Question:
However even though this post maybe wrong factually it is not meant to be taken seriously. It was an attempt at humor, which I enjoyed, and often the facts can get in the way of humor.
When you’re dealing with something as temperamental as the golf swing you shouldn’t be offering bad advice for the sake of humor. How many times has your swing been screwed up due to bad advice? Did you get a laugh out of it? Maybe it’s just me, but I rather the facts get in the way of humor. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – However even though this post maybe wrong factually it is not meant to be taken seriously. It was an attempt at humor, which I enjoyed, and often the facts can get in the way of humor. When you’re dealing with something as temperamental as the golf swing you shouldn’t be offering bad advice for the sake of humor. How many times has your swing been screwed up due to bad advice? Did you get a laugh out of it? Maybe it’s just me, but I rather the facts get in the way of humor. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Did you really think that Joseph was offering advice ? He offered two choices: hook/shank or chunk/skull which were clearly NOT desirable results. Even without the 
it should be clear to anyone that he was making a joke. — –dph. (preferred email: dhayes AT iname DOT com) Before you buy.
Response:
David, I have no idea why the FAA has spent nearly 20 years and billions of dollars trying mostly unsuccessfully to upgrade America’s air traffic control system. I have no idea why the IRS was unprepared for the arrival of the year 2000. I have no idea why Bill Clinton chose to share a cigar with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. I’m not arguing "Dr. Mann’s model"; in fact I never mentioned it. But why should "17 years and millions of dollars" carry any weight in an argument?
It must since you couldn’t provide any contradicting information to support your argument. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
Even the Ralph Mann model, which looks terrific, assumes that all players fit a certain body type. The hundred or so players he used to build his composite swing were all professional (or top amateur) golfers. So far as I know, he didn’t use any 5′7" squatty, overweight, middle-aged men like me.
It did include Craig Stadler!! :-) The bottom line is, players must make accomodations for the inherant differences in body shapes, and don’t take generalized statements as more than what they are — generalized statements.
I agree. There are lots of statements made in this NG that are presented as absolutes–few actually are. Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,Texas Home: http://www.geocities.com/~texasp38 P.S. I thought you were going to turn off that e-mail copy of posting
Response:
David, I realize that you know the golf swing better than most people in RSG, or maybe even most people on the planet. However even though this post maybe wrong factually it is not meant to be taken seriously. It was an attempt at humor, which I enjoyed, and often the facts can get in the way of humor. Brendan — Handicap: 11 Ouyen Golf Club Page http://members.xoom.com/ouyengc RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/deanb.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Put the ball farther back in your stance if you want to hook or shank it. Put the ball farther forward if you want to chunk or skull it. Hope this helps. :-) Dr. Mann’s model has shown that most fat shots are caused by playing the ball too far back and that all ball positions should be played within 3 inches if the left heel with a shoulder wide stance. Could you please tell us why his 17 years and millions of dollars in research and the 100+ pros he built the model on is wrong? I don’t won’t your opinion, I want verifiable facts. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
The problem with all such generalizations is that they presume all players have the same body shape. Tiger, who has fairly broad shoulders, may very well find that the appropriate place for him to play the ball is off his heart. Others who have different body shapes may find that their best position is a little forward, or in some cases, a little back of that position. I’ve had this argument before concerning width of stance. Almost all golf instructional materials suggest the insides of the feet should be approximately even with the outside of the shoulders with the driver. For short players like me who have relatively short legs, such a position feels like I’m doing the splits, and makes it next to impossible to clear the hips and fire the right side. Even the Ralph Mann model, which looks terrific, assumes that all players fit a certain body type. The hundred or so players he used to build his composite swing were all professional (or top amateur) golfers. So far as I know, he didn’t use any 5′7" squatty, overweight, middle-aged men like me. Or if he did, the computer spit out the results, saying, "that does not compute." The bottom line is, players must make accomodations for the inherant differences in body shapes, and don’t take generalized statements as more than what they are — generalized statements. Randy website: http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm "You can’t teach an old dog math."
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some in this NG will tell you it is only an illusion that the ball changes position due to the width of the stance, but that is not true. Watch the touring pros live (camera angles deceive) and you will see that the ball position changes in relation to the LEFT foot. Coincidentally I just finished reading an article on Golf Digest’s web site by Butch Harmon which says he has worked a lot with Tiger on ball position. Harmon’s theory is that the ball stays aligned with the heart and that the right foot moves away from the target as the clubs get longer. It would be interesting to see if that’s what Tiger, in fact, does. Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,Texas Home: http://www.geocities.com/~texasp38
Response:
David, I have no idea why the FAA has spent nearly 20 years and billions of dollars trying mostly unsuccessfully to upgrade America’s air traffic control system. I have no idea why the IRS was unprepared for the arrival of the year 2000. I have no idea why Bill Clinton chose to share a cigar with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. I’m not arguing "Dr. Mann’s model"; in fact I never mentioned it. But why should "17 years and millions of dollars" carry any weight in an argument? Hell, there are people who’ve spent that much on their own collections of porn. -joseph – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Put the ball farther back in your stance if you want to hook or shank it. Put the ball farther forward if you want to chunk or skull it. Hope this helps. :-) Dr. Mann’s model has shown that most fat shots are caused by playing the ball too far back and that all ball positions should be played within 3 inches if the left heel with a shoulder wide stance. Could you please tell us why his 17 years and millions of dollars in research and the 100+ pros he built the model on is wrong? I don’t won’t your opinion, I want verifiable facts.
Response:
Put the ball farther back in your stance if you want to hook or shank it. Put the ball farther forward if you want to chunk or skull it. Hope this helps. :-)
Dr. Mann’s model has shown that most fat shots are caused by playing the ball too far back and that all ball positions should be played within 3 inches if the left heel with a shoulder wide stance. Could you please tell us why his 17 years and millions of dollars in research and the 100+ pros he built the model on is wrong? I don’t won’t your opinion, I want verifiable facts. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
That still leaves questions: Why do long irons need to be swept off the turf while short irons and wedges need a descending blow? I imagine that the reason for having several types of irons is so that a player can use the same technique for every shot, while letting the differences between the irons vary the results.
The longer shaft makes the swing shallower. Also, the steeper the approach to the ball, the more delofted the clubface, in general. The greater backspin from a steeper approach can’t make up for the loss of loft with a long iron, and the result is that if you try to "hit down" on long irons you usually wind up hitting cruise missiles. Fine if you’re playing on a hard, flat, windy course, but not so fine otherwise. So the answer to hitting long irons high and soft is to put them in the middle or slightly ahead of middle of your stance and pick them clean. Clubhead speed will provide enough backspin if you get clean contact. -joseph
Response:
Put the ball farther back in your stance if you want to hook or shank it. Put the ball farther forward if you want to chunk or skull it. Hope this helps. :-) -joseph – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
Response:
That still leaves questions: Why do long irons need to be swept off the turf while short irons and wedges need a descending blow? I imagine that the reason for having several types of irons is so that a player can use the same technique for every shot, while letting the differences between the irons vary the results.
It’s not so much a question of one club "needing" a different angle of trajectory. It simply happens. Long irons *are* longer clubs (the shaft is longer), therefore, they simply are designed assuming a more shallow approach than clubs with shorter shafts. It’s a matter of geometry — if the two clubs were attached to a pendulum, the longer club would naturally swing on a wider arc, and would therefore approach the ball on a shallower angle. The opposite, of course, is true on shorter clubs — narrower arc means a steeper angle of approach into the ball. You swing them both the same. The angle of approach is dictated by the length of the club itself. Since, as Jack Nicklaus said in his video, "Golf My Way," "The game is played with 14 clubs; fortunately you only need to learn one swing." Assuming the same swing with all clubs (except the putter), the longer irons will naturally approach the ball on a shallower path than the short irons will. Randy
Response:
Some in this NG will tell you it is only an illusion that the ball changes position due to the width of the stance, but that is not true. Watch the touring pros live (camera angles deceive) and you will see that the ball position changes in relation to the LEFT foot.
Coincidentally I just finished reading an article on Golf Digest’s web site by Butch Harmon which says he has worked a lot with Tiger on ball position. Harmon’s theory is that the ball stays aligned with the heart and that the right foot moves away from the target as the clubs get longer. It would be interesting to see if that’s what Tiger, in fact, does. Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,Texas Home: http://www.geocities.com/~texasp38
Response:
Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs?
Because the clubs take longer to square up due to their length. I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
Yes and no. The lowest point of the arc never changes, it’s always the same, beneath the left shoulder. As long as the club is swung with a straight left arm the left shoulder will always be the clubs center of rotation (the spine and head is the center of rotation for the pivot as a whole). It’s the same principle as swinging a weight on a string held by your fingers with a pendulum motion. The lowest point of the arc will always be beneath your fingers. Saying that shortening the string (shaft) will move the low point behind your fingers is ludicrous and defies all laws of physics known the man. Many golfers are under the misconception that moving the ball back is what causes you to hit down on it. While this is somewhat true, the shorter shaft swinging on a steeper plane will increase the angle of attack nullifying any reason to play the ball back to hit down on it. Ball position does change from driver to wedge, but very little, and this is because the shorter clubs tend to square up sooner than the longer clubs due to their length. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
That still leaves questions: Why do long irons need to be swept off the turf while short irons and wedges need a descending blow? I imagine that the reason for having several types of irons is so that a player can use the same technique for every shot, while letting the differences between the irons vary the results.
I believe this sweeping vs. hitting down thing is inherent in the clubs themselves. The shorter the shaft the steeper the plane resulting in a descending blow. The longer the club the more shallow the plane and more sweeping the angle of attack. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
Some in this NG will tell you it is only an illusion that the ball changes position due to the width of the stance, but that is not true. Watch the touring pros live (camera angles deceive) and you will see that the ball position changes in relation to the LEFT foot.
This is a fact that I acknowledged in my post. However, it’s also fair to say that there are two schools of thought. Some players move the ball farther from their left foot on the shorter clubs; others don’t. One other thing that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread (or if it has, I’ve missed it) is that players will move the ball back in their stance (or, in some cases, forward) in order to hit certain types of shots. Moving the ball back effectively delofts the club, so you can hit it lower. Players like Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods (and others) will move the ball well forward in their stance to hit that full swing flop shot around the greens. Randy
Response:
Good point, I don’t know if I can explain it really. The long clubs are designed for distance, this means you want less backspin. Less loft helps this to happen but hitting the ball with a flat rather than descending blow helps too. Driver is the main example of this as the tee allows it to be hit on the upswing minimizing backswing even more. The shorter clubs are designed for accuracy, backspin limits the effect of sidespin so the loft and descending blow help accuracy. Also the backspin increases green holding ability. Brendan — Handicap: 11 Ouyen Golf Club Page http://members.xoom.com/ouyengc RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/deanb.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That still leaves questions: Why do long irons need to be swept off the turf while short irons and wedges need a descending blow? I imagine that the reason for having several types of irons is so that a player can use the same technique for every shot, while letting the differences between the irons vary the results. Long Irons you want to sweep off the turf so they are positioned at the bottom of the swing, short irons and wedges need a descending blow so they are moved back and are swung while the club is moving down, hence the big divot in front of a wedge and none, or a very small one for woods and long irons. Brendan — Handicap: 11 Ouyen Golf Club Page http://members.xoom.com/ouyengc RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/deanb.htm Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
Response:
The optical illusion bit makes good sense !! Regardz
Response:
Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
The lowest point of the swing is left of center in a proper swing. How far left of center is a result of weight shift. There is less weight shift in the downswing with the shorter irons as a result of a shorter backswing, thus the lowest point in the swing arc will be further right than with a 3-wood. Logically, the ball position must change, albeit minimally, with the length of the club to accomodate this subtle change. Normally, the position of the ball will change only a couple of inches in relation to the left foot from the driver to the wedges. BTW, I am not suggesting one TRIES to shift the weight more with the longer clubs or less with the short irons, rather it is a result. Some in this NG will tell you it is only an illusion that the ball changes position due to the width of the stance, but that is not true. Watch the touring pros live (camera angles deceive) and you will see that the ball position changes in relation to the LEFT foot.
Response:
Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
is the back leg that moves backwards as the longer clubs are bought into play…this is just a different way of saying the same thing I guess. I have a basic problem..probably psychological…..I simply cannot play my longer clubs unless the ball is well forward in my stance. I know some better players will adjust the position of the ball in the stance according to the type of shot they wish to play (draw/fade/high/low etc)….I achieve these shots by adjusting the open/closed situation with the clubhead, combined with adjusting the distance I hold my hands from my body as I hit ‘thru’ the ball. (for a draw…a closed clubface, hit thru’ very close to the body…….for a fade vice versa). I imagine that there are a number of different ways to control the ball flight (draw/fade) at will….it would be interesting to know of different approaches to this. David
Response:
That still leaves questions: Why do long irons need to be swept off the turf while short irons and wedges need a descending blow? I imagine that the reason for having several types of irons is so that a player can use the same technique for every shot, while letting the differences between the irons vary the results. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Long Irons you want to sweep off the turf so they are positioned at the bottom of the swing, short irons and wedges need a descending blow so they are moved back and are swung while the club is moving down, hence the big divot in front of a wedge and none, or a very small one for woods and long irons. Brendan — Handicap: 11 Ouyen Golf Club Page http://members.xoom.com/ouyengc RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/deanb.htm Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
Response:
As added info to other responses… the ball position adjustment is only a couple of inches total, from driver to wedge, for FULL swings. But basically, for the average golfer, if they just positioned the ball in-line with your heart, for all clubs, you’d be correct and much better off than placing them too far back. Mark Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
Before you buy.
Response:
The lowest point of the swing might be near the center of the stance if not for the fact that a player’s weight *should* shift forward in the throughswing, which shifts the lowest point of the swing arc forward somewhat. Depending on how much you shift your weight forward, the proper placement of the ball will be somewhere near the left heel, or slightly inside it (assuming you’re right-handed). I tend to agree with you that the lowest point will be about the same with all clubs, and therefore the placement of the ball relative to the left foot should be about the same with all clubs. However, there’s an optical illusion created by the varying widths of a player’s stance. When you take a fully wide stance (like with a driver), the ball will appear to be more forward in the stance. Then, with a narrow stance (like with a wedge), the ball will appear to be more toward the middle of the stance. In fact, the ball is played off the left heel in both instances, but with the right foot brought in closer to the left on a narrower stance, it will appear as though the ball is played farther back in the stance. That’s not true, it just looks that way. Having said that, there are players who find it quite appropriate to play the ball farther back in their stance with shorter irons. It’s a matter of preference, and how you were taught. Randy website: http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm "You can’t teach an old dog math."
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
Response:
THe "bottom of your swing" would be in the middle of your stance if you kept your body motionless and swung only with your arms. The steepness of the arc of the downswing alters the position of the bottom of the swing a little. Short clubs have a shorter (they actually are physically shorter) steeper arc. Longer clubs have a longer, shallower arc. Throw in weight transfer as a variable and for some reason that someone like David could probably explain better to the 6 other people in the world who REALLY understand the concepts outlined in the Golfing Machine the position of the bottom of your swing moves forward a little as the club gets longer. As someone trained in science I can appreciate that the reason changes in ball position are made is because that is what the very best players do, and thus it is probably somehow optimal, with all the explanations being potshot rationalizations. Bottom line, you do it BECAUSE IT WORKS!!!! Rob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
Response:
Long Irons you want to sweep off the turf so they are positioned at the bottom of the swing, short irons and wedges need a descending blow so they are moved back and are swung while the club is moving down, hence the big divot in front of a wedge and none, or a very small one for woods and long irons. Brendan — Handicap: 11 Ouyen Golf Club Page http://members.xoom.com/ouyengc RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/deanb.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?
Response:
Other than for teed shots, why does the ball position have to be moved forward for the longer clubs? I imagine that the lowest point of the swing is the same no matter what the length of the club, and isn’t this lowest point at the center of the stance?