Oceans Eleven Confessions to break a man's heart....

[Conrad1953]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

Ever see clouds in the distance that look like they're touching the ground

but when you get to them they're not? :cheesy:

[Michael C.]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

Ever see clouds in the distance that look like they're touching the ground

but when you get to them they're not? :cheesy:

 

YES!!

 

...and them dern rainbows!! Pot of gold, my patooty!!

[Palauan Hammer]

:taunt:

 

 

Been making lots of swings these past few days..............................I need to get back out on the course I'm going crazy here. It's friggin May already and I'm worried I'm gonna lose this year too. I can't believe the "process" is taking this long. I guess it's just the ultimate test of patience, and when I finally do get to play and practice again I'll never take it for granted, ever. Sorry for the mini vent, it just seem like it's been forever, friends are having kids, getting married, nephews and nieces are getting older, hell even my Brother is expecting and will get married soon. Time is flying.

[Pigems]

Pavel Bure is my favorite hockey player of all time. Why? Because he was the fastest player on "NHL '95" on my Super Nintendo. Gretzky was quick but he couldn't take a check. Pavel...F...T...W!!!

 

The Russian Rocket was A great player as well Den, always did like Pavel and his brother played for the Habs for a bit too. Valerie Bure I think his name was?

 

But NHL 96 was the all time classic Bro!! A left handed shooter could score from ANYWHERE on the left side of the ice as long as he was at a certain angle when he took the shot lol. I once scored over 200 goals against my cousin on NHL96(SNES) in a full Regulation 60 minute game haha.

 

You want classic? "Blades of Steel" is what you call classic.

 

LMAO 200 goals is insane.

 

DUDE!! I KILLED Blades of Steel!! Loves that game too!! Except the Habs were Red and Yellow lol

 

And do you remember "Ice Hockey" for the NES also? That fat, medium and skinny guys?? And when they'd fight they would all spin around in a big circle and the skinny guys would shoot out the sides of the scrum? Lol

[Pigems]

:taunt:

 

 

Been making lots of swings these past few days..............................I need to get back out on the course I'm going crazy here. It's friggin May already and I'm worried I'm gonna lose this year too. I can't believe the "process" is taking this long. I guess it's just the ultimate test of patience, and when I finally do get to play and practice again I'll never take it for granted, ever. Sorry for the mini vent, it just seem like it's been forever, friends are having kids, getting married, nephews and nieces are getting older, hell even my Brother is expecting and will get married soon. Time is flying.

 

Are you able to string up and old blanket in your back yard to hit balls into Hammy? Don't cost nuttin but a piece of string and an old blanket!! Then you could whack balls all day long Brosef!!!

[SixtySomePing]

Can someone translate "And screw the USGA!" to French?

 

A new acronym. FUSGA! :D

 

So....FUSGA, sil vous plait! (I'll refer to me Canadian friends on the spelling)

 

Ok so as OGA member #7 I hereby propose the following official unofficial rally cry:

 

"Laissez les bon temps rouler, et FUSGA, s'il vous plait!"

 

My real name is Michel but I shun my French heritage.

 

Vive le Canada!!!!

 

Speaking of... truly heartfelt best wishes for the dear folks in Fort McMurray Alberta, going through some very tough times...

[Palauan Hammer]

:taunt:

 

 

Been making lots of swings these past few days..............................I need to get back out on the course I'm going crazy here. It's friggin May already and I'm worried I'm gonna lose this year too. I can't believe the "process" is taking this long. I guess it's just the ultimate test of patience, and when I finally do get to play and practice again I'll never take it for granted, ever. Sorry for the mini vent, it just seem like it's been forever, friends are having kids, getting married, nephews and nieces are getting older, hell even my Brother is expecting and will get married soon. Time is flying.

 

Are you able to string up and old blanket in your back yard to hit balls into Hammy? Don't cost nuttin but a piece of string and an old blanket!! Then you could whack balls all day long Brosef!!!

 

I wish I could but I don't have much space or grass here, and I have no backyard unfortunately LOL. I live in town here so I'm surrounded by buildings. I can pitch and chip somewhat but only when no one is home because the cars block my way.

[Pigems]

:taunt:

 

 

Been making lots of swings these past few days..............................I need to get back out on the course I'm going crazy here. It's friggin May already and I'm worried I'm gonna lose this year too. I can't believe the "process" is taking this long. I guess it's just the ultimate test of patience, and when I finally do get to play and practice again I'll never take it for granted, ever. Sorry for the mini vent, it just seem like it's been forever, friends are having kids, getting married, nephews and nieces are getting older, hell even my Brother is expecting and will get married soon. Time is flying.

 

Are you able to string up and old blanket in your back yard to hit balls into Hammy? Don't cost nuttin but a piece of string and an old blanket!! Then you could whack balls all day long Brosef!!!

 

I wish I could but I don't have much space or grass here, and I have no backyard unfortunately LOL. I live in town here so I'm surrounded by buildings. I can pitch and chip somewhat but only when no one is home because the cars block my way.

 

Crap!! Sorry Brosef, I tried :D

[MMB1500]

I SAW the word CONCEPTUAL lol.

 

And Stu is always careful to mention he is talking about "his" game and

other's mileage may vary. He doesn't say that what is good for him is

necessarily good for EVERYONE.

 

And it just so happens that BIG STU's reasoning was completely based on the TRUE science. Hence my post TO HIM.

 

And to be clear, when I post about the science, it applies to EVERYONE because we all live in the same universe bound by the same laws of science. Whether or not someone wants to align their game with it or not is irrelevant. As we both agreed, the psychological impact of how one perceives a scientifically supported benefit or detriment has more of an impact than the pure science of it.

 

So, if low bounce isn't for you and YOUR GAME, NO PROBLEM. Just realize that the science doesn't support the benefit of a high bounce club. And yes this applies to EVERYONE in the known universe.

 

On of the most celebrated wedges of all time (Ping Eye2 SW) has 17.5 degrees

of bounce.

 

You can choose how much bounce you want to expose on any given shot

depending on how you set up and address the ball.

 

Bounce doesn't "cut" through anything, it causes the club head to "bounce"

off the ground and keep the leading edge from digging.

 

If you wanna hit flop shots off tight lies then low or no bounce can be good.

However, if your lie is the least bit fluffy you can go right under the ball and

whiff completely. You can still hit a flop shot off a tight lie with a medium

bounce wedge. It depends on your angle of attack.

 

High bounce is not evil and neither is low bounce in and of themselves. It

just depends on the player. I think nearly every iron made has some bounce

just like every iron made has some offset.

 

I once watched a Dan Carraher video on here where he was hitting flop

shots with a 3 iron just to prove you can hit many different shots with any

iron.

 

Seve Ballesteros, RIP, still a child, was practicing on the beach with a 3 iron.

 

I believe the Dan vid, with the 3i, was posted on here quite a while back.....Impressive, to say the least. I wonder if it's still on here?

 

I've also seen Monty hit a 300 yrd drive from his knees.

 

Seve is my favourite golfer of all time. I remember growing up watching him in The Open. It's largely down to my dad, and Seve, that I took up golf in the first place. What a legend.

[Fellaheen51]

Wow, my head spins from reading the overnight bounce discussion. IDK. Wish I was precise enough with irons to always take a divot AFTER I strike the ball. The real world reality is that I'm not. If the swing takes to much substrate, the SS goes from age adjusted average to pitiful in .37456 seconds. Resulting in a struck ball that travels 30 yards and a "pelt" that travels 10. Therefore, I'm a picker. Just trying to graze the surface with the clubhead. A good shot results in a deposit of fine grass blades on the face of the club. So back to the head manipulation thing that requires getting the angle set just so in order to prevent blading shots, with the high(er) bounce irons. Not something that I concern myself with when using the thinner soled, low(er) bounce irons.

.

After checking out the vid games ^. Guess I grew up in a generation that was not into video games. Never knew anyone that played them. Wasn't even a thing in my formative years. Therefore never had the "Blades of Steel" (or anything Nintendo) experience. To this day, never have had a gaming console of any form. Only owned two video games in my life that I would play on a old WIN95 computer. MS Flight Simulator, seemingly always crashing the plane after a couple of minutes. And a Links LS golf game that I was terrible at. Would have to use 8 mulligans a hole to post a respectable score. Ha Ha. Could only play about 9 holes before becoming bored with it all and shut'er down. Vid games remain a mystifying experience.

.

Hang in there PH. Practice what you can, where you can. Better days are ahead.

.

Chaos has apparently broken out in the OGA membership drive. The "no rules" rule allowing incoming members to select their own number. Rather than being assigned one by our Illustrious Leader Stu. Resulting in gaps in the membership role. NTTAWWT. If I'd a known, would have selected #47 for Jack Morris, my favorite ball player back in the day. Perhaps its time for a ruling from the duly designated "non-rules official" Michel C on how to proceed. If laissez faire is the order of the day, may amend my membership number. Await further advisement from the senior members around here.

.

+1 on extending best wishes to those living in and around Ft. McMurray, Alberta. Spent some time reading about the situation there this a.m. Very tragic.

.

Currently TOOL'ed.

[DeNinny]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

If you believein that much significance, then those same fractions then are making a difference on the drag (through any media) and on increasing the chances of a skulled or fat shot. The same design that enabled the "benefit" you claim as so significant consequently enabled the same DETRIMENTS.

 

Clean ball contact is the first priority and the rounded leading edge and lowered rounded bottom are DETRIMENTS to that. Again this is significant to the performance by those same "fractions of an inch" that help you so much out of the sand. You cannot only acknowledge part of the science. Science doesn't work that way.

[Chief Illiniwek]

51, interesting that you feel you should always mark. I know the pros do but I feel like their green reading and stroke are on another level. Well, I don't feel like it. They are, at least with me haha.

 

As long as I'm not going to be standing in another's line, I almost always clean it up. I've just been studying the break around the hole, I just watched the putt go passed the hole, and I just "felt" my stroke so if I missed because of a poor stroke that feedback is fresh in my mind. Even if I have an awful putt and I'm ten feet out for my next one, as long as I'm not mentally shaken, I'm asking to finish. And I feel like it works out more often than it doesn't.

 

I used to brag about playing it as it lies on the green, my way of sticking it to the inside 3 foot putts plum-bob'ers. Until I missed a few < 2 footers b/c of a grain of sand. Unless it's a tap-in, (inside the leather) and even then, I'll have a good last look at it.

 

On the greens I play a grain of sand is the least of your worries! Haha! But in all seriousness golf is such a microcosm of life. Different things work for different people and that's really cool and interesting. One thing that I think is good about my method is hopefully I never get yippy since I'm not stressing over the short ones too long.

 

I LOVED the conceptual drawing, already forgot the cartoonist. 51 I think? Well done!

 

Matt I'm still riding the shoulders back putting thought. Two league nights in a row without a three putt on some seriously quick greens. Back to back 37's and I didn't even strike driver well last night. Definitely owe you a beer sir! Hope the back continues to heal!

 

Edit: TOOL'd, and I even fast forwarded through most of the bounce discussion lol! Too much thinking for me boys. If I put that much thought into wedges I think my short game would go into the toilet!

[Qqq123xx]

I see the Mad Scientist's Club was at it again last night.

 

Raquel Welch has more bounce that Kate Beckinsale. Just depends on the relativity to what bounce one prefers. I prefer all bounces in all actuality. And you can Quote me.

[Michael C.]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

If you believein that much significance, then those same fractions then are making a difference on the drag (through any media) and on increasing the chances of a skulled or fat shot. The same design that enabled the "benefit" you claim as so significant consequently enabled the same DETRIMENTS.

 

Clean ball contact is the first priority and the rounded leading edge and lowered rounded bottom are DETRIMENTS to that. Again this is significant to the performance by those same "fractions of an inch" that help you so much out of the sand. You cannot only acknowledge part of the science. Science doesn't work that way.

 

I don't believe anyone is denying the science. It's the interpretation. I say benefit. You say detriment.

 

The reason you open the face for a bunker shot in fluffy sand is to expose more bounce (which conceptually makes the flange wider) is to help keep the club from digging.

 

This same design also provides forgiveness off the turf. It digs less allowing more energy to go into the ball. Does a sharper leading edge fit into the void better? Yes, but if the turf is contacted with a sharp edge compared to a rounded edge, the sharper edge will dig more. The rounded edge will resist digging and will be more prone to skid into the same void. That is, all things being equal on a shot that is hit slightly heavy.

 

Clean contact? Doesn't matter.

 

I'd rather dig with a shovel that has a sharp edge and cut a steak with a sharp knife. Why? Because a rounded edge resists cutting.

 

Ninja, my friend, I won't go as far as to say you're wrong BUT, you haven't convinced me that I'm not right. ;)

 

On a lighter note, today is Cinco de Mayo (I think I spelled that correctly) and more importantly, Mrs C and I's 10th anniversary.

 

I need a nap.

 

Buenos Noches!!

[Michael C.]

I see the Mad Scientist's Club was at it again last night.

 

Raquel Welch has more bounce that Kate Beckinsale. Just depends on the relativity to what bounce one prefers. I prefer all bounces in all actuality. And you can Quote me.

 

Nice Qbservation, Q! I QonQur!! :D

[Pigems]

Happy Anniversary MC!! :D

[DeNinny]

Pavel Bure is my favorite hockey player of all time. Why? Because he was the fastest player on "NHL '95" on my Super Nintendo. Gretzky was quick but he couldn't take a check. Pavel...F...T...W!!!

 

The Russian Rocket was A great player as well Den, always did like Pavel and his brother played for the Habs for a bit too. Valerie Bure I think his name was?

 

But NHL 96 was the all time classic Bro!! A left handed shooter could score from ANYWHERE on the left side of the ice as long as he was at a certain angle when he took the shot lol. I once scored over 200 goals against my cousin on NHL96(SNES) in a full Regulation 60 minute game haha.

 

You want classic? "Blades of Steel" is what you call classic.

 

LMAO 200 goals is insane.

 

DUDE!! I KILLED Blades of Steel!! Loves that game too!! Except the Habs were Red and Yellow lol

 

And do you remember "Ice Hockey" for the NES also? That fat, medium and skinny guys?? And when they'd fight they would all spin around in a big circle and the skinny guys would shoot out the sides of the scrum? Lol

 

LOL Ice Hockey was a good one. I loved those skinny dudes 'cause their speed. I always put two fat boys on defense and three skinny dudes as my front line.

 

But when the goalie became controllable with the NHL series is when I really loved hockey games. The goalie control was a breakthrough. LOL you ain't exploiting the left side on me in NHL '96 when I can control the goalie!

[Conrad1953]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

If you believein that much significance, then those same fractions then are making a difference on the drag (through any media) and on increasing the chances of a skulled or fat shot. The same design that enabled the "benefit" you claim as so significant consequently enabled the same DETRIMENTS.

 

Clean ball contact is the first priority and the rounded leading edge and lowered rounded bottom are DETRIMENTS to that. Again this is significant to the performance by those same "fractions of an inch" that help you so much out of the sand. You cannot only acknowledge part of the science. Science doesn't work that way.

 

I don't believe anyone is denying the science. It's the interpretation. I say benefit. You say detriment.

 

The reason you open the face for a bunker shot in fluffy sand is to expose more bounce (which conceptually makes the flange wider) is to help keep the club from digging.

 

This same design also provides forgiveness off the turf. It digs less allowing more energy to go into the ball. Does a sharper leading edge fit into the void better? Yes, but if the turf is contacted with a sharp edge compared to a rounded edge, the sharper edge will dig more. The rounded edge will resist digging and will be more prone to skid into the same void. That is, all things being equal on a shot that is hit slightly heavy.

 

Clean contact? Doesn't matter.

 

I'd rather dig with a shovel that has a sharp edge and cut a steak with a sharp knife. Why? Because a rounded edge resists cutting.

 

Ninja, my friend, I won't go as far as to say you're wrong BUT, you haven't convinced me that I'm not right. ;)

 

On a lighter note, today is Cinco de Mayo (I think I spelled that correctly) and more importantly, Mrs C and I's 10th anniversary.

 

I need a nap.

 

Buenos Noches!!

 

Happy #10 brah........and I concur with your conclusion, a blunt object is less

prone to digging while a sharp object is more prone, given the same attack

angle and path.

 

And I also believe if you hit the little ball first then all this talk about leading

edges and bounce, etc. is meaningless. This stuff only comes into play when

you hit turf or ground first, whether it be intentional or accidental.

 

If you do hit the big ball first then a more rounded leading edge and sole

will help the club glance off the ground whereas a sharp leading edge will

"grab" the ground and dig into it. The 'science' should bear this out.

 

Except for "specialty" shots, ball first contact is desirable and if done it

matters little what iron is in your hands.

 

Things like a rounded leading edge and sole, and bounce are forgiveness

aspects that help you if you mess up and catch a shot slightly fat. Now, if

you get real steep and hit 2 inches behind the ball you're gonna need a

wedge like a Ping G20 lob wedge to give you any chance of a serviceable

shot.......and yes, WRX member "Asleep" was hitting these shots intentionally

to demonstrate the forgiveness of a Ping G series lob wedge compared to

your standard blade lob wedge.

 

He was deliberately hitting 2-3 inches behind he ball and his shots were

going about 90 yards each time. He had a thread about it when he was

reviewing the G20 irons when they first were released. And these shots

were from fairway lies not from rough.

[SixtySomePing]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

If you believein that much significance, then those same fractions then are making a difference on the drag (through any media) and on increasing the chances of a skulled or fat shot. The same design that enabled the "benefit" you claim as so significant consequently enabled the same DETRIMENTS.

 

Clean ball contact is the first priority and the rounded leading edge and lowered rounded bottom are DETRIMENTS to that. Again this is significant to the performance by those same "fractions of an inch" that help you so much out of the sand. You cannot only acknowledge part of the science. Science doesn't work that way.

 

I don't believe anyone is denying the science. It's the interpretation. I say benefit. You say detriment.

 

The reason you open the face for a bunker shot in fluffy sand is to expose more bounce (which conceptually makes the flange wider) is to help keep the club from digging.

 

This same design also provides forgiveness off the turf. It digs less allowing more energy to go into the ball. Does a sharper leading edge fit into the void better? Yes, but if the turf is contacted with a sharp edge compared to a rounded edge, the sharper edge will dig more. The rounded edge will resist digging and will be more prone to skid into the same void. That is, all things being equal on a shot that is hit slightly heavy.

 

Clean contact? Doesn't matter.

 

I'd rather dig with a shovel that has a sharp edge and cut a steak with a sharp knife. Why? Because a rounded edge resists cutting.

 

Ninja, my friend, I won't go as far as to say you're wrong BUT, you haven't convinced me that I'm not right. ;)

 

On a lighter note, today is Cinco de Mayo (I think I spelled that correctly) and more importantly, Mrs C and I's 10th anniversary.

 

I need a nap.

 

Buenos Noches!!

 

Wow, good for you! #10 and on Cinco de Mayo... feliz aniversario! .... Happy Anniversary :)

[DeNinny]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

If you believein that much significance, then those same fractions then are making a difference on the drag (through any media) and on increasing the chances of a skulled or fat shot. The same design that enabled the "benefit" you claim as so significant consequently enabled the same DETRIMENTS.

 

Clean ball contact is the first priority and the rounded leading edge and lowered rounded bottom are DETRIMENTS to that. Again this is significant to the performance by those same "fractions of an inch" that help you so much out of the sand. You cannot only acknowledge part of the science. Science doesn't work that way.

 

I don't believe anyone is denying the science. It's the interpretation. I say benefit. You say detriment.

 

The reason you open the face for a bunker shot in fluffy sand is to expose more bounce (which conceptually makes the flange wider) is to help keep the club from digging.

 

This same design also provides forgiveness off the turf. It digs less allowing more energy to go into the ball. Does a sharper leading edge fit into the void better? Yes, but if the turf is contacted with a sharp edge compared to a rounded edge, the sharper edge will dig more. The rounded edge will resist digging and will be more prone to skid into the same void. That is, all things being equal on a shot that is hit slightly heavy.

 

Clean contact? Doesn't matter.

 

I'd rather dig with a shovel that has a sharp edge and cut a steak with a sharp knife. Why? Because a rounded edge resists cutting.

 

Ninja, my friend, I won't go as far as to say you're wrong BUT, you haven't convinced me that I'm not right. ;)

 

On a lighter note, today is Cinco de Mayo (I think I spelled that correctly) and more importantly, Mrs C and I's 10th anniversary.

 

I need a nap.

 

Buenos Noches!!

 

The reason you can't call me wrong is because I don't violate any law of physics when I make a statement.

 

The only reason you think you're right is because you DON'T GET that the higher bounce is SLOWING the clubhead down as it digs (through any media). For some reason you've convinced yourself that this means "dig less" which is good, but the physics does NOT support this. The physics supports digging SLOWER. *If* there is less dig, then it is only because the clubhead slowed down. The fallacy in the logic of less dig is the notion that this high bounce is like a curved bottom sled with zero friction such that the ground is not resisting it from sliding (instead of digging). I'm sorry, but that is a flawed assumption.

 

And if you don't think clean ball contact is important and high priority outside of the sand, then we absolutely have different physics priorities. If I don't make clean ball contact first, by (my) definition I've mishit the ball. And I'm good if we disagree on this.

 

So yes it is clearly a physics interpretation issue. On that note, I will take my interpretation over anyone else's. Especially since no law of physics is being put forth to refute what I am saying. You keep claiming "digs less" with no other detriment, but that is a FLAWED ASSUMPTION. Also I've already been through that "science" of supposedly digging less a million times. It just doesn't hold water. The initial velocity and path of the clubhead BEFORE impact defines its path. *If* the clubhead design starts to changes this, it will only be AFTER more than fractions of an inch get dug up. So by then the clubhead will have slowed down so much that the less digging is a moot point.

 

Happy Cinco de Mayo and #10! The wife and I just celebrated #16.

[DeNinny]

Happy #10 brah........and I concur with your conclusion, a blunt object is less

prone to digging while a sharp object is more prone, given the same attack

angle and path.

 

If you understood the complete physics, you would also understand that the blunt object slows down significantly in the process of "digging less". The ball doesn't care if the clubhead is digging or not if the velocity has dropped off. It's all about the velocity of the clubface going into the ball. At least it is in my world of physics.

[DeNinny]

...

If you do hit the big ball first then a more rounded leading edge and sole

will help the club glance off the ground whereas a sharp leading edge will

"grab" the ground and dig into it. The 'science' should bear this out.

 

...

 

If you have made ball contact first, the ball is going to leave the face in milliseconds, which means the amount of clubhead travel "digging", WHILE IN CONTACT WITH THE BALL, is on the order of fractions OF fractions of an inch, making ANY amount of bounce a completely MOOT POINT. That "glancing" instead of digging is going to only be significant, if at all, AFTER the ball is in the air already. This is the science born from your statement of ball contact first.

[Matt J]

Ninja, you're obviously a very bright guy and have a much better background in Physics than most of us. I've only taken a little Physics and it was a long time ago, but it seems to me that the subject is all about "vectors."

 

The way I see the bounce issue is that the blunted wedge, with higher bounce, changes the vector to a much more shallow angle.

 

One of the things I hated about studying Physics is that the teacher would review our work and if he deemed that it was all done correctly then the difference between the theoretical value and our computations must be "friction." Friction became the ultimate fudge factor between reality and theory and the teacher was the deciding factor if the computations were incorrect or if it was friction.

 

So, values that I don't think we're going to figure out.... substrate density. As the ground gets harder the sharper low bounce wedge behaves much like the high bounce wedge. The harder ground surface deflects the wedge down the line more and is preferable because some dig is better than the skimming skull shot.

 

All things being equal hitting the ball first is obviously preferable in most situations, but I think it can be over-emphasized. A lot of players play the ball too far back in order to make sure they hit it first. Eventually, you end up steep with too much shaft lean and although you may not chunk the pitch you hit a low screamer that runs out too far, over and over again.

 

Using the correct bounce is paramount in my mind. I have no doubt that the conventional wisdom concerning bounce is correct. I do not have the skills to explain it, and don't honestly know if anyone does, but using a higher bounce wedge off of fluffy, soft, sandy, or muddy lies and a low bounce wedge off of tight lies 100% works for me.

 

BTW, when I'm paired with beginners, I often entertain myself by really focusing on their ball at contact. The vast majority hit a lot of their shots turf first. It amazes me how well many of those shots turn out. I think that if the club is very close to the low point, the slightly fat shot turns out okay a lot of the time. I'd guess we all do it more than we know. Like your example diagram (which I actually like) illustrates to me, we're talking microns and fractions of milliseconds. The one groove thick shot is a lot like the one groove high shot, not perfect but pretty playable. And like I said earlier, IMVHO, if you aren't flirting with a touch thick then you're probably hitting the ball well before the true bottom with too much shaft lean and too steep of an angle of attack and although you might like most of the results you're cheating yourself the ability to take it in high and you're more likely IMO to hit the super fat Spieth shot.

[Pigems]

LOL Ice Hockey was a good one. I loved those skinny dudes 'cause their speed. I always put two fat boys on defense and three skinny dudes as my front line.

 

But when the goalie became controllable with the NHL series is when I really loved hockey games. The goalie control was a breakthrough. LOL you ain't exploiting the left side on me in NHL '96 when I can control the goalie!

 

Control the goalie all you like... :rofl:

 

[DeNinny]

Ninja, you're obviously a very bright guy and have a much better background in Physics than most of us. I've only taken a little Physics and it was a long time ago, but it seems to me that the subject is all about "vectors."

 

The way I see the bounce issue is that the blunted wedge, with higher bounce, changes the vector to a much more shallow angle.

 

One of the things I hated about studying Physics is that the teacher would review our work and if he deemed that it was all done correctly then the difference between the theoretical value and our computations must be "friction." Friction became the ultimate fudge factor between reality and theory and the teacher was the deciding factor if the computations were incorrect or if it was friction.

 

So, values that I don't think we're going to figure out.... substrate density. As the ground gets harder the sharper low bounce wedge behaves much like the high bounce wedge. The harder ground surface deflects the wedge down the line more and is preferable because some dig is better than the skimming skull shot.

 

All things being equal hitting the ball first is obviously preferable in most situations, but I think it can be over-emphasized. A lot of players play the ball too far back in order to make sure they hit it first. Eventually, you end up steep with too much shaft lean and although you may not chunk the pitch you hit a low screamer that runs out too far, over and over again.

 

Using the correct bounce is paramount in my mind. I have no doubt that the conventional wisdom concerning bounce is correct. I do not have the skills to explain it, and don't honestly know if anyone does, but using a higher bounce wedge off of fluffy, soft, sandy, or muddy lies and a low bounce wedge off of tight lies 100% works for me.

 

BTW, when I'm paired with beginners, I often entertain myself by really focusing on their ball at contact. The vast majority hit a lot of their shots turf first. It amazes me how well many of those shots turn out. I think that if the club is very close to the low point, the slightly fat shot turns out okay a lot of the time. I'd guess we all do it more than we know. Like your example diagram (which I actually like) illustrates to me, we're talking microns and fractions of milliseconds. The one groove thick shot is a lot like the one groove high shot, not perfect but pretty playable. And like I said earlier, IMVHO, if you aren't flirting with a touch thick then you're probably hitting the ball well before the true bottom with too much shaft lean and too steep of an angle of attack and although you might like most of the results you're cheating yourself the ability to take it in high and you're more likely IMO to hit the super fat Spieth shot.

 

Good stuff MJ. I will delve into the weeds about vectors and such and how it plays into this discussion later tonight. But in advance, observe this video and how long the ball is in contact with the clubface:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dG9hb3_blo

 

There is no way any amount of curvature on the bottom of the ball is impacting the ball physics while in contact with the face. In that amount of time, the sole of the club is, for all intents and purposes, a straight line. The curvature or bounce, during impact time, is INSIGNIFICANT.

[mdgboxx]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

If you believein that much significance, then those same fractions then are making a difference on the drag (through any media) and on increasing the chances of a skulled or fat shot. The same design that enabled the "benefit" you claim as so significant consequently enabled the same DETRIMENTS.

 

Clean ball contact is the first priority and the rounded leading edge and lowered rounded bottom are DETRIMENTS to that. Again this is significant to the performance by those same "fractions of an inch" that help you so much out of the sand. You cannot only acknowledge part of the science. Science doesn't work that way.

 

I don't believe anyone is denying the science. It's the interpretation. I say benefit. You say detriment.

 

The reason you open the face for a bunker shot in fluffy sand is to expose more bounce (which conceptually makes the flange wider) is to help keep the club from digging.

 

This same design also provides forgiveness off the turf. It digs less allowing more energy to go into the ball. Does a sharper leading edge fit into the void better? Yes, but if the turf is contacted with a sharp edge compared to a rounded edge, the sharper edge will dig more. The rounded edge will resist digging and will be more prone to skid into the same void. That is, all things being equal on a shot that is hit slightly heavy.

 

Clean contact? Doesn't matter.

 

I'd rather dig with a shovel that has a sharp edge and cut a steak with a sharp knife. Why? Because a rounded edge resists cutting.

 

Ninja, my friend, I won't go as far as to say you're wrong BUT, you haven't convinced me that I'm not right. ;)

 

On a lighter note, today is Cinco de Mayo (I think I spelled that correctly) and more importantly, Mrs C and I's 10th anniversary.

 

I need a nap.

 

Buenos Noches!!

 

Wow, good for you! #10 and on Cinco de Mayo... feliz aniversario! .... Happy Anniversary :)

 

Nice change of Avatar there SSP, along with photo shop to boot. lol

[DeNinny]

LOL Ice Hockey was a good one. I loved those skinny dudes 'cause their speed. I always put two fat boys on defense and three skinny dudes as my front line.

 

But when the goalie became controllable with the NHL series is when I really loved hockey games. The goalie control was a breakthrough. LOL you ain't exploiting the left side on me in NHL '96 when I can control the goalie!

 

Control the goalie all you like... :rofl:

 

 

LOL whoever was tending goal suX0rz!!!

 

Or even a blind squirrel finds a nut (i.e. 'twas a lucky shot).

[mdgboxx]

A fraction of an inch out of the sand to me is the difference between a one hop and stop AND a ball that rolls 15 ft passed the hole.

 

What do I know? I believe the earth is round yet...it sure seems pretty flat. Of course I live in Illinois. :D

 

Edit: Good Night, Ninja. :D

 

If you believein that much significance, then those same fractions then are making a difference on the drag (through any media) and on increasing the chances of a skulled or fat shot. The same design that enabled the "benefit" you claim as so significant consequently enabled the same DETRIMENTS.

 

Clean ball contact is the first priority and the rounded leading edge and lowered rounded bottom are DETRIMENTS to that. Again this is significant to the performance by those same "fractions of an inch" that help you so much out of the sand. You cannot only acknowledge part of the science. Science doesn't work that way.

 

I don't believe anyone is denying the science. It's the interpretation. I say benefit. You say detriment.

 

The reason you open the face for a bunker shot in fluffy sand is to expose more bounce (which conceptually makes the flange wider) is to help keep the club from digging.

 

This same design also provides forgiveness off the turf. It digs less allowing more energy to go into the ball. Does a sharper leading edge fit into the void better? Yes, but if the turf is contacted with a sharp edge compared to a rounded edge, the sharper edge will dig more. The rounded edge will resist digging and will be more prone to skid into the same void. That is, all things being equal on a shot that is hit slightly heavy.

 

Clean contact? Doesn't matter.

 

I'd rather dig with a shovel that has a sharp edge and cut a steak with a sharp knife. Why? Because a rounded edge resists cutting.

 

Ninja, my friend, I won't go as far as to say you're wrong BUT, you haven't convinced me that I'm not right. ;)

 

On a lighter note, today is Cinco de Mayo (I think I spelled that correctly) and more importantly, Mrs C and I's 10th anniversary.

 

I need a nap.

 

Buenos Noches!!

 

Happy 10th to you and your Mrs. MC, it only gets better from here on out.....IMHO only, of course. :cheesy:

 

It's amazing to me, how much information I find myself searching on Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary whenever I come on here.

 

Again, I looked up Cinco de Mayo, verrrrry interrrrrresting, to say the least. The Emperor Maximilian of Austria was installed as the ruling Emperor of Mexico by Emperor Napoleon of France??

 

I always thought that France already had it's hands full with US/Canada's Eastern front. Are you telling me that the French were looking to find a "Snowbird's" getaway as far back as 1864???? :rofl:

[scotee]

If I could humbly submit my application to the OGA to be member #15 as on that day I will sadly once again be older than Rad and will be singing Sixty’s song. If this out of sequence request is an inconvenience or an outlaw move than just screw it and give me any old number.

As one proof of my eligibility I site the persistent use of the outlaw grooves on two of my Mac Daddy wedges. If more evidence is required I can comply.

Signed

The ever lurking and liking

scotee

[scotee]

Yes, happy 10th MC. That is a nice milestone. Many happy returns!