|
|
Post by Pete Hurrikane on Apr 19, 2012 13:55:32 GMT -5
Most of you have read and probably accepted the findings of the New Ball Flight Laws (NBFL). Personally, my jaw dropped as I read the articles on this and heard comments like, ''It is now evident that what we believed from the OBFL is almost opposite or backwards of what actually happens.'' I could have accepted slightly different or even different but the use of the word opposite just riled me. I have put many hours of study into this new revelation and would like to present my findings. There are two main points being made... Many big names from Faldo to Harmon have been heard describing the old laws as... Align the club face to the target and align the feet to where you would like the ball to start. I can understand these short descriptions but they are not how flights are detailed in the OBFL charts.  But nothing has confused me more than, what I consider to be, the deliberate misleading directives of the NBFL. The OBFL describes a flight path and explains the alignment of the club face to this path and explains what happens in very simple terms. E.g. ''Club face aims left of in to out path. Ball starts left and curves further left.'' Now what Faldo and co. said was different to this but definitely along similar lines. I do completely accept that the face angle has much more effect on the initial flight relative to path than the old laws led us to believe. The NBFL...  I accept that there are differences between the O&NBFL but the claims of the NBFL that a ball can start wildly different to what we have until recently believed, stretches my understanding of what I am doing too far. This led me to delving a little deeper into these new laws. I decided to clarify the above diagram changing two factors. Firstly, in order to make better comparisons to the OBFL both diagrams require similar face alignments and secondly more exact and comprehensible path and face conditions should be described.  Although the OBFL assume more path dominance, the flights are very similar. I believe these parameters are standard path and club face conditions and to seek more extreme face conditions would be unrealistic. I believe these diagrams to be relatively accurate and welcome any comments on any of the nine possible outcomes. |
|
|
|
Post by stevem on Apr 20, 2012 5:15:16 GMT -5
I am an empirical sort of guy so far be it from me to deny the validity of the Trackman data. The starting direction is determined mostly by the alignment of the face at impact. Before the Trackman data was published I and most other golfers believed that path controlled the starting direction of the shot.
To me the interesting question is why were so many people able to play golf very well for so long lumbered by a fundamental misconception about what caused a golf ball to go where it goes? I believe the answer is because the differences between the NBFL and the OBFL are insignificant in the actual swings made by accomplished golfers. Notwithstanding the Trackman data I can still align myself in the direction I want the ball to start, align the face where I want the ball to finish, and hit a ball that curves to the target.
In the mind of physicists the Newtonian concept of gravity has been replaced by Einstein's as set forth in his theory of general relativity. Two fundamentally different concepts. Both cannot be correct and all physicists would agree that Einstein's has more accurately captured the reality of gravity than Newton's. Nevertheless, when we landed men on the moon in 1969 the calculations were done using the Newtonian equations. Why? Because they work well enough and they're simpler.
So it is with the OBFL and the NBFL. In most cases the results will be the same and the old is simpler.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew PGA on Apr 20, 2012 5:20:36 GMT -5
I am an empirical sort of guy so far be it from me to deny the validity of the Trackman data. The starting direction is determined mostly by the alignment of the face at impact. Before the Trackman data was published I and most other golfers believed that path controlled the starting direction of the shot. To me the interesting question is why were so many people able to play golf very well for so long lumbered by a fundamental misconception about what caused a golf ball to go where it goes? I believe the answer is because the differences between the NBFL and the OBFL are insignificant in the actual swings made by accomplished golfers. Notwithstanding the Trackman data I can still align myself in the direction I want the ball to start, align the face where I want the ball to finish, and hit a ball that curves to the target. In the mind of physicists the Newtonian concept of gravity has been replaced by Einstein's as set forth in his theory of general relativity. Two fundamentally different concepts. Both cannot be correct and all physicists would agree that Einstein's has more accurately captured the reality of gravity than Newton's. Nevertheless, when we landed men on the moon in 1969 the calculations were done using the Newtonian equations. Why? Because they work well enough and they're simpler. So it is with the OBFL and the NBFL. In most cases the results will be the same and the old is simpler. Steve I won't disagree this "similar theory" might not have much affect on someone who is a good player trying to work the ball on the course. Here is the problem that arises. When you have someone with an inside out path of say 10° or more with a massive flip hitting a pull hook and being told or trying to swing his path more to the right and the same with a push slicer with a 10° out to in path with a massive open face trying to aim and swing more left. These are the people that need real help and the NBFL are more helpful in correcting those issues. In other words, the farther away the path and AOA are from the target line, the more important the NBFL are. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Hurrikane on Apr 20, 2012 5:29:28 GMT -5
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your feedback.
In your words, before the Trackman guys appeared on the scene instructors were under equipped to cope with helping golfers who were flipping madly at the ball. Their standard advice was basically limited to advising the golfer to swing even further away from the target.
I agree that that the OBFL weren't an exact science and the NBFL are more accurate. What I do however find hard to take is the NBFL connoisseurs using this slight difference as ammunition in calling the old school inefficient at teaching.
I have no doubt that you yourself followed the principles of the OBFL in the past and I would like to think you would not have advised a student who was flipping wildly to aim another 10 yards away from the target. When you use this assimilation to explain why the NBFL are better than what teachers still following the OBFL are teaching, you are being derogatory to some of the old masters.
I don't think it matters what school of thought you follow, a good instructor would address the wild flipping move before suggesting path alterations.
One last point...
Golf is a motor skill, or an amalgamation of various fine and gross motor skills. 90% of these skills are subconsciously controlled and golf definitely falls into this category. With the new findings of face angle having much more effect on initial flight path than believed, why have golfers been able to shape balls successfully using the incorrect laws?
It's simple really, with 10% conscious control - an understanding of the two dimensional OBFL - plus 90% subconscious control - the experience of what happens three dimensionally. Our subconscious has coped and blended well with our conscious understanding. Now if the conscious understanding tries to overpower the aptitude of a very capable subconscious, are we not trying to play shots with the wrong side of our brain?
Although I have digested the findings of the NBFL, I still want to have a simple two dimensional picture in my mind and avoid tipping the scales too much towards conscious control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew PGA on Apr 20, 2012 5:32:44 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, the trackman guys are out there some times and I agree with your premise.
I have just seen NBFL make it easier to fix the pull hooker and push slicer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Hurrikane on Apr 20, 2012 5:37:36 GMT -5
You may have a point Andrew, although I am not convinced. My main gripe was how you suggested the guys using OBFL would tend to correct those swing faults wrongly. I can't agree with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paddy F on Apr 20, 2012 5:42:30 GMT -5
Who cares?  |
|
|
|
Post by stevem on Apr 20, 2012 5:45:03 GMT -5
Andrew:
I wouldn't disagree with you in the least since I am not a teacher, just someone who plays. My concern is in how to control the ball on the course.
I would say however that when I learned the game, and probably when you learned the game, we were taught in light of the OBFL. We both learned to play pretty well even though we now know that we and our teachers were working under certain misconceptions. Interesting I think.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by thesandtrapper on Apr 20, 2012 5:49:39 GMT -5
You may have a point Andrew, although I am not convinced. My main gripe was how you suggested the guys using OBFL would tend to correct those swing faults wrongly. I can't agree with that. Pete, your NBFL chart doesn't really make sense. Clubhead speed and loft is going to play a part here, but you should have a ball that starts left of target for the in-out path and a ball that starts right of target line for the out-in path. Which is an example of one of the biggest problems with the incorrect information. You would be led to believe that so long as path is out to the right, the ball would start to the right. So lets say you are hitting a nasty pull hook; ball starts left and curves harder left. You would have been told to swing further right. Clubface probably would have remained closed to target and path would have gotten further right. Meaning the problem has gotten worse rather than better. @steve you have a way of classifying the frustrations of many as insignificant because it never effected you. Yes, there have been great players that played amazingly under incorrect information. In fact, there are still golfers on the tour today that believe in the incorrect information. However, there are also thousands of golfers trying to shut the clubface through impact to get the ball to stop slicing. There are guys that think the slice they are hitting has nothing to do with path because the ball is starting at their target (I talked to one just the other day). So I'd just be a little more careful about writing things off as insignificant. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew PGA on Apr 20, 2012 5:54:28 GMT -5
You may have a point Andrew, although I am not convinced. My main gripe was how you suggested the guys using OBFL would tend to correct those swing faults wrongly. I can't agree with that. That's not what I meant. I meant it is easier to explain to a student why the need to swing or aim more left when they are hitting a pull hook. |
|
|
|
Post by tgmexpertnot on Apr 20, 2012 5:59:24 GMT -5
I am an empirical sort of guy so far be it from me to deny the validity of the Trackman data. The starting direction is determined mostly by the alignment of the face at impact. Before the Trackman data was published I and most other golfers believed that path controlled the starting direction of the shot. To me the interesting question is why were so many people able to play golf very well for so long lumbered by a fundamental misconception about what caused a golf ball to go where it goes? I believe the answer is because the differences between the NBFL and the OBFL are insignificant in the actual swings made by accomplished golfers. Notwithstanding the Trackman data I can still align myself in the direction I want the ball to start, align the face where I want the ball to finish, and hit a ball that curves to the target. In the mind of physicists the Newtonian concept of gravity has been replaced by Einstein's as set forth in his theory of general relativity. Two fundamentally different concepts. Both cannot be correct and all physicists would agree that Einstein's has more accurately captured the reality of gravity than Newton's. Nevertheless, when we landed men on the moon in 1969 the calculations were done using the Newtonian equations. Why? Because they work well enough and they're simpler. So it is with the OBFL and the NBFL. In most cases the results will be the same and the old is simpler. Steve Because of what's been left off the chart, golfers don't realise how big an impact the club going up/down through the hitting zone has. I can swing slightly left, and a good bit down and actually get an in to out path. |
|
didntshootthedeputy
Guest
|
Post by didntshootthedeputy on Apr 20, 2012 6:05:54 GMT -5
I think Andrews's point is significant. For a good player trying to hit a draw, there isn't much difference between aligning to the right and pointing the clubface towards the target (OBFL) or aligning to the right and pointing the clubface halfway between your path and the target (NBFL).
It is the people who are trying to fix a hook or slice that are going to be hurt by the OBFLs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Hurrikane on Apr 20, 2012 6:13:39 GMT -5
Hi TGM-not, Because of what's been left off the chart, golfers don't realise how big an impact the club going up/down through the hitting zone has. I can swing slightly left, and a good bit down and actually get an in to out path. I deliberately left (Angle of Attack) AoA out of the diagrams. Don't you think the comparisons are difficult enough without this. The OBFL didn't consider this phenomenon and the NBFL charts don't discuss effects of AoA either. Main point: Why do the NBFL insist using face angles relative to target and often quote that the OBFL do this. E.g. This comment is just plain wrong. Look at the OBFL diagram in the OP and it doesn't suggest club face to target anywhere other than in to in. Although you should notice the confusing NBFL always refer to club face to target. |
|
|
|
Post by tgmexpertnot on Apr 21, 2012 8:57:54 GMT -5
I deliberately left (Angle of Attack) AoA out of the diagrams. Don't you think the comparisons are difficult enough without this. The OBFL didn't consider this phenomenon and the NBFL charts don't discuss effects of AoA either. Main point: Why do the NBFL insist using face angles relative to target and often quote that the OBFL do this. Yea I agree with you, through my own experience I didn't realize just how HUGE of an impact vertical club path has on ball flight, so to me to discuss the new stuff you have to get into D-plane. To answer your question I think they just wanted a simple way to convey the ideas and used old language/diagrams and sacrificed accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Hurrikane on Apr 21, 2012 10:58:19 GMT -5
Are there any diagrams on effects of vertical AoA. Surely they are also relatively insignificant using logical parameters, lets say -3.5° to +3.5°.
|
|
