hitting your driver-on the upswing or downswing?

[grass connoisseur]

..reading the new Bobby Clampett book on the weekend"Impact Zone" and he basically lambasted all the instructers who tell people to hit their driver on the upswing. I'm confused because hitting driver on the upswing has always made sense to me, and gotten me pretty good results in the past.
Could I get your thoughts on this guys? Have you experimented with placing ball in the middle of your stance with your driver nad/or hitting it on the downswing?

(Clampett goes on to say on every shot your club should not bottom out(and thus begin it's upward trajectory until it's 4 inches in front of the ball)

[cdnputter]

Can you imagine hitting down on a ball with your driver? Hello skymarks/idiot spots or whatever you want to call them, plus you'll never get the distance the club should give you. If Clampett never teed his driver up then I'll have a look at what he's saying.

He makes a good point about the clubhead moving upwards 4 inches after impact, but that seems to me to work for short iron shots and for someone who has a steep swing. I've played with a lot of people who sweep at the ball and barely touch the grass, so his theory.... well it's "his" theory. :cool:

[cldale]

Can you imagine hitting down on a ball with your driver? Hello skymarks/idiot spots or whatever you want to call them, plus you'll never get the distance the club should give you. If Clampett never teed his driver up then I'll have a look at what he's saying.

He makes a good point about the clubhead moving upwards 4 inches after impact, but that seems to me to work for short iron shots and for someone who has a steep swing. I've played with a lot of people who sweep at the ball and barely touch the grass, so his theory.... well it's "his" theory. :cool:

Nah, I've seen this in more than one source. The point is that the better your swing, the longer the swing arc, thus, the "flatter" your angle of attack on the ball. Pros bottom out 4 inches in front of the ball without digging the ground precisely because they have almost perfect swings.

Physics would also suggest that in order to impart backspin on the ball, the club needs to be either lofted, or the clubhead needs to be moving downwards across the ball at impact, or both. If the driver-head is moving upwards at impact, that will generate a forward rotational force on the ball. The loft on the club will negate all or much of that, but the result is less backspin, and probably less hangtime and distance than a downward swing.

You can pretty clearly see this if you watch a bunch of those swing-vision segments they always show on CBS and NBC.

[Pingnut]

Maybe Bobby still plays with a wooden driver??? :cookoo:

The biggest hitters on tour have launch angles around 17* and use drivers with around 8* of loft. You don't get that kind of launch angle by hitting down on the ball. Hitting down also greatly increases backspin - which counters new technology which is geared towards high launch / low spin.

[cdnputter]

Nah, I've seen this in more than one source. The point is that the better your swing, the longer the swing arc, thus, the "flatter" your angle of attack on the ball. Pros bottom out 4 inches in front of the ball without digging the ground precisely because they have almost perfect swings.

Physics would also suggest that in order to impart backspin on the ball, the club needs to be either lofted, or the clubhead needs to be moving downwards across the ball at impact, or both. If the driver-head is moving upwards at impact, that will generate a forward rotational force on the ball. The loft on the club will negate all or much of that, but the result is less backspin, and probably less hangtime and distance than a downward swing.

You can pretty clearly see this if you watch a bunch of those swing-vision segments they always show on CBS and NBC.

I'm with you on the bottoming out a swing 4 inches ahead of the ball, but definitely not with a a driver or longer club. With the new tilt and stack method of driving a ball, there seems to be little way your driver will do anything but brush the grass through impact. With an 8* driver you need to swing the through the ball to get it in the air, otherwise it'll be 3 feet off the ground or be a wormburner at worst. IMO for a tour pro, their increased clubhead speed through impact is what helps cause the ball to get backspin (loft it in the air), no matter what loft they're using.

[cldale]

I'm with you on the bottoming out a swing 4 inches ahead of the ball, but definitely not with a a driver or longer club. With the new tilt and stack method of driving a ball, there seems to be little way your driver will do anything but brush the grass through impact. With an 8* driver you need to swing the through the ball to get it in the air, otherwise it'll be 3 feet off the ground or be a wormburner at worst. IMO for a tour pro, their increased clubhead speed through impact is what helps cause the ball to get backspin (loft it in the air), no matter what loft they're using.

Well, with a longer club, you'd have a much longer swing path, and a much more flatter bottom, so even if you bottom-out your driver 4 inches in front of the ball, it probably amounts to no more than a cm (if that) of vertical difference between where they hit the ball, and where they bottom out.

Agreed though that pro-s swingspeed gives them a lot of extra backspin and thus loft.

Who uses an 8deg driver? Most pro's I've seen use 9 or 9.5. Exceptions of note are Els and Woods who I know both use 8.5deg (at least, thats what the magazines say), and I THINK Harrington uses an 8.

[Louie]

What does Bobby do for a living because he couldn't win many tournaments.:D

[Golden Bear]

I don't know whether I swing down, swing up, or swing flat at impact when I'm hitting the ball well with my driver. I DO know that if I'm swinging NOTICEABLY down, I'm smothering the ball; if I'm swinging NOTICEABLY upward, well, I'm topping it.

I submit that the difference in the angle between swinging up, down, or flat at impact with a driver is so small that few, if any, of us know for sure whether we're swinging up or down. We may THINK we know, but unless we have a super-slo-mo camera fixed on the ball at impact we're guessing. For the most part I'd suggest that even those who are swinging down or flat actually feel as though they're swinging up, because regardless of the impact position, the ball LEAVES the club face on the upswing.

I also think that we shouldn't worry about it. Worry about ball position, angle of attack, etc. ... but don't worry about whether we're swinging 5 or 6 degrees down or 5 or 6 degrees up, because trying to CONSCIOUSLY follow what Clampett says will result in hitting downward too much.

[Bellyhungry]

I have the book....I firmly believe that the book is geared towards low handicappers...Mid to high handicappers would be better off not worrying about where their swings bottom out.

[Cybergolfer]

Bobby Clampett :cookoo: was a Homer Kelly :cookoo: advocate so that should tell you about him and his theories.

[dekker]

This question isn't so much about the angle of attack but more about the hand position.
Are they ahead of the ball or behind it when you hit the ball?

If your hitting down,the hands are ahead of the ball.
If your hitting up,the hands are behind the ball.

It seems Clampett is of the opinion the hands are ahead.

[Golf_Goof]

Can you imagine hitting down on a ball with your driver? Hello skymarks/idiot spots or whatever you want to call them, plus you'll never get the distance the club should give you. If Clampett never teed his driver up then I'll have a look at what he's saying.

He makes a good point about the clubhead moving upwards 4 inches after impact, but that seems to me to work for short iron shots and for someone who has a steep swing. I've played with a lot of people who sweep at the ball and barely touch the grass, so his theory.... well it's "his" theory. :cool:

It's sad there's so little understanding of this concept in this forum. Have a boo at any swingvision posted at youtube. 100% of touring pros hit down even with the driver - not a theory but a fact.

Maybe Bobby still plays with a wooden driver??? :cookoo:

The biggest hitters on tour have launch angles around 17* and use drivers with around 8* of loft. You don't get that kind of launch angle by hitting down on the ball. Hitting down also greatly increases backspin - which counters new technology which is geared towards high launch / low spin.

Watch some youtube and report back.

the ball LEAVES the club face on the upswing.

Wrong, again see youtube.

This question isn't so much about the angle of attack but more about the hand position.
Are they ahead of the ball or behind it when you hit the ball?

If your hitting down,the hands are ahead of the ball.
If your hitting up,the hands are behind the ball.

It seems Clampett is of the opinion the hands are ahead.

BINGO! Clampett is only telling what the pros are doing - not a theory. Its the difference between flipping at the ball and compressing the living shite out of the ball.

Can't understand why you guys don't get this yet.

[MP33]

Nah, I've seen this in more than one source. The point is that the better your swing, the longer the swing arc, thus, the "flatter" your angle of attack on the ball. Pros bottom out 4 inches in front of the ball without digging the ground precisely because they have almost perfect swings.

Physics would also suggest that in order to impart backspin on the ball, the club needs to be either lofted, or the clubhead needs to be moving downwards across the ball at impact, or both. If the driver-head is moving upwards at impact, that will generate a forward rotational force on the ball. The loft on the club will negate all or much of that, but the result is less backspin, and probably less hangtime and distance than a downward swing.

You can pretty clearly see this if you watch a bunch of those swing-vision segments they always show on CBS and NBC.

I remember seeing Sergio's drive in slow mo on CBS. I was very surprised to see his driver strike the ball in a downward motion. I also remember the drive measuring about 320 yards.

[swingpure]

This question isn't so much about the angle of attack but more about the hand position.
Are they ahead of the ball or behind it when you hit the ball?

If your hitting down,the hands are ahead of the ball.
If your hitting up,the hands are behind the ball.

It seems Clampett is of the opinion the hands are ahead.

Where should the hands be at impact? I think I try to have them ahead.

[bk51]

Check out Tiger's swing in super slomo - I think we saw this on TV as some sort of commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52sVGdMTj48

Looks to me like hits it at the absolute bottom of his swing - neither downswing or upswing.

Check out his head position during the swing. Take a dry-erasable marker (whiteboard marker) and a ruler. Draw a line vertically at his left ear and across the top of his head. Then hit play. One of the reasons he hits it so solidly is that he doesn't let his head wander all over the place. A lesson for all of us.

[cldale]

Check out Tiger's swing in super slomo - I think we saw this on TV as some sort of commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52sVGdMTj48

Looks to me like hits it at the absolute bottom of his swing - neither downswing or upswing.

Check out his head position during the swing. Take a dry-erasable marker (whiteboard marker) and a ruler. Draw a line vertically at his left ear and across the top of his head. Then hit play. One of the reasons he hits it so solidly is that he doesn't let his head wander all over the place. A lesson for all of us.

Tough to call on this swing portrait (my god, I almost get tears every time I watch this swing, its a work of art.) I think the camera is slightly behind perpendicular (look at the position of the ball relative to his right heel). This makes it look like his hands are slightly behind the ball at impact, which I doubt is the case.

At "worst", I would say from this though that he bottoms out at contact, which is different that hitting on the upswing.

[cdnputter]

It's sad there's so little understanding of this concept in this forum. Have a boo at any swingvision posted at youtube. 100% of touring pros hit down even with the driver - not a theory but a fact.



Watch some youtube and report back.



Wrong, again see youtube.



BINGO! Clampett is only telling what the pros are doing - not a theory. Its the difference between flipping at the ball and compressing the living shite out of the ball.

Can't understand why you guys don't get this yet.

Is youtube your answer for everything? Do you use youtube for your lessons? Gotta be cheaper than having live feedback from a pro.

[Pingnut]

It's sad there's so little understanding of this concept in this forum. Have a boo at any swingvision posted at youtube. 100% of touring pros hit down even with the driver - not a theory but a fact.



Watch some youtube and report back.



Wrong, again see youtube.



BINGO! Clampett is only telling what the pros are doing - not a theory. Its the difference between flipping at the ball and compressing the living shite out of the ball.

Can't understand why you guys don't get this yet.

Bull. I don't have the time to dig it up stats, but many pro's hit driver while their club is traveling on an upward trajectory. Have you ever been on a launch monitor? That's one of the things that variables that gets measured.

Since you like YouTube so much - here is Bubba Watson. Looks like the clubs is travelling on about a 4 or 5 * incline as it hits the ball, although that's pretty tough to measure just watching the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDR1EuclMvo

I'd like to see Bobby Clampet try to hang with Bubba's stuff.

[cldale]

Bull. You don't have a clue. I don't have the time to dig it up, but many pro's hit driver while their club is travelling on an upward trajectory. Have you ever been on a launch monitor? That's one of the things that variables that gets measured.

Anyone who contacts on the upswing would be losing power on their swing.

Here is another look at tigers swing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPJtK-DxnV4

Here is sergio (Bad angle, but you can clearly see the driver is not moving up at contact)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoIHffGh_-g

Here is Ernie Els

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b06FzHpev8I

Again, clearly not swinging UP into the ball.

Here is woods vs. singh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJyL9NyYUw8

Again, clearly, neither is making an upward cut at the call.

The point? These guys are approaching the bottom of their swings, or just bottoming out right at contact.

Some basic physics would suggest that your clubhead speed is going to be fastest just before or at the bottom of your swing since that is the moment at which [a] the clubhead is the furthest from the center of rotation [b] gravity would have fully exercised itself (I know, this is negligible, but these guys live or die on fractions of an inch of difference in their swings) [c] All the rotational (torque) force stored in your body is released at the bottom of the swing, meaning that after that point, your clubhead is SLOWING DOWN.

[Golden Bear]

Anyone who contacts on the upswing would be losing power on their swing.

Here is another look at tigers swing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPJtK-DxnV4

Here is sergio (Bad angle, but you can clearly see the driver is not moving up at contact)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoIHffGh_-g

Here is Ernie Els

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b06FzHpev8I

Again, clearly not swinging UP into the ball.

Here is woods vs. singh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJyL9NyYUw8

Again, clearly, neither is making an upward cut at the call.

The point? These guys are approaching the bottom of their swings, or just bottoming out right at contact.

Some basic physics would suggest that your clubhead speed is going to be fastest just before or at the bottom of your swing since that is the moment at which [a] the clubhead is the furthest from the center of rotation [b] gravity would have fully exercised itself (I know, this is negligible, but these guys live or die on fractions of an inch of difference in their swings) [c] All the rotational (torque) force stored in your body is released at the bottom of the swing, meaning that after that point, your clubhead is SLOWING DOWN.Well, none of those look like contact is being made on the down swing. If there's any consistency, it's that the contact is made at the bottom of the swing and the ball leaves the club face as it's moving up slightly.

[nevermind]

Well, none of those look like contact is being made on the down swing. If there's any consistency, it's that the contact is made at the bottom of the swing and the ball leaves the club face as it's moving up slightly.

I agree with golden bear. Watching those vids as well as many others on V1 golf academy the club bottoms up and catches the ball as it starts acsend. Why else would we play our drivers off our front foot instep ?

[Quest]

What does Bobby do for a living because he couldn't win many tournaments.:D

I saw him walking inside the ropes at the President's Cup. I believe he may have been working for TNT broadcasting.

[Golf_Goof]

Is youtube your answer for everything? Do you use youtube for your lessons? Gotta be cheaper than having live feedback from a pro.

Ever heard the expression a picture is worth a thousand words? I can provide a thousand words if you want.

I've had a few lessons in my time - those guys used video analysis too.

[cdnputter]

Ever heard the expression a picture is worth a thousand words? I can provide a thousand words if you want.

I've had a few lessons in my time - those guys used video analysis too.

Well by your estimation of the pros hitting downward on every single shot, I'd say you're wrong. So keep your thousand words to something you might know about. If however by trying to get the feeling that you're hitting down or through the ball with a driver, rather than 4 inches in front of it, I'll agree with you. Every single video that you posted I looked at, seems to me that they were all at the bottom of their swing, so that would be level through the ball, in my observation and as well with a few others here.

Tell you what, you keep doing what you're doing, hitting down with driver, keep your skymarks, and I'll keep driving through the ball with my driver and my 260 yard carry which is straight btw will put me in good shape with the rest of my game. cheers!

[Golf_Goof]

Bull. I don't have the time to dig it up stats, but many pro's hit driver while their club is traveling on an upward trajectory. Have you ever been on a launch monitor? That's one of the things that variables that gets measured.

Since you like YouTube so much - here is Bubba Watson. Looks like the clubs is travelling on about a 4 or 5 * incline as it hits the ball, although that's pretty tough to measure just watching the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDR1EuclMvo

I'd like to see Bobby Clampet try to hang with Bubba's stuff.

Lauchy? Pretty sure most just measure the ball trajectory - not the clubheads.

From this camera angle 15 feet away, looks are deceiving. Need close up.

Anyone who contacts on the upswing would be losing power on their swing.

Here is another look at tigers swing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPJtK-DxnV4

Here is sergio (Bad angle, but you can clearly see the driver is not moving up at contact)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoIHffGh_-g

Here is Ernie Els

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b06FzHpev8I

Again, clearly not swinging UP into the ball.

Here is woods vs. singh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJyL9NyYUw8

Again, clearly, neither is making an upward cut at the call.

The point? These guys are approaching the bottom of their swings, or just bottoming out right at contact.

Some basic physics would suggest that your clubhead speed is going to be fastest just before or at the bottom of your swing since that is the moment at which [a] the clubhead is the furthest from the center of rotation [b] gravity would have fully exercised itself (I know, this is negligible, but these guys live or die on fractions of an inch of difference in their swings) [c] All the rotational (torque) force stored in your body is released at the bottom of the swing, meaning that after that point, your clubhead is SLOWING DOWN.

Nice to see someone in here can see what's goin on. :cool:

Well by your estimation of the pros hitting downward on every single shot, I'd say you're wrong. So keep your thousand words to something you might know about. If however by trying to get the feeling that you're hitting down or through the ball with a driver, rather than 4 inches in front of it, I'll agree with you. Every single video that you posted I looked at, seems to me that they were all at the bottom of their swing, so that would be level through the ball, in my observation and as well with a few others here.

Tell you what, you keep doing what you're doing, hitting down with driver, keep your skymarks, and I'll keep driving through the ball with my driver and my 260 yard carry which is straight btw will put me in good shape with the rest of my game. cheers!

I didn't post any video by the way, but the ones that were posted ALL showed to me that impact occurs at or just prior to the club bottoming out - nowhere near hitting up. Believe me, I'll post up videos if I ever find one to counter this. You'd say I'm wrong but what have you to offer?

I used to put skymarks on my clubs when I hacked at the ball because I didn't understand what is supposed to occur at impact.

I think that advising anyone to attempt to hit the ball as the club ascends is bad advice - and the best in the world don't do that.

Question for the upswing crowd: when the clubhead begins to ascend is it travelling toward or away from the target line? What is the clubface doing?

[dekker]

the impact window is a very very narrow time frame of 5 tenthousands of a second in which the hands are very very slightly ahead if done properly as depicted in this early strobe sequence of Bobby Jones swinging a driver. The final impact position is shown with the blue line. Draw your own conclusion.
I got this from Dave Tutelman's site which I highly recommend for any additional reading on all things related to golf.
http://www.tutelman.com/golf/clubs/index.php?ref=

[Golden Bear]

the impact window is a very very narrow time frame of 5 tenthousands of a second in which the hands are very very slightly ahead if done properly as depicted in this early strobe sequence of Bobby Jones swinging a driver. The final impact position is shown with the blue line. Draw your own conclusion.

Ah, yes, but people will see what they want to see, anyway.

The videos provided showed that, at best, impact was being made at the bottom, not on the downswing, but that wasn't enough for some.

And people on the downswing side consistently ignore the fact that if the ball is opposite your front-foot instep, it's virtually impossible to be swinging down on a ball at impact, unless you remove your bottom hand from the club during the swing, which few instructors recommend.

[Bellyhungry]

Ah, yes, but people will see what they want to see, anyway.

The videos provided showed that, at best, impact was being made at the bottom, not on the downswing, but that wasn't enough for some.

And people on the downswing side consistently ignore the fact that if the ball is opposite your front-foot instep, it's virtually impossible to be swinging down on a ball at impact, unless you remove your bottom hand from the club during the swing, which few instructors recommend.

GB,

One question....if good players bottom out when they make contact with the ball as you theorize, then what causes the divot in front of the ball?

[cdnputter]

Who makes a divot with their driver? Iron shots are a different animal, imo.

[Golden Bear]

GB,

One question....if good players bottom out when they make contact with the ball as you theorize, then what causes the divot in front of the ball?

The discussion is about hitting your driver, not hitting all your clubs. Different rules apply to different clubs.

If you're hitting an iron, you're generally playing the ball back further in your stance. You're trying to make a divot after the ball ... since making a divot before the ball would lead to obviously poor results.

With a driver, you're trying to sweep the ball off the tee.

If you're hitting a driver or wood off the deck, you're not making a divot -- you're sweeping it off the grass.

So, the divot theory actually supports the contention that you are not swinging downward with a driver.

[Golf_Goof]

And people on the downswing side consistently ignore the fact that if the ball is opposite your front-foot instep, it's virtually impossible to be swinging down on a ball at impact, unless you remove your bottom hand from the club during the swing, which few instructors recommend.

Golden Bear - the swing radius is not set by the relationship of ball to feet but by the lead shoulder in relation the the foot and stance width. Wide stance with driver, narrow stance with wedges.

Question for the upswing crowd: when the clubhead begins to ascend is it travelling toward or away from the target line? What is the clubface doing?

[Golden Bear]

Golden Bear - the swing radius is not set by the relationship of ball to feet but by the lead shoulder in relation the the foot and stance width. Wide stance with driver, narrow stance with wedges. You're quite wrong.

Both are relevant.

And with a wider stance, the bottom position of your swing is more likely to be further back from the front foot ... not further forward.

It's a simple matter of body mechanics. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.



Question for the upswing crowd: when the clubhead begins to ascend is it travelling toward or away from the target line? What is the clubface doing?Why don't you ask YouTube? It's an irrelevant question, because it would be doing the same thing regardless of where you contacted the ball, as much as you want to tell yourself otherwise.

Note that you've ducked my previous comment. (For good reason.) Don't think I'm going to let you get away with that ...

When you're hitting off the deck with a driver or wood, why aren't you leaving a divot in front of the ball? And if you are leaving a divot in front of the ball, what's happening to your ball flight? (SPOILER ALERT: Nothing good.)

Because if you're swinging DOWN, then you HAVE to leave a divot.

Therefore, if you're NOT leaving a divot, then you're NOT swinging downward at impact.

B follows from A.

In the real world, we don't leave divots with our fairway woods off the grass, because we're sweeping the ball off the grass, just as we do off the tee.

And when we do leave divots, we've sucked.

Kid yourself all you want, but it doesn't change the reality.

[abbeypro]

I think the most important thing to make note of here is that "we are not tour pro's"

You have to be careful trying to emulate and copy the world's best because they are genetic freaks.

A tour pro generates alot more clubhead speed and they tee the ball alot lower than most of us because they can without topping it. They have a longer 'flat spot' at the bottom of their swing. You watch those videos and image an amateur try to graze the earth as long as Tiger does without absolutely chunking it.

I'd suggest teeing the ball up and simply try to 'leave the tee' sitting their to avoid being too steep.

Good luck.

[Golf_Goof]

The lowest point in the clubhead's travel is when it is directly under the lead shoulder regardless of stance width or ball position - help me to understand how it is not.

Why don't you ask YouTube? It's an irrelevant question, because it would be doing the same thing regardless of where you contacted the ball, as much as you want to tell yourself otherwise.

Because I want to know if folks in here really know whats going on with the clubhead at this point. Or if everyone buys in to Dalton McCreary's "40 inches of squareness" crap. Its light years away from irrelevant IMO.

Note that you've ducked my previous comment. (For good reason.) Don't think I'm going to let you get away with that ...

When you're hitting off the deck with a driver or wood, why aren't you leaving a divot in front of the ball? And if you are leaving a divot in front of the ball, what's happening to your ball flight? (SPOILER ALERT: Nothing good.)

If you directed a comment to me I missed it. But since you pulled the Youtube card I'll post one up.

Because if you're swinging DOWN, then you HAVE to leave a divot.

Therefore, if you're NOT leaving a divot, then you're NOT swinging downward at impact.


Here's Adam Scott clearly hitting down with a 3 wood but not taking a divot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-zz2_GYsFs

And here's Tiger hitting 3 wood with a divot (not pelt obviously).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1twG5Ft7kE

[dekker]

There are no ironclad rules for fairway wood swings or iron swings.
The choice of either hitting down or sweeping the ball is entirely predicated by the need for a particular type of shot action.
If you prefer to hit down,then that is more readily accomplished with the ball in the center. Your body's lateral movement,if any, also has to taken into account for the correct ball position.
More important than the hands is the head's position. It has to be behind at all times,in all swings,wether you prefer to hit down or sweep up.

[Golden Bear]

Here's Adam Scott clearly hitting down with a 3 wood but not taking a divot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-zz2_GYsFs
Bottom of the arc.


And here's Tiger hitting 3 wood with a divot (not pelt obviously).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1twG5Ft7kE

Tough to tell, but it also looks like the bottom of his arc is before his heel. Note that the ball is being played back in his stance. Also, the ball is on a tee, which is why there is no divot.

Thank you for proving my point about the placement of the ball in your stance, though.

[Golf_Goof]

Bottom of the arc.



Tough to tell, but it also looks like the bottom of his arc is before his heel. Note that the ball is being played back in his stance. Also, the ball is on a tee, which is why there is no divot.

Thank you for proving my point about the placement of the ball in your stance, though.

Ah, yes, but people will see what they want to see, anyway.

How prophetic.

The point is IMO its bad advice (especially for beginners) to try and apply force to the ball with an upward motion. Whether or not the clubhead is moving down or level - you always direct the force down and out.

[Golden Bear]

I guess it was. If you don't see that Woods is playing the ball back in his stance, you must be looking with one eye closed. And your volume must be off, because the announcer even points it out.

[Golf_Goof]

I guess it was. If you don't see that Woods is playing the ball back in his stance, you must be looking with one eye closed. And your volume must be off, because the announcer even points it out.

The point of posting the video was to show that you can leave a divot in front of the ball with a wood and get a decent result contrary to your assertion earlier in post 32:

And if you are leaving a divot in front of the ball, what's happening to your ball flight? (SPOILER ALERT: Nothing good.)

I NEVER listen to those wankers describe whats happening. I can think for myself.

And if you think the Adam Scott video does not show a clubhead that decends into the ball and continues down well after, you're optically challenged.

[Golden Bear]

The point of posting the video was to show that you can leave a divot in front of the ball with a wood and get a decent result Grass kicked up, but, as you yourself said, there was no pelt -- it's not really a divot, plus, I don't think you can honestly say that that grass is kicked up AFTER the ball, and not grass that was directly underneat the ball at impact.

I NEVER listen to those wankers describe whats happening. I can think for myself. Then let's see that in action. Do you think the ball is opposite Tiger's heel, or further back in his stance?



And if you think the Adam Scott video does not show a clubhead that decends into the ball and continues down well after, you're optically challenged.No, I'm honest. I'm looking at the club at impact, I'm looking at the angle of the camera to the ground (ah, didn't think of that, did you? Because it's not exactly parallel -- kinda important to notice that), and I'm looking at where the clubhead is in relation to the ground.

[Golden Bear]

Anyway ... the subject was hitting with the driver and not fairway woods, and I don't think anything either of us is saying now is doing anything but muddy the topic -- serves me right for getting us sidetracked.

Besides, I think I've grown to hate the subject, so you guys knock yourselves out. Not literally, of course.

[Golf_Goof]

Grass kicked up, but, as you yourself said, there was no pelt -- it's not really a divot, plus, I don't think you can honestly say that that grass is kicked up AFTER the ball, and not grass that was directly underneat the ball at impact.

Not really a divot? Please,,,:rolleyes:

Then let's see that in action. Do you think the ball is opposite Tiger's heel, or further back in his stance?

I can't honestly tell from that camera angle because it appears to be situated ahead of the tee blocks which make his stance appear closed. Irrelevant to the intent of the post anyhow. Grass and sand flew, divot mark left on ground - I doubt Tiger hit it fat.

I'm looking at the angle of the camera to the ground (ah, didn't think of that, did you? Because it's not exactly parallel -- kinda important to notice that), and I'm looking at where the clubhead is in relation to the ground.

I call BS. Why did'nt you call the bad camera angle before? And what exactly are using as reference to parallel?

[Golden Bear]

I think we disagree. Agree?

[Golf_Goof]

Another great closeup of the clubhead not travelling up into the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cmhPipbmfA

I think we disagree. Agree?

Clearly.

[Bellyhungry]

Who does it have to be so abrupt and absolute?

If you don't agree with me, you must be an (insert deragotory term).

There's a million ways to skin a cat (apology to cat owners).

[cldale]

Interestingly enough, I am reading Ben Hogan's book "Five Lessons: The Modern Fundamentals of Golf" and he seems to think you contact the ball on the downswing as well.

In particular: page 101-102 detail the position of the left wrist at impact (right handed), he specifically states that the left wrist is pronated at impact, which means it is closer to the target than the clubhead. Try this yourself, and tell me whether this makes sense if you're swinging upwards at contact.

All the illustrations clearly show the clubhead behind the hands in a decending blow to the ball as well. The illustrations show a driver/wood being used. Admittedly they are illustrations but as this book pre-dates the advent of video, there must have been strong emphasis on getting this illustrations right for teaching purposes.

[Pingnut]

Hitting down with the driver used to be the way to get the best results. Hogan and Jones played with drivers the size of a 5 wood and balls made of rubber bands. That doesn't mean that with new technology, a better understanding of launch dynamics and 460cc drivers that hitting the ball with an ascending angle won't produce the best results. Maybe we can try to find some videos of Long Drivers at impact. I'm sure they are hitting up on the ball and they certainly are not losing any power.

edit - found a slow mo of the Beast. Clearly on the up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RutbASUvDcc

[Golf_Goof]

Who does it have to be so abrupt and absolute?

If you don't agree with me, you must be an (insert deragotory term).

There's a million ways to skin a cat (apology to cat owners).

I guess I'm ticked how some would ridicule this book, the concept and even the author based on "seems-as-ifs", pop instruction dogma and how few tournaments the author won.

And I honestly feel like this concept has totally transformed my own ballstriking and I want others to think about why it works with an open mind.

If there were millions to be made skinning cats, we'd discuss the best way to do that too (forged blade, four-finger grip and of course, a downward angle of attack - care for a YouTube?) :rofl:

[cdnputter]

I guess I'm ticked how some would ridicule this book, the concept and even the author based on "seems-as-ifs", pop instruction dogma and how few tournaments the author won.

And I honestly feel like this concept has totally transformed my own ballstriking and I want others to think about why it works with an open mind.

If there were millions to be made skinning cats, we'd discuss the best way to do that too (forged blade, four-finger grip and of course, a downward angle of attack - care for a YouTube?) :rofl:

You do know that every method of instruction only works for certain people right? So trying force people here to follow or trust your beliefs on golf instruction may not always work.

As for being ticked about people not apparently taking the book seriously, did you write it? If it's mantra to you and some here are not followers, don't sweat it, we'll find our own way.

[Bellyhungry]

I guess I'm ticked how some would ridicule this book, the concept and even the author based on "seems-as-ifs", pop instruction dogma and how few tournaments the author won.

And I honestly feel like this concept has totally transformed my own ballstriking and I want others to think about why it works with an open mind.

If there were millions to be made skinning cats, we'd discuss the best way to do that too (forged blade, four-finger grip and of course, a downward angle of attack - care for a YouTube?) :rofl:

I have the book too....Like you, I think it has a lot of valid points and I have ported some of them on the golf course. Most other recent instruction books don't offer new concepts like Clampert does in his book.

I think people shouldn't diss the book if they haven't read it...Then again, a lot of them were done in tongue-in-cheek fashion from what I could tell. It is no harm no foul.

[Golf_Goof]

You do know that every method of instruction only works for certain people right? So trying force people here to follow or trust your beliefs on golf instruction may not always work.

As for being ticked about people not apparently taking the book seriously, did you write it? If it's mantra to you and some here are not followers, don't sweat it, we'll find our own way.

Somewhat agree. I think there are some absolutes in golf. Like I think 100% of golfers would hit it better with a flat left wrist - even Retief.

Its not mantra man, I'd just like someone to explain to me why hitting up is a better way to use the driver (distance and accuracy)- and show me some professionals who are doing this.

1) I think the up hit is a bad idea primarily because it promotes a flip which is the absolute I mentioned earlier.

2) Unless the golfer is conciously manipulating the club, the laws of physics maintain that if the clubhead travels in an arc, along an inclined plane and naturally releases to square at the bottom, then as it moves upward along the same inclined plane, it is moving away from the target line and the clubface is closing - this is the reason I feel that we are seeing more evidence of professionals using at least a level strike, as opposed to an upward strike.

I agree that for long bombers like in the beast vid, the upward strike negates some of the spin hence more overall distance. But hey, those guys need just one bomb in the grid to win so accuracy is not their primary concern.

[Shadow]

For superior ball striking a few essentials MUST occur"
1. the path of the club head must be from the inside
2. the hands MUST be ahead of the ball at impact
3. the left wrist is flat, the right is bent.
4. the hands move away from the target line just BEFORE impact, a motion necessary as this is what squares the club face.

To achieve the left flat, right bent relationship, the golf MUST hit down on every shot. Failing to do so will see the left bend and the right flatten and when this happens the trajectory of the ball increases and power and accuracy is lost. Weight distribution and ball position dictate where the arc bottoms out. If the arc of the driver can bottom out at or just IN FRONT of the ball, maximum power and accuracy will be achieved. There will not be a divot because the ball is on a tee, a point that seems to be overlooked by some.

Fairway woods are played a little farther back than the driver so a divot SHOULD be taken. It won't be a chunk, but the grass will be damaged. Anyone who picks the ball, without taking a divot, may be losing some valuable power and accuracy.

Clampett has it right when describing where the bottom of the arc should be, however, I wished that he would have provided more exercises that would help golfers achieve this.

Two other things to consider. Teachers are still teaching a weight shift when all the golfer has to do to shift the weight forward is to hit down on the ball. Trying hitting down and NOT shift your weight forward. Secondly, golf clubs are constructed so that the hands will be ahead (hitting down) of the ball at impact. The angle of the hosel is bent forward in all clubs including the driver, to get you in the hands ahead position. If the driver was meant to be swept or hit up on, the hosel would be bent to the right, not the left.

Golfers who want to play better, WILL, if they work on having the arc bottom out in front of the ball with EVERY club. I am in awe that so many don't see this.

[cldale]

To add to this:

I started taking lessons with Nick Starchuck at the CL Academy, and I was asking him about this after he recommended Clampett's book (Impact Zone) as a good read.

He said that only on a mis-hit will a good golfer contact the ball with the clubhead moving upwards, regardless of the club or driver. He said if a tour-instructor advised tour players to do so, that instructor would have no clients.

He then said that instructors will tell beginners to "swing up" into the ball because its easier to hit that way and helps beginners get the ball in the air.

[Stang 9/11]

I purchased the impact zone this fall. great book!!!, the downward strike and compression of the golf ball are the key ingredients to the golf swing I believe. Are there any instructors that teach according to this method in the GTA???

[abz-pete]

For those of us who refuse to believe a driver should be hit on the downswing, there's an interesting article in the January edition of Golf Magazine (page 89) :-

"Swing studies involving hundreds of professional and amateur swings prove that catching the ball at the start of your upswing increases carry distance and total distance for all swing speeds. Only by attacking the ball at a 5 degree up angle will you produce the right combination of vertical launch angle and backspin."

The chart of results for various swing speeds shows that hitting at a 5 degree down angle consistently produces the worst results... I, for one, am not surprised! :rolleyes:

[Smoothie]

^^ I was just about to comment on this article in Golf Mag. Is this contrary to the Impact Zone book? Mind you, we're only talking about .5* difference. While it may feel like you are hitting down on the ball with a driver, the clubhead is actually on the upswing, due to shaft flex etc. Is that possible?

[coe14]

I think high speed photography has hurt as many golfers as it has helped. What something "feels" like it often different from what it "looks" like.

I don't conciously think about hitting down or up on the ball. With my irons I think about "covering" the ball - which is the way I describe the feeling of my hands being ahead of the ball at impact. If I want the ball to go higher I move the ball farther forward and "cover" it less (de-loft the club less).

I do the same with the driver. Move the ball forward and drop the right shoulder at address (right hander) to hit it higher. Move the ball back and level the shoulders to hit it lower. Of course you can also move your peg up and down to encourage this and slightly move the ball impact up and down on the face.

My "feeling" when trying to hit the driver high, is that I catch the ball slightly on the upswing. My feeling when trying to hit the driver low, is that I catch it slightly on the downswing. My guess is high speed photography would show both are on the downswing (though less so for the high drive). But that's not how it "feels", which is what counts when you are trying to do something - not just observing something.

Think about hitting baseballs for fielding practise. You lower your back shoulder to hit fly balls and raise it to hit grounders. Everyone just kind of figures this out naturally.

I don't believe conciously thinking about hitting "up" or "down" on the ball is helpful. You should never have the feeling that you are helping the ball into the air. The loft of the club does that. And you shouldn't be thinking you need to chop down on the ball either.

[cldale]

For those of us who refuse to believe a driver should be hit on the downswing, there's an interesting article in the January edition of Golf Magazine (page 89) :-

"Swing studies involving hundreds of professional and amateur swings prove that catching the ball at the start of your upswing increases carry distance and total distance for all swing speeds. Only by attacking the ball at a 5 degree up angle will you produce the right combination of vertical launch angle and backspin."

The chart of results for various swing speeds shows that hitting at a 5 degree down angle consistently produces the worst results... I, for one, am not surprised! :rolleyes:

I find this problematic for one reason: how can there be a single size that fits all golfers? 5 deg based on what loft on the club? what club? It would be different for everyone.

The faster you swing, the more spin you impart on the ball (backspin) which elevates the ball more (and holds it in the air longer) which means you require less loft (all else the same) as if you had a slower swing speed.

So how can 5deg be the universal solution?

Also, its pretty much taken as gospel that you want your left wrist pronated and hands ahead of the clubhead at impact, with a straight left arm. I am not sure how do this all AND be swinging the club up.

I'd mention as well that if your clubhead is travelling up, you've released your arms and your club is decelerating into impact, which means yoru actually LOSING speed. Generally they say you should feel like your accelerating through impact, but the outcome of that "feeling" is that your maxed out right at impact. This is actually the exact same as in tennis... where the exact same physics principals apply.

[dekker]

Up or Down? What about Level or Even? How about just hitting the ball?
If I had to think about this every time I address the ball I'd wind up in a hospital! K.I.S.S!

[Shadow]

Admittedly, I am baffled by the "science" of hitting UP on the ball to get less spin. The whole club fitting world suggests that one should use MORE loft and hit the ball high. Does more loft not equal more spin and subsequently a shot that travels too high will carry less?

Logically then, an upward angle of attack should see the loft on the driver be very low. It seems that a 5* or 6* loft would see the ball fly with the reduced spin that is important.

Personally, with my 95 mph swing speed, I hit the ball a lot farther, the lower I hit it with the difference being the amount of roll. My 7.5* hand picked head still goes too high (my hands are ahead of the ball at impact) and maybe next season the loft will be less.

[cldale]

Up or Down? What about Level or Even? How about just hitting the ball?
If I had to think about this every time I address the ball I'd wind up in a hospital! K.I.S.S!

Haha, from what I was told, people are told to hit "up" at the ball because the mental image created is usefull for novices to make contact easily.

I don't think about hitting up or down on the ball, I am trying to make a good swing, and the ball should just incidently be in the way of that swing :)

[Golf_Goof]

For those of us who refuse to believe a driver should be hit on the downswing, there's an interesting article in the January edition of Golf Magazine (page 89) :-

"Swing studies involving hundreds of professional and amateur swings prove that catching the ball at the start of your upswing increases carry distance and total distance for all swing speeds. Only by attacking the ball at a 5 degree up angle will you produce the right combination of vertical launch angle and backspin."

The chart of results for various swing speeds shows that hitting at a 5 degree down angle consistently produces the worst results... I, for one, am not surprised! :rolleyes:

Ultimate carry and roll distance depend on the launch angle and backspin. This can be achieved with combinations of attack angle and lofts. To say that up 5* is optimum is not entirely true.

Also, theres another part of driving that maybe hay been overlooked? (I haven't read the article) and that part is accuracy. Was that measured also?

[abz-pete]

No mention of accuracy in this particular article, but the main claim is that a downward strike will produce more backspin and less total distance. The chart shows results for various swing speeds with attack angles of -5, 0 and +5 degrees.

The article also claims that stats from Trackman and Taylormade's MATT back up this analysis.

Ultimate carry and roll distance depend on the launch angle and backspin. This can be achieved with combinations of attack angle and lofts. To say that up 5* is optimum is not entirely true.

Also, theres another part of driving that maybe hay been overlooked? (I haven't read the article) and that part is accuracy. Was that measured also?

[Golf_Goof]

No mention of accuracy in this particular article, but the main claim is that a downward strike will produce more backspin and less total distance. The chart shows results for various swing speeds with attack angles of -5, 0 and +5 degrees.

The article also claims that stats from Trackman and Taylormade's MATT back up this analysis.

So, if the question is "does hitting up with the driver equal more distance" - the answer is yes.

If the question is "does hitting up with the driver produce the best overall results?" (distance and accuracy) - I think the answer is no.

If the question is "is hitting up with the driver good swing advice for most golfers?" - I say definitely not.

[cornerstone]

I stood and watched a local teaching pro hit driver one day this year.What he was trying to do was hit the ball higher on the club face above the sweet spot in order to reduce spin rate and get more distance.Apparently this is why many pros tee the ball up high.

[Pingnut]

Admittedly, I am baffled by the "science" of hitting UP on the ball to get less spin. The whole club fitting world suggests that one should use MORE loft and hit the ball high. Does more loft not equal more spin and subsequently a shot that travels too high will carry less?

Logically then, an upward angle of attack should see the loft on the driver be very low. It seems that a 5* or 6* loft would see the ball fly with the reduced spin that is important.

Personally, with my 95 mph swing speed, I hit the ball a lot farther, the lower I hit it with the difference being the amount of roll. My 7.5* hand picked head still goes too high (my hands are ahead of the ball at impact) and maybe next season the loft will be less.


Have you ever been on a launch monitor Shadow? It might be an eye opening experience. My first time on a monitor 3 or 4 years ago - I discovered I was launching my 10.5* Callaway VFT at 6* with 4000 rpm's of backspin. Clearly not very optimum numbers! Now I play an 11.5* driver and launch it at close to 13* with about 2400 rpms of backspin. Not perfect but much better. At your swing speed launching the ball at around 14 - 16* and just under 3000 rpm's of backspin would provide the best results.

[Shadow]

Have you ever been on a launch monitor Shadow? It might be an eye opening experience. My first time on a monitor 3 or 4 years ago - I discovered I was launching my 10.5* Callaway VFT at 6* with 4000 rpm's of backspin. Clearly not very optimum numbers! Now I play an 11.5* driver and launch it at close to 13* with about 2400 rpms of backspin. Not perfect but much better. At your swing speed launching the ball at around 14 - 16* and just under 3000 rpm's of backspin would provide the best results.No, I have not been on a LM and perhaps it is something that I should do.

I have Tom Wishon's trajectory software and the numbers that would give me OPTIMUM carry, ie., 228 yards, are 9* to 11* of loft, 2650 to 3240 rpm with a +5 angle of attack. I don't question the carry numbers but I do question the net yards. A lower trajectory to fairways that yield some roll should give me a longer drive. I have "experimented" this way on the course, hitting several balls at different trajectorys and the lower flight gives me a longer drive, virtually all the time. I use ProV1X balls.

The other factor that is important to me is the versatility of the club. With my LOW lofted driver, I can hit my ball over an 80' spruce tree that is 175 yards out on one particular hole, by making swing and setup adjustments, and I can whiz the ball by your ears by doing likewise. However, give me a HIGH lofted driver and I would not be able to hit the lower shot.

My current 7.5* Wishon 919 has an Acculex Evolution shaft in it, a shaft that has a medium butt and a very stiff tip, and the ball still goes too high. I have ordered an 7* SMT 455 and when Wishon comes out with an 8* 919, I will try to get one hand picked at less than 7*. An 8* SMT Encore gives me the trajectory I want, but I have trouble setting up consistently with it. The Wishon heads have a PERFECT look at setup and the feel is great and it is that one that I would prefer to play. Perhaps the "problem" with the Wishon is the lack of face roll on the botton two thirds of the head.

[ebaj1]

There is the misconception that hitting "down" with the driver will lead to all sorts of mis-hits but the laws of Physics and the ball's position just will not let that happen unless your swing plane is so radically steep. Look at the pros' hands at the moment of impact and you'll see that they are all "hitting down". Don't look at the club's head because even such a simple variable like the whipping action of the shaft's tip will make it appear that the head is actually on it's way up. Hitting down is a very simple cure to many of golf's ills if not THE cure, but hey, what do I know, I'm just a duffer.....Peace:)

I purchased the impact zone this fall. great book!!!, the downward strike and compression of the golf ball are the key ingredients to the golf swing I believe. Are there any instructors that teach according to this method in the GTA???

Sadly this very important piece of information is the least disseminated if at all by teaching pros everywhere partly because they don't know the concept although they themselves practice it. It just amazes me no end. The moment I grasped this concept and applied it, I immediately dropped strokes, went from shooting in the 90's to low 80's and have been shooting in the high 70's like nothing (shot a 74 once). My distance went from wimp to putting it on short par 4's. Hit up? I don't think so. :rofl: :)

[jamesduncan]

Great book. Maybe one of the best written in recent times.

Excellent advice that mirrors lessons I've gotten at the old Hank Haney Ranch in Texas (where Tiger works on his game and numerous of never before published photos of Hogan at impact hang on the wall).

[Merlot]

I'm with you on the bottoming out a swing 4 inches ahead of the ball, but definitely not with a a driver or longer club. With the new tilt and stack method of driving a ball, there seems to be little way your driver will do anything but brush the grass through impact. With an 8* driver you need to swing the through the ball to get it in the air, otherwise it'll be 3 feet off the ground or be a wormburner at worst. IMO for a tour pro, their increased clubhead speed through impact is what helps cause the ball to get backspin (loft it in the air), no matter what loft they're using.

Stack and tilt is not new. Just repackaged and marketed.

[ebaj1]

Stack and tilt is not new. Just repackaged and marketed.

Yup, I agree with Merlot. Maybe it was because it took this much time for some of the pros to actually try it out vis-a-vis the conventional swing, Golf Digest sees Baddeley and others and voila, a "new" swing. :D

[Shadow]

Stack and tilt is not new. Just repackaged and marketed. Ironically, 47 years ago I was hitting balls on some National Capital Commission property when an RCMP officer arrived on his motorcycle to ask me to leave the property. But, before I left he discussed with me an article that he had seen about leaving all the weight on the front foot and he even demonstrated what he meant with a few practice swings with MY club. S & T is obviously "old" school.

There is the misconception that hitting "down" with the driver will lead to all sorts of mis-hits but the laws of Physics and the ball's position just will not let that happen unless your swing plane is so radically steep. Look at the pros' hands at the moment of impact and you'll see that they are all "hitting down". Not only are they hitting down on the ball but the hands are also coming around the body, instead of going "down the line," as is unfortunately still being taught by some.

[swingpure]

Just watching the coverage of Mercedes there has been quite of bit of talk about drivers and the launch stats that go with it. On one excerpt Nick Faldo was hitting some drives and said that when he played, he hit down on the ball with his driver, but he said that now a days the correct way is to catch the ball on the upswing to make the ball fo farther.

Maybe the answer to the subject header is a generational one.

[cornerstone]

This system they have of checking club head speed and stuff is great.The thing that struck me when they had it at the British open was that the driver club head speed was not as fast as I thought it was.120-122 were Tigers and Sergios speeds while I was expecting 130.Either side of 110 is not uncommon for the other guys .

[Shadow]

Just watching the coverage of Mercedes there has been quite of bit of talk about drivers and the launch stats that go with it. On one excerpt Nick Faldo was hitting some drives and said that when he played, he hit down on the ball with his driver, but he said that now a days the correct way is to catch the ball on the upswing to make the ball fo farther. Clampett's book indicate the the average Tour pros LOW POINT in his swing, is 5" if front of the ball, so having the hands ahead IS essential AND can only be achieved by hitting DOWN on the ball. To hit UP on the ball, 99% of us would see the left wrist flipping and the right wrist straightening, both of which are contrary to good form and would result in power and accuracy loss.

With a forward ball position AND with the golfer thinking hit down, it is more likely that the angle of attach would be around 0*.

Where the ball is contacted on the face is a factor in trajectory. A high lofted club is hard to hit low, but a low lofted club can be hit both high and low, dependeding on the desired trajectory.

[cldale]

Clampett's book indicate the the average Tour pros LOW POINT in his swing, is 5" if front of the ball, so having the hands ahead IS essential AND can only be achieved by hitting DOWN on the ball. To hit UP on the ball, 99% of us would see the left wrist flipping and the right wrist straightening, both of which are contrary to good form and would result in power and accuracy loss.

With a forward ball position AND with the golfer thinking hit down, it is more likely that the angle of attach would be around 0*.

Where the ball is contacted on the face is a factor in trajectory. A high lofted club is hard to hit low, but a low lofted club can be hit both high and low, dependeding on the desired trajectory.

My instructor is a big fan of clampetts book, he made the comment several times that Clampett should have played by his own instruction, he would have been a better golfer.

I am intrigued by this golf mag test that claims 5deg upwards is some "optimal" angle of attack for everyone. Given that two players with pretty much identical swing speeds can generate different amounts of spin on the same ball, how can one angle of attack be best for both? Doesn't make sense. Also, this smacks of "buy this equipment and change your swing to match" instead of "buy equipment that maximizes the results of your swing".

One additional point: along with your hands leading the clubhead, having your weight on your front leg is key, and if the ball is inside your front heel or even to it, how in gods name can you possibly be swinging up?

To swing up at the ball, you almost have to drop your right leg (right handed swing) and move your CG backwards (i.e. your falling away from the target at impact).

So, if your weight is transferring forward and your hands are ahead of the clubhead, can someone at least tell me how its even physically possible to be swinging up at that point?

[Pingnut]

I am intrigued by this golf mag test that claims 5deg upwards is some "optimal" angle of attack for everyone. Given that two players with pretty much identical swing speeds can generate different amounts of spin on the same ball, how can one angle of attack be best for both? Doesn't make sense. Also, this smacks of "buy this equipment and change your swing to match" instead of "buy equipment that maximizes the results of your swing".


The idea is that higher launch is better for just about everyone and then you work to match the appropriate spin with the ball speed and launch angle. i.e. your typical golfer hitting a 9* driver who makes impact at the bottom of his swing arc is going to be launching the ball at 9* - if he could make contact on a 5* upward trajectory, he would be launching the ball at 14*, giving him a better launch angle for maximum carry distance. Match the backspin to the ball speed and voila!

Here's a link to a peice with Nick Faldo on the trackman

Nick Faldo Takes on TrackMan™ - Watch Now! (http://www.thegolfchannel.com/21108/5030/#)

[Shadow]

The idea is that higher launch is better for just about everyone and then you work to match the appropriate spin with the ball speed and launch angle. i.e. your typical golfer hitting a 9* driver who makes impact at the bottom of his swing arc is going to be launching the ball at 9* - if he could make contact on a 5* upward trajectory, he would be launching the ball at 14*, giving him a better launch angle for maximum carry distance. Match the backspin to the ball speed and voila! I guess that no-one believes that to make contact on the upswing, one has to hang back, not shift the weight, and to "flip" to some extent to get the desired 5* upward angle of attack.

Would the solution to your numbers above not be to use a 14* driver and NOT hit up on the ball?

[Golf_Goof]

I guess that no-one believes that to make contact on the upswing, one has to hang back, not shift the weight, and to "flip" to some extent to get the desired 5* upward angle of attack.

Would the solution to your numbers above not be to use a 14* driver and NOT hit up on the ball?

I'm with you Shadow. Its all about high launch - low spin, period.

[Pingnut]

That would work.

If anything, the pro's last weekend showed us there is more than one way to skin a cat. Lot's of them still launch the ball at 10* - but they have the ballspeed and spin to match. And then you have Bubba and Vijay that launch it at 17* and carry the ball well over 300 yards.

The only point I'm trying to make is that hitting down on the ball with the driver is not going to give the best results. Hitting down on the ball will result in a launch well below optimal and spin well above optimal. Too much spin causes the ball to climb and descend to quickly. I used to hit down with the driver - I could hit stingers, move the ball right or left etc. Now I just try to hit it high and straight with very little spin.

[cornerstone]

This upswing/downswing thing is probably a non starter.It sounds like someone was looking for an excuse to create more confusion.Club head speed and hitting the ball square is all you need and after that head for the short game area.

[ebaj1]

This upswing/downswing thing is probably a non starter.It sounds like someone was looking for an excuse to create more confusion.Club head speed and hitting the ball square is all you need and after that head for the short game area.

Finally, someone said what most lurkers have been thinking all this while. Gee, I don't even know what degree/angle I'm hitting my ball and I don't care as long as I feel I've hit it squarely and the ball is going fairly straight. How many out there actually think "launch angle" or "5 degrees" while on the tee box? I must admit though that I am a "hit down" proponent, have had great ballstriking success with it and I don't think I'll be going back to "hitting up" again...been there, done that.....never helped my game. just my 2 cents.:)

[cldale]

Finally, someone said what most lurkers have been thinking all this while. Gee, I don't even know what degree/angle I'm hitting my ball and I don't care as long as I feel I've hit it squarely and the ball is going fairly straight. How many out there actually think "launch angle" or "5 degrees" while on the tee box? I must admit though that I am a "hit down" proponent, have had great ballstriking success with it and I don't think I'll be going back to "hitting up" again...been there, done that.....never helped my game. just my 2 cents.:)

Meh, what else would we do with our days at work if not debate mundane topics like this :)

From my experience, the process of hitting down into the ball isn't a result of conscious thought (for me at least) rather the result of a good swing. I am drinking my instructors kool-aid in that a lot of instruction is presented backwards, in that the focus is on the effect, not the cause.

"bottoming out" your club several inches in front of the ball is an effect, not a cause, so I don't think most of us will get anywhere if thats what we're consciously trying to do.

Its the same as trying to achieve a pronated left wrist. Who around here is truly gifted enoug physically as to be able to control wrist pronation through the impact zone? Not me, I can tell you that. So instead, we should focus on what MAKES your wrists pronated properly at impact.

[Shadow]

I am drinking my instructors kool-aid in that a lot of instruction is presented backwards, in that the focus is on the effect, not the cause.
Excellent comment. All good golf swings are the "same," with only slight variations here and there and one does not have to be a superior athlete to get into reasonably good positions along the way, that result in good golf shots. The problem is that instructors see a motion and then misinterpret how one should get there or base comments on how the golfer FELT they got there. This results in them having you try a gazillion different ways to get there and IMO, one reason why golf scores remain too high. Mass confusion does not lend itself to progress.

So many good things happen incidently if a handful of others are done correctly.

[cldale]

Excellent comment. All good golf swings are the "same," with only slight variations here and there and one does not have to be a superior athlete to get into reasonably good positions along the way, that result in good golf shots. The problem is that instructors see a motion and then misinterpret how one should get there or base comments on how the golfer FELT they got there. This results in them having you try a gazillion different ways to get there and IMO, one reason why golf scores remain too high. Mass confusion does not lend itself to progress.

So many good things happen incidently if a handful of others are done correctly.

Precisely, at no point has my instructor mentioned things like "make your backswing shorter" instead he has focused on more fundamental moves and positions which end up with "short backswing" as a result.

Within 3 lessons I am now at the point where my backswing is consistently correct to the top, but my achilles heel is pushing with my right foot/toe which keeps my weight back AND causes a lateral shift in my hips, both of which result in the clubface flying open just before contact. So for me, my "downswing feel" is going to be based on keeping my right heel down, and feeling my weight over my left leg.

But for someone else, those same "feels" might result in a bad hook or something else.

[JEBS]

I was just thinking of the effects of imparting spin. I will use tennis as an example since the spin is easy to visualize.

top spin = shorter ball flight increased roll

Back spin = longer ball flight reduced roll (if any)

flat = more percieved power than with spin, long ball flight with substantial roll.

I would guess that hitting the drives somewhat flat and square would give you the best results, some back spin to keep the ball lofted but not enough to shorten the roll after it hits the ground ??

[Pingnut]

Not to beat a dead horse, but here is an interesting article about angle of attack from the folks at Trackman..

http://www.trackmangolf.com/newsletter/jan08/AttackAngle.html

Focus: Attack Angle
In this newsletter and in many TrackMan™ data analyses, you will come across the particular club delivery data parameter called attack angle. In this in-depth interview, Fredrik Tuxen – CTO at ISG and the inventor of TrackMan™ – explains the function, variety, and importance of attack angle.
Fredrik Tuxen in parameter discussions with golf professionals.
How did you discover that attack angle was such an important club delivery data parameter?

For the last couple of years, the golf industry has been saying ‘High Launch and Low Spin’ when it comes to driver optimization.

More or less, all the equipment manufacturers have recommended a launch angle of around 11 degrees and a spin rate of 2700 rpm for a ball speed of 150 mph. But this simply doesn’t work! When we observed the TrackMan™ data from the Tour players during competition, we saw huge variations in both launch angle (5-16 degreees) and spin rate (1600-3500 rpm), with only very few players having the “11 deg/2700 rpm” type of data. Since we could not believe that the Tour players would be so poorly fitted, this motivated us to dig deeper.

Optimizing driving distance is a question of high ball speed, high launch angle and low spin rate. But you can, in general, not increase your launch angle without also increasing the spin rate. So the fundamental question was: What determines what spin rate/launch angle combination can be obtained? It turns out that for a well hit shot, attack angle is the primary parameter dictating what combinations of launch angle /spin rate are obtainable for a given player.

What is so important about this parameter compared to other club and ball data parameters?

Attack angle is the primary parameter telling you why you obtain certain combinations of launch angle and spin rate – it is even more important than the club head speed! Also, the attack angle is related almost solely to your golf swing and not equipment related, which means it is something you, as a golfer, can change – it is pure technique!

Why is attack angle so significant in Driver fitting?

Attack angle, together with club head speed, are the individual swing parameters which dictate the dynamic loft (loft of club at impact) your driver should accomplish. If you have a 90 mph club head speed with an attack angle of -5 degrees (hitting down on the ball), your optimal launch angle/spin rate is around 10 degrees and 3100 rpm.This would typically require a relatively high lofted driver (around 13-15 deg) to achieve this. On the other hand, if your attack angle is +5 degrees (hitting up on the ball) with the same 90 mph club head speed, your optimal launch angle/spin rate is around 16 degrees and 2200 rpm, but this would require a relatively low


lofted driver (around 9-10 deg) to achieve this. Significantly, this last combination will carry the ball almost 30 yards further than the -5 degrees negative attack angle numbers.

To what degree can attack angle stand alone as a parameter to secure optimal ball launch, i.e. the perfect shot?

The attack angle is a characteristic of your swing which can be difficult to change. A high positive attack angle with your driver gives you the potential to achieve long carry and total distance limited only by your club head speed. But, in order to take advantage of this potential, you still need to hit the ball in the center of the face, align your club path and face angle towards the target, and finally use the proper club head design, loft, and shaft in combination with the ball you play.

If attack angle is so important, why haven’t we heard more about it in the golfing community?

I think there are two main reasons: 1) It may be due to a lack of knowledge among the broader golfing segment on the impact attack angle has on trajectory, and 2) Efficient, accurate, and easy-to-use equipment that can actually measure the attack angle has not been available. This is where TrackMan™ provides great utility and value!

All things equal, how can the average golfer improve his/her attack angle?

While this is a question for golf coaches to answer, I can provide some general suggestions such as moving the ball forward in the stance – and probably teeing it a bit higher. This will typically require you to swing a bit more inside-out than you are used to, in order to compensate for the inwards moving direction of the club head after passing the bottom of the swing arc. But, contact your teaching professional… in many cases it will be necessary to make some dramatic swing changes to improve the attack angle without ruining something else. Then make sure after you increased your attack angle to visit your club fitter and get fitted for a new driver, you will almost certainly need a lower loft!

How much do tour pros focus on maintenance/improvement of their attack angle?

It varies… Some really dig into it and spend a lot of time on changing things in their swing – this is typical for players with low club speed and negative attack angle – they really need the extra 20-30 yards this can give them. Others are happy with their swing and don’t want to make swing changes to jeopardize their accuracy. Yet, the tour pros are only beginning to learn about this new important measurement parameter now, so things are rapidly changing. Again, the availability of TrackMan™ has changed the scope for many tour pros. Attack angle measurements have previously been recorded only in high tech lab environments indoors. Now, for the first time, attack angle measurements are available to the tour pros in the environment where they normally practice – outdoor with TrackMan™ Pro, indoor with TrackMan™ Launch - without having to do much more than swing their driver.

What is the most positive attack angle from tour pros you have witnessed in your work with TrackMan™ and who obtained it?

The most positive attack angle I have seen from a pro in a tournament is Cristie Kerr's. During Wendy's 3-Tour Challenge in December, on the play-off hole versus Fred Funk, Cristie had a positive attack angle of amazing +8.1 deg. Cristie's average attack angle is slightly above +5 deg! Testing drivers, Mark Brooks has achieved an attack angle of +9.6 degrees which is a very impressive number.

Actually, there are some very interesting observations of the LPGA players. In general, their attack angle is on average around 3 degrees more positive than the PGA TOUR players. But LPGA players also have much more reason to maximize their potential due to their average 20 mph lower club head speed.

What is the most negative attack angle you have witnessed in your work with TrackMan and who obtained it?
Among tour pros, both Michael Campbell and Charles Howell III have very negative attack angles, I have seen both players having -7.5 degrees in attack angle! Apparently, they are deliberately hitting their drives with very flat trajectory and not focusing on carry distance.


Is it so that all the better players have a positive attack angle with their driver?

No, this is not the case for many of the US PGA players. Players like Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, Sergio Garcia and Charles Howell III are all players who often swing with significant, negative attack angles. However, common for this group of players is their very high club and ball speeds, so they fly the ball pretty far despite their negative attack angle – they do not really have a distance problem! However, if they increased their attack angle they could hit the ball 30-40 yards further. But apparently they have deliberately chosen not to do this.

Have you found any discoveries during your investigations of attack angle?

Yes! It turns out that if you hit down or up on the ball with the same club, the spin rate will be more or less identical if you impact the ball on the same spot on the face. This is in contradiction to the myth saying that hitting down on the ball increases the spin rate.

Are you saying that hitting down on the ball has no impact on the spin rate? That sounds very surprising…

Yes, actually you do not change the spin rate by hitting more down or up on the ball with the same club, assuming that the ball is impacted on the same spot on the face. Simplified slightly, the correlations are: Attack angle changes the launch angle, with club loft, including shaft flex, changing the spin rate.


When you hit more up on the ball, the launch angle will be higher but the spin rate will be virtually the same. The spin rate is dictated primarily by the spin loft and impact position on the club face. The spin loft is the difference between the dynamic loft and the attack angle. The spin loft is virtually constant for a given club. Of course, also the ball and club characteristics play an important role in the generation of spin.

Having said all this, it is still a good idea to hit down on the ball with irons and wedges. A negative attack angle makes it easier to get proper contact to the ball which insures a predictable spin rate for your approach shots.

What other club delivery data discoveries are left to make?

We have pinned out almost every single detail on the driver shots. We have now switched to analyze attack angles for the tour pros on hybrids and irons to understand why the world’s best players hit these shots like they do. Of special interest is also the horizontal club head movement and orientation at impact, meaning parameters like club path and face angle.

[cldale]

Well, this at least confirms the contention around whether or not the pros (and I think we can all agree we were thinking of the guys) hit down/flat opposed to up.

I am curious if this trackman data is accurate, why the pros choose to continue with flat/downward attack angles? perhaps there is some aspect related to consistency in the swing that trackman isn't able to measure?

[sharkhark]

The idea is that higher launch is better for just about everyone and then you work to match the appropriate spin with the ball speed and launch angle. i.e. your typical golfer hitting a 9* driver who makes impact at the bottom of his swing arc is going to be launching the ball at 9* - if he could make contact on a 5* upward trajectory, he would be launching the ball at 14*, giving him a better launch angle for maximum carry distance. Match the backspin to the ball speed and voila!

Here's a link to a peice with Nick Faldo on the trackman

Nick Faldo Takes on TrackMan™ - Watch Now! (http://www.thegolfchannel.com/21108/5030/#)

My computer or connection must suck. Every time I click on the link at the GC site it doesn't play. Just blinks and the same screen is showing.

[Quest]

Not to beat a dead horse, but here is an interesting article about angle of attack from the folks at Trackman..

Pingnut....thank you for posting that. Very informative!