In this case, the wind is blowing left-to-right, and in order for the ball to end up on the green (G), you will have to hit a shot at T (for target). The distance B-T is longer than B-G, so you may have to club up -- it will depend on how strong the wind is. In this case, the cross-wind will actually take a some momentum away from the ball. There is a component of the original momentum that is opposite of the direction of the wind, so they will cancel each other out. Net result, you have to hit a longer shot to end up a shorter distance away.
In this case, since you are aiming at "T" you do need a little more club because you're hitting slightly into the wind.
I see your point, I see my point, I still need closure on this one. I won't be able to sleep.
Martini, if you get how you have to aim at T to land on G, and B-T is longer than B-G. Then, in the same way, if you take the club for the straight-in distance B-G and hit right at G, and end up at OOB, the distance B-OOB is longer than B-G. Just like how you had to hit into the wind when aiming at T, if you aim at G and result at OOB, the shot B to OOB is a little bit with the wind, and that wind makes the shot longer. It is the exact same idea, just reversed. In the first, the wind helps bring the shot back on line and shortens it; in the second, the wind pushed the shot off line and lengthens it.
Martini, if you get how you have to aim at T to land on G, and B-T is longer than B-G. Then, in the same way, if you take the club for the straight-in distance B-G and hit right at G, and end up at OOB, the distance B-OOB is longer than B-G. Just like how you had to hit into the wind when aiming at T, if you aim at G and result at OOB, the shot B to OOB is a little bit with the wind, and that wind makes the shot longer. It is the exact same idea, just reversed. In the first, the wind helps bring the shot back on line and shortens it; in the second, the wind pushed the shot off line and lengthens it.
Okay, I have your idea. So we can assume that in a situation of a perpendicular crosswind, we need more club because we have to aim in the direction that the wind is coming from. Aiming in the direction that the wind is coming from will put us slightly into the wind but the crosswind should bring it on-line if we aimed correctly and started the ball where we aimed.
The only thing that might negate traingulating the point to point distances would be the fact that a ball hit into the wind is effected more than a ball hit downwind. Am I on par with that statement?
Okay, I have your idea. So we can assume that in a situation of a perpendicular crosswind, we need more club because we have to aim in the direction that the wind is coming from. Aiming in the direction that the wind is coming from will put us slightly into the wind but the crosswind should bring it on-line if we aimed correctly and started the ball where we aimed.
The only thing that might negate traingulating the point to point distances would be the fact that a ball hit into the wind is effected more than a ball hit downwind. Am I on par with that statement?
I think what is messing you up is the amount of the wind and how much you have to adjust, if any. A well struck shot with minimal backspin won't be effected by say a 10 mph wind. Above that you may have to compensate which means you would be aiming more towards the direction the wind is coming from therefore hitting slightly into the wind which should reduce the length of carry but if you were to hit it down the middle and let the wind assist it you would carry further than with no wind. This is all assuming the condition of a 90 degree crosswind as the example. We probably don't need to bring in other factors such as a fade compared to a power fade.
I noticed yesterday at the range that even tho i had a wind coming from behind me , it was enough of a crosswind to decrease distance on straight shots. that was odd i thought . then i thought about this thread and wondered if that was explainable??????
I noticed yesterday at the range that even tho i had a wind coming from behind me , it was enough of a crosswind to decrease distance on straight shots. that was odd i thought . then i thought about this thread and wondered if that was explainable??????
A strong wind is not always perfectly predictable. It can contain a lot of swirls and updrafts and downdrafts. I've had tailwinds actually knock a short iron shot down shorter than normal. In a strong wind, sometimes you just have to judge it the best you can, then hope you're right.
I noticed yesterday at the range that even tho i had a wind coming from behind me , it was enough of a crosswind to decrease distance on straight shots. that was odd i thought . then i thought about this thread and wondered if that was explainable??????
The wind in the same direction as the ball would on the one hand help push the ball towards the target. On the other hand it would reduce the upward lift-force on the ball (along the same lines: it is easier to get an aeroplane off the ground in a head-wind, than it is with a tail-wind). It would seem that the latter effect may have been dominant and made your ball drop from the sky prematurely.
If this were true, a well struck shot would not be affected by a 1000 mph wind.
Ahh, the great power of the absolute negative.
Whole lot of difference in 10 mph and 1000 mph. A well struck shot for me doesn't have any side spin therefore it is not effected by minimal winds. Above 10 and you can and probably will get some pushover due to wind. If it blew 1000 then we would not have any course to play on.
The (lame) joke there was about how you said will not be affected, when there will be an effect, though it will be small. QE was trying to point out that it would more technically correct had you said "will be only negligibly affected" or "minimally affected" and then said that the effect is so small that you don't even consider factoring it in when lining up your shot. I understood what you said, and I'm guessing so did QE, but the joke fell like a pallet of bricks.
The (lame) joke there was about how you said will not be affected, when there will be an effect, though it will be small. QE was trying to point out that it would more technically correct had you said "will be only negligibly affected" or "minimally affected" and then said that the effect is so small that you don't even consider factoring it in when lining up your shot. I understood what you said, and I'm guessing so did QE, but the joke fell like a pallet of bricks.
I understood but thought it to be in poor taste. If it is negligibly affected then are we measuring in a finite world? If one hits a ball at the desired target with a 10 mph crosswind and it lands within perhaps a foot or two of the desired line then without using an iron byron we would only speculate if and how much was swing or wind effects cause to being off target by a foot or two. As I stated with a well struck shot I DO NOT see an effect. I have tried to allow for wind drift in the past on similar conditions and only got messed up by the ball traveling to the aimed point.
I understood but thought it to be in poor taste. If it is negligibly affected then are we measuring in a finite world? If one hits a ball at the desired target with a 10 mph crosswind and it lands within perhaps a foot or two of the desired line then without using an iron byron we would only speculate if and how much was swing or wind effects cause to being off target by a foot or two. As I stated with a well struck shot I DO NOT see an effect. I have tried to allow for wind drift in the past on similar conditions and only got messed up by the ball traveling to the aimed point.
There must be a significant effect or the pros wouldn't have to spend 5 minutes throwing grass in the air and talking to their caddies before hitting every shot, even with a slight breeze. Now, if you say it has minimal effect for the average casual amateur player, then we are on the same page.
January 3rd, 2008, 06:50 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
