chrisd
Major Champion
I'm sure that the shot that saw me use the big ball washer also saw you top the ball 10 yards?
Mmmmmmm pots and kettles?
Chris
Ball flight laws
- Thread starter NeilTappin
- Start date
I'm sure that the shot that saw me use the big ball washer also saw you top the ball 10 yards?
Mmmmmmm pots and kettles?
Chris
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
Brilliant
I'll add
7) Try not to fall into that little hole thing 'cos it hurts when you hit the bottom.
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
:clap: :clap:
Oddsocks
Ryder Cup Winner
No pictures on a scroe card, and to my recollection it was a par.... was it not :ears:
An up and down save from 150 yards :thup:
chrisd
Major Champion
Fore
Head Pro
Scottjd1
Tour Rookie
:blah::blah::blah:
Monty_Brown
Tour Rookie
So the next time one of the "Top 25 coaches in the UK" submits a magazine tip based on incorrect knowledge or application of the ball flight laws, what will happen?
I thought the latest example of that was in the current issue and had triggered Hawkeye's query to Mike and the GM staff..... the "go to your safe shot shape" tip, when he advocates opening the stance, aiming the clubface at the target and......
.... watching in amazement as the ball starts down the middle and carves off right into the cabbage. Do we have a guarantee that that sort of advice will now be rejected and not published if submitted by a pro?
If I gave out duff technical info in my job, I'd be reprimanded for it, rather than flown to Spain for a nice photshoot. :ears:
I thought the latest example of that was in the current issue and had triggered Hawkeye's query to Mike and the GM staff..... the "go to your safe shot shape" tip, when he advocates opening the stance, aiming the clubface at the target and......
.... watching in amazement as the ball starts down the middle and carves off right into the cabbage. Do we have a guarantee that that sort of advice will now be rejected and not published if submitted by a pro?
If I gave out duff technical info in my job, I'd be reprimanded for it, rather than flown to Spain for a nice photshoot. :ears:
Foxholer
Blackballed
So the next time one of the "Top 25 coaches in the UK" submits a magazine tip based on incorrect knowledge or application of the ball flight laws, what will happen?
I thought the latest example of that was in the current issue and had triggered Hawkeye's query to Mike and the GM staff..... the "go to your safe shot shape" tip, when he advocates opening the stance, aiming the clubface at the target and......
.... watching in amazement as the ball starts down the middle and carves off right into the cabbage. Do we have a guarantee that that sort of advice will now be rejected and not published if submitted by a pro?
If I gave out duff technical info in my job, I'd be reprimanded for it, rather than flown to Spain for a nice photshoot. :ears:
Now there IS the problem imo!
The Golf Training and Hardware business is so open to marketing on our desires for a magic move or piece of kit or aid!
And the 'punishment' for bad advice/kit is the purchase of more of it!
So the next time one of the "Top 25 coaches in the UK" submits a magazine tip based on incorrect knowledge or application of the ball flight laws, what will happen?
I thought the latest example of that was in the current issue and had triggered Hawkeye's query to Mike and the GM staff..... the "go to your safe shot shape" tip, when he advocates opening the stance, aiming the clubface at the target and......
.... watching in amazement as the ball starts down the middle and carves off right into the cabbage. Do we have a guarantee that that sort of advice will now be rejected and not published if submitted by a pro?
If I gave out duff technical info in my job, I'd be reprimanded for it, rather than flown to Spain for a nice photshoot. :ears:
Sorry but lets see here. Top 25 goach, 30+ years experience of teaching everyone from top pros, national teams and elite amatuers against your resume which reads.......?
I get it. Some of the stuff is flawed. Its like a lot of stuff it evolves and moves on. You quote using S&T or lements of. Where was that theory 20 years ago? Doesn't make it wrong now but by the same token it doesn't make what has gone before it obsolete. Rather than make snide remarks I think Hawkeye, MikeH and Gary Alliss need some applause for asking the question, and making an answer possible. If you don't like the answer then it doesn't make it incorrect
Foxholer
Blackballed
Er, Let's got the Medical route - an analogy used by a Cornish Pro on another forum (who clarified the 5 vs 9 and US vs UK PGA approach for me with the help of BobMac).
If a surgeon uses an 'old and proven incorrect' method, then he/she will (or at least should) be rightly punished. However, the nature of golf allows Pros to screw up and even profit from their screw-ups with no such come-back!
And if they continue to promote stuff that has been proven to be incorrect, then they should be drummed out of the business!
Last edited:
Think the surgery stuff is a red herring. No one died being taught a bad golf swing. I can't see how we've had top teaching pros for years and years, including John Jacobs who a number have referred to in different threads and they have managed to teach thousands to get better based on the old laws and yet suddenly what they said is wrong. It might be wrong technically but it got the job done and players got better.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
It didnt get me better. I was taught the old way to shape the ball and I suffered hitting it into places I didnt want it to be. It cost me dearly through my back pocket when I kept going back for lessons, I thought I was just not doing it correctly, it also cost me in my game when I was sending the ball off into places that were costing me shots. Come on! if Jack says this works it must be right!!
I tried another coach and got the same old flawed information, it was only when I decided to study the physics of how the ball reacts when impacted with the clubface that a light went on in my head and I started to sort it out by myself.
I dont believe that these people have been out to rip us off, they just didnt do what they said they did. Thats nothing new, lots of people dont do what they say they do.
Monty_Brown
Tour Rookie
Homer, you admit earlier in the thread that you didn't read all of the original threads on ball flight laws, but you've queried my position on this so I'll try to clarify.
The response that Gary Alliss put together is good... I have no complaints about that and am grateful to GM for taking the time to put it together.
But the fact remains that coaches keep using old flight laws in instructional articles and it has happened again in this issue. That annoys me, especially when I am paying for that information.
You ask about my resume.... why? The laws I am referring to are those expounded by the PGA in their course. There's all the resume you need.
I'd rather voice my discontent, in the hope that the issue is addressed and the quality of instruction improves. Or I could just be an apologist who defends the magazine, in the hope that if I'm a good boy I'll get picked for a free club fitting. Not my style.
Questioning established practice in any discipline is the lifeblood of progress. Long may that continue.
The response that Gary Alliss put together is good... I have no complaints about that and am grateful to GM for taking the time to put it together.
But the fact remains that coaches keep using old flight laws in instructional articles and it has happened again in this issue. That annoys me, especially when I am paying for that information.
You ask about my resume.... why? The laws I am referring to are those expounded by the PGA in their course. There's all the resume you need.
I'd rather voice my discontent, in the hope that the issue is addressed and the quality of instruction improves. Or I could just be an apologist who defends the magazine, in the hope that if I'm a good boy I'll get picked for a free club fitting. Not my style.
Questioning established practice in any discipline is the lifeblood of progress. Long may that continue.
Last edited:
Wow! How to seriously complicate something that is quite simple. Anyone who's played table tennis, tennis or squash will understand all about hitting across the ball, out to in or in to out, to achieve cut spin or top spin(draw).
No doubt some will benefit from the vid, and great that it achieves that, but I do think there's far too much complication in golf teaching.
Draw: imagine a big clock laid on the ground with number 12 towards the target. Stance and swingpath are from 7 to 1 but the clubface is pointing towards 12....the ball will start out heading between 12 and 1 and curve towards 12.
Fade: Same clock face but stance and swing path go from 5 to 11 and the clubface is pointing towards 12. Ball starts left of target but curves back towards it.
Its that simple. Go and experiment to sort out which club will curve x amount, they're all different... sorted.
No doubt some will benefit from the vid, and great that it achieves that, but I do think there's far too much complication in golf teaching.
Draw: imagine a big clock laid on the ground with number 12 towards the target. Stance and swingpath are from 7 to 1 but the clubface is pointing towards 12....the ball will start out heading between 12 and 1 and curve towards 12.
Fade: Same clock face but stance and swing path go from 5 to 11 and the clubface is pointing towards 12. Ball starts left of target but curves back towards it.
Its that simple. Go and experiment to sort out which club will curve x amount, they're all different... sorted.
Absolutely no qualms about what you say. However my point is that GM took the time to compile a response which you and others still don't agree with. Again, not a problem with that. I certainly wouldn't subscribe to the play nicely and you may get rewarded point though. I spoke to Mike at the FoA about the magazine, his plans etc and he is always really encouraged when people take the time to give feedback as I think this whole thing shows.
Perhaps my biggest issue is your point about paying to be given wrong information. You aren't paying to be on here and so any instructional material right or wrong teechnically (in your opinion) is an added bonus and undoubtedly is of use to some or they wouldn't be making and publishing it. If you are referring to the article in the magazine then from my point of view I'm buying it as a whole. Sometimes there are articles I'm not interested in or I don't find enjoyable to read. I don't get annoyed as there is ususally far more stuff in there that is of interest and I buy the magazine for the whole experience and not because of a certain piece. I think its about trying to please all of the people all of the time.
I'm a keen golfer off a reasonable handicap but striving to get better. I've had three teachers since I came back to golf six or seven years ago (one I stopped using as he wasn't teaching anymore because of reconstructive surgery) and none have gone into the physics of ball flight. We've concentrated on eradicating the destructive swing flaws and to be honest I've had decent results from all three and tumbled from 18 to 11 and then hit a plateau. The latest is making it easier and we're looking at something called the one plane swing (Jim Hardy) and it is so much simpler in my mind to get the club in better positions. I play a lot with Hawkeye (responsible for this whole can of worms to start with) and you'd have to ask his unbiased opinion but since my first lesson in mid-December, my ball striking is better and I'm not spraying it left and right. Not a flight law in sight and as long as I can make progress on the same lines I'm happy to keep it that way
Last edited:
Monty_Brown
Tour Rookie
Homer, you make a fine point about different goals and expectations from the magazine and the sport as a whole. Ours appear to be different, but that's all good :thup:
To clarify I agree with the GM response to hawkeyes query
Cheers, Monty. :cheers:
To clarify I agree with the GM response to hawkeyes query
Cheers, Monty. :cheers:
Foxholer
Blackballed
That's because our experience eventually triumphs over the bad instruction and we (including Nick Faldo) make an adjustment that sets the face to the correct angle.
The thing I, and am sure others, object to is the continued use, by some, of the discredited 'laws'. And it is in their own interest to change. Why should I believe anything a teacher says when I know for certain that some of the stuff he is telling me is wrong!
A question about the ball flights will certainly be included when I audition a coach.
Region3
Ryder Cup Winner
Isn't this based on what we thought used to happen?
In those examples I'd say the draw would start off at 1 minute past 12 and draw to 11, and the fade start at 1 minute to 12 and fade to 1.
Or have I got it wrong just when I thought I had it right?
Foxholer
Blackballed
Agree.
Disagree.
Draw: imagine a big clock laid on the ground with number 12 towards the target. (Stance and) swingpath from 8 to 2 but the clubface is pointing towards 1....the ball will start out heading towards 1 and curve towards 12.
Fade: Same clock face but (stance and) swing path goes from 4 to 10 and the clubface is pointing towards 11. Ball starts towards 11 and curves back towards 12.
Agree
Last edited:
Similar threads
