Spin off of mats vs grass, what is the technical cause?

[Howard_Jones]

Just to summarize, no soap on table, ball went lower and spin slightly more than with soap. I compared frames where ball diameter just gets entirely outside of paper. Was almost identical for each non soap and each soap test. I only did this the 4 times.

 

Btw, this shows exactly opposite of what I thought. Seems less friction between ball and surface produces less spin and higher launch but its not exactly a proper test. It just shows a difference in ball behavior given only a change in its friction with the surface it is on.

 

I found it surprising and interesting to say the least.

 

The same effect happens if we place one of those impact decals on the face of an iron. The grooves very much matter from a clean lie, despite some rumors and theories to the contrary.

 

It's also the reason that a hard cover golf ball will launch higher and spin less with a wedge... vs a soft cover ball.

 

Sure, so is this effect happening as well with the surface the ball sits on?

 

I don't believe so. An iron hit from tee (all else equal), will spin a little more than a shot from the turf. A tee would represent about as little surface friction as possible

 

This was what I had always thought, but this little experiment just showed the opposite. This is why I brought this subject up. I don't think anyone actually knows for sure what is happening. Too many variables. I would love to make a very controlled test with a phantom camera to try and capture it. I have been trying to imagine it all in my head regarding what happens when striking a ball identically but off different surfaces. Is it a mechanism that makes the ball slide up club face rather than bite and spin, is it more of a bar of soap squirting from out under your foot effect, is it something else? Someone on here has to have the means to capture this definitively?

 

i though this had been up before and was settled.

 

Your SOAP test is correct, TURF normally (depending on type), holds back the ball a bit better, and allows higher compression of the ball = lower launch and higher spin vs most mats.

 

If the players Angle of attack is very shallow and in the area of 0* (#3 iron typical), we dont see much difference between different surfaces as long as noting comes in-between the ball and the face, but the more negative AOA is, the better will we be able to see how spin and launch conditions changes between the actual mat and the turf we compare it with.

 

We must always compare this things "all else equal", so if the player changes his AOA from turf to a math, its NOT the mat difference we get to see at all, so be aware of that. The other thing is, that NO TURF has the same resistance or ability to hold the ball back, so we ALWAYS have a surface who vary up or down, and interfere with our launch and spin conditions, more for those with a steep AOA then those with a shallow AOA.

 

This is why its still "valid" to say we can gain more spin by hitting down in the ball, even if Trackman ballflight laws say different, it really depend on the surface we try that from. If friction is very low, we cant change anything by changing AOA, but try that with a high lofted club from a surface where the ball dont roll like on a fast green, and spin will change depending on AOA. when we use irons and wedges.

 

For a driver where the ball is up on a tee, this dont matter, then its only a question of the height of our impact, there is no surface who can change anything there, but it is when the ball is on the ground. and the difference we see between mats and turf itself is the proof of it.

The surface does matter, and it changes from shot to shot unless we are still standing on that same mat....

 

i though all this was common knowledge long ago since its more than 10 years the new ball flight laws came, who included the term SPIN LOFT, who is valid for drivers under lab conditions, but hard to find useful real life since this numbers often point the wrong way. Turf conditions and angle of attach is why.

 

USGA started ball testing and made some new rules lately, and when we look into those tests, we get a deeper understanding on ball compression and speed, and spin and launch is influenced of the same, so if the surface makes a difference for our ability to compress the ball, it makes a difference for launch and spin, its that simple.

 

EDIT

 

About SPIN LOFT...it becomes use full to explain why we cant gain more spin at a certain point (45 SPIN LOFT)

From that SPIN LOFT and higher, the ball will start to roll up the face, we can no longer COMPRESS it since loft has become to high for that, so its UP in this end its use full, and for drivers under lab conditions, but it FAILS when we talk irons and wedges, something Trackman them self should have said with strait words.

 

Their own testing on turf vs mats is a proof that the surface matters for this things, but i have not seen any "corrections" to those new stone tablets from 2008.

 

http://blog.trackmangolf.jp/mats-vs-grass-whats-difference/

[Howard_Jones]

Look into that test from Trackman

 

Angle of attack is "the same" with 4.0 vs 4.2 so we cant say the player changed his swing.

The average gives a difference to SPIN LOFT of only 1.0*

 

That 1.0* CANT explain a difference to spin of 1928 rpms and 2.7* as launch angle, and they say it themself.

 

"As you can see from the chart there is minimal change in Club Data, we are safe to assume that the major variances in Launch Angle and Spin Rate were affected solely by the surface."

 

For IRONS we use 85 mpg = loft/2 = launch angle, and when club speed goes higher, the ratio loft to launch is even lower.

That means 1 difference to loft should have changed launch by MAX 0.5* but it moved it by 2.7*

At 93 club speed like this player had, 1* difference to loft is 242 rpms, we should have seen max 150 Rpm spin difference, but we saw 1927

 

That means, the THEORY of SPIN LOFT has FAILED, and thats meas its not valid anymore, thats how science works, its NOT valid for irons and wedges or any other club where the surface has a potential to change launch and spin conditions, so its ONLY for a ball on a TEE or in a ROBOT where we have full control of all parameters it can be used, real life its mostly useless like in this case they have done them self.

[Trap Junior]

I'm not a scientist nor claim to be but there is things that I see on trackman readings that do not seem right. Smash factor being one. Club speed another.

[clevited]

Thanks for all of the information Howard. I'd like to address some things and then ask for some clarification if I may.

 

First, it really isn't common knowledge regarding the cause as I hear from people all the time about it and they are confused. I play simulator golf in the winter and I have attempted to address this subject more than a few times on another forum. The subject literally has dozens of OPs in this forum I speak of alone.

 

Many people I have talked to or read posts from speculated several things but usually speculate user error. Most commonly I hear that people just tend to hit the ball a tad fat and that makes the ball hit higher on the face and makes lower spin and higher loft. Others say there is no difference at all, and several mat making companies claim to be just like hitting off grass both in feel and ball performance.

 

I am wondering if you might clarify a couple of things for me.

 

Could you explain exactly what you mean by the turf holds back the ball?

 

By turf you mean grass correct?

 

You said my soap test was correct. My soap test showed a slippery surface made LESS spin and more LOFT of the golf ball (I thought the opposite would be true). I then repeated the test with a lightly oiled surface instead of soap and got the opposite effect. Are you referring to a different mechanism (I hypothesized it was friction) causing the differences in spin off a mat vs grass? If so could you explain the mechanism the soap supplied to make the ball spin lower and launch higher?

 

If I am not clear with what I am asking, please let me know. This is exactly the type of information and discussion I was hoping for.

 

 

[Krt22]

Clevited...I can't comment on the oil vs soap difference, that is a bit odd to me as well. But I do think you are on the right track, I very much agree that the main difference is the surface interaction between ball and turf/mat in the very initial impact. The fact that you get different spin numbers from different grasses, mats, etc is pretty clear.

 

The reality is the ball sits "down" more so even on very tightly mowed fairways, more so than on a mat. This is a known reality, its why putters have a bit of loft, to get the ball to popup out of it's own minor despression vs skidding into the ground.

 

The only real question is the surface interaction itself responsible for the spin (ie shearing on the edge of the ball) or does the surface simply provide very minor resistance (ie skidding vs rolling without slipping) that causes more interaction with the groves of the club and thus higher spin

 

I do know from my own testing (I use a flight scope indoors) and have tried numerous mats, the fiber built one I have now is best in replicating spin. They still do come out marginally lower (althought there are those cases where I will get a nice 7k rpm 7i), but not as low as some of the more traditional mats. My only thought is that the fiber built construction allows for more interaction with the ball.

 

Edit: Now thinking of this again, the oil/soap difference actually might make lots of sense. The most restive surface (oil) provided the highest spin and the lowest/slickest surface provided the lowest

[Howard_Jones]

I'm not a scientist nor claim to be but there is things that I see on trackman readings that do not seem right. Smash factor being one. Club speed another.

 

Thats a question of your definition of it only.

Yes they have flaws, and sometimes they cant return numbers we cant use, but it still one of the best, but its NOT perfect, neither are we players....

 

To understand Trackman you have to get to know how they designed it to work, not try to force it into how you mean it should work, and as club fitter i cant see any better LM on the marked for that task, and its actually the way they measure things that makes it better for that. The same stuff most others complain about because they dont understand how it works, not because its something wrong, and Trackmans return of Club speed and Smash factor is only 2 of this subjects often up to debate by folks who is NOT a regular user, or did not bother to educate them self about what it does and how.

 

if i should complain about that machine, then its their pricing, i want buy another....it will be a different brand the next time for that reason alone, its simply not worth the difference vs Flightscope, even if its a fragment better, so the distance in what they measure is way closer than their pricing.

[Krt22]

I'm not a scientist nor claim to be but there is things that I see on trackman readings that do not seem right. Smash factor being one. Club speed another.

You just need to understand how they work and use the data accordingly. Smash and CHS are only relevant when normalized to the same device. In the setting of a lesson looking to increase CHS and smash, such that you see ball speed speed increases. In the setting of a fitting, ball speed, spin, and LA is what you should be looking at. When comparing data from one LM to another (perhaps on different dats, fittings, etc), ball speed is king

[Howard_Jones]

Thanks for all of the information Howard. I'd like to address some things and then ask for some clarification if I may.

 

First, it really isn't common knowledge regarding the cause as I hear from people all the time about it and they are confused. I play simulator golf in the winter and I have attempted to address this subject more than a few times on another forum. The subject literally has dozens of OPs in this forum I speak of alone.

 

Many people I have talked to or read posts from speculated several things but usually speculate user error. Most commonly I hear that people just tend to hit the ball a tad fat and that makes the ball hit higher on the face and makes lower spin and higher loft. Others say there is no difference at all, and several mat making companies claim to be just like hitting off grass both in feel and ball performance.

 

I am wondering if you might clarify a couple of things for me.

 

Could you explain exactly what you mean by the turf holds back the ball?

 

By turf you mean grass correct?

 

You said my soap test was correct. My soap test showed a slippery surface made LESS spin and more LOFT of the golf ball (I thought the opposite would be true). I then repeated the test with a lightly oiled surface instead of soap and got the opposite effect. Are you referring to a different mechanism (I hypothesized it was friction) causing the differences in spin off a mat vs grass? If so could you explain the mechanism the soap supplied to make the ball spin lower and launch higher?

 

If I am not clear with what I am asking, please let me know. This is exactly the type of information and discussion I was hoping for.

 

 

HOLDS THE BALL BACK...

Think of this just like USGA measure CT or the time there is contact between the ball and face on a driver

The longer this time is, the more the ball will be compressed, and it return speed will be higher

 

the energy present is only "100%" no matter what we do, and depending on compression, we make a different split of the energy present. The lower compression we make, the less of the energy will be used for speed, and spin, but more for launch angle

 

We see that very good on drivers where a low club speed player has a ratio from Loft to launch of about 0.9 while a high club speed player only gets about 0.8 in difference to launch angle when we changes loft by 1*.

 

The high club speed player will have a higher spin gain or drop for each 1* loft we go up or down for the same reason

Higher compression = higher spin, but less response on launch angle

 

80 mph club speed and 1* change of loft is 208 rpm and 0.9 on launch

110 mph club speed and 1* change of loft is 286 rpm and about 0.83 on launch

 

True Temper DG spinner - REDUCE SPIN LOFT = less loft at impact = higher ball compression = More spin and Lower launch

 

its ALL 10 year old news for me, and ive written about it so many times i though it was common knowledge, because its the same thing we talk about when we talk about the #8 iron spinner trick who many confused with "Tiger stepping"

 

We take advantage of HIGHER BALL COMPRESSION (less loft at impact) to gain spin and lower launch, and the mats vs turf is the surface we can add to the equation, it makes a difference for our ability to compress the ball, its simply the time it gives us before the ball takes off and leave the face, so the longer compression time, the higher will spin be.

 

when we hit it from a tee, there is no helping surface to "trap it" the extra fragments of a second, while any other surface the ball lies on has that potential

[Howard_Jones]

Clevited...I can't comment on the oil vs soap difference, that is a bit odd to me as well. But I do think you are on the right track, I very much agree that the main difference is the surface interaction between ball and turf/mat in the very initial impact. The fact that you get different spin numbers from different grasses, mats, etc is pretty clear.

 

The reality is the ball sits "down" more so even on very tightly mowed fairways, more so than on a mat. This is a known reality, its why putters have a bit of loft, to get the ball to popup out of it's own minor despression vs skidding into the ground.

 

The only real question is the surface interaction itself responsible for the spin (ie shearing on the edge of the ball) or does the surface simply provide very minor resistance (ie skidding vs rolling without slipping) that causes more interaction with the groves of the club and thus higher spin

 

I do know from my own testing (I use a flight scope indoors) and have tried numerous mats, the fiber built one I have now is best in replicating spin. They still do come out marginally lower (althought there are those cases where I will get a nice 7k rpm 7i), but not as low as some of the more traditional mats. My only thought is that the fiber built construction allows for more interaction with the ball.

 

Edit: Now thinking of this again, the oil/soap difference actually might make lots of sense. The most restive surface (oil) provided the highest spin and the lowest/slickest surface provided the lowest

 

If you use that link to Trackmans test, the numbers is huge as difference, and for 2 reasons

THIS player really pures it, his Smash factor is sky high vs PGA average and his club speed is above, so he is that type of player who compress the ball "as good as possible" in the first place, so for him, even a fragment of a difference to the surface would matter.

 

Look at his Smash again

1.4 from the math - NO resistance to keep ball speed back, but spin is lower and launch higher vs turf

1.38 from Turf, the extra resistance from the turf used to compress the ball was converted to more spin, and the resiatance was high enough to lower ball speed of the face.

 

That means at a certain point, we no longer "gain anything" so its like with max spin loft of 45. If we can play the club so we keep spin loft at 45 as the max, we have maximized spin, but when we go to steep, we take max spin loft below 45 and spin drops.....just like ball speed drops if we trap it to hard.

 

Deeper down in all of this we find on drivers stuff like material thickness on the face, optimized for a certain club speed area where its clear that a low club speed player should avoid them (long driver clubs), because their face is made for a way higher impact pressure and still stay alive, so without enough club speed, that face don deliver the max legal ball speed no matter how good impact we make, and i guess thats why some brake a bit to often, because they are designed to maximize legal ball speed for lower club speed players.

 

Its all about compression TIME, and if you look into the latest test report for balls, we can clearly see why some is longer than others, is a question of compression and time on the face, so those old SHORE values for Golf balls should come back.

 

If you look the latest ball speed tests from USGA, test conditions is done with a club speed of 120 Mph, so its not many who is able to take advantage of passing their standards for tests, but most below, looses something vs 120 mph....we loose contact TIME between the face and the ball.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/TPX3006-overall-distance-and-symmetry-test-procedure.pdf

[dunn]

The way club comes thru ball certainly can effect spin imo.......the club whips thru ball faster on a matt for me.....and golfer knows and senses this thru previous swings....on grass there is more resistance especially if golfer is steep or steepish........my follow thru is much more full on a Matt as oppose to grass ( am steepish) so for sure that impacts what I expect to happen at impact therefore changing swing at impact I would imagine......grass is not the same resistance as a matt.......and different lies as well as grass, tight or heavy lies as well as moisture in ground........I would fully expect it to be different except I never hit irons off a matt with monitor to see.....

 

There isn't a chunk of grass dug out of ground (lot more resistance) vs a matt.......the body senses and does things well beyond our conscious mind.......when I hit off a matt I never worry bout thin or chunky shots, Matt hides those much better than grass..........it is why I only use golf course as testing ground

 

For someone who is shallow might be different story idk

[cxx]

I would be interested in a test between hitting a 7 iron off a good mat and off a tee. If the stats on those shots were the same it would explain a lot.

[Stuart_G]

i though this had been up before and was settled.

 

Your SOAP test is correct, TURF normally (depending on type), holds back the ball a bit better, and allows higher compression of the ball = lower launch and higher spin vs most mats.

 

when we hit it from a tee, there is no helping surface to "trap it" the extra fragments of a second, while any other surface the ball lies on has that potential

 

Sorry Howard, no disrespect intended but proof or knowing that a phenomena exists is very different from having proof on what actually causes it. In my searches I've yet to find one proper scientific study that even tried to understand what is actually going on between the ball and the ground (or whatever it's sitting on) at impact, much less prove any particular theory about exactly how it can (or might) impact the resulting spin or ball flight.

 

Go over to the instruction forum and they'll tell you the concept of the ball being compressed or 'pinched' against the ground has been debunked numerous times. Although I admit I never looked too deeply into the sources for that opinion - largely since from my understanding of the physics and dynamics - it would make little sense that it would. The compression is really a representation of the transfer of kinetic energy to potential and back to kinetic - which in turn is going to be largely dependent on how much time it takes to overcome a bodies resistance to motion (resist a change in momentum). As long as the ground is not in the way of the direction the ball is directed to go by the forces, I don't see it impacting that in a non-negligible way.

 

Also, based on what scientific evidence I have seen, (usually in the form of high speed video) there is more to support that it doesn't change the amount of compression than it might.

 

Of course, if you now of any more detailed studies to the contrary, I'd be happy to read them if you could provide the link.

 

 

USGA started ball testing and made some new rules lately, and when we look into those tests, we get a deeper understanding on ball compression and speed, and spin and launch is influenced of the same, so if the surface makes a difference for our ability to compress the ball, it makes a difference for launch and spin, its that simple.

 

Do you mean their conformance testing? or something else? I don't see the conformance testing as rellavent in this case since it's done with what effectively is zero loft.

 

 

less loft at impact = higher ball compression = More spin and Lower launch

 

FYI - just so there is no confusion, I don't think this particular aspect of the behavior of the ball was ever in contention in this discussion.

 

Also keep in mind, we do know for a fact that there are other things that can effect the spin other than compression. Among other things - gear effect itself is one such example. So we can't really conclude that there is more compression just from the evidence of how the ball flight changes.

[Howard_Jones]

So, what you are saying is that we can maeasure what happens but nobody can explain why?

 

And what does this mean?

 

Less loft at impact = higher ball compression = More spin and Lower launch

 

FYI - just so there is no confusion, I don't think this particular aspect of the behavior of the ball was ever in contention in this discussion.

And what does it really mean saying

 

Confusion about what? is there

[Stuart_G]

So, what you are saying is that we can maeasure what happens but nobody can explain why?

 

We can and have measured what has happened to the ball launch conditions for different surfaces.

 

Many have theorized at the possible reasons why certain conditions cause certain results (with respect to what the ball is sitting on) at an attempt to explain why. Some of them might even end up being valid. But until actually proven, they are just theories and shouldn't be taken as any kind of factual explanation or reasoning.

 

Someone with the right background (and equipment) could very likely do much more detailed scientific measurements (or even simulation) of what's actually happening to help us prove or disprove most of those theories - but I've seen nothing to indicate anyone has taken the effort to do so.

 

 

And what does this mean?

 

 

Less loft at impact = higher ball compression = More spin and Lower launch

 

FYI - just so there is no confusion, I don't think this particular aspect of the behavior of the ball was ever in contention in this discussion.

And what does it really mean saying

 

Confusion about what? is there

 

Only that you spent a lot of time trying to argue that point about the correlation between compression and its effect on the launch conditions, yet it was never a point of contention in the discussion. So the reasoning for such arguments was unclear.

[Howard_Jones]

Science is nothing but theory, and it stands until it its proven to fail.

The way spinner shaft works is part of this, like it or not, its the same subject, but if there is question of how and why they work, we just leave it here.

[Stuart_G]

Science is nothing but theory, and it stands until it its proven to fail.

The way spinner shaft works is part of this, like it or not, its the same subject, but if there is question of how and why they work, we just leave it here.

 

Yes, so you can have a whole crowd of theories standing around until that happens. But once the answers are found, then you can move on to even more complex questions - that's how progress works :-)

 

And there is certainly nothing wrong with just simply accepting the results for those who choose to do so, but the whole point of the thread and the only question that was really asked was concerning the details of why it happens.

[Howard_Jones]

Science is nothing but theory, and it stands until it its proven to fail.

The way spinner shaft works is part of this, like it or not, its the same subject, but if there is question of how and why they work, we just leave it here.

 

Yes, so you can have a whole crowd of theories standing around until that happens. But once the answers are found, then you can move on to even more complex questions - that's how progress works :-)

 

And there is certainly nothing wrong with just simply accepting the results for those who choose to do so, but the whole point of the thread and the only question that was really asked was concerning the details of why it happens.

 

You seems to be in denial of the very basics of it all, looking for a magic factor X to explain it, but that magic factor ex dont exist.

 

2 players (robots, not players), have every parameter but club speed as difference, that means Loft, Dynamic loft, spin loft, impact position, every thing, and the ball is hit of a tee like with a driver.

 

Why does the player with 110 mph club speed gain more spin than the one with only 80?

 

Ball compression is the answer, and you tell me thats new or unknown knowledge? or thats there is a factor X present who causes this spin, not the amount of impact force and by that a higher ball compression?

 

are you in denial of this as the facts?

 

Is there another factor who cause the difference to spin where absolutely all other parameters is equal but club speed?

[Stuart_G]

You seems to be in denial of the very basics of it all, looking for a magic factor X to explain it, but that magic factor ex dont exist.

 

I'm an engineer - I don't look for magic. I look for facts and a clearer understanding the underlying physics/dynamics at a high level of detail that produce the observed results.

 

 

2 players (robots, not players), have every parameter but club speed as difference, that means Loft, Dynamic loft, spin loft, impact position, every thing, and the ball is hit of a tee like with a driver.

 

Why does the player with 110 mph club speed gain more spin than the one with only 80?

 

Ball compression is the answer, and you tell me thats new or unknown knowledge? or thats there is a factor X present who causes this spin, not the amount of impact force and by that a higher ball compression?

 

are you in denial of this as the facts?

 

Is there another factor who cause the difference to spin where absolutely all other parameters is equal but club speed?

 

The question being discussed has nothing to do with the change in spin in the context of different club speeds. It has to do with the question about differences in launch/spin in the context of the same club head speed, as well as all other impact parameters being the same with the only difference being the surface upon which the ball sits.

[Howard_Jones]

You seems to be in denial of the very basics of it all, looking for a magic factor X to explain it, but that magic factor ex dont exist.

 

I'm an engineer - I don't look for magic. I look for facts and the underlying physics/dynamics at a high level of detail that produce the observed results.

 

 

2 players (robots, not players), have every parameter but club speed as difference, that means Loft, Dynamic loft, spin loft, impact position, every thing, and the ball is hit of a tee like with a driver.

 

Why does the player with 110 mph club speed gain more spin than the one with only 80?

 

Ball compression is the answer, and you tell me thats new or unknown knowledge? or thats there is a factor X present who causes this spin, not the amount of impact force and by that a higher ball compression?

 

are you in denial of this as the facts?

 

Is there another factor who cause the difference to spin where absolutely all other parameters is equal but club speed?

 

The question being discussed has nothing to do with the change in spin in the context of different club speeds. It has to do with the question about differences in launch/spin in the context of the same club head speed, as well as all other impact parameters being the same with the only difference being the surface upon which the ball sits.

 

correct, and if that surface makes a difference for our ability to compress the ball, spin and launch will change like Trackman found them self, but you still look for factor X, and dismiss what we already know, the fact that ball compression changes both launch and spin, so when both arrows point the same way here, spin goes up and launch down or oposit, then the reason has to be another here, it cant be the same.....keep looking for factor x then, im not able to help with that.

[Krt22]

 

Go over to the instruction forum and they'll tell you the concept of the ball being compressed or 'pinched' against the ground has been debunked numerous times. Although I admit I never looked too deeply into the sources for that opinion - largely since from my understanding of the physics and dynamics - it would make little sense that it would. The compression is really a representation of the transfer of kinetic energy to potential and back to kinetic - which in turn is going to be largely dependent on how much time it takes to overcome a bodies resistance to motion (resist a change in momentum). As long as the ground is not in the way of the direction the ball is directed to go by the forces, I don't see it impacting that in a non-negligible way.

 

I don't think this is what Howard is advocating at all. It's not that the ball is being compressed into the ground, its that hitting off grass has a bit more resistance. The ball on grass sits ever so slightly down, so as it starts to move forward and up, the grass inhibits this motion more so than a mat, such that the ball interacts with the face/groves more. Off a slick mat, the ball encounters less resistance as it starts to move forward, so moves up the face more and interacts with the grooves less, resulting in higher launch and lower spin.

[Stuart_G]

correct, and if that surface makes a difference for our ability to compress the ball, spin and launch will change like Trackman found them self, but you still look for factor X, and dismiss what we already know, the fact that ball compression changes both launch and spin, so when both arrows point the same way here, spin goes up and launch down or oposit, then the reason has to be another here, it cant be the same.....keep looking for factor x then, im not able to help with that.

 

No, I'm not looking for some x-factor. I'm looking for some actual validation of that "IF" and whether it's true. You can't use just the effect to validate the cause. Or another way to put it is that type of correlation doesn't prove causality.

 

"If the compression does occur, we'll see these results"

 

does not mean that

 

"if we see these results, the compression must have occurred"

 

Sorry but that's poor (actually horrible) logic. And not the basis of any accepted scientific method or conclusions.

 

Now, It can certainly provide a basis for a theory or course of further investigation - but nothing more.

[Howard_Jones]

correct, and if that surface makes a difference for our ability to compress the ball, spin and launch will change like Trackman found them self, but you still look for factor X, and dismiss what we already know, the fact that ball compression changes both launch and spin, so when both arrows point the same way here, spin goes up and launch down or oposit, then the reason has to be another here, it cant be the same.....keep looking for factor x then, im not able to help with that.

 

No, I'm not looking for some x-factor. I'm looking for some actual validation of that "IF" and whether it's true. You can't use just the effect to validate the cause. Or another way to put it is that type of correlation doesn't prove causality.

 

"If the compression does occur, we'll see these results"

 

does not mean that

 

"if we see these results, the compression must have occurred"

 

Sorry but that's poor (actually horrible) logic. And not the basis of any accepted scientific method or conclusions.

 

Now, It can certainly provide a basis for a theory or course of further investigation - but nothing more.

 

What happen when the new grove rules for wedge came? did you forget?

The old grooves was sharp enough to hold the ball back on the face, and give it more time to compress, instead of rolling up the face

When the new grooves came, spin dropped and we had to look on max spin loft, it was not a big issue with the grooves we had before, so the difference here was ball compression, who gained spin and kept launch down.

 

The difference between the 80 mph and the 110 mpg player with driver is ball compression, the low CS gets a higher launch and lower spin vs the high club speed player.

 

Again, cause and effect is the same

 

Now we move it to turf vs mats, and even if we notice the same systems, launch goes up and spin down or oposit, but this time, ball compression CANT be the reason?

 

Is that logic to you?

[Stuart_G]

Is that logic to you?

 

No it's not.

 

Wind pushes. therefore if I'm being pushed it must be by the wind.

 

Is that correct logic to you?

 

There no difference in the logic, only the specific details have changed.

[Howard_Jones]

Is that logic to you?

 

No it's not.

 

Wind pushes. therefore if I'm being pushed it must be by the wind.

 

Is that correct logic to you?

 

There no difference in the logic, only the specific details have changed.

 

The wind compare is not valid here

 

Its the same clubs and the same ball, and we already know that ball compression is what changes and cause more spin for the high cs player vs the other so why do you try to dismiss that as cause here? or do you deny that club speed makes a difference to ball compression and is the reason for the difference to launch and spin when club speed goes up or down?

 

Trackman found no difference to club delivery, only what happens to the ball, so its NOT gear effects or any other explanation to find since club datas remains the same and PTR tells impact did not vary so much that gear effects comes to play. Then there is only one factor left, the amount of ball compression, so just like spin and launch changes caused by ball compression for different club speeds and different grooves, its the same reason here, there is no other explanations for it, and that explanation fits what we already know about that what happens to spin and launch vs ball compression so there is no reason to think its any different here, thats lack of logic in my world.

[Stuart_G]

"If A is true, then B will always be true. Therefore if B is true A must be true"

 

Use a couple words or write a 10 page dissertation on all the details of A and B, it doesn't matter or change the validity of the logic even a tiny bit. The only time people think it makes a difference is when there is an incomplete level of understanding of all the possible or potential causes for B and mistakenly think they know enough to cover all the bases in the details.

 

It's no different than the thought process, that if a brand new wedge has new grooves with no wear, and a new wedge will spin more, than it must be the new grooves that's causing the higher spin. Yet the people that have a better understanding and know that a new wedge also has a fresh unworn surface for the rest of the surface of the face and that results in an increase in friction between the face and the ball also makes a big contribution to the increase in spin.

 

Second, compression itself is actually much more frequently an effect itself, or just another symptom, and not a true root cause. So even when there really is a valid correlation with compression, that doesn't by itself mean the compression is the true root cause or that saying it is shows an accurate understanding of what's truly happening.

[Howard_Jones]

"If A is true, then B will always be true. Therefore if B is true A must be true"

 

Use a couple words or write a 10 page dissertation on all the details of A and B, it doesn't matter or change the validity of the logic even a tiny bit. The only time people think it makes a difference is when there is an incomplete level of understanding of all the possible or potential causes for B and mistakenly think they know enough to cover all the bases in the details.

 

It's no different than the thought process, that if a brand new wedge has new grooves with no wear, and a new wedge will spin more, than it must be the new grooves that's causing the higher spin. Yet the people that have a better understanding and know that a new wedge also has a fresh unworn surface for the rest of the surface of the face and that results in an increase in friction between the face and the ball also makes a big contribution to the increase in spin.

 

Second, compression itself is actually much more frequently an effect itself, or just another symptom, and not a true root cause. So even when there really is a valid correlation with compression, that doesn't by itself mean the compression is the true root cause or that saying it is shows an accurate understanding of what's truly happening.

 

Give me just one single argument for why ball compression should NOT make a difference to spin and launch from mats vs turf, when ball compression is the reason on high vs low club speed or new vs old grooves. Why is what we know about ball flight all of a sudden invalid, or dont you even acknowledge that club speed is a factor for spin,

[bladehunter]

Howard. I applaud you for saying what some of us have known for ourselves for a long time.

 

If you’re a good ball striker you can tell immediately how a shot is going to spin based on the strike .. the strike is dependent in part on the turf it sits on. This part we can actually read. Or forecast.

 

A good example. A lie such as one sitting clean but on a thin bed of mulch. Or a soft fairway bunker with ball sitting clean. You simply cannot compress it like you can on firm turf. Even catching it very clean it won’t fly as far. And you must adjust for it. Usually taking more club .

 

But we have many tell us over and over that compressing the ball is a myth. I’ve always believed it’s those who’ve never struck the ball well enough to experience it that perpetuate that myth.

[clevited]

Can someone clear up things a bit. This OP was not about how you strike a ball, it is about the actual mechanism that typically causes a ball to spin less and launch off of a mat vs a nice grass lie. Please pretend strike is the same for whomever is hitting. Pretend it is a robot if you must. The question is, what is it about the surface that plays a role in this? For you guys that keep bringing up compression of the golf ball, can you elaborate on what this means for the surface you are hitting off of? Are you saying the ball squirts out like a bar of soap being stepped on and therefore its the surface friction that is the mechanism or is it surface firmness? What is the technical cause of the same strike on different surfaces creating different launch characteristics of the golf ball?

 

Please, if I might ask, try to convey your idea in a way that people can actually follow and understand. There have been some posts that have been extremely tough to follow as no actual idea was presented in a manner that made any sense. It just made arguements about something I feel has nothing to do with the question asked.

 

Edit: if you have an idea mixed in here somewhere please try to restate it better and more clearly instead of mixing in amongst a lot of other stuff. Then we can go from there discussing the idea in a more productive way.

[clevited]

Let me try to list what I think may have been the ideas presented so far including the one I have discussed.

 

1) mats are squishy and the sole reason for differences in ball flight are due to golfer error (hitting slightly fat and catching ball higher on face, sweeping instead of hitting down and through are examples)

 

2) Surface friction may somehow hinder the dynamics of the struck ball and cause changes in spin and launch angle. This is suspected given identical strikes on the different surfaces.

 

3) Surface firmness somehow hinders the dynamics of the struck ball and causes changes in spin and launch angle. This may be because of the reaction of the ball with the ground or because the firmness of the ground may or may not allow a normal down and through strike to be made.

 

4) Compression of the ball during the strike has something to do with the spin and launch of the golf ball. This is somehow related to idea 3 and or idea 2. This needs elaboration so the idea can be fully understood.

[clevited]

Howard. I applaud you for saying what some of us have known for ourselves for a long time.

 

If you’re a good ball striker you can tell immediately how a shot is going to spin based on the strike .. the strike is dependent in part on the turf it sits on. This part we can actually read. Or forecast.

 

A good example. A lie such as one sitting clean but on a thin bed of mulch. Or a soft fairway bunker with ball sitting clean. You simply cannot compress it like you can on firm turf. Even catching it very clean it won’t fly as far. And you must adjust for it. Usually taking more club .

 

But we have many tell us over and over that compressing the ball is a myth. I’ve always believed it’s those who’ve never struck the ball well enough to experience it that perpetuate that myth.

 

If you could, please elaborate on the technical reason the ground has that effect on your shots as it relates the the OP.

 

Also, given what you said, would a soft tee peg that you hit the ball off of present the same problem as your mulch lie or sand lie?

 

Edit: just to clarify what i mean, imagine a golf tee in very soft ground, such that it barely holds up a golf ball much like i imagine the soft lies you describe would. Would a ball struck off a tee inserted into a very soft tee box then make a difference on spin and launch angle vs a ball struck off a tee inserted into a firm tee box?