Patrick57
Head Pro
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
My Study of OBFL versus NBFL
- Thread starter Patrick57
- Start date
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Head Pro
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
Money List Winner
I don't get it? Why are we discussing how to hit bad shots?
Foxholer
Blackballed
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!
Last edited:
Patrick57
Head Pro
On that theme could you please describe what a good shot would be in your opinion.
Foxholer
Blackballed
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
Head Pro
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.
Then I must be in the minority because I can shapoe shots very efficiently without using the fine parameters detailed by D-plane
DaveM
Tour Winner
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
Blackballed
Could be sensible. And thread is misnamed anyway. It's not 'Study' so much as '(Lack of) Understanding'.
JustOne
Ryder Cup Winner
That's such a strange thing to say considering YOU started the thread and say....
If you were mislead in ANY WAY would it not be prudent to state the FACTS?
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Money List Winner
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?!
Can someone (Bob/James/SR etc) point me to a good source of information that might clear my confused mind?!
bobmac
Major Champion
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
Blackballed
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)
Last edited:
bobmac
Major Champion
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
Money List Winner
Simple, the ball goes where I want it to go. regardless of which physical law it used to get there.
DaveM
Tour Winner
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
Tour Winner
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.
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
Tour Winner
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".
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".
