We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Golf's Greatest Myths

@mohdds I appreaciate the respectful nature of you opinion. Thruthfully, as a guy who minored in physics (12 years ago and can't remember jack) I am completly in aggreance with you in using real science and data to study the charachteristics of the golf ball. (heck it's partially why I spent most of my adult life in a pool hall)

So I have two questions:
(1) If the "old school pavin" theory isn't correct. Then why does it work? Using your opinion (and i'm NOT saying its wrong) then even though I'm getting the same result, my logic to why it's happening is wrong.
(2) Then what is the correct method then on curving a golf ball?
 
Tadashi70 said:
How about this one....When you drop kick a ball off the tee with your driver is always goes straight. The premise is that by hitting the ground first it squares up the club and gives you a high straight ball flight.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have the skills to slice in this situation
 
Snap Hook said:
@mohdds I appreaciate the respectful nature of you opinion. Thruthfully, as a guy who minored in physics (12 years ago and can't remember jack) I am completly in aggreance with you in using real science and data to study the charachteristics of the golf ball. (heck it's partially why I spent most of my adult life in a pool hall)

So I have two questions:
(1) If the "old school pavin" theory isn't correct. Then why does it work? Using your opinion (and i'm NOT saying its wrong) then even though I'm getting the same result, my logic to why it's happening is wrong.
(2) Then what is the correct method then on curving a golf ball?
Click to expand...


Snap Hook:
In reply to your previous reply, I don't have any good method on demonstrating without a Trackman, Flightscope, Vector and Iron Byron. However, the following link may provide some information as to how Trackman data was utilized to determine these "new" ball flight laws.
http://www.mattreagangolf.com/golf_...-plane-and-trackman-the-new-ball-flight-laws/
I agree that the "old" school Corey Pavin method seems to work for me too. I think that what may be happening is that (in the case of a draw), since he is ste up closed to the target line and he is setting up the club face square, according to the "new" laws, he is actually hitting the ball with the club face slightly open, sending the ball to the right, but his club path is even more in-to-out relative to his club face which then imparts a right-to-left curve on the ball back to his intended target. What he thinks the club face and path are doing may not be what they are actually doing (the old "feel" vs. reality disconnect which is why even many seasoned tour pros utilize swing coaches to observe what they are actually doing vs. what they feel they are doing). A lot has been written on this subject (just Google "golf new ball flight laws") but what I am actually trying to find is a reprint of the raw data actually showing the correlation (which is admittedly not one-to-one) between club face angle, the D plane, and initial ball flight direction. Anyway, again, not to argue. I found the above link to be good reading for those of us that are scientifically inclined like yourself. Enjoy.
 
mohdds said:
Snap Hook:
In reply to your previous reply, I don't have any good method on demonstrating without a Trackman, Flightscope, Vector and Iron Byron. However, the following link may provide some information as to how Trackman data was utilized to determine these "new" ball flight laws.
http://www.mattreagangolf.com/golf_...-plane-and-trackman-the-new-ball-flight-laws/
I agree that the "old" school Corey Pavin method seems to work for me too. I think that what may be happening is that (in the case of a draw), since he is ste up closed to the target line and he is setting up the club face square, according to the "new" laws, he is actually hitting the ball with the club face slightly open, sending the ball to the right, but his club path is even more in-to-out relative to his club face which then imparts a right-to-left curve on the ball back to his intended target. What he thinks the club face and path are doing may not be what they are actually doing (the old "feel" vs. reality disconnect which is why even many seasoned tour pros utilize swing coaches to observe what they are actually doing vs. what they feel they are doing). A lot has been written on this subject (just Google "golf new ball flight laws") but what I am actually trying to find is a reprint of the raw data actually showing the correlation (which is admittedly not one-to-one) between club face angle, the D plane, and initial ball flight direction. Anyway, again, not to argue. I found the above link to be good reading for those of us that are scientifically inclined like yourself. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Honestly, from my own experiences, the old school pavin method doesn't quite work with 100% accuracy.
Example: I set up 30* to the left. (i'm right handed) with the club face setup "square" the ball doesn't actually start at a 30* off target. Its always something like say 20* which initally does make it look like a push. To be honest I always adjusted for this slight difference. and always chalked it up to the open clubface causing the ball to "squirt" right a little.


BTW I was picked to test the Boccieri Heavy Driver. I currently game the light Superfast by Taylormade. I was going to wait till I started testing the driver but you seem like a good person to bounce this idea off of. I'm going to simplify this WAY down: Why does light weight drivers work? I can see why a more aerodynamic driver would help but overall just lighter? Ignoring a bunch of factors, I'm going to stick to a very simple idea going back to high school physics class: Force = Mass times Acceleration. IF you take mass off the driver, I will swing it faster but how does that increase the amount of force I put on the ball? (ignoring the benfits of aerodynamic club head shapes) I'm not going to lie, the Superfast is the longest driver I've ever owned. But I think it's more for the aerodynamic qualities, not the lesser weight. Theroetically, if I could swing a heavier driver at the same speed, wouldn't it apply more force and therefore go farther. (ignoring spin and angle of force and other really important stuff of course)
Anythoughts?
 
Snap Hook said:
Honestly, from my own experiences, the old school pavin method doesn't quite work with 100% accuracy.
Example: I set up 30* to the left. (i'm right handed) with the club face setup "square" the ball doesn't actually start at a 30* off target. Its always something like say 20* which initally does make it look like a push. To be honest I always adjusted for this slight difference. and always chalked it up to the open clubface causing the ball to "squirt" right a little.


BTW I was picked to test the Boccieri Heavy Driver. I currently game the light Superfast by Taylormade. I was going to wait till I started testing the driver but you seem like a good person to bounce this idea off of. I'm going to simplify this WAY down: Why does light weight drivers work? I can see why a more aerodynamic driver would help but overall just lighter? Ignoring a bunch of factors, I'm going to stick to a very simple idea going back to high school physics class: Force = Mass times Acceleration. IF you take mass off the driver, I will swing it faster but how does that increase the amount of force I put on the ball? (ignoring the benfits of aerodynamic club head shapes) I'm not going to lie, the Superfast is the longest driver I've ever owned. But I think it's more for the aerodynamic qualities, not the lesser weight. Theroetically, if I could swing a heavier driver at the same speed, wouldn't it apply more force and therefore go farther. (ignoring spin and angle of force and other really important stuff of course)
Anythoughts?
Click to expand...

Snap Hook:
BTW, this in no way was meant to be a rag on Corey Pavin. I went to UCLA at the same time as Corey and had a good friend Chuck White, who played on the UCLA golf team with Corey for a year. By all accounts, Corey was a great guy, and he is somewhat of a local hero in these parts (SoCal and the Riviera Country Club).
With regards to your driver question, as you know from your physics, F=MA, so if you can indeed increase the mass without sacrificing club head speed (maintaining the same acceleration), you will increase the force which you can impart to the ball (all other things being equal). But the ball reacts to the transfer of kinetic energy, not just the force applied (think how far a ball flies if it is hit by a very slowing (crawling) freight train vs. how far it goes when hit with a much lighter golf club at a higher speed. The rationale for the lighter weight is that the kinetic energy increases in proportion to the square of the velocity, but proportional to the mass of the object. So theoretically if you can double your speed (for illustration purposes only), you can increase the kinetic energy available to be imparted to the ball (minus other real world losses) by a factor of four. If this is done by decreasing the mass by one half, then you still get a kinetic energy increase by a factor of two. Since the kinetic energy imcreases at a exponential rate (by the square) vs. the proportional rate of loss due to the lighter club, as long as you can swing a lighter club faster than the rate of loss of available kinetic energy due to the decreased mass (all other things being equal) more net kinetic energy can be transferred to the ball, resulting in great distance (at least the potential for greater distance).

I'm no physicist (my specialty is in craniofacial and intraoral reconstruction) but this is my story and I'm sticking to it! LOL.

On a side note (to the moderators): I'm kind of disappointed that this thread was merged (despite the similar titles) as I was really looking for evidence of scientifically debunked golf myths rather than the anecdotal ones posted, and out of respect, I did not want to seem to be hijacking the GolfTec thread.
 
mohdds said:
Snap Hook:
BTW, this in no way was meant to be a rag on Corey Pavin. I went to UCLA at the same time as Corey and had a good friend Chuck White, who played on the UCLA golf team with Corey for a year. By all accounts, Corey was a great guy, and he is somewhat of a local hero in these parts (SoCal and the Riviera Country Club).
With regards to your driver question, as you know from your physics, F=MA, so if you can indeed increase the mass without sacrificing club head speed (maintaining the same acceleration), you will increase the force which you can impart to the ball (all other things being equal). But the ball reacts to the transfer of kinetic energy, not just the force applied (think how far a ball flies if it is hit by a very slowing (crawling) freight train vs. how far it goes when hit with a much lighter golf club at a higher speed. The rationale for the lighter weight is that the kinetic energy increases in proportion to the square of the velocity, but proportional to the mass of the object. So theoretically if you can double your speed (for illustration purposes only), you can increase the kinetic energy available to be imparted to the ball (minus other real world losses) by a factor of four. If this is done by decreasing the mass by one half, then you still get a kinetic energy increase by a factor of two. Since the kinetic energy imcreases at a exponential rate (by the square) vs. the proportional rate of loss due to the lighter club, as long as you can swing a lighter club faster than the rate of loss of available kinetic energy due to the decreased mass (all other things being equal) more net kinetic energy can be transferred to the ball, resulting in great distance (at least the potential for greater distance).

I'm no physicist (my specialty is in craniofacial and intraoral reconstruction) but this is my story and I'm sticking to it! LOL.

On a side note (to the moderators): I'm kind of disappointed that this thread was merged (despite the similar titles) as I was really looking for evidence of scientifically debunked golf myths rather than the anecdotal ones posted, and out of respect, I did not want to seem to be hijacking the GolfTec thread.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. (well except for the craniofacial and intraoral reconstruction part) :D
Thanks.


I tapped that.
 
Snap Hook said:
That makes perfect sense. (well except for the craniofacial and intraoral reconstruction part) :D
Thanks.


I tapped that.
Click to expand...

Snap Hook:

In an effort to be more accurate and to clarify, I wanted to correct some details of my previous post in regards to the theory of a lighter club producing more distance and the possible principles behind the heavy driver. Since Force = mass X acceleration, given you can apply a given amount of force to the club to get it to accelerate in the swing, by decreasing the mass of the club, theoretically you can increase the acceleration by the same proportional amount (if force applied remains constant, decreasing club mass by 10% allows you to increase acceleration by 10%) thereby increasing the club speed or velocity at impact (theoretically). This increases the kinetic energy of the clubhead at impact that can be imparted to the ball. Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass X velocity squared. So although you lose some kinetic energy due to the decrease in mass (lighter club), since you are able to increase the velocity of the clubhead (given the same force applied to the lighter club in the swing resulting in greater acceleration), and the kinetic energy increases as the square of the velocity, you get a net gain in kinetic energy that is available to transfer to the golf ball. There are various limits as to how light you can go due to other factors that may affect how efficiently this energy can be transferred to the ball (control, hitting the sweet spot etc.) as well as other factors that may limit the amount of velocity attainable such as air resistance (the aerodynamic limitations you mentioned) etc.

The theory behind the heavy driver may be (I don't know as I'm not familiar with the club and obviously don't know what its designers were thinking) that some golfers may have the strength/ability/skill to accelerate a heavy club (they just apply more force to the club to maintain the same acceleration) and maintain the same clubhead velocity (or very near the same) at impact so the increased mass results in a proportionate increase in the kinetic energy available for transfer. Also, since the club is heavier, it may be more "stable" due to increased momemtum, resulting in possible increase in the efficiency of energy transfer to the ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top