Should Everyone Zero Out their Path & Clubface on TrackMan, and hit up on Drivers?

[TROYNYGOLFER]

Just one thing here on this point.
I think that getting truely good at something takes time, hard work, and attention to detail. Even with good information, you won't make long-lasting changes with a tweak.

Totally different topic, but I was inspired to respond to that for some reason.

Roll, I don't think anyone here, teacher or student (my category) is looking for, or trying to provide, tweaks or magic bullets. However, if in the course of one hour I cannot get at least a decent number of shots/chips/putts, whatever, heading in the direction I need to go, then either I am not capable of understanding the instructor, the instructor is doing a poor job communicating, he does not have anything worth communicating, or some combination thereof.

I suspect any student who takes the time to understand what these guys are talking about in order to follow the discussions are fairly serious and understand the value of practice and drills.

 

[Michael Finney]

in this clip Brian plays Stromile and James Ridyard plays Tyrus Thomas...

both players went to LSU by the way

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GiLII8vw4A[/media]

 

[Kevin Shields]

I asked a similar question about hitting up on the driver at the GTE with a desire to find out when and if there is a point when swinging up and low spin lofts become a bad thing. This is the question I am still looking for an answer to.

When does the increase in distance get offset by the difficulty in repetition? (I will say at this point that I have tried to argue both sides of this question on different forums and haven't been convinced when that point occurs.)

I can guarantee you that when angle of attack becomes greater than dynamic loft, you have a major, major problem on your hands. In fact, now you get real topspin that isn't a topped shot. This discussion also started at GTE but fizzled. Maybe a topic for a different thread.

Especially, for those trying to get a bunch of forward lean while hitting up, beware when you get close to this point. For almost all of us that don't use 5 or 6* drivers, this may not be very likely but I think it helps explain why the long drive guys don't have very much forward lean in their hits.

So, somewhere there is a point when the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. Where do you think that point is? Personally, I think it may be a very difficult question to answer because it depends so much on swing speed and will probably have a depends answer.

Kevin, Brian and jaridyard seem quite bright as do so many others in the manzella academy and posters on this forum. Between this group, I think some kind of consensus can be come to.

John, why do you keep insisting there is this "difficulty in repetition" or risk. You're saying it like its fact. Why do you think this to be the case? Where's the idea that its harder come from?

 

[garymag]

Just one thing here on this point.
I think that getting truely good at something takes time, hard work, and attention to detail. Even with good information, you won't make long-lasting changes with a tweak.

It depends. Sometimes a tweak is all that you need.

 

[GPM1985]

John, why do you keep insisting there is this "difficulty in repetition" or risk. You're saying it like its fact. Why do you think this to be the case? Where's the idea that its harder come from?

Yeah, as a visual learner I'm having a hard time understanding the hitting up/spin loft conundrum. I need pictures. Is there a Trackman newsletter that goes into this?

Can someone spell out what the ramifcations of hitting up/decreasing spin loft are? Someone said that the margin of error decreases - margin of error for what?

I'm so confused.

 

[holeout]

That's the point...

I think that getting truely good at something takes time, hard work, and attention to detail. Even with good information, you won't make long-lasting changes with a tweak.

But what if you don't need "long-lasting changes"?

 

[roll - gybe]

But what if you don't need "long-lasting changes"?

Then you should go play Tiger for money

 

[Kevin Shields]

Yeah, as a visual learner I'm having a hard time understanding the hitting up/spin loft conundrum. I need pictures. Is there a Trackman newsletter that goes into this?

Can someone spell out what the ramifcations of hitting up/decreasing spin loft are? Someone said that the margin of error decreases - margin of error for what?

I'm so confused.

I'm pretty sure I'm smelling a video in the near future.

 

[jaridyard]

Yeah, as a visual learner I'm having a hard time understanding the hitting up/spin loft conundrum. I need pictures. Is there a Trackman newsletter that goes into this?

Can someone spell out what the ramifcations of hitting up/decreasing spin loft are? Someone said that the margin of error decreases - margin of error for what?

I'm so confused.

This is a pretty basic diagram to illustrate. Three Attack Angles and same Dynamic loft, three different Spin Axis tilts based on a 1º Face/Path difference (along the bottom).

The Spin Axis/D-Plane tilts when there is a difference between Face & Path. The smaller the Spin Loft the more tilt there will be per degree difference, as you can see in the diagram. Jim raised an excellent question regarding whether the lower spin would negate the extra tilt, hopefully we'll find out and if it turns out the spin reduction cancels out the tilt I'll be the first to come here and say my thoughts were wrong.

 

[golfbulldog]

Back to the original premise....

Wasn't the original point of this topic (including the one started by Jarid) to discuss the pros and cons of keeping your numbers within a certain range to maximise your shotmaking on the course?

I read the thread as a 2 parter...

A) Is it better to always shape your shot (draw or fade) so that you can eliminate one side of the course ? .... something like "buiding a wall up the left side of the course" if you fade it... and

B) Are there risks involved in having your driver strike too much on the up?

Both concepts rely on an individual player having a mean set of numbers (and as Jim pointed out) a range of numbers around that mean number which can be described by the standard deviation.

If you are looking to block out one side of the course it would appear to make sense to avoid mean of zero unless your range of numbers have a tiny standard distribution - at least for fade / draw - no?

If your mean face angle is +3 degrees (+/-2 degrees standard deviation) and your path is +6 degrees (+/- 4 degrees standard deviation)....aren't you more likely to block out one side of the fairway more often than if you had similar path standard deviation (+/- 4 degrees path) around a mean path of 0 combined with mean face angle of 0 +/- 2 degrees??

I am no trackman guru (not even seen one live) so don't damage your fingerprints hammering away at the keyboard cos' the numbers aren't real...see the big picture and see the principle please.

Peace to all... back on topic...

If there is any merit in this concept then those with trackman could produce data that reflects how well varying handicap players can accurately contrl the clubface and work out an appropriate target for their mean face angle and path...no??

Thanks

 

[golfbulldog]

... hopefully we'll find out and if it turns out the spin reduction cancels out the tilt I'll be the first to come here and say my thoughts were wrong.

Whatever the result you are very right to ask that question - thanks Jarid. I see the point that you are questioning from your graphs. Interesting.

 

[mb6606]

I read the thread as a 2 parter...

A) Is it better to always shape your shot (draw or fade) so that you can eliminate one side of the course ? .... something like "buiding a wall up the left side of the course" if you fade it... and

Thanks

Didn't Hogan once tell Moe Norman that any straight shot is a mistake to which Moe said I guess I hit 500 mistakes a day!

 

[footwedge]

Then you should go play Tiger for money

Antagonizing.

 

[holeout]

Then you should go play Tiger for money

Wow. You totally missed the point. I won't further respond to inane commentary like this...

 

[roll - gybe]

What was the point? guess I'm not too sharp.

 

[Richie3Jack]

A) Is it better to always shape your shot (draw or fade) so that you can eliminate one side of the course ? .... something like "buiding a wall up the left side of the course" if you fade it... and

I think it depends on what shot you can hit the most accurately and most consistently. Rocco Mediate plays a sizeable draw and is a good ballstriker. But when he got into US Open at Torrey Pines with Tiger there were some holes that called for a left-to-right shot and he continued to play his draw because that was his best shot. He would often miss the fairway on those holes, but that hook shot was still a better shot for him than if he were to try and hit a fade. I sort of think it's like Ted Williams when teams would shift their entire defense to the right side of the field to play for Williams' pull. Williams had it wide open on the left side, but his best swing was to hit a pull down right field.

That's why I think Moe was the greatest ballstriker ever. He could actually hit draws, hooks, fades and slices on command, but more importantly he could hit it dead straight at the target almost every single time. Where somebody like Hogan would say that if they were on the GIR on #11 at Augusta, then you knew he pulled his approach shot...Moe would actually aim at the green and probably hit it.

That being said, I think with what we know about Trackman we can now get more golfers to hit it dead straight on a consistent basis like Moe did. If this was 10 years ago, I would probably say that golfers should try to hit a small fade or a small draw in order to optimize their ballstriking. And that's still a viable option for them today. However, Trackman has now changed all of the answers to the questions.

'Just when you think you have all of the answers, I change the questions' - Roddy Piper





3JACK

 

[golfbulldog]

I think it depends on what shot you can hit the most accurately and most consistently.
3JACK

But whatever the shot that a player hits most consistently...dead straight, fade, pull, Big hook...there will always be a range of error around which that player performs....if golf is a "game of misses" then it is the way that "range of face angles" interacts with the "range of true clubhead paths" that determine whether the player can consistently hit a fairway...

Taking Moe as your figure to emulate is tricky because he was too straight...from what I have heard his misses were straight too...pulls and pushes...no bend...and so few others have ever worked at their game like him. So few have their natural game zeroing out all the time like him...most will favour a shape..no??

I prefer to take as my example a more attainable figure...Jack Nicklaus...yes, he could take on any pin by moving the ball both ways ..but he favoured a stock shot - his fade ...because it gave him better chances of never going left...

Jack is famed for his course management and he shaped the ball on his stock shot...he played the percentages. Trying to hit the ball straight means that you will miss both sides of your target. Playing a fade or a draw where you can eliminate one side of the target on 96% of your shots seems a better bet.

It doesn't mean that you can't shape it the other way...but that is for your "risk reward" hole..most holes are stay out of trouble and take par minus 2 shots to centre green..US open style ..no?

I'm sure that this could be analysed by computer guys.. anyone have any stats from live players which describes the range of performance of different levels of players?

Should an inconsistent swing aim to have shape to it's ball flight?

 

[ggsjpc]

John, why do you keep insisting there is this "difficulty in repetition" or risk. You're saying it like its fact. Why do you think this to be the case? Where's the idea that its harder come from?

Thank you for catching that. I replace repetition with penalty paid for misaligned face or path.

As has been discussed, I also believe that as angle of attack and spin loft get closer together the more severely tilted d-plane will result in a more wayward miss.

. Do you think this accounts for anything when you say the reduction in spin loft creates risk? Which by the way, i agree with.

With out changing topics or driver's and since you asked about repetition,(never thought about it really in terms of repetition but I'll put forth an argument for why it might be more difficult to repeat) in order to create a spin loft that is very close to attack angle, I think a player would have to shorten the radius. Assumptions made would need to be an average tee length and an orthodox ball position. This extra bend in the left elbow seems fair that it might be more difficult to repeat adding another angle into the mix.

I think this would only be necessary for an incredibly high angle of attack where the loft of the club is kept low. I guess you could also tee it on a pencil with no eraser.

Not so sure that argument works but I enjoy a good debate and yea repetition was the wrong word there. It's been corrected.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Its definately a higher tee and a ball position that is somewhat unorthodox (outside the left shoulder). Then you dont have to shorten the radius.

 

[holeout]

What was the point? guess I'm not too sharp.

The point is that in order to go from being a good ball-striker to a great one, you don't necessarily need to make some big change. Oftentimes with a good player, a small adjustment can reap dramatic, long-lasting results.

I'm sure you're plenty sharp, but "go play tiger for money" is a very 8th grade response. You're better than that .