The D-Plane, Trackman, NBFL, etc. thread

R3J

Do you know why …or have asked any of these club companies why…would they design a driver that requires an entirely different swing than an iron??
Don’t they understand they are making golf even harder by bringing an entirely different swing into the game for the golfer

Irons- you hit down and thru
Woods- they now want you to hit up

I will be first to admit once these bigger metal woods came out my driving went to crap. I could still hit it decent- but lots more mishits- no extra distance gained- more upspinning drives
I believe with persimmon I had a great down out and aggressive thru swing similar to my irons— I have never been able to do it well with these big ‘tortoise shell’ woods and my stats proved that

I just think it’s little wonder people have a tough time improving when equipment is making them swing one thing(drivers) one way and the other thing(irons) another way

I think those stats are relevant to the super modern, very shallow faced flat drivers. As Robbo alluded to in another thread, there are still some deep faced drivers with a more globular, conventinal design and sub 400 cc in weight which are still ok with a more conventional attack angle.

I would think that the big toe up drivers are made like that in part to compensate for shaft dipping and twisting. It’s pretty scary what the graphite shafts do in a short space of time on off centre hits. And the speed they’re swung at almost brings them back stretched out and close to a level lie angle at max speed.
The funny thing for me is that I always hit it pretty low, so I had a crappy inclination to hit up on the old drivers, especially on softer parkland courses, in order to get a bit of air under the flight. With the modern driver I find I’m less inclined to want to hit up on it as it goes high by itself. In a weird twist, I find it easier to swing more level with the modern driver especially since it’s teed up so high. It struck me a while ago when I was hitting this long drive driver that was 48 or so inches and 4.5 degrees of loft. Because it was so long, it really forced me to swing more level and actually better. I was thinking it might be good to good a 50 inch driver super stiff and tee it down low for practice. It effectively makes you less tall in the structure of the swing, and by default, more rounded.

Change in driver design is simple…it goes further. Drivers have big profit margins and even better for OEM’s, lots of golfers are unafraid to buy a new driver every season, if not in the middle of the season. That’s how Taylor Made became what it is today, how Callaway became Callaway, pretty much rejuvenated Titleist and helped keep Ping in the fold. High Launch + lower spin = more distance. More distance = $$$$. OEM’s don’t care if it ruins your swing.

I know what you mean about striking the ball worse with titanium. I had a friend who played at U. of Miami. Best ballstriker I ever played with and I played with Wayne Levi when I was a junior golfer, a year after he won 4 events and the PGA Tour player of the year.

His ballstriking didn’t get worse as we went to titanium, but he became less effective.

My theory is this. There is nothing wrong with hitting a little up on the ball with the driver. In fact, I think it takes quite a bit of talent and precision in the swing to do so. I honestly believe that Jack Nicklaus hit up on the ball more often than not. And I believe the same for Mike Souchak and Mike Austin.

But, that was the beauty of it. Nicklaus’ swing and skill allowed him to consistently hit up the ball a little bit with persimmon. The rest were usually forced to hit down with persimmon or we’d hit a sky ball or an ugly shot.

Now with titanium, it doesn’t take nearly as much skill and swing mechanics to consistently hit up on the ball and hit it well. Furthermore, I believe Nicklaus, Souchak and Austin probably hit up on it no more that +2* (outside of some rare occasion). Now you get golfers, particularly female golfers…hitting +5, +8, +9* up on the ball.

As far as hitting up on the ball and ruining the golf swing, I’m a bit torn on that one. Technically, I don’t think it’s all that big of an adjustment. You essentially just need to get the ball in front of the low point. That way you reach low point and the clubhead starts working upward. I wouldn’t suggest trying to hit up with a 3-iron off the tee because we typically take a divot with the 3-iron. But with a driver, we just don’t take a divot, so I think technically hitting up doesn’t always equate to creating worse swing mechanics.

However, I think when it comes to hitting up on the ball, golfers tend to ‘cheat.’ They’ll find other ways to get the ball in front of the low point, like ‘hanging back.’ If you look at Lag’s hands at what ABS calls ‘P3’, his hands are much more closer to the target than your average LPGA player. I think that’s a good thing for Lag and golfer’s in general. I think Lag’s hands being more forward ensures a better strike and will provide more force into the ball. It also means that you have to pivot correctly in order to do that.

But with the LPGA player, where almost every single player hits up on the ball with the driver, they are cheating hitting up on the ball and using poor mechanics and a poor pivot action to do so.

In other words, I think Lag could hit up on the driver pretty successfully just by altering the ball position and he would hit it a mile. And he would still be able to maintain his excellent swing mechanics, alignments and motion. But for other golfers who don’t know much about what they are doing, their swing gets worse when they try to hit up on the ball.

3JACK

I have no problem teeing the ball high, playing it way forward if I am going over a line of trees, cutting over a corner on a dogleg or really trying to launch one downwind using persimmon. It’s a shot called for on rare occasion, but hardly a shot I would go to to make sure I get the ball into the fairway. Sometimes things open up over a dogleg… so I will play that shot if I think it is better percentage shot.

For example in the TRGA Vegas Classic, the 5th hole is a short dogleg right. Most guys play iron or 3 wood off the tee. I take driver over the corner and swing for the fences. If I draw it… it comes right back into the fairway. If I hit it straight I am right up by the green if the pin is middle or left I have plenty of green to work with for an easy birdie. If I push it right I only deal with some light greenside trees and I take the front bunker out of play. To most it is a narrow tee shot but to me it is a very wide open tee shot because I can hit it anywhere and be fine… as long as I hit it hard and solid.

However, the idea of doing that on every hole I find silly and very uninteresting. I am always thinking shot shape AND trajectory on every drive I play. I easily carry an extra 30 yards in my back pocket when I need it… but it is not uncommon for me to play an entire round or even a tournament and never use it. There is a risk and reward to doing that.

R3J,
This may obvious, or you may have already covered it…how does this Trackman handle the OTT swing? It seems that OTT will rotate the plane out to in, and even a ball struck on the downswing may behave differently than expected( depending on how much OTT, face angle, and how much descending blow).
Thanks/eagle

I’m with Lag on that one
I always had distance in a persimmon if needed, but for all intents and purposes the driver was for position and shaping to the correct portion of the fairway for the best approach to the flag.
Seems like today’s clubs are all about distance and limiting shot shaping…the ball’s reduced curvature doesn’t help matters much either…
that’s why I was never anywhere near as good a driver of the ball once the heads got bigger and bigger. I lost the shot shaping ability because of the trampoline face effect with no bulge or roll to allow for shaping. I also could never wrap my brain around the sweet spot being high up on the huge face meaning I had to hit more and more up on the ball to get it out of the ‘actual middle’ of the club

Trackman is more or less a measuring device. It does calculate some things instead of measuring them. From there, we can use the information becasue it’s correct. For instance, if you hit a driver 250 yards long and miss the sweetspot by 1 dimple, it will knock the ball off-line by 10 yards (either draw or fade depending on whether you miss it 1 dimple towards the toe or 1 dimple towards heel). One of the big keys to Trackman is that we cannot possibly feel a shot missed by 1 dimple. So the measurements help dissect what’s going on at impact and then the golfer/teacher can use that information to make a better informed decision.

It’s like being a detective. My uncle is a former NYPD homicide detective in Manhattan. There are a lot of things from his training that when he would arrive on the scene, he could decipher what went on and what to look for. But he’s still going to send any evidence he can to forensics to help him make a better informed decision. Trackman is the forensics.

Anyway, so Trackman doesn’t tell a golfer ‘you came OTT.’ It just shows the measurements and calculations and one can start to see it. My guess would be the Vertical Swing plane would be very upright of an angle. The path would obviously be left. Probably more than -5*. Face angle depends. The better the player, usually the face angle will be closed because they know how to ‘play for the OTT move.’ Hackers who hit big slices and blocks, the face angle could be anywhere. Attack angle can be anything, depending on the golfer. One concept people need to get down is that attack angle and OTT are not synonymous with each other. Trevino is sort of an example of this. He has that ‘flat downswing’, yet he has a very steep attack angle (gigantic divots). Probably not easy to do, but it shows that downswing plane and attack angle have little to do with each other.

3JACK

I find it pretty hard to really shape the modern ball. Usually I can hook it or slice it, but never the amount I want. Usually it’s not enough.

Today’s drivers I find I tend to hit it ‘over the corner’ instead of ‘around the corner.’

I hear a lot of people call Dye’s designs and the modern designs ‘target golf.’ I think that’s a bad description because every type of golf course is target golf. I think today’s designs, particularly those of Pete Dye, to be ‘carry golf.’ There’s little of ‘hit a 10 yard cut and watch it roll down the right side into the best position.’ It’s more ‘carry it over the trouble and as long as you hit it far, you’ll be okay. But if you don’t hit it far, you’re at a disadvantage. And if you hit it far, but hit it off the grid…well, you’ll be okay because there’s little rough over there to hurt you.’

One of the things I looked up statistically was the difference between proximity to the cup for Tour players in the fairway vs. from the rough. I’ve found on average that the Tour players hit it 30% closer from the fairway. So I think there’s an advantage to hitting it in the fairway today. However, I believe that back in the days of Hogan, the difference in accuracy between the fairway vs. the rough was even greater.

3JACK

Richie,
I have heard you talk about Trevino having a steep angle of attack into the ball a few times now…I don’t see that when I watch him play in person or on footage…is this proven or just an opinion?

He does get some large divots with his wedges, but that is all related to the type of shot he plays with those… where he basically one hop and stops them by bringing them in a lower trajectory with a driving flight with plenty of spin

His drivers and long irons and mid iron videos I have in The Vault show thin shallow divots …and these pics below certainly show a shallow low approach to impact… not steep whatsoever

leemod1.jpgscan0031.jpg

-Newton.

Jack Newton?

In a way, yes.

Trevino was known for hitting it low by PGA Tour standards and has talked about how he had to do a little dance step of sorts to move the ball back in his stance.

So even if we debate the size of his divots, if you hit it flush and it goes low, either the clubface is very closed or the attack angle is steep.

One of the big things that demonstrates attack angle is shaft lean at impact. More lean = more of an attack angle. I think it’s safe to say that Trevino had a lot of shaft lean at impact.

This photo shows an example of that

historicgolfphotos.com/conte … /3/798.jpg

For a driver, to be able to have the shaft like that past impact requires quite a bit of shaft lean.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there’s Tom Watson. More of an upright downswing, but a shallow attack angle (didn’t really take a divot)

youtube.com/user/weltycarl#p … DENPD_-6JQ

3JACK

Would it be fair to say that the more open the stance…the more it would actually appear that the hands lean forward at and thru impact… I think so

If you look at the previous pics I posted Trevino comes in shallow and low to the ground without any doubt or reservation
…his setup (open) and stronger grip give the appearance of something that in retrospect isn’t really happening

Trevino was a shotmaker who could hit any shot at any time…probably even if you called it out to him as he neared the top of his backswing… I don’t think we can label him as a steep swinging divot taker with shaft lean when he had so many different shots in his repertoire that he could produce at will… as flat as he came in to the ball with his clubs he wasn’t getting steep unless he was playing a knockdown punch spinning shot with a short iron or sometimes possibly a shaping lower running shot with his longer clubs

I played with Dan Pohl a few times…he was a long hitter back in the 80’s…he had a tonne of shaft lean…but the pic below again shows a shallow low angle of attack… BUT from an open stance that provides an illusion
You can see from rear view…open set up…creates open hips/shoulders to an even larger degree (a la Trevino)…hands have to lead through the shot… but it’s shallow…not steep because of the body alignments

danpo.JPG

You bring up a good idea. Although there could be different ways to ‘fake’ shaft lean. The camera at a different angle would probably show different shaft lean.

The one thing I’ll say with Pohl is that he does have his ball position well forward of where Trevino had it with the driver. You can hit up and have shaft lean with the driver, but you need a forward ball position (which Pohl has) and a lot of axis tilt (spine tilting away from the target at impact, which Pohl does NOT have).

Sooooo…that’s one of the things that I find fascinating about Trackman. It can measure and calculate this stuff so we’re not having to guess. From there, the golfer/instructor can use any swing theory/philosophy/etc that they want.

I don’t think we can accurately measure attack angles just from looking at pictures. That being said, pics and videos that look like a downward attack angle to me, does not mean I’m right either. Again, a good part of using a Trackman.

It also doesn’t mean that one cannot hit down on it a bit and still hit it long. Tiger was a good example. Hitting down on it -3* back in 2008. Of course, it helped that he generated 123-125 mph of clubhead speed. But, you take somebody like Kenny Perry who generates about a little below the Tour average in clubhead speed (111 mph), there’s a reason why he hits it so long…he hits up on it about +5*.

It’s another reason why I believe that Trevino in particular had a steep attack angle on the ball (he also used to fight a hook which usually coincides with having a steep attack angle)…persimmon was designed differently. Some talents could hit up with persimmon really really well. But I don’t think even most of the great players felt comfortable doing that consistently.

3JACK

R3J

Maybe you know this?..I remember Tiger saying or Nike saying that he used a ball that spun a lot more than the balls other guys used…

if he was hitting down (I think you said -3)…is that why he needed a spinnier ball so it would then get up from a slightly lower launch? … I always wondered why Tiger never really spun the ball off the map on the greens with his approach shots if he was meant to be using a higher spin ball…does this mean he swung his irons differently to his driver?

Yes, Tiger used to use the Nike Platinum ball which had probably the highest spin rate of any ball on Tour at the time. Now he uses the Nike One Tour D which doesn’t spin much.

Generally, if you hit down on the ball, you spin increases more than if you hit up. That’s why hitting up usually equates to longer distance. You will carry it further AND reduce your spin. So it will carry longer and roll further. A friend of mine is a great example of this. I would be willing to bet that he hits up on the ball about +5* or more. And he’s really good at doing it. But, he generates nowhere near the swing speed I do. With an old titanium driver, he hits it about the same distance I do (unless I decide to hit up on one and catch it well). But, with the irons, I am about 2-3 clubs longer than he is. He just doesn’t have the clubhead speed I do.

My guess with Tiger is back in '08, he was hitting too far down with his driver because he was trying to keep the ball in play…sooooo lower trajectory = more control. I don’t think he had an issue with his irons back then, so his attack angle was probably pretty average for the Tour. It’s perfectly fine to hit down on a 6-iron by -4*. But with a driver? IMO, not a good idea with modern day titanium.

I’m guessing the use of the Platinum ball was probably due to keep it in play (won’t roll thru fairways as badly) and what he liked around the green.

I would check out this issue of the Trackman newsletter. Page 11 on Kevin Streelman describes how he went from a -5* attack angle with the driver to a -1* attack angle in about a year and all of the things it affected trackman.dk/download/newslet … etter5.pdf

3JACK

The deal with Tiger and a hi-spin ball goes back a long long time to when he was in college and when he first turned pro. In Feb '97 there was an issue of SI with a graph of every tour players ballspeed and spin rate with the driver and it looked like a misprint. Tiger had the 2nd highest ballspeed and the lowest spin by over 1500 rpm. It was like nothing anyone had ever seen and this was when he was using a Titleist Professional 90. This was also the same time that he was having so much trouble blowing short irons and wedges way over on his approaches. He hadn’t been working all that long with Butch Harmon and was really figuring out a lot on his own on the fly. He was using a bored thru King Cobra steel head with a 43" X200 that in my opinion at least he should still be using. He had a lot of shots with that driver and just oozed confidence with it. He wanted Titleist to make him a higher spinning synthetic cover wound ball but they didn’t, telling him his only other option was the Tour Balata which he never liked the ballooning trajectory of. He made a big stink of it and this was one of the big reasons he eventually left Titleist Staff for Nike. What exactly happened depends on who you talk to but at the end of the day I think it’s pretty safe to say Tiger doesn’t know a whole lot about what makes high quality or functional golf equipment. He signed contracts to play the very best of the best straight out the chute, leather soled Classics, Professional balls, those money Players Gloves, handmade MB iron heads softer than butter with all DG Taper shafts even custom bored thru in the woods which NOBODY ever bothered to do; and he ends up trading every last bit of it in for plastic Nike junk. What a shame.

San Diego Tribune, 2006

In March last year, Sports Illustrated revealed the identity of the least-known member of Team Tiger. He’s “Rock” Ishii, the designer of all of Woods’ Nike golf balls since 2000. Ishii is the man who made a solid-core ball good and long enough to convince Woods to switch to it in 2000. A couple months later, Woods won the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach by 15 shots, and it changed the ball industry as we know it. Titleist soon hustled its Pro V1 into production, and the wound ball all but died on the spot. Ishii claims to have added 28 to 30 yards to Woods’ drives in five years. .

…and judging from last years performance in Tiger’s driving accuracy, the 30 yards was added in width, and not length.

Andy