You're right, it is in the definition. I would never call a ball that starts straight as any form of a push. And I agree - a push slice by my definition would need a severely open clubface, but that's why it's rare (thank god!).
The definitions outlined above are bewildering to me. A push is apparently still a ball that starts to the right and keeps going.... but a push slice starts straight!! It just sounds illogical, whereas the definitions as outlined by Jacobs, Suttie et al sounds logical :
Sorry guys. I just copied the info from here. I was looking for something that explained it without having to type it all out myself. I suppose I should have read through it properly Me bad . Niblick your explaination above is exactly how I understand it too.
yip i kind of see where your comming from niblick but for me push and pulls are BAD
pushing meaning you drifted right of intended target pulling being error to left ,so if i hit a shot that starts straight at the hole then drifts to bunker on right , i would say damn i pushed it
if i hit a shot that starts out right then curves back left to land on the green i wouldn't say , hey what a great push-hook , hooks and slices cross the intended target line , pulls and pushes stay one side or other , think going on to define push-slices and the like is taking it too far. but feel that i'm now kinda arguing just for the sake of it so forgive me for not letting it lie.
And Rob, I know what you mean, but I too think that these shots are bad. But for me, labelling them allows me to associate the name with a cause. So if I hit a pull, then I know that I've swing out-to-in - which is a mistake. If I hit a slice, then I know my clubface was open. Of course, correcting my path mistake may correct the open clubface (because the clubface may have been square to target just open to the swingpath, but if I straighten the swingpath they may 'match up').
I've a few interesting lessons on posture recently to try and help me work on the longer part to my game and the pro told me that a lot of swing path and the resulting hook / draw / fade / slice can originate back with the hip movement. He reckons Monty hits fades naturally because of the way his hips move during rotation and that Monty would find it quite difficult to naturally hit a draw.
As with many of the above I classify a fade becoming a slice when the ball does not go where you intend. Start off left of your target (or straight at a dogleg right) and the ball moves in the air gently back to where you wanted it = fade. Aim straight and it banana's off to the right = slice.
Josh, the wildly curving ball right at the end of a drive I was told is to do with spin rates and ball speed and when the ball reaches a particular speed / rate the 'swing' starts. I suffer from this on my bad drives rather than the ones which immediately start slicing from the offset. You see it a lot with baseball throwers where they want the ball to dip / swing at the last minute.
Right here is the rule of thumb based on when my (sleeping) partner and myself play in a 4 ball comp:
- A SLICE becomes a FADE when he's hit an absolutely "banana" and a member of the other pair dares mention "Hmmm, sliced that a bit...?" and the retort is "I always play with a FADE!"
- A FADE becomes a SLICE when I hit my tee shot on the 150yd 7th 15ft right of the pin: "Sliced that a bit didn't you - but it'll be ok." (and the proceeds to dump his ball in the quarry!).
With regards to the definitions and causes, here are those related to this topic (for right handed golfer):
Fade: starts left of target and curves to the right to finish on-target.
Caused by: an out-to-in swingpath and a clubface that is open to the path but closed to the target - this is very important: a clubface that is open to the path and square to the target will cause a slice, not a fade.
Slice: starts left and curves to the right to finish to the right of the target.
Caused by: out to in path (i.e. to the left of target) and clubface square to or open to the target.
In extreme cases, a very open clubface can cause a push-slice, i.e. the ball starts to the right and curves further right, and this can happen with ANY swingpath, the reason being that the clubface aim is the biggest determining factor in the initial starting direction of the ball, and the relationship between the clubface aim and the swingpath determines the curvature.
NOT to be confused with a "power fade", which is when you accidentally hit a massive horrible banana shot that luckily finishes near where you were aiming and you can casually act like you meant it...!!!!!
In extreme cases, a very open clubface can cause a push-slice, i.e. the ball starts to the right and curves further right, and this can happen with ANY swingpath, the reason being that the clubface aim is the biggest determining factor in the initial starting direction of the ball,
That contradicts what you said about the fade. Surely if the clubface aim was the biggest determining factor in the initial starting direction, then an open clubface would start off to the right and a fade would not start to the left?
The swingpath is the biggest determining factor in the initial starting direction. The clubface relative to this swingpath determines the curvature which is what I said earlier in the thread.
There are a lot of people who need to buy John Jacobs' books. They may be quite old now, but they explain all of this in simple terms. Other coaches seem to explain it in a way that just confuses (exceptions are Hank Haney and Jim Suttie).
Incidentally, it is true that a push can be caused by an open clubface, even when the swingpath isn't in-to-out - but that is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
The starting direction of the golf ball will ALWAYS be closer to the face aim than the swingpath - the out of date sayings such as " the path sends it and the face bends it" have been proven to be wrong.
FADE: The path is from out to in, the clubface that is open to the path and closed to the target will start the ball further right than the path but further left than the target. Due to the face being open to the path, the ball will curve right.
ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT DOUBT - THE CLUBFACE AIM IS THE BIGGEST SINGLE INFLUENCE ON THE INITIAL STARTING DIRECTION OF THE BALL - THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT. I will add though that before embarking on the PGA degree a few years ago, I was also of the opinion that the swingpath was the biggest influence. It was a surprise to me to find out that its the clubface, but I can assure you that it is. Again, the easiest way to see this clearly is to putt with a very closed or open clubface, you will see that the ball will always start off closer to the clubface aim.
A push is a straight shot - this is caused by an in to out swingpath and a clubface square to this path.
A push-slice is not an exception to any rule, it is a scientific rule that at a certain angle, a very open clubface will send the ball far enough right to be right of target intially and then curving further right. One of the terms for this is 'clubface override', i.e. the clubface is so open that is overrides the normal swingpath/face aim rules, it is a very valid ball flight law though. Maybe you can think of someone who normally fades/slices, and occassionally they hit one that goes right and then right further still - they didn't just develop an in-to-out swing, it was the clubface that was miles open.
This isn't a competition to see who is right by the way, I just came across the forum and decided to volunteer some professional, up to date correct scientific information. I can absolutely guarantee you that I am correct and have not contradicted myself - I think that if anyone wants independent information and contacts the PGA training department they would take the time to answer your queries regarding ball flight laws.
I'm not engaged in any competition... I'm just explaining how I understand it. If that's not correct and I find out what is correct as a result then I'm a happy bunny... that's how I learn. I don't care whether I'm right or wrong (or seen to be right) - if I've learnt something then it's a bonus. There's no Ego here.
Having said that I am equally reluctant to simply take your word for it - so more than happy if you can point me in the right direction when it comes to the scientific facts. In fact I'd love to read the science behind ball flight laws and mechanics... so any resources you can point me to will be gratefully recieved.
Incidentally you can't guarantee you're correct. You can only provide the best explanation using the evidence available to you. If the PGA degree is claiming to have a scientific basis then it should make that point clear. Then there's the whole debate about Scientific Fact (the only fact being that you can't have a scientific fact - you can only have a best possible explanation based on our perception of the evidence). But now I'm just being a smartarse for the fun of it... so please take it in the lighthearted way it's intended.
Again its all in the definition in relation to swing path , target line an clubface .
I have read your definitions before and agree with the mechanics but from a pure feel point of view i think the old definitions work well ie take the draw shot
draw , swing in-to-out , square club face to target
of course the clubface will never be square to the target line throught the swing it will be constantly changinging , even for the very short time the ball is on the clubface but to draw you have to turn against ie square up the "open clubface to target" of the in-to- out swingpath "open clubface to target which you correctly pointed out is the technical reason for ball starting right"
perhaps the definition should read
draw , swing in-to-out , squareing club face to target
it's all in the timing and release too late you'll push to early you'll hook
Ah Rob has just said what I was thinking of posting.
Even if the science explanation for the ball flight is true - the definitions are next to useless for the teaching pro, and even more so for the average golfer. If you swing out-to-in, then you are almost certainly hitting the ball left of target at the start of the flight - the fact that it isnt the path that's the scientific cause is irrelevant because the pro would need to fix the path mistake first, since it's dictating where the clubface is aimed.
Its far easier to understand the old rule and since it is true in terms of result for nearly all cases, surely it's a better way of explaining to the golfer what it is they are doing, and what they can do to fix it. The science is useful I guess for the pro when he comes across people whose ballflight is an exception, and they can then apply the knowledge to help that person, but for most of us, the tried and tested Jacobs philosophy works.
Unless humans become robotic in their precision, the scientific explanation is not that useful in practical terms.
ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT DOUBT - THE CLUBFACE AIM IS THE BIGGEST SINGLE INFLUENCE ON THE INITIAL STARTING DIRECTION OF THE BALL - THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Your very wrong here. The swingpath determines the starting direction of the ball.
Example in point: If you make a perfect connection with a clubface that is perfectly square to the target at impact but from an extreme out to in swing path the ball will start left every time.
So the ball is following the swingpath.
In your world if the clubface influenced the initial flight of the ball it would go straight which defies the laws of physics.
ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT DOUBT - THE CLUBFACE AIM IS THE BIGGEST SINGLE INFLUENCE ON THE INITIAL STARTING DIRECTION OF THE BALL - THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT.
It seems obvious to me that this is dependant on the degree to which the club face is open to swing path. If the face is only a degree or 2 open, I doubt if that would have any effect on the initial path of the ball. However I have noticed that when I deliberately open the face wide when executing a rescue shot, the ball often starts much further to the right than I would expect.
I don't know where but I did read that scientific tests had proved that the club face determined the direction and swing path determined the shape of the shot.
The figures that where given where typically clubface determined 80% of direction.
I have found this to be true myself and it seems logical to me.
Slice or a Fade ? If it is deliberate then it's a fade. If it's not, or it goes trouble bound then it is a slice (or POWER fade as my mate calls it).
Saying that my mate aims way left OOB and brings it back to the fairway. Ball probably travels 280yds total distance but is only 220yds away in a straight line. Calling this a power fade is a bit tongue in cheek tbh. I refer to it as a fade because it is predictable and controllable.
If you are interested, get hold of a copy of Search for the Perfect Swing, by Cochran and Stobbs, first published 1968. This was the first scientific basis of the point in question, so as you can see it is actually 40 years old.
One example: A driver was swung at "normal" speed (I don't have the book in front of me at the mo for the exact figure but suffice to say it was realistic) on a path of 20* left of the target, the clubface was square to the target. The initial starting direction of the ball was 7* left of target, showing that although both path and face aim had an influence, the biggest influence is the face.
Exhaustive tests were carried out, not just one of course, and this along with other more up to date testing is the base of the modern PGA training.
Maybe my original point should have been that both swingpath and face aim influence the starting direction of the ball, however it can only be seen by technology that actually the face aim accounts for approx 2/3 and the swingpath accounts for approx 1/3. The curvature is determined purely by the face aim in relation to the path.
Of course to the naked eye, it is much easier to see the swingpath than it is to see the face aim at the point of impact (impossible I would say?), so as a generalisation it would seem logical that the perceived wisdom for a fade is out-to-in path and face square.
Actually though, next time you hit a perfect fade that lands exactly on line with the pin, your impact would in fact have been with an out-to-in path and a clubface between the path and the target, whether you meant it, knew it, or indeed agree with it!!.
Sorry I can't really prove it purely on a forum, but like I already said, phone the PGA, or better still get hold of a copy of Search for the Perfect Swing.
I don't know much about much, but please trust me on this one,
If you are interested, get hold of a copy of Search for the Perfect Swing, by Cochran and Stobbs, first published 1968. This was the first scientific basis of the point in question, so as you can see it is actually 40 years old.
One example: A driver was swung at "normal" speed (I don't have the book in front of me at the mo for the exact figure but suffice to say it was realistic) on a path of 20* left of the target, the clubface was square to the target. The initial starting direction of the ball was 7* left of target, showing that although both path and face aim had an influence, the biggest influence is the face.
Exhaustive tests were carried out, not just one of course, and this along with other more up to date testing is the base of the modern PGA training.
Maybe my original point should have been that both swingpath and face aim influence the starting direction of the ball, however it can only be seen by technology that actually the face aim accounts for approx 2/3 and the swingpath accounts for approx 1/3. The curvature is determined purely by the face aim in relation to the path.
Of course to the naked eye, it is much easier to see the swingpath than it is to see the face aim at the point of impact (impossible I would say?), so as a generalisation it would seem logical that the perceived wisdom for a fade is out-to-in path and face square.
Actually though, next time you hit a perfect fade that lands exactly on line with the pin, your impact would in fact have been with an out-to-in path and a clubface between the path and the target, whether you meant it, knew it, or indeed agree with it!!.
Sorry I can't really prove it purely on a forum, but like I already said, phone the PGA, or better still get hold of a copy of Search for the Perfect Swing.
I don't know much about much, but please trust me on this one, it
Me bad 
. Niblick your explaination above is exactly how I understand it too.
