Should Everyone Zero Out their Path & Clubface on TrackMan, and hit up on Drivers?
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Horizontal.
The motion im describing is an on plane motion with a zero path and zero face. Do you think this accounts for anything when you say the reduction in spin loft creates risk? Which by the way, i agree with. Some might want the extra spin loft because of a faulty or lesser pattern, no?
Im going to work so I apologize for the delay in the next response.
The motion im describing is an on plane motion with a zero path and zero face. Do you think this accounts for anything when you say the reduction in spin loft creates risk? Which by the way, i agree with. Some might want the extra spin loft because of a faulty or lesser pattern, no?
Im going to work so I apologize for the delay in the next response.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Your Host....hosting!Yeah, for a couple of 15 handicappers, that I had 20 minutes with tops, I "settled" for 4 inside-out and two open.
Do you think that Ben Hogan had a path number >2°, or Byron Nelson, who I saw with my own eyes not curve a ball once in a hour's time, or Johnny Miller when he said "I have a severe case of the straights."????
Listen my friend, TrackMan is the first device to show WHY these players were better than 99.99999% of everyone who ever lived.
You think Moe Norman wouldn't be close to zeros?
GMAFB.
It ha EVERYTHING to do with "horses in the race."
You are a teacher. There are plenty of them on this site. Hundreds and Hundreds of them.
They fall in one of four categories:
1. They think this site is a great source of information and fun reading, and never (or rarely ever) post.
2. They think I am a person worth learning from and they wouldn't mind me rising to the very top of the profession.
3. They think I am a person worth learning from and they would do anything in their power to prevent me from rising to the very top of the profession.
4. They think I am a threat to their little existence and want me to go sell Allstate.
2. They think I am a person worth learning from and they wouldn't mind me rising to the very top of the profession.
3. They think I am a person worth learning from and they would do anything in their power to prevent me from rising to the very top of the profession.
4. They think I am a threat to their little existence and want me to go sell Allstate.
Which category are you in?
No kidding.
What do you want reasoning of?
Zeroing out someone's path???
Are you serious?
If I knew about the D-Plane, and had TrackMan to measure it, I would have been able to fix my two best students who were poor short iron and wedge players BECAUSE they weren't zeroed out.
They were PERFECTLY on plane.
They had GREAT Clubface control.
They swung down a bit and the bottom of their D-Plans were far to the right and way in the ground and all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't do anything about it.
I made Lindsay Gahm a great driver of the ball, most of the time with no D-Plane and no TrackMan.
The first time she got on TrackMan, she lit the thing up like a Christmas tree with the driver, and was only average with a 9-iron.
She is MUCH BETTER with the short clubs now.
If you are looking for a lot of "how I do it," come to a GTE.
Let me help you with your "phrasing" a bit...
It should read:
"Any thought on the negative effect on moving the bottom vector of the D-Plane upward?"
THE ANSWER:
Nope.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
You have no thoughts on it.
And with that I step into category 1 of 4 and wish you good luck.
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
Here's my take on "zeroing" someone out and this is how i've been doing it without a trackman for a few years now.
I try to get everyone to hit the ball as straight as i can with a medium to high trajectory with all clubs. THEN once they can do that i tilt their d-plane 1 way or the other for what their preferred pattern is and if they want to hit it lower we adjust so more.
Because you know, if you can hit the ball pretty darn straight it doesn't take much adjustment to work it either way.
Now if i have an EXCLUSIVE drawer of the ball do i try and do this? Nope, i have one and he is like a Kenny Perry so i just try to limit how much he swings inside/out so he doesn't get so close to accidentally hooking the ball; the accident hook is just a slight over draw.
So now you can so steal this technique and use it on your students but you are still going to have to find a way to MAKE it happen.
I try to get everyone to hit the ball as straight as i can with a medium to high trajectory with all clubs. THEN once they can do that i tilt their d-plane 1 way or the other for what their preferred pattern is and if they want to hit it lower we adjust so more.
Because you know, if you can hit the ball pretty darn straight it doesn't take much adjustment to work it either way.
Now if i have an EXCLUSIVE drawer of the ball do i try and do this? Nope, i have one and he is like a Kenny Perry so i just try to limit how much he swings inside/out so he doesn't get so close to accidentally hooking the ball; the accident hook is just a slight over draw.
So now you can so steal this technique and use it on your students but you are still going to have to find a way to MAKE it happen.
I love the melodramatic sign-offs. It's an implicit admission of defeat. How about, instead of crying off, you restate your question as clearly as possible and don't get too emotionally invested in the answer.
Feelings and D-plane talk don't mix.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
And we have a winner....
So "jaridyard" and I had a little "Manzella-Style" debate.
For those of you new to this forum, I love debate. It is really the only way to learn something you totally disagree with—get you arse kicked in a war of words. Then you see the error of your ways.
I have had many debates on the golf swing on the internet, and while my record isn't as good as Rocky Maricano's, it is at least as good as Muhammad Ali's.
I lost a couple to "mandrin" because I used to believe The Golfing Machine had all it's science correct, and I lost a couple of random other ones. Maybe one or two draws.
But not this time...
You need to re-read a thread like this one from time to time. It is really enlightening. You see how my claim that I am a counter-puncher is almost always correct.
It was clear that "jaridyard" and an agenda.
He did.
I figured he MUST be a teacher. He is. He teaches S&T in the UK.
Good for him.
But he would never admit it in the thread. And he eventually was stuck in a little box and couldn't get out.
Funny, as I was doing the GTE in Maryland, there were quite a few anti-"upright" swing threads going on.
As you may know, I don't mind upright swings, but swings higher than the "through the turned right shoulder socket" plane ARE on the upright side.
Some of my students are below this reference point, some above.
Whatever works.
So I post up my collage of great golfers with upright swings, and one S&Ter, "clearwater" almost loses his mind.
I should say that I have talked to Nick Clearwater on the phone and he is nice young guy. But his methodology doesn't teach an upright backswing.
And no matter how many times he said he didn't mind an upright backswing, the distain was dripping from the words he used in his futile debate with me.
Then, also seemingly out-of-nowhere is "jaridyard" saying that he knows that zeroing out a golfers path and clubface has "clear difficulties," and saying worse about hitting up to optimize driver ball-flight.
It was obvious to me, as you can go back and read, that doing either with HIS PREFERRED METHODOLGY was either difficult or just difficult for him.
I am sure I could get a left shifting-left leaning backswing to produce upward attack angles, but from the geometry test I did in Freehand 11, it did seem that left shifting was not the optimum way to produce a 5 or 6° upward strike with a driver.
You may ask yourself, why in the world are the S&Ters on the march on BrianManzella.com?
Well, for starters, I like several things about their pattern for some players. And, if you go back and read all the posts that mention that methodology on this site, I feel I am have been more than fair in my assessments of their work, with very light to zero critical comments.
But what you have to understand folks without a "horse in the race," this is a place that champions something that NOBODY ELSE IN GOLF SAYS EVEN EXISTS:
Teaching golfers to play their best golf, and hit the ball straight and longer without ANY method.
Just with knowledge and PURE-D real teaching ability.
We at the Brian Manzella Golf Academy do not believe a golf lesson is moving a student into ANY precise pattern arbitrarily.
A student this year went to Mike Finney earlier this because he was told by his teacher that they didn't teach "his" pattern anymore, they were ONLY teaching S&T to everyone.
Now this is clear difference in philosophies, but one that I can absolutely understand.
They think their stuff is the Cat's arse and they made a business decision to sell "Black Model T's" to everyone."
I have no problem with that—for them.
But don't come knocking on my front door with an anti-upright, anti-Manzella multi patterns, anti-TrackMan zeroing out, anti-Driver optimizing, bunch of weak unhanded church-league scoop shots, and expect an open lane to the basket.
Sorry.
On this site you get that stuff swatted like Dikembe Mutombo, and get the finger wave for free.
Silly debates, all of them.
The one where I said it was a big lie of pop-instruction that centering or left leaning your backswing pivot was THE BEST WAY to move low point forward.
Again, it was not a shot at the S&Ters, but at the Tripoders, the 1planers, and the S&Ters.
The easiest way to move low point forward is getting the golfer to "swing more left." Period.
This was proven out in public at the GTE where I had a student in the bunker missing his spot and hitting "behind the line" so-to-speak. I moved myself on the greenside of the bunker and far to his left and told him to swing so that the sand flew on me. Perfect contact with the line, then a perfect shot.
30 seconds, no pivot change.
Nothing wrong with a left leaning pivot, like Johnny Miller or Colin Montgomerie, and nothing wrong with a centered pivot either.
But I have NEVER had problems in 27 years of teaching with a too-far-back low point, and I have NEVER used any of that to fix low point.
To me, that is a HUGE band-aid.
Of course, the folks in those camps would LOVE to portray me as a right-lean teacher, but I am not. I customize, I don't bastardize—to steal a line form Jimmy Kobylinski.
The "upright is bad" debate is even sillier, with Jack Nicklaus and a bunch of other hall-of-Fame types backing me up.
Imagine saying that the group I put forward—the ones with 499 wins and 67 majors were good "scorers" but not so good "ball-strikers."
Talk about a weak argument.
I should have had Byron Nelson‚ the so-called father of the upright swing, in the collage as well.
Not great ball strikers—SWAT!
But the goofiest debate by this crew has to be the one in this thread.
Zeroing out a path and clubface is a easy as pie if that is what you wanted to do.
Of course some folks are better off hitting controlled fade and draws, anyone with half a brain realizes that, but moving a golfers path left and right and moving their clubface open and closed—and doing it without a full pattern change—is SUPPOSED TO BE AS BASIC TO REAL TEACHING AS TRIMMING AROUND THE EARS IS TO A BARBER.
But the hitting up is dangerous part is goofy beyond reason.
Today I gave a lesson to my old friend Gary Gardner.
He is a strong player, known for his ball-striking.
But he was having driver troubles. He was hitting down on it, and aiming too far left for what I thought best for him.
So I "optimized" him with my own little teaching prowess and my $500 casio camera.
We aimed him 20 yards right, adjusted his low point by moving the right foot wider and getting his right shoulder further from the ball.
I showed him 1000fps video of him hitting down, and of me hitting up.
He adjusted.
No pattern change.
But fitty yards and straighter in about 15 minutes.
If you are selling DeLorean's, go ahead and sell 'em, and service them as well as you can.
But I am on a big lot, selling every make and every model.
Spare me the pitch.
So "jaridyard" and I had a little "Manzella-Style" debate.
For those of you new to this forum, I love debate. It is really the only way to learn something you totally disagree with—get you arse kicked in a war of words. Then you see the error of your ways.
I have had many debates on the golf swing on the internet, and while my record isn't as good as Rocky Maricano's, it is at least as good as Muhammad Ali's.
I lost a couple to "mandrin" because I used to believe The Golfing Machine had all it's science correct, and I lost a couple of random other ones. Maybe one or two draws.
But not this time...
You need to re-read a thread like this one from time to time. It is really enlightening. You see how my claim that I am a counter-puncher is almost always correct.
It was clear that "jaridyard" and an agenda.
He did.
I figured he MUST be a teacher. He is. He teaches S&T in the UK.
Good for him.
But he would never admit it in the thread. And he eventually was stuck in a little box and couldn't get out.
Funny, as I was doing the GTE in Maryland, there were quite a few anti-"upright" swing threads going on.
As you may know, I don't mind upright swings, but swings higher than the "through the turned right shoulder socket" plane ARE on the upright side.
Some of my students are below this reference point, some above.
Whatever works.
So I post up my collage of great golfers with upright swings, and one S&Ter, "clearwater" almost loses his mind.
I should say that I have talked to Nick Clearwater on the phone and he is nice young guy. But his methodology doesn't teach an upright backswing.
And no matter how many times he said he didn't mind an upright backswing, the distain was dripping from the words he used in his futile debate with me.
Then, also seemingly out-of-nowhere is "jaridyard" saying that he knows that zeroing out a golfers path and clubface has "clear difficulties," and saying worse about hitting up to optimize driver ball-flight.
It was obvious to me, as you can go back and read, that doing either with HIS PREFERRED METHODOLGY was either difficult or just difficult for him.
I am sure I could get a left shifting-left leaning backswing to produce upward attack angles, but from the geometry test I did in Freehand 11, it did seem that left shifting was not the optimum way to produce a 5 or 6° upward strike with a driver.
You may ask yourself, why in the world are the S&Ters on the march on BrianManzella.com?
Well, for starters, I like several things about their pattern for some players. And, if you go back and read all the posts that mention that methodology on this site, I feel I am have been more than fair in my assessments of their work, with very light to zero critical comments.
But what you have to understand folks without a "horse in the race," this is a place that champions something that NOBODY ELSE IN GOLF SAYS EVEN EXISTS:
Teaching golfers to play their best golf, and hit the ball straight and longer without ANY method.
Just with knowledge and PURE-D real teaching ability.
We at the Brian Manzella Golf Academy do not believe a golf lesson is moving a student into ANY precise pattern arbitrarily.
A student this year went to Mike Finney earlier this because he was told by his teacher that they didn't teach "his" pattern anymore, they were ONLY teaching S&T to everyone.
Now this is clear difference in philosophies, but one that I can absolutely understand.
They think their stuff is the Cat's arse and they made a business decision to sell "Black Model T's" to everyone."
I have no problem with that—for them.
But don't come knocking on my front door with an anti-upright, anti-Manzella multi patterns, anti-TrackMan zeroing out, anti-Driver optimizing, bunch of weak unhanded church-league scoop shots, and expect an open lane to the basket.
Sorry.
On this site you get that stuff swatted like Dikembe Mutombo, and get the finger wave for free.
Silly debates, all of them.
The one where I said it was a big lie of pop-instruction that centering or left leaning your backswing pivot was THE BEST WAY to move low point forward.
Again, it was not a shot at the S&Ters, but at the Tripoders, the 1planers, and the S&Ters.
The easiest way to move low point forward is getting the golfer to "swing more left." Period.
This was proven out in public at the GTE where I had a student in the bunker missing his spot and hitting "behind the line" so-to-speak. I moved myself on the greenside of the bunker and far to his left and told him to swing so that the sand flew on me. Perfect contact with the line, then a perfect shot.
30 seconds, no pivot change.
Nothing wrong with a left leaning pivot, like Johnny Miller or Colin Montgomerie, and nothing wrong with a centered pivot either.
But I have NEVER had problems in 27 years of teaching with a too-far-back low point, and I have NEVER used any of that to fix low point.
To me, that is a HUGE band-aid.
Of course, the folks in those camps would LOVE to portray me as a right-lean teacher, but I am not. I customize, I don't bastardize—to steal a line form Jimmy Kobylinski.
The "upright is bad" debate is even sillier, with Jack Nicklaus and a bunch of other hall-of-Fame types backing me up.
Imagine saying that the group I put forward—the ones with 499 wins and 67 majors were good "scorers" but not so good "ball-strikers."
Talk about a weak argument.
I should have had Byron Nelson‚ the so-called father of the upright swing, in the collage as well.
Not great ball strikers—SWAT!
But the goofiest debate by this crew has to be the one in this thread.
Zeroing out a path and clubface is a easy as pie if that is what you wanted to do.
Of course some folks are better off hitting controlled fade and draws, anyone with half a brain realizes that, but moving a golfers path left and right and moving their clubface open and closed—and doing it without a full pattern change—is SUPPOSED TO BE AS BASIC TO REAL TEACHING AS TRIMMING AROUND THE EARS IS TO A BARBER.
But the hitting up is dangerous part is goofy beyond reason.
Today I gave a lesson to my old friend Gary Gardner.
He is a strong player, known for his ball-striking.
But he was having driver troubles. He was hitting down on it, and aiming too far left for what I thought best for him.
So I "optimized" him with my own little teaching prowess and my $500 casio camera.
We aimed him 20 yards right, adjusted his low point by moving the right foot wider and getting his right shoulder further from the ball.
I showed him 1000fps video of him hitting down, and of me hitting up.
He adjusted.
No pattern change.
But fitty yards and straighter in about 15 minutes.
If you are selling DeLorean's, go ahead and sell 'em, and service them as well as you can.
But I am on a big lot, selling every make and every model.
Spare me the pitch.
Rick Dandy
New
"The easiest way to move low point forward is getting the golfer to "swing more left." Period.
This was proven out in public at the GTE where I had a student in the bunker missing his spot and hitting "behind the line" so-to-speak. I moved myself on the greenside of the bunker and far to his left and told him to swing so that the sand flew on me. Perfect contact with the line, then a perfect shot.
30 seconds, no pivot change." ~BManz
I was at the GTE when the above took place. I purposely stood behind Brian and the student Down The Line - DTL view. The Seminar participants were at the Caddie view. I learned from Brian that the ground is your friend, so use it. I watched the bunker shot as the sand flew left towards Brian and the student hit the "line" that Brian had marked in the sand using the rake. Low point moved forward period, is right.
No pivot change, no change of address or transfer of wealth. Just sheer ole'school golf pro common sense.
As Brian continued the seminar I whispered something to him that I'll let him tell if he wants. It was pure gold.
This was proven out in public at the GTE where I had a student in the bunker missing his spot and hitting "behind the line" so-to-speak. I moved myself on the greenside of the bunker and far to his left and told him to swing so that the sand flew on me. Perfect contact with the line, then a perfect shot.
30 seconds, no pivot change." ~BManz
I was at the GTE when the above took place. I purposely stood behind Brian and the student Down The Line - DTL view. The Seminar participants were at the Caddie view. I learned from Brian that the ground is your friend, so use it. I watched the bunker shot as the sand flew left towards Brian and the student hit the "line" that Brian had marked in the sand using the rake. Low point moved forward period, is right.
No pivot change, no change of address or transfer of wealth. Just sheer ole'school golf pro common sense.
As Brian continued the seminar I whispered something to him that I'll let him tell if he wants. It was pure gold.
Last edited:
One of the funniest things I've read from you, ever.
And easily the BEST post you've ever written. Love it.
So "jaridyard" and I had a little "Manzella-Style" debate.
For those of you new to this forum, I love debate. It is really the only way to learn something you totally disagree with—get you arse kicked in a war of words. Then you see the error of your ways.
I have had many debates on the golf swing on the internet, and while my record isn't as good as Rocky Maricano's, it is at least as good as Muhammad Ali's.
I lost a couple to "mandrin" because I used to believe The Golfing Machine had all it's science correct, and I lost a couple of random other ones. Maybe one or two draws.
But not this time...
You need to re-read a thread like this one from time to time. It is really enlightening. You see how my claim that I am a counter-puncher is almost always correct.
It was clear that "jaridyard" and an agenda.
He did.
I figured he MUST be a teacher. He is. He teaches S&T in the UK.
Good for him.
But he would never admit it in the thread. And he eventually was stuck in a little box and couldn't get out.
Funny, as I was doing the GTE in Maryland, there were quite a few anti-"upright" swing threads going on.
As you may know, I don't mind upright swings, but swings higher than the "through the turned right shoulder socket" plane ARE on the upright side.
Some of my students are below this reference point, some above.
Whatever works.
So I post up my collage of great golfers with upright swings, and one S&Ter, "clearwater" almost loses his mind.
I should say that I have talked to Nick Clearwater on the phone and he is nice young guy. But his methodology doesn't teach an upright backswing.
And no matter how many times he said he didn't mind an upright backswing, the distain was dripping from the words he used in his futile debate with me.
Then, also seemingly out-of-nowhere is "jaridyard" saying that he knows that zeroing out a golfers path and clubface has "clear difficulties," and saying worse about hitting up to optimize driver ball-flight.
It was obvious to me, as you can go back and read, that doing either with HIS PREFERRED METHODOLGY was either difficult or just difficult for him.
I am sure I could get a left shifting-left leaning backswing to produce upward attack angles, but from the geometry test I did in Freehand 11, it did seem that left shifting was not the optimum way to produce a 5 or 6° upward strike with a driver.
You may ask yourself, why in the world are the S&Ters on the march on BrianManzella.com?
Well, for starters, I like several things about their pattern for some players. And, if you go back and read all the posts that mention that methodology on this site, I feel I am have been more than fair in my assessments of their work, with very light to zero critical comments.
But what you have to understand folks without a "horse in the race," this is a place that champions something that NOBODY ELSE IN GOLF SAYS EVEN EXISTS:
Teaching golfers to play their best golf, and hit the ball straight and longer without ANY method.
Just with knowledge and PURE-D real teaching ability.
We at the Brian Manzella Golf Academy do not believe a golf lesson is moving a student into ANY precise pattern arbitrarily.
A student this year went to Mike Finney earlier this because he was told by his teacher that they didn't teach "his" pattern anymore, they were ONLY teaching S&T to everyone.
Now this is clear difference in philosophies, but one that I can absolutely understand.
They think their stuff is the Cat's arse and they made a business decision to sell "Black Model T's" to everyone."
I have no problem with that—for them.
But don't come knocking on my front door with an anti-upright, anti-Manzella multi patterns, anti-TrackMan zeroing out, anti-Driver optimizing, bunch of weak unhanded church-league scoop shots, and expect an open lane to the basket.
Sorry.
On this site you get that stuff swatted like Dikembe Mutombo, and get the finger wave for free.
Silly debates, all of them.
The one where I said it was a big lie of pop-instruction that centering or left leaning your backswing pivot was THE BEST WAY to move low point forward.
Again, it was not a shot at the S&Ters, but at the Tripoders, the 1planers, and the S&Ters.
The easiest way to move low point forward is getting the golfer to "swing more left." Period.
This was proven out in public at the GTE where I had a student in the bunker missing his spot and hitting "behind the line" so-to-speak. I moved myself on the greenside of the bunker and far to his left and told him to swing so that the sand flew on me. Perfect contact with the line, then a perfect shot.
30 seconds, no pivot change.
Nothing wrong with a left leaning pivot, like Johnny Miller or Colin Montgomerie, and nothing wrong with a centered pivot either.
But I have NEVER had problems in 27 years of teaching with a too-far-back low point, and I have NEVER used any of that to fix low point.
To me, that is a HUGE band-aid.
Of course, the folks in those camps would LOVE to portray me as a right-lean teacher, but I am not. I customize, I don't bastardize—to steal a line form Jimmy Kobylinski.
The "upright is bad" debate is even sillier, with Jack Nicklaus and a bunch of other hall-of-Fame types backing me up.
Imagine saying that the group I put forward—the ones with 499 wins and 67 majors were good "scorers" but not so good "ball-strikers."
Talk about a weak argument.
I should have had Byron Nelson‚ the so-called father of the upright swing, in the collage as well.
Not great ball strikers—SWAT!
But the goofiest debate by this crew has to be the one in this thread.
Zeroing out a path and clubface is a easy as pie if that is what you wanted to do.
Of course some folks are better off hitting controlled fade and draws, anyone with half a brain realizes that, but moving a golfers path left and right and moving their clubface open and closed—and doing it without a full pattern change—is SUPPOSED TO BE AS BASIC TO REAL TEACHING AS TRIMMING AROUND THE EARS IS TO A BARBER.
But the hitting up is dangerous part is goofy beyond reason.
Today I gave a lesson to my old friend Gary Gardner.
He is a strong player, known for his ball-striking.
But he was having driver troubles. He was hitting down on it, and aiming too far left for what I thought best for him.
So I "optimized" him with my own little teaching prowess and my $500 casio camera.
We aimed him 20 yards right, adjusted his low point by moving the right foot wider and getting his right shoulder further from the ball.
I showed him 1000fps video of him hitting down, and of me hitting up.
He adjusted.
No pattern change.
But fitty yards and straighter in about 15 minutes.
If you are selling DeLorean's, go ahead and sell 'em, and service them as well as you can.
But I am on a big lot, selling every make and every model.
Spare me the pitch.
Do some tweaking to this, call it the Manzella Vision Statement, put it as a sticky, then when the "one method is best" instructors challenge, point them to this sticky for a while.
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
Use it whenever you want B-man!
Ryan Smither
Super Moderator
I'll second that.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Have very upward attack angles....
Oh yeah,
Tom Bartlett & Kevin Shields....low ball speed.
Brian wouldn't acknowledge the implications on margin for error when reducing the gap between Attack Angle ad Dynamic Loft. What do you want me to say?
For me the discussion ended there.
It's so hard not getting caught up in all the bravado I understand if nobody noticed I said this...
That wouldn't fit into my 'method' would it? I have an LET player who I am helping to hit up because she struggles for distance and I'd like to reduce her spin loft but I will draw the line somewhere.
Last edited:
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
I acknowleged that all things being equal, the reduction in spin loft gives less margin for error. I agree. The equalizer is in the method of getting optimized.
ggsjpc
New
ok
I asked a similar question about hitting up on the driver at the GTE with a desire to find out when and if there is a point when swinging up and low spin lofts become a bad thing. This is the question I am still looking for an answer to.
When does the increase in distance get offset by the penalty payed for a misaligned face or path? (I will say at this point that I have tried to argue both sides of this question on different forums and haven't been convinced when that point occurs.)
I can guarantee you that when angle of attack becomes greater than dynamic loft, you have a major, major problem on your hands. In fact, now you get real topspin that isn't a topped shot. This discussion also started at GTE but fizzled. Maybe a topic for a different thread.
Especially, for those trying to get a bunch of forward lean while hitting up, beware when you get close to this point. For almost all of us that don't use 5 or 6* drivers, this may not be very likely but I think it helps explain why the long drive guys don't have very much forward lean in their hits.
So, somewhere there is a point when the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. Where do you think that point is? Personally, I think it may be a very difficult question to answer because it depends so much on swing speed and will probably have a depends answer.
Kevin, Brian and jaridyard seem quite bright as do so many others in the manzella academy and posters on this forum. Between this group, I think some kind of consensus can be come to.
I asked a similar question about hitting up on the driver at the GTE with a desire to find out when and if there is a point when swinging up and low spin lofts become a bad thing. This is the question I am still looking for an answer to.
When does the increase in distance get offset by the penalty payed for a misaligned face or path? (I will say at this point that I have tried to argue both sides of this question on different forums and haven't been convinced when that point occurs.)
I can guarantee you that when angle of attack becomes greater than dynamic loft, you have a major, major problem on your hands. In fact, now you get real topspin that isn't a topped shot. This discussion also started at GTE but fizzled. Maybe a topic for a different thread.
Especially, for those trying to get a bunch of forward lean while hitting up, beware when you get close to this point. For almost all of us that don't use 5 or 6* drivers, this may not be very likely but I think it helps explain why the long drive guys don't have very much forward lean in their hits.
So, somewhere there is a point when the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. Where do you think that point is? Personally, I think it may be a very difficult question to answer because it depends so much on swing speed and will probably have a depends answer.
Kevin, Brian and jaridyard seem quite bright as do so many others in the manzella academy and posters on this forum. Between this group, I think some kind of consensus can be come to.
Last edited:
- Status