Analytics

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jim, you don't know what you're talking about. The "ball flight laws" are information, they're not "a feel." They're not "mechanics." They're just a distilled version of the physics. You might apply them via a "feel," but the actual "laws" (old or new, incorrect or correct) aren't themselves a "feel" or "mechanics."

You said - "Imagine you're hitting a ball that starts a little right and hooks. The old ball flight laws would tell you to swing more out to the right so the ball starts further right."

That's perfectly valid.

I asked what the old ball flight laws were and who preaches them...and most importantly, who ever said the above. You couldn't answer.

I've answered several times:

• told you what the old ball flight laws were.
• gave multiple examples of how they might lead someone down the wrong path.
• gave at least two examples of someone espousing them, including Nick Faldo and Butch Harmon.

What you've done is prove my statement that there's mechanical teaching, based on exact angles and physics (imagine Iron Byron slightly off kilter). And there's teaching feels.

That's not remotely accurate. Whether you think the old ball flight laws are true or the new, actually correct ones are… your message to the student is not just those ball flight laws. John Jacobs thought the old ball flight laws were the correct ones. They were even on signs at his golf schools. That doesn't mean he just recited them to his students and thus was a "mechanical" teacher. How is this: "the ball starts along the swing path and curves to where the face is pointing" a "feel" and "the ball starts close to where the face is pointing and curves away from the path" "mechanical"? You know what they actually are? The first is "wrong" or "bad information" and the second is "correct" or "good information."

What you do with that information is actually the teaching part. The BFL are just knowledge, not what you say to a student to get them to change something.

As I've said, if you believe the "wrong" ball flight laws, you can find yourself going down some wrong paths, chasing incorrect solutions, whether you're a teacher or a student (or just a golfer trying stuff on your own). Apply the wrong solution based on the wrong knowledge… and you can find your students hitting the ball right into a tree.

That is, when your body is doing one thing and the teacher needs you to do something different, YOU NEED TO FEEL a different movement

This isn't that.

Old ball flight laws:
"Yeah, you just point your club face at the target, and then swing a little left of that to hit a fade." - This relies on a student to NOT follow directions, to do something different than what you've told them - to have success. If the student does as they're told, they'll fail at hitting the ball to the target.

Correct ball flight laws:
"Yeah, you just point your club face a little left of the target so the ball starts left and has room to fade, and then swing left of that to hit a fade." The student, if they do that, will succeed.

The "feels" involved in teaching this to the student are varied. It might feel like they're swinging 30° to the left when in reality it's 6°. It might feel like their arms are glued to their chest/ribs. It might feel like their left hip is getting "over here" (demonstrated in person) before they get to impact, it might feel like a ton of things… but the actual truth doesn't change.

Saying "you want your club face pointed at the target and the ball will finish there" is not a "feel" - it's just bad information, and the application of that bad information can, as I have said, lead people down some very wrong roads.

In other words, if you have a slicer on your tee, and you want them to swing more "out," you can come up with a LOT of feels that may or may not be what they're actually doing (feel ain't real - I've had people "feel" they're swinging 45° out toward first base, just to get them to swing out a few degrees), but your fix had better be grounded in the reality of the physics that govern the way the ball flies.

[JESII]

Erik,


You have not given me an example of a single quality (or well regarded) teacher telling a student to swing more from in-to-out to correct a hook. That was my whole entry into this and you've insisted n conflating someone saying "ball flight laws" with your understanding of what they meant to equal that statement.


When did Faldo say this? Your Harmon passage doesn't do it. I fully doubt John Jacobs ever said anything remotely like it...Chamblee is shown trying to convert a guy that his a cut to hitting a draw. He may have done it wrong but it's still a completely different discussion than what you presented initially.


I think all quality teachers have always understood that the ball curves based on the faces position compared to swing path.


Their job (your job) however, is to get someone to improve their ball striking.


Telling 99.99% of students to swing 2* in-to-out while delivering the club 1* open will deliver the desired slight draw and if the angle of descent is 3* with a shaft lean of 12* you'll hit a perfectly penetrating ball flight and your 7 iron will go 167 yards...will not likely have the desired result. The other 0.01% will not need a second lesson...


I might suggest that John Jacobs, Butch Harmon and the vast majority of experts in the field understand the laws...figuring out how to convey them to the physically inept students we all are is the true challenge.

[Rob Marshall]

20 years ago Craig Harmon was teaching me to swing left to stop hitting it left.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You have not given me an example of a single quality (or well regarded) teacher telling a student to swing more from in-to-out to correct a hook.

You've chosen to frame the discussion this way. I did not.

Imagine you're hitting a ball that starts a little right and hooks. The old ball flight laws would tell you to swing more out to the right so the ball starts further right. You'd end up hitting bigger hooks. The correct ball flight laws would tell you to aim the face a bit further right, or swing out less.

Feel ain't real - I see that day in and day out. But this is just information, and giving people BAD information can lead to frustration AND a bunch of balls hit right into the tree around which a player is trying to curve his ball.

I only used that example to show how applying the "old" ball flight laws could lead someone down the wrong path. I did not say I would be able to search and find a printed example of that specific scenario being espoused by a "well regarded" instructor.

And yet, I have provided several examples of "well regarded" players and instructors sharing information that aligns with the "old ball flight laws." Which, again, if the student does as told will result in failure.

So… for what is hopefully the last time, my specific example was to show how trying to apply the incorrect ball flight laws could lead one down the wrong path. Unless you can prove that it's not possible to go down the wrong path trying to apply the "old" incorrect ball flight laws, you've got nothing here.

When did Faldo say this?

He espoused the "old ball flight laws" in the video, and were a golfer to actually do as he says, they'd hit the tree. They'd fail.

Your Harmon passage doesn't do it.

The Harmon article would lead to failure if a student did exactly as he said.

I fully doubt John Jacobs ever said anything remotely like it.

John Jacobs taught based on the old ball flight laws. This is relatively well known in instruction.

Chamblee is shown trying to convert a guy that his a cut to hitting a draw.

Again, the point of that video is to show Brandel saying the incorrect ball flight laws.

He may have done it wrong but it's still a completely different discussion than what you presented initially.

No, it's a different discussion than what YOU are trying to make it.

My example of "swinging out more to start the ball further to the right" is an example of how a golfer could go down the wrong road if they apply the "old" ball flight laws.

Telling 99.99% of students to swing 2* in-to-out while delivering the club 1* open will deliver the desired slight draw and if the angle of descent is 3* with a shaft lean of 12* you'll hit a perfectly penetrating ball flight and your 7 iron will go 167 yards...will not likely have the desired result. The other 0.01% will not need a second lesson...

Okay, now you're just making shit up.

I might suggest that John Jacobs, Butch Harmon and the vast majority of experts in the field understand the laws.

And you'd be wrong. Butch might be able to recite them to you now - he even says at the start of the article that launch monitors tell us what the correct ball flight laws are (which isn't technically true - the launch monitors build their models off the models, but the models are derived from high-speed video footage, physics, and a ton of other stuff that derived the model), and then proceeds to give advice that, if followed, will lead to failure because that advice is basically the "old ball flight laws."

[JESII]

Erik,


Your post 42 set the tone for the discussion. I'll reiterate that your philosophy is that of a mechanic hoping to tweak a machine. Your interpretation of how Jacobs taught reveals that. Ultimately, the player has to believe what they feel creates the right shot...they don't have to know the exact movements.


I'd still love to see a single example supporting your statement about Jacobs/Harmon/Faldo or any credible teacher suggesting a student fix a hook by swinging more in-to-out...


You bring a lot of knowledge to these discussions so you shouldn't feel the need to make things up. When you do, it would be attractive to acknowledge it and move on.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Your post 42 set the tone for the discussion.

Post 42:

This isn't "teaching mechanics" - it's teaching physics of the ball flight. It's just knowledge: it's neither mechanics nor feel. How you actually apply this knowledge is often just a matter of how you align yourself at setup. And, both are not "good and right," as the "old ball flight laws" are not right and can lead many people down some VERY bad paths.

Imagine you're hitting a ball that starts a little right and hooks. The old ball flight laws would tell you to swing more out to the right so the ball starts further right. You'd end up hitting bigger hooks. The correct ball flight laws would tell you to aim the face a bit further right, or swing out less.

Feel ain't real - I see that day in and day out. But this is just information, and giving people BAD information can lead to frustration AND a bunch of balls hit right into the tree around which a player is trying to curve his ball.

I'll reiterate that your philosophy is that of a mechanic hoping to tweak a machine.

Wrong.

Your interpretation of how Jacobs taught reveals that.

I have not commented on "how Jacobs taught." I have said only that he believed or espoused the incorrect, "old" ball flight laws.

Ultimately, the player has to believe what they feel creates the right shot...they don't have to know the exact movements.

The actual ball flight laws are not about teaching players, they are foundational knowledge or information.

I'd still love to see a single example supporting your statement about Jacobs/Harmon/Faldo or any credible teacher suggesting a student fix a hook by swinging more in-to-out...

Oh FFS. Addressed above - you're the one who made this constraint up. In post 42 I simply used it as an example of how one might go down the wrong road if they believed the old ball flight laws.

You bring a lot of knowledge to these discussions so you shouldn't feel the need to make things up. When you do, it would be attractive to acknowledge it and move on.

Please find the bit where I "made things up." You won't, because this whole "find a single example supporting a specific thing" is your creation. Despite that, I have provided examples of "well regarded" individuals sharing information based on the incorrect "old" ball flight laws.

[Rob Marshall]

Your post 42 set the tone for the discussion.

Post 42:

This isn't "teaching mechanics" - it's teaching physics of the ball flight. It's just knowledge: it's neither mechanics nor feel. How you actually apply this knowledge is often just a matter of how you align yourself at setup. And, both are not "good and right," as the "old ball flight laws" are not right and can lead many people down some VERY bad paths.

Imagine you're hitting a ball that starts a little right and hooks. The old ball flight laws would tell you to swing more out to the right so the ball starts further right. You'd end up hitting bigger hooks. The correct ball flight laws would tell you to aim the face a bit further right, or swing out less.

Feel ain't real - I see that day in and day out. But this is just information, and giving people BAD information can lead to frustration AND a bunch of balls hit right into the tree around which a player is trying to curve his ball.

I'll reiterate that your philosophy is that of a mechanic hoping to tweak a machine.

Wrong.

Your interpretation of how Jacobs taught reveals that.

I have not commented on "how Jacobs taught." I have said only that he believed or espoused the incorrect, "old" ball flight laws.

Ultimately, the player has to believe what they feel creates the right shot...they don't have to know the exact movements.

The actual ball flight laws are not about teaching players, they are foundational knowledge or information.

I'd still love to see a single example supporting your statement about Jacobs/Harmon/Faldo or any credible teacher suggesting a student fix a hook by swinging more in-to-out...

Oh FFS. Addressed above - you're the one who made this constraint up. In post 42 I simply used it as an example of how one might go down the wrong road if they believed the old ball flight laws.

You bring a lot of knowledge to these discussions so you shouldn't feel the need to make things up. When you do, it would be attractive to acknowledge it and move on.

Please find the bit where I "made things up." You won't, because this whole "find a single example supporting a specific thing" is your creation. Despite that, I have provided examples of "well regarded" individuals sharing information based on the incorrect "old" ball flight laws.

I've already pointed out to you were you made something up. That ship sailed.

[Rob Marshall]

Here is a personal message that Erik just sent me in response to my above post. Unfortunately Erik sent me a message but blocked my ability to reply. Seems a little cowardly to me but that's just me. Don't forget Erik the cover up is worse than the crime. I won't waste anymore board space. On to architecture....


"You have not.Go read a book, Rob. I recommend you read "Every Shot Counts." Then you can learn what bull your bit about the importance of the short game and putting is." Erik

[Jason Topp]

Erik,


You have not given me an example of a single quality (or well regarded) teacher telling a student to swing more from in-to-out to correct a hook. That was my whole entry into this and you've insisted n conflating someone saying "ball flight laws" with your understanding of what they meant to equal that statement.

I guess my stray comment derailed this discussion!


Jim - my understanding  is that swinging more in to out would increase a hook, even under a correct physical understanding of the physics. Instead of the ball starting with the swing path and hooking with the face, the ball instead starts with the face and hooks based on the swing path.


Most of the time this difference will not matter to the player.  Obviously many great players have been able to perform while following Jacobs' model.


However, there are exceptions.  When I punch out from the trees and need to hook it, if I follow Jacob's teaching ( I point the clubface at the tree and swing right to start it right and curve around the tree.) the the ball will start more left than I expect and I am likely to be ducking as it comes back off the tree.  Try it out and see what happens!


Whether that model is the best way to teach players is an entirely different proposition.  I suspect accurate information will generally be the best approach but that could vary significantly from player to player.

[JESII]

Jason, the point is that you learn that on the first try...then you close the face a little less until it's just right. To suggest the laws changed is asinine.


The direction the ball curves is based on the correlation of face to path. That's not changed. Where the ball starts is interesting to figure out. The video links Erik attached demonstrated such extreme approach angle and face position that it doesn't seem worth analyzing. If there were something closer to someone that might hit a good shot I'd love to see it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jason, the point is that you learn that on the first try...then you close the face a little less until it's just right. To suggest the laws changed is asinine.

Nobody's suggested the actual real-world behavior "changed"! What changed was what people understood the behavior, the "laws," to be. What changed was whether they were correct or incorrect about what made the ball fly the way it did.

The direction the ball curves is based on the correlation of face to path. That's not changed.

Nobody has said otherwise.

Where the ball starts is interesting to figure out.

This is the biggest part that many older instructors and golfers had wrong.

The video links Erik attached demonstrated such extreme approach angle and face position that it doesn't seem worth analyzing. If there were something closer to someone that might hit a good shot I'd love to see it.

Jim you're now arguing actual fact. The ball starts closer to the club face normal (about 70% to 95% depending on the club, the clubhead speed, etc.) than the path.

Ask yourself this: if the "old" ball flight laws (i.e. the way people understood them, not what actually happens) were right and the ball started on the path of the club, why didn't the ball travel downward on every descending blow? Why didn't the ball, even with a driver hit down a degree or two AoA, go down first? Ball flight is three dimensional, after all, and so the true "path" of the club is not only right or left, but also slightly up or down. If the ball started on the path as people used to believe, the ball should have started downward with every negative AoA.

[Jason Topp]

Jason, the point is that you learn that on the first try...then you close the face a little less until it's just right. To suggest the laws changed is asinine.


The direction the ball curves is based on the correlation of face to path. That's not changed. Where the ball starts is interesting to figure out. The video links Erik attached demonstrated such extreme approach angle and face position that it doesn't seem worth analyzing. If there were something closer to someone that might hit a good shot I'd love to see it.

Jim - I can do without being called asinine.

Ask anyone with experience with Trackman or any of the other ball flight technologies - the starting direction depends largely on  face curvature is based on the difference between path and face angle.  I cannot remember the exact percentages but it is something like 85/15% for a shot with a club with lower lofts.

This Mark Crossfield video shows some examples of a better swing with the same effect:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcns_npnFos

Golftec video:  https://www.golftec.com/blog/2016/08/golf-ball-flight-laws/

Old Jim McClean video that describes the issue and shows extreme examples:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPyadnDm_E


I will concede that their can be differences of opinion regarding the best way to teach but counteracting these types of findings would require one to show that all of the technologies that measure this stuff are wrong.  I highly doubt that is the case.

[JESII]

Jason,


I apologize for suggesting you're being asinine. Sincerely.






You guys want to argue with the literal interpretation of the words teaching pros used to create a feel...Have at it!






I jumped in here when I heard a physical law had changed. Now I learn it was actually imagery that was wrong, not the physics.


I also perked up when I heard a strange sounding swing tip...and that also cannot be verified. Fair enough considering the rest.


I'll look forward to the next chat.