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

[Richie3Jack]

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.

I've seen a 66-year old Moe Norman hit a golf ball. I've seen Jim Furyk in his 20's and early 30's hit golf shots in person. Jim simply doesn't compare. And I'm a big fan of Furyk's game and swing. I think Furyk is probably the most underrated ballstriker of all time, but he doesn't have Moe's ballstriking ability. Even Trevino has said Moe was the best ballstriker he ever saw.

This argument sort of comes across like a novice saying that Tiger is longer off the tee than Jamie Sadlowski because Tiger is the greatest player in the world and Sadlowski has never even won a mini-tour event. And of course Sadlowski can't really hit it 400 yards long because he would shoot 60 every time out. We all know that scenario to be false because if anything, there's a ton more to the game than driving distance and just because somebody can hit it unearthly long off the tee, doesn't mean they can play a lick.

Hey, I believe one can learn a lot from Furyk's swing and clubhead and clubface dimensions thru impact as well. But if we are talking all time greatest ballstriker, I believe it's Moe or at least Hogan or Trevino.






3JACK

 

[cmartingolf]

Moe was the best I've ever seen - Period.

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.

Niblick,

I'll be 41 in a couple of days. I first saw Moe when I was 9. I got to shag for him when he put on a clinic for juniors at the summer camp I attended.

While I didn't exactly know what I was watching at the time, I knew it was special. At that time, my favorite players were Nicklaus, Watson and Trevino. I didn't even know who Moe was at the time.

Growing up in Southern Ontario presented a bunch of opportunities to watch great golf. The Canadian Open was played at Glen Abby all of my childhood years and I attended every year.

Richie is right. When Moe walked on the range, the best players stopped. They stopped and watched. Moe would walk up to one of the players borrow a club and amaze the best players in the World.

Moe Norman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The comment of "mini-tour" player by ??? is pretty wacked.

Lest we forget, Moe wasn't exactly a typical bird that attended the Leadbetter Junior Academy. He had a mental condition and didn't have a full deck. I'd say he had 51 cards, but he was a card short and that's being kind.

I've played a reasonably high level of golf and have played with some of the best. I've never played with Tiger. I played with a lot of guys on Tour.

THERE WAS LITTLE COMPARISON to how they struck the ball. Moe didn't miss. I'll repeat that. Moe didn't miss. He wasn't as powerful as a typical Tour player, but the sound and way the ball came off the face was second to none.

I haven't seen Hogan hit it. All I know is the legend and the stories.

I have seen all of the greats in the last 32 years (the years I've been a total golf nerd) and there nobody can sniff Moe.

Yeah, I'm a transplanted Canuck, but I'b be saying the same think if I was from the US or Mars.

Anyway...enough on this rant about Moe.

What this thread has made me realize and prior to this minor assault on Moe, is how he did zero things out. He aimed his body lines well right when he hit a driver. The lines were parallel and considerably right of where he hit it (driver only). I just took this for "Moe being Moe" and the right was was to aim and hit it down train tracks. He aimed his body more left as he went to the irons.

George Knudson wanted people to aim their heels at the target. He was no slouch and aimed his driver to the right too...more left on the irons.

Hmmmm???

 

[adamscot89]

in this clip Brian plays Stromile and James Ridyard plays Tyrus Thomas...

both players went to LSU by the way

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GiLII8vw4A[/media]

i think this means Thomas is now supposed to walk off the court and put the gatorade towel over his head, call it a night

 

[mjstrong]

What I've always wanted out of this topic is not how much up to hit with the driver, but how to hit up with the driver.

I know my personal "technique" is to try for a ball position under the shoulder that is slightly forward of where my 3 wood would be, which is in turn slightly forward of where my 3-hybrid would be, etc... and then make the "same" swing that I try to make for each club, resulting in a descending Angle of Attack. The ball is teed up relatively low in order to still catch the ball on the sweetspot of the driver, which is off the ground some.

I have tried hitting up with the driver, but don't know how to do it as reliably as my technique above. I probably have to do (some) of the following:
- Tee the ball higher; to allow the club to come upwards from somewhere in order to hit the sweetspot.
- More axis tilt (away from the target); to try and create this upwards attack without changing more than is necessary.
- Aim up to 20 yards right (currently very tough for a guy who historically aims down the left, and hits it either straight or with a fade); to allow for the appropriate d-plane adjustments.

Aim I on the right track? What other adjustments (preferably in the setup as opposed to in-motion changes) would be recommended? Maybe Kevin can help me with this one?

 

[Kevin Shields]

I'd do as you suggest without the extra axis tilt. The ball position itself allows you to catch it later on the up. Practice on a plane board and you'll see you dont need much more tilt than a sound driver setup and ball position and tee height will give you.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Hmmmm....is right.

...Moe...how he did zero things out...

He aimed his body lines well right when he hit a driver. The lines were parallel and considerably right of where he hit it (driver only)...


He aimed his body more left as he went to the irons.

George Knudson wanted people to aim their heels at the target. He was no slouch and aimed his driver to the right too...more left on the irons.

Hmmmm???

Now after holding off the all out assault by "two friends and a stranger," we have come full circle.

The best use of TrackMan for golf instructors is to help folks zero out the path—if that is mutually determined to be the right move.

Zeroing out was pure guesswork before this wonderful device.

If you haven't seen a person NOT CHANGE THEIR PATTERN A LICK, and hit a driver 20+ yards further, you'd vote with me that the second best use of TrackMan is to help them do this by learning to hit up on the ball, and having the right amount of forward lean to reduce spin.

Why in the world would anyone who is selling this device say anything else is for the readers to decide.

Next.

 

[ggsjpc]

Thank you for catching that. I replace repetition with penalty paid for misaligned face or path.

As has been discussed, 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.



With out changing topics or driver's and since you asked about repetition,(never thought about it really in terms of repetition but 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.

Not so sure that argument works but I enjoy a good debate and yea repetition was the wrong word there. It's been corrected.

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 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.

Never said duck and I would love to see a video of you or Kevin hitting a ball off a standard tee with spin loft very close to angle of attack and yours or his regular driver.

Dinner on me at next GTE if you don't drop kick it or have to bastardize the swing to take that much loft off the club.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Never said duck and I would love to see a video of you or Kevin hitting a ball off a standard tee with spin loft very close to angle of attack and yours or his regular driver.

Dinner on me at next GTE if you don't drop kick it or have to bastardize the swing to take that much loft off the club.

You are going to have to eat your words, John.

What numbers do you want me to produce?

What about 6° upward, and 2100 spin?

Give me specifics, and I'll hit the shot.

 

[Matt 4-L]

Why in the world would anyone who is selling this device say anything else is for the readers to decide.

Next.

I am with you on this one, Jaridyard started a thread last may on another board about how to zero out and even put up a spread sheet here is a quote from Jaridyard "At another well known forum there is a current focus on the true path of the clubhead and the effect of the angle of attack upon it.

The basic premise is that the more descending the attack angle the further right (for a righty) the path is relative to the baseline of the swing (still with me? ), conversely the more ascending the angle the further left the path becomes. Think backside/frontside of the circle.

Through the numbers (trackman) it is possible to calculate how far you need to adjust your aim/swing or angle of approach to zero out your path (perfectly on targetline).

So I did a spreadsheet to make it easy for you, it might make a few people aware of the influence of angle of attack on path and aim at the least.

If you want to see what this means for your aim/swing just enter the Length of Shot and the aim/swing adjustment (shown in yards) to zero out will be calculated for you.

You will end up with something like this:

Driver: Angle of Approach 4* UP, Vertical Plane -45*. Resultant path is 4* left of swing circle/baseline, at 280 yards that means an aim or swing adjustment of 19 yards to the right to hit a straight shot with no curve!




Maybe he has changed his mind now, not sure where he is coming from.

 

[ggsjpc]

You are going to have to eat your words, John.

What numbers do you want me to produce?

What about 6° upward, and 2100 spin?

Give me specifics, and I'll hit the shot.

You know I said spin loft and not spin rate(Gosh, I hope this whole debate hasn't happened because of misunderstanding this phrase).

How bout 3 degrees up with a spin loft of 3 degrees.

Like I said, I'll eat more than my words and you'll eat well too.

 

[Jay845]

You know I said spin loft and not spin rate(Gosh, I hope this whole debate hasn't happened because of misunderstanding this phrase).

How bout 3 degrees up with a spin loft of 3 degrees.

Like I said, I'll eat more than my words and you'll eat well too.

I think I am confused. Can you someone (ggsjpc?, Brian?) please define the following for phrases me:

Spin rate?

Spin loft?

Thanks
Jay

 

[savydan]

How about dynamic loft of 3 degrees with 3 degrees angle of attack, thus having 0 degrees of spin loft?

 

[mjstrong]

I'd do as you suggest without the extra axis tilt. The ball position itself allows you to catch it later on the up. Practice on a plane board and you'll see you dont need much more tilt than a sound driver setup and ball position and tee height will give you.

But my path will be different (more left) than it was with the ball position further back. I already play a cut with my driver...wouldn't this require me to play more of one?

EDIT: But I'm aiming right, so I essentially am playing a pull at my target?

EDIT 2: Then this assumes that with the more forward ball position, my clubface will naturally release enough more to square up to its new path? I'd think that I would hit fade that start a little right of my target...

 

[savydan]

I think I am confused. Can you someone (ggsjpc?, Brian?) please define the following for phrases me:

Spin rate?

Spin loft?

Thanks
Jay

Loft: The inherent loft of the face built into the club. As in, That Ping driver on the shelf over there has 10 degrees of Loft.

Dynamic Loft: The Loft of the face factoring forward lean. A 10 degree driver with a 2 degree forward lean has 8 degrees of Dynamic Loft.

Spin Loft: Dynamic Loft minus Angle of Attack. 8 degrees of Dynamic Loft hitting up 3 degrees has 5 degrees of Spin Loft delivered to the ball.

Spin Rate: The actual spin rate (in rpm's) measured by Trackman as the ball leaves the face of the club.

 

[ggsjpc]

Before all the dogs get released, I'll let everyone know that I am playing devils advocate right here in all the previous posts.

So far, here's what I actually believe. As always, it is up for change at any time and I will continue(as I've shown in the past) to comment when my belief is changed.

I think an upward AoA can be a good thing.

I think a 0-3 degrees AoA with 13-16 dgrees of dynamic loft can be a good thing.

I think a 4-6 degrees AoA with 8-12 degrees of dynamic loft is a bad thing.

I'm hoping many can agree on the above points.

My wonder is does it switch from good to bad and if so when and does swing speed play a role in the answer of both good or bad and when?

 

[savydan]

I think you add to the confusion by using terms such as "little", "high", and "bunch".

You should use examples with specific numbers so we know exactly what Spin Lofts you are talking about.

 

[ggsjpc]

I think you add to the confusion by using terms such as "little", "high", and "bunch".

You should use examples with specific numbers so we know exactly what Spin Lofts you are talking about.

Noted and adjusted.

Don't forget these are just my opinions and they have no basis on where the ball goes for that student.

Is there wiggle room? You bet. It depends on the student and the goal.

Finding the best combination the student can repeat trumps all.

 

[savydan]

Cool. We're getting to the point (I think) that we are going to learn something. I just thought that we were headed to a point where the debate splinters off into confusion about definitions and the real meat of the science we are trying to learn.

BTW, I still vote for a Sticky thread that contains all the relevant Trackman definitions so we ALL can refer to them when our memory fades from time to time, or newer folks join in and want to learn something.

 

[Kevin Shields]

You know I said spin loft and not spin rate(Gosh, I hope this whole debate hasn't happened because of misunderstanding this phrase).

How bout 3 degrees up with a spin loft of 3 degrees.

Like I said, I'll eat more than my words and you'll eat well too.

I dont think that would be a workable shot, John. That would only be a vert launch of maybe 4 or 5 degrees. Maybe on an airport runway.

My numbers are approx 3 degrees up with an 8 degree spin loft.

 

[TROYNYGOLFER]

Cool. We're getting to the point (I think) that we are going to learn something. I just thought that we were headed to a point where the debate splinters off into confusion about definitions and the real meat of the science we are trying to learn.

BTW, I still vote for a Sticky thread that contains all the relevant Trackman definitions so we ALL can refer to them when our memory fades from time to time, or newer folks join in and want to learn something.

AMEN!!!!!!