Golf clubs are even more adjustable than advertised.

I can understand why club manufacturers haven't advertised this fact, but there's actually even more adjustability built into most modern drivers than they claim. However, you also have to be more careful that you don't adjust the wrong things.

Now, I have some other thoughts on what actually happens when the COG of a club is moved around inside the head, but that's for another blog. This one is simply about the drivers and fairway woods built with an adjustable COG system to alter the club's effective loft and face angle.  The examples I have below are of Callaway's Razr Fit 3 wood (2012), but the 2014 Big Berthas have a double cog, which offers even more variations than my examples will.

Instead of just 3 different settings in this 3 wood, there are actually 9:
Square/Neutral & Alignment #1 (pic)
Square/Neutral & Alignment #2 (pic)
Square/Neutral & Alignment #3 (pic)
*Open/-Loft & Alignment #1
*Open/-Loft & Alignment #2
*Open/-Loft & Alignment #3 (pic)
*Closed/+Loft & Alignment #1
*Closed/+Loft & Alignment #2 (pic)
*Closed/+Loft & Alignment #3

*Please note that, with these types of single-cog adjustable drivers, opening the face angle also effectively delofts the club, just as closing the face angle will effectively add loft to the club. 

These first 3 images show the same face angle settings in each, but with 3 different ways that the shaft fits into the cog.

Change in a shaft's alignment may result in a (slightly) different flex pattern. Even though the quality control of graphite shafts is much better than it ever has been before, there are still slight variations in most shafts' flex profiles when you rotate it around its longitudinal axis.

It stands to reason that one of the shaft alignments might fit you better than another (again, only fine-tuning the fit of the shaft, not necessarily changing its performance drastically).

Essentially, it allows either 1) a golfer to adjust their face angle and loft while keeping the shaft alignment the same, or 2) a golfer to adjust their shaft alignment while keeping the face angle and loft the same.

If you ever fiddle around with this on the range, you may or may not notice any difference.  However, hopefully this blog will help you make sure that you only adjust what you are intending to adjust.  

All that being said, my philosophy is to stick with the settings that fit you best all the time, and not to tinker too much or to try to adjust your club based on playing conditions.  I think it was Ron Popeil who said, "Set it, and forget it!"

Thanks for looking!

-MS

What determines how impact will look?

When in problem-solving mode, I like to think that a logical approach is to look at the origin, and work outwards using levels of causation. As golf instructors, we problem-solve every time we give a lesson.

I like to consider ball flight as the origin of a golf shot's problem solving. Well, the only things that "cause" a particular golf shot (excluding post-impact factors such as wind, elevation, etc. and factors individual to the tools used such as clubhead and/or ball design) are the things that make up the ball flight model; D-Plane alignments (3D Face Angle and 3D Club Path), Impact location (where, on the face, the golf club hit the ball), and small considerations for Face rotation through the impact interval (this one's theoretical minutia; interesting, but not worth considering). In other words, the only thing that the golf ball cares about is what the club did to it at impact.

So, the next step outwards in this causation chain (in my opinion), is: what causes the club to move the way it does (and thus deliver it into impact in a particular fashion)? I'd recommend reading up on Dr. Steven Nesbit's work around the golf swing. Most of his stuff is available free of charge at the Journal of Sports Science & Medicine site (www.jssm.org). His work deals with the forces and torques that must be present in a golf swing in order to make the club work the way it does. In other words, the only thing that the golf club cares about is what forces and torques were applied to it in order to make it move in the manner it did.

I'd break it down into the: 1) type of force/torque, 2) the timing of the force/torque, 3) the direction of the force/torque, and 4) the magnitude of the force/torque.

In trying to explain these forces and torques that a golfer can apply to the club, I like to say that anything you can do to a golf club can be described as either: pulling, pushing, or twisting. The pulling force refers to moving the grip of the club in the direction that the grip's butt is pointed. The pushing torque would generally refer to the "releasing" of the club head in relation to the grip (think: the grip stays in the same spot, but the clubhead is orbiting around it). The twisting torque would refer to a screwdriver-like motion with the hands/forearms, causing the club head's sweetspot to rotate around the club shaft's longitudinal axis. I feel that anything one can do to a golf club can be described by combining these actions.

Here's my thesis:
Swing positions only matter to serve the application of these torques and forces, but are not important outside of that. In other words, a golfer's swing positions would be at least 3rd in the "chain of causation" of a golf shot, after their impact alignments and force/torque profiles.

In trying to attempt to "improve" a student's swing, I feel that being overly concerned with positions can be dangerous, in the event that you remove the ability to apply the torques and forces in an optimal manner. In other words, a teacher may be able to have a student achieve a "better" position at the top, for example, but the only way it will actually help the student is if they are able to translate that position into a different pattern of more optimal forces/torques.

Here's one benefit to this approach - some golfers may be able to relate more easily, since these forces/torques are "feels" anyways, not positions that they cannot see with any repeatable accuracy.

Now, this approach may not change much of what some teachers say/do to their students, but it may help in the diagnostic process.

Just my opinion...

References:
Dr. Steven Nesbit
Brian Manzella (PGA) www.brianmanzella.com
Michael Jacobs (PGA) www.xgolfschool.com

2012 Ryder Cup Musings

10 thoughts (no particular order) on the final day of the 2012 Ryder Cup:

- The way that Jim Furyk tried to use his putter to line himself up on his crucial putt on #18 - I've only seen that done by higher handicaps (no disrespect intended).  Tough year for that guy, "losing" the Ryder Cup, US Open, and a World Golf Championship.

- Lee Westwood came across as relatively useless for the first two days, but came up huge on Sunday, and must feel vindicated.  Highly criticized for his putting the last few years, he made some big ones in his singles match.

- On Martin Kaymer's putt to retain the cup - nice read.  On TV, it broke to the right side of the screen as it rolled past the hole, but broke to the left side of the screen (even if only slightly) back up the hill, on its way to the bottom of the cup.  It would have been easy to misread that after watching it pass the hole.

- I don't think Captain Love (awesome name, btw) can really be criticized by not playing Mickelson/Bradley in all 4 paired matches.  This competition was lost on Sunday; any Ryder Cup Captain would have been quite happy with a 4 point lead with only the singles to go.

- Ian Poulter deserves all the accolades he's getting; the timing of his hot streak on Saturday afternoon couldn't have come at a better time.

- On what appeared to be one of the easier course setups in modern Ryder Cup history, Tiger Woods only managed to hole ONE birdie putt in his singles match (on a par 5, to halve Francesco Molinari).
(I'll never know why he felt like changing his short game and putting along with his most recent swing change.  Even the most dominating player ever has us scratching our heads sometimes, I guess.)
Interesting follow up by Davis Love III in the closing interviews, figuring that Tiger might have been leading had it been a stroke play event.

- Rory McIlroy: like this day needed more story lines, but the kid shows up 11 minutes before his tee time, shoots 65 and beats the match's strongest performer on the other team in Keegan Bradley.  #1 player in the world.

- Both Phil Mickelson (applauded Rose's late heroics) and Justin Rose (restrained celebration on #18 green) carried themselves with a lot of class in the final few holes of their match.

- Jose Maria Olazabal was classy in his acceptance speech; this must have meant a lot to him in honouring Seve Ballesteros.

- I don't think people should question Tiger conceding the final putt.  Finishing 14-14 shouldn't mean more than 14.5-13.5 to the team needing the win.  The tiebreaker is a perk of winning the previous Ryder Cup, and I hope that doesn't change.  I like that it's different than the President's Cup in this regard.

Is Shaft Fitting an Inexact Science?

Is Golf Club Shaft Fitting an Inexact Science?

In 2012, given that the golf industry's shaft manufacturers' tolerances are as good as they have ever been, combined with the ability to measure so much of what the golf club and ball actually do leading up to, during, and after impact, predicting which shafts should best fit individuals should be as easy as ever. However, my opinion is that, while certain features of a shaft (weight, flex, torque, kick point/flex profile, etc.) may tend towards certain ball flight effects, the actual results an individual golfer will experience is very subject dependent, and will .

Even in robot testing, I would guess that different golf-ball-hitting robots (Pingman vs. Iron Byron, for example) would experience different resulting ball flights due to the individual loading patterns of those machines. Furthermore, while the robot itself will perform the same motions each time, regardless of the shaft it is swinging, a human golfer will unavoidably swing differently as shaft characteristics change, making it even more difficult to predict resulting ball flights.

I have seen (launch monitor verified) golfers: swing heavier shafts faster, hit higher kick point shafts on a higher launch, hit lower torque shafts more left (RH golfer), and other feats contrary to the common rules-of-thumb in shaft fitting.  Though they are more rare, these instances suggest that, since the resulting ball flight is ultimately what we're looking at, you might want to try some different flexes (softer and firmer) and weights (heavier and lighter) and see what combination gives you the most consistent launch.

While the fitting process will, no doubt, continue to evolve and improve as player profiling advances, I still think that it is tough to accurately predict the changes in a players ball flight, just based on the different characteristics of the shaft.  You'll have to see it to believe it.

The best avenue for shaft fittings is to try different varieties, with the help of a machine that can accurately measure (at least) ball speed and spin.

Just some of my opinions...

Mark
@StrongerGolf

A Golf Shot in detail...

Hello all,

I thought it might be helpful for some people to post up a swing, along with the numbers taken from a launch monitor, and add some diagrams of the 3D shot components.

The 240fps Video Clip is myself hitting a driver one morning in March 2012 at the Vancouver Golf Club's driving range, when snow flurries (visible in the background) discouraged one of my students from showing up, I tried to make use of the extra time.  While it seems important to include video to give everybody a complete picture, I'd like to point out how difficult (impossible) it is to obtain the shot's specs (Plane, Path, Face, D-Plane, and Launch numbers) by visual-only confirmation.  You'd need doppler radar based machines to have an accurate idea.

Here is the ball flight and swing numbers from a Flightscope Screenshot (yes, video and screenshots were from the exact same swing.

Vertical Plane:   47.8°
Horizontal Plane:   4.6°L

Vertical Path/Angle of Attack:   +1.0°
Horizontal Path/Club Path:   5.5°L

Vertical Face/Dynamic Loft:   9.3°
Horizontal Face/ Face Angle:   3.8°L

3D Spin Loft:   8.7°
Spin Axis:   5.5°R

Vertical Launch:   10.6°
Horizontal Launch:   3.5°L

Club Head Speed:    106.2 mph (cut me some slack, it was cold out...)
Ball Speed:    153.5 mph
Smash Factor:    1.45
Spin Rate:    2890 rpm

Here are some still images from my 3D Modelling of this particular shot:

Down The Line view:

Face On view:

Overhead view:

I'll start by pointing out some of the expected relationships between some of these numbers.  Even though my swing's Plane is aligned 4.6° left of the target line, since I'm hitting slightly up on the ball (+1.0°), my club's Path is slightly more left, arriving at 5.5°L.  My natural tendency is to hit down with the driver, but this shot was a conscious attempt to hit up more.

So, there are definitely some things to point out here.

First off, the Launch and Spin Axis of the golf ball do not match perfectly with the D-Plane model (They rarely do, actually, as almost all golf shots experience some amounts of gear effect).  The Expected Spin Axis (assuming centre contact) created by this shot's D-Plane components would have been ~11.5°, instead of the Actual Spin Axis at 5.5°  This suggests that the shot was hit slightly towards the toe (causing the spin axis to tilt more left).  If I'd hit the sweet spot, maybe this shot would have faded all the way back to target...

We also see the Horizontal Launch of the ball as being further right than the Expected Horizontal Launch, which can again be explained by the toe hit (Check out this blog on off-centre contact for related information: The Effects of Miss Hits).

We see a very similar effect in the Face-On view; the Vertical Launch of the ball is actually higher than the Dynamic Loft.  This suggests that the contact was high on the face, which will also normally lower the Spin Rate.  While I'm not sure exactly what Spin Rate should be expected from these specs, I do know that my average Spin Rate is depressingly higher than this shot was.

Now, since this shot has a fairly low Spin Loft, we would expect the initial Launch of the ball to more closely match the club's Face at impact, but have actually launched outside of the D-Plane due to the off-centre contact.  Combining the D-Plane's with knowledge of the effects of off-centre contact can fully explain ANY golf shot.

Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this, or any other, post.  Thanks for reading!

- Mark

For more information and better explanations on related topics, check out The Complete D-Plane, an educational video by John Graham (JohnGrahamGolf.com & @JohnGrahamGolf) and myself due to be released on April 3rd, 2012.  Follow myself (@StrongerGolf) or John for full details on the release.

Practicing Golf Properly: Block vs. Random Practice

Do you make the most out of your practice sessions?  Probably not.

First, a couple of quick definitions:
Block Practice - repeating the same motion over and over, perhaps with aids in place to help you be as similar as possible with each rep.
Random Practice - no repetition, each shot is different (either target, club, or ball flight) than the last.

When most people practice, they:
Go to a stall, put down their clubs, and start hitting shots with their wedges (warming up with the shorter shots), and then gradually work their way up the bag to the Driver (and then often spending a lot of time with that club).  They might aim at stuff (they might not).  These days, they might even use an alignment aid of some kind (they might not).  They'll probably leave with some kind of an overall sense of how well they think they hit the ball at the range that day.  Also, for a lot of people, the only time they'll be at the range is right before they are about to tee off.

Well, whether you only make it to the driving range before you play (not ideal, but sometimes people are too busy to practice) or are a regular at your local facility, you should always be trying to make the most of your time.

By combining the Block and Random practice styles, we can start to make better use of our time.

If you are working on something specific (hopefully a tip customized to you by your local PGA professional, and not just the next quick-fix in a long line of trial-and-errors), you can start by working on that after you've warmed up. This is the start of your Block Practice. You may be using alignment aids, checking your setup extra carefully, reminding yourself of that grip change, etc. This is where you are using repetition to make something more familiar. That's all. It shouldn't even make up half of your total practice session (time-wise or shot-wise).

Once we've become a little more familiar with that skill we just worked on, we need to apply it. This is where Random Practice comes into play: removing the repetitive structure of practice and introducing variety. Each and every shot will be a brand new one, requiring your full pre-shot routine for each and every one. Do not hit the same club at the same target more than once, change with each ball.

Some players find it easiest to "play" their regular course (ie. hit their driver as they would on the 1st tee, and go from there), which gives them a chance to react to react to the outcome of the last shot in order to decide which club to hit next (ie. depending on how well you hit your drive, you may have a shorter or longer club for your next).

This kind of practice is much closer to the on-course game of golf than hitting the same 7 iron over and over. The more your practice resembles they way you play on-course, the stronger the bridge between the skills you build on the range and using them in a game situation.

-Mark
@StrongerGolf

Spin Loft: Part II - Spin Rate and the Spin Axis

While the Spin Loft of a shot is important, our interest usually lies in how it changes what the ball will do. This post will focus on the spin of the ball for standard, full shots (there are additional factors when talking about shorter, green side shots); which way the ball will spin and how quickly.

As with a lot of my posts, checking out this page of definitions might help with some of the technical terms used.

If you haven't already, you'l probably want to read Spin Loft: Part I - Smash Factor and Ball Speed, as it defines Spin Loft and has some other helpful in there.

A golf shot's Spin Rate is a function of Spin Loft, Clubhead Speed, and contact location. More Spin Loft will result in more spin, as will more Clubhead speed. Less Spin Loft will result in a lower Spin Rate, as will slower Clubhead Speeds. [For complete info on contact location, please refer to my blog post on miss hits.]

These two shots would have identical Spin Rates, all else being equal (assuming no Horizontal Differential):
1) VPath (Angle of Attack): -3.0°, VFace (Dynamic Loft): +9.0°, Spin Loft = 12.0°.
2) Vertical Path: 1.0°, Vertical Face: 13.0°, Spin Loft = 12.0°.
The golf ball doesn't know if it was hit down on or up on, it just knows that it was hit with a 12.0° glancing blow.

So, while changing your Angle of Attack may affect your Spin Rate, it won't if the Dynamic Loft changes by the same amount, since you'd end up with the same Spin Loft (although it would result in a higher launch, since both the Face and Path are more upwards). This means that just hitting more up with your driver will only help you reduce your Spin Rate if you can prevent the Vertical Face (Dynamic Loft) from increasing at the same time.

In simplest terms: the closer the 3D Face and 3D Path are to each other, the lower the Spin Rate will be (also, the higher the Smash Factor and Ball Speed).

Now, the Spin Axis tells us how tilted the D-Plane was, and how sideways the ball will be spinning.  A perfectly straight shot, with no sidespin, is spinning perfectly backwards, around a perfectly horizontal Spin Axis (0.0°).  A theoretical shot with a perfectly vertical, 90.0° Spin Axis (either Left or Right) would be spinning straight sideways.

The Spin Axis will tilt any time the Horizontal Path and Face are not going in the same horizontal direction.  How much it tilts depends on the Horizontal and Vertical Differentials.

Two different golf shots could have identical Horizontal Path and Face numbers, but experience very different Spin Axis numbers, depending on the difference between the vertical components (Vertical Differential).  Shots with very high Vertical Differentials (like wedge shots) stretch the D-Plane upwards resulting in flatter, less tilted Spin Axis numbers than low Vertical Differential shots (like drivers), which will tilt much more.

For example: two shots could share the same Horizontal Differential (difference between path and face, as if viewed from overhead), let's say 3.5°.  The lower Spin Lofted shot (say, with a VDiff of just 5.5°) will experience a tilting of its Spin Axis of 32.7°!  This would not be a useful golf shot at all.  However, the same Horizontal components could result in a Spin Axis tilt of only 6.6° (slight curvature) if its' VDiff was much higher (31.5°).  This sounds like a lot of specific numbers, but it explains why drivers spin sideways way more than wedges.

This is the trade-off between distance and accuracy; lower spin lofted shots will tend to carry further due to higher ball speeds and lower spin rates, but the same shot will tend to spin sideways more if the Path and Face get out of line much.  Given this information, one might decide to try and hit shots with lower Spin Lofts on open driving holes where distance is a priority and hit shots with higher Spin Lofts on holes where you'd want more control.  In fact, Bubba Watson (admittedly, one of the more creative players on Tour) has been measured varying his Vertical Path between -7.5° and +5.0° during competition (Trackman Newsletter #2, Pg. 12), suggesting that he employs this kind of strategy (whether he knows it or not).

So, in summary, a golf ball's spin (amount and direction) is largely controlled by its Spin Loft, which is simply the difference between the Face and Path.

-Mark
@StrongerGolf