2 way miss

[magicmarker]

Actually, I'd think the AoA and ClubPath (good or bad) generally stay the same (at least without proper instruction)... Its players with FACE ANGLE issues that live in Twowaymissville. I'd also guess they don't find the center of the face as often.

People who swing WAY out to in or in to out have A LOT of room to play with as far as their face angle and still keep a one way miss.

Think about Bubba Watson. He can hit two way misses on command and he has drastically different paths to pull them off, not just a different face angle.

 

[DCgolf]

Right it's still face to path. All the face does is change the starting point really. Thats why a grip change is a temporary change, just to get different results. But there are 50 million golfers in the world and one Bubba. I struggle to get my players to change 1 degree, he changes the damn path 4-5 degrees like every other swing. Crazy.

 

[Robbierob99]

People who swing WAY out to in or in to out have A LOT of room to play with as far as their face angle and still keep a one way miss.

Think about Bubba Watson. He can hit two way misses on command and he has drastically different paths to pull them off, not just a different face angle.

"He can hit two way misses on command"... Then it isn't actually a miss.

Here's what I'm saying (all bubba watsons aside): Set up a trackman, tell that player with a 2-way miss problem (or any player for that matter) where the target is, have them hit 40 "stock" shots with a 6iron... The angle of attack and club path - regardless of whether they are hooking it, striping it down the middle, slicing it, topping it, chunking it, shanking it, fading it, hitting it high or low, or whatever - will have a lot less variation than most other numbers especially face angle.

A step further, I'd bet a lot of the "stuff" you'd try to do to change the path and AoA (aside from just aiming way right or way left) wouldn't actually get those numbers to change. Throw in a MANZELLA INSTRUCTOR (or Mr. Manzella himself) and he'd get those numbers to change in 5 minutes or less.

But I'll concede this... THERE are definitely a lot of different ways to get to a 2-way-miss problem.

When I'm having trouble with a 2 way miss I check FA & Centeredness of impact 1st. Just saying... Might not be a universal thing though.

 

[DCgolf]

Agreed. Face is least consistent variable for Obvious reason. With kids today swinging 100 MPH 6 irons I would say face has greatest margin for error.

 

[magicmarker]

What stuff? I don't have any stuff.

I understand what you are saying in theory. I am just commenting on what I have seen in my experience. Path good, one way miss. Path all over, two way miss. jmo

agree to disagree

and just about anyone with a two way miss would pass the test you outlined. I was speaking more about what the player does on the course.

 

[ej20]

Personally,I get a 2 way miss when I am trying to manipulate the face of the club.For example trying to close the face with a full roll to get a draw.If I don't close it enough then the destination is push city.Another example is delofting to get a lower ball flight which has a bearing on the clubface also.It's much easier to deloft with a short iron than a driver as you can control the face more at 80mph vs 100mph+.

I have a theory that players who draw the ball are more likely to have a 2 way miss.I think that's the reason why fading the ball is more desirable at the very highest level of the game.You tend to be more immune to a 2 way miss.

 

[Robbierob99]

What stuff? I don't have any stuff.

Not you necessarily, just anyone in general. You think you're swinging "up" on it, turns out your AoA got more negative... You think you're path was more inside out, turns out it was more left... think you swing harder yet your club speed went down... that kind of "stuff." What i mean is that it is not uncommon - at least until you've trained with a Trackman - that you are not actually doing what you think you are.

I understand what you are saying in theory. I am just commenting on what I have seen in my experience. Path good, one way miss. Path all over, two way miss. jmo

agree to disagree

Definitely agree that there's more than one thing that can cause 2 way misses... For me it's FA

and just about anyone with a two way miss would pass the test you outlined. I was speaking more about what the player does on the course.

Wouldn't it be awesome to have a Trackman running on every shot you hit on the course... I would love it.
Since I've never done that, I guess I can't say what exactly happens on the course when I'm missing it both ways.
BUT when I'm on the range missing both ways Trackman shows it's FACE ANGLE inconsistencies for me... Not Path. For me Path and AoA are very consistent swing to swing. That I know without a doubt.

I would also say that when I try to get my path numbers to +2 to +4 (say with a 6 iron) vs. trying to have them -1 to +1 I get more consistent FA with the inside-out path vs. the closer to 0 path. Wonder why??

 

[wulsy]

I have a theory that players who draw the ball are more likely to have a 2 way miss.I think that's the reason why fading the ball is more desirable at the very highest level of the game.You tend to be more immune to a 2 way miss.

Didn't Brian say somewhere that there are many more drawers on the Tour than faders?

 

[ej20]

Didn't Brian say somewhere that there are many more drawers on the Tour than faders?

There is one level higher than tour pro and that is multiple major winners.Nicklaus,Trevino,post wreck Hogan all preferred the fade as the stock shot.Of course there is Mickelson and Tiger who plays the draw but they have sick short games.

Trevino is famous for his quote,"you can talk to a fade but a hook won't listen".

Martin Kaymer played a fade and won a major but has hasn't been seen on the leaderboard since attempting to create a draw swing.

When a draw turns into a hook, you slowly turn and reach for a provisional. When a fade turns into a slice, you sprint awkwardly off the teebox trying to catch a glimpse of the landing - it might be in play.

Nicklaus said a fade is less damaging when your swing is off which is likely to happen over four rounds in a major.

 

[DCgolf]

There are a lot of 20 cap slicers who hit the dreaded straight ball 30 yards left too. It plaques everybody regardless of shot shape.

 

[Erik_K]

There are a lot of 20 cap slicers who hit the dreaded straight ball 30 yards left too. It plaques everybody regardless of shot shape.

I am one of them.

 

[birly-shirly]

Many great responses here - I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

Yes, of course, Kevin and DC are correct that this was a quote from Jacobs.

I thought it was interesting and posted it for a few reasons.

One is that, as DC said, JJ had a few drills or exercises, or "band-aids" for an in-to-out path. But as far as I can see, he linked that path with pushes and hooks. I didn't actually include this in the quote [and probably should have, sorry!], but the definitive ballflight "symptom" for this treatment was starting right, and curving further right. But with occasional snappers thrown in.

It would seem that he reckoned that push-fades were a sure sign of "rocking and blocking" as he called it.

I also thought it was interesting because of the emphasis on posture. I remember when posture, and "stand tall to the ball", was what everyone seemed to talk about. Now it seems, not so much.

So I thought it was notable, or as Oliver and Wulsy put it, "simplistic" to see a direct link drawn between posture and ball-flight. Although, I'm not sure that anyone sounds terribly convinced by this...

Now, if anything, the wheel seems to have turned full circle and some people are prescribing steeper shoulder turns and more bent over postures, even "slumpy shoulders". And I'm sure Brian has recounted Ben Doyle teaching him to "bend over like a proper golfer" - though I'm not sure I necessarily understand why.

Lastly, Kevin and DC talked about taking out the "under" as well as the "in-to-out". For the sake of argument, if you're standing more erect, don't you need more armswing just to get the club back onto the ball, and might that not make impact less shallow? Just my tuppenceworth.

 

[birly-shirly]

Didn't Brian say somewhere that there are many more drawers on the Tour than faders?

Curious if this is true.

If there's a consensus on this thread, it's that one cause of two-way misses is an in-to-out path, which implies that a slight out-to-in path bias might be more consistent.

And my impression from watching at the Open this year was certainly that the predominant curve off the tee was a slight fade.

But then, maybe those ballwhackers are happy to let it all hang out on the wide open pastures of the regular tour, and just tighten things up when they find themselves on a proper golf course.

[joke]

 

[ej20]

There are a lot of 20 cap slicers who hit the dreaded straight ball 30 yards left too. It plaques everybody regardless of shot shape.

That's very true but keep in mind the typical 20 handicap slicer is forever cursing their slice and trying to fix it during the round.Some of them do it by shutting the face and voila you have the OTT pull.

 

[Old Tom]

IMO, your clubhead is "late" to the ball, leaving the face open to the path at impact. I know that I'm using an old fashioned term, but it accurately describes what is happening. The in to out path is a better golfer's attempt to minimize the relative openess of the face. With the old wound balata ball and persimmon wood, this correction might have been viable and produced a push draw. Today, it just yields pushes, push fades, and duck hooks, and some good draws, but not many. It often works well on the range though!

The clubhead is "late" because your basic timing is off. Sometimes the reason is simply hip girdle and hamstring muscles that have become too stiff. If so, a few weeks of stretching will restore your timing. But if stiffness is not the cause, then you probably have a messed up internal golfing mind clock which no mechanical adjustment can fix, but which can sometimes help a little. The ultimate fix is to find your timing again. Unfortunately, few modern teachers know how to go about this because it takes a great deal of coddling.

Old Tom

 

[DCgolf]

Many great responses here - I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

Yes, of course, Kevin and DC are correct that this was a quote from Jacobs.

I thought it was interesting and posted it for a few reasons.

One is that, as DC said, JJ had a few drills or exercises, or "band-aids" for an in-to-out path. But as far as I can see, he linked that path with pushes and hooks. I didn't actually include this in the quote [and probably should have, sorry!], but the definitive ballflight "symptom" for this treatment was starting right, and curving further right. But with occasional snappers thrown in.

It would seem that he reckoned that push-fades were a sure sign of "rocking and blocking" as he called it.

I also thought it was interesting because of the emphasis on posture. I remember when posture, and "stand tall to the ball", was what everyone seemed to talk about. Now it seems, not so much.

So I thought it was notable, or as Oliver and Wulsy put it, "simplistic" to see a direct link drawn between posture and ball-flight. Although, I'm not sure that anyone sounds terribly convinced by this...

Now, if anything, the wheel seems to have turned full circle and some people are prescribing steeper shoulder turns and more bent over postures, even "slumpy shoulders". And I'm sure Brian has recounted Ben Doyle teaching him to "bend over like a proper golfer" - though I'm not sure I necessarily understand why.

Lastly, Kevin and DC talked about taking out the "under" as well as the "in-to-out". For the sake of argument, if you're standing more erect, don't you need more armswing just to get the club back onto the ball, and might that not make impact less shallow? Just my tuppenceworth.

I don't make it any more complicated than this. If somebody is digging ditches I stand them up. If they can't sniff a blade of grass, I bend them over. Works wonders.

 

[magicmarker]

I would also say that when I try to get my path numbers to +2 to +4 (say with a 6 iron) vs. trying to have them -1 to +1 I get more consistent FA with the inside-out path vs. the closer to 0 path. Wonder why??

This is actually what I was referring to. If you keep your path (like I said) inside out or outside in it is much more difficult to have a two way miss because you have a lot of room for face angle variations. If you are zero'ing out your path (which I would not recommend) bc a zero'd path and an inconsistent face angle is a recipe for a two way miss, then yes it's all face angle at that point. But like I said, in my experience, far less two way miss players are dealing with that bc their path is zero'd out. Most of the ones I see have paths all over the place from shot to shot on the course.

You could do the same experiment w/ trackman and change clubs between every shot or two. Far more similar to having trackman on the course with you than hitting 40 six irons in a row.

 

[Robbierob99]

This is actually what I was referring to. If you keep your path (like I said) inside out or outside in it is much more difficult to have a two way miss because you have a lot of room for face angle variations. If you are zero'ing out your path (which I would not recommend) bc a zero'd path and an inconsistent face angle is a recipe for a two way miss, then yes it's all face angle at that point. But like I said, in my experience, far less two way miss players are dealing with that bc their path is zero'd out. Most of the ones I see have paths all over the place from shot to shot on the course.

You could do the same experiment w/ trackman and change clubs between every shot or two. Far more similar to having trackman on the course with you than hitting 40 six irons in a row.

I guess I miscommunicated.. For me the variation in my face angle is tighter (not saying its right or wrong, just TIGHTER) when my path is +2.5 (+/- 1). Do I have a bigger range of FAs because my path more I-O? Noway... My straight shot just misses right and anything over 2.5* FA misses WAY right. Perhaps I can get around to having an easier time missing it only 1-way, but YOU still have to bring just as tight Face to Path numbers for the shot you want regardless of whether you're a ZERO path guy or an I-O path guy.

I practice with a pro, one who has qualified for a US Open and won a few of mini tour events, and his FA variation actually tightens up when he stays closer to zero. I think certain guys are better off going for a Zero path, some are better I-O, fewer are better with O-I... That's just from what I see from the guys who I mess around on trackman with. I bet an instructor who teaches with Trackman ALL THE TIME would really be able to shed some light into FA tendencies as they relate to Club Path.

 

[magicmarker]

I guess I miscommunicated.. For me the variation in my face angle is tighter (not saying its right or wrong, just TIGHTER) when my path is +2.5 (+/- 1). Do I have a bigger range of FAs because my path more I-O? Noway... My straight shot just misses right and anything over 2.5* FA misses WAY right. Perhaps I can get around to having an easier time missing it only 1-way, but YOU still have to bring just as tight Face to Path numbers for the shot you want regardless of whether you're a ZERO path guy or an I-O path guy.

I meant a bigger range of FA variation to play with and still keep a one way miss.

I practice with a pro, one who has qualified for a US Open and won a few of mini tour events, and his FA variation actually tightens up when he stays closer to zero. I think certain guys are better off going for a Zero path, some are better I-O, fewer are better with O-I... That's just from what I see from the guys who I mess around on trackman with. I bet an instructor who teaches with Trackman ALL THE TIME would really be able to shed some light into FA tendencies as they relate to Club Path.

Makes perfect sense to me because if it didn't tighten up as his path got closer to zero he would not be very good. I would also like for more trackman/flightscope teachers to shed some light on their experience with the topic. Like I said, I'm just sharing what I'm seeing in my own experience, I'm not attempting to extrapolate it into any kind of general rule for everyone. I recognize my experience can be extensive compared to Joe Public and miniscule compared to other teachers that post here.