This just blew my mind...........Correct Lie Angle?

[pigboy1]

Hi @Howard_Jones, hoping also you could advice me on trackman numbers. How much would the trackman numbers below suggest to bend lie angle? This is an avg grouping of 9 Iron.

Club path: 5.2

Face Angle: -1.9

Face to Path: -7.1

Spin axis: -8.5

 

If possible, could you also share the simplified calculation behind? Thanks!

[Howard_Jones]

16 minutes ago, pigboy1 said:

Hi @Howard_Jones, hoping also you could advice me on trackman numbers. How much would the trackman numbers below suggest to bend lie angle? This is an avg grouping of 9 Iron.

Club path: 5.2

Face Angle: -1.9

Face to Path: -7.1

Spin axis: -8.5

 

If possible, could you also share the simplified calculation behind? Thanks!

Your numbers is "out or range"

Face to path is 1* = 3 on spin axis, what ever left / 3 = lie angle
Your face to path is -7.1 x 3 = - 21.9 as expected spin axis
Spin axis is only -8.5, the rest (-21.9 - 8.5) / 3 = Lie is 4.66 off
(4.66 upright needed)

No matter what, a face angle closed 7.1 to path is a mishit (hook), and cant be used to judge lie angles, its simply out of range


 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Howard_Jones

[Armour248]

So if I'm at a face to path of 1° closed (-1?) and the spin axis is 1.5 left I should be pretty close?

 

-1 x 3 = -3 expected spin axis

 

-3 - (-1.5 actual spin axis) = -1.5

 

-1.5 / 3 = -0.5 off...or 0.5 more upright?

 

Toe down like crazy per GCQUAD but need to do the sharpie line test. Unfortunately stuck indoors right now and can't mark up projector screens 

[Howard_Jones]

37 minutes ago, Armour248 said:

So if I'm at a face to path of 1° closed (-1?) and the spin axis is 1.5 left I should be pretty close?

 

-1 x 3 = -3 expected spin axis

 

-3 - (-1.5 actual spin axis) = -1.5

 

-1.5 / 3 = -0.5 off...or 0.5 more upright?

 

Toe down like crazy per GCQUAD but need to do the sharpie line test. Unfortunately stuck indoors right now and can't mark up projector screens 

Correct
White board pen /dry erase markers is no issue, i had a "visual target" with projector in my studio.
if you make some marks, they are easy to wipe off. (the numbers you see is me having fun with a groove-less 60* wedge and a DG spinner+ shaft on full swing...terrible shafts on full swings)

 

[Armour248]

6 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Correct
White board pen /dry erase markers is no issue, i had a "visual target" with projector in my studio.
if you make some marks, they are easy to wipe off. (the numbers you see is me having fun with a groove-less 60* wedge and a DG spinner+ shaft on full swing...terrible shafts on full swings)

 

 

Awesome.  Thanks Howard.  I actually thought about the dry erase marker idea but wasn't sure if it would come off or not.  I'll give that a shot in the next few days and see how the lines come out.  Either way it sounds like my lie angles aren't terribly far off.  Thanks again!

[Nocklausd]

On 3/8/2019 at 7:50 AM, Howard_Jones said:

 

im not impressed, 18 minutes talk about something they dont know well enough to explain the way it should be?

Its a MYTH that ball flight dont lie, and for lie angles its just as useless as the lie board

 

A lie angle thats 1 to much upright causes a tilt of 3* on the spin axis, the same does a face angle 1* closed to path

....so what caused that unwanted draw - ? we really have no clue without a launch monitor and the knowledge of what causes ball flight, and we need to look at face vs path, so forget that old myth about ball flight and lie angles it was never true, and based on lack of knowledge.

 

Lie angles CAN be judged vs ball flight, but ONLY if you have a launch monitor behind, and KNOW how to take advantage of it for that task, but very few does, and the two in the movie did not seem to be educated in this either, except looking at the face tilt at impact, but you DONT need a 10.000 USD LM to get to know that.....

 

if you want to use a LM here is how too

For each 1 face is open to path, SPIN AXIS TILT goes 3* to the RIGHT for a right hand player

For each 1 face is closed to path, SPIN AXIS TILT goes 3* to the LEFT for a right hand player

 

Face vs path x 3 = TILT ON SPIN AXIS

Face Open to path = tilt to the Right

Face Closed to path = tilt to the left

 

Example:

Path 5 in to out, face closed 2 vs path

Thats 2 closed x 3 = 6 expected as TILT and to the left.

If the Tilt is 9, then Lie is 1 to much upright, if the tilt is 12* its 2* more up right than it should be

 

FACE LABELS IS EASIER

Face labels can be used by anyone, there is no entry level height, thats why i developed them so anyone can make it.

The lie board method was never correct, and launch monitors to hard to use if you dont know the ball flight laws and math behind like your own pockets, and this 2 men did not, because if they did, they would have deleted one stroke as miss reading....(the numbers did not mach up = miss reading)

 

They could not even explain WHY the lie method misleads us, and they did NOT offer a easy solution, it looked like a CG2 comercial where they left the audience in a state of "what the h...do we do know since we dont have a LM like that?"..we will have to buy one then?.

 

Its also scary to see someone who should know better is using the lie board to get confirmation of LM datas, but if they had ACTUAL sole impact marks who told what side, and what edge who made first contact, some of the output datas could be explained, but simply looking for a sole mark and measure heel to toe axis tells this folks dont know what they are dealing with at all, and in 2019 that should not be possible, but in Golf tech...anything is, and they deliver it as "education"?

 

Impact marks on the sole move between heel and toe, and between leading edge and trailing edge, ALL depending on face angle and club path, so there is absolutely NO WAY what so ever that sole impact labels can be used the way they are and make it right, it CANT BE DONE, and we CANT judge lie angles by turf marks, because thats a question of sole properties, NOT lie angles, but before you know how to grind a club head, how would you know?

 

In Golf, the old MYTHS still lives and is repeated like it was verses and its a BIG SHAME, because the knowledge and the solutions is out there, and they are for FREE, so what did those 18 minutes of time give the ones who saw that video?....mistrust and frustrations, no solutions

 

Here is the solution

Use face labels and forget the lie board is the answer, forget the LM too, its way to complicated to understand, and this labels who is FREE dont even need to be printed....draw the line on the ball and use a PHOTO of the label on your mobile and compare....its THAT easy, and no way we can mess it up, and no expensive LM is needed.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...-angle-testing/

 

And those interested in WHY the lie board CANT be used, look at this MAP who shows how sole impact marks move depending on face angle and path. There is hardly NO real life situation where a correct lie angle will make a center of the sole impact as first contact point, that hardly ever happens, so searching for it and adjusting lie to make that happen is in 99% of all cases WRONG, and gives a lie angle 1 to 2 more upright than it should be.

 

Most players who came in my door came with 2* upright, who seems to have been some kind of "standard" for better players for years???.... only a few of them left with irons that was 2 upright

 

Here is 6 example from my club making and fitting classes i held in Denmark for PGA pros and others.

 

ALL the 3 on top would be judged WRONG on a lie board and make them to go upright where its NOT needed or correct to do so. All the 3 in the bottom would be judged as good, but they are all wrong.

 

sorry about spelling errors in the text, it was written in Danish back in 2012 and just rewritten to fast before a snap shot was taken, but its very old news that lie boards dont work as many think they do, and why...here it is:

 

 

 

 

The folks on the video did not tell, and did not even use sole labels who could tell what edge impact was made.

The test they did end up as "non educational" and as a CG2 commercial, sorry folks, thats what you get spending 18 minutes on the video, a commercial, its not something you can use real life unless you are in the marked for a launch monitor. If lie angles is your issue they did NOT offer you a solution.

 

END NOTE

- Back in 2010 i was at Mitchell Golf Equipment institute and they had the Mizuno LIE ANGLE club for fitting.

The club had engraved lines and numbers so it should be easier to read sole labels.

the method itself is useless, and when we measured actual lie angle of the TEST club for lie angles, the head has been to the lie board so many times it was almost 2 upright.....

 

Thats why i question ALL big box stores with Lie boards and Demo heads with different lie angles...only a few of them has a clue about the ACTUAL specs of the clubs they use for fitting, they never bothered to check them out, and combined with lie boards....good luck, you really need it and then some.....

Sorry, but you obviously did not listen to what they were saying ...

[JCAG]

I have been retired from the custom golf club golf business for 20 years but one of the conversations we always had when a group of clubmaker and club fitters got together back then was: Do we build/fit to the swing regardless of the swing assuming it was somewhat of a reasonable swing of course. Majority felt offering a few minor swing tips during the fitting was the way to go. 

 

I remember one customer that I was fitting using a swing analyzer and launch monitor but he kept playing with his swing to see if he could get better numbers. I stopped the fitting and told him I could not fit him until he decided which of the swings he was going to use. I told him to feel free to "play" on the machine but the fitting was over. I never did fit him.

 

There were also some I had to politely tell that their swing was so inconsistent, it was impossible to properly fit them.  I had a few local golf teaching pros I sent them to. 

[Howard_Jones]

7 hours ago, Nocklausd said:

Sorry, but you obviously did not listen to what they were saying ...

Its about 3 years ago since i saw that video, so refresh my memory and tell me what they said?

[Trap Junior]

On 12/29/2021 at 9:13 PM, Howard_Jones said:

Your numbers is "out or range"

Face to path is 1* = 3 on spin axis, what ever left / 3 = lie angle
Your face to path is -7.1 x 3 = - 21.9 as expected spin axis
Spin axis is only -8.5, the rest (-21.9 - 8.5) / 3 = Lie is 4.66 off
(4.66 upright needed)

No matter what, a face angle closed 7.1 to path is a mishit (hook), and cant be used to judge lie angles, its simply out of range


 

Howard, does it matter what club you do this test with?

 

Say a 5 iron face to path was -1.5,  Therefore expected spin should be -4.5.   But actual spin axis was -1.  Therefore (-4.5 - -1) =  -3.5  .  We divide by 3 = 1.2  Therefore this player should go by the formula +1.2 upright.  Correct?

 

But if you did the test with say an 8 or 9 iron or wedge would this formula work? Because spin axis with a lofted club will be less than it will be for a lower lofted club despite having the same face to path number.

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

10 hours ago, Trap Junior said:

Howard, does it matter what club you do this test with?

 

Say a 5 iron face to path was -1.5,  Therefore expected spin should be -4.5.   But actual spin axis was -1.  Therefore (-4.5 - -1) =  -3.5  .  We divide by 3 = 1.2  Therefore this player should go by the formula +1.2 upright.  Correct?

Correct
 

10 hours ago, Trap Junior said:

But if you did the test with say an 8 or 9 iron or wedge would this formula work? Because spin axis with a lofted club will be less than it will be for a lower lofted club despite having the same face to path number.

I used it for 3-PW combined with the ball marker test without any issues.
Wedges from GW and shorter is often adjusted "wrong" by purpose, like going 1 flat to prevent pulling if the player have that issue

[Trap Junior]

49 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Correct
 

I used it for 3-PW combined with the ball marker test without any issues.
Wedges from GW and shorter is often adjusted "wrong" by purpose, like going 1 flat to prevent pulling if the player have that issue

Yes my bad shot is a pull draw but going by the formula I should go another 1 degree upright.  LEave lies alone or adjust more upright to''correct lie''?

[Howard_Jones]

1 minute ago, Trap Junior said:

Yes my bad shot is a pull draw but going by the formula I should go another 1 degree upright.  LEave lies alone or adjust more upright to''correct lie''?

Like i said, we often use "wrong" lie angles on wedges by purpose, and wedges is not that sensitive for lie angles. (read, we dont loose much by using lie angles to prevent to much pulling on wedges, so DONT go upright if you have that issue, leave them 1 flat vs "neutral".)

Its really play length and path that causes this
From long irons into wedges, our path changes from in to out, against out to in.
If we comes from the outside and in, with a face angle square to path, we have a pull.

Thats why its often beneficial to use "flat" lie angles on wedges to reduce this effect. 

[Trap Junior]

5 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Like i said, we often use "wrong" lie angles on wedges by purpose, and wedges is not that sensitive for lie angles. (read, we dont loose much by using lie angles to prevent to much pulling on wedges, so DONT go upright if you have that issue, leave them 1 flat vs "neutral".)

Its really play length and path that causes this
From long irons into wedges, our path changes from in to out, against out to in.
If we comes from the outside and in, with a face angle square to path, we have a pull.

Thats why its often beneficial to use "flat" lie angles on wedges to reduce this effect. 

I was referring to the 3-PW but also wedges.  My swing flaw is face to path gets too negative = pull draws.

 

Thanks

[Stuart_G]

On 1/28/2022 at 5:01 PM, Howard_Jones said:

Its about 3 years ago since i saw that video, so refresh my memory and tell me what they said?

 

I wouldn't worry about it too much.   I think you nailed it with your comment.  

[Howard_Jones]

15 hours ago, Trap Junior said:

I was referring to the 3-PW but also wedges.  My swing flaw is face to path gets too negative = pull draws.

 

Thanks

For IRONS, (PW included) we should use lie angle thats "neutral" at impact.
If we dont, we often experience a off center hit, and we loose power transfer to the ball.
For wedges COG is not even close to the center of the face to start with. (its heel side), and the distance we use them on is so short, its easier to just bend lofts +/- to get gapping right.

Due to the natural change from a swing path in to out on irons, to become out to in, where we most often cross that line at the PW (plus minus 1 club), lie angles them self can be problematic and cause pulling, so again, from GW and shorter, its very common to dial back, and go 1* flat, where the PW becomes the most upright club in the bag, typical 64* as standard, while the wedges shorter "could be" set to 63* for players with pulling issues. Another reason for this, is if the Wedges is mostly for partials where lower use of power = less toe drop, so we dont "need" the "normal" lie angle of 64 then.

Face closure is something ALL players have issues to time correct, and if you have that issues with irons or clubs in general, try a grip with less taper like the +4 options. Many players experience less face angle issues after trying those, but also take a look at your lower hand, do you grip the club with a right hand "too strong"?

Edited January 30, 2022 by Howard_Jones

[rubensnaves]

…

Edited August 23, 2023 by rubensnaves

[booty4]

On 7/26/2020 at 1:34 AM, Howard_Jones said:

Thats how i took advantage of Trackman and their ball flight laws for lie angles, but its easier to use the ball marker test

Howard, I'm trying to find your original post on the marker test method and the template but the hyperlinks earlier in this thread are broken.  Can you repost it?

[booty4]

1 minute ago, booty4 said:

Howard, I'm trying to find your original post on the marker test method and the template but the hyperlinks earlier in this thread are broken.  Can you repost it?

disregard......found it via the search button