|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 28, 2012 13:54:36 GMT -5
It is my experience, based on 8 years of playing golf, that a ball rolls further after landing on the fairway when a driver hits a push-draw shot versus a pull-fade shot (presuming the same level of ball flight curvacture, thereby implying the same degree of divergence between the CH path and CF angle).
Is that your experience?
If yes, why does that happen?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Dec 28, 2012 16:28:02 GMT -5
Jeff,
Pull fades usually have higher backspin rates and steeper terminal angles when they land.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 28, 2012 18:41:53 GMT -5
Virtuouso,
Why do pull-fades have more backspin than push-draws for the same degree of divergence between the path and face angle?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 28, 2012 20:11:31 GMT -5
Dynamic/delivered loft and landing angle are the answers to your questions. Go hit balls on Trackman and you'll see. That's why I prefer numbers for impact conditions than adjectives and video. Tman shows you what happened in numbers.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 28, 2012 20:53:20 GMT -5
cwdaw223,
Why is the dynamic loft different for push-draws relative to pull-fades? Going on a TM may give me different numbers for dynamic loft, but it will not provide an explanaton. Can you provide an explanation?
Also, isn't video useful for studying a golfer's golf swing biomechanics, which is not discernible by a radar device.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 28, 2012 21:09:38 GMT -5
Video is great for viewing swing biomechanics. I use it and 3D systems when I want that information. Tman is designed for generating numerical feedback for impact. A good instructor can look at someone's swing and their impact numbers and teach more effectively.
The reason dynamic loft for a push draw should be lower than a pull fade for the exact swing reversed is that a clubface closed to a path has less loft as opposed to a face open to a path. Assume the path is in to out 2* for the push draw and 2* out to in for the pull fade, if you close the face to the path there's less loft, if you open the face to the path there's more loft. Tman will only give you one number for dynamic loft on each shot. You aren't going to get different numbers for one shot. I'm sure someone could swing in a manner where their pull fades have less dynamic loft than a push draw, but that would be through manipulating the face angle and thereby effectively change your question.
The dynamic loft and AoA are big keys for launch angle and spin which explain the landing angle issues. There are a lot of variables associated with ballflight.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Dec 28, 2012 22:17:47 GMT -5
The dynamic loft and AoA are big keys for launch angle and spin which explain the landing angle issues. It's called spin loft. The lower the spin loft the more the rollout. It doesn't matter what curvature you impart on the ball. Generally speaking, the average golfer will have a tendancy to steepen the angle of attack and increase dynamic loft increasing the spin loft when hitting a fade. With a draw the AoA with be shollower with less loft and thus less spin loft and more roll. Learn to minimize the spin loft and you'll be able to better control launch/spin/angle of descent and maximize rollout hitting either a fade or draw. Easier said than done.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 29, 2012 0:40:41 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
You wrote-: "The reason dynamic loft for a push draw should be lower than a pull fade for the exact swing reversed is that a clubface closed to a path has less loft as opposed to a face open to a path. Assume the path is in to out 2* for the push draw and 2* out to in for the pull fade, if you close the face to the path there's less loft, if you open the face to the path there's more loft.[/b]
I can understand the bold-highlighted claim if one keeps the path constant, but opens or closes the face. However, imagine a situation where one keeps the face constant and always facing the target, but alters the path from 2 degrees in-to-out to 2 degrees out-to-in. Why should that change affect the dynamic loft, and therefore the spin rate?
I suspect that there must be another factor involved - eg. a biomechanical action that alters the AoA (as implied by Konrad). However, why should it happen?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 29, 2012 4:23:31 GMT -5
The same concept applies if the face is constant. If the face angle were zero on both shots but the paths were in to out and out to in by 2* the face angle is still closed to the path on a push draw. I tried to explain the concept without altering the AoA which in reality, is what happens as referenced by Konrad. What happens in the real world is different than your question. Not sure someone could hit a push draw and perfectly reverse the shot for a pull fade.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 29, 2012 9:26:20 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
You wrote-: "Not sure someone could hit a push draw and perfectly reverse the shot for a pull fade."
I agree with you - but I just want to better understand the reason from a biomechanical pespective. It could be that a golfer generates a steeper VSP motion when he produces an out-to-in CH path, while he generates a shallower VSP when he produces an in-to-out CH path. The question then becomes whether a variation in VSP could be equivalent to altering the AoA, or whether a variation in VSP tilts the clubface to a more open/closed alignment even if the golfer directs the back of his FLW, and therefore clubface, towards the target through impact.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 29, 2012 9:44:38 GMT -5
Do you believe you can eyeball all of the club parameters you mentioned above?
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 29, 2012 23:02:42 GMT -5
Jeff -
How would you get VSP, AoA and Path? Just eyeballing video?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 30, 2012 1:24:27 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
TM can provide numbers for VSP and AoA, but a golfer doesn't need to know the actual numbers - because he should not be altering those numbers when he has an optimized swing action (like Virtuoso). A good golfer develops a certain swing style that consistently causes his club to travel on a certain VSP between P6 and P7.5 if he traces the SPL of the ball-target line, and the VSP should therefore become "fixedly consistent" for a given club. It should not vary from swing-to-swing if the club always travels parallel to his habitual impact zone's inclined plane between P6 and P7.5.
Also, the AoA for a given club usually stays constant - one can see that Virtuoso creates a divot of the same depth when hitting multiple shots in sequence using the same club. He doesn't need to know his AoA number - he only needs to be able to consistently use the same AoA for that particular club when hitting shots off a level fairway. The AoA can obviously vary for different clubs (short irons versus long irons) and it can vary when hitting out of deep rough or uneven lies
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 30, 2012 13:28:52 GMT -5
Should not and does not are vastly different.
AoA doesn't stay as constant as you might think for EACH CLUB/SHOT (relatively speaking). If you've never hit balls on Trackman and just eyeballed shots you would never know. I agree that the VSP stays relatively constant. The AoA is nowhere near as constant as the VSP. You can pick a ball clean and still have a steep angle of attack. Why? Because of how the clubhead is coming into the ball. It's not always a pretty arc/elipse.
If you have a good look it doesn't mean you hit a straight shot. If your face/path are less than 1* each you hit a straight shot. The numbers are objective, looks aren't and can be deceiving.
|
|