My Study of OBFL versus NBFL

[SocketRocket]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

I'll go and do some experiments again and will report back

 

[SocketRocket]

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.

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]

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.

Did I? Where?

 

[Swinger]

I'll go and do some experiments again and will report back

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]

Did I? Where?

Take a look at your post at #254 where you said the following:

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.

 

[SocketRocket]

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

:rofl:

And here!

Do I need to refresh your memory more?

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Take a look at your post at #254 where you said the following:

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]

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.

Has it really taken 310 posts to get to here, roughly where we started?

 

[Monty_Brown]

Has it really taken 310 posts to get to here, roughly where we started?

Yes.... Yes it has.

 

[One Planer]

Has it really taken 310 posts to get to here, roughly where we started?

Yes.... Yes it has.

 

[bobmac]

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]

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

You bet correctly :ears:

 

[DaveM]

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

To true!!!!!!!

 

[bobmac]

Too true!!!!!!!

Hee hee :ears:

 

[DaveM]

Hee hee :ears:

Ok I give up.:thup:

 

[CMAC]

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]

Bored now. I know what works and what doesn't work.

End of chat....... goodbye.