My Study of OBFL versus NBFL

[SocketRocket]

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:

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]

No they don't. The clubface and ball know nothing about the target. They only know clubface direction and swingpath at impact.

I was kind of taking it for granted that the golfer himself was part of the equation and he knows where the target is.

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.

I think most golfers could follow these parameters.

'D' Plane shows us that increased loft reduces the plane resulting in less tilt in the balls axis of rotation.

Whoa down there cowboy. You have just managed to baffle about 99% of all golfers with this geeky rubbish.

How do the OBFL explain higher lofts creaing less sidespin?

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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:

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Look. If you want to kid yourself that the old stuff works then thats your problem.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do because where the ball finishes up doesn't lie.

 

[SocketRocket]

Whoa down there cowboy. You have just managed to baffle about 99% of all golfers with this geeky rubbish.

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]

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.

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]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do because where the ball finishes up doesn't lie.

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]

But using normal face and path conditions - without getting silly - there isn't really much difference in the outcomes.

There is... if you aim the face at the target it will ALWAYS MISS.

 

[SocketRocket]

I am not arguing this point. But using normal face and path conditions - without getting silly -

What does that mean? "Without getting silly" I guess "silly" would be anything you don't agree with.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

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.

This post makes no sense, what are you trying to say?

 

[Patrick57]

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.

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]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do because where the ball finishes up doesn't lie.

Well that's something we can agree on. I guess in your case its in the trees.

 

[Patrick57]

There is... if you aim the face at the target it will ALWAYS MISS.

Not always!

Down the line path - face at target - I think this would go to the target.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Well that's something we can agree on. I guess in your case its in the trees.

That's a pretty dumb thing to say seeing as you have never seen me hit a ball.

 

[Patrick57]

What does that mean? "Without getting silly" I guess "silly" would be anything you don't agree with.

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]

That's a pretty dumb thing to say seeing as you have never seen me hit a ball.

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.