Less control hitting up on driver?

[Gravedigga]

I've read on this forum and others that hitting up on a driver is less controlled. Or in other words that to get maximum distance hit up but for control hit down. I don't know what that means? Like is there more room for error when hitting down? Or does hitting up on a driver cause the ball to spin less and therefore less predictable?

I'm trying to figure out where this less control comes from. Is there something innate in the ballflight coming from an upward strike that is less controllable or delivering a consistant strike with an upward AoA a more difficult thing to do, therefore making it less controlled?

 

[birly-shirly]

Well - if you're hitting down with your driver your optimal fit will have more static loft than if you're hitting up on the ball. So I suppose you could say that, with the proper fit, you'll have more margin for error hitting down in the same way as you have more margin for error hitting 7 iron rather than 3 iron.

I also think that hitting down with your driver is less of a departure from the swing you use with your irons - so you might find targetting, set-up and swing more consistent through the bag. It stands to reason that it requires fewer adjustments.

Neither reason is without drawbacks. You're losing distance, relative to your optimal fit based on an upwards angle of attack. And it's reasonable to think that you'd learn to make the necessary adjustments with time and qualified help. But I think this is what people must mean if and when they say that hitting up is less controlled.

 

[footwedge]

I get more distance and more control hitting up with the driver. Why I have no idea, but it just feels right to me, maybe I stay behind it more and the clubhead can release as opposed to hanging on...?

 

[Jared Willerson]

I really don't agree that hitting down is that much more controlled than hitting up with the driver. How could a lower spin rate lead to drastically more offline shots?

Bad shots are bad shots. Hitting up or down.

 

[faux_maestro]

I really don't agree that hitting down is that much more controlled than hitting up with the driver. How could a lower spin rate lead to drastically more offline shots?

Bad shots are bad shots. Hitting up or down.

I never understood that argument against hitting up.

 

[Richie3Jack]

hitting down will generally keep the flight lower, which can help be more accurate. But it also increases spin...which can make you more inaccurate.

I don't think the modern titanium driver is mean to be hit down more than -2* otherwise you'll have issues.

But, I also thing that a flat hit (0*) ain't bad at all.




3JACK

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I have yet to read anywhere from anyone conclusively proving hitting down or even level equates to more control than hitting up does. The only thing we know for sure is that you will hit it farther by aiming right and hitting up.

I'd even argue that it is quite possible to have less control by hitting down too much rather than hitting up too much because of how little loft you will create.

 

[mgranato]

Who hits more fairways, the PGA guys or the LPGA girls?

 

[jenhaoyen]

Who hits more fairways, the PGA guys or the LPGA girls?

Tiger Woods

 

[Olof Karlson]

Wouldn't more spin equal more curvature of ball flight in the direction of the spin axis?

 

[finncox]

David Toms consistently hits up on the ball, and isn't he one of the more accurate and better drivers on the PGA Tour? While I don't know if they are the official PGA Tour stats, Richie3Jack has him listed as 10th in "Advanced Total Driving" in his stats tracking.

I don't know how Advanced Total Driving relates to pure accuracy, but I think it's food for thought nonetheless.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Advanced Total Driving is a proprietary formula I concocted as it relates to certain factors in terms of *results* of driving and how they correlate to 'adjusted' scoring average on the PGA Tour.

Okay, so what does that mean?

It means that I am looking at what matters the most with regards to driving the ball. And I determine that thru historical research and comparing what numbers correlate best to the 'adjusted scoring average.'

The PGA Tour has a stat called 'Adjusted Scoring Average' which takes the golfer's scores against the average score of the field they are playing in. That way guys who can dominate tourneys like the Viking Classic and the Bob Hope are judged accordingly to those who can play well at tournaments like the Majors.

What I've found is that there are 3 main categories that matter:

- Driving Distance
- Fairway %
- Distance from edge of fairway (on drives that find the rough)

Distance...does matter. Although it's usually overstated by the general public.

Fairway %....does matter. Although it's usually either overrated or underrated by the general public

Distance from edge of the fairway...matters. Particularly if you are good at avoiding hitting shots 'off the grid.'

So there is a distance and accuracy factor. I won't go into how the formulas are concocted because again...proprietary information.

Here is the current top 20 in Advanced Total Driving:

1…John Merrick
2…Joe Durant
3…Chez Reavie
4…Boo Weekley
5…Heath Slocum
6…Brandt Jobe
7…John Rollins
8…Bubba Watson
9…Rod Pampling
10…David Toms
11…Briny Baird
12…Dustin Johnson
13…Will MacKenzie
14…Bo Van Pelt
15…Gary Woodland
16…Jim Herman
17…Webb Simpson
18…Justin Hicks
19…Keegan Bradley
20…Chris Couch


And here is the bottom 10 (note that many golfers haven't qualified like Mike Weir, who would rank dead freaking last here).

180…Jimmy Walker
181…Shaun Micheel
182…Paul Stankowski
183…Padraig Harrington
184…Arjun Atwal
185…Bio Kim
186…Derek Lamely
187…Kevin Na
188…Anthony Kim
189…Chad Collins

I firmly believe that these numbers give a really good ballpark. Anybody who has read my weekly tournament picks can see that the results are quite good and I often using Advanced Total Driving to help determine the picks.

I think it would be interesting to see what the Trackman numbers say about these players.





3JACK

 

[finncox]

Thanks for the explanation Richie. I could have looked it up on your website, but I'm lazy, so thanks for clearing that up.

In my opinion, given the formula that Richie uses, I think Toms is a good example that hitting up on the driver can produce great, incredibly accurate results.

I believe I've heard Brian mention that DT hits up a few degrees on most drives, and that he gets maximum yardage and roll out of his clubhead speed, partially for this reason. So, if he can manage to do all of this and be as accurate as he is, that to me is at least some support for the argument that hitting up doesn't sacrifice accuracy.

And, as other have mentioned previously: If you do have a spin axis problem, and you hit down too much (thereby possibly increasing the spin loft.....though I know this is not going to automatically happen by virtue of a negative AoA), then couldn't you conceivably compound the problem even more? If you do increase the spin loft by hitting down, any tilt in the spin axis is will cause the ball to go more offline due to the increased spin taking it along that tilted spin axis, right?

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

No offense richie but i stopped reading after your stat became too complicated...that isn't a good way to find out the whole up/down thing. It may tell you who is a better driver of the ball but if you are that good of a driver of the ball you might be just as good down as up.

The only real way to do it is take all the guys who's average trackman stats show them hitting up say +2 through +4*, guys who are around the middle @ -1* to +1* and then the guys who hit down @ -2* through -4* and then setup a trackman fairway on the range for them and let trackman determine how far offline their drives go regardless of the distance.

Until something like that is done, it's all conjecture imo.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Jim, I was just explaining the statistic. And the statistic has nothing to do with figuring out the attack angle.

It's just saying 'here's the best drivers on Tour and here's the worst drivers on Tour.'

I have no idea how much up or down these golfers hit the ball with the driver, although I would like to find out just to see what the correlation is. Meaning, do the better drivers on Tour tend to hit up on the ball or down on the ball? Do the worst drivers on Tour tend to hit up on the ball down on the ball?

While 'control' is nice, I'm more interested in what the total performance is and I imagine so is everybody else. Here we have a stat that measures accuracy, power and consistency of Tour players with their driving. If we can get their Trackman data, we can now start to really formulate some opinions.






3JACK

 

[Gravedigga]

It just seems to me that if a good driver of the ball could deliver consistent club face and path numbers while hitting down, couldn't they do the same thing hitting up? And if they did, wouldn't the result be just as accurate?

It does make sense that hitting up is a different feeling than hitting an iron, which could lead to mental/physical inconsistencies since that swing would be a different sensation, which could lead to less accurate drives. But that's a performance issue and not an issue with an upward strike itself.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Jim, I was just explaining the statistic. And the statistic has nothing to do with figuring out the attack angle.

It's just saying 'here's the best drivers on Tour and here's the worst drivers on Tour.'

I have no idea how much up or down these golfers hit the ball with the driver, although I would like to find out just to see what the correlation is. Meaning, do the better drivers on Tour tend to hit up on the ball or down on the ball? Do the worst drivers on Tour tend to hit up on the ball down on the ball?

While 'control' is nice, I'm more interested in what the total performance is and I imagine so is everybody else. Here we have a stat that measures accuracy, power and consistency of Tour players with their driving. If we can get their Trackman data, we can now start to really formulate some opinions.






3JACK

My apologies.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

It just seems to me that if a good driver of the ball could deliver consistent club face and path numbers while hitting down, couldn't they do the same thing hitting up? And if they did, wouldn't the result be just as accurate?

IF they could, i don't think there'd be a difference that's my point. All we can conclusively know is that the hitting down would end up shorter all things being equal.

It does make sense that hitting up is a different feeling than hitting an iron, which could lead to mental/physical inconsistencies since that swing would be a different sensation, which could lead to less accurate drives. But that's a performance issue and not an issue with an upward strike itself.

Again, my point exactly.

 

[Richie3Jack]

My apologies.

No need. I really didn't explain it well the first time. It's Friday






3JACK

 

[birly-shirly]

Advanced Total Driving is a proprietary formula I concocted as it relates to certain factors in terms of *results* of driving and how they correlate to 'adjusted' scoring average on the PGA Tour.

Okay, so what does that mean?

It means that I am looking at what matters the most with regards to driving the ball. And I determine that thru historical research and comparing what numbers correlate best to the 'adjusted scoring average.'

The PGA Tour has a stat called 'Adjusted Scoring Average' which takes the golfer's scores against the average score of the field they are playing in. That way guys who can dominate tourneys like the Viking Classic and the Bob Hope are judged accordingly to those who can play well at tournaments like the Majors.

What I've found is that there are 3 main categories that matter:

- Driving Distance
- Fairway %
- Distance from edge of fairway (on drives that find the rough)

Interesting stuff Richie. Have you applied this to Tiger's driving during the Haney years when he appeared to be an outstanding ballstriker in the danger zone but was getting slated for missing fairways off the tee?