D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
How can the laws of physics change?
My Study of OBFL versus NBFL
- Thread starter Patrick57
- Start date
How can the laws of physics change?
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
Nothing has changed physically it's the understanding thats changed thats all.
Golfers are doing the same thing now as they did years ago.
D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
:clap:
S
Snelly
Guest
I find this thread absolutely amazing. Honestly and truly gob-smacking.
I was with two friends last night at our squash club and both play county golf in Sussex. I mentioned that I had read this thread on this forum with hundreds of responses on ball flight laws, old and new.
It quickly became clear that none of us knew what the old, new or any other ball flight law was. And I mean that we didn't have anything to say on the subject - not even the slightest clue. No inkling of where to even start the conversation. Totally outside our sphere of understanding. Utterly, completely and forever ignorant on these laws.
However, what I can also state as absolute fact is that all 3 of us can hit a draw, fade or straight shot, pretty much whenever we want to by doing a bit of this and that. And all three of us can play to par or better pretty often. We don't often lose at golf... we are good golfers. 1,2 and 3 handicap.
So what is my point?
Not much more than simply this - the ball flight laws - old, new or anything else - have absolutely nothing to do with playing well at this game. They are 100% irrelevant. You don't need to know one iota about them or ever think about them in order to play to a very high standard. My two mates and perhaps me too prove this conclusively.
Now I am not saying that you should not take an interest in basic physics if it is what interests you. And if applying science to the golf swing helps you to enjoy either the game or the science more then that is great.
I am just drawing the line at the implication that you cannot play well, understand or improve your golf game without a basic understanding on the ball flight laws be they old or new.
Because that implication is total and utter nonsense. Absolutely 100% untrue.
Which leads me neatly to my second observation - what is the point of discussing the ball laws? Or old vs new? It seems to be a completely worthless exercise from a practical perspective.
I was with two friends last night at our squash club and both play county golf in Sussex. I mentioned that I had read this thread on this forum with hundreds of responses on ball flight laws, old and new.
It quickly became clear that none of us knew what the old, new or any other ball flight law was. And I mean that we didn't have anything to say on the subject - not even the slightest clue. No inkling of where to even start the conversation. Totally outside our sphere of understanding. Utterly, completely and forever ignorant on these laws.
However, what I can also state as absolute fact is that all 3 of us can hit a draw, fade or straight shot, pretty much whenever we want to by doing a bit of this and that. And all three of us can play to par or better pretty often. We don't often lose at golf... we are good golfers. 1,2 and 3 handicap.
So what is my point?
Not much more than simply this - the ball flight laws - old, new or anything else - have absolutely nothing to do with playing well at this game. They are 100% irrelevant. You don't need to know one iota about them or ever think about them in order to play to a very high standard. My two mates and perhaps me too prove this conclusively.
Now I am not saying that you should not take an interest in basic physics if it is what interests you. And if applying science to the golf swing helps you to enjoy either the game or the science more then that is great.
I am just drawing the line at the implication that you cannot play well, understand or improve your golf game without a basic understanding on the ball flight laws be they old or new.
Because that implication is total and utter nonsense. Absolutely 100% untrue.
Which leads me neatly to my second observation - what is the point of discussing the ball laws? Or old vs new? It seems to be a completely worthless exercise from a practical perspective.
Last edited:
User20205
Money List Winner
agree with you 100% Snelly (apart from the last point). There is no relation to the ball flight laws and playing ability. Understanding theory won't help you hit the ball better, hitting balls and developing feel will.
These threads/discussions are useful.....
they are a cracking cure for insomnia,
D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
Snelly
you are absolutely, 100% correct my friend. We do not need to have the slightest understanding of the laws of physics to play this game. We just need to know that to hit a draw you align your body this way and your clubface that way then swing along whatever line.
That hasn't changed.
:thup:
you are absolutely, 100% correct my friend. We do not need to have the slightest understanding of the laws of physics to play this game. We just need to know that to hit a draw you align your body this way and your clubface that way then swing along whatever line.
That hasn't changed.
:thup:
sev112
Tour Winner
Good question that will be a debate in its own right. We all no doubt get something different.
i ski, i'm quite good - probably an equivalent of my golf handicap. I am miles better because i try and work out the forces involved and how teh technology (the shape of the ski) and how they interact with snow of different types. It helps to stop me falling over, or even getting injured.
i've been watching the tour de france a lot in recent years, and this year some of the other tours. I havent got into it other than as a viewer but it seems there is a lot of technology and science that guys in cycle clubs get engaged in.
i used to play chess quite well - i found that reading about opening and middle game strategies made my game much better.
Don't know about squash - i used to only hope to still be walking at the end of 40 mins.
For me it's a nice (mainly) engineering/technological debate and i (mainly) enjoy seeing/hearing other people's interpretations and logic, as that (more often than not) improves my own knowledge. As i've said i dont believe either of them. I have though found out why i tend to hit trees when i try to fade around them, and so that has hopefully helped my game a bit.
i ski, i'm quite good - probably an equivalent of my golf handicap. I am miles better because i try and work out the forces involved and how teh technology (the shape of the ski) and how they interact with snow of different types. It helps to stop me falling over, or even getting injured.
i've been watching the tour de france a lot in recent years, and this year some of the other tours. I havent got into it other than as a viewer but it seems there is a lot of technology and science that guys in cycle clubs get engaged in.
i used to play chess quite well - i found that reading about opening and middle game strategies made my game much better.
Don't know about squash - i used to only hope to still be walking at the end of 40 mins.
For me it's a nice (mainly) engineering/technological debate and i (mainly) enjoy seeing/hearing other people's interpretations and logic, as that (more often than not) improves my own knowledge. As i've said i dont believe either of them. I have though found out why i tend to hit trees when i try to fade around them, and so that has hopefully helped my game a bit.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Hi Snelly.
Interesting take but you probably wont be surprised to hear that I totally disagree with you.
You are a golfer who plays close to scratch, has probably played for many years and has worked out somehow to shape the ball. I would imagine this ability didn't come natural to you when you first attempted to do it. You probably improved your skill over time by finding out what worked then improving it bit by bit. Either that or you are an exceptionally gifted player with way above normal abilities.
If it's the latter then you would accept that it was easier for you and lesser mortals will take much longer (if ever) to master ball shaping. If it's the former then would you not think there should be a better way for newer golfers to learn the skill. Should they keep hitting into the trees for maybe a year, two years or even for ever, or should there be a way they can be taught that actually works and that can give results fast.
The technical debates on 'D' Plane, Science of golf ball ballistics etc are just something that a number of us are interested in and like to debate, maybe much the same as you and your mates may sit in the bar and talk about how to hit certain squash shots (I know we used to do that when I was a prolific squash player in my former clothes). The New ball Flight Laws are not really that new, they just happen to be newer than the incorrect ones that confused so many people over the years (me included).
Teaching a golfer to shape the ball is quite a straight forward thing to do, you explain how they should point the clubface and how your swingpath in relationship to it creates side spin. They then just have to go out and practice it for a bit to get the idea.
Now, I do understand that you have previously stated that you prefer to learn by hitting golf balls and seeing what happens but I think again you must accept that you are someone who has above average ability to play golf (The average handicap is around 23, why do you think that is?) MOST people don't have natural coordination and hand eye skill so will get very frustrated and maybe give up on the game if they dont improve. Teaching these people a shortcut to obtain the skills is a good way of keeping their interest and improving their enjoyment of the game.
That's my take on it, I hope you can see my point. If you cant then have a nice weekend anyway.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
With respect I dont think anyone has suggested that you need to be taught the physics to shape a ball. Some of us are interested in them and like to debate it. I don't see why that should be a problem, if you are not interested in the science then just ignore it.
User20205
Money List Winner
I think we have to respect the fact that some may enjoy the discussion Socket but I am slightly confused;
As an experience golfer how did you learn to shape the ball if what you were taught was fundamentally wrong ?
Also I strongly believe that someone of the average ability doesn't need to shape shots. Learning to hit it straight will be good enough to get down to low single figures. Surely modern equipment/balls are actually a barrier to shot shaping anyway.
(Can't believe I've got drawn into a ball flight law discussion, I'll be drawing diagrams and selling my soul to the god of stack & tilt next )
As an experience golfer how did you learn to shape the ball if what you were taught was fundamentally wrong ?
Also I strongly believe that someone of the average ability doesn't need to shape shots. Learning to hit it straight will be good enough to get down to low single figures. Surely modern equipment/balls are actually a barrier to shot shaping anyway.
(Can't believe I've got drawn into a ball flight law discussion, I'll be drawing diagrams and selling my soul to the god of stack & tilt next
)Patrick57
Head Pro
As I said in the OP, the diferences between the new and old laws have been hugely exagerated. In the last diagram in the OP I have drawn realistic comparisons and they look very similar to me. I would like to hear someone's views on this diagram and tell me what's so confusing and incorrect about the old laws.
Patrick57
Head Pro
Exactly, we don't have trackman available when we are carry out these shots on the course and in the endits down to plain old subconscious feel.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I think we have to respect the fact that some may enjoy the discussion Socket but I am slightly confused;
As an experience golfer how did you learn to shape the ball if what you were taught was fundamentally wrong ?
Also I strongly believe that someone of the average ability doesn't need to shape shots. Learning to hit it straight will be good enough to get down to low single figures. Surely modern equipment/balls are actually a barrier to shot shaping anyway.
(Can't believe I've got drawn into a ball flight law discussion, I'll be drawing diagrams and selling my soul to the god of stack & tilt next
I wanted to learn how to shape golfballs so that I could place the ball in the best positions in doglegs, pull the ball around objects, hit soft fades into greens, draw balls to give maximum run out etc. It is a very important part of playing good golf IMO.
I asked my coach at the time to teach me and he explained the Old Ball Flight Laws method to do it. I practiced this and tried using it but all it did was put me in a lot of trouble on the course. I then took another lesson with a different Pro who explained it exactly the same way.
I decided to find out more as there must have been a better way, or I was a bit stupid and not doing what I was told (I knew that wasn't the case though) I read a number of publications and the first that really helped me was the book 'The search for the perfect golf swing' by Cochran and Stobbs, this book said something different. I tried out their theory and it worked !! GREAT!! I then researched quite a lot on the theory of golf ball ballistics (I am an Engineer after all) and learned that many things I had been taught were not true. There is a wealth of information on the subject these days and especially on the internet.
As Bob has said before, the GB PGA has taught the NBFL for some time now but the US PGA still teach the OBFL, this is why there are still so many getting it wrong.
Well, that's my story and I guess I am sticking with it
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
OK.
The old laws say that the clubface decides the direction the ball will end on and the swingpath decides the direction the ball takes off on. This is completely wrong and you only need to try it out to see this.
Patrick57
Head Pro
Yawn! It's the old tree comparison again. I have been using simple instructions for years and manage to get my students to avoid that damn tree every time. As long as they line the feet properly and don't overdo the face angles, they are going to avoid harming themselves.
My students have more trouble getting the ball to curve back towards the target so maybe I should exagerate the face angles.
Patrick57
Head Pro
I must be doing something wrong my ball only stays on the clubface for 4/10 of a millisecond.
Patrick57
Head Pro
Please address the last diagram in the OP.
Region3
Ryder Cup Winner
This may get lost in all the other posts, but I will give my opinion on your diagrams, and then ask a question of you.
The diagrams look almost identical. I don't agree with the left hand one showing your depiction of the NBFL.
Just taking one of the lines as an example, the red dashed one. Swing path 5° out-to-in with the face 8° open to the path.
NBFL says the initial direction is affected most (around 85%) by face angle.
Difference between path and face is 8°.
85% of 8° is 6.8°.
If the path is only 5° out-to-in, why does your starting line point left of straight?
Now my question.
If I want to fade a ball into a right-side pin, what do the OBFL say I should do, and what would really happen if I did that assuming NBFL are correct.
I'm not worried about giving specific angles/distances etc. Descriptions of left/right of target/path/face will be fine.
Patrick57
Head Pro
Is this a trick question? Do you mean the student would prefer to start the ball 1° further to the right and still achieve a draw curve or do you mean he would prefer to lose the draw?
bobmac
Major Champion
Patrick, the PGA says the clubface dictates 85% the direction the ball starts and the swing path imparts the sidespin.
Would you like to comment on that please?
Would you like to comment on that please?
