The Old Ball Flight Laws

[Todd Dugan]

What do you want him to do about it? He's not saying he did, but others thinking he did is THEIR misquoting and misunderstanding...not Brian's.



No, he's not.

Not even close.

Those who misinterpret it that way are the ones at fault...not Tuxen or Brian.



And Brian has said as much. But the majority of PGA instructors keep going with the 'old ball flight laws.'

Homer Kelley said that the face was responsible for the initial direction of the ball. He WROTE his book The Golfing Machine back in 1941 and then published it in 1969.

We know it's old news...yet the PGA continues to ignore it. Most of Brian's thoughts are typed on the internet. So if somebody can actually READ his thoughts and still misinterpret them, that's their problem and their fault IMO.





3JACK

I have a lot of admiration for Fredrick Tuxen. But in his presentation, he presents the "old" ball flight laws. He uses an article from the United States Golf Schools webpage. They are not exactly a household name and they do not represent the entire teaching community. Then Tuxen presents the "new" ball flight laws. He doesn't mention "The Search For The Perfect Swing" or any of the other books that presented this science decades ago. He just presents HIS findings. Frankly, I think it's a little unfair. He should give credit to the researchers that came before him and already presented this science to the teaching community.

 

[Scott Fossum]

After reading Todd's post I pulled out my PGA Teaching Manual and my Master Professional workbook and sure enough, there is mention of how the face influences the direction more than path. In fact, there is even a diagram on page 34 of the PGA manual that shows this. Also, in the MP workbook on page 3-58, it calls this "face override" and says that "So a swing path that travels to the right of the intended line, for example, will not always start the ball to the right if the face position is extreme enough to overcome the influence of clubhead path. Instead, you may get a "pull-hook" ball flight as illustrated.

I would also add it seems to me that best instructors are also continuous learners and are always looking to expand their knowledge. If lots of pros follow the old ball flight laws, shame on them.

Hank Haney spoke at the Carolinas PGA Teaching Summit earlier this week and spoke of clubface control and how it equates to about 75% of starting direction of ball flight. He also spoke of impact position and pivot way more than I would have guessed. Maybe Hank is looking for better ways to help golfers? Not a Haney-lover but he does seem sincere in trying to get better in helping students.

Finally, I believe that the teaching business, like a lot of things these days, is more "fluff" than substance, or the "Paris Hilton Effect", trying to be famous for being famous. There have always been poor instructors around, and ones with outrageous swing theroies, it's just that now we hear about them more because we get to see them on YouTube!

I applaud Brian's mission of making golfers more educated and better, I don't care if he "discovered" the D-plane theroy or not, the message needs to be broadcast.

 

[dbl]

I don't have the 1990 PGA manual or subsequent editions, but as far as Wiren's exact views, here is an interview with him
http://gaapx.com/Documents/Article Top100NewsletterIssue Jan 2010.pdf

In that interview he states that he got the Laws from John Jacobs' Practical Golf. On pages 20-21 of Jacobs' book, Jacobs says for all those hooks and slices that he describes that the ball starts in the direction of the path.

For that matter, this link claims to list Wiren's 9 laws, and the summary indicates path is king.
http://tcbmag.blogs.com/tee_up/2009/09/ball-flight-laws.html

 

[dbl]

Wiren in this interchange gives a confusing answer but says the path determines initial direction for low speed shots and disagrees with the professional who says the face angle would start the ball at the flag.

Here's the example I sent Dr. Wiren based on the original question of hitting a fade:
My example given is if I were to play a fade to a pin, I would aim my clubface at the pin and I would align my stance and body to the left of the target and making my normal swing the ball would start just to the left of target and fade back to the hole.
The Teaching Professional stated that I was wrong and that even though I had aligned my body and swing path to the left, this would have almost no effect on where the ball starts in relation to the target. He stated that in my example the ball would start out directly at the flag because that is where the clubface is pointing when the club initially contacts the ball. I showed him illustration 2-18 found in Chapter 2 of your manual and he stated that it was incorrect and outdated.

Dr. Wiren's response:
I would say his example would certainly be true for a putt because the velocity of the clubhead is so insignificant that negligible energy is transferred on the line of swing.

The face position has, in my experience and understanding, around double the effect for a full swing of the path. But this is an estimate as it would depend on the velocity of the shot. The greater the velocity the more influence the path. It is known as a vector force.

Now if the laws of physics have changed, then I stand corrected.

Gary

Gary Wiren, PhD.

So what about illustration 2-18 found in Chapter 2? Is it indeed indicative of the "old/bad" ball flight laws?

 

[softconsult]

Todd opinied, "That's not why. With woods, the center of gravity of the clubhead is well "behind" the clubface. This increases the vertical gear effect on thin impacts. "

I agree except for the "That's not why" statement. I clearly remember learning about gear effect in Ralph Maltby's early '80's Golf Club Encyclopedia, or whatever it was named. I don't think the prinicipal has changed. What has changed is increased MOI. The face curvature on woods causes the gear effect and the MOI enhances the effect. Here's a pretty good link on this very subject.

All about Gear Effect

Flat faced irons, no gear effect vertical or horizontal.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Irons have gear effect, period. Not as much as woods, but they have some.

 

[softconsult]

Always willing to learn.

Found a link to where one of our forum members is studying this very subject. Meanwhile, I just got a call to play in a local club's annual Snowman scramble tomorrow.

Think I will put any technical thoughts to rest and just try to play golf. Snow is gone, but supposed to be 10 mph wind and not break 40 degrees.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Todd opinied, "That's not why. With woods, the center of gravity of the clubhead is well "behind" the clubface. This increases the vertical gear effect on thin impacts. "

I agree except for the "That's not why" statement. I clearly remember learning about gear effect in Ralph Maltby's early '80's Golf Club Encyclopedia, or whatever it was named. I don't think the prinicipal has changed. What has changed is increased MOI. The face curvature on woods causes the gear effect and the MOI enhances the effect. Here's a pretty good link on this very subject.

All about Gear Effect

Flat faced irons, no gear effect vertical or horizontal.

Face curvature, actually called "buldge" (horizontal) and "roll" (vertical) does NOT cause gear effect. Buldge is built into woods to COUNTER gear effect, by starting the ball further off-line, anticipating the resulting curvature. Gear effect occurs regardless of whether there is any buldge or roll on the clubface. Although gear effect does occur with irons, it is much less than with woods. That's why they don't put buldge on an iron face. Anyway, with a traditional iron design, especially a "blade" style, a thin impact, low on the clubface, when the other 4 impact collision conditions are the same, will result in LESS backspin. MORE with wood. When attack angle is more descending, while the other 4 impact collision conditions remain the same, spin rate DOES NOT CHANGE. THAT'S the ball flight "law" we should be correcting.

 

[softconsult]

Good explanation. My contention was based on something I read in a book approximately 30 years ago, and never thought about again until today. Thanks.

 

[ggsjpc]

Face curvature, actually called "buldge" (horizontal) and "roll" (vertical) does NOT cause gear effect. Buldge is built into woods to COUNTER gear effect, by starting the ball further off-line, anticipating the resulting curvature. Gear effect occurs regardless of whether there is any buldge or roll on the clubface. Although gear effect does occur with irons, it is much less than with woods. That's why they don't put buldge on an iron face. Anyway, with a traditional iron design, especially a "blade" style, a thin impact, low on the clubface, when the other 4 impact collision conditions are the same, will result in LESS backspin. MORE with wood. When attack angle is more descending, while the other 4 impact collision conditions remain the same, spin rate DOES NOT CHANGE. THAT'S the ball flight "law" we should be correcting.

I guess since you accurately stated that the bulge is designed to start the ball off line(where the face is pointed) they figured out face over path more than 100 years ago. I guess the books were all a few decades behind.

 

[birly-shirly]

well said

I thought Todd made a number of good points, or at least points that I personally agree with...

Not as a teaching pro, but as an interested amateur, I read Search for the Perfect Swing probably 20 or 25 years ago and as a result:

(a) I am pretty bewildered that the "new" ballflight laws should should have been much of a shock to anyone with a professional interest in the game.

(b) I still happen to think that the "new" ballflight laws can fairly peacefully co-exist with much of, say, John Jacobs' teaching. Yes, Jacobs was wrong in black and white when he said that swing path determined initial flight path - but a well-informed reader doesn't need to do too much violence to the rest of what Jacobs wrote to extract a lot of value. I'm fresh from watching Never Hook Again, and one of the things that struck me was how much in common Brian's basic concepts have with what I've taken out of John Jacobs, which as far as I'm concerned is a good thing.

(c) I think that Trackman is probably a great tool and very well engineered. But I agree with Todd that it can get a little oversold. Trackman as a company has talked about a "paradigm shift in ball flight laws". I haven't used one, but I wouldn't argue that it isn't a paradigm shift in providing swing feedback. But it certainly isn't (nor did it establish) a paradigm shift in ballflight laws (which would be silly). If it's a paradigm shift in some people's (particularly teaching pros') understanding of the proper ballflight laws, then that's more of an indictment of their level of reading and research - which is what I took to be Todd's main point.

 

[jdswets]

I thought Todd made a number of good points, or at least points that I personally agree with...

Not as a teaching pro, but as an interested amateur, I read Search for the Perfect Swing probably 20 or 25 years ago and as a result:

(a) I am pretty bewildered that the "new" ballflight laws should should have been much of a shock to anyone with a professional interest in the game.

(b) I still happen to think that the "new" ballflight laws can fairly peacefully co-exist with much of, say, John Jacobs' teaching. Yes, Jacobs was wrong in black and white when he said that swing path determined initial flight path - but a well-informed reader doesn't need to do too much violence to the rest of what Jacobs wrote to extract a lot of value. I'm fresh from watching Never Hook Again, and one of the things that struck me was how much in common Brian's basic concepts have with what I've taken out of John Jacobs, which as far as I'm concerned is a good thing.

(c) I think that Trackman is probably a great tool and very well engineered. But I agree with Todd that it can get a little oversold. Trackman as a company has talked about a "paradigm shift in ball flight laws". I haven't used one, but I wouldn't argue that it isn't a paradigm shift in providing swing feedback. But it certainly isn't (nor did it establish) a paradigm shift in ballflight laws (which would be silly). If it's a paradigm shift in some people's (particularly teaching pros') understanding of the proper ballflight laws, then that's more of an indictment of their level of reading and research - which is what I took to be Todd's main point.

I can't agree with (b) and (c). I own John Jacobs' book and although its a well written book to compare it to the material thats in NHA is crazy. There just isn't enough information out there for the progressing golfer who struggles with the hook like Brian presents in NHA.

As for (C): For all of the research thats done in golf today, for Trackman to help clear up the ball flight laws/D Plane is pretty revolutionary. I've spent too much money on top 50 golf instructors who've been unable to tell me EXACTLY why I'm hitting hooks and pushes (all over the driving range). I'd be pretty darn pleased if I could turn around for each shot and see that my face was X and my path was Y. Specifically when I'm trying to make a change to my path(for example) and see if I was actually able to do it.

 

[softconsult]

I read this several times. ""I've spent too much money on top 50 golf instructors who've been unable to tell me EXACTLY why I'm hitting hooks and pushes (all over the driving range)."

It just seems puzzling to me that the poster has taken all these lessons and can't hit the ball consistently. People have successfully learned to play good golf for a very long time without Trackman. Somehow I think Trackman isn't going to be the magic cure. This is just my 10:30 PM gut reaction.

 

[Brian Manzella]

The Answer Manz....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pwvD05w2yv4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pwvD05w2yv4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Kevin Shields]

Magic? Maybe not but you'd be surprised.

 

[Kevin Shields]

I read this several times. ""I've spent too much money on top 50 golf instructors who've been unable to tell me EXACTLY why I'm hitting hooks and pushes (all over the driving range)."

It just seems puzzling to me that the poster has taken all these lessons and can't hit the ball consistently. People have successfully learned to play good golf for a very long time without Trackman. Somehow I think Trackman isn't going to be the magic cure. This is just my 10:30 PM gut reaction.

Hopefully they're my kids but some young people are going to be trained on Trackman from very young and wait and see how good they are. But time will tell.

 

[vjsinger]

Thank you Brian, finally.

 

[dannyc]

haha! way to get brian all fired up before his tour stop tomorrow!

those will be some lucky students...

 

[birly-shirly]

I can't agree with (b) and (c). I own John Jacobs' book and although its a well written book to compare it to the material thats in NHA is crazy. There just isn't enough information out there for the progressing golfer who struggles with the hook like Brian presents in NHA.

As for (C): For all of the research thats done in golf today, for Trackman to help clear up the ball flight laws/D Plane is pretty revolutionary. I've spent too much money on top 50 golf instructors who've been unable to tell me EXACTLY why I'm hitting hooks and pushes (all over the driving range). I'd be pretty darn pleased if I could turn around for each shot and see that my face was X and my path was Y. Specifically when I'm trying to make a change to my path(for example) and see if I was actually able to do it.

Crazy? You don't say which Jacobs book you own, but there are a few. And I didn't say you could turn to p. 59 or whatever of Practical Golf and find the NHA pattern. I said that the basic ideas and concepts reminded me of the way Jacobs explained and fixed the golf swing. Based on reading and thinking about Jacobs' ideas, I've worked in the past on what BM describes as the up-the-wall backswing and the carry. NHA puts the pieces together very well as a package, and it's well presented. I like all that. I also like that I can relate it to what I think is some of the best instruction out there from other guys.

As for trackman, surely we agree. I said that I thought Trackman could be revolutionary in terms of providing instant feedback on what's happening in your swing. That's all good. BM's point about the relationship of "down" and "out" is fair too - although as someone else pointed out on the "Zero-ing out" thread, it's always been possible to get a working solution from visible ballflight patterns. Trackman certainly offers up the secrets of impact much more quickly and easily - which for a teacher who might have a pupil for as little as half an hour, must be gold.

But for the company itself to claim "a paradigm shift in ballflight laws"? - well, I'm not sure anyone here would want to defend that - would you?

 

[jdswets]

Crazy? You don't say which Jacobs book you own, but there are a few. And I didn't say you could turn to p. 59 or whatever of Practical Golf and find the NHA pattern. I said that the basic ideas and concepts reminded me of the way Jacobs explained and fixed the golf swing. Based on reading and thinking about Jacobs' ideas, I've worked in the past on what BM describes as the up-the-wall backswing and the carry. NHA puts the pieces together very well as a package, and it's well presented. I like all that. I also like that I can relate it to what I think is some of the best instruction out there from other guys.

As for trackman, surely we agree. I said that I thought Trackman could be revolutionary in terms of providing instant feedback on what's happening in your swing. That's all good. BM's point about the relationship of "down" and "out" is fair too - although as someone else pointed out on the "Zero-ing out" thread, it's always been possible to get a working solution from visible ballflight patterns. Trackman certainly offers up the secrets of impact much more quickly and easily - which for a teacher who might have a pupil for as little as half an hour, must be gold.

But for the company itself to claim "a paradigm shift in ballflight laws"? - well, I'm not sure anyone here would want to defend that - would you?

I own Jacobs' book Practical Golf. To me, I never read any real high level information on how to fix a hook (for example) in there. That's why I enjoy this site- there's a lot of great information for the 5 hdcp whose looking to go to scratch.

As for Trackman, I don't have to defend their claim of a "paradigm shift in ball flight laws". To me they're just marketing their product and it seems no worse than what golf club manufacturers are doing with these adjustable drivers.

The best analogy I can give you is for me when I went on the SAM Putt Lab and was able to see for myself what was going on my putting stroke vs. getting a teacher or two's opinion on it. As as student I want to be able to completely own what's going on in my swing and be able to feel that (path, A of A, clubface angle etc) and be able to make changes.

In a previous post I had mentioned all of the lessions I've taken and that I still hit hooks/ pushes. Well I'm a 5 handicapper and I'm pretty bitter about the quality of instruction that is out there. I've paid $100 for 45 mins to go take a lesson from a well known, well educated professional and what I'm told is that it looks pretty good and the only adjustment that is made is to my set up.

Is Trackman a magic bullet- probably not- but for a serious student, Trackman allows me to take control of my learning vs. trusting someone else's opinion.

I want to feel what a +4 inside out- swing feels like. And then when my teacher tell me to make a fix I want to see and feel what the resulting change is. Pretty darn valuable if you ask me.