Stupid Question #14b

[ekennedy]

Since golf clubs have been made for well over 100 years without any real knowledge of the true ball flight laws or the D Plane, is it conceivable that this information will lead to advancement in golf club design? And, if it does, can I claim some sort of credit for asking the question?

 

[ScottRob]

I wondered the same thing! The hookface deal screwed me up well and truly!

 

[dbl]

Maybe for irons they would make the lie ever so slightly flatter to accomodate true path and making a straight shot (though then a push!), BUT it would still be screwed up for people who don't know about dplane, and for those who do..it would also be somewhat wrong.

 

[Frans@France]

Since golf clubs have been made for well over 100 years without any real knowledge of the true ball flight laws or the D Plane, is it conceivable that this information will lead to advancement in golf club design? And, if it does, can I claim some sort of credit for asking the question?

So when do you think d-plane became know? And I don't mean know to the golfing public and a major part of the teaching pro's

I'll give you a hint about the first print of the "search for the perfect swing" (1968)

 

[ScottRob]

I have an experiment for you. Stick your finger in a glass of water. Now pull your finger out. Did you leave much of an impression? Generally, that was the impact of "Search for the Perfect Swing!" Trackman has made all the difference.

 

[ekennedy]

"So when do you think d-plane became know?"

Frans, I don't really care if the D Plane has been known or discussed by physicists or golf swing junkies for 40 years. What I care about is whether the people that design golf clubs take Trackman, the D Plane or the Real Ball Flight Laws into consideration when they build golf clubs.

 

[Frans@France]

"So when do you think d-plane became know?"

Frans, I don't really care if the D Plane has been known or discussed by physicists or golf swing junkies for 40 years. What I care about is whether the people that design golf clubs take Trackman, the D Plane or the Real Ball Flight Laws into consideration when they build golf clubs.

Yes, they did and they did that already a very long time ago. Golfhead designers are those that DID read those publications long time ago.

 

[ekennedy]

Interesting. I wonder why they decided to build golf clubs that are designed to clearly contradict the teaching of golf pro's everywhere and keep the secret to themselves.

 

[mgranato]

Who do you think the first ones who could afford Trackman were - club companies with big R&D budgets. The same with high speed cameras.

 

[Frans@France]

I have an experiment for you. Stick your finger in a glass of water. Now pull your finger out. Did you leave much of an impression? Generally, that was the impact of "Search for the Perfect Swing!" Trackman has made all the difference.

You are mistaken...... I also have an experiment for you....Take a look at the books you own..... did you find any titles from either Cochran/stobbs, Werner/Greig, Wishon, Maltby, Jorgensen.......No? That you just found the impact those publications made TO YOU and with you that part of the golfing public and Teaching pro's who believe those nice new clubs will hit longer

FYI Long time ago teaching pro's used to be clubmakers!

 

[Frans@France]

Yes, they did and they did that already a very long time ago. Golfhead designers are those that DID read those publications long time ago.

Forgot to mention that together with the golf ball designers those designer even wrote most of the publications

 

[ekennedy]

OK, I'll bite. What year did the clubmakers decide that the ball came off the club at about 80-85% of the face angle and not the path? And what changes in the clubhead specifications did they make to the club from the prior year? Do the changes in the golf ball from balata to surlyn to the Pro V1 have any impact on the amount of time the ball stays on the face therefore affecting the direction less? If you are an expert on the subject, I'm all ears.

 

[ScottRob]

You are mistaken...... I also have an experiment for you....Take a look at the books you own..... did you find any titles from either Cochran/stobbs, Werner/Greig, Wishon, Maltby, Jorgensen.......No? That you just found the impact those publications made TO YOU and with you that part of the golfing public and Teaching pro's who believe those nice new clubs will hit longer

FYI Long time ago teaching pro's used to be clubmakers!

Granted I am influenced by how I was influenced. My point was that "The Search for..." did not turn the golfing world upside down. I have owned it for a good while, and will admit that it did not make much of a dent. I also own Wishon's "In Search of..." Don't see much reference to d-plane in that one. I also own The Physics of Golf. I find it just as unaccessible as TGM, although more accurate I have heard! Regardless of what I understand concerning D-plane and it's x-factor (Trackman validation) I believe the golf (instruction)world will be turned upside down by it. I am not well educated in scientific matters, so in that regard I am quite "average." Until this stuff can turn the bulb on for an average cat like me it will have the same influence as the finger experiment I taught you!

your points are valid.

Of course the original question is related to equipment changes!

 

[dbl]

Is the OP asking about changes that would still be within the rules?

I'm not sure about the history of clubs and the "need" for clubheads to be as they are. I have theorized other easier to hit club designs, but they would be illegal by the rules of golf, so what is the point?

And if ignoring rules is okay, how about allowing the golfer to tee the ball up anywhere so he can hit the ball at low point and not have to deal with true path?

 

[Frans@France]

Granted I am influenced by how I was influenced. My point was that "The Search for..." did not turn the golfing world upside down. I have owned it for a good while, and will admit that it did not make much of a dent. I also own Wishon's "In Search of..." Don't see much reference to d-plane in that one. I also own The Physics of Golf. I find it just as unaccessible as TGM, although more accurate I have heard! Regardless of what I understand concerning D-plane and it's x-factor (Trackman validation) I believe the golf (instruction)world will be turned upside down by it. I am not well educated in scientific matters, so in that regard I am quite "average." Until this stuff can turn the bulb on for an average cat like me it will have the same influence as the finger experiment I taught you!

your points are valid.

Of course the original question is related to equipment changes!

I'm afraid that it would not turn the golf world upside down. I own a Trackman, I have teaching pro's as customers and even with the trackman they will NOT accepted the d-plane.

Equipment makers are already in the know, bending lie more upright in trying to solve slice, creating open faced and closed faced drivers, square driverheads, perimetre weighted heads, high moi, Moving cog downwards, adding more layers to the ball. Anti-slice balls being forbidden. Foreign material to the clubface forbidden.....

 

[ekennedy]

Yes, I'm asking about changes that are within the rules of golf.

My original question was whether or not Trackman has influenced or will influence the design of golf clubs based on a better knowledge of the ball flight laws and the D plane. Unlike what one person posted, if the club companies already have a better understanding of why the ball flies the way it does, then why wouldn't that information have trickled down to both the public and the teachers to make golfers better?

Frans mentioned that most of this information has been available since the late sixties. I just wanted to know at what point they started using this info to design clubs and what specific changes did it involve. It's easy to go "we all know this information and we have for a long time", but there is no benefit for the club and ball companies to have a giant conspiracy against the golf community to keep it to themselves.

 

[Frans@France]

OK, I'll bite. What year did the clubmakers decide that the ball came off the club at about 80-85% of the face angle and not the path? And what changes in the clubhead specifications did they make to the club from the prior year? Do the changes in the golf ball from balata to surlyn to the Pro V1 have any impact on the amount of time the ball stays on the face therefore affecting the direction less? If you are an expert on the subject, I'm all ears.

I believe that already in 189x they started to stop making concave clubheads

 

[Frans@France]

Yes, I'm asking about changes that are within the rules of golf.

My original question was whether or not Trackman has influenced or will influence the design of golf clubs based on a better knowledge of the ball flight laws and the D plane. Unlike what one person posted, if the club companies already have a better understanding of why the ball flies the way it does, then why wouldn't that information have trickled down to both the public and the teachers to make golfers better?

Frans mentioned that most of this information has been available since the late sixties. I just wanted to know at what point they started using this info to design clubs and what specific changes did it involve. It's easy to go "we all know this information and we have for a long time", but there is no benefit for the club and ball companies to have a giant conspiracy against the golf community to keep it to themselves.

I'm not following your logic, why do you think that there a clubs being made that DO NOT follow the know information. Do you have an example of clubs that in your opinion are wrong according to the d-plane / trackman findings?

"The industry" did not keep it to themselves, why do you make that assumption? Because YOU failed to read about it?

 

[ScottRob]

I'm afraid that it would not turn the golf world upside down. I own a Trackman, I have teaching pro's as customers and even with the trackman they will NOT accepted the d-plane.

Equipment makers are already in the know, bending lie more upright in trying to solve slice, creating open faced and closed faced drivers, square driverheads, perimetre weighted heads, high moi, Moving cog downwards, adding more layers to the ball. Anti-slice balls being forbidden. Foreign material to the clubface forbidden.....

Were all of these equipment innovations and adjustments with d-plane in mind?Can you provide examples design modifications that is in step with d-plane? Making lies more upright does not appear to be helpful. Of course, I would not expect a teaching professional that does not understand d-plane (I assume they do not understand it if they refuse to accept it) to make any contributions. I guess it is all up to Brian and Team then!

You clearly have a better grasp of this than I do. I will bow out.

 

[dbl]

Ekennedy,

If you were an equipment manufacturer and 90% of your customers had an open face in their swing AND you knew about dplane, what would you do?

Wouldn't you do the stuff they have done?

Honestly I'm not sure the dplane gives that much help in their design battle, probably only in helping them decide to make irons more upright.