stickney "ballflight" article confusing me

[juststeve]

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.

[Soloman1]

This is why people can’t break 90. ?

[DaveLeeNC]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> 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.

 

That is simply a common analytical tool. It is the same as looking at the the velocity of a particle traveling in a straight line and dividing the motion into an 'x component', y component, and z component. It isn't a misconception - just a different perspective.

 

dave

[North Butte]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > 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.

>

> That is simply a common analytical tool. It is the same as looking at the the velocity of a particle traveling in a straight line and dividing the motion into an 'x component', y component, and z component. It isn't a misconception - just a different perspective.

>

> dave

 

And it's a perspective with valuable marketing implications. Once you get people believing in "backspin" and "sidespin" as separate things then it's easy as pie to get them to buy a golf ball that reduces "sidespin". Bridgestone sold a zillion e6 balls back in the day by implying (although not quite outright stating) that in their advertising.

[GolfTurkey]

> @juststeve said:

> 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.

Nobody else around the time knew the correct ball flight laws so nobody was at a competitive disadvantage.

 

I'm not sure how the fact that some of the greatest players of all time using their skill, talent and trial and error to learn how to shape the ball reliably somehow invalidates the fact that the prevailing wisdom at the time was incorrect and that in this particular case their feel was not real.

 

In my case, lacking their talent, the old ball flight laws were very damaging. I would point my face at the final target and wonder why I hit the damn tree so often. Now I know that I have to point the face wide of the obstacle and swing even wider than the face, and lo and behold I seldom hit the tree nowadays.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > 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.

>

> That is simply a common analytical tool. It is the same as looking at the the velocity of a particle traveling in a straight line and dividing the motion into an 'x component', y component, and z component. It isn't a misconception - just a different perspective.

>

> dave

If you want to argue semantics:

misconception: a false or mistaken view, opinion, or attitude

perspective: the proper or accurate point of view or the ability to see it

Given the above definitions, dividing ball spin into backspin and sidespin components isn't a matter of perspective, but it is a misconception. However, parsing the components of lift force due to spin into horizontal and vertical components is useful when computing ball trajectory.

[Barfolomew]

> @GolfTurkey said:

> > @juststeve said:

> > 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.

> **Nobody else around the time knew the correct ball flight laws so nobody was at a competitive disadvantage.**

>

> I'm not sure how the fact that some of the greatest players of all time using their skill, talent and trial and error to learn how to shape the ball reliably somehow invalidates the fact that the prevailing wisdom at the time was incorrect and that in this particular case their feel was not real.

>

> In my case, lacking their talent, the old ball flight laws were very damaging. I would point my face at the final target and wonder why I hit the **** tree so often. Now I know that I have to point the face wide of the obstacle and swing even wider than the face, and lo and behold I seldom hit the tree nowadays.

 

Thing is even if one might not be able to verbally explain the exact details of a balls starting line they might know it intuitively and are able to perform it. Because the concepts are very basic to a "smart athlete". Same with tennis or ping pong. I might not know the exact physics and start line of a tennis ball when I hit that tennis ball around the guy at the net that even goes outside the line but I knew it would come back into the court at the right spot. Even some cavemen understood that without Trackman.

 

Sports Common Sense.

[GolfTurkey]

> @Barfolomew said:

> > @GolfTurkey said:

> > > @juststeve said:

> > > 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.

> > **Nobody else around the time knew the correct ball flight laws so nobody was at a competitive disadvantage.**

> >

> > I'm not sure how the fact that some of the greatest players of all time using their skill, talent and trial and error to learn how to shape the ball reliably somehow invalidates the fact that the prevailing wisdom at the time was incorrect and that in this particular case their feel was not real.

> >

> > In my case, lacking their talent, the old ball flight laws were very damaging. I would point my face at the final target and wonder why I hit the **** tree so often. Now I know that I have to point the face wide of the obstacle and swing even wider than the face, and lo and behold I seldom hit the tree nowadays.

>

> Thing is even if one might not be able to verbally explain the exact details of a balls starting line they might know it intuitively and are able to perform it. Because the concepts are very basic to a "smart athlete". Same with tennis or ping pong. I might not know the exact physics and start line of a tennis ball when I hit that tennis ball around the guy at the net that even goes outside the line but I knew it would come back into the court at the right spot. Even some cavemen understood that without Trackman.

>

> Sports Common Sense.

 

Yes, the keys being the "smart athlete" and "sports common sense" (to the gifted). I think sometimes people find it difficult to relate or understand people on the different end of the talent spectrum.

 

E.g. there are some people who barely pay attention in math class and occasionally flick through the textbook and never get less than an A. There are others who study hard, get extra tutoring and still fail. It's hard for one to understand the other.

 

Same as the gifted sportsman who naturally and intuitively finds the right way to do something even if they have no idea how they do it or their idea is completely wrong. They can "just swing at the target" and become a plus handicap or win majors in extreme cases. Other player's natural swings resemble a giraffe giving birth in a hurricane but the gifted think that all it takes is to make a natural swing.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > That is simply a common analytical tool. It is the same as looking at the the velocity of a particle traveling in a straight line and dividing the motion into an 'x component', y component, and z component. It isn't a misconception - just a different perspective.

> >

> > dave

> If you want to argue semantics:

> misconception: a false or mistaken view, opinion, or attitude

> perspective: the proper or accurate point of view or the ability to see it

> Given the above definitions, dividing ball spin into backspin and sidespin components isn't a matter of perspective, but it is a misconception. However, parsing the components of lift force due to spin into horizontal and vertical components is useful when computing ball trajectory.

 

If you want to insist that a rotating sphere with a angular momentum vector tilted at 45 degrees does not have equal components of angular momentum pointed vertically (side spin) and horizontally (backspin), then we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

dave

[Soloman1]

Before the age of ball flight enlightenment, two wrongs made a right. The great players made moves that curved the ball, but they weren’t doing what they thought they were doing.

 

If you walked the line of a practice tee at a tour event, it seemed like everyone had an open face at address. The draw was the most common pattern, and people thought they were so strong that they had to start with an open face to stop a smother hook because they shut the face at impact.

 

That open face created a push draw.

 

Don’t attribute genius to a mistake that happened to turn out ok.

 

The saying that feel isn’t real was just as true then as now.

[northgolf]

These are the opinions upon which I base my facts.> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > That is simply a common analytical tool. It is the same as looking at the the velocity of a particle traveling in a straight line and dividing the motion into an 'x component', y component, and z component. It isn't a misconception - just a different perspective.

> >

> > dave

> If you want to argue semantics:

> misconception: a false or mistaken view, opinion, or attitude

> perspective: the proper or accurate point of view or the ability to see it

> Given the above definitions, dividing ball spin into backspin and sidespin components isn't a matter of perspective, but it is a misconception. However, parsing the components of lift force due to spin into horizontal and vertical components is useful when computing ball trajectory.

 

Dividing ball spin into vertical and horizontal vectors is simple math, as long as the math is good, the two vectors are conceptually equivalent with the single axis vector. The misconception is thinking equivalent descriptions are meaningfully different.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

@DaveLeeNC and @northgolf , the **physical** reality is that a golf ball cannot spin around two different axes, which would have to be the case if the ball had simultaneous backspin and sidespin. Thus, my view is that it's a misconception (i.e., a mistaken view) to state that sidespin causes curvature in golf ball trajectory.

[extrastiff]

> @Soloman1 said:

> Before the age of ball flight enlightenment, two wrongs made a right. The great players made moves that curved the ball, but they weren’t doing what they thought they were doing.

>

> If you walked the line of a practice tee at a tour event, it seemed like everyone had an open face at address. The draw was the most common pattern, and people thought they were so strong that they had to start with an open face to stop a smother hook because they shut the face at impact.

>

> That open face created a push draw.

>

> Don’t attribute genius to a mistake that happened to turn out ok.

>

> The saying that feel isn’t real was just as true then as now.

 

Exactly. Jack beat people with similar ideas about ballflight and dynamic change as himself I would assume.

[Three_Jack]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> @DaveLeeNC and @northgolf , the **physical** reality is that a golf ball cannot spin around two different axes, which would have to be the case if the ball had simultaneous backspin and sidespin. Thus, my view is that it's a misconception (i.e., a mistaken view) to state that sidespin causes curvature in golf ball trajectory.

 

The spin axis is a vector, which can be represented by an X and Y component. Not sure why you are arguing this fact. This is how flight algorithms determine curvature.

 

[HiTrajLoSpin]

> @Three_Jack said:

> > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > @DaveLeeNC and @northgolf , the **physical** reality is that a golf ball cannot spin around two different axes, which would have to be the case if the ball had simultaneous backspin and sidespin. Thus, my view is that it's a misconception (i.e., a mistaken view) to state that sidespin causes curvature in golf ball trajectory.

>

> The spin axis is a vector, which can be represented by an X and Y component. Not sure why you are arguing this fact. This is how flight algorithms determine curvature.

>

My point is that the tilt of the spin axis, relative to horizontal, is what causes curvature, not a combination of backspin and sidespin. And just to be clear, the spin axis isn't a vector, which has both direction and **magnitude**.

 

[Three_Jack]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > @Three_Jack said:

> > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC and @northgolf , the **physical** reality is that a golf ball cannot spin around two different axes, which would have to be the case if the ball had simultaneous backspin and sidespin. Thus, my view is that it's a misconception (i.e., a mistaken view) to state that sidespin causes curvature in golf ball trajectory.

> >

> > The spin axis is a vector, which can be represented by an X and Y component. Not sure why you are arguing this fact. This is how flight algorithms determine curvature.

> >

> My point is that the tilt of the spin axis, relative to horizontal, is what causes curvature, not a combination of backspin and sidespin. And just to be clear, the spin axis isn't a vector, which has both direction and **magnitude**.

>

If you think about SPIN as a vector, axis would be direction and total spin would be magnitude.

 

Breaking that down into X and Y components is still a viable way to describe spin.

[Soloman1]

Uh... RPM is the magnitude and axis is the direction. Or, you could use velocity and axis direction. The vector is 3D -- there is a timeline and a negative acceleration.

 

And the direction can be broken down into an x,y coordinates so people who can't think in 3D can understand the concept. Being pedantic doesn't help the goal, which is for people to understand the cause and effect.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

@Three_Jack and @Soloman1 , if you'll read carefully, you'll note that I said that the spin **axis** isn't a vector; what you're referring to is the spin **vector** or angular velocity. What you feel is pedantic, I feel is a necessary distinction when describing such motion scientifically. As far as golfers understanding the cause and effect, perhaps using the terms backspin and sidespin makes the curvature easier to understand than spin around a tilted axis ... or not.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> @Three_Jack and @Soloman1 , if you'll read carefully, you'll note that I said that the spin **axis** isn't a vector; what you're referring to is the spin **vector** or angular velocity. What you feel is pedantic, I feel is a necessary distinction when describing such motion scientifically. As far as golfers understanding the cause and effect, perhaps using the terms backspin and sidespin makes the curvature easier to understand than spin around a tilted axis ... or not.

 

In terms of how angular velocity is expressed scientifically, dividing a vector into orthogonal components is REALLY/REALLY common. Spin axis direction and magnitude is polar coordinates. Sidespin and backspin is cartesian coordinates. That is how science describes them. The choice depends on the problem being solved or described and the preferences of the scientist (there is no absolute wrong or right).

 

dave

[HiTrajLoSpin]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > @Three_Jack and @Soloman1 , if you'll read carefully, you'll note that I said that the spin **axis** isn't a vector; what you're referring to is the spin **vector** or angular velocity. What you feel is pedantic, I feel is a necessary distinction when describing such motion scientifically. As far as golfers understanding the cause and effect, perhaps using the terms backspin and sidespin makes the curvature easier to understand than spin around a tilted axis ... or not.

>

> In terms of how angular velocity is expressed scientifically, dividing a vector into orthogonal components is REALLY/REALLY common. Spin axis direction and magnitude is polar coordinates. Sidespin and backspin is cartesian coordinates. That is how science describes them. The choice depends on the problem being solved or described and the preferences of the scientist (there is no absolute wrong or right).

>

> dave

I don't care what coordinate system that you want to use (e.g., cartesian, polar, Pinehurst-ical), the physical orientation of the spin axis does not have a magnitude ... that's REALLY/REALLY simple to comprehend.

[Soloman1]

Yes, an axis is not a vector. Thanks for clearing that up for a "REALLY/REALLY" simple-minded, moron engineer and inventor in the world of golf technology like me.

[Fade]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > That is simply a common analytical tool. It is the same as looking at the the velocity of a particle traveling in a straight line and dividing the motion into an 'x component', y component, and z component. It isn't a misconception - just a different perspective.

> > >

> > > dave

> > If you want to argue semantics:

> > misconception: a false or mistaken view, opinion, or attitude

> > perspective: the proper or accurate point of view or the ability to see it

> > Given the above definitions, dividing ball spin into backspin and sidespin components isn't a matter of perspective, but it is a misconception. However, parsing the components of lift force due to spin into horizontal and vertical components is useful when computing ball trajectory.

>

> If you want to insist that a rotating sphere with a angular momentum vector tilted at 45 degrees does not have equal components of angular momentum pointed vertically (side spin) and horizontally (backspin), then we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

>

> dave

 

Spin is a frequency. If spin is 10,000 rpm, with a spin axis 45* from horizontal (and vertical), the ball does not spin with 5,000 rpm back-spin and 5,000 rpm side-spin. The frequency is not altered. You appear to be redefining spin in the above.

[DaveLeeNC]

 

> @Fade said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > That is simply a common analytical tool. It is the same as looking at the the velocity of a particle traveling in a straight line and dividing the motion into an 'x component', y component, and z component. It isn't a misconception - just a different perspective.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > > If you want to argue semantics:

> > > misconception: a false or mistaken view, opinion, or attitude

> > > perspective: the proper or accurate point of view or the ability to see it

> > > Given the above definitions, dividing ball spin into backspin and sidespin components isn't a matter of perspective, but it is a misconception. However, parsing the components of lift force due to spin into horizontal and vertical components is useful when computing ball trajectory.

> >

> > If you want to insist that a rotating sphere with a angular momentum vector tilted at 45 degrees does not have equal components of angular momentum pointed vertically (side spin) and horizontally (backspin), then we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

> >

> > dave

>

> Spin is a frequency. If spin is 10,000 rpm, with a spin axis 45* from horizontal (and vertical), the ball does not spin with 5,000 rpm back-spin and 5,000 rpm side-spin. The frequency is not altered. You appear to be redefining spin in the above.

 

Rotation is a frequency while spin has magnitude and direction (hence - a vector). I have no objection if someone wants to claim that the perspective of the spin of a golf ball as having a single axis of rotation is their preferred perspective. It is a correct perspective.

 

I do object to being told that dividing the spin vector into its cartesian coordinates is an incorrect perspective.

 

dave

[Fade]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

>

> > @Fade said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is simply a common analytical tool. It is the same as looking at the the velocity of a particle traveling in a straight line and dividing the motion into an 'x component', y component, and z component. It isn't a misconception - just a different perspective.

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > > If you want to argue semantics:

> > > > misconception: a false or mistaken view, opinion, or attitude

> > > > perspective: the proper or accurate point of view or the ability to see it

> > > > Given the above definitions, dividing ball spin into backspin and sidespin components isn't a matter of perspective, but it is a misconception. However, parsing the components of lift force due to spin into horizontal and vertical components is useful when computing ball trajectory.

> > >

> > > If you want to insist that a rotating sphere with a angular momentum vector tilted at 45 degrees does not have equal components of angular momentum pointed vertically (side spin) and horizontally (backspin), then we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > Spin is a frequency. If spin is 10,000 rpm, with a spin axis 45* from horizontal (and vertical), the ball does not spin with 5,000 rpm back-spin and 5,000 rpm side-spin. The frequency is not altered. You appear to be redefining spin in the above.

>

> Rotation is a frequency while spin has magnitude and direction (hence - a vector). I have no objection if someone wants to claim that the perspective of the spin of a golf ball as having a single axis of rotation is their preferred perspective. It is a correct perspective.

>

> I do object to being told that dividing the spin vector into its cartesian coordinates is an incorrect perspective.

>

> dave

 

Fair enough, thanks for the reply.

[JRS]

> @HiTrajLoSpin said:

> 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.

 

while this is true, for the purposes of analyising and understanding a mechanical system it's better to break it down into vertical and horizontal components. otherwise you get incorrect assumptions like "spin loft determines the amount of spin and face to path determines the spin axis tilt" and "a low spin driver will curve less" which are NOT true.

[North Butte]

> @JRS said:

>...you get incorrect assumptions like "spin loft determines the amount of spin and face to path determines the spin axis tilt" and "a low spin driver will curve less" which are NOT true.

 

Believing that a club or a ball that will result in "curve less" is wishful thinking, abetted by marketing mumbo-jumbo. People who want to believe that are going to believe it no matter which conception of the spin vector they might have.

[cxx]

How could so many people have failed physics? Hint: 1/sqrt(2) is involved.

[oikos1]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @JRS said:

> >...you get incorrect assumptions like "spin loft determines the amount of spin and face to path determines the spin axis tilt" and "a low spin driver will curve less" which are NOT true.

>

> Believing that a club or a ball that will result in "curve less" is wishful thinking, abetted by marketing mumbo-jumbo. People who want to believe that are going to believe it no matter which conception of the spin vector they might have.

 

Wait. So "twist face" technology is bogus?

[dlygrisse]

Probably 18 majors. ?. Probably what Jack actually did and what he said or thought he did may have been slightly different. More than likely he just sorted it out through practice until it worked. Jack was great at working the ball both ways when needed. Even though his primary shot was a fade.

 

> @juststeve said:

> 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.

 

 

[dlygrisse]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @JRS said:

> > >...you get incorrect assumptions like "spin loft determines the amount of spin and face to path determines the spin axis tilt" and "a low spin driver will curve less" which are NOT true.

> >

> > Believing that a club or a ball that will result in "curve less" is wishful thinking, abetted by marketing mumbo-jumbo. People who want to believe that are going to believe it no matter which conception of the spin vector they might have.

>

> Wait. So "twist face" technology is bogus?

 

Well, gear effect is another subject entirely. And TM’s take on it vs. how persimmons affected it is another discussion.