Patrick57
Head Pro
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.
My Study of OBFL versus NBFL
- Thread starter Patrick57
- Start date
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Head Pro
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.
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
Head Pro
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.
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
Head Pro
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
Head Pro
Anyone got an email address for Jack Nicklaus so I can inform him he spent his entire career hitting the ball incorrectly?
Remember to tell him that he's also an idiot.
Last edited:
sev112
Tour Winner
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
Money List Winner
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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
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
Blackballed
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
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
Tour Winner
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.
D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
What a ridiculously crass statement. How can you possibly know how much I understand about my own swing?
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Blackballed
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
Tour Winner
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
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
Ryder Cup Winner
^
^
^
Interesting....
Not wanting to drag you back into it Sev but wouldn't there be 3 vectors?... forwards, sideways and UPWARDS?
^
^
Interesting....
Not wanting to drag you back into it Sev but wouldn't there be 3 vectors?... forwards, sideways and UPWARDS?
Last edited:
sev112
Tour Winner
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
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
D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
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.
Live with it.
JustOne
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
