Best Driver of 2019 | Full Article _HERE_ | Discussion Thread _HERE_

stickney "ballflight" article confusing me

extrastiffextrastiff Members Posts: 919 ✭✭✭✭✭

i learned the ball starts down the path of the swing, and curves in the direction of the face angle if no gear effect. the article makes it seem other wise as far as i can tell, but i have not been very intelligent lately.. . i googled it just to make sure what i thought was a generally held assumption. "The ball will launch in the direction the clubhead is moving (directly at the target), then curve slightly right due to the small amount of left-to-right sidespin caused by the open clubface." (https://golf-info-guide.com/golf-tips/the-golf-swing/what-makes-the-golf-ball-curve/)

here is one quote that makes me think stickney is suggesting otherwise. .
"If you hit the ball and it starts correctly but curves too much from right to left then your path is to blame." (http://www.golfwrx.com/573696/stickney-correctly-auditing-your-ballflight-without-technology/?utm_source=Front&utm_medium=Featured_Center_Top&utm_campaign=GolfWRX_OnSite&utm_content=main)
Am i being unintelligent again, or is the article suggesting that the ball starts in direction of face angle, and the launch angle has little to do with the path angle?

g400 max 9* | hzrdus black 75 6.5 /  g400 15.5* | tensei white 80tx  /  p790 20*, 24* | x100  /  919tour 4-9 | x100  /  md3 46*8 | x100  /  sm6 52*8, 56*8, 60*4 | x100 ti  /  red X3



«1

Comments

  • glkglk send it in jerome Kodak, Tn/Chucktown, Sc via Chicago & BurghMembers Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 11, 2019 4:28pm #2

    Face determines start line, path determines curve.
    https://www.adamyounggolf.com/the-ball-flight-laws/

  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 11,520 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    I have never cared enough to bother to learn all the details but I do know that the universally 100% accepted "ball flight laws" from the mid-20th-century up until the advent of Trackman (r) were, to put it bluntly, wrong.

    Now whether Tom Stickney is describing the 1960's conventional wisdom versus or the early 2000's empirically backed up version, I don't know. But there's a right way and a wrong way to describe ball flight cause and effect you'll see both of them out there in roughly equal measure!

    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • larrybudlarrybud Members Posts: 11,430 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Face determines about 70% of the starting line, and the curve is path relative to the face. The old PGA Teaching manual had it wrong, FOREVER.

    An easier way to visualize it is to think of dropping a ball into a table which is angled 45 degrees. If the ball started on the path, the ball would bounce straight up, and we know intuitively that the ball will not bounce straight up, but generally as a "reflection" off the table (*it's not a perfect reflection).

    The fact that my example has the ball moving vs the table moving is irrelevant when it comes to the collision.

    Or even better, think of it this way: If you come down steep with a wedge, say, -6 or 7 degrees downward angle of attack,with the ball on the ground, does the ball start DOWN?? Of course not, the ball starts up because of the loft of the club. If the club has 45* loft at impact, it will have a launch angle of somewhere around 37 or 38 degrees. No difference in the collision between loft or of the face angle.

  • larrybudlarrybud Members Posts: 11,430 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @North Butte said:
    I have never cared enough to bother to learn all the details but I do know that the universally 100% accepted "ball flight laws" from the mid-20th-century up until the advent of Trackman (r) were, to put it bluntly, wrong.

    The 1968 book "Search for a Perfect Swing" even knew that initial starting direction was mostly due to the face angle. They didn't need trackman, just some common sense and high speed film!

  • MonteScheinblumMonteScheinblum Rebellion Golf Southern CaliforniaMembers Posts: 18,486 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 11, 2019 4:34pm #6

    When he says the path is to blame, he means that the path was poor and forced you to react and Misalign the face to hit it on target.

    e.g. On a path too far right the brain will react and flip the face closed to avoid a block.

  • Warrior42111Warrior42111 FloridaMembers Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    Best way to visualize it IMO, is think about the exact moment of impact (zero spin). Where the club face points is where the ball will start as you are making contact at that angle with the ball. Your swing path determines in those microseconds how the ball travels vertically (backspin) and horizontally (sidespin) on the club face. Once the ball is moving spin increases and is not instant so that is where the curve comes from.

    Taylormade M6 10.5| Project X Even Flow Black X 6.5
    Ping G20 3 wood 15 * | Ping TFC 149F Stiff
    Ping G400 5 Wood 18
    | PING Alta CB 65 Stiff
    Callaway Steelhead XR 5-AW | Project X 6.5 Rifle
    Titleist SM6 50* / 56* / 62* | Stock
    Odyssey Stroke Lab, Toulon Memphis 34"

  • glkglk send it in jerome Kodak, Tn/Chucktown, Sc via Chicago & BurghMembers Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    And if you want to get more into the weeds.

  • extrastiffextrastiff Members Posts: 919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    thanks all for the quick, gentle replies
    i think thats the last bit of $%#@ that a couple "pga certified" teaching pros taught me incorrectly as recently as 6 months ago. excited to go try out the new understanding.

    g400 max 9* | hzrdus black 75 6.5 /  g400 15.5* | tensei white 80tx  /  p790 20*, 24* | x100  /  919tour 4-9 | x100  /  md3 46*8 | x100  /  sm6 52*8, 56*8, 60*4 | x100 ti  /  red X3



  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 11,520 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @larrybud said:

    @North Butte said:
    I have never cared enough to bother to learn all the details but I do know that the universally 100% accepted "ball flight laws" from the mid-20th-century up until the advent of Trackman (r) were, to put it bluntly, wrong.

    The 1968 book "Search for a Perfect Swing" even knew that initial starting direction was mostly due to the face angle. They didn't need trackman, just some common sense and high speed film!

    Maybe that's why I've never been able to grok the details of the supposedly "new" Trackman-inspired ball flight principles. The only things I knew back in the day were what I read in Cochran and Stobbs. Then my teaching pro showed me all the "new" stuff about five years ago and it all seemed to be saying the same as SftPS was saying way back when.

    I figured it had all gotten muddled in my head. Maybe the muddle was simple agreement between what I thought of as "old" and "new".

    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • larrybudlarrybud Members Posts: 11,430 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @extrastiff said:
    thanks all for the quick, gentle replies
    i think thats the last bit of $%#@ that a couple "pga certified" teaching pros taught me incorrectly as recently as 6 months ago. excited to go try out the new understanding.

    You're not alone. I was the victim of incorrect teaching 15-20 years ago. Really screwed me up thinking ball started in the direction of the path. I developed the biggest push block you've ever seen because of the misunderstanding. Only until I asked my teacher about something specific, and he said "I don't know" did I know that I had to figure it out myself.

  • Three_JackThree_Jack Members Posts: 27 ✭✭

    Trackman did I study(can't find it), but the the less amount of loft, the more influence the face as on starting direction. For driver, it's about 85% and for wedges it's more like 60%.

  • larrybudlarrybud Members Posts: 11,430 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @North Butte said:

    @larrybud said:

    @North Butte said:
    I have never cared enough to bother to learn all the details but I do know that the universally 100% accepted "ball flight laws" from the mid-20th-century up until the advent of Trackman (r) were, to put it bluntly, wrong.

    The 1968 book "Search for a Perfect Swing" even knew that initial starting direction was mostly due to the face angle. They didn't need trackman, just some common sense and high speed film!

    Maybe that's why I've never been able to grok the details of the supposedly "new" Trackman-inspired ball flight principles. The only things I knew back in the day were what I read in Cochran and Stobbs. Then my teaching pro showed me all the "new" stuff about five years ago and it all seemed to be saying the same as SftPS was saying way back when.

    I figured it had all gotten muddled in my head. Maybe the muddle was simple agreement between what I thought of as "old" and "new".

    "old" was ball starts on path, because that's what the PGA Teaching manual said. "new" is ball starts mostly due to face angle.

  • larrybudlarrybud Members Posts: 11,430 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @glk said:
    And if you want to get more into the weeds.

    Yeah, except anybody thinking this is over the top just because of the arc that this guy drew completely ignores perspective of the camera, let alone d plane. The camera in that example is just about at his eye-line.

  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 11,520 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah, good luck in the woods pointing your clubface at a tree then "starting" the ball right of the tree with a big in-to-out swing. I figured out maybe 2 months into my golfing life that if you point the clubface at the tree, the ball will start out toward the tree no matter how much you try to swing out or in. How it do anything but?

    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • extrastiffextrastiff Members Posts: 919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @larrybud said:

    @extrastiff said:
    thanks all for the quick, gentle replies
    i think thats the last bit of $%#@ that a couple "pga certified" teaching pros taught me incorrectly as recently as 6 months ago. excited to go try out the new understanding.

    You're not alone. I was the victim of incorrect teaching 15-20 years ago. Really screwed me up thinking ball started in the direction of the path. I developed the biggest push block you've ever seen because of the misunderstanding. Only until I asked my teacher about something specific, and he said "I don't know" did I know that I had to figure it out myself.

    immediately went to the course and range, hit the ball the way its supposed to. exciting stuff. this golf stuff is pretty simple when your doing it right.

    g400 max 9* | hzrdus black 75 6.5 /  g400 15.5* | tensei white 80tx  /  p790 20*, 24* | x100  /  919tour 4-9 | x100  /  md3 46*8 | x100  /  sm6 52*8, 56*8, 60*4 | x100 ti  /  red X3



  • dlygrissedlygrisse KansasMembers Posts: 13,525 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @North Butte said:
    I have never cared enough to bother to learn all the details but I do know that the universally 100% accepted "ball flight laws" from the mid-20th-century up until the advent of Trackman (r) were, to put it bluntly, wrong.

    Now whether Tom Stickney is describing the 1960's conventional wisdom versus or the early 2000's empirically backed up version, I don't know. But there's a right way and a wrong way to describe ball flight cause and effect you'll see both of them out there in roughly equal measure!

    Byron Nelson said in his book "Shape your swing the Modern Way" that you draw the ball with an open face. I read this years ago before Trackman, and it confused me, then I went and tried it and I got it. Face needs to be open to the target to hit a draw, so it starts right and draws back.
    The good players understood the physics. Some may have explained it wrong, because real and feel aren't always the same, but most knew what was going on.

    I pick 14 of the following:
    Ping G400
    Callaway Epic Flash 3w 
    Ping G410 5 and 7 wood
    Callaway Apex 23*
    Ping G 4-U
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 54, 58 SS or Vokey M Grind 58
    Grips NDMC +4
    Odyssey Pro #1 black
    Jones Utility
    ProV1x-mostly
    ECCO Biom Hybrid 3
  • extrastiffextrastiff Members Posts: 919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dlygrisse said:

    @North Butte said:
    I have never cared enough to bother to learn all the details but I do know that the universally 100% accepted "ball flight laws" from the mid-20th-century up until the advent of Trackman (r) were, to put it bluntly, wrong.

    Now whether Tom Stickney is describing the 1960's conventional wisdom versus or the early 2000's empirically backed up version, I don't know. But there's a right way and a wrong way to describe ball flight cause and effect you'll see both of them out there in roughly equal measure!

    Byron Nelson said in his book "Shape your swing the Modern Way" that you draw the ball with an open face. I read this years ago before Trackman, and it confused me, then I went and tried it and I got it. Face needs to be open to the target to hit a draw, so it starts right and draws back.
    The good players understood the physics. Some may have explained it wrong, because real and feel aren't always the same, but most knew what was going on.

    see but thats the thing. . . both of the pros that told me this, three people if u include the former mini tour player, i got the chance to play with. it was before i could really play, but lets just say they beat me :(
    i have been playing really well for about a year now, but i go for square angles. only rarely tried marginal shaping, with like a %50 percent success rate. Didnt cost me too many strokes to avoid shaping. my point is u probably be surprised how many "good" players are running around with improper understanding of the physics. maybe they didnt factor in the dynamic change.
    A chart of the angle interactions and resulting flights for each club would be pretty sweet.

    g400 max 9* | hzrdus black 75 6.5 /  g400 15.5* | tensei white 80tx  /  p790 20*, 24* | x100  /  919tour 4-9 | x100  /  md3 46*8 | x100  /  sm6 52*8, 56*8, 60*4 | x100 ti  /  red X3



  • DaveLeeNCDaveLeeNC Pinehurst, NCMembers Posts: 5,328 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Three_Jack said:
    Trackman did I study(can't find it), but the the less amount of loft, the more influence the face as on starting direction. For driver, it's about 85% and for wedges it's more like 60%.

    The statement quoted is correct. But a better way to look at it is that the larger the difference between FA and path, the smaller the percentage # is for FA influence vs path. It isn't the loft exactly, but the fact that the FA for a wedge (mostly up) is so much different (vs path) as opposed to a low lofted driver.

    dave

  • dlygrissedlygrisse KansasMembers Posts: 13,525 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @DaveLeeNC said:

    @Three_Jack said:
    Trackman did I study(can't find it), but the the less amount of loft, the more influence the face as on starting direction. For driver, it's about 85% and for wedges it's more like 60%.

    The statement quoted is correct. But a better way to look at it is that the larger the difference between FA and path, the smaller the percentage # is for FA influence vs path. It isn't the loft exactly, but the fact that the FA for a wedge (mostly up) is so much different (vs path) as opposed to a low lofted driver.

    dave

    Once you understand then you have to learn what it really means to you visually. What looks open to you may look square to another person, which is where I think a lot of the confusion comes from. Knowing the facts is a nice starting point, but digging it out of the dirt is where you learn to make it work. It might just take a bit longer to figure it out if it is explained wrong.

    BTW, just guessing here, but I would guess that path is 85% of controlling direction out of a bunker shot where you contact the sand before the ball. Just the opposite of a driver. But that's just me from my own experience, does anyone have data on this?

    I pick 14 of the following:
    Ping G400
    Callaway Epic Flash 3w 
    Ping G410 5 and 7 wood
    Callaway Apex 23*
    Ping G 4-U
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 54, 58 SS or Vokey M Grind 58
    Grips NDMC +4
    Odyssey Pro #1 black
    Jones Utility
    ProV1x-mostly
    ECCO Biom Hybrid 3
  • juststevejuststeve Members Posts: 4,865 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @larrybud said:

    @North Butte said:

    @larrybud said:

    @North Butte said:
    I have never cared enough to bother to learn all the details but I do know that the universally 100% accepted "ball flight laws" from the mid-20th-century up until the advent of Trackman (r) were, to put it bluntly, wrong.

    The 1968 book "Search for a Perfect Swing" even knew that initial starting direction was mostly due to the face angle. They didn't need trackman, just some common sense and high speed film!

    Maybe that's why I've never been able to grok the details of the supposedly "new" Trackman-inspired ball flight principles. The only things I knew back in the day were what I read in Cochran and Stobbs. Then my teaching pro showed me all the "new" stuff about five years ago and it all seemed to be saying the same as SftPS was saying way back when.

    I figured it had all gotten muddled in my head. Maybe the muddle was simple agreement between what I thought of as "old" and "new".

    "old" was ball starts on path, because that's what the PGA Teaching manual said. "new" is ball starts mostly due to face angle.

  • juststevejuststeve Members Posts: 4,865 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Although this topic seems to be endlessly fascinating to a lot of people it has little to do with actually playing golf well. For most of the 20th century the best players in the world played assuming that path dictated the starting direction of the shot, and the club face dictated how the ball would curve. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major championships lining up where he wanted the all to start and pointing the face where he wanted the ball to finish. So did almost all of the greats of his era. Whether of not the method was confirmed by Trackman, it worked and still works today. Why does the old method still work? Someone will have to explain that to me because I don't know. It just works.

    There is nothing wrong with obsessing about "D Plane", if that's your thing, but knowing it won't lower your scores.

    Next topic for the obsessed , should I change my stroke if I buy a putter with an insert?

    Steve

  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 11,520 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    People can perform well in life while believing all sorts of patent nonsense. But that doesn't mean there's something wrong with pointing out that the nonsense does not, in fact, make sense.

    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • MountainGoatMountainGoat Mid-MarylandMembers Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 12, 2019 3:23pm #24

    @juststeve said:
    Although this topic seems to be endlessly fascinating to a lot of people it has little to do with actually playing golf well. For most of the 20th century the best players in the world played assuming that path dictated the starting direction of the shot, and the club face dictated how the ball would curve. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major championships lining up where he wanted the all to start and pointing the face where he wanted the ball to finish. So did almost all of the greats of his era. Whether of not the method was confirmed by Trackman, it worked and still works today. Why does the old method still work? Someone will have to explain that to me because I don't know. It just works.

    This says it for me. Nothing in my experience indicates that the "new" ball flight rules are correct. I continue to follow the "old" Nicklaus method, which seems to work.

  • glkglk send it in jerome Kodak, Tn/Chucktown, Sc via Chicago & BurghMembers Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @juststeve said:
    Although this topic seems to be endlessly fascinating to a lot of people it has little to do with actually playing golf well. For most of the 20th century the best players in the world played assuming that path dictated the starting direction of the shot, and the club face dictated how the ball would curve. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major championships lining up where he wanted the all to start and pointing the face where he wanted the ball to finish. So did almost all of the greats of his era. Whether of not the method was confirmed by Trackman, it worked and still works today. Why does the old method still work? Someone will have to explain that to me because I don't know. It just works.

    There is nothing wrong with obsessing about "D Plane", if that's your thing, but knowing it won't lower your scores.

    Next topic for the obsessed , should I change my stroke if I buy a putter with an insert?

    Steve

    It works cause it sets up for the real ball flight rules - in your example a face square to target line and path just to the right provides a push draw when the face is slightly open to the target at impact. Where it falls apart is in figuring out when you set up for that draw and it starts at the target with a draw - you’d think you didn’t swing far enough out to the right so you adjust and swing more out to the right and then you hit the big over draw on the next swing (or a block). And knowing d plane doesn’t guarantee a good swing but again it helps understand why a particular swing produced it’s result - certainly more important if one is an instructor but not useless to a typical golfer - heck we’ve got people on this site that think, or thought, that you hit down to pinch the ball against the ground for compression.

  • iteachgolfiteachgolf Members Posts: 16,950 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @MountainGoat said:

    @juststeve said:
    Although this topic seems to be endlessly fascinating to a lot of people it has little to do with actually playing golf well. For most of the 20th century the best players in the world played assuming that path dictated the starting direction of the shot, and the club face dictated how the ball would curve. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major championships lining up where he wanted the all to start and pointing the face where he wanted the ball to finish. So did almost all of the greats of his era. Whether of not the method was confirmed by Trackman, it worked and still works today. Why does the old method still work? Someone will have to explain that to me because I don't know. It just works.

    This says it for me. Nothing in my experience indicates that the "new" ball flight rules are correct. I continue to follow the "old" Nicklaus method, which seems to work.

    Setup and impact are two very different things. There’s no new and old. There is just factual info. Its stating what happens at impact. Literally has nothing to do with how to setup to hit the shot.

  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 11,520 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @iteachgolf said:

    @MountainGoat said:

    @juststeve said:
    Although this topic seems to be endlessly fascinating to a lot of people it has little to do with actually playing golf well. For most of the 20th century the best players in the world played assuming that path dictated the starting direction of the shot, and the club face dictated how the ball would curve. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major championships lining up where he wanted the all to start and pointing the face where he wanted the ball to finish. So did almost all of the greats of his era. Whether of not the method was confirmed by Trackman, it worked and still works today. Why does the old method still work? Someone will have to explain that to me because I don't know. It just works.

    This says it for me. Nothing in my experience indicates that the "new" ball flight rules are correct. I continue to follow the "old" Nicklaus method, which seems to work.

    Setup and impact are two very different things. There’s no new and old. There is just factual info. Its stating what happens at impact. Literally has nothing to do with how to setup to hit the shot.

    I know, right. That's why they are called the "ball flight laws" not the "shot making laws"!

    I trust the heck out Jack Nicklaus to tell me how to fade a long iron or win a major. But when it comes to what happens physically during the millisecond around impact, I'll trust the 6 hcp geek with a Trackman and high speed video camera.

    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • HiTrajLoSpinHiTrajLoSpin East TennesseeMembers Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    Another misconception: the ball has x% backspin and y% sidespin. There can only be one spin axis; the amount that the spin axis is tilted relative to the horizontal axis (i.e., the axis parallel with the ground) determines the direction and amount of the curvature in the ball flight.

    TS2 11.5°
    TS2 16.5°
    818H1 21°, 25°
    718AP2 5-PW
    SM7 50.08F, 54.10S, 58.08M
    Scotty Fastback w/counterbalanced shaft mod

  • juststevejuststeve Members Posts: 4,865 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @iteachgolf said:

    @MountainGoat said:

    @juststeve said:
    Although this topic seems to be endlessly fascinating to a lot of people it has little to do with actually playing golf well. For most of the 20th century the best players in the world played assuming that path dictated the starting direction of the shot, and the club face dictated how the ball would curve. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major championships lining up where he wanted the all to start and pointing the face where he wanted the ball to finish. So did almost all of the greats of his era. Whether of not the method was confirmed by Trackman, it worked and still works today. Why does the old method still work? Someone will have to explain that to me because I don't know. It just works.

    This says it for me. Nothing in my experience indicates that the "new" ball flight rules are correct. I continue to follow the "old" Nicklaus method, which seems to work.

    Setup and impact are two very different things. There’s no new and old. There is just factual info. Its stating what happens at impact. Literally has nothing to do with how to setup to hit the shot.

    This may be the answer to the question. Perhaps I and many others have

  • Warrior42111Warrior42111 FloridaMembers Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    @juststeve said:
    Although this topic seems to be endlessly fascinating to a lot of people it has little to do with actually playing golf well. For most of the 20th century the best players in the world played assuming that path dictated the starting direction of the shot, and the club face dictated how the ball would curve. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major championships lining up where he wanted the all to start and pointing the face where he wanted the ball to finish. So did almost all of the greats of his era. Whether of not the method was confirmed by Trackman, it worked and still works today. Why does the old method still work? Someone will have to explain that to me because I don't know. It just works.

    There is nothing wrong with obsessing about "D Plane", if that's your thing, but knowing it won't lower your scores.

    Next topic for the obsessed , should I change my stroke if I buy a putter with an insert?

    Steve

    Because the human brain is amazing.

    So the old players wanted to hit a draw or fade and angled the bodies one way and the club another sure, but what happens if we could see those swings with today slo-mo technology? I would think it would show a club path and face path that mimic what today's data shows us. Now how did this happen if they were set up for something else? The brain knew what they wanted for a shot the curve and target and makes all the millions of little adjustments that we can't see in real time because that will get us the result we subconsciously wanted.

    Taylormade M6 10.5| Project X Even Flow Black X 6.5
    Ping G20 3 wood 15 * | Ping TFC 149F Stiff
    Ping G400 5 Wood 18
    | PING Alta CB 65 Stiff
    Callaway Steelhead XR 5-AW | Project X 6.5 Rifle
    Titleist SM6 50* / 56* / 62* | Stock
    Odyssey Stroke Lab, Toulon Memphis 34"

  • juststevejuststeve Members Posts: 4,865 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    North Butte may have hit the nail on the head. I can draw and fade the ball, using the Nicklaus method, pretty much at will. What I can't do is control what happens during the millisecond around impact. Since I can't control that, or even see it, what happens is only of academic interest. Something I don't need to know to play well, but perhaps interesting academically

    Teach also offers and interesting thought. Since address and impact are different perhaps Nicklaus and many others created, unconsciously impact condition that produced the desire ball flight, without actually knowing what those conditions were. How many majors would Nicklaus have one had he known the proper impact conditions? How many if he was actually thinking about creating the proper conditions.

    Steve.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file