cherrybarry
New
swing out-in with very open face. Now tell me if it starts left or right.
drawing and fadeing
- Thread starter bantamben
- Start date
- Status
I believe the behavior would change on an exaggerated open face and an out to in swing. This would be a more glancing blow with a LOT LESS compression and would be a more pure reflection(angle out=angle in)or riccochet, so the ball wouldn't "ride" the face and would come off at even more of an angle than the clubface.
That "ride" is the only reason the ball leaves at or near clubface angle, otherwise, the laws of reflection would rule. Think of billiard balls and how the carom off of each other.
So, both schools of thought are correct in a sense. Without the compression the ball would riccochet off of the clubface at the opposite angle of the clubface, but the direction of club(at speed) make the ball "stick" to the clubface for milliseconds causing the ball to take the clubfaces direction with a hint of club direction.
That "ride" is the only reason the ball leaves at or near clubface angle, otherwise, the laws of reflection would rule. Think of billiard balls and how the carom off of each other.
So, both schools of thought are correct in a sense. Without the compression the ball would riccochet off of the clubface at the opposite angle of the clubface, but the direction of club(at speed) make the ball "stick" to the clubface for milliseconds causing the ball to take the clubfaces direction with a hint of club direction.
cherrybarry
New
Yes, both influence initial flight and spin, because of the compression, but mainly for drivers (clubface 70% responsible for initial direction so it still is the primary determinant.
Open face relative to the target line. Swing out-in relative to target line with clubface open relative to target. You asked for proof; you will prove it yourself.
Not really common sense. You won't believe how mnay golfers believe the ball goes where the clubhead is travelling and spend 90% of the time trying to fix the clubpath.
The fact is that the ball goes where the clubface is aligned. Get your clubface aligned to your target line and you can't be far off with your shot. I have to say clubface is more important than clubhead path technically, because it is more responsible for where the ball goes.
So fix the clubface first and clubpath can come later.
Ain't that what I said.
I agree the clubface is the determining factor, but I disagree(I guess) as to why. The clubface by itself would cause a relfection action, thereby causing a much greater angle of departure for the ball. The speed and compression cause the reflection to become more a departure of clubface angle.
I agree completely with the ball flight being governed by clubface, but my premise goes deeper than just clubface angle, that's all.
Exactly.... it is WAY too simple to just claim the clubface determines direction.
The ball ends up where the clubface is pointing, and starts where the path is pointing.
Both of those statements are correct, depending on the multiple factors involved.
Perhaps a better way to state your views, is not to claim that the 'laws' are incorrect, but to simply state that the face has more relative effect than the path. It is NOT correct to say that the face has THE effect.
The 'laws' still hold, it is still the relative degrees of face, path, angle of attack that determine ball flight.
Please be more specific and clear when making such bold comments.
cherrybarry
New
This is again wrong and is what the PGA has been teaching forever. The ball starts where the clubface is pointing and curves based on the clubpath relative to the clubface.
Of course, the more compression there is, the more of an influence the clubpath has on initial ball flight. But the clubface is still the primary determinant.quoteerhaps a better way to state your views, is not to claim that the 'laws' are incorrect, but to simply state that the face has more relative effect than the path. It is NOT correct to say that the face has THE effect.
The face has THE EFFECT for wedge shots and nearly is 100% responsible for initial ball flight.
For the driver, it is 70% responsible, but it is still the primary determinant.
To say that the ball "starts where the PATH is pointing" is wrong because the ball practically starts where the CLUBFACE is poitning (again, nearly 100% for wedge shots and 70% at least for drivers).
I don't understand how the laws still hold.
This is the PGA Law: "The ball ends up where the clubface is pointing, and starts where the path is pointing" and is exactly what you said.
But it is wrong because the clubface is most responsible for initial ball flight, and clubpath determines curve.
Do you agree with what you wrote? That the clubface has more relative effect for initial ball flight than the path? If so, then you contradicted the PGA Law and your statement that "the ball ends up where the clubface is pointing, and starts where the path is pointing."
so a flop shot, with the face way open? according to you, this should go hard right...which is not true.
and no, that doesn't contradict the laws at all..... as you left off the rest of the quote "depending on MULTIPLE factors"
It is NOT just the clubface..... it is the relative combination of them.
and no, that doesn't contradict the laws at all..... as you left off the rest of the quote "depending on MULTIPLE factors"
It is NOT just the clubface..... it is the relative combination of them.
cherrybarry
New
EdZ,
It seems like we are having a hard time getting our points across.
These are my beliefs.
1. Clubface is nearly 100% responsible for initial ball direction for wedge shots.
2. Clubface is at least 70% responsible for initial ball direction for the driver. Because of extended length of compression, the clubpath will influence initial ball direction, but still NOT AS MUCH AS THE CLUBFACE.
It is a "relative combination of them" for shots with more compression, so both factors influence initial direction, but the clubface is still more responsible for the ball's initial direction, although both factors are involved.
The PGA says the clubpath is primarily responsible for initial direction. The clubface also influences initial direction, so the ball doesn't start exactly where the clubpath is pointing. But the PGA says it is still the clubpath that is the primary determinant for initial direction.
I don't see it this way. Both factors are involved, but it is the clubface, not the clubpath (a la PGA) that is more responsible.
Because compression is less for wedge shots, the clubface is nearly 100% responsible. As compression increases, it is 70% responsible for the driver. There is a combination, but the clubface is more responsible, not the clubpath which is what the PGA says.
It seems like we are having a hard time getting our points across.
These are my beliefs.
1. Clubface is nearly 100% responsible for initial ball direction for wedge shots.
2. Clubface is at least 70% responsible for initial ball direction for the driver. Because of extended length of compression, the clubpath will influence initial ball direction, but still NOT AS MUCH AS THE CLUBFACE.
I believe it is nearly JUST THE CLUBFACE that determines initial ball direction for wedge shots.
It is a "relative combination of them" for shots with more compression, so both factors influence initial direction, but the clubface is still more responsible for the ball's initial direction, although both factors are involved.
The PGA says the clubpath is primarily responsible for initial direction. The clubface also influences initial direction, so the ball doesn't start exactly where the clubpath is pointing. But the PGA says it is still the clubpath that is the primary determinant for initial direction.
I don't see it this way. Both factors are involved, but it is the clubface, not the clubpath (a la PGA) that is more responsible.
Because compression is less for wedge shots, the clubface is nearly 100% responsible. As compression increases, it is 70% responsible for the driver. There is a combination, but the clubface is more responsible, not the clubpath which is what the PGA says.
CB snipet...
The PGA says the clubp...e primary determinant for initial direction.
Actually if you read what the PGA wrote in their manual they say it is one of the primary influncers for a full shot. (pg47 of the manual).
Where it has come that they say "It is The Primary Influencer" I don't know.
Also on the following page they go into additional details to other factors.
Just thought you may wish to know what they actually say.
Actually if you read what the PGA wrote in their manual they say it is one of the primary influncers for a full shot. (pg47 of the manual).
Where it has come that they say "It is The Primary Influencer" I don't know.
Also on the following page they go into additional details to other factors.
Just thought you may wish to know what they actually say.
cherrybarry
New
But they still say the ball starts more closer to where the clubpath is travelling than the clubface is pointing.
Okay educate me... Where do they say that (clubpath vs clubface)?
Also they reference, which is a bone of contention with some here, the clubface angle to the swing path not the target line.
But I just finished reading the descriptions and they only says what I wrote above.
Now what Jacobs says, is that when you observe a Ball Flight, say a pull slice that the you have out to in path with the clubface open to that path.
So unless you can show me otherwise, I think the PGA is getting a bum wrap here. The PGA members for years have contended that Jacobs observations are valid in identifying relationships of the club path and club face and the target line.
Edit...
Actually if you have the PGA teaching manual, go to page 34, illustration 2-18, read the capation.
Someone owes the PGA a big time appology.
All of this still doesn't invalidate Jacobs and other PGA members use cause they are analyzing and then attributing which factors need to be worked on.
Ah but the reference the club path to the target line.. Sorry I seem to have been imcomplete in my previous response. The point with others here is that they reference the club face to the target line and the club path to the club face.
I still stand by the need to reference the ball flight to the target line, how else can you identify a pull or push?
The following was told by a PGA instructor:
"According to Ping Research the ball leaves the clubface at approximately the same direction the face is pointing at impact. The clubpath IN RELATION TO THE CLUBFACE determines sidespin and thus curvature. Clubpath has very little to do with intial direction of the ball flight (I think Ping said 2-6% depending on speed and loft angle)"
"According to Ping Research the ball leaves the clubface at approximately the same direction the face is pointing at impact. The clubpath IN RELATION TO THE CLUBFACE determines sidespin and thus curvature. Clubpath has very little to do with intial direction of the ball flight (I think Ping said 2-6% depending on speed and loft angle)"
cherrybarry
New
Out-in with an open face creates a pull slice sometimes.quote:Originally posted by Martee
Okay educate me... Where do they say that (clubpath vs clubface)?
Also they reference, which is a bone of contention with some here, the clubface angle to the swing path not the target line.
But I just finished reading the descriptions and they only says what I wrote above.
Now what Jacobs says, is that when you observe a Ball Flight, say a pull slice that the you have out to in path with the clubface open to that path.
So unless you can show me otherwise, I think the PGA is getting a bum wrap here. The PGA members for years have contended that Jacobs observations are valid in identifying relationships of the club path and club face and the target line.
Edit...
Actually if you have the PGA teaching manual, go to page 34, illustration 2-18, read the capation.
Someone owes the PGA a big time appology.
All of this still doesn't invalidate Jacobs and other PGA members use cause they are analyzing and then attributing which factors need to be worked on.
We are assuming out-in relative to target line, and open face relative to clubpath.
My view is this:
Initial ball flight determined by clubface, and curve determined by clubpath to clubface.
So out-in with an open face relative to path but closed to target line creates a pull slice.
BUT, if face is open to target line and subsequently, path, the shot is a push-slice, becuase initial flight is determined by clubface. THe difference in the patterns as defined by pull, push, slice and hook are only apparent when both face and path are pointing to oppoiste sides of the target line.
So Jacobs is right to some degree as to the pattern of ball flight, but not right when he says pull=out-in and slice=open face (relative to path).
quote:Originally posted by cherrybarry
Out-in with an open face creates a pull slice sometimes.quote:Originally posted by Martee
Okay educate me... Where do they say that (clubpath vs clubface)?
Also they reference, which is a bone of contention with some here, the clubface angle to the swing path not the target line.
But I just finished reading the descriptions and they only says what I wrote above.
Now what Jacobs says, is that when you observe a Ball Flight, say a pull slice that the you have out to in path with the clubface open to that path.
So unless you can show me otherwise, I think the PGA is getting a bum wrap here. The PGA members for years have contended that Jacobs observations are valid in identifying relationships of the club path and club face and the target line.
Edit...
Actually if you have the PGA teaching manual, go to page 34, illustration 2-18, read the capation.
Someone owes the PGA a big time appology.
All of this still doesn't invalidate Jacobs and other PGA members use cause they are analyzing and then attributing which factors need to be worked on.
We are assuming out-in relative to target line, and open face relative to clubpath.
My view is this:
Initial ball flight determined by clubface, and curve determined by clubpath to clubface.
So out-in with an open face relative to path but closed to target line creates a pull slice.
BUT, if face is open to target line and subsequently, path, the shot is a push-slice, becuase initial flight is determined by clubface. THe difference in the patterns as defined by pull, push, slice and hook are only apparent when both face and path are pointing to oppoiste sides of the target line.
So Jacobs is right to some degree as to the pattern of ball flight, but not right when he says pull=out-in and slice=open face (relative to path).
First let me appologize to Dufferick, it appears we are/were talking to different things. My reference to target line is so you can describe the golf swing not the ball flight.
CB, this is probably a dead horse but factors to consider when analyzing ball flight is distance. When the distance of the shot is weak for the player other factors need to be considered.
Your example are extreme of face angles and minimum of path angles which result is considerable loss of distance cause the impact is at best a glancing blow and most likely considerably off center.
Ragman, interesting but didn't you also quote someone who gave different numbers in an earlier post.
Seems like there is not one reference that agrees with another, heck I am not a Pelz fan and look at his numbers based on his ?research? for low loft slow moving minimum contact stroke with the putter.
At least we all agree that Ball Flight Direction is primarily influenced by the clubface and clubpath. At least were on the same page. Hopefully our students will have success. But this discussion has already created confusion, for example claims that the PGA are stating something they are not, etc. Lets just Fix the path and face or face and path and hit them straigth.
- Status