golfrewind.com

Can you maybe address this issue of getting stuck in another thread? It sounds like the primary reason for my slices. What do you have to do to fix it? That would be really helpful.

Well since no one's answering the question about why it's easier to "getting stuck" with longer clubs I'll take a stab at it. Martini, feel free to clarify. I can benefit from knowing whether my conception of it is correct too.

The reason why it's easier to "get stuck" with longer clubs is because by virtue of the steeper plane shorter clubs are swung on, your arms just move back up instead of around your body on the upswing. So you don't have to clear your body to make room for your arms because of the steeper plane.

Longer club, by virtue of it being longer, will hit the ground behind the ball if it is swung on the same plane as a short iron. So players compensate that by rotating their lower body faster so that when the club finally gets to the ball, it's forward enough to hit the ball instead of the ground behind it.

The problem with this compensation is that now you're swinging from outside-in and cutting across the ball, something which I'm trying to do with short irons without much success.

In response to ringer's tangent...

Not that it's relevant, but a curve ball velocity is about 68 to 78 MPH in MLB. A fastball is about 88 to 102. If a faster curve ball was better, then the big-league hurlers would be gunning them in there a little quicker. The slower speed creates more time for the spin to affect the ball's flight and fools the hitter.

I sent gpickypick a message on getting stuck. He's welcome to share it in a new thread, but I didn't want to start one myself and sound pompous.

I am afraid that is not correct. What you are thinking is distance and time in the air. The longer the time in the air, the longer the spin has to take effect. I guess your confusion is arising because ball speed and distance are, to some extent, related. It may thus appear to you that it is a function of the ball speed but scientifically it is not.

The problem is that you are comparing apples and oranges because of different speeds going different distances. What you need to do is to look at a fixed distance, fixed spin and variable ball speed. In that case, over a distance of (say) 100 yards, the faster the ball travels, the less it will move in the air. In the ultimate extrapolation with the ball at infinite speed, it will not move an inch in the air because it spends zero time traversing that 100 yards and thus no force can be exerted to shift it from straight.

Buns... look up Magnus Effect.

I'm sorry but the Magnus affect does not say that the fast a ball travels through the air the more it will curve.

Everyday observation tells you that side spin becomes more effective when the ball begins to slow down in its path through the air or ground. That's why a most of a curved baseball curves in the last 1/4 of its distance from mound to plate. That's also why a bowling ball does most of its curving in the last quarter of its path.

If the magnus effect does as you say it does, then no hitter would ever be fooled by a curve ball because the ball would be diving straight to the ground the second it comes out of the pitcher's hand.

I'm sorry but the entire aircraft industry is built around the fact that you are wrong. That's why you have to reach a certain speed before the aircraft can lift off the ground.

And FYI, the reason a bowling ball curves at the end of the lane is because it skids on oil for the first 2/3rds of the lane.

Ringer, I think you're confusing the velocity a ball travels through the air and the velocity the ball spins on its axis. The magnus effect predicts that the faster the velocity of the SPIN, the more break the ball will take. It does not say that the faster the ball travels front point A o point B, the more break it will take.

On the subject of airplanes, that's something I know about. Airplane gets lift because the top of the wing is curved so that air passing over the wing has a longer distance to go than air passing underneath the wing. This means that more air passes underneath the wings than over the wings. This creates differential in pressure and creates upward lift.

But I don't see how does applies to a spining golf ball. The wing doesn't spin. You have to explain the principles behind your examples of airplanes and magnus effects because we're not Einsteins.

Sure, I'm happy to discuss it.

I work for the FAA currently, so I have a tad bit of authority on the subject too.

As you pointed out, the wing is curved so that the air passing over the wing has a longer distance to go than the air underneath. That causes a change in pressure which causes lift.

A golf ball is the same, the more resistance it has on the top of the ball, the more it will lift. It doesn't matter if it's because of spin or speed. If you increase either then you are increasing the pressure... and pressure as we both know is what causes the lift.

i hate playin cuts for some reason, i used to cut everything because i didnt release the club, i now have a draw full time and will never go back to cutting the ball, i cant stand swinging across the ball, my misses with my driver sometimes will be pushes but not slices

I was thinking about this post and fooling around at the range and got a consistent cut by rolling the face open and taking the club straighter back than usual...but like Martini said, I am talking a cut of 5-10 yds max, enough to put cut spin when the ball hits the green, and enough to help the ball land softly, but I'm not going around any trees with this shot...

it is very difficult to hit cut shots with short irons because the loft. i just play my normal cut shot but i exaggerate the club face to be more open then usual. its hard to get used to looking down at a clubface that is opened as much as that but you'll get used to it

At the Nationwide Tour tourney this past week, I saw almost nothing but cuts and fades.

I was present for all 4 rounds, 3 in the gallery and 1 round as a scoring volunteer walking with a 3-some of tour pros.

I think I saw probably 5 draws all week. Most of the guys faded everything from driver right down to their wedges. Slight fades, mind you. Nothing started in the left trees and swung back. Everything was a 5 yard fade.

Also, the airplane arguement is funny. No doubt that the ball's spin takes more effect when it's travelling slower. Any physics-minded person with physical common sense would realize that.

That is no use! That is force, not displacement!

I'll try and do this with eqns:

Initially you have:

F = kCl (V(l))^2

Where k is a constant of our system, Cl is lift coefficient and V(l) is the linear velocity. Ok so we have a velocity squared relationship. But:

Cl = k2 V(a)/V(l)

where k2 is another constant, V(a) is angular velocity and V(l) as before. Now bringing together you get:

F = k3 V(l)V(a)

Where k3 is another constant (a product of k and k2).

So again we have proportionality with velocity as you suggest. Now we must convert this into a displacement and that will be done with Newton's help at these non relativistic speeds.

i.e. s = 0.5 a t^2

where s is displacement, a is acceleration resulting from the application of force and t is the time over which that force is applied. So the acceleration, a:

a = F/m = k4 V(l)V(a)

where k4 is yet another constant which you can easily work out for yourself. Now we have:

s = k5 V(l)V(a)t^2

But we are not yet finished. Let us look at t:

t = s(l)/V(l)

Where s(l) is the axial displacement (distinct from the other 's' which is at 90 degrees to this). So applying to the last eqn:

s = k6 V(l)V(a)(s(l)/V(l))^2
= k6 s(l)^2V(a)/V(l)

So in fact the mathematics tell us that the displacement from the axis is inversely a function of linear velocity and therefore the faster the ball speed, the less it will deviate from it's path.