Todd Dugan
New
This is my first post. I'm a PGA Certified Instructor and have been a pro for nearly 20 years. I really like most of what I have heard from Brian in print in video, having recently discovered him. I'm looking forward to contributing to the forum.
To kick off my participation, I'd like to address the issue of "new" vs. "old" ball flight laws. This is NOT a dig at Brian so please don't take it that way. I'm sure that Brian, the truth-seeker that he is, would appreciate this contribution. O.K., so before I turned pro, in 1990, I attended The San Diego Golf Academy, and one of the books that we studied was the 1968 seminal golf research book, "The Search For The Perfect Swing". The book clearly proved that the ball starts MUCH closer to the clubface orientation than the clubhead path. Any teaching pro who has not studied this book has not truly completed his or her training. It's that important. This book was required reading for prospective PGA members and was included with my materials when I entered the PGA Apprentice Program in 1992. Sadly, It is not included now. Anyway, there is no excuse for any teaching pro to have not read this book, and therefore, no excuse for not understanding what actually determines the ball's starting direction.
Now, I've heard criticism of Dr. Gary Wiren as a purveyor of "path determines start line", but my copy of the "PGA Instruction Manual", written by Wiren, copyright 1990 clearly states that the clubface is much more responsible for the starting direction than the path. A few quotes from the book, "Altough the path of the swing does influence the ball's starting direction, it is of lesser influence than the face." He goes on to correctly point out that the relationship is affected by clubhead speed. So maybe Gary had it wrong in an earlier book, but he had it correct since at least 1990. That's 20 years ago, WAY before TrackMan. And 1968 is 42 years ago.
Now really, was there really any pros out there who didn't realize that when you open the face of your wedge on a flop shot, that the ball goes where the clubface was pointing at impact, not the path? Didn't we all explain in the bunker that you need to swing to the left after opening the face. Look, like Brian, I know that too many guys that teach are not well-studied, and many just plain stink, but as far as the path/face and what determines start line, the science has been around for a long time, and frankly, it was pretty obvious. Fredrick Tuxen/TrackMan did not "discover" this. Is is not new information. Harry Truman said, "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know".
Veering in a different direction, a real problem with the ball flight laws is the assertion that a more descending angle of attack creates more backspin. Wiren said so and so did Homer Kelley. Tuxen has proven that so long as the other 4 impact collision conditions (ball flight laws) remain the same, notably impact location on the clubface, then spin rate stays the same, but launch angle is reduced. Frankly, I proved this, to myself anyway, through experimentation, nearly 20 years ago. I can see the confusion, though. With a descending attack angle, you are more likely to impact the sweet spot, which will produce more backspin than a "thin" impact, low on the face, as the result of a too "sweeping" attack angle. With irons, at least.
That's all for now.
To kick off my participation, I'd like to address the issue of "new" vs. "old" ball flight laws. This is NOT a dig at Brian so please don't take it that way. I'm sure that Brian, the truth-seeker that he is, would appreciate this contribution. O.K., so before I turned pro, in 1990, I attended The San Diego Golf Academy, and one of the books that we studied was the 1968 seminal golf research book, "The Search For The Perfect Swing". The book clearly proved that the ball starts MUCH closer to the clubface orientation than the clubhead path. Any teaching pro who has not studied this book has not truly completed his or her training. It's that important. This book was required reading for prospective PGA members and was included with my materials when I entered the PGA Apprentice Program in 1992. Sadly, It is not included now. Anyway, there is no excuse for any teaching pro to have not read this book, and therefore, no excuse for not understanding what actually determines the ball's starting direction.
Now, I've heard criticism of Dr. Gary Wiren as a purveyor of "path determines start line", but my copy of the "PGA Instruction Manual", written by Wiren, copyright 1990 clearly states that the clubface is much more responsible for the starting direction than the path. A few quotes from the book, "Altough the path of the swing does influence the ball's starting direction, it is of lesser influence than the face." He goes on to correctly point out that the relationship is affected by clubhead speed. So maybe Gary had it wrong in an earlier book, but he had it correct since at least 1990. That's 20 years ago, WAY before TrackMan. And 1968 is 42 years ago.
Now really, was there really any pros out there who didn't realize that when you open the face of your wedge on a flop shot, that the ball goes where the clubface was pointing at impact, not the path? Didn't we all explain in the bunker that you need to swing to the left after opening the face. Look, like Brian, I know that too many guys that teach are not well-studied, and many just plain stink, but as far as the path/face and what determines start line, the science has been around for a long time, and frankly, it was pretty obvious. Fredrick Tuxen/TrackMan did not "discover" this. Is is not new information. Harry Truman said, "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know".
Veering in a different direction, a real problem with the ball flight laws is the assertion that a more descending angle of attack creates more backspin. Wiren said so and so did Homer Kelley. Tuxen has proven that so long as the other 4 impact collision conditions (ball flight laws) remain the same, notably impact location on the clubface, then spin rate stays the same, but launch angle is reduced. Frankly, I proved this, to myself anyway, through experimentation, nearly 20 years ago. I can see the confusion, though. With a descending attack angle, you are more likely to impact the sweet spot, which will produce more backspin than a "thin" impact, low on the face, as the result of a too "sweeping" attack angle. With irons, at least.
That's all for now.
Last edited:
