Zeroing out on Trackman

[jaridyard]

Would like to hear others opinions on aiming to zero out the face and path on Trackman, as you might know I work for Trackman and have a decent understanding of the key concepts that are promoted by the literature and in using the system. Also a question about hitting up.

Question 1:

Zero Face/Path - Does this reduce the margin for error? e.g If you have a player repeatedly hitting zero path it will only take a small variance either side to produce opposite shot shapes and for that matter only a small miss-hit to alter shape due to gear effect.

If however you produce a consistent path a few degrees either side of zero, whether it be in/out or out/in, you are creating a 'window' for face angle to slot into. e.g Path -3.0º (out/in) would create a 2-3º window for a shot that at worst goes straight or slight over fade.

Question 2:

Hitting Up - Hitting up does not reduce Spin Rate directly but allows a less lofted driver to be used which does. Is the risk worth it?

Let's talk D-Plane. The smaller the difference between Attack Angle and Dynamic loft the greater the tilt of the plane for identical face/path numbers. For example, a player who hits down 1º and has a dynamic loft of 10º has a less tilted D-Plane than a player who hits up 4º with the same dynamic loft.

Below is an illustration of the change in tilt.

Before anyone decides to pull apart the image it is for illustrative purposes, it is not definitive by any means.

We have the most talented players in the world hitting down 1º on average, producing spin in excess of 2500rpm. The same guys that have the most control over path and face, hitting up is obviously not worth the risk for them, is it for Mr. Average?

 

[Kevin Shields]

Would like to hear others opinions on aiming to zero out the face and path on Trackman, as you might know I work for Trackman and have a decent understanding of the key concepts that are promoted by the literature and in using the system. Also a question about hitting up.

Question 1:

Zero Face/Path - Does this reduce the margin for error? e.g If you have a player repeatedly hitting zero path it will only take a small variance either side to produce opposite shot shapes and for that matter only a small miss-hit to alter shape due to gear effect.

If however you produce a consistent path a few degrees either side of zero, whether it be in/out or out/in, you are creating a 'window' for face angle to slot into. e.g Path -3.0º (out/in) would create a 2-3º window for a shot that at worst goes straight or slight over fade.

Question 2:

Hitting Up - Hitting up does not reduce Spin Rate directly but allows a less lofted driver to be used which does. Is the risk worth it?

Let's talk D-Plane. The smaller the difference between Attack Angle and Dynamic loft the greater the tilt of the plane for identical face/path numbers. For example, a player who hits down 1º and has a dynamic loft of 10º has a less tilted D-Plane than a player who hits up 4º with the same dynamic loft.

Below is an illustration of the change in tilt.

Before anyone decides to pull apart the image it is for illustrative purposes, it is not definitive by any means.

We have the most talented players in the world hitting down 1º on average, producing spin in excess of 2500rpm. The same guys that have the most control over path and face, hitting up is obviously not worth the risk for them, is it for Mr. Average?

For question one, if you had a zero path wouldnt a slight mishit bring the ball toward the target because of gear effect? If the path is -3.0 and you hit it toward the toe you get a double cross, no? I think I like a zero path but my mind could be changed.

As for hitting up, I'm skeptical of the 1 degree down average. I want to know how much guys like Howell who hits 6 down, skews the average. Is everyone out there aware yet of the numbers? Are they getting the best instruction? I think the risk is worth it because Ive seen an increase in distance and accuracy. I also think alot of guys might not like aiming so far left with the driver as well.

Just my opinions.

 

[jaridyard]

For question one, if you had a zero path wouldnt a slight mishit bring the ball toward the target because of gear effect? If the path is -3.0 and you hit it toward the toe you get a double cross, no? I think I like a zero path but my mind could be changed.

As for hitting up, I'm skeptical of the 1 degree down average. I want to know how much guys like Howell who hits 6 down, skews the average. Is everyone out there aware yet of the numbers? Are they getting the best instruction? I think the risk is worth it because Ive seen an increase in distance and accuracy. I also think alot of guys might not like aiming so far left with the driver as well.

Just my opinions.

If you have a look at the chart I posted in another thread, it's more likely the ball will cross the line. Yes a toe strike at -3.0 would double cross but I guess you could build the strike tendency into the path/face window you choose? e.g suggest a player with toe strike tendencies to favor the 0-3.0º window? Just thinking out loud.

Average is of course skewed by extreme numbers but for every CHIII there's a Bubba at +6!

Doesn't someone who hits up 4º have to aim way right to zero out path? Equally as far right as someone going for a -0/-3.0 window would hitting down 1º would left?

 

[mjstrong]

I still like my position...

For question one, if you had a zero path wouldnt a slight mishit bring the ball toward the target because of gear effect? If the path is -3.0 and you hit it toward the toe you get a double cross, no? I think I like a zero path but my mind could be changed.

As for hitting up, I'm skeptical of the 1 degree down average. I want to know how much guys like Howell who hits 6 down, skews the average. Is everyone out there aware yet of the numbers? Are they getting the best instruction? I think the risk is worth it because Ive seen an increase in distance and accuracy. I also think alot of guys might not like aiming so far left with the driver as well.

Just my opinions.

I started a related thread a while ago:
http://www.brianmanzella.com/forum/...f-impact-conditions-vs-launch-conditions.html

I think that the best players in the world have experimented enough to try and hit up on their drives in order to maximize distance, but found that the control simply wasn't there. I still propose that their is a trade-off between optimum launch monitor numbers in terms of distance and the consistent impact conditions that PGA Tour players prefer.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I started a related thread a while ago:
http://www.brianmanzella.com/forum/...f-impact-conditions-vs-launch-conditions.html

I think that the best players in the world have experimented enough to try and hit up on their drives in order to maximize distance, but found that the control simply wasn't there. I still propose that their is a trade-off between optimum launch monitor numbers in terms of distance and the consistent impact conditions that PGA Tour players prefer.

What you are missing is that PGA Tour players for the most part know very little about the swing and even their own swing and are SUPER supersticious, is that a word? lol.

Anyway, when something "works" and has made them MILLIONS of dollars, they tend to side with the MONEY and not the "science." I mean look at how long it took Tiger to switch to a much better ball, he immediately started hitting it 20 yards further and had hit a 3 wood 297 yards on the par 5 @ Doral when him and Phil had that epic sunday.

Tour players don't like to change what "works." Thats why it's easy to get them to mess around with shafts on the range but HARD AS HECK to get them to put it in play.

 

[jaridyard]

What you are missing is that PGA Tour players for the most part know very little about the swing and even their own swing and are SUPER supersticious, is that a word? lol.

Anyway, when something "works" and has made them MILLIONS of dollars, they tend to side with the MONEY and not the "science." I mean look at how long it took Tiger to switch to a much better ball, he immediately started hitting it 20 yards further and had hit a 3 wood 297 yards on the par 5 @ Doral when him and Phil had that epic sunday.

Tour players don't like to change what "works." Thats why it's easy to get them to mess around with shafts on the range but HARD AS HECK to get them to put it in play.

My answer as to why do they hit down has always been "because they're strong enough to do it and still hit it far enough" which the average golfer isn't. But, taking into account the implications of hitting up are they good enough to repeat it and avoid the error?

 

[mjstrong]

What you are missing is that PGA Tour players for the most part know very little about the swing and even their own swing and are SUPER supersticious, is that a word? lol.

Anyway, when something "works" and has made them MILLIONS of dollars, they tend to side with the MONEY and not the "science." I mean look at how long it took Tiger to switch to a much better ball, he immediately started hitting it 20 yards further and had hit a 3 wood 297 yards on the par 5 @ Doral when him and Phil had that epic sunday.

Tour players don't like to change what "works." Thats why it's easy to get them to mess around with shafts on the range but HARD AS HECK to get them to put it in play.

I agree, but we see guys like Bubba Watson vary their attack angle (whether intentional or not) depending on the shot. He's hit up 6 degrees when it's bombs away, and down a few degrees when the shot was tighter and more demanding (cited not directly from one of Trackman's newsletters, I believe).

We've been told for several years now that we're supposed to be hitting up on drivers, but the guys at the top level aren't really doing it yet.

Instead of a positive attack angle, wouldn't more static loft, more shaft lean, with a level-ish (even downward) attack angle be a nice compromise?

 

[mjstrong]

My answer as to why do they hit down has always been "because they're strong enough to do it and still hit it far enough" which the average golfer isn't. But, taking into account the implications of hitting up are they good enough to repeat it and avoid the error?

I don't think so. I think that it's not worth the risk, especially down the stretch...

 

[Kevin Shields]

I agree, but we see guys like Bubba Watson vary their attack angle (whether intentional or not) depending on the shot. He's hit up 6 degrees when it's bombs away, and down a few degrees when the shot was tighter and more demanding (cited not directly from one of Trackman's newsletters, I believe).

We've been told for several years now that we're supposed to be hitting up on drivers, but the guys at the top level aren't really doing it yet.

Instead of a positive attack angle, wouldn't more static loft, more shaft lean, with a level-ish (even downward) attack angle be a nice compromise?

I would be lying if I said i didnt sueeze my driver sometimes when i need a straight one. On the other hand, when i have the "2 out, 2 up" going good, ill hit driver on any hole. Good info and understanding trumps all of our opinions of what works better. I still think some tour players arent going about it the right way, regarding hitting up.

 

[jaridyard]

I would be lying if I said i didnt sueeze my driver sometimes when i need a straight one. On the other hand, when i have the "2 out, 2 up" going good, ill hit driver on any hole. Good info and understanding trumps all of our opinions of what works better. I still think some tour players arent going about it the right way, regarding hitting up.

Even when it requires you to aim 20 yards right?

 

[ggsjpc]

At some point or at some speed hitting up on it must be somewhat accurate. The LPGA is full of it. This might go along withjariyard's claim that is has to do with speed. This is a diminishing returns idea if I've ever heard of one.

 

[mjstrong]

I would be lying if I said i didnt sueeze my driver sometimes when i need a straight one. On the other hand, when i have the "2 out, 2 up" going good, ill hit driver on any hole. Good info and understanding trumps all of our opinions of what works better. I still think some tour players arent going about it the right way, regarding hitting up.

I don't need to be convinced that hitting "2 out, 2 up" is the most efficient way for a driver to hit a golf ball. I believe you and the other Trackman experts out there. However, I still need to be convinced that biomechanically, it is more efficient to be swinging up at a ball, when our swing throughout the set is geared towards hitting downwards.

I AM open to being convinced, by the way...

EDIT: I don't think that ball position alone, or ball position combined with axis tilt is enough to bridge the difference between mid irons and a driver. I think you would have to learn a separate "Driver" swing in order to facilitate this, or set up so differently (ie aim 20 yards right, and then swing up 2 degrees) that it won't be comfortable enough to trust.

 

[ggsjpc]

I don't need to be convinced that hitting "2 out, 2 up" is the most efficient way for a driver to hit a golf ball. I believe you and the other Trackman experts out there. However, I still need to be convinced that biomechanically, it is more efficient to be swinging up at a ball, when our swing throughout the set is geared towards hitting downwards.

I AM open to being convinced, by the way...

EDIT: I don't think that ball position alone, or ball position combined with axis tilt is enough to bridge the difference between mid irons and a driver. I think you would have to learn a separate "Driver" swing in order to facilitate this, or set up so differently (ie aim 20 yards right, and then swing up 2 degrees) that it won't be comfortable enough to trust.

I think it's clear to me that each club has to be swung differently. Using that information to your(the teacher's) advantage is very powerful. I think if you took a beginning young player and said this is what you do with your irons and this what you do with the driver, they wouldn't have any problem bridging the gap. For most of us that probably swung down or levelish our whole life, switching to hitting up can be a challenge.

The question of conversion to a positive AoA may be highly debateable.

But maybe, just maybe if you start teaching someone how to hit it long first(by swinging more up), it can be very repeatable. I know, for me, I was guilty of encouraging young girls to swing up to help them hit it farther but stopped doing it with boys when they became strong enough for it no longer to be needed.

 

[jaridyard]

At some point or at some speed hitting up on it must be somewhat accurate. The LPGA is full of it. This might go along withjariyard's claim that is has to do with speed. This is a diminishing returns idea if I've ever heard of one.

Interesting that the Spin Loft is similar between Men & Women (12.5º vs 11º), level of control is maintained. Many implications if they hit up the same amount.

 

[mjstrong]

I think it's clear to me that each club has to be swung differently. Using that information to your(the teacher's) advantage is very powerful. I think if you took a beginning young player and said this is what you do with your irons and this what you do with the driver, they wouldn't have any problem bridging the gap. For most of us that probably swung down or levelish our whole life, switching to hitting up can be a challenge.

The question of conversion to a positive AoA may be highly debateable.

But maybe, just maybe if you start teaching someone how to hit it long first(by swinging more up), it can be very repeatable. I know, for me, I was guilty of encouraging young girls to swing up to help them hit it farther but stopped doing it with boys when they became strong enough for it no longer to be needed.

I think that from the wedges, through the irons, up to the fairway woods, you can swing the "same," and account for any differences in the setup. In fact, I believe that you can do the same with the driver, but it won't be hitting up 2-6 degrees. I'd rather use set up changes (ball position, alignment, etc.) to account for any differences.

I think it's a bit dangerous to start teaching beginners to hit up too much, since they'd only be doing it with the one club, and all their fairway shots may suffer. I'd rather them achieve clean contact with a downward strike. When they got to the driver, best case scenario - they could choose between setting up as a progression of the rest of their set, hit down on it slightly, and have a fairly reliable ball flight...or decide to aim right, swing up, and try and get that extra yardage.

I guess it comes down to a philosophical difference...

I'm still hoping that somebody tries to convince me that it is biomechanically advantageous to swing up with a driver though.

 

[jaridyard]

Any further thoughts on Question 1?

 

[mjstrong]

Any further thoughts on Question 1?

I guess I would want to see the results if we took two scenarios (0 path and +3 path) and d-planed the ball flight for each with an "ideal" face (0 face and +1.5 face), then d-planed the ball flight for a "missed" face (say, -3 or +3 face and -1.5 or +4.5 face).

Would each of those two misses be the same amount off of target? I think so, but I'm not sure...I'll leave it to the number crunchers.

I think it comes down to whatever the given player can reproduce more consistently. We're not robots...although that would take some of the fun out of the theoretical discussions like these...

Is my first paragraph here clear as mud? It doesn't read very easily to me...

 

[Kevin Shields]

I don't need to be convinced that hitting "2 out, 2 up" is the most efficient way for a driver to hit a golf ball. I believe you and the other Trackman experts out there. However, I still need to be convinced that biomechanically, it is more efficient to be swinging up at a ball, when our swing throughout the set is geared towards hitting downwards.

I AM open to being convinced, by the way...

EDIT: I don't think that ball position alone, or ball position combined with axis tilt is enough to bridge the difference between mid irons and a driver. I think you would have to learn a separate "Driver" swing in order to facilitate this, or set up so differently (ie aim 20 yards right, and then swing up 2 degrees) that it won't be comfortable enough to trust.

"comfortable enough to trust". Now you're getting closer to any point I'm trying to make. If you know the best way to do it, and trust it, I would recommend it highly.

I also dont think "biomechanically" there is any advantage to hitting up. I just know you hit it farther with the same ball speed if you hit up and launch it higher.

 

[Kevin Shields]

BTW, until I find otherwise, I DO NOT believe you need a separate swing for a driver as much as you need to learn to simply contact the ball after low point and adjust your aim.

 

[mjstrong]

"comfortable enough to trust". Now you're getting closer to any point I'm trying to make. If you know the best way to do it, and trust it, I would recommend it highly.

I also dont think "biomechanically" there is any advantage to hitting up. I just know you hit it farther with the same ball speed if you hit up and launch it higher.

Yup, I agree with that 100%, but I am just not sure that it is repeatable enough to see it with any great consistency at the highest level.