesting you should change"

I'm pretty sure they've answered that. The answer is no don't change anything.


----------



## Swinger (Jul 17, 2012)

Lee Travino used to think he compressed the ball into the ground. 

That maybe what it felt like to him and I don't discredit anything he did in the game but what he thought happened didn't, plain and simple. 

I will say though that he worked it out on the practise ground over thousands upon thousands of golf balls and didn't have any high speed cameras to show him what actually happens. Not that it matters because he was looking for the feeling that he got when he thought he was compressing the ball into the ground. 

I didn't read the whole thread but the first 6 pages or so didn't offer too much that hasn't been said before around here. 

I prefer the version of this thread that appeared on The Sand Trap as it got shot down straight away.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 17, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Question for socketrocket and justone:

I have hit fades and draws for the last 40 years that worked perfectly well. 

Are you saying that today I have to change my technique to achieve the same results that I have had for the past 40 years?

A simple yes or no is all that is required.
		
Click to expand...

No............ you're too old :whoo:

It helped my game after 20yrs playing the 'wrong way'. I was able to take on board what was being said and experiment accordingly. I used to have the face waaaaay too closed to draw the ball properly, it never really started out to the right despite a decade on the practice ground...(hook was my bad shot - and no wonder!) never really thought about opening the face a little as EVERYONE said it should point at the target (which was WRONG).


----------



## sev112 (Jul 17, 2012)

Swinger said:



			Lee Travino used to think he compressed the ball into the ground. 

That maybe what it felt like to him and I don't discredit anything he did in the game but what he thought happened didn't, plain and simple. 

I will say though that he worked it out on the practise ground over thousands upon thousands of golf balls and didn't have any high speed cameras to show him what actually happens. Not that it matters because he was looking for the feeling that he got when he thought he was compressing the ball into the ground. 

I didn't read the whole thread but the first 6 pages or so didn't offer too much that hasn't been said before around here. 

I prefer the version of this thread that appeared on The Sand Trap as it got shot down straight away.
		
Click to expand...

Without wishing to start an argument, i woudl be interested in the background to this, and any video clips up close.  From a simplistic point of view, any club (irrespective of loft) with a downwards component of velocity at impact must transfer a downward component of momentum to the ball, so that implies a reaction from the ground, and hence potentially some "compression".  

Admitting my ignorance here - not trolling


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Question for socketrocket and justone:

I have hit fades and draws for the last 40 years that worked perfectly well. 

Are you saying that today I have to change my technique to achieve the same results that I have had for the past 40 years?

A simple yes or no is all that is required.
		
Click to expand...

I have explained this many times to you in this thread.  I cant see why you need to ask again.

Anyhow, it's not a yes/no unfortunately.

I have no doubt that you have worked out how to shape a ball.  The point that has been in doubt is how you do it, you are of the opinion that you use the theory taught over the years that is now considered the OBFL.   This method has been proven by the many means explained earlier to be incorrect, so you cant be doing what you think you are, your clubface must be in a different condition at impact than you think it is.

No one thinks you need to change anything, you have a feel for the skill and that's fine for you.  The whole point we have been trying to make is that the OBFL is not the correct way to teach someone ball shaping, it will not work and they will have to waste time and money working out why.  If they start out by learning or being taught the correct method they should pick it up fairly easily.

I mentioned previously the UK PGA teaches their student professionals the NBFL and people like Jim McLean who is probably the top USA Golf Coach also admits that he had it wrong for 30 yaears and agrees the OBFL are wrong (see the video I attached)  Also see the video that shows a ball coming off a clubface that is cutting across the ball at dirfferent angles.  You just cant argue against that kind of evidence.

So!   No, dont change anything but open your mind to change and new evidence, it's the stuff of progression.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Without wishing to start an argument, i woudl be interested in the background to this, and any video clips up close.  From a simplistic point of view, any club (irrespective of loft) with a downwards component of velocity at impact must transfer a downward component of momentum to the ball, so that implies a reaction from the ground, and hence potentially some "compression".  

Admitting my ignorance here - not trolling
		
Click to expand...

Sev..  I know this is a different thing and maybe an interesting point for a new thread.   I am convinced after studying this subject in some detail that the ball is not pushed into the ground by the clubface.   Take a ball and sit it on a table then take a wedge and put it behind the ball.  When you look at it this way you will see that it is impossible for the ball to be pushed downwards.   It has to slide up the clubface at impact.


----------



## Imurg (Jul 17, 2012)

If someone like D4S is able to fade and draw the ball, regardless of how they do it or think they do it, why do they need to know how they actually do it?

D4S, I understand your posts but keep doing what your're doing - whatever it is. Whatever it is or isn't, in your case, doesn't matter.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 17, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Sev..  I know this is a different thing and maybe an interesting point for a new thread.   I am convinced after studying this subject in some detail that the ball is not pushed into the ground by the clubface.   Take a ball and sit it on a table then take a wedge and put it behind the ball.  When you look at it this way you will see that it is impossible for the ball to be pushed downwards.   It has to slide up the clubface at impact.
		
Click to expand...

I'll go and do some experiments again and will report back


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2012)

Imurg said:



			If someone like D4S is able to fade and draw the ball, regardless of how they do it or think they do it, why do they need to know how they actually do it?

D4S, I understand your posts but keep doing what your're doing - whatever it is. Whatever it is or isn't, in your case, doesn't matter.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't that what we have been saying to him?   He was the one who said that the NBFL were wrong and argued that position.  If he doesn't want to understand how he does it then that's up to him but if he makes an argument against what has been proven to be right then he should expect a discussion.   Whats wrong with that.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 17, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Isn't that what we have been saying to him? *  He was the one who said that the NBFL were wrong and argued that position*.  If he doesn't want to understand how he does it then that's up to him but if he makes an argument against what has been proven to be right then he should expect a discussion.   Whats wrong with that.
		
Click to expand...

Did I?   Where?


----------



## Swinger (Jul 17, 2012)

sev112 said:



			I'll go and do some experiments again and will report back 

Click to expand...

Super Slo Mo clips are around even on you tube I think. The ball does not at any point compress into the ground or get pushed downwards. I'm sure you can prove me wrong if your ay good at topping the ball on a regular basis. 

But this is what a lot of people used to think happened and a lot still do. That is the only reason I mentioned it. Didn't mean to hi jack any part of this thread.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2012)

drive4show; said:
			
		


			Did I?   Where?
		
Click to expand...


Take a look at your post at #254 where you said the following:



			
				drive4show; said:
			
		


			It used to work...and continues to work......in exactly the same way it  always has. Nothing has changed, particularly not the laws of physics.

I've been playing this game for 40 years. I started with wooden woods  and balata balls and today I use metal woods and modern balls. The same  principles apply to shape the ball, it's just a bit harder these days  due to the forgiveness of modern oversize clubs.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2012)

drive4show said:



			Brilliant!!  Always used to work until someone decided we needed 'new' laws

:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

And here!

Do I need to refresh your memory more?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 18, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Take a look at your post at #254 where you said the following:
		
Click to expand...

That doesn't say that I said the 'new' laws don't work. My stance throughtout this debate has been that the laws of physics dictate how a ball flies and those laws haven't changed. All that has changed is our understanding due to modern technology ie. slowmo cameras etc. 

I have never stated the 'new' laws are wrong.


----------



## USER1999 (Jul 18, 2012)

drive4show said:



			That doesn't say that I said the 'new' laws don't work. My stance throughtout this debate has been that the laws of physics dictate how a ball flies and those laws haven't changed. All that has changed is our understanding due to modern technology ie. slowmo cameras etc. 

I have never stated the 'new' laws are wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Has it really taken 310 posts to get to here, roughly where we started?


----------



## Monty_Brown (Jul 18, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			Has it really taken 310 posts to get to here, roughly where we started?
		
Click to expand...

Yes.... Yes it has.


----------



## One Planer (Jul 18, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			Has it really taken 310 posts to get to here, roughly where we started?
		
Click to expand...




Monty_Brown said:



			Yes.... Yes it has. 

Click to expand...


----------



## bobmac (Jul 18, 2012)

It's not about the obfl  v the nbfl  any more, it's just about who gets the last word in.  And I'll bet it wont be me


----------



## Monty_Brown (Jul 18, 2012)

bobmac said:



			It's not about the obfl  v the nbfl  any more, it's just about who gets the last word in.  And I'll bet it wont be me 

Click to expand...

You bet correctly :ears:


----------



## DaveM (Jul 18, 2012)

bobmac said:



			It's not about the obfl v the nbfl any more, it's just about who gets the last word in. And I'll bet it wont be me 

Click to expand...

To true!!!!!!!


----------



## bobmac (Jul 18, 2012)

DaveM said:



			To*o* true!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Hee hee :ears:


----------



## DaveM (Jul 18, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Hee hee :ears:
		
Click to expand...

Ok I give up.:thup:


----------



## CMAC (Jul 18, 2012)

I was going to make the last post but deleted it so there is nothing really here under the new laws of physics


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jul 18, 2012)

Bored now. I know what works and what doesn't work.

End of chat....... goodbye.


----------



## Region3 (Jul 18, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Without wishing to start an argument, i woudl be interested in the background to this, and any video clips up close.  From a simplistic point of view, any club (irrespective of loft) with a downwards component of velocity at impact must transfer a downward component of momentum to the ball, so that implies a reaction from the ground, and hence potentially some "compression".  

Admitting my ignorance here - not trolling
		
Click to expand...

If we accept that the NBFL are correct and that the ball's initial direction is 85% influenced by club face direction, then you can apply that to vertical launch as well.

To 'compress' the ball into the ground (which sounds odd enough as it is because the ball is a lot harder than the ground) the club would have to have an effective loft at or around 0Â°.

Even with a 3 iron that's a lot of forward shaft lean at impact.

When I first heard the term 'compressing the ball against the ground' I thought "how does the ball ever come out of a fairway bunker or soggy ground", and decided not to believe it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 18, 2012)

drive4show said:



			That doesn't say that I said the 'new' laws don't work. My stance throughtout this debate has been that the laws of physics dictate how a ball flies and those laws haven't changed. All that has changed is our understanding due to modern technology ie. slowmo cameras etc. 

I have never stated the 'new' laws are wrong.
		
Click to expand...

OK, let me ask you a question.   Do you agree that the way ball shaping was taught, where the clubface decided where the ball would end and the swingpath decided the direction the ball started, was wrong?

If you answer 'yes' then we can agree on the subject.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 18, 2012)

Swinger said:



			Super Slo Mo clips are around even on you tube I think. The ball does not at any point compress into the ground or get pushed downwards. I'm sure you can prove me wrong if your ay good at topping the ball on a regular basis. 

But this is what a lot of people used to think happened and a lot still do. That is the only reason I mentioned it. Didn't mean to hi jack any part of this thread.
		
Click to expand...

One needs broadband to be able to watch clips  - unfortunately, high tech IT solutions such as moving pictures haven't got to Wokingham just yet


----------



## bobmac (Jul 19, 2012)

sev112 said:



			One needs broadband to be able to watch clips  - unfortunately, high tech IT solutions such as moving pictures haven't got to Wokingham just yet 

Click to expand...

If you do a search for 'Clip Extractor' you can then download clips off you tube onto your hard drive and watch them at your leisure.


----------



## Swinger (Jul 19, 2012)

sev112 said:



			One needs broadband to be able to watch clips - unfortunately, high tech IT solutions such as moving pictures haven't got to Wokingham just yet 

Click to expand...

Just take my word for it then!!:thup:


----------



## sev112 (Jul 19, 2012)

SO i've been doing some more physical experiments, and this time i've been looking at what all you lot s are debating about vertical motion.

Now, it tunrs out that it is easier to repeatedly "fire" a ball at a staionary head (in my hall) than try and consistently/repeatedly swing the club at the ball.  

Now "physics" tells us that it is the relative "cmoing-together" speed of the ball and club that matters, so it shouldnt matter if the ball is shot at the club or the club hits the ball.  

So chaps, here is the interesting question that i would like the OBFL supporters, the NBFL supporters and the NF'ingL supporters to debate :...
i have a stationary 45 degree Pitching wedge fixed on the floor of my hall.  
i fire a ball at the club at a height of 1 cm above the floor straight at the sweetspot of the PW, at circa 100mph

At what angle (from the floor) will the ball come off the face of the club ?
 - straight back at me
 - at less than 45 degrees
 - at 45 degrees
 - at greater than 45 degrees
 - at 90 degrees

Enjoy


----------



## USER1999 (Jul 19, 2012)

Initially 45 degrees, but drops rapidly?

Do you have any windows left?

How do you fire a ball 1cm off the floor at 100 mph? Unless you have gibbo there with a driver in his hands?


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 19, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			OK, let me ask you a question.   Do you agree that the way ball shaping was taught, where the clubface decided where the ball would end and the swingpath decided the direction the ball started, was wrong?
		
Click to expand...

Given the Cochran & Stobbs specified things happened as per NBFLs in 1968 AND that that (In Search of the Perfect Swing) was recommended reading for British PGA training, shouldn't you be limiting your 'way ball shaping was taught' to '... was taught in America'?


----------



## sev112 (Jul 19, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			Initially 45 degrees, but drops rapidly?

Do you have any windows left?

How do you fire a ball 1cm off the floor at 100 mph? Unless you have gibbo there with a driver in his hands?
		
Click to expand...

Cant get to 100 mph, but i didnt want to confuse the quiz by using an artificially low speed 

I'll wait for a few more answers before i (argumentatively) suggest that O Level Physics text books say the answer is in fact 90 degrees !   Hence my trick question


----------



## USER1999 (Jul 19, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Cant get to 100 mph, but i didnt want to confuse the quiz by using an artificially low speed 

I'll wait for a few more answers before i (argumentatively) suggest that O Level Physics text books say the answer is in fact 90 degrees !   Hence my trick question
		
Click to expand...

Trick questions, hmmm, yes, the ball will ping off the face at 90 degrees, I guess, so in theory, it should hit the ceiling directly above the club face. Ping down, and then the spin will shoot it off and break a window.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 19, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			Trick questions, hmmm, yes, the ball will ping off the face at 90 degrees, I guess, so in theory, it should hit the ceiling directly above the club face. Ping down, and then the spin will shoot it off and break a window.
		
Click to expand...

No - it went through the ceiling, hence the need to experiment at lower speeds


----------



## Region3 (Jul 19, 2012)

In a frictionless collision it would come off at 90Â°, like light reflecting off a mirror at 45Â°, but friction means that the true angle will be less than 90Â°, although I wouldn't like to guess what that angle is.

Thinking about it from a 'playing the shot' perspective, I don't think the real answer is much more than the angle of the wedge, although I do hit the ball quite low.

From your experiment though, do you agree that you're never going to 'compress the ball into the ground"?

I think you can turn the canon down to about 70mph as well. I don't know anyone that has a 100mph club speed with a wedge.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Given the Cochran & Stobbs specified things happened as per NBFLs in 1968 AND that that (In Search of the Perfect Swing) was recommended reading for British PGA training, shouldn't you be limiting your 'way ball shaping was taught' to '... was taught in America'?
		
Click to expand...

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?   This is the way it is still taught in the USA.    It was also taught this way in the UK until around 1980 or there abouts (Bob will know when).

Still nitpicking then Foxy!  The date it changed here was not the point under discussion.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2012)

Right! sorry about the distraction from Foxy.

The golf ball is not solid like a ball bearing, it has elasticity and when hit or hitting an object like a golf club head it will deform against it's surface, start sliding up it then spring off as it is restored to its original shape  (Coefficient of Restoration).

It is the sliding effect that creates the spin and the small deviation angle that will stop it deflecting normal to the inclined surface (Refraction).  So it will deflect mainly normal to the slope but slightly towards the approach angle.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 19, 2012)

Region3 said:



			In a frictionless collision it would come off at 90Â°, like light reflecting off a mirror at 45Â°, but friction means that the true angle will be less than 90Â°, although I wouldn't like to guess what that angle is.

Thinking about it from a 'playing the shot' perspective, I don't think the real answer is much more than the angle of the wedge, although I do hit the ball quite low.

From your experiment though, do you agree that you're never going to 'compress the ball into the ground"?

I think you can turn the canon down to about 70mph as well. I don't know anyone that has a 100mph club speed with a wedge. 

Click to expand...

Aha - a clever man  - at long last one comes along 
It is (almost) coincidental that the "real" ball direction is "similar" to face angle - it is not a "Given"  as some of the NBFL'ers suggest or possibly imply.  It is a function of the (stiffness of the) materials involved in the collision and the relative magnitude of the friction force developed in relation to the meomentum vector of the club approaching the ball.  The ball will only follow the face angle (sideways or vertically) if the face angle is perpendicular to the clubhead path; any skew and then then friction components come in.  It's fundamentally (but not the only) way that D-plane can work.

In regard to the other question about "compression" - i will slightly reword the question  
There are 2 facets that are different to the lateral (ball flight) case :
 - there is a force (ball weight due to gravitational acceleration) ALREADY acting on the ball before the club gets anywhere near it
 - if the clubhead aproaches the ball with any form of downward motion, then the friction imposed must have a (small?) component of downward momentum which is transferred to the ball, and because the ball is already in contact with the ground, it imposes a force on the ground.  (this would not be there if the clubhead approaches the ball horizontally hovever, as you say)


The experiments were sending the ball off on a much higher trajectory than i expected (hence the question above)  - i think this is because at the speed i am sending the ball at the club (much much less than the 70 to 100 mph - much closer to about 20 to 25mph i think) i am not getting as much force (and hence friction) at impact

Time for bed i think


----------



## Val (Jul 19, 2012)

Still going I see


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 19, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Whats that got to do with the price of fish?   This is the way it is still taught in the USA.    It was also taught this way in the UK until around 1980 or there abouts (Bob will know when).

Still nitpicking then Foxy!  The date it changed here was not the point under discussion.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, Bob could well be in an excellent position to confirm when/if the British PGA promoted which 'laws'. Or even which ones he originally taught and if/when he changed (if he needed to).

If accuracy = nit-picking, then I'll happily plead guilty.

As for those (still) teaching OBFLs, it seems to me that there are sufficient 'modern gurus' and others that are publicising the NBFLs to ensure a fairly quick transition to the correct approach. It certainly took some time to convince the authorities/folk the truth about the universe rotating about the (flat) Earth.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2012)

The leading edge of the club passes under the balls equator and contact between the clubface and ball will be in an approximate position between the balls equator and bottom edge, this will be a lifting action on the ball.  To push the ball in the direction of the ground the face of the club would need to contact the ball above it's equator which is not possible with loft.  Well, it is possible but only by topping the ball with the leading edge which is not the intent.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 19, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Right! sorry about the distraction from Foxy.

The golf ball is not solid like a ball bearing, it has elasticity and when hit or hitting an object like a golf club head it will deform against it's surface, start sliding up it then spring off as it is restored to its original shape  (Coefficient of Restoration).

It is the sliding effect that creates the spin and the small deviation angle that will stop it deflecting normal to the inclined surface (Refraction).  So it will deflect mainly normal to the slope but slightly towards the approach angle.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry SR, but so much of this post is absolute tosh! Some of it is correct, but cannot be taken as 'truth' given how much is wrong!


----------



## Region3 (Jul 19, 2012)

sev112 said:



			- there is a force (ball weight due to gravitational acceleration) ALREADY acting on the ball before the club gets anywhere near it
 - if the clubhead aproaches the ball with any form of downward motion, then the friction imposed must have a (small?) component of downward momentum which is transferred to the ball, and *because the ball is already in contact with the ground, it imposes a force on the ground*.  (this would not be there if the clubhead approaches the ball horizontally hovever, as you say)
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't be having that (if I understand you right).

If I can assume that the 85/15 rule still applies (face direction/club path) then even if I could swing down on the ball at 10Â° with a 20Â° 3 iron I would have to deloft the club to around 2Â°.

I haven't got a club near me but it doesn't sound practical to have my hands far enough in front of the club to make the face almost vertical at impact.


Just a quick non-sciencey question for anyone that thinks the ball compresses into the ground still....

Why do different clubs give different flights if every ball is smashed into the ground?
If it's because of the bounce back off the ground then why aren't long irons higher than short irons?


----------



## JustOne (Jul 19, 2012)

sev112 said:



			It is (almost) coincidental that the "real" ball direction is "similar" to face angle - it is not a "Given"  as some of the NBFL'ers suggest or possibly imply.
		
Click to expand...

Firstly the NBFL's have nothing to do with the launch angle of the ball so what is happening on the clubface pertaining to spin/loft/sliding or whatever is really of no consequence. That said is has been shown that hitting down on a ball doesn't make it launch higher, if you want that then you have to increase the angle (vector?) of loft between the face and the angle of attack... and/or increase impact speed.

I like the part you wrote that says... "if the clubhead aproaches the ball with any form of downward motion, then the friction imposed must have a (small?) component of downward momentum which is transferred to the ball,"...  which is odd seeing as the ball is SUPPOSED to roll/slide (or whatever) UP the face whilst being deformed via compression  If it's going UP can it also be going DOWN? or would that mean that the two forces would cancel each other and the ball would effectively 'stick' to the face?

I would _think_ that provided there is an angle of attack that retains a positive launch angle that the ball would not go DOWN whatsoever..... all that said I'm lead to believe that the ball composition, ball cover, velocity of strike etc etc all affect the results slightly and there is no real 'control' to compare against.


I do find this video below exceptionally interesting as the ball doesn't appear to go DOWN whatsoever... it does ALMOST appear to roll up the face about 2mm however is it still in contact with the face? or are the forces within the ball, the direction it's been struck (more clubhead mass lower into the ball) and the way it re-forms after it's struck causing it to rotate?

[video=youtube;onWilRDea7A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWilRDea7A[/video]

One thing is clear from this vid... the ball doesn't roll/slide or whatever up the face like people THINK it might even with a lob wedge!! So it ain't gonna do it with LESS loft!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Actually, Bob could well be in an excellent position to confirm when/if the British PGA promoted which 'laws'. Or even which ones he originally taught and if/when he changed (if he needed to).

If accuracy = nit-picking, then I'll happily plead guilty.

As for those (still) teaching OBFLs, it seems to me that there are sufficient 'modern gurus' and others that are publicising the NBFLs to ensure a fairly quick transition to the correct approach. It certainly took some time to convince the authorities/folk the truth about the universe rotating about the (flat) Earth.
		
Click to expand...

(Overstating unnecessary detail = Nitpicking )= You

Bob studied for his PGA qualifications as a mature student so it was not that long ago.  He has previously stated on this site that he was taught the NBFL at that time.

The OBFL are still taught by many people, I have not been refering only to the PGA.  If you search the internet then you will find many, many people still explaining them.  I have posted some videos showing it on this thread, Justin Rose being one.

Here is another by Luke Donald.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTS87zKACSQ


----------



## JustOne (Jul 19, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Actually, Bob could well be in an excellent position to confirm when/if the British PGA promoted which 'laws'. Or even which ones he originally taught and if/when he changed (if he needed to).
		
Click to expand...

The ballflight laws were written correctly however the actual degree that the face influences the launch direction wasn't mentioned and it effectively said 'the face and path are both responsible for ball flight' so people ASSUMED that it was 50/50 and then it started getting weighted in favour of path... then before you know it a whole new idea of (wrong) instruction had reared it's ugly head! 

UK instructors have been teaching the wrong stuff for 40, 50, 60+ years regardless of how it was written in the 'instruction manual'.

You can find 1000's of examples of UK instructors getting it wrong both on Youtube and their own websites. You'd hope that after the past 3 years (since Trackman showed what was really happening) some/most of them may have upped their game!... by no mean does that mean ALL though! (so it seems with Patrick's posts within this thread! )


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Sorry SR, but so much of this post is absolute tosh! Some of it is correct, but cannot be taken as 'truth' given how much is wrong!
		
Click to expand...

I am sure you are not really sorry.

So as the leading authority on everything maybe you will enlighten us on the subject instead of making unqualified statements.


----------



## Region3 (Jul 19, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Firstly the NBFL's have nothing to do with the launch angle of the ball
		
Click to expand...

Why not? The only difference to what happens on the horizontal direction is gravity isn't it? For the first split second of the ball's flight I'd say that gravity's effect was so small to be not worth worrying about.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 19, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The OBFL are still taught by many people, I have not been refering only to the PGA.  If you search the internet then you will find many, many people still explaining them.  I have posted some videos showing it on this thread, Justin Rose being one.
		
Click to expand...

Certainly agree with you on this issue.

However, what do you think the likelihood of convincing the likes of Donald, Rose, Faldo and the like to say 'I was wrong and I did something I didn't realise I was doing' is?

Have you realised the difference between refraction and reflection (basic physics) yet?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Have you realised the difference between refraction and reflection (basic physics) yet?
		
Click to expand...

Ah Yes, My mistake.  Thank's for picking that one up.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 19, 2012)

Region3 said:



			Why not? The only difference to what happens on the horizontal direction is gravity isn't it? For the first split second of the ball's flight I'd say that gravity's effect was so small to be not worth worrying about.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you Gary about the launch conditions (ie the face and path MAY have an 85/15 ratio of sorts) however I don't see how they are remotely influenced by either the New or Old BFL's which pertain to the launch direction... and ultimately reflect on how the swing should be taught... *this new discussion should be in a different thread*. The impact/launch conditions off the face (vertical) haven't changed for EITHER of the BFL's... we are just understanding it better with modern technology.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 19, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			How old are you by the way, you are starting to sound rather juvenile in your mode of discussion.
		
Click to expand...

..... he looks about 146 :whoo:


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2012)

JustOne said:



			..... he looks about 146 :whoo:
		
Click to expand...

I did remove that after consideration.   It was a bit rude of me.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 19, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Ah Yes, My mistake.  Thank's for picking that one up.
		
Click to expand...

How about the places where Coefficient of Restitution (not Restoration) is measured - certainly isn't generally related to the ball - normally the clubface - and replaced some time ago by a different metric - CT.

And balls don't 'spring' - they rebound. As do ball-bearings, just with different compression attributes.

As for my background, almost 40 years ago my University degree was in Physics, something I haven't used enormously since - though the computing career has ingrained a necessity to be precise. A bit personal of you to ask imo - something I seem to remember you thought was a bad thing!

If you are going to proselytise, you need to get the basic facts correct!

BTW. I'm a complete devotee to the NBFLs, so on the 'same side' really!


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 19, 2012)

JustOne said:



			..... he looks about 146 :whoo:
		
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr Pot!

Have you washed that pink top since Camberley?  Or Woodhall Spa for that matter?

:whoo:


----------



## JustOne (Jul 19, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Thank you Mr Pot!

Have you washed that pink top since Camberley?  Or Woodhall Spa for that matter?

:whoo:
		
Click to expand...

Ironed it ready for the Cooden meet!!!! :ears:


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 19, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Ironed it ready for the Cooden meet!!!! :ears:
		
Click to expand...

Not like me to nit-pick  but that didn't answer the question.

BTW. What's an iron? I thought that was something found in a golf bag!


----------



## richart (Jul 19, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Ironed it ready for the Cooden meet!!!! :ears:
		
Click to expand...

Let's hope it rains and you have to wear your waterproofs.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 19, 2012)

richart said:



			Let's hope it rains and you have to wear your waterproofs.

Click to expand...

Is that you Rich?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			How about the places where Coefficient of Restitution (not Restoration) is measured - certainly isn't generally related to the ball - normally the clubface - and replaced some time ago by a different metric - CT.

And balls don't 'spring' - they rebound. As do ball-bearings, just with different compression attributes.

As for my background, almost 40 years ago my University degree was in Physics, something I haven't used enormously since - though the computing career has ingrained a necessity to be precise. A bit personal of you to ask imo - something I seem to remember you thought was a bad thing!

If you are going to proselytise, you need to get the basic facts correct!

BTW. I'm a complete devotee to the NBFLs, so on the 'same side' really!
		
Click to expand...

Good to hear we agree on something then.

proselytise: isn't that to do with religion and differing faiths?  Anyhow its not important.


Regarding your objections to my comments, I refer you to the following definitions:

Spring.  

Spring:  
The resilience of a body recovering its former state by it's elasticity

Restoration:  

Restore: To return to original state.

I think the terms were quite explanatory  and apt for the point made.

I am finding this kind of discussion with you rather pointless and demeaning to the subject under discussion.  You would make a better contribution by giving your own opinions rather than making some kind of crusade in belittling mine.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 20, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			proselytise: isn't that to do with religion and differing faiths?  Anyhow its not important.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty appropriate here - and it's not solely religious.


SocketRocket said:



			I am finding this kind of discussion with you rather pointless and demeaning to the subject under discussion.
		
Click to expand...

Them make sure your terms are correct, as getting them wrong, or using spurious ones, demeans your argument! 

Refraction/Reflection you've admitted was wrong. 

Can you show any link to Coefficient of Restoration involving golf? 

And what I suspect you meant, Coefficient of Restitution is primarily about club heads - and the 'trampoline effect', not balls and ball flights!

And I did post, many pages ago, that the entire topic was mis-titled. It should have been 'Understanding' not 'Study'. Though there wasn't much of either from/by/of the OP-er imo!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Pretty appropriate here - and it's not solely religious.


Them make sure your terms are correct, as getting them wrong, or using spurious ones, demeans your argument! 

Refraction/Reflection you've admitted was wrong. 

Can you show any link to Coefficient of Restoration involving golf? 

And what I suspect you meant, Coefficient of Restitution is primarily about club heads - and the 'trampoline effect', not balls and ball flights!

And I did post, many pages ago, that the entire topic was mis-titled. It should have been 'Understanding' not 'Study'. Though there wasn't much of either from/by/of the OP-er imo!
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough but make sure you are word perfect in future.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 20, 2012)

Gary / James - yes i think you are not far off there.
The vid clip of james is interesting
I will look to see if i can find on t'interweb a clip of a 6 iron (say) or a club with a downward path at impact - the lob wedge clip is horizontal (possibly even rising) at impact.

Today, back in experiemental mode in teh hall again but using stripey sponge balls off the hardwood floor.  i slid my U wedge along the floor (to ensure a horizontal attack) and observed quite noticeable backspin and launch.  I then slid the club down a tray at about circa 5-10 degrees, placed to try and ensure that the club hit under the equator.  
I definitely observed a much lower laucnh angle, and for what it's worth, felt more resistance on impact.

havent worked that all out yet  - when i've had enough wine i'll have a think about it


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2012)

sev112 said:



			Gary / James - yes i think you are not far off there.
The vid clip of james is interesting
I will look to see if i can find on t'interweb a clip of a 6 iron (say) or a club with a downward path at impact - the lob wedge clip is horizontal (possibly even rising) at impact.

Today, back in experiemental mode in teh hall again but using stripey sponge balls off the hardwood floor.  i slid my U wedge along the floor (to ensure a horizontal attack) and observed quite noticeable backspin and launch.  I then slid the club down a tray at about circa 5-10 degrees, placed to try and ensure that the club hit under the equator.  
I definitely observed a much lower laucnh angle, and for what it's worth, felt more resistance on impact.

havent worked that all out yet  - when i've had enough wine i'll have a think about it 

Click to expand...

I guess that when you are sliding the UW down the tray the shaft is more forward and you have taken loft of the clubface.  This will launch it lower as it is making an oblique contact with the ball.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 21, 2012)

A question for Sev!

The ball is lying in one of those watery bunkers at Lythym/St.Annes. 

Assume the golfer has struck the sand/water using 11Â° bounce and the ball rolls over the grooves of a 56Â° face. With the exterior  effects, at what angle would the ball launch and can we expect the ball be kicked off to the right or left, presuming a square face and a 10Â° out to in path.


----------



## CMAC (Jul 22, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			A question for Sev!

The ball is lying in one of those watery bunkers at Lythym/St.Annes. 

Assume the golfer has struck the sand/water using 11Â° bounce and the ball rolls over the grooves of a 56Â° face. With the exterior  effects, at what angle would the ball launch and can we expect the ball be kicked off to the right or left, presuming a square face and a 10Â° out to in path.
		
Click to expand...

whats the point of this?


----------



## CMAC (Jul 22, 2012)

This whole thread was interesting to start with, now its run its course and going off at silly tangents.

Can you guys hit a 4 iron like a wedge?
Can you hit it high, low, left and right?

You probably can using .......instinct


----------



## sev112 (Jul 22, 2012)

i'll have a think about Patrick's question


Another angle  - what is the reason for a divot ?

Tiger Woods hits a lot of divots.  He is the most accomplished technical golfer of recent years.  There must be a reason he (and other pros) hits a divot. A divot can only be generated with a downward blow (at impact) - i.e. the clubhead is still moving downwards when it hits the ball.

If there is no need to "compress" the ball (which i reasonably accept after discussions on here), why does he and others hit the 
ball with a downward point of impact ?  I am sure the best golfer (possibly bar one) ever, has a reason why he does this.

On another thread, it is postulated that "steeper" impacts generate higher amounts of backspin than "rounded" impacts.  

This perhaps suggests that different ball flights are generated by a swing that hits with a descending blow, and swings that are steep and swings that are round ...

before nayone picks on me, i DON'T know the answer to this one ! (at the moment anyway)


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 22, 2012)

sev112 said:



			i'll have a think about Patrick's question


Another angle  - what is the reason for a divot ?

Tiger Woods hits a lot of divots.  He is the most accomplished technical golfer of recent years.  There must be a reason he (and other pros) hits a divot. A divot can only be generated with a downward blow (at impact) - i.e. the clubhead is still moving downwards when it hits the ball.

If there is no need to "compress" the ball (which i reasonably accept after discussions on here), why does he and others hit the 
ball with a downward point of impact ?  I am sure the best golfer (possibly bar one) ever, has a reason why he does this.

On another thread, it is postulated that "steeper" impacts generate higher amounts of backspin than "rounded" impacts.  

This perhaps suggests that different ball flights are generated by a swing that hits with a descending blow, and swings that are steep and swings that are round ...

before nayone picks on me, i DON'T know the answer to this one ! (at the moment anyway)
		
Click to expand...

The hands lead the clubface and impact should follow this condition. It's hard to lead with the hands on an upward motion.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 22, 2012)

That sounds like a nicety rather than a necessity ? i.e. is that teh case with a driver set up on a high tee off the left toe, when you hit up on it ?  Not certani the hands have to lead in that case. Hnce nicety rather than necessity perhaps.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 22, 2012)

The reason you want to hit the ball with a descending blow using irons is so that you can contact the sweetspot thus getting optimum results for the given hit.

Sev,  Take a golfball and place it on a table, then place the leading edge of a wedge behind it with the shaft vertical you will notice the point of impact will be low down on the clubface.  If you now lean the shaft forward you will notice the point of impact gets higher up the face towards the sweetspot.  The shaft is designed to be forward leaning at impact with irons for this reason.

Striking the ball in the sweetspot will create better compression of the ball against the clubface, this will result in a slightly lower ballflight with greater spin and more distance.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 22, 2012)

sev112 said:



			That sounds like a nicety rather than a necessity ? i.e. is that teh case with a driver set up on a high tee off the left toe, when you hit up on it ?  Not certani the hands have to lead in that case. Hnce nicety rather than necessity perhaps.
		
Click to expand...

We were talking about irons and divots.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 22, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The reason you want to hit the ball with a descending blow using irons is so that you can contact the sweetspot thus getting optimum results for the given hit.

Sev,  Take a golfball and place it on a table, then place the leading edge of a wedge behind it with the shaft vertical you will notice the point of impact will be low down on the clubface.  If you now lean the shaft forward you will notice the point of impact gets higher up the face towards the sweetspot.  The shaft is designed to be forward leaning at impact with irons for this reason.

Striking the ball in the sweetspot will create better compression of the ball against the clubface, this will result in a slightly lower ballflight with greater spin and more distance.
		
Click to expand...

SR, that's just what I said but your reply is by far the most eloquent.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 23, 2012)

Very interesting and useful guys, thanks

This suggests therefore that golfers do in fact hit down on the ball deliberately, in order to get more of the sweetpot that you mention above, that the flight will be different .

Which  appears to diagree with the guys above who say you dont need to hit down on a ball, and that it is a mistaken philosophy

i am confused 

Good debate this


----------



## JustOne (Jul 23, 2012)

Sev,

The swingplane for a 7-iron (in red) is steeper and the club enters the ground... so we hit the ball on the way down (as we can't hit it after we've buried the club in the ground!!).

The swingplane for driver (in green) is flatter so we can avoid hitting the ground.. and hit the ball on the way up. 

[... click to enlarge]




That's how simple it is.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 23, 2012)

sorry Tone, i just can't work out what teh 2 ellipses are ??

irrespective, i get the 7 iron vs driver issue but how does that help explain the earlier argument that people should not need to hit down on a ball to get it to lift/fly ?


----------



## JustOne (Jul 23, 2012)

With an iron: You don't *need* to hit down to get a ball to fly... but you *can't hit UP* < so what choice does that leave you? 


With a driver the ball is tee'd up so you can hit it on the way down OR the way up. Research has shown that the ball flies furthest when hit up so that's what most of us TRY to do.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 23, 2012)

sev112 said:



			sorry *J One*, i just can't work out what teh 2 ellipses are ??
		
Click to expand...

Does this help? [...click pic to enlarge]





:whoo:


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 23, 2012)

JustOne said:



			With an iron: You don't *need* to hit down to get a ball to fly... but you *can't hit UP* < so what choice does that leave you? 

Click to expand...

There are two different types of player with irons...

The sweeper - who doesn't take a divot

The digger - who does.

Both are effective.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 23, 2012)

Patrick57 said:



			There are two different types of player with irons...

The sweeper - who doesn't take a divot

The digger - who does.

Both are effective.
		
Click to expand...

How can you hit the ball out of the sweet-spot with mid and short irons without hitting on a downward path?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 23, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			How can you hit the ball out of the sweet-spot with mid and short irons without hitting on a downward path?
		
Click to expand...

It depends on the course layout. On a parkland course, the grass tends to be between 1/2 - 3/4" long and a sweeper can easily hit the sweetspot without hitting into the ground. On a links, he better learn very quickly that digging is the most effective technique. A sweeeper does however still strike the ball with a downward action.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 23, 2012)

Here's a link showing Tiger's 8-iron striking.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/45647/sweetspot-on-irons-where-the-good-players-hit-it

It would indeed be possible, specially in longish fairways, to sweep and strike at bottom of tho swing and still hit the sweet-spot. The ball is 1.68", so if the sweet spot is 0.84" from bottom of iron (or less), then perfectly feasible, even on tight links courses.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 23, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Here's a link showing Tiger's 8-iron striking.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/45647/sweetspot-on-irons-where-the-good-players-hit-it

It would indeed be possible, specially in longish fairways, to sweep and strike at bottom of tho swing and still hit the sweet-spot. The ball is 1.68", so if the sweet spot is 0.84" from bottom of iron (or less), then perfectly feasible, even on tight links courses.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, interesting. My other iron sets, TaylorMade, Mizuno and Titleist had marks like this on my nine iron after about 10,000 shots but my Fusions have a titanium face and I played at least that amount with very little wear.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 24, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Here's a link showing Tiger's 8-iron striking.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/45647/sweetspot-on-irons-where-the-good-players-hit-it

It would indeed be possible, specially in longish fairways, to sweep and strike at bottom of tho swing and still hit the sweet-spot. The ball is 1.68", so if the sweet spot is 0.84" from bottom of iron (or less), then perfectly feasible, even on tight links courses.
		
Click to expand...

0.84" would be the balls equator.  To hit the balls equator without thinning the shaft would need a forward lean of something like 45 deg.   

If you take a ball in the flat palm of your hand and place a sand wedge behind it,  you will notice if the shaft is set vertical contact is made towards the bottom of the ball just above the leading edge of the clubface.  As you lean the shaft forward the impact position moves up the ball and clubface.  To hit the sweetspot (around the position shown on Tigers club)  you will need something in the region of 10 /15 degrees of forward shaft lean.

OK, if the ball is sat up on long grass then I can see how but on a normal mowed fairway I find it hard to see how you could make contact in the sweetspot without the hands leading and the club still descending at impact.

What do you think?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 24, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			OK, if the ball is sat up on long grass then I can see how but on a normal mowed fairway I find it hard to see how you could make contact in the sweetspot without the hands leading and the club still descending at impact.

What do you think?
		
Click to expand...

It's a no brainer, the hands must lead at impact and thus the ball is struck with a downward action.


----------



## DaveM (Jul 24, 2012)

I think you will find if you place an iron on the ground. So that the sole is parallel to the ground. You will find you have differing degrees of forward lean. More on the short irons less on the middle irons and a slight lean backwards on the long irons. The sweet spot of each iron is positioned so.That as long as the club strikes the ball at the set angle of the club you will contact the sweet spot. It does not matter if you sweep or hit down as long as that angle is maintained you will hit the sweet spot(all things being equal). Even a sweeper like myself will hit a slight divot, even if it only bruises the grass rather than taking a lump out.(After all this happens after impact, or should do).


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 25, 2012)

DaveM said:



			(After all this happens after impact, or should do).
		
Click to expand...

That's right Dave but it does reflect what happened before and at impact as well.


----------



## JustOne (Jul 25, 2012)

I can't claim to know where the sweetspot is on the face of an iron in terms of height but I do know the higher up the face you hit it the less far it will travel... so if anything you might as well catch it one groove lower... as seems the case on those pics of iron impacts.


----------



## DaveM (Jul 25, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			That's right Dave but it does reflect what happened before and at impact as well.
		
Click to expand...

Thats true. In my case I'm not very tall with long arms and standard length club. So a sweep is more my normal swing. I have not commented on this thread as such. As it has taken a while to sift out the good from the bad from the total rubbish. Got there in the end lol.:thup:


----------



## JustOne (Jul 25, 2012)

DaveM said:



			I have not commented on this thread as such. As it has taken a while to sift out the good from the bad from the total rubbish. Got there in the end lol.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

Try and keep up!  LOL


----------



## DaveM (Jul 25, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Try and keep up!  LOL
		
Click to expand...

Cheeky sod. Bit like my swing. Slow and steady. Or thats what I like to think.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 25, 2012)

DaveM said:



			Thats true. In my case I'm not very tall with long arms and standard length club. So a sweep is more my normal swing. I have not commented on this thread as such. As it has taken a while to sift out the good from the bad from the total rubbish. Got there in the end lol.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

Dave, for the benefit of us who are not so clear of mind, would you mind summarising which bits were goodm bad and rubbisn ...


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 25, 2012)

SR,

Please not the 'or less' in my post re the sweetspot that you quoted.

I have no idea where you obtained the 45* value, but it seems way over the top. The 10-15* sounds much more 'normal'.

I believe the only true evidence that there is, or isn't, a downward strike is the fact that there is, or isn't, a divot. No divot means no downward action - or thin contact.  Divot (after the ball) means downward swing.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 26, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			SR,

Please not the 'or less' in my post re the sweetspot that you quoted.

I have no idea where you obtained the 45* value, but it seems way over the top. The 10-15* sounds much more 'normal'.

I believe the only true evidence that there is, or isn't, a downward strike is the fact that there is, or isn't, a divot. No divot means no downward action - or thin contact.  Divot (after the ball) means downward swing.
		
Click to expand...

Each club is designed with an amount of forward lean to the shaft when the sole is grounded.  The shorter the club the more it leans forward so longer clubs do not hit down quite as much and are designed to sweep the ball away, likewise the shorter irons with their forward lean are designed to hit steeper  and leave a divot.

If you look at the attached image you will see that to get the clubface to make contact with the ball at its equator it would require a very steep forward lean on the shaft.  Without any forward lean it would be impossible to make contact with the sweetspot.



View attachment 2268


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 26, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Each club is designed with an amount of forward lean to the shaft when the sole is grounded.  The shorter the club the more it leans forward so longer clubs do not hit down quite as much and are designed to sweep the ball away, likewise the shorter irons with their forward lean are designed to hit steeper  and leave a divot.

If you look at the attached image you will see that to get the clubface to make contact with the ball at its equator it would require a very steep forward lean on the shaft.  Without any forward lean it would be impossible to make contact with the sweetspot.



View attachment 2268

Click to expand...

I'd suggest, without knowing the precise amounts, that the slightly greater forward lean (camber?) in the shorter irons is more likely to be because they are shorter, so having the hands in the same position at address and impact - slightly ahead of the ball (or leading) - requires a slightly greater angle for the short irons than the long ones. 

How do you explain the divot/no divot situation? It seems pretty compelling (dynamic) evidence and doesn't involve any stats, measurements or pictures that may/may not have be frigged. 

I'd actually suspect that even a sweeper/picker actually does hit the ball marginally before bottom of arc, so on the way down, but the compression and rolling of the ball up the club during the few micro-seconds of connection means the sweet-spot is found. Have I answered my own question?


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 26, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			I'd suggest, without knowing the precise amounts, that the slightly greater forward lean (camber?) in the shorter irons is more likely to be because they are shorter, so having the hands in the same position at address and impact - slightly ahead of the ball (or leading) - requires a slightly greater angle for the short irons than the long ones. 

How do you explain the divot/no divot situation? It seems pretty compelling (dynamic) evidence and doesn't involve any stats, measurements or pictures that may/may not have be frigged. 

I'd actually suspect that even a sweeper/picker actually does hit the ball marginally before bottom of arc, so on the way down, but the compression and rolling of the ball up the club during the few micro-seconds of connection means the sweet-spot is found. Have I answered my own question?
		
Click to expand...

Yes!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 26, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			I'd suggest, without knowing the precise amounts, that the slightly greater forward lean (camber?) in the shorter irons is more likely to be because they are shorter, so having the hands in the same position at address and impact - slightly ahead of the ball (or leading) - requires a slightly greater angle for the short irons than the long ones. 

How do you explain the divot/no divot situation? It seems pretty compelling (dynamic) evidence and doesn't involve any stats, measurements or pictures that may/may not have be frigged. 

I'd actually suspect that even a sweeper/picker actually does hit the ball marginally before bottom of arc, so on the way down, but the compression and rolling of the ball up the club during the few micro-seconds of connection means the sweet-spot is found. Have I answered my own question?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I would go with that.   As the hands lead the clubface the swing arc bottom will be ahead making a divot as it bottoms out.  Longer clubs have less forward lean designed to the shaft so do not bottom out as far forward.


----------



## Patrick57 (Jul 27, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes, I would go with that.   As the hands lead the clubface the swing arc bottom will be ahead making a divot as it bottoms out.  Longer clubs have less forward lean designed to the shaft so do not bottom out as far forward.
		
Click to expand...

Can't agree more!


----------

