This is my favorite part

This is my favorite part, but what would he know about how it works in reality.

From PGAtour.com:

Jordan Spieth was eighth in total driving on the PGA TOUR in 2013, but he was “bothered,” in his words, by his driving statistics when he looked at the numbers after last season. A change in equipment and strategy did the trick, and contributed to victories at the Australian Open and Hero World Challenge.

“When I looked back I was trying to work it too much both ways off the tee,” said Spieth, who also put a new Titleist 915 driver in his bag.

It just sounded funny Ship. I wasn't debunking your statements.

Oh I know. I fully recognized the reference was in jest to the math. I truly meant I don't know if a computer model would agree with me or not. I originally was trying to prove a few things a year or so ago on this to players, but I soon realized it wasn't really possible so I stopped trying. I simply look to what I've done with players and know what does work in shape and what doesn't.

Straight doesn't work is all I know. It's imperative to keep the Face on the target side of path. There isn't a target side with a zero path.

The rest is academic argument I've had for hours and hours and I've decided to not fight it. I posted the Spieth comment not out of defense, just out of its a great quick sound bite that I know the origin of and logic behind.

can you expand on this?

keeping the face on the target side of path is basically working the ball towards the target instead of trying to just hit straight at it.
Path is club path, face is club face.

If you are hitting a fade the path for righty will be left of target. If you can keep the face between the path and target you will hit a pretty good shot. If the face is right of target you will hit a flare, but it typically won't kill you. If you flip it and get the face left of path that is the double cross pull hook, not good.

If you think of the straight ball like a dead straight uphill putt you can see it easier. As an extreme, think of a straight uphill putt up a 45* angle. If you push the putt it will break right and if you pull the putt it will break left. That's exactly what hitting a dead straight ball is like for a good player. Path is VERY consistent, thus the difference from shot to shot is almost entirely deviation in face. A straight ball hit with an open face will typically start right and move right. The opposite is true for a closed face, left going left.

This is what I meant by the shots in reality aren't normally distributed on a straight ball. There is a void in the middle of the pattern where the shot is either perfect or moving away from the target. That void doesn't really exist with a fade or draw.

I agree that "take one side out of play" is incorrect and also that the best players are just selecting the best targets given their skills. A picky note is that using ShotLink left/right miss data at first glance doesn't seem very good because you have no idea where a golfers target is.



Not really sure what relationship this has to the discussion. I would certainly agree that a golfer is much better trying to hit 1 particular shot as frequently as possible and to get as good at that one shot as they can. Hitting a variety of shots that curve just because seems pretty suboptimal.

You may have missed it before but I pointed out my issue with the bolded that I figured would come up. I would argue that what you are seeing with regards to "reality" is a skill difference in a golfer's ability to hit the shot they have likely hit for a very long time and then trying to the ball straight which they are not as proficient at. It has nothing to do with the math related to how different ball flights affect dispersion.

First, since you seem very steadfast in your belief I am obligated to ask the following. If you choose to respond to any of this post please make this the first thing.

In your opinion since hitting it straight is always sub optimal does that include chips and pitch shots? If not then at what distance and why does trying to hitting it straight become sub optimal?

Debunking the relationship of uphill straight putts and ball flight
Now I figured the straight uphill putt would be a go to example but that is theoretically flawed.

And then the computer model statement is throwing me for a loop. If you are right then a computer model would agree with you(ala the straight uphill putt). If the model disagrees with you then you are wrong, I don't believe modeling ball flights is all that complicated to the point where human intuition is better.

When comparing uphill straight vs anything else, uphill straight is the only putt where misses break in opposite directions. That distinction only exists in extreme cases of ball flight however it doesn't matter for the scope of this discussion. It would matter if you are trying to hit a monster cut where your chances of double crossing are almost none. What we are talking about is more "normal shots" and no matter if you try to hit it straight or curve it, both experience misses that curve away from each other. The more important contributing factor for the straight uphill putt is that the more you push or pull it, the more it breaks. According to the most recent TrackMan source, that phenomenon doesn't exist in ball flight either as how much curve the spin axis of a ball creates is constant at certain yardages.


The center of distribution for each shot
And I know what's next is that at the center of the straight balls distribution is where the opposite curve effect occurs however the opposite curve effect does not occur at the center of the curved balls distribution... and I agree... and it is still not a problem.

The answer to this problem lies in spin axis and its effect on curvature.

My above charts have 2 different spin axis calculations applied to them. Let's just use the most recent(2nd one I posted) as after more research that appears to be what TrackMan is saying happens. If you look at the numbers on there you will see that balls curving away from each other is a non-issue.

Straight ball
The straight ball hitter's .5 std deviation miss to the left creates a spin axis of -1.5* and that ball will curve 2.25 yards left. His .5 std deviation miss the to right creates a spin axis of 1.5* and that ball will curve 2.25 yards right. Those 2 shots curve in opposite directions and effectively curve 4.5 yards away from each other.

Curved shot
The curve ball hitter's .5 std deviation miss to the the left creates a spin axis of 4.5* and that ball will curve 6.75 yards right. His .5 std deviation miss to the right creates a spin axis of 7.5* and that ball will curve 11.25 yards right. Now despite those 2 balls curving in the same direction, the right shot only curved 4.5 yards further than the left shot.

Conclusion
Given these calculations it is pretty much impossible to claim that a certain shot shape is ideal. With a constant spin axis all ball flights are theoretically equal and have the exact same distribution patterns.

There has to be another reason for the phenomenon your are witnessing in "reality". I contend that what you are seeing is a players differing ability to hit certain shots. A player who has hit a fade for the last 5 years is probably not going to be able to hit either draws or straight shots that have dispersion patterns similar to his bread and butter cut. You need to have some other reason that results in a player having better control over the club face.

Roger Clemens has implied he believes that certain swing paths and thus the resulting ball flights are more repeatable than others based on the biomechanics of the human body. I'm certainly on board with that however it wouldn't really effect the sort of ball flights you could hit effectively. If you were able to find your "swing" that was most repeatable to you, changing ball flights is simple without changing your "swing". Set up adjustments would allow for you to make the same swing and curve the ball a multitude of different ways.

This of course is not the most practical thing to discuss when it comes to actually playing the game though. The main takeaway here would be to not try and get someone to hit a certain shot just because it is superior from a physics stand point. If you are pretty comfortable just trying to hit the ball straight that is fine, just focus on that. I would guess golfers would be much better off hitting a single shot 95% of the time(pretty much until it is impossible bc of an obstruction) rather than trying to get fancy and work the ball all over the map.

All I know is, that my instructor has me working on returning the club head face to the exact position it was in before I begin my swing, and it has really helped.

Thank you for this. Interesting read and it makes perfect sense. Your straight ball hitter's miss is exactly the same as the curved ball hitter's miss as far as distance from one side of the miss to the other (4.5yrds). Does the curve ball hitter have a spin axis of 6* and the ball curves 9 yards to the right when they hit it dead perfect? That is of course with zero deviation whereas your misses had 0.5 std deviation in each direction.

I guess my question is... Are each of the curve ball hitter's misses 2.25 yards from the target like the straight ball hitter's misses are?

Yes to the bolded. You will see that illustrated in the below chart as the "perfect shot" for the guy hitting a cut. He starts the ball ~9 yards left due to where the face is pointing, then the relationship between the club face angle and his swing path produce that spin axis that curves the ball 9 yards back to his intended target.


Yes again assuming the spin axis in my calculations is correct. That is also evident in the above chart. You can see that(aside from some rounding errors) the "Final distance from Target" row for each of the ball flights is pretty much identical. And I got to that number by taking the starting direction of each shot and adding in curvature.

Ok thank you. The computers here won't let me see the pics for security reasons I guess so I couldn't view the charts.

Sick thread, thanks for the bump. This will really make range time more valuable

I am not a long hitter. I do hit it very straight, with about equal chance of having a slight draw or slight fade.

So, I pick target and aim at it. If I need to make my target less aggressive because of trouble left or right, obviously I adjust for that.

I would be hard pressed to understand the logic that (at least for me) in which I would be better off having a shot (cut or draw) that would require me to aim somewhere other than where I want it to land.

I appreciate that If my natural swing was a cut or draw, and it was repeatable, then I should obviously play it as discussed ITT.

Whether people are pro- shot-shaping or on the other side of the argument, the fact is the only shot dispersion data I care about is my own.

Exactly the bolded. Your target selection should be based on your ability to hit it close to your intended target. Better golfers can select very aggressive targets relative to hazards etc. bc their chance of missing is smaller. Worse golfers should pick safer targets, regardless of shot shape.

Update on golf instructors being morons. I got blocked on twitter by a prominent PGA professional bc he stated that someone's club head speed was not affected by gravity at all... To which I replied that it seems ridiculous, as a respected professional, to imply none of the clubhead speed was created from the forces of gravity.

You know since gravity plays a humungous role in creating clubhead speed in the first place.

#pgaTwitter

Well, I guess this is a minor derail, but something I wanted to discuss which relates to gravity.

Is there a school of thought which believes it might be optimal to have the shaft of the club perpendicular to the ground at the finish of the back swing as opposed to parallel? My reasoning is that if you imagine holding on to a wet mop, it is easier to hold it with the mop above your hands, rather than having the shaft of the mop parallel to the ground... Also, if the club head is perpendicular, it will be at its highest point and have the most potential energy?

Overall, it just seems like a simpler, more efficient way to hit a golf ball.

Is it better to have the most potential energy, or the most potential energy plus momentum?

I'm not sure why you're using this to support your argument. If anything it supports the other side; Spieth was trying to work the ball and his dispersion increased. So he stopped trying to work it.

I don't know what the correct answer is, but as far as math/physics/logic goes it doesn't appear that there's any reason a straight club path would be theoretically worse as far as dispersion goes. It's very clear though, that a straight shot will travel the furthest along the target line since it travels the shortest path. And if we can hit the same distance with a lower initial ball speed, an equal amount of sidespin would have less effect on the dispersion.

Its likely that there are biomechanical reasons that would make either a draw or a fade more repeatable, but if the most repeatable shot can easily be a draw or a fade for any given person, you would think the center of the distribution of most repeatable paths among the population is roughly centered at a straight path. A bimodal distribution seems incredibly unlikely.

Has anyone ever tried to analyze tour player data w.r.t. "natural" shot shape vs. dispersion? I'd imagine the data for shot shapes isn't easy to obtain, but it would provide some pretty conclusive insight to this discussion.

I just find it hard to believe that NXT would get blocked by someone on twitter. Truly shocking.

That's what happens when you ask people to clarify their opinions with actual facts I guess.

I'm sure I'll get blocked again today for questioning another pros opinion that higher swing speeds can hit the driver inefficiently, thus sacrificing distance for accuracy.

I asked why clubhead speed factors in. If someone that swings 125 mph can improve their score by sacrificing distance for accuracy why can't someone that swings 100 mph accomplish the same thing.

Makes no sense, and that is aside from the fact that sacrificing distance for marginally increased accuracy is a bad idea. Distance is worth much more than accuracy.

I have learned that explaining math to GolfTwitter is quite the experience.

Isn't there an article making fun of faldo for explaining how to hit a draw by rolling your hands through impact or something along those lines?

There's definitely a common disconnect between people being able to do something well and not really knowing why, or at least not being able to to explain it well, and sadly a lot of those people are instructors.

I can't even guess how many times I heard the instructor at my club try to fix someone's slice by "turning the hands more at impact". I don't think I've ever overheard swing plane/path mentioned.

Granted, a lot of these people are hopeless and never going to work hard enough to see change anyways, so it's possible some instructors are just giving the quick bandaid fix and trying to get them to just play a pull slice instead.

Anyways, keep fighting the good fight.

Is there any proof that distance is worth more than accuracy? I play as if this is true, but I think I would score better if I was more accurate and less long. However, if I never hit driver or 3 wood I wouldn't ever improve with them and I would have a lot less fun and have less upside to my game.

Yes, very definitive proof overall but certain scenarios can skew it.

Simple Tour Scenario
Here is a simple example. Let's say a tour player is about to tee off on a 460 yard par 4 that doesn't have any serious trouble on it. Assume he hits his driver 300 yards and hits the fairway 60% of the time.

So 60% of the time he will hit the fairway resulting in .19 strokes gained and the remaining 40% of the time he will miss the fairway resulting in -.06 shots gained. So overall hitting driver for this player is worth

(60% * .19) + (40% * -.06) = .09 shots gained on average when hitting driver

Now assume the player can hit his 3wd 275 yds. How often does he need to hit the fairway with the 3wd to make up for the loss in difference? The answer is he cannot make up for the lost distance.

A good drive with the 3wd into the fairway is only good for .06 shots gained. So even if he hit the fairway with that club 100% of the time he cannot achieve the .09 shots he gained with his driver. 3wds into the rough are now costing him -.17 shots vs the -.06 for the driver. Let's assume he hits the fairway 85% of the time with 3wd.

(85% * .06) + (15% * -.17) = .0256

2+2 Golfer Scenario
Now throwing in hazards and really penalizing misses like punchouts from the trees can alter the above calculations. Here is a slightly more complex one that is more relatable to your average golfer.

2+2'er steps on the tee at his local course. 1st hole is a 380 yard par 4 with a fairly generous fairway but some trees on both sides. He wants do decide between hitting driver which he can hit 280 yards or hitting a long iron/hybrid 200 yards.

For the driver lets say he hits the fairway 40% of the time, rough another 40% of the time, and the remaining 20% of the time he is in the trees possibly pitching back out into the fairway. The value of each of those driver is .16, -.06, -.84 strokes gained respectively. So his overall expectation is

(40% * .16) + ( 40% * -.06) + (20% * -.84) = -.13 strokes gained on average with driver.

Now his 2nd option is his 200 yard go to shot. Let's assume he hits the fairway 75% of the time (costing him -.12 shots) and the rough 25% of the time (costing him -.35) shots. He is however avoiding ever hitting it into the trees and facing serious trouble. His expectation is.

(75% * -.12) + (25% * -.35) = -.18 strokes gained on average with long iron/hybrid.

Cliffs
If there is not much trouble distance trumps accuracy all day everyday. However, adding big time penalties as possible outcomes can skew that relationship.

Ok, that's fair and about what I thought. I hit a ton of drives OB or into places where I can't find the ball so have a lot of stroke and distance penalties, but am hoping to work that out with a new driver I just got. I have to go down to about a 5 iron to make sure I'm not in big trouble though and that costs me ~100 yards. I do know that I gain at least a stroke a hole when I hit driver in the fairway vs. hitting a lesser club to make sure I am in play, but take a lot of scores >6 due to stroke and distance penalties when I miss.