Arc of Approach
 

Hi everyone,
I'm a newbie here and want to first say thank you, thank you, thank you. This site is the best golf forum on the internet. The obvious reason is it is based on TGM but as important are the friendly members and their posts.

I have (actually I should say attempted) to read and understand Homer's book. And as many others before me, have strugled in understanding all of the contents and nuances.

I do have my first question. Homer states that the Arc of Approach should always be negative (down toward the ball.) He does not differentiate between irons or woods that I saw. Everything I have read however regarding the driver says that the Arc of Approach should be positive, that being, hitting on the up stroke to minimize spin and therefore increase distance.

In the January 2008 issue of Golf Magazine, Charlie King wrote an instructional article titled, "The Easy Way to Add 20 Yards." What caught my eye was a table of data that showed driving distances of varying clubhead speeds and angles of attack with the driver.

What are everyone's feeling regarding this issue?

Thanks,
Wali

Trackman is showing that for extra distance, you need to hit very slightly up on the driver. Attempting to hit up with the driver can be tricky though. My best guess is to just move the ball up further with the driver.



3JACK

Welcome guys. Great question too. Obviously the long drive guys hit up on it to lessen the spin and increase the launch angle. On the other hand Tiger can often be seen to tee a driver kind of low and take it before low point.. Maybe he is not trying to maximize distance here but is hitting a shot of some kind.....probably the "lets just get it in the friggin fairway" shot.

Agreed on how to hit it on the up swing, tee it in front of low point.

This is a good question for our pros. Im thinking it is a special purposes long bomb shot not necessarily an every drive kind of deal but I could be wrong. Certainly the club fitting guys are always trying to get us to tee it high and hit it way up there. I personally dont like that as much as taking it around low point but with a 10.5 degree driver.

ob

2-J-2 is pretty clear......The ball should always be struck prior to the low point of the Downstroke, even when using a Driver,... This statement is what seems to contradict trackman and launch monitor data and seems to be a popular topic.

I've been wondering, is it possible to align the machine such that you can contact the ball just prior to low point but still have the clubhead be travelling "up" relative to the ground? In other words, can the machine be tilted such that the plane line is not horizontal (parallel to the ground) but rather rising in the direction of the target (sort of like a virtual uphill lie). The ball would be launched at a greater launch angle relative to the ground but still adhering to the words from 2-J-2 above. This tilt would not be possible for a ball played off the ground as the club would plow into the ground before the ball, but when teed up, there is some room to drop below the level of the ball.

I don't know if these words make any sense or not, nor do I know if its even geometrically possible. But I would like to table the thought.

3Putt

Swing Down Plane and Hit Up . . . Or Not.
 

Thanks to Homer Kelley, the Geometry of Low Point (2-N-0) has become more and more mainstream. The 'best' instructors -- read 'Top 100' in the popular magazines -- more and more make reference to it. Similarly, the Long Drive Guys benefit from its wisdom, i.e., post-Low Point Impact means less Backspin.

So, is Backspin the bad guy?

No.

Per 2-C-0, Backspin is not Compression Leakage; instead, it is a valuable component of Ball Control.

Years ago, Lee Trevino waxed eloquent on this point. Demonstrating, he arched his left wrist into an Impact condition and leaned the clubshaft forward. Said he:

"Give me a club with loft . . . I'll take it off!"

:mrgreen:

Swinging up and open faced drivers
 

Yoda and others. What do you think of my theory of the connection between trackman and launch monitor data showing more distance swinging up, and the growing demand of open faced drivers?

Interesting point Thom

You got me thinking about hinging and hitting up. Would angled hinging be superior to horizontal for the this? Or perhaps a clubface adjustment to a slightly more open position in fix?

ob

Just another point. Homer wrote his original book in 1969 (40-years ago). Although TGM is based on the laws of physics and circular dynamics, there have been many changes to the equipment. Metal drivers were introduced in the late 70s early 80s I believe. I think the first metal wood win was with a Taylor Made (could be wrong though). Today's exotic metals with unique characteristics are the norm. Every manufacturer has there "spin" on why their design is better but they all have one thing in common. Manufacturers have designed these heads to minimize spin and therefore increase distance. To minimize spin the ball must be hit on the upswing and the contact point (sweet spot) is above the center of the face.

If anyone has been fitted for a driver with a launch monitor, the data speaks for itself. Last year I went to Callaway's performance center here in my home town and was fitted for their FT-5 driver. I took several swings with my existing Big Bertha and was told that I had a negative attack angle and was getting too much backspin on the ball. I said that's the way I have always hit my irons and they said that is what I am supposed to do with irons. However with a driver, the manufacturers want you to have a positive attack angle to decrease spin and increase distance.

Could the new technology of the driver face warrant a different ball position?

Would luv to hear from a club manufacturer on this one.

Wali

Be weary of advice from club manufacturers. Think of irons as down and drivers as level. You are not a long drive guy. On the golf course, straight is long.

Track man and all the advanced science devices are wonderful for fitting as far as finding the optimal club and the optimal swing. What it doesn't consider is that you still have to find your bad ones. It's NOT all science. I'm sticking with Homer Kelley.

Kevin