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.
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Friday, 6 July 2012
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
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
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, 12 January 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)