Question: In terms of probability, does swinging left produce a greater likelihood...

[bcoak]

Jason Duffner: I want my swing path to be inside the target line coming down, and then back inside the target line after impact. At times, I have more of an in-to-out path, and it's hard to find the fairway. To fix it, I think about swinging the grip left of the target, closer to my left hip, in the follow-through

 

[magicmarker]

All things in moderation.

It's important to remember that a lot of players (better players) may be swinging left enough now even if they think they are swinging right, or straight. Moving them farther left (w/o a trackman) could be less ideal. For someone swinging way out to right field it will help them tremendously.

Doctors rarely prescribe anything before looking at the patients history, for good reason. The same drug that saves one person's life can easily kill another.

The D-plane video explains swinging left pretty darn well. More down...more left. Less down, less left. For a straight shot.
Some will wanna play the push draw and I for one don't see anything wrong with that. As long as they truly understand the "how" to straighten it back out they should be fine. JMO

 

[birly-shirly]

It depends on how much you swing left/how left the HSP is, no?

BUT, if I assume you are referring to a straight shot in the second example:
In the first case the face would have to be shut to the resultant path, right?
In the second case the face would square to the resultant path, right?

A shut face has less loft so but the dynamic lofts were identical therefore there must have been either more shaft lean and/or a steeper angle of attack in the second case in order to produce identical dynamic lofts. Therefore the second case produced a more glancing blow.

Assuming identical CH speeds the second shot would theoretically be shorter, not allowing for trajectory differences.

Not trying to be a smartarse Wulsy - but do you think you can duplicate Brian's 2 scenarios, where the AoA is the same in both cases?

Or might your drawn iron shots actually have a steeper AoA?

I just have a feeling that what people report as "compression" is in large part the club mashing into the ground rather than the ball splatting all over the face. But maybe I'm doing it wrong...

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I just have a feeling that what people report as "compression" is in large part the club mashing into the ground rather than the ball splatting all over the face.

It just feels and sounds better when your AOA is a bit steeper and you take a bigger divot. But the ball doesn't care, that's the fact.

 

[birly-shirly]

I agree, and I think that's even true hitting off mats. Well, except the bit about the divot...

 

[Brian Manzella]

I'll do better this time....


Two swings with a 4 iron....

A. Perfectly straight base line, 3.2 degrees down, 16 degree dynamic loft, perfectly align CoGs for no horizontal gear effect, tour average VSP, a clubface that allows the ball to LAND ON the target line, or "go in the hole."

B. Base line left (SWINGING LEFT) 2.4 degrees, 3.2 degrees down, 16 degree dynamic loft, perfectly align CoGs for no horizontal gear effect, tour average VSP, a clubface that allows the ball to LAND ON the target line, or "go in the hole."

Which one is more of a glancing blow?


A

 

[66er]

Side question, what is the tour average VSP? I'm mid to low 60s with a seven. Does it matter as long as it's a consistent VSP?

 

[magicmarker]

Side question, what is the tour average VSP? I'm mid to low 60s with a seven. Does it matter as long as it's a consistent VSP?

It matters in this way.

Vertical Swing Plane - YouTube

 

[Ringer]

Yes because of tumble.

 

[wulsy]

I'll do better this time....


Two swings with a 4 iron....

A. Perfectly straight base line, 3.2 degrees down, 16 degree dynamic loft, perfectly align CoGs for no horizontal gear effect, tour average VSP, a clubface that allows the ball to LAND ON the target line, or "go in the hole."

B. Base line left (SWINGING LEFT) 2.4 degrees, 3.2 degrees down, 16 degree dynamic loft, perfectly align CoGs for no horizontal gear effect, tour average VSP, a clubface that allows the ball to LAND ON the target line, or "go in the hole."

Which one is more of a glancing blow?


A

Very informative thread, thanks Bossman. What is the relationship (in mathematical terms) between 2.4, 3.2 and 16 compared to 0.0, 3.2 and 16 which makes A less glancing at this VSP angle? Is there one? Or are there too many other variables to pin it down using these numbers alone?

 

[wulsy]

Not trying to be a smartarse Wulsy - but do you think you can duplicate Brian's 2 scenarios, where the AoA is the same in both cases?

Or might your drawn iron shots actually have a steeper AoA?

I just have a feeling that what people report as "compression" is in large part the club mashing into the ground rather than the ball splatting all over the face. But maybe I'm doing it wrong...

No bud, I know compression when I feel it and it ain't got nufin to do wiv the ground.

 

[wulsy]

It just feels and sounds better when your AOA is a bit steeper and you take a bigger divot. But the ball doesn't care, that's the fact.

Yes Jim, it sounds and feels better because it probably is better given that the dynamic loft is less, therefore there is more compression and probably a better alignment of the CoGs.

 

[birly-shirly]

Isn't ball compression a function of spin loft, rather than dynamic loft?

Also, what's a "better" alignment of CoGs? I think Brian's posted up a graphic before showing something like 5* delofting of an iron shot due to impact below the clubhead's CoG, so I'm not sure it's a given that closer alignment is better.

 

[wulsy]

Isn't ball compression a function of spin loft, rather than dynamic loft?

Dynamic loft is inseparably linked with spin loft, no?

Also, what's a "better" alignment of CoGs? I think Brian's posted up a graphic before showing something like 5* delofting of an iron shot due to impact below the clubhead's CoG, so I'm not sure it's a given that closer alignment is better.

Ya want lower dynamic loft then after all?

There's mair than one way to skin a cat, as far as I know.

 

[birly-shirly]

Dynamic loft is inseparably linked with spin loft, no?

Depends on how you look at it. I thought in practice people found it relatively easy to reduce dynamic loft, but spin loft tended to stay more or less the same.

Ya want lower dynamic loft then after all?

There's mair than one way to skin a cat, as far as I know.

- indeed! but that reduction in dynamic loft is coming as a result of a glancing blow.

 

[wulsy]

- indeed! but that reduction in dynamic loft is coming as a result of a glancing blow.

Mibbys aye, mibbys naw.

 

[birly-shirly]

You're regressing Wulsy. Have you been home for your holidays?

 

[wulsy]

- indeed! but that reduction in dynamic loft is coming as a result of a glancing blow.

Or if one is not a Weedjy and hails from the home counties: Not necessarily old chap.

 

[JonWil]

It just feels and sounds better when your AOA is a bit steeper and you take a bigger divot. But the ball doesn't care, that's the fact.

If I could play perfect golf, whatever that is, but every shot felt like a thinned iron in 40 degree weather I would quit the game.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Very informative thread, thanks Bossman. What is the relationship (in mathematical terms) between 2.4, 3.2 and 16 compared to 0.0, 3.2 and 16 which makes A less glancing at this VSP angle? Is there one? Or are there too many other variables to pin it down using these numbers alone?

I just used 2.4° because that is the magic number for how far left you would have to swing to always ZERO OUT on shots off the ground if you had a tour angle of attack (5° PW, 4° 7iron, 3° 3-wood) and tour VSP (48° with a driver, 60° with a 6iron).

All other numbers being equal, straight shots are more compressed than draws or fades.

That's All other numbers being equal, straight shots are more compressed than draws or fades.

Yes Jim, it sounds and feels better because it probably is better given that the dynamic loft is less, therefore there is more compression and probably a better alignment of the CoGs.

No.

It feels and sound better because it sounds different further up the face, and the big ass divot slows the shaft down and the recovery from lead is quicker.

Fools gold.

Isn't ball compression a function of spin loft, rather than dynamic loft?

Yes.

Also, what's a "better" alignment of CoGs? I think Brian's posted up a graphic before showing something like 5* delofting of an iron shot due to impact below the clubhead's CoG, so I'm not sure it's a given that closer alignment is better.

It's math anyway.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/34394940?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&color=f19400" width="600" height="405" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/34394940">It's Math Anyway</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user1093431">Brian Manzella</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

Dynamic loft is inseparably linked with spin loft, no?

Ya want lower dynamic loft then after all?

There's mair than one way to skin a cat, as far as I know.

Dynamic Loft is a piece of the top of the D-Plane.

Depends on how you look at it. I thought in practice people found it relatively easy to reduce dynamic loft, but spin loft tended to stay more or less the same.

Yup.

It one of the reasons I have a job.

If I could play perfect golf, whatever that is, but every shot felt like a thinned iron in 40 degree weather I would quit the game.

Nobody is suggesting that.