Should Everyone Zero Out their Path & Clubface on TrackMan, and hit up on Drivers?

[GPM1985]

Trying to hit the ball straight means that you will miss both sides of your target. Playing a fade or a draw where you can eliminate one side of the target on 96% of your shots seems a better bet.

Why will playing a straight ball cause you to miss it both ways? What if you're predisposed to leaving the face a little open, and you hit the occasional fade, but almost never draw the ball?

A lot of pros play a straight ball, especially off the tee, and guys were doing it before the Pro V1 came out. Moe Norman's been mentioned, and you can ask Brian about Byron Nelson.

When you say that a shaped ball is easier to play, what type of shape are you talking about? A fade? What kind of fade? One-yard Hogan fade, 20-yard Vijay fade? Is a fade that falls EXACTLY three yards to the right any easier to hit than a straight ball?

I think the straight ball has somewhat of a stigma attached to it in part because of conventional "wisdom" generated by statements like Hogan's take on Norman's ball flight. Norman's straight ball wasn't an accident; he knew how to hit one and no one else did. People are scared of what they don't understand, and in this case, people are scared of the straight ball because they don't understand how to hit one and they've been told to avoid it.

To my knowledge, there is currently not one science-based reason to avoid hitting a straight ball. There's no reason you can't take down pins with a straight ball. I rarely shape a shot inside 120 yards, and I don't move it too much at all until I get to 7-iron. If I was trying to hit a straight 175-yard shot to a tucked left pin, I'd aim one or two yards right of the pin.

If I hit it perfect, six feet for birdie.

If I push a little, I'm where I'd be if I had attempted to draw but failed.

If I push a lot, I'm putting.

If I pull a little, I'm on the stick.

If I pull a lot, I suck and it's my own damn fault, not the straight ball's.

For any shot, you're going to put an amount of movement that will fall somewhere in between 0 (dead straight) and 10 (the most you can realistically shape the ball for the given shot). I need to be convinced, with the use of conclusive evidence, that a 2.4 fade is easier and more reliable than a 0.

 

[Matt Bryda]

I agree with your post, but for less experienced golfers, move them towards
zeros and after a few rounds and or practice see which way it shakes out.
See what shot shape, or straight they can repeat and help them keep it there.

 

[Brian Manzella]

You don't have to be a genius...

I'm not sure what all that was in respone to me.

Mr. Gybe,

When you have baby sat a forum with over 100,000 posts over six years, with folks with three screennames telling your wife to leave you, and then threatening to sue you, you learn to look for clues.

I say you are pro-jaridyard and pro S&T.

Maybe I am wrong I'll bet dinner I ain't far off.

I thought this was an interesting discussion, but then there were f-bombs and rants and all that.

I heard the exact word: AbsoFRIGGINlutely used in a Windows ad on national TV. Sorry to hurt your little ears.

But, I was swinging back.

I did want to hear more about what jaridyard was saying.

Just call him on the phone, you probably have his number.

Or you can go read the same thread over on GolfWRX, where he is throwing me under the bus with folks who can't even fathom the D-Plane for crying out load.

I'm interested in both your views so I can hit the ball better (not so I can fire off some "score" about who wins and loses).

Isn't it funny, we have a device now—Trackman—that can settle the who can teach debate once and for all, and you guys are jumping in bed with the book literalists and claiming that fixing someone—WITHOUT ANY BASTARDIZATION—in person, is a Band-Aid approach.

You guys don't know anything about me do you?

I'll put my long-term students against anyones.

This margin of error thing is interesting. I think Jim mentioned that measuring it would be difficult in a statisitically significant way. That's a great issue from a statistical standpoint. jaridyard's thesis is interesting though.

Hey Roll, jaridyard's back is starting to get sores on it.

Let's talk about his thesis:

There are clear difficulties with zeroing out someone on TrackMan, and hitting up on a driver is a risky venture.

I say the opposite.

I am willing to prove it LIVE anyplace, anytime.

Ya'll coming?

 

[niblick1]

That's why I think Moe was the greatest ballstriker ever.

Won 0 PGA events. Withdrew and missed the cut at the Masters in two appearances (lowest score there was a 75?). Ok, he did win many times on the Canadian Tour in the 50's and 60's. Good AAA or AA stats.

If he was the greatest ballstriker of all time then he was certainly one of the five greatest underachievers in the history of golf. The Ranger Ricks of Ranger Ricks. 20x more websites devoted to his swing than meaningful victories. Is there really any piece of evidence someone could point to as proof of this all-time best ability?

I mean, c'mon, you can make a far better case for Calvin Peete being the best ballstriker than Moe Norman, but he doesn't have the fancy little flourish on the end of the swing to make it look like something unique is going on.

Admiring Moe Norman or the other half dozen internet-famous-only guys who never made it at all in the big leagues is quirky. It's like admiring a NYC playground basketball legend. I respect being that sports-geeky, but actually believing they were better than Bird, Magic or Jordan really requires a leap of faith I just don't get.

Ok, back to the regular programming...

 

[Brian Manzella]

Sell, SELL, S E L L!!!!

Just one thing here on this point.
I think that getting truely good at something takes time, hard work, and attention to detail. Even with good information, you won't make long-lasting changes with a tweak.

Really?

What if a slicer comes to you and has been HANEY ROUNDed, still slicing, Stack & Tilted, still slicing, ONE PLANEed, still slicing, MORADed, still slicing, TRIPODed, still slicing.

He comes to you and you show him how to keep his clubface from getting too open because he OVERRATED THE LIVING CRAP out of his left arm flying wedge on the backswing, and show him how to square it up properly, something he couldn't do because he chicken-winged the heck out of his finish swivel.

That would take me about 20 minutes.

You are trying to tell me that this draw he is hitting is not a LONG-TERM answer for his misery?

Or the guy who had been to EVERYONE YOU EVER HEARD OF and went to see Mike Jacobs and he was swinging 10-15° inside-out and just needed to be moved left-er, more open faced, and more rotated, and that is a band-aid?

How many lessons have you ever given?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Footwedge, you are also antagonizing. I am trying to get something out of this...

True-ist comment yet.

 

[adamscot89]

Won 0 PGA events. Withdrew and missed the cut at the Masters in two appearances (lowest score there was a 75?). Ok, he did win many times on the Canadian Tour in the 50's and 60's. When they were playing for like $500? How many of those golfers could play on the Nationwide Tour now?

If he was the greatest ballstriker of all time then he was certainly one of the five greatest underachievers in the history of golf. The Ranger Ricks of Ranger Ricks. 20x more websites devoted to his swing than meaningful victories. Is there really any piece of evidence someone could point to as proof of this all-time best ability?

I mean, c'mon, you can make a far better case for Calvin Peete being the best ballstriker than Moe Norman, but he doesn't have the fancy little flourish on the end of the swing to make it look like something unique is going on.

Admiring Moe Norman or the other half dozen internet-famous-only guys who never made it at all in the big leagues is quirky. It's like admiring a NYC playground basketball legend. I respect being that sports-geeky, but actually believing they were better than Bird, Magic or Jordan really requires a leap of faith I just don't get.

Ok, back to the regular programming...

Nobody is saying he is the greatest player of all time, just a ball-striker, big difference. For instance the playground legend or somebody like Reddick might be the greatest 3-point shooter of all time, nobody is gonna say he can beat Jordan one on one, and he definitely ain't got the rings, but I understand why it would be hard to admire a guy that could barely win mini tour events.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Truer words were never uttered on the whole internet.

...if in the course of one hour I cannot get at least a decent number of shots/chips/putts, whatever, heading in the direction I need to go, then either I am not capable of understanding the instructor, the instructor is doing a poor job communicating, he does not have anything worth communicating, or some combination thereof.

I down with the struggle, my brother.

But, these guys are selling an idea.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Ah, shucks!

Then you should go play Tiger for money

You were doing so good, Saul would be very unahappy...

 

[Brian Manzella]

Geez...it took you this long?

...whether the lower spin would negate the extra tilt...

That the point, dude.

Why would Vaseline be illegal on clubfaces?

 

[niblick1]

Nobody is saying he is the greatest player of all time, just a ball-striker, big difference. For instance the playground legend or somebody like Reddick might be the greatest 3-point shooter of all time, nobody is gonna say he can beat Jordan one on one, and he definitely ain't got the rings, but I understand why it would be hard to admire a guy that could barely win mini tour events.

I'm with you, Adam. There was a guy who practiced free throws and made some unbelievable number of free throws in a row. He doesn't claim to be NBA-ready.

But why make a claim about someone being the greatest ballstriker ever if they never really did it in any way that could be measured? I'm not doubting that that Moe Norman could move the ball around and hit the ball great, its just odd all these guys who are worshipped and who are used to move video product online today who won far fewer major league events than Chris Dimarco or Jim Furyk.

And I certainly don't think Richie is trying to move product. I just find the belief odd.

 

[Brian Manzella]

REAL Answers....

A) Is it better to always shape your shot (draw or fade) so that you can eliminate one side of the course ?

B) Are there risks involved in having your driver strike too much on the up?

Everyone—even my esteemed competitors—need to read the following very closely, because somehow, all of your IQ points are missing an extremely important fact:

Until TrackMan and the understanding of the D-Plane came in to being just a few months ago, no one who ever lived realize the following—

If you set up PERFECTLY SQUARE, and SWUNG PERFECTLY ON-LINE, and your clubface was PERFECTLY SQUARE to the target at separation, to hit the ball PERFECTLY STRAIGHT, you had to..

Swing a different amount left with every club, and heaven forbid if you hit up on your driver, you had to swing to the right with that one!

No chance.

So folks worked the ball.

I'll tell you guys what———all of you———all the "clear difficulties" dudes with the funny music promos, all of the book literalists trying to set up TrackMan to prove physics wrong, and all the other play a draw or fade every time teachers————

Go ahead and teach folks ANYTHING but how to hit it dead straight.

PLEASE!!!

I'll just zero out the folks who can do it, and I'll get them optimized for distance and accuracy with the driver, by hitting UP the right amount for them AND zeroing the driver out as well.

 

[Brian Manzella]

...I think with what we know about Trackman we can now get more golfers to hit it dead straight on a consistent basis like Moe did...

Damn straight.

 

[Brian Manzella]

...I also believe that as angle of attack and spin loft get closer together the more severely tilted d-plane will result in a more wayward miss.

John,

You keep inferring that I am ducking this debate.

Not on your life.

I think you will find that the reduced spin will more than make up for the increased tilt of the D-Plane.

Period.

I'll put forth an argument for why it might be more difficult to repeat) in order to create a spin loft that is very close to attack angle, I think a player would have to shorten the radius. Assumptions made would need to be an average tee length and an orthodox ball position. This extra bend in the left elbow seems fair that it might be more difficult to repeat adding another angle into the mix.

I think this would only be necessary for an incredibly high angle of attack where the loft of the club is kept low. I guess you could also tee it on a pencil with no eraser.

I'll be happy to video myself or have Kevin video himself hitting up and being optimized.

No funny stuff required.

You just have to have low point in the right place.

I use a standard tee, 2 & 3/4.

 

[Brian Manzella]

you can make a far better case for Calvin Peete being the best ballstriker than Moe Norman...

Calvin Peete, back in his heyday, would light up TrackMan much like Jim Furyk does today.

But I think EVEN BETTER!!!!

 

[niblick1]

I'll just zero out the folks who can do it, and I'll get them optimized for distance and accuracy with the driver, by hitting UP the right amount for them AND zeroing the driver out as well.

And imagine if you teach a really talented person, Tiger, Jr., the d-plane concepts and how to play the iron swings and driver swings, based on actual science, when they are ten years old.

What I want to know is where all the D1 players I see at my course started learning the Tour Pitch and its variations 4-5 years ago, when they were 12-14 years old, and almost none of the players now over 30 (apart from some wiley gamblers) ever learned it?

 

[niblick1]

Calvin Peete, back in his heyday, would light up TrackMan much like Jim Furyk does today.

But I think EVEN BETTER!!!!

Calvin figured out d-plane with no Trackman.

 

[birdie_man]

Won 0 PGA events. Withdrew and missed the cut at the Masters in two appearances (lowest score there was a 75?). Ok, he did win many times on the Canadian Tour in the 50's and 60's. Good AAA or AA stats.

If he was the greatest ballstriker of all time then he was certainly one of the five greatest underachievers in the history of golf. The Ranger Ricks of Ranger Ricks. 20x more websites devoted to his swing than meaningful victories. Is there really any piece of evidence someone could point to as proof of this all-time best ability?

I mean, c'mon, you can make a far better case for Calvin Peete being the best ballstriker than Moe Norman, but he doesn't have the fancy little flourish on the end of the swing to make it look like something unique is going on.

Admiring Moe Norman or the other half dozen internet-famous-only guys who never made it at all in the big leagues is quirky. It's like admiring a NYC playground basketball legend. I respect being that sports-geeky, but actually believing they were better than Bird, Magic or Jordan really requires a leap of faith I just don't get.

Ok, back to the regular programming...

Best record maybe not. Best pro golfer maybe not.

Are all those pros who attest to his accuracy succumbing to the hype?

This is not pro-Canuck bias BTW...I would defend Hogan just the same. Yes- based on his rep. (though yes his record is OK too)

I'll hear out any arguments but there must be something (or a little more than something) to these guys no?

 

[niblick1]

Best record maybe not. Best pro golfer maybe not.

Are all those pros who attest to his accuracy succumbing to the hype?

This is not pro-Canuck bias BTW...I would defend Hogan just the same. Yes- based on his rep. (though yes his record is OK too)

I'll hear out any arguments but there must be something (or a little more than something) to these guys no?

I am sure there is some small or even large grain of truth in many of the legends. I'm sure Moe was a good ballstriker. There's just something oddly internutty in finding a minor achiever or someone with a small legend and turning them into an icon based on some hearsay and some black-and-white film footage and believing there is something secret to be discovered outside the mainstream when there are actual achievers with major league accomplishments to be studied. It's a little odd to focus on Salieri rather than Mozart.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Won 0 PGA events. Withdrew and missed the cut at the Masters in two appearances (lowest score there was a 75?). Ok, he did win many times on the Canadian Tour in the 50's and 60's. Good AAA or AA stats.

If he was the greatest ballstriker of all time then he was certainly one of the five greatest underachievers in the history of golf.

This is the problem.

Moe is a SHINING example as to there being more to golf than ballstriking. Very important to be a good ballstriker if you want to win (unless you're Crenshaw or Faxon), but there's more to it than that.

Did you know that Moe didn't read his putts and basically just went up to the ball, made a quick look and hit it? He hated putting and his motto was 'miss 'em quick.'

I'd like to see any of us do the same for one round of golf, I'd imagine we'd be lucky to walk away with 36 putts in a round. I couldn't imagine doing that at Augusta.

Top 5 Underachiever?

Sure, why not.

But there's no way on earth Calvin Peete was a better ballstriker. Pro players weren't stopping what they were doing to watch Calvin Peete hit the ball. Peete was absolutely a better player, but again to my point...there is more to golf than ballstriking.

In the past, golfers couldn't quite zero everything out and use the proper technique to hit it dead straight over and over again, that's why the good players hit minute fades or draws. Moe was the one guy who had such phenomenal control over his clubface and path he could hit it dead straight every time. He could also hit a perfect draw, hook, fade or slice if he wanted to. I believe Trackman can get more golfers to hit the ball much more accurately and with whatever ball flight they want.






3JACK