When is low spin too low?

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, clinkinfo said:

 

What combination gives you more than 217.7 yards of carry like 17/1500?

 

And even looking at 14 degrees, if he raises his spin to 2250, he gains less than 2 yards of carry, and losses 10 yards of total distance.  That's not a tradeoff I'd want to give.

 

 

I wouldn't put much faith in computed roll out (total distances).   It can vary quite a bit based on course conditions and most the LM numbers tend to be biased toward very hard fairways.   Might be valid in some parts of the world/country - but likely not something I'd count on unless you're very familiar with your own course conditions and how well they match what's used in the calcs.

[North Butte]

4 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I wouldn't put much faith in computed roll out (total distances).   It can vary quite a bit based on course conditions and most the LM numbers tend to be biased toward very hard fairways.   Might be valid in some parts of the world/country - but likely not something I'd count on unless you're very familiar with your own course conditions and how well they match what's used in the calcs.

Agree completely. Unless my home course gets totally baked out in late summer and I'm playing after 3pm, my roll distances with a driver never even approach the kinds of numbers I see in published launch monitor charts. 

 

I know in the MGS ball tests two years ago with the robot and Trackman, my own carry distances are almost perfectly predicted by their "Slow" driver and 8-iron category. But the carry+roll estimates especially for the 8-iron are unlike anything I've ever experienced outside of a links course (or with a very poorly struck shot). 

 

In the comparison we're talking about, if I could get 2 yards more carry with a few hundred rpm more spin at the cost of 10 yards less "estimated" roll, I'd take it. Especially for clubhead speed and trajectory challenged golfers like myself carry distance is money in the bank. Roll is a nice bonus but not something I want to count on across 200 rounds a year in varying conditions. 

[clinkinfo]

3 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I wouldn't put much faith in computed roll out (total distances).   It can vary quite a bit based on course conditions and most the LM numbers tend to be biased toward very hard fairways.   Might be valid in some parts of the world/country - but likely not something I'd count on unless you're very familiar with your own course conditions and how well they match what's used in the calcs.

 

 

I don't think the total number matters much in the calculations.  I think the point is, if you optimize the rollout as well, whatever the fairways are rolling you know you're maximized.  If that's 30 yards like the LM says or more like 15-20, the point is, relative to the other launch conditions you're getting the most you're going to get on any given day.  

 

And yes, some days that might be 0 yards when the fairways are wet messes and you plug!    But in my part of the country, that's generally only few a few weeks very early in the season. 

Edited May 27, 2023 by clinkinfo

[clinkinfo]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

Agree completely. Unless my home course gets totally baked out in late summer and I'm playing after 3pm, my roll distances with a driver never even approach the kinds of numbers I see in published launch monitor charts. 

 

I know in the MGS ball tests two years ago with the robot and Trackman, my own carry distances are almost perfectly predicted by their "Slow" driver and 8-iron category. But the carry+roll estimates especially for the 8-iron are unlike anything I've ever experienced outside of a links course (or with a very poorly struck shot). 

 

In the comparison we're talking about, if I could get 2 yards more carry with a few hundred rpm more spin at the cost of 10 yards less "estimated" roll, I'd take it. Especially for clubhead speed and trajectory challenged golfers like myself carry distance is money in the bank. Roll is a nice bonus but not something I want to count on across 200 rounds a year in varying conditions. 

 

If it works for you, great.  I wouldn't trade 10 yards for 2, but that's me. 

 

But it's a little academic anyway, since maximizing carry often maximizes total as well when there's a high launch angle like the OP has.  So there's nothing to trade-off anyway.

[Howard_Jones]

6 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

If it works for you, great.  I wouldn't trade 10 yards for 2, but that's me. 

 

But it's a little academic anyway, since maximizing carry often maximizes total as well when there's a high launch angle like the OP has.  So there's nothing to trade-off anyway.

That would be right IF those return values was true, but they are not.
Both Foresight and Flightscope is too generous with distance when spin values is low, so look at this 2 photos below here.

135 mph ball speed - This is the footprint of Trackmans algoritm.
Peak carry is up at 19.5* launch and 205 meters 224.2 yards
The OP CAN NOT get there with only 14 launch and 1600 of spin, its NOT possible. The Footprint below indicate that 14 launch and 1600 spin delivers 188 meters / 206 yards carry, and thats FAR from the return values he is posting


FOOT PRINT FROM TRACKMAN 135 MPH - (GAMER BALLS)



The longest driver i ever made on this club speed area is this one
Average launch 16.1* - Spin 1843 - Carry 197,1 meter / 215.5 yards  - Total 226.1 meter / 247.2 yards. This numbers is "over and beyond" Trackmans optimum charts...



The OP CAN NEVER get there with only 14 launch and 1600 spin, its all "warm air" fro Foresight who is the most extreme when spin values is low, but every one knows those numbers is far out.
He should loft up, and he will see more carry, 6-10 yards is easy to find here....

Here is my player vs the OP - both scenarios run at Flightscope
its say its 6.5 yards difference on carry, so the OP do have the potential to really max out VERY easy...more loft will deliver more launch and spin and thats what needed to stretch carry to the max.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Howard_Jones

[Stuart_G]

10 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

I don't think the total number matters much in the calculations.  I think the point is, if you optimize the rollout as well, whatever the fairways are rolling you know you're maximized.  If that's 30 yards like the LM says or more like 15-20, the point is, relative to the other launch conditions you're getting the most you're going to get on any given day.  

 

 

That assumes that even the reduced roll-out will give a distance that's better than if the fit were optimized for max carry for the same type of conditions.  That's not always true.   In many conditions you can certainly end up with less actual total distance in the real world if you optimize by their max total distance vs optimizing for max carry.

 

For many the distinction might not be important - for other's it could be significant.

 

 

10 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

And yes, some days that might be 0 yards when the fairways are wet messes and you plug!    But in my part of the country, that's generally only few a few weeks very early in the season. 

 

That's exactly why I said it's important to know your own typical course conditions to make the best choice on what numbers to use when you optimize.

 

For my more typical conditions, I'm better off optimizing for max carry.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Stuart_G

[clinkinfo]

7 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

That would be right IF those return values was true, but they are not.
Both Foresight and Flightscope is too generous with distance when spin values is low, so look at this 2 photos below here.

135 mph ball speed - This is the footprint of Trackmans algoritm.
Peak carry is up at 19.5* launch and 205 meters 224.2 yards
The OP CAN NOT get there with only 14 launch and 1600 of spin, its NOT possible. The Footprint below indicate that 14 launch and 1600 spin delivers 188 meters / 206 yards carry, and thats FAR from the return values he is posting


FOOT PRINT FROM TRACKMAN 135 MPH - (GAMER BALLS)



The longest driver i ever made on this club speed area is this one
Average launch 16.1* - Spin 1843 - Carry 197,1 meter / 215.5 yards  - Total 226.1 meter / 247.2 yards. This numbers is "over and beyond" Trackmans optimum charts...



The OP CAN NEVER get there with only 14 launch and 1600 spin, its all "warm air" fro Foresight who is the most extreme when spin values is low, but every one knows those numbers is far out.
He should loft up, and he will see more carry, 6-10 yards is easy to find here....

Here is my player vs the OP - both scenarios run at Flightscope
its say its 6.5 yards difference on carry, so the OP do have the potential to really max out VERY easy...more loft will deliver more launch and spin and thats what needed to stretch carry to the max.

 

 

That's wonderful, and yes a 19.5 degree launch would be great.  But, we both know that comes with increases in spin.  The more we loft up, the more we increase spin.  So is it realistic that you're going to get to 19.5 degrees from 14 but keep spin good enough to be ideal?  In my experience no, because I don't find the 250 RPM to 1 degree ratio that someone proposed in prior postings in practice, I find spin tends to rise more than that. Even in your hypothetical you're raising the launch angle by 2 degrees but only planning for 237 RPM of spin increase?  In practice, that's not what's likely to happen.  

 

So would we try to get there in a fitting, Of course! But the spin is likely going to start battling the launch angle for optimum. 

 

So what does all that long technical and hypothetical mean?

 

Does that mean with the OP's 134 ball speed they are not very close to optimized?  

 

IMO, they are.  They are very close to optimized because you can't increase launch angle without also increasing the spin.  If we were doing a fitting I'd click the loft higher (or get a difference head) and see what happened.  BUT, I know we'd be battling the spin increase with the launch increase and end up very very close to where they are (maybe a click higher in loft if it's a Taylormade sleeve.  If it's another OEM, from experience, I'm not sure a full degree would end up better, maybe it would maybe it wouldn't).   I understand that's a practical approach and not as fun.

 

 

 

[clinkinfo]

3 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

 

That assumes that even the reduced roll-out will give a distance that's better than if the fit were optimized for max carry for the same type of conditions.  That's not always true.   In many conditions you can certainly end up with less actual total distance in the real world if you optimize by their max total distance vs optimizing for max carry.

 

For many the distinction might not be important - for other's it could be significant.

 

 

 

That's exactly why I said it's important to know your own typical course conditions to make the best choice on what numbers to use when you optimize.

 

For my more typical conditions, I'm better off optimizing for max carry.

 

 

I agree with the the theory of what you're saying.  In practice though, it's very uncommon for a course to have no rollout.  Maybe in a very wet part of the country, or in certain seasons.  But for most of the time we all play golf, fairways have rollout. 

 

That said, you're focused on the rollout calculations and I'm saying they don't really matter.  When you have a high launch angle, in practice the optimization of carry is also generally optimizing rollout anyway.  So there's not a realistic tradeoff happening.  

 

For low launch players with higher spin, yeah, we have to get more specific because they are realistically trading off carry and total.  But for high lunch players like the OP, we are generally optimizing both anyway in practice.  

 

[North Butte]

I'll express my belief more simply. Every time I've ever hit a club indoors, into a net on a launch monitor, the "carry+roll" estimates have been ludicrously exaggerated. So I would not base any decision whatsoever off those numbers, they are generally garbage (in my limited experience).

 

In such a setting the carry numbers may also be quite different from what will happen out on the course but at least they have a degree of face validity. The carry+roll numbers, not at all.

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

That's wonderful, and yes a 19.5 degree launch would be great.  But, we both know that comes with increases in spin.  The more we loft up, the more we increase spin.  So is it realistic that you're going to get to 19.5 degrees from 14 but keep spin good enough to be ideal?  In my experience no, because I don't find the 250 RPM to 1 degree ratio that someone proposed in prior postings in practice, I find spin tends to rise more than that. Even in your hypothetical you're raising the launch angle by 2 degrees but only planning for 237 RPM of spin increase?  In practice, that's not what's likely to happen.  

 

So would we try to get there in a fitting, Of course! But the spin is likely going to start battling the launch angle for optimum. 

 

So what does all that long technical and hypothetical mean?

 

Does that mean with the OP's 134 ball speed they are not very close to optimized?  

Lots of assumptions here, and i DÓNT suggest him to go for 19.5 launch, where did you get that from? Did you try to run a few numbers, using the same ball speed, to check what would happen if he added 1 - 1.5 or 2.0 more loft? How would this change his spin and launch values, and how does carry and total looks like then? i ALWAYS do those numbers, and try to find the breaking point for when we loose or gain, and what.... 

It would surprise me big time, if his impact position is at the ideal area of the face, so its ALWAYS more to get. and we DONT even know where he makes impact on the face, OR his center of the face club speed, and if i did, i would be able to calculate his potential on the yard, but we are left in the dark with the needed parameters for that



My main point is, if the player has a driver with adjustable sleeve, he should loft up to the max, and try again, it does not cost him a dime, and when he does, he should offer a few of his gamer balls as a donation to the range.

If we KNEW center of the face club speed, his spin level at that point. (or from actual impact position), and we knew, actual impact position, we can tell his potential for both lofting up, and improvement of impact position.

Here is a project im working on for that, and with the combined knowledge we have today about how drivers works, its more than just possible to tell a players potential if any.

The impact position frame 


This examples is based on a player with 100 mph center of the face club speed, where that impact position delivers 2650 spin and 13* as launch. The numbers is RELATIVE vs IDEAL impact position (The smiley)



Even THIS player can use more loft, he is still NOT at peak for his club speed with a launch of about 14 at the smiley from 100 mph club speed. Its simply a example from the calculator im working on.

SO, when we DONT know his center of the face club speed, OR impact position, we are NOT able to judge his potential at all, but more launch and spin will NOT hurt him, his total is now 5 yards longer than Trackmans optimum for TOTAL from 90 mph club speed. (very fairway dependent, paid as shorter carry, but if you do some numbers for "hosel lofting up", its clearly what he should do, he will NOT loose TOTAL, but gain carry....RUN the numbers

[clinkinfo]

53 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Lots of assumptions here, and i DÓNT suggest him to go for 19.5 launch, where did you get that from? Did you try to run a few numbers, using the same ball speed, to check what would happen if he added 1 - 1.5 or 2.0 more loft? How would this change his spin and launch values, and how does carry and total looks like then? i ALWAYS do those numbers, and try to find the breaking point for when we loose or gain, and what.... 

It would surprise me big time, if his impact position is at the ideal area of the face, so its ALWAYS more to get. and we DONT even know where he makes impact on the face, OR his center of the face club speed, and if i did, i would be able to calculate his potential on the yard, but we are left in the dark with the needed parameters for that



My main point is, if the player has a driver with adjustable sleeve, he should loft up to the max, and try again, it does not cost him a dime, and when he does, he should offer a few of his gamer balls as a donation to the range.

If we KNEW center of the face club speed, his spin level at that point. (or from actual impact position), and we knew, actual impact position, we can tell his potential for both lofting up, and improvement of impact position.

Here is a project im working on for that, and with the combined knowledge we have today about how drivers works, its more than just possible to tell a players potential if any.

The impact position frame 


This examples is based on a player with 100 mph center of the face club speed, where that impact position delivers 2650 spin and 13* as launch. The numbers is RELATIVE vs IDEAL impact position (The smiley)



Even THIS player can use more loft, he is still NOT at peak for his club speed with a launch of about 14 at the smiley from 100 mph club speed. Its simply a example from the calculator im working on.

SO, when we DONT know his center of the face club speed, OR impact position, we are NOT able to judge his potential at all, but more launch and spin will NOT hurt him, his total is now 5 yards longer than Trackmans optimum for TOTAL from 90 mph club speed. (very fairway dependent, paid as shorter carry, but if you do some numbers for "hosel lofting up", its clearly what he should do, he will NOT loose TOTAL, but gain carry....RUN the numbers

 

 

I don't understand the point?  This is consistent with what has been said to him multiple times already in much simpler terms.  Try a slightly higher loft.  

 

All this is wonderful, we want the highest launch we can get with low spin. Why stop at 16 or 19?  Let's get 22 degrees with 1600 RPM's? But, reality is reality.  

 

And sure, we don't know what we don't know, are these average?  Are these good strikes?  Are these something else entirely? What were the balls really? But so what, it doesn't stop our ability to answer. It's not that complicated. 

 

In practice, we are going to see the spin rise when you raise this players loft.  You might be able to go up a bit and stay ok (again, said multiple times), but that spin is going to cross over the ideal line very quickly.  In my experience, within that 2 degrees of loft change when you try to get to 16.  

 

 

So again, we are saying the same thing.  he can go slightly higher.  Where we disagree, in practice he's going to cross the spin line within a degree or 2 of loft adjustment. He's very close to the PRACTICAL ideal for what he's shown us.   There's a finite amount of increment adjustability in drivers, there's only so many changes to choose from.  Plus, there's not "infinite" room to adjust loft up without adding too much spin.  For example, if this is a Callaway driver, there's only 3 other loft settings he can try (and that assumes he's on the lowest already).  I don't think he's asking if he should buy a new driver.  Plus, even if he was, I'd say probably not anyway because if those are averages those are good numbers at a 90mph swing speed.   

 

So, let's summarize. Try the 1 or 2 options up for loft and see if you can get a slightly higher launch and still keep the spin close to where it is.  Fairly quickly the spin will cross over and start hurting you again.   The OP is either ON the best setting for them now, or they are a 1 or 2 settings away.  It's all about the spin as you try and raise the launch.    

 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by clinkinfo

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

I agree with the the theory of what you're saying.  In practice though, it's very uncommon for a course to have no rollout.

 

Very common around here to get zero or even negative roll out.  

 

And even when there is roll out, you still can get a decent amount even when the ball flight is optimized for carry - it doesn't just go away.

 

3 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

That said, you're focused on the rollout calculations and I'm saying they don't really matter.  

 

I'm saying the roll out calculations are the least reliable from the LM numbers.   And if you're optimizing flight for total distance based on those roll out numbers - than that's not the same as saying that they don't matter.

 

 

Yes, as I said before - for some the difference will not be very important.  Each person has to look at the two scenarios for their ball flight to see if it might matter for them or not.

 

[clinkinfo]

19 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Very common around here to get zero or even negative roll out.  

 

And even when there is roll out, you still can get a decent amount even when the ball flight is optimized for carry - it doesn't just go away.

 

 

I'm saying the roll out calculations are the least reliable from the LM numbers.   And if you're optimizing flight for total distance based on those roll out numbers - than that's not the same as saying that they don't matter.

 

 

Yes, as I said before - for some the difference will not be very important.  Each person has to look at the two scenarios for their ball flight to see if it might matter for them or not.

 

 

 

Wow, none and negative rollout year-round!?!  Sucks to live where you do (for golf total distance anyway)!

 

But this statement is incomplete:

 

"And even when there is roll out, you still can get a decent amount even when the ball flight is optimized for carry - it doesn't just go away."

 

The missing part, if you were optimized for total distance you'd get far MORE rollout on any given day.  It's not debatable, it's what all the testing and calculations show us.  

 

You don't need to believe the yards of rollout calculated by any software, because it's still all just relative to the other launch possibilities at that ball speed.  That's how we (places that have rollout) use that data, not as an absolute expected number.    

Edited May 28, 2023 by clinkinfo

[Stuart_G]

2 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

Wow, none and negative rollout year-round!?!  Sucks to live where you do (for golf total distance anyway)!

 

Well, not year round - the season only lasts 7 months (if we're lucky).  We might get one month where it's more common to get decent roll out but even that's not guaranteed.    I'm not including the times of year the ground is frozen.  I'm sure we'd get lots of roll out then - but the courses are closed so not something we should count on.

 

 

2 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

But this statement is incomplete:

 

"And even when there is roll out, you still can get a decent amount even when the ball flight is optimized for carry - it doesn't just go away."

 

The missing part, if you were optimized for total distance you'd get far MORE rollout on any given day.  It's not debatable, it's what all the testing and calculations show us.  

 

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  It's true that the roll out might be more - but the total distance will not necessarily be more.   There is no guarantee that the extra roll out will be as much or more than the extra carry distance when that's optimized.

 

Or another way to put it is that most of the tables (that I've seen at least) that tell you how to optimize for total distance are based of the assumption of a hard fairway.    Change that condition and those numbers may not actually give optimal total distance any more.

 

Fortunately unless you're a really high speed player - the difference between the two is pretty small.  For a 100 mph swing speed in all except very hard turf conditions (medium and soft conditions) - the difference in total distance is only 1-2 yards between optimizing launch for max carry vs max total distance.

 

Here is an example.  I'm using the old TM numbers for optimal carry vs optimal total distance for a 100 mph swing speed and 0 AoA.  They might not be the most up to date - but it's just to illustrate what I'm trying to explain.

 

1,2 are for medium turf conditions

3,4 are for soft turf conditions

5,6 are for hard conditions.

 

In this case, the carry optimized numbers actually give slightly better total distance for medium and soft conditions.   The "optimal" total distance launch conditions only give better distance for hard fairway conditions.

 

Not to mention the fact that the roll out assumes that you actually hit the fairway - in any kind of decent length rough, you'll get typically get better distance with the max carry numbers.

 

 

[clinkinfo]

37 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Well, not year round - the season only lasts 7 months (if we're lucky).  We might get one month where it's more common to get decent roll out but even that's not guaranteed.    I'm not including the times of year the ground is frozen.  I'm sure we'd get lots of roll out then - but the courses are closed so not something we should count on.

 

 

 

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  It's true that the roll out might be more - but the total distance will not necessarily be more.   There is no guarantee that the extra roll out will be as much or more than the extra carry distance when that's optimized.

 

Or another way to put it is that most of the tables (that I've seen at least) that tell you how to optimize for total distance are based of the assumption of a hard fairway.    Change that condition and those numbers may not actually give optimal total distance any more.

 

Fortunately unless you're a really high speed player - the difference between the two is pretty small.  For a 100 mph swing speed in all except very hard turf conditions (medium and soft conditions) - the difference in total distance is only 1-2 yards between optimizing launch for max carry vs max total distance.

 

Here is an example.  I'm using the old TM numbers for optimal carry vs optimal total distance for a 100 mph swing speed and 0 AoA.  They might not be the most up to date - but it's just to illustrate what I'm trying to explain.

 

1,2 are for medium turf conditions

3,4 are for soft turf conditions

5,6 are for hard conditions.

 

In this case, the carry optimized numbers actually give slightly better total distance for medium and soft conditions.   The "optimal" total distance launch conditions only give better distance for hard fairway conditions.

 

Not to mention the fact that the roll out assumes that you actually hit the fairway - in any kind of decent length rough, you'll get typically get better distance with the max carry numbers.

 

 

 

 

So that is based on calculations in the software, which I'm sure are all relatively good.  

 

In real life, we've found it's straightforward.  Optimizing total distance for a player that is a high launch angle player will generally optimize carry and total at the same time.  For most running conditions, the goal is realistically in the same ballpark for practical application (+/- a few yards on either carry or total, but negligible) because the lower spin increases carry AND increases roll.  

 

For players with lower launch and higher spin, like your chart, those tradeoffs become much more real and we have to make a clear decision because one maximum is normally negatively affecting the other.  I'm sure there's some oddities in those where maximizing carry might also maximize total for certain softness, but generally there are much more clear tradeoffs between them for the low launch/high spin player.  I've had players like that want to maximize carry and I've had ones that want max total, they just need to make that decision for themselves like you've said.  Unlike your area, it's unlikely for us to have no roll most of the season  In fact, most of the competitive players are playing courses that are deliberately being setup long, hard and fast, so max total distance is what some simply want/need.  

 

But the OP in this post is not in that low launch/high spin category, they have what we love to see, high launch and low spin already.  So it's really not a discussion that applies to them. 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by clinkinfo

[Stuart_G]

14 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

So that is based on calculations in the software, which I'm sure are all relatively good.  

 

When anyone gets fit and optimizes for total distance, all roll out is based on those same calculations.      There is no real life data to work with when it comes to roll out.

 

 

14 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

In real life, we've found it's straightforward.

 

Real life is anything but straight forward.  Especially when it comes to anything to do with this crazy game.  🙂

 

 

14 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

those tradeoffs become much more real and we have to make a clear decision because one maximum is normally negatively affecting the other.

 

Yes I know.  That's that's what I've been saying all along and the main point I was trying to get across.

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Stuart_G

[clinkinfo]

8 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

When anyone gets fit and optimizes for total distance, all roll out is based on those same calculations.      There is no real life data to work with when it comes to roll out.

 

 

 

Real life is anything but straight forward.  Especially when it comes to anything to do with this crazy game.  🙂

 

 

 

Yes I know.  That's that's what I've been saying all along and the main point I was trying to get across.

 

 

 

For clarity, you seem to want to dismiss rollout calculations as not real.  I'm telling you from an area that has rollout most of the year, the exact number might not be correct, but the relative amount is real.  When we optimize for total, we get max TOTAL on course.  If we optimized for carry, we would NOT see total in the same place.  That's based on real life, side by side ball testing with good players.  So being very dismissive of total is not a good strategy if you play in areas that have run.  I haven't met many golfers that are real happy leaving yards on the table with the exact same swing.

 

Additionally, when you optimize a player like the OP, they are launching high, which means maximizing carry will naturally also maximize total.  Because lower spin helps both.   That's the part I'm not sure is coming across clearly.  The tradeoffs you're discussing come about more for players who launch lower with higher spin.  The higher launch angle players are optimizing both anyway, so there's no real point to differentiate for someone like this OP.  Maximizing their carry is also going to maximize total for them (unless you decided to try and lower their launch for some reason, which none of us would do).  

 

The ball leaves with a velocity, launch vector, and spin vector.  That's it.  Once it leaves, nothing else matters, and physics tells us what will happen and what makes it go the longest.  It's high launch, low spin.  If you can do that as a golfer, you're in a very good place and probably very easy to maximize.  That's it, it's that simple.  HOWEVER, there are some players who cannot achieve that high launch, low spin with their swings or technique.  For those players, we need to have real tradeoff discussions, because it's not ideal.  BUT, what makes this discussion overly confusing to people is when you start talking about those tradeoff issues with a player that's already hitting it with high launch and low spin.  That discussion is just not relevant to their situation, and makes everything sound more complex when it has little to no applicability to them. They don't have to make any carry or total tradeoff decisions, they are going to get both anyway.

Edited May 29, 2023 by clinkinfo

[Stuart_G]

18 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

For clarity, you seem to want to dismiss rollout calculations as not real.

 

No,  I never said anything close to that. 

 

I said the numbers generated by the LM's for roll out were unreliable and highly variable based on actual course conditions.

 

 

18 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 I'm telling you from an area that has rollout most of the year, the exact number might not be correct, but the relative amount is real.  When we optimize for total, we get max TOTAL on course.

 

If you play very hard conditions a majority of the time, then I don't doubt that you do.  

 

But this isn't about just you. And it's not just about the OP.   That's the point you keep missing.  This is a public forum and thus about providing information for everyone who might read this thread - from all parts of the world and who play on all types of conditions - and have all types of launch conditions - so they can each make the best decisions for themselves.

 

There is nothing more confusing or really misleading than people pounding out generalizations or simplified answers without being sufficiently specific about the limiting factors or contexts that they might be valid for.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Stuart_G

[clinkinfo]

15 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

No,  I never said anything close to that. 

 

I said the numbers generated by the LM's for roll out were unreliable and highly variable based on actual course conditions.

 

 

 

If you play very hard conditions a majority of the time, then I don't doubt that you do.  

 

But this isn't about just you. And it's not just about the OP.   That's the point you keep missing.  This is a public forum and thus about providing information for everyone who might read this thread - from all parts of the world and who play on all types of conditions - and have all types of launch conditions - so they can each make the best decisions for themselves.

 

There is nothing more confusing or really misleading than people pounding out generalizations or simplified answers without being sufficiently specific about the limiting factors or contexts that they might be valid for.

 

 

 

It's not a generalization, it's science. That's what you're skipping over.  High launch players optimize total and carry.  No one even needs to trust anyone, just look at the tables someone else posted in. That's what the OP is, and the entire other part of the discussion about low launch and high spin is irrelevant to his situation and just adds confusion to his situation.

 

Yes, it's a public forum BUT the OP asked a very specific question.  The answer is very easy, specific, and concise.  All the other information that's being added for "every other forum member" can be added to a thread discussion question from a low launch high spin player just as easily, and that would be far better context.  Providing information that isn't relevant to a discussion is not helping answer a question or provide clarity.

 

This fitting situation is very straightforward and easy.  Discussing all fitting possibilities in this thread seems silly IMO, but you're right, I'm not the forum boss.  But I do think this thread has run well past it's useful life, since it's fairly clear the OP has their answer about 20 posts ago.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by clinkinfo

[Stuart_G]

45 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

It's not a generalization, it's science. That's what you're glossing over. 

 

"Science" (or "truth") and "Generalization" are not mutually exclusive.   It's a science that's only valid in a limited context - that makes it a generalization.  And whatever semantics you use, it doesn't change the point.

 

 

45 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

Yes, it's a public forum BUT the OP asked a very specific question.  The answer is very easy, specific, and concise.

 

The OP's questions were clearly answered long before any of this started between us - as well as answers to question he didn't even know he had to ask.

 

45 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

  All the other informtaion that's being added for "every other forum member" can be added to a thread discussion question from a low launch high spin player just as easily, and that would be far better context. 

 

I don't agree that it would be better that way.  But that doesn't matter.  Whatever your or my preference might be, that's just not the way it works.   The number of people that come here to get questions answered is by far WAY larger than the number of people who actually end up posting questions.   So they try to find them where ever they can.  And those individuals usually do NOT fully understand the importance of the contexts in the threads they search for an answer.    Not clarifying the importance of the context will lead to far more misunderstandings and problems than any risk there might be to the OP's potential level of confusion (which really is a lot less than you seem to think).

 

 

45 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

But I do think this thread has run well past it's useful life, since it's fairly clear the OP has their answer already (and probably did 20 posts ago).

 

Yes I agree, that happened a while ago.   Good day.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Stuart_G