|
Post by ericpaul2 on May 9, 2012 10:06:27 GMT -5
I almost hate to interject myself into the conversation, but the ball flight laws were understood in certain circles as early as the 1960s, probably earlier. If you don't believe me, find the original edition of "Search for the Perfect Swing" by Cochran and Stobbs published in 1969, I think (don't have my copy with me...could be a few years earlier).
In it, they very clearly describe the relationship of the balls initial trajectory and curvature to the face angle and clubhead path. They do not discuss the influence of angle of attack, but they do comment that they are "simpifying" the explanation and mention loft infuences.
The reality is that effectively the ball flight laws are based on the laws of physics leaning heavily on the specialties of ballistics and aerodynamics. It's not like these are new fields of study.
That, of course, does not explain why instructors for decades have either 1) refused to learn/accept them or 2) determined that the general golfing public doesn't need to know them and choose to explain feel versus real. I suspect that Chamblee (who is, in fact, an idiot) falls into camp number 2. Personally, I find the "you aren't smart enough to understand" attitude extremely insulting, but its hardly confined to the area of golf instruction/commentation.
Personally, I think a lot of the misconception is related to the writing of the very influential John Jacobs from the 70s to 90s. He was a huge proponent of working from impact backwards, which is great, but all his books start with the discussion that clubhead path dictates initial direction. By the time he interjects face angle, his description becomes closer to reality, but the damage has already been done. If he had just interjected "assuming the clubface is square to the path" into the clubhead path discussion, he could have saved a huge amount of misunderstanding. By the time he gets to diagnosing faults, his fixes are very good, but those are based on countless "proofs" on the lesson tee.
Interestingly, his last book published in the 2006, removed this description and included both face angle and path in the ball fight influences for a spot on description.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 10:25:20 GMT -5
Iacas -
How old are you? You speak about the past but I'm not exactly sure how old you are or what you would remember if you golfed in the 80s and 90s.
The AoA is HUGE for better players!
BTW - Name me one popular instructor prior to the 80s or 90s who was publishing/teaching information about AoA on path and face dominance to the masses? Mac? He has never taught the masses and keeps everything a secret. You couldn't get access to information like you can today until the internet became popular and accessible.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 10:30:23 GMT -5
I almost hate to interject myself into the conversation, but the ball flight laws were understood in certain circles as early as the 1960s, probably earlier. If you don't believe me, find the original edition of "Search for the Perfect Swing" by Cochran and Stobbs published in 1969, I think (don't have my copy with me...could be a few years earlier). In it, they very clearly describe the relationship of the balls initial trajectory and curvature to the face angle and clubhead path. They do not discuss the influence of angle of attack, but they do comment that they are "simpifying" the explanation and mention loft infuences. The reality is that effectively the ball flight laws are based on the laws of physics leaning heavily on the specialties of ballistics and aerodynamics. It's not like these are new fields of study. That, of course, does not explain why instructors for decades have either 1) refused to learn/accept them or 2) determined that the general golfing public doesn't need to know them and choose to explain feel versus real. I suspect that Chamblee (who is, in fact, an idiot) falls into camp number 2. Personally, I find the "you aren't smart enough to understand" attitude extremely insulting, but its hardly confined to the area of golf instruction/commentation. Personally, I think a lot of the misconception is related to the writing of the very influential John Jacobs from the 70s to 90s. He was a huge proponent of working from impact backwards, which is great, but all his books start with the discussion that clubhead path dictates initial direction. By the time he interjects face angle, his description becomes closer to reality, but the damage has already been done. If he had just interjected "assuming the clubface is square to the path" into the clubhead path discussion, he could have saved a huge amount of misunderstanding. By the time he gets to diagnosing faults, his fixes are very good, but those are based on countless "proofs" on the lesson tee. Interestingly, his last book published in the 2006, removed this description and included both face angle and path in the ball fight influences for a spot on description. I agree that they were known in certain circles. The point is that they were NOT known in most circles. Prior to the internet (invented in the 60s?70s?80s?) there was no way for this type of information to be communicated except by telephone, magazine, book or lesson. Iacas and Tapio kid themselves that this information was widely known and have yet to put forth any evidence how or where it was widely known. They're asserting the positive, not me. How can I prove it wasn't widely known? Experience and even Richie agrees with me (to an extent). MOST Golfers from my generation were NOT taught about AoA and face angle dominance. That's a fact. I lived the history. P.S. When I speak of ballflight laws I also imply impact conditions that cause such ballflight.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on May 9, 2012 10:48:49 GMT -5
[ MOST Golfers from my generation were NOT taught about AoA and face angle dominance. That's a fact. I lived the history. You are just talking about your own experience and making that including most of the golfers. Maybe it has been case with you, but I really can't understand if it has been that bad.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 11:34:45 GMT -5
Tapio -
Richie agrees with me regarding how widely unknown this information was for golfers. This stuff wasn't widely known unless you want to re-invent history. Certain people knew, but they didn't share and couldn't explain why.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on May 9, 2012 12:12:09 GMT -5
All I can say is that growing up in NY and being one of the better juniors in the state and having a good friend of mine being one of the top ranked juniors in the country and having traveled once 5 hours to Long Island to go to a Jimmy Ballard clinic and having worked with Ballard in Florida for a little while among the great deal of books I've read, NOBODY ever went into the ball flight laws correctly outside of:
- There was a book written by Mike Adams and another teacher and he states that contrary to what most books tell you, the initial direction of the ball is closer to where the face is pointing at impact. I remember reading that and not knowing what to think.
- Homer Kelley stating that the ball will separate from the clubface at a 90* angle. Of course, back then I had no idea how to read the book, particularly chapter 2, so that got lost in my brain's shuffle.
Just explaining D-Plane without needing to know the Geometry of the Circle stuff would have been MASSIVELY helpful. As I say, it explains your misses so much better. How many times I hit a snap hook and they said 'you are coming over the top' or 'you are using too much right hand' and the cure was to 'swing out to right field more.' Only to hit bigger hooks and the big push slice which completely baffled me.
It wasn't until I got back interested in the game in 2008, reading stuff on the internet, that I became aware of D-Plane and the correct ball flight laws. That was taught to me originally from Logan Terry, a S&T/Plummer and Bennett student, who was gracious enough to teach me. To his credit, Manzella helped a lot because he stuck to expressing the importance of D-Plane and 'swinging left' and its relationship with what they call the 'resultant path.' And then I really got to understand 'swinging left' from a video Ralph Perez showed of him being taught to swing left with his instructor, Greg McHatton.
My problem isn't with somebody like Tapio or Erik who claims that they understood the ball flight laws and the Geometry of the Circle. Hey, they are smart guys and in all honesty without trying to be humble...far smarter than me (I was terrible at science and went to CCU for cryin out loud. Although, I was exceptional at math).
But, it's the jerkoffs out there that were big-name teachers or guys like Chamblee who suddenly claim that they had the ball flight laws all along. Sorry, I don't believe you. If so, you would've put them in print and celebrated the fact that you had it right while everybody else had it wrong and made your money off the fact you were right and everybody else was 'wrong.' That's been their MO for *DECADES*, so I don't buy into them 'knowing the ball flight laws all along' but deciding not to write about them for whatever reason.
I'm not looking for them to make some sort of public apology. Hell, don't even acknowledge if you don't want to. But, learn from it and don't try to save face by lying to the public. It's bullshit like this that makes me just about fed up with dealing with golf instructors. It's guys like Ted Fort, John Dochety, Mike McNary, TJ Yeaton, Barzeski, Wedzik, George Hunt, etc. that give me faith in the industry.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 13:19:50 GMT -5
Thanks Richie! That was my experience as well and I expect for most golfers. I played golf in college (D-1 - bench warmer) and never knew this stuff until you and Brian explained it to me. Now we routinely talk in Trackman terms which is great and makes it much easier for golfers to improve.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 9, 2012 17:30:18 GMT -5
The AoA is HUGE for better players! By and large, I disagree. We rarely work on it. BTW - Name me one popular instructor prior to the 80s or 90s who was publishing/teaching information about AoA on path and face dominance to the masses? Straw man. Path was path. AoA was AoA. If the divot's good, we rarely change the path by changing the AoA. If they need to be steeper or shallower, we understand what that'll do to the ball flight. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 18:06:04 GMT -5
The AoA is HUGE for better players! By and large, I disagree. We rarely work on it. BTW - Name me one popular instructor prior to the 80s or 90s who was publishing/teaching information about AoA on path and face dominance to the masses? Straw man. Path was path. AoA was AoA. If the divot's good, we rarely change the path by changing the AoA. If they need to be steeper or shallower, we understand what that'll do to the ball flight. That's all I'm saying. Gravity was gravity before someone could communicate the idea. The key isn't the idea per se, but knowing how to communicate the idea so people can understand. Otherwise, it's just words. How old are you? You post as though you're over 50. The fact that nobody could communicate the concept of impact/ballflight in the 80s or 90s is evidence that most didn't know. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 9, 2012 18:43:23 GMT -5
How old are you? You post as though you're over 50. The fact that nobody could communicate the concept of impact/ballflight in the 80s or 90s is evidence that most didn't know. Get over it. "Get over it"? And you want to know how old I am? I think your arguments with Jeffy have soured your attitude or something.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 19:15:16 GMT -5
You post like you're over 50 and I suspect you're under 30 and were just a pup in the 80s and didn't start playing golf competitively until the mid 90s. Thus, you would have no clue what was being taught in the 80s or the early 90s when it comes to ballflight and impact.
Jeffy and I have resolved our differences. I understand him better and we can agree to disagree on Trackman (although I wish he would try it because he truly loves the game, wants to improve and I believe he could improve faster with Trackman).
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 9, 2012 19:37:24 GMT -5
You post like you're over 50 and I suspect you're under 30 and were just a pup in the 80s and didn't start playing golf competitively until the mid 90s. Thus, you would have no clue what was being taught in the 80s or the early 90s when it comes to ballflight and impact. You suspect wrong. And who fleeping cares what was being taught in the 80s? We don't teach AoA to change path NOW all that often.
|
|
|
Post by 94monarch on May 9, 2012 19:40:34 GMT -5
I think a lot of the instructors in the 80's and 90's were aware the ball flight laws as they were taught to me in the PGA Manual were not accurate. I heard a lot of terms like "face override of path" and things like that back in the day. I do not think they had any clue AoA was a factor or at least understood its importance.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 19:46:52 GMT -5
You post like you're over 50 and I suspect you're under 30 and were just a pup in the 80s and didn't start playing golf competitively until the mid 90s. Thus, you would have no clue what was being taught in the 80s or the early 90s when it comes to ballflight and impact. You suspect wrong. And who fleeping cares what was being taught in the 80s? We don't teach AoA to change path NOW all that often. The point is that it wasn't widely known and you claimed that it was. This stuff didn't spread until 2007-2008.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 19:48:04 GMT -5
I think a lot of the instructors in the 80's and 90's were aware the ball flight laws as they were taught to me in the PGA Manual were not accurate. I heard a lot of terms like "face override of path" and things like that back in the day. I do not think they had any clue AoA was a factor or at least understood its importance. Should have said gear effect overrides everything!!!! People just guessed with us 94!!!
|
|