Never Slice Again 3 Lesson

[ZAP]

Problem is intended flight path has little to do with a actual physics of impact. D-Plane is the boss. Or so I've heard.

 

[Brian Manzella]

So the face was in fact closed at impact. Surely this is confusing. I always refer to face angles relative to intended flight path.

90% of time I do too.

As far as ever doing a NSA3, there is really NO reason to do one. If you follow NSA2, you won't ever slice again.

I just would explain things a bit differently, and maybe show some more options.

 

[Kevin Shields]

So the face was in fact closed at impact. Surely this is confusing. I always refer to face angles relative to intended flight path.

I agree. This was a catchy way to reinvent the wheel IMO. It's always closed to the path but open to the target.

 

[TheScotsman]

Problem is intended flight path has little to do with a actual physics of impact. D-Plane is the boss. Or so I've heard.

The actual physics don't recognise the target either although I would suggest the face angles at impact should be measured relative to the flight path. In other words the ball flight starts relative to the path.

I know I read this before and probably should know but what's the D-Plane.

90% of time I do too.

As far as ever doing a NSA3, there is really NO reason to do one. If you follow NSA2, you won't ever slice again.

I just would explain things a bit differently, and maybe show some more options.

I was just pulling your leg. I used to say to my students things like do this and you will never need another putting lesson again, ever. When they returned for further putting lessons, I should really have given them for free. But I didn't.

I agree. This was a catchy way to reinvent the wheel IMO. It's always closed to the path but open to the target.

I just think its confusing, although the old laws have been proven slightly inaccurate, they always referred to face angles relative to path. Why did the new laws have to change this?

I suggest the parameters of the new laws didn't read that different from the old laws until the face alignment to target was introduced.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Scots, I do have to disagree. The old laws were plain old wrong. The proper explanation has helped clear up a lot. The path has varying degrees of influence on the starting direction of a shot based on clubhead speed and loft so I would not agree that they don't read differently than the old laws.

 

[TheScotsman]

Scots, I do have to disagree. The old laws were plain old wrong. The proper explanation has helped clear up a lot. The path has varying degrees of influence on the starting direction of a shot based on clubhead speed and loft so I would not agree that they don't read differently than the old laws.

Kevin, I do realise there are differences but using standard parameters and corresponding face alignment to path the Old and New ball flights aren't that different. I think the new law's face alignment to target was used to make the differences seem greater. I watched a video on this by Bennet and Plummer and they claimed that the findings of the NBFL revealed that flights were almost opposite to the OBFL. Now I could have accepted slightly different or different but almost opposite made my blood boil I'm afraid.

 

[mgranato]

Kevin, I do realise there are differences but using standard parameters and corresponding face alignment to path the Old and New ball flights aren't that different. I think the new law's face alignment to target was used to make the differences seem greater. I watched a video on this by Bennet and Plummer and they claimed that the findings of the NBFL revealed that flights were almost opposite to the OBFL. Now I could have accepted slightly different or different but almost opposite made my blood boil I'm afraid.

I would be interested to read a 1 or 2 sentence definition/description of the 2 BFLs as you know them.

 

[Brian Manzella]

oh boy....

 

[btp]

I agree with you Scotsman. Target should not be considered. Getting exact numbers is new, but the giving people the idea that they need an open face to draw the ball is terrible.

 

[TheScotsman]

I would be interested to read a 1 or 2 sentence definition/description of the 2 BFLs as you know them.

Ok I'll give it a bash...

NBFL Straight pull.. Out to in path... club face open to target... ​

I find this description rather vague as the club face could be open, square or closed to path at impact. If the face was indeed square then a straight pull would occur but if the face was open or closed then the ball would curve off path correspondingly.

OBFL Straight pull.. Out to in path... club face square to path... ​

No brainer. This definitely creates a straight pull and only a straight pull.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Scotsman, you should really watch Brian's D-plane video. If you try to hit a draw with a measured closed club face at target you will hook the crap out of the ball; that's a fact.

 

[TheScotsman]

Scotsman, you should really watch Brian's D-plane video. If you try to hit a draw with a measured closed club face at target you will hook the crap out of the ball; that's a fact.

Hi Jim, If I were to align the face closed to target then I would agree. As I align the club face closed to path, I am not going to hook the crap out of anything and that is a fact. I understand the flight laws and achieving the desired flight really isn't that complicated. What is complicated and unnatural is aligning the club face to target and not to path.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Have to ask....

I am one of the World's Foremost Authorities on Ball Flight.

We all—all of the Manzella guys, the other pros that visit here and follow my stuff, and every other regular forum member—have this ball flight stuff down cold.

Why even discuss it here?


Need an answer. Thanks.

 

[dbl]

Good point. Scotsman, this is rehashing stuff dead and buried like almost 2 years ago, including the entire history of published BF laws in the US over the decades (!). Even if not technically minded, it is up to up you or any of us to work on our own learning, and Brian has on his MAIN PAGE the Essential D Plan video for all to absorb and inculcate if they so choose.

 

[Erik_K]

Ok I'll give it a bash...

NBFL Straight pull.. Out to in path... club face open to target... ​

I find this description rather vague as the club face could be open, square or closed to path at impact. If the face was indeed square then a straight pull would occur but if the face was open or closed then the ball would curve off path correspondingly.

OBFL Straight pull.. Out to in path... club face square to path... ​

No brainer. This definitely creates a straight pull and only a straight pull.

Scotsman -

What has helped me, with respect to learning or using the D plane, is that the face starts the ball and the path spins it. That is to say how the face is oriented at impact determines initial flight direction and then how the face and path are oriented determine the spin axis. In this case, I am talking about a relatively level strike. There's another layer of complexity when you are hitting up or down on the ball.

If there's a very large difference between where the face is at impact and the path, then there's a corresponding large amount of hook or slice spin. I am sure you've heard (the now debunked) sayings, "aim face at target and swing right to hit a draw." Doing so promotes a flight that starts straight and curves way left. The student then hears, "Swing more to the right." This, instead of fixing the issue, actually makes it worse. The reverse situation is true for the slicers. How many times have you seen people line up some 50 yards left of the target to accommodate a slice?

Perhaps one thing that is difficult to see, while on the range, is how to visualize the path/face relationship with respect to the pin some 150 yards away.

Erik

 

[TheScotsman]

Have to ask....

I am one of the World's Foremost Authorities on Ball Flight.

We all—all of the Manzella guys, the other pros that visit here and follow my stuff, and every other regular forum member—have this ball flight stuff down cold.

Why even discuss it here?


Need an answer. Thanks.

You may have the flight laws down cold but in my experience not many people do. I understand that Trackman has contributed to proving that face angle has more effect on flight path than the old laws led us to believe but the differences are not as varied as the new laws suggest. The diagrams insist using target for the face angle when discussing flights which leads me to believing they are not clear on natural shot shaping conditions. I personally get a bad case of the yips when I align my club face relative to anything other than intended flight path. If these parameters confuse me then God help the recreational golfer. The face angle alignment to target by the new laws only makes me suspicious and my suspicions have been warranted, as most of the new laws are controversially explained, inaccurate and vague.

 

[TheScotsman]

Good point. Scotsman, this is rehashing stuff dead and buried like almost 2 years ago, including the entire history of published BF laws in the US over the decades (!). Even if not technically minded, it is up to up you or any of us to work on our own learning, and Brian has on his MAIN PAGE the Essential D Plan video for all to absorb and inculcate if they so choose.

I would also bury it if they would compare the old and new with similar parameters. It just smells a little that's all.

Scotsman -

What has helped me, with respect to learning or using the D plane, is that the face starts the ball and the path spins it. That is to say how the face is oriented at impact determines initial flight direction and then how the face and path are oriented determine the spin axis. In this case, I am talking about a relatively level strike. There's another layer of complexity when you are hitting up or down on the ball.

If there's a very large difference between where the face is at impact and the path, then there's a corresponding large amount of hook or slice spin. I am sure you've heard (the now debunked) sayings, "aim face at target and swing right to hit a draw." Doing so promotes a flight that starts straight and curves way left. The student then hears, "Swing more to the right." This, instead of fixing the issue, actually makes it worse. The reverse situation is true for the slicers. How many times have you seen people line up some 50 yards left of the target to accommodate a slice?

Perhaps one thing that is difficult to see, while on the range, is how to visualize the path/face relationship with respect to the pin some 150 yards away.

Erik

Hi Erik,

I'm not struggling to understand how to shape shots, I am struggling to understand why face to target is being used. Most of my students don't have problems with accuracy in finding the path, their main problem is creating the face angles that are going to curve the ball back to the target. IMO wide paths are less common than inadequate spin.

 

[natep]

I think I understand, you're taking issue with the use of phrases such as "open faced draw", etc. I agree with you that that can be misleading. Its really just pseudo-clever BS if you ask me.

But the old ball flight laws taught that if you wanted to curve a shot, you should aim the face where you want the ball to end up (target), and then align your body, and therefore swing path, where you want the ball to start. This is whats backwards, because we know now that the ball starts closer to the face, not the path.

 

[TheScotsman]

I think I understand, you're taking issue with the use of phrases such as "open faced draw", etc. I agree with you that that can be misleading. Its really just pseudo-clever BS if you ask me.

Yes and no! My main issue is insisting that we discuss face angles relative to target when the OBFL discussed this relative to club head path.

But the old ball flight laws taught that if you wanted to curve a shot, you should aim the face where you want the ball to end up (target), and then align your body, and therefore swing path, where you want the ball to start. This is whats backwards, because we know now that the ball starts closer to the face, not the path.

This is a myth. The OBFL never mention face relative to the target (except DTL) although many tour pros and their teachers explain it like this. That doesn't mean the old laws definition is so. Bennett and Plummer didn't say backwards but opposite which suggests mirror image to what the OBFL suggest. They are however, when using normal parameters, slightly different. I know what they meant by opposite but they want us to believe that the new findings make bigger differences.

 

[natep]

This is a myth. The OBFL never mention face relative to the target (except DTL) although many tour pros and their teachers explain it like this. That doesn't mean the old laws definition is so. Bennett and Plummer didn't say backwards but opposite which suggests mirror image to what the OBFL suggest. They are however, when using normal parameters, slightly different. I know what they meant by opposite but they want us to believe that the new findings make bigger differences.

I had the chance to look through an old PGA teaching manual a while back and I checked it out. In the manual, it doesnt actually endorse the "OBFL".

But for some reason, its what everybody taught. I was taught OBFL 20 years ago. It was talked about by pros on TV and it was in countless books, such as Tiger's book.

The ball doesnt start on the path. The OBFL are wrong.