Run Away

[BrianW]

Re: Run Away

The club approaches the ball from above and from the inside. Before it hits the bottom of the arc, it impacts the ball and the path is still moving slightly outward, to the right of the target. According to the "new" method, this shot would start at the target and draw left of the target. In reality, the face returns a tad open at impact and we one hop it in the hole. Put me down for 2, please. .

The ball pays no attention to the 'Target' it only respects what happens at impact. Lets forget 'New Laws' and only consider what physics tell us regarding how the club/ball ballistics affect ball flight. If the clubface impacts the ball open then the ball will take off in the direction of the clubface, if the swingpath moves right of the clubface vector then impact will tilt the axis of rotation upwards to the right such that the ball will turn towards the left. The greater this varience the larger the sidespin.

If 'Jack' or anyone else disagrees with this then with due respect they are misinformed. What many golfers (and world class golfers at that) say and actually do are not always the same thing. What will help golfers is for them to understand clearly how clubface and swingpath affect ball flight, conventional teachings have been wrong here and the original video I showed typifies this misinformation.

Just grab a club and some balls and try it, never mind what Jack, I or anyone says, just try it and see the results.

[keiko]

Re: Run Away

Try what?
Your theory may have a basis in fact, but I fail to see how learning d plane benefits a player. I am old school and I admit it but not knowing anything about d plane has not affected my play and I can spot a swing problem and provide a fix in a second.
I will just keep plowing along blindly as in my case ignorance is bliss.

The ball pays no attention to the 'Target' it only respects what happens at impact. Lets forget 'New Laws' and only consider what physics tell us regarding how the club/ball ballistics affect ball flight. If the clubface impacts the ball open then the ball will take off in the direction of the clubface, if the swingpath moves right of the clubface vector then impact will tilt the axis of rotation upwards to the right such that the ball will turn towards the left. The greater this varience the larger the sidespin.

If 'Jack' or anyone else disagrees with this then with due respect they are misinformed. What many golfers (and world class golfers at that) say and actually do are not always the same thing. What will help golfers is for them to understand clearly how clubface and swingpath affect ball flight, conventional teachings have been wrong here and the original video I showed typifies this misinformation.

Just grab a club and some balls and try it, never mind what Jack, I or anyone says, just try it and see the results.

[BrianW]

Re: Run Away

Try what?
Your theory may have a basis in fact, but I fail to see how learning d plane benefits a player. I am old school and I admit it but not knowing anything about d plane has not affected my play and I can spot a swing problem and provide a fix in a second.
I will just keep plowing along blindly as in my case ignorance is bliss.

Try What? Try hitting some balls and adjusting the clubface and swing plane, I thought I had made that clear. Look, you are a 2 HC golfer I can see that you may not need to learn anything else about the golf swing, as I said previously the average guy that comes here is looking to learn somthing to improve their golf and I am trying hard to help them. Most golfers slice the ball 'MOST GOLFERS' and if they can understand why they are doing it and what they need to change to stop it then this information will be valuable to them. If you dont need it then thats great, just leave it.


You have created posts that explain how to hit out of sand and how to hit the ball longer etc, I have not replied by saying 'I can already get out of sand and hit the ball far so why are you saying this' I dont because I know your advice was probably not meant for me but for high handicappers learning to improve.

Can you see my point?

[kbp]

Re: Run Away

"Target" is just a frame of reference for discussion. So touchy....

I agree with the so-called "new" ball flight laws, that is, the physics of ball flight relative to path and face. Many people have known this for years. Face angle trumps for initial direction and curve is the result of path deviation from face angle.
Where we disagree is that "old" methods of SETTING UP to achieve a particular IMPACT that have successfully produced a particular ball flight will STILL PRODUCE that ball flight. How could they not? The physics hasn’t changed.

Again, if Jack Nicklaus goes to the Par 3 tournament at Augusta tomorrow, sets his face square to the flag stick and sets his stance left of the flag stick, like he has for the last 60 years, and hits a fade to two feet, over and over again, HIS METHOD WORKS FOR HIM. Did the ball flight violate physics? No. How could it? It can’t. Did his clubface at impact match his clubface at address? Obviously not, based on the result. Did his path precisely match his stance? Obviously not, based on the result. The ball flew based on how he impacted it, not how he addressed it. His METHOD produced the desired ball flight.

Trying to precisely match address to impact in speciality shots may require more deviations and compensations during the swing versus just allowing for the fact that address and impact have a different relationship when you change the balance of the club by changing the face angle. Some things in the setup may need to be exagerated and others applied more subtley. A "method" recognizing not only the ball flight laws, but also the tendencies of the club when you hold it differently.

[BrianW]

Re: Run Away

"Target" is just a frame of reference for discussion. So touchy....

I agree with the so-called "new" ball flight laws, that is, the physics of ball flight relative to path and face. Many people have known this for years. Face angle trumps for initial direction and curve is the result of path deviation from face angle.
Where we disagree is that "old" methods of SETTING UP to achieve a particular IMPACT that have successfully produced a particular ball flight will STILL PRODUCE that ball flight. How could they not? The physics hasn’t changed.

Again, if Jack Nicklaus goes to the Par 3 tournament at Augusta tomorrow, sets his face square to the flag stick and sets his stance left of the flag stick, like he has for the last 60 years, and hits a fade to two feet, over and over again, HIS METHOD WORKS FOR HIM. Did the ball flight violate physics? No. How could it? It can’t. Did his clubface at impact match his clubface at address? Obviously not, based on the result. Did his path precisely match his stance? Obviously not, based on the result. The ball flew based on how he impacted it, not how he addressed it. His METHOD produced the desired ball flight.

Trying to precisely match address to impact in speciality shots may require more deviations and compensations during the swing versus just allowing for the fact that address and impact have a different relationship when you change the balance of the club by changing the face angle. Some things in the setup may need to be exagerated and others applied more subtley. A "method" recognizing not only the ball flight laws, but also the tendencies of the club when you hold it differently.

I am not aware of suggesting that setup changed the relationship of clubface and swingpath? Jack created a fade as you suggested by swinging the path left of his clubface, I agree with that. What I dont agree with is that he said in his book that it was the swingpath that decided the balls initial direction and the clubface direction decided the balls curvature.

[LowPost42]

Re: Run Away

"Target" is just a frame of reference for discussion. So touchy....

I agree with the so-called "new" ball flight laws, that is, the physics of ball flight relative to path and face. Many people have known this for years. Face angle trumps for initial direction and curve is the result of path deviation from face angle.

While many may have known for years that FA > Path, what has been taught for many years is that Path dictates where the ball starts and FA dictates where the ball ends up. Science has proven that FA largely dictates initial direction and its the deviation between FA and path that dictates how the ball bends, not where it ends up - hence the "new" part which doesn't speak to where the ball ends it's journey per se, just how it will bend relative to the face angle/path interaction.

[kbp]

Re: Run Away

Irregardless of what was popular teaching, myself and many others have known for years that path has very little influence on initial direction. Face angle trumps initial direction, even with the putter. Same with deviation of path to face angle causing the curve. This is nothing "new" to many of us.

The "old" METHOD was to align your self where you want the ball to start, set the face where you want it to end up and swing "normal". SOMETIMES this was accompanied by a bogus explanation of the so-called "old" ball flight laws as justification. Many instructors, however, just described the setup and DID NOT bring the physics into it because it only confused the issue.

If Nicklaus mentioned the "old" physics of it, obviously he is wrong. We all agree. HOWEVER, the METHOD works for him and many others even if they don’t know why and even if it APPEARS to violate physics. It DOES NOT violate the physics, because the METHOD allows for a natural disparity between face and path set at address versus the resultant face and path through impact when you deviate from your normal setup. If the RESULT is as intended, then the METHOD has produced the correct conditions for that ball flight.

As I said, many people are using the Nicklaus METHOD of setup on their regular everyday "stock" iron shots, even if they don’t realize it. They aim the face directly at the target even though they know they have a slight natural fade or draw. The only time the "new" METHOD would dictate aiming the face directly at the target would be for a dead straight shot with zero curve.

[LowPost42]

Re: Run Away

Rregardless of what was popular teaching, myself and many others have known for years that path has very little influence on initial direction. Face angle trumps initial direction, even with the putter. Same with deviation of path to face angle causing the curve. This is nothing "new" to many of us.

The "old" METHOD was to align your self where you want the ball to start, set the face where you want it to end up and swing "normal". SOMETIMES this was accompanied by a bogus explanation of the so-called "old" ball flight laws as justification. Many instructors, however, just described the setup and DID NOT bring the physics into it because it only confused the issue.

If Nicklaus mentioned the "old" physics of it, obviously he is wrong. We all agree. HOWEVER, the METHOD works for him and many others even if they don’t know why and even if it APPEARS to violate physics. It DOES NOT violate the physics, because the METHOD allows for a natural disparity between face and path set at address versus the resultant face and path through impact when you deviate from your normal setup. If the RESULT is as intended, then the METHOD has produced the correct conditions for that ball flight.

As I said, many people are using the Nicklaus METHOD of setup on their regular everyday "stock" iron shots, even if they don’t realize it. They aim the face directly at the target even though they know they have a slight natural fade or draw. The only time the "new" METHOD would dictate aiming the face directly at the target would be for a dead straight shot with zero curve.

In a word; absolutely.

[Paraneva]

Re: Run Away

I have followed the discussion around the D plane with enthusiasm for the last few days. I was not familiar with it but knowing some physics and having a visual mind it felt quite understandable and inspring (see *) despite a big flaw (see **). I have neither dived deep in the old theories so I will not criticize them. The web is full of information about D plane, just start with Google search “golf d plane explained” and you end up to material like Gotham Golf Blog: The D-PLANE By James Lietz

Please remember that macro-level physics is a quite exact science in theory but in real life there are always so many affecting factors that it has taken thousands of years for us humans to understand even the major laws like those affecting planets. And even they are approximations: consider the effects that the Moon has on the seas and how that affects Earth. So please enjoy the new information but do not blame the old theory or the ignorant. Yet: shame on those who knew but did not pass the information forward.

It is quite natural that PROs do not go deep into physics with the novice golfers. It is difficult enough to control one’s body movements and timing at that stage. The old (wrong) rules of thumb about club face and stance were and still are good enough to get the game started. Precise (maybe correct but more complicated) laws on ball flight do not help the novice as he/she has enough problems in executing the simple instructions. And as somebody said, when one has done the 10.000 hits one has already developed such a strong mental (partly unconscious) blueprint of the game that one understands the laws correctly even thou you can continue to explain them incorrectly.

Human mind is an analog computer. A seasoned golfer will have the fine details of nearly all possible golf strokes he has repeated often enough in his cerebellum and interpolative approximations even for those that he has never executed. For a good golfer the details are good and include more affecting factors. That makes it possible to reach the flow where it seems that you can play instinctively and yet you succeed in everything you do. For a less experienced the picture is less detailed and brains (conscious judgment ) is required in club selection, aiming, club face angles, swing length, and well - everything. You simply have to live through that phase to collect the experience needed to be a good golfer. Remember that even if it seems that you are playing only with instincts you are still heavily using your cerebellum – just in a very different way than how you use your brains! If you try to use the same reasoning in the flow mode, you will just lose that flow. So if your game feels good, don’t destroy it with thinking about the D plane.

(*) The effect of the angle of attack was something that I had not considered earlier. With a driver its biggest effect is totally different (mainly change of loft because of the flat swing) compared to irons. With the irons the bigger the angle of attack is, the further the club still is from the lowest point of the D plane and at the same time the more open the club head still is and the smaller its loft still is! Earlier I have thought the only reason to place the ball closer to the right foot is to avoid bad contact with the ball. And in the same way I have not understood earlier that you cannot change the ball position if you want to repeat identical ball flights. Now I know better!

(**) Finally I argue that there is a big flaw in the D plane theory: it pays no regard to the third axel around which the golf ball starts to spin at the impact: the axis pointing towards the target - let us call it the Z axis. I am maybe obsessed with this idea but I believe you will see it also if you just focus on it. If you can understand how the openness of the clubhead is changing (all the time) during the swing and the impact you can also understand that another angle (how horizontal the grooves of the club head are) is also changing (all the time) during the impact. If you hit downwards with the club to the ball (negative angle of attack), the grooves are becoming more horizontal. If you are hitting upwards (negative angle of attack), the grooves are becoming less horizontal. Only at the bottom of the D plane (angle of attack 0) the grooves are as horizontal as they can be (depending on the lie). The change of this angle (with actual grooves or not) will cause a spinning motion into the ball around the Z axis. It is a slow one but as the ball flies several seconds it has enough time to change your initial backspin to sidespin (draw/fade) and even drop the ball from the sky (with overspin).

I have (yet) no way to prove it but I believe draws are preferred (over fades) because of this: the combination of decent backspin and draw either creates less spin around Z or gives more time for this spin. With short irons gravity dominates the flight of the ball. Yet, to hit truly straight, your effective angle of attack must be close to 0 to have minimum spin around Z. With drivers the story is different: to hit 300 yards or more you must keep the ball in the air for a long time. The big hitters tilt their body into angle X and achieve a positive angle of attack (close to the same X) in reference to the ground while they are actually at the bottom of their D plane (with 0 spin around Z).

If there is anyone agreeing or even following my thoughts, please comment! And if you are not able to follow, please watch the trajectories of the great golfers and try to see.

[BrianW]

Re: Run Away

I have followed the discussion around the D plane with enthusiasm for the last few days. I was not familiar with it but knowing some physics and having a visual mind it felt quite understandable and inspring (see *) despite a big flaw (see **). I have neither dived deep in the old theories so I will not criticize them. The web is full of information about D plane, just start with Google search “golf d plane explained” and you end up to material like Gotham Golf Blog: The D-PLANE By James Lietz

Please remember that macro-level physics is a quite exact science in theory but in real life there are always so many affecting factors that it has taken thousands of years for us humans to understand even the major laws like those affecting planets. And even they are approximations: consider the effects that the Moon has on the seas and how that affects Earth. So please enjoy the new information but do not blame the old theory or the ignorant. Yet: shame on those who knew but did not pass the information forward.

It is quite natural that PROs do not go deep into physics with the novice golfers. It is difficult enough to control one’s body movements and timing at that stage. The old (wrong) rules of thumb about club face and stance were and still are good enough to get the game started. Precise (maybe correct but more complicated) laws on ball flight do not help the novice as he/she has enough problems in executing the simple instructions. And as somebody said, when one has done the 10.000 hits one has already developed such a strong mental (partly unconscious) blueprint of the game that one understands the laws correctly even thou you can continue to explain them incorrectly.

Human mind is an analog computer. A seasoned golfer will have the fine details of nearly all possible golf strokes he has repeated often enough in his cerebellum and interpolative approximations even for those that he has never executed. For a good golfer the details are good and include more affecting factors. That makes it possible to reach the flow where it seems that you can play instinctively and yet you succeed in everything you do. For a less experienced the picture is less detailed and brains (conscious judgment ) is required in club selection, aiming, club face angles, swing length, and well - everything. You simply have to live through that phase to collect the experience needed to be a good golfer. Remember that even if it seems that you are playing only with instincts you are still heavily using your cerebellum – just in a very different way than how you use your brains! If you try to use the same reasoning in the flow mode, you will just lose that flow. So if your game feels good, don’t destroy it with thinking about the D plane.

(*) The effect of the angle of attack was something that I had not considered earlier. With a driver its biggest effect is totally different (mainly change of loft because of the flat swing) compared to irons. With the irons the bigger the angle of attack is, the further the club still is from the lowest point of the D plane and at the same time the more open the club head still is and the smaller its loft still is! Earlier I have thought the only reason to place the ball closer to the right foot is to avoid bad contact with the ball. And in the same way I have not understood earlier that you cannot change the ball position if you want to repeat identical ball flights. Now I know better!

(**) Finally I argue that there is a big flaw in the D plane theory: it pays no regard to the third axel around which the golf ball starts to spin at the impact: the axis pointing towards the target - let us call it the Z axis. I am maybe obsessed with this idea but I believe you will see it also if you just focus on it. If you can understand how the openness of the clubhead is changing (all the time) during the swing and the impact you can also understand that another angle (how horizontal the grooves of the club head are) is also changing (all the time) during the impact. If you hit downwards with the club to the ball (negative angle of attack), the grooves are becoming more horizontal. If you are hitting upwards (negative angle of attack), the grooves are becoming less horizontal. Only at the bottom of the D plane (angle of attack 0) the grooves are as horizontal as they can be (depending on the lie). The change of this angle (with actual grooves or not) will cause a spinning motion into the ball around the Z axis. It is a slow one but as the ball flies several seconds it has enough time to change your initial backspin to sidespin (draw/fade) and even drop the ball from the sky (with overspin).

I have (yet) no way to prove it but I believe draws are preferred (over fades) because of this: the combination of decent backspin and draw either creates less spin around Z or gives more time for this spin. With short irons gravity dominates the flight of the ball. Yet, to hit truly straight, your effective angle of attack must be close to 0 to have minimum spin around Z. With drivers the story is different: to hit 300 yards or more you must keep the ball in the air for a long time. The big hitters tilt their body into angle X and achieve a positive angle of attack (close to the same X) in reference to the ground while they are actually at the bottom of their D plane (with 0 spin around Z).

If there is anyone agreeing or even following my thoughts, please comment! And if you are not able to follow, please watch the trajectories of the great golfers and try to see.

I am trying to follow your theory but struggling . The ball makes contact with the clubface for somthing like 6 milliseconds and during this time it is compressed, sticks to the clubs surface then starts to slide up it, it is this last action that creates backspin. The impact in the forward motion is always oblique as all clubs have some loft, when impact cuts across the ball a compound impact is created and it is this action that moves the balls axis of rotation such that it will turn in flight. The clubs grooves have little or no influence on the balls spin if the clubface is clean and dry, they only act to wick away moisture between the clubface and ball, much like the action of the grooves on a car tyre.

A draw will create a lower more penetrating ballflight than a fade because the clubface is more closed at impact and this transfers more force from the clubhead into the core of the ball thus creating more ball speed and a shallower angle of descent that will roll out further. A fade opens the club face which will create more back spin and higher ballflight such that ball speed is less than a draw, it flys higher with less carry and due to it's steep angle of descent stops up quicker than a draw.

[Paraneva]

Re: Run Away

The ball is compressed against the club head for an equally short time for the swing path to have its accepted 15% effect. And yet it has that effect in those 6 msecs.

The grooves that I mentioned can be completely virtual, they just make it easier to understand the horizontal alignment of the club head and the changes in it as the club head is approaching the ball and hitting the ball. It is harder to imagine the rotation in a completely flat surface.

If the only difference in fade and draw is the loft, then a fade with a longer club (with a correspondingly smaller loft) should be equally good as draw with a steeper club. Are they equally good when length is the criterium? I don't think so.

As far as I have seen (live or on video) fades first turn gracefully right and then "loose air below them" or drop from the air less gracefully while draws keep their trajectories pretty stable from start to finish.

I am not talking about any drastic effects but you only need to turn the ball 90 degrees left or right (around that Z axis) during the first half of the ball flight to change the backspin carrying the ball in air to draw/fade. And at the same time the initial draw/fade is also rotated 90 degrees and changed to overspin (killing the ball) or backspin (still carrying the ball further in the air).

Some of the best shots that I have had (recent record 295 meters) have been nearly straight (and thus with little spin around the Z axis) or with just some draw and they all seemed to hang in the air like on rails.

Could you imagine to reconsider the case?

Sincerely,
Paraneva

PS. There are two other physical factors to condsider:

1) high spin (e.g. backspin) will make the ball cyroscopically stable (remember how the humming top remains standing on its top as long as the rotation speed is high enough) and this could either a) destroy this theory altogether or b) be (with precesssion) just the factor which does not make the ball to cork screw: I have been wondering why the ball would only turn say 90 degrees during those seconds (a long time!) and not 180, 360, 720 or even 3000 degrees, maybe this is the reason; further: is the initial sidespin (draw/fade) high enough for cyroscopic effects too? For a good explanation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope and focus on precession. Notice e.g. the gyroscope's spin slows down (for example, due to friction), its angular momentum decreases and so the rate of precession increases.

2) the Coriolis effect caused by the rotation of the Earth (you might think this is hallusination but if the water falling down from the tap is affected by the Coriolis effect during the tiny time it takes before it reaches the sink then why not the ball flying for several seconds). For a decent explanation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics - intuitively I suppose this is a minor factor compared to the former one.

I wish there was a rocket ( or a golf ball ) scientist or technician reading this forum and able to reply ...

[BrianW]

Re: Run Away

If the only difference in fade and draw is the loft, then a fade with a longer club (with a correspondingly smaller loft) should be equally good as draw with a steeper club. Are they equally good when length is the criterium? I don't think so.

As far as I have seen (live or on video) fades first turn gracefully right and then "loose air below them" or drop from the air less gracefully while draws keep their trajectories pretty stable from start to finish.

Yes, the only difference is loft. Loft creates greater backspin (No golf ball takes off with forward spin) The loft creates a higher launch angle and the spin holds the ball in the air but creates more drag so the ball will as you suggest drop quickly when the spin reduces. See 'Magnus Effect' for a technical explanation of why a golf ball's spin holds the ball in the air and how it can have path curvature. Also look at the 'Power Fade' used so effectively by such golfers as Lee Travino, Jack Niklauss, Colin Montgumerry, Fred Couples and many more, they are able to fade the ball by a small amount such that although less powerfull than a draw it is still travells a good distance. Lower loft creates more distance, thats why longer clubs have less loft, as I said previously more force is transfered from the clubface to the core of the ball when the impact is more direct and less acute.

[keiko]

Re: Run Away

My expertise is in medicine(and golf) and although I took physics and calculus, I hated both of them. Your efforts are falling on deaf ears as I suspect is the case with the rest of this forum audience. Keep debating though, it makes for good reading; I, on the other hand, will be very happy hitting them straight and long, shooting 72 and staying out of the water/woods while you may have more difficulty than I doing that.
LOL

[BrianW]

Re: Run Away

My expertise is in medicine(and golf) and although I took physics and calculus, I hated both of them. Your efforts are falling on deaf ears as I suspect is the case with the rest of this forum audience. Keep debating though, it makes for good reading; I, on the other hand, will be very happy hitting them straight and long, shooting 72 and staying out of the water/woods while you may have more difficulty than I doing that.
LOL

I think I have taken this debate just about as far as I think is sensible now. I do hope that some will benefit, I have tried to apease the technically minded as well as those that just want to learn to stop slicing and hooking.

I would love to have a game of golf with you one day Keiko, it sounds as if we are of similar standards and age although you have played golf longer than me, to that fact I bow to your experioence. When wearing a younger Man's clothes I was a fair 'Squash' player and threw myself into that sport in the same way I do now with Golf. I also played 'Rugby Union' (Another Limey sport) and my build and strength assisted me with this 'Thug's Game' played by Gentlemen, as to 'Soccer' or Footbal as we call it which is a 'Gentleman's Game' played by Thugs I have a Son and two Grandsons in the USA and normally go over at least once a year to see them, they are in Chicago, I guess this is the wrong end of the States for you?

Anyhow! I will as I said, now leave the debate on shot shaping and 'D Plane' I think I have set out my stance clearly enough. If anyone wishes me to clarify anything further on the subject I am willing to reply by PM.

[Paraneva]

Re: Run Away

Sorry Brian but I don't yet buy this:

Yes, the only difference is loft. Loft creates greater backspin (No golf ball takes off with forward spin) The loft creates a higher launch angle and the spin holds the ball in the air but creates more drag so the ball will as you suggest drop quickly when the spin reduces. See 'Magnus Effect' for a technical explanation of why a golf ball's spin holds the ball in the air and how it can have path curvature. Also look at the 'Power Fade' used so effectively by such golfers as Lee Travino, Jack Niklauss, Colin Montgumerry, Fred Couples and many more, they are able to fade the ball by a small amount such that although less powerfull than a draw it is still travells a good distance. Lower loft creates more distance, thats why longer clubs have less loft, as I said previously more force is transfered from the clubface to the core of the ball when the impact is more direct and less acute.

The Magnus effect is related to both backspin and also sidespin: it sucks air from the front of the ball and moves it (through top in backspin and through the opposite side in fade/draw) to the back of the ball and thus "drills a hole" into the air for the ball. It is big part of the ball flight but not the thing I am talking about (phasewise rotation of the other spins around the axis "Z" pointing to the target)

E.g. http://www.golf-simulators.com/physics.htm seems to have a nice description of Magnus effect and also the effects of draws and fades. Notice the diagrams of various trajectories above and below texts "Golf ball flight trajectory traces in the GGS system. From left to right: Pull-hook, pull, pull-slice, straight-hook , straight, straight-slice, push-hook, push and push-slice". Is the (often high and always) short trajectory of the fades/slices only related to the higher loft?

Let's ignore Coriolis as insignificant. There is not a word about gyroscopic effects or the rotation of the main spin axis during the flight on that site. Even if the gyroscopic effect would make the ball so stable this rotation around Z would not happen there would still be the inevitable percussion. I have no idea what the rate and angle of that would be with a golf ball. It all depends very much on the (main) spin rate so there are lot of variables.

There are thousands of members on this forum. There must be also one who has really devoted some time to these things ... Looking forward to see his/her posts!

Have a nice Friday and sunny weekend
Paraneva @ 1:00 AM