Labs

MyGolfSpy Labs: Draws vs. Fades

BY Andrew Rice
Feb 9th 2015
Read all comments

Yes, yes, we all know that draws go further than fades. The burning question is why?

Why would a ball curving one way in the air go further than a ball curving the other way? After all, if we conducted a test in a very controlled environment and all the factors other than curvature through the air were the same, we would find that draws and fades travel the exact same distance.

The fact is, however, that in real life those other factors are seldom the same. There always seems to be something that makes a draw go further than a fade and the purpose of this test was to gain a better understanding of what those factors might be.

The results from this test will not change whether or not you try to hit draws (you should!) or how you try to hit them, but it will show you how and why draws travel further than fades.

Test Parameters

I tested 12 golfers (all right handers) who each had a fairly predictable shot shape pattern at the time of testing
Each golfer hit numerous shots with their own driver until I had five decent shots that fit their typical pattern (fade or draw as determined by Spin Axis)
This meant that this test evaluated 30 fades ( 6 x 5 shots) and 30 draws (6 x 5 shots)
All the golfers were fairly good – they ranged from a 12 handicap male to an LPGA tour golfer
Club speeds ranged from 86.2 MPH to 103.4 MPH
The test was conducted over several days using Titleist NXT Tour Practice balls
The data was normalized to 75 degrees at sea level with a premium golf ball

Results

Observations

When adjusting for the difference in speed, if the faders and drawers both had club speeds of 100 MPH, the fades carry 222 yards with a total distance of 249 yards and the draws carry 224 yards with a total of 258 yards. I found it interesting that the carry distance was very similar, yet due to the lower spin rates for the draws, the total difference was a more substantial 9 yards.

I noticed that several of the fade shots had their particular shape due a heel sided strike on the clubface. This would be indicated in the fact that the average clubpath for the faders was slightly in to out – a requirement for hitting draws as long as the strike is centered. These heel sided strikes effectively added spin, which kept the carry numbers fairly close, yet limited the roll out once the ball was on the ground.

I was somewhat surprised at the fact that the attack angle for both camps was ascending. I would perhaps attribute this to the fact that all the golfers tested take lessons and understand the importance of hitting up on the driver. I was not surprised that the drawers had an elevated attack angle over the faders.

I was surprised that the spin loft numbers were as close as they were for each camp – 13.5 (fade) to 12.3 (draw). I do believe that this was in large part due to the fact that there were several toe strikes that led to draws and numerous heel strikes that led to fades. TrackMan reports Spin Loft in the middle of the impact interval and as a result the heel strikes, which often tend to be low on the face due to shaft droop, deloft the face and narrow spin loft, while toe strikes tend to be high on the face and this widens the spin loft gap. I believe that with purely centered strikes the drawers would have a substantially narrower spin loft and thus transfer more energy to the golf ball. This effect was already in evidence with the difference in smash factor from 1.43 to 1.45.

The Takeaway

Draws go further than fades! Wow – you knew that already, but why? This test shows that the primary reasons appear to a reduction in spin rate, a more ascending attack angle with a draw biased swing, and better energy transfer from club to ball.

Just imagine if you could convert from good fades to good draws – you would have one less club into every green on the course! And I know you’re better with a 7 iron in your hand than a 6 iron.

That doesn’t even account for an upgrade from inefficient fades to effective draws….

For You

Golf Shafts

Apr 14, 2024

Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft

News

Apr 14, 2024

A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater

Drivers

Apr 13, 2024

Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers

Andrew Rice

Andrew Rice has been the Director of Instruction at the Westin Savannah Harbor. His teaching objective is to get his students to understand, and learn to better control the factors that influence the flight of their golf ball. He has been teaching golf for almost 25 years and uses cutting edge teaching technology to measure and help golfers of all abilities improve.

Andrew Rice

MGS Labs – The Wedge Sole Test

Aug 22, 2017 | 57 Comments

MGS Labs: Conforming vs. Non-Conforming Grooves

Nov 25, 2015 | 47 Comments

MyGolfSpy Labs: Persimmon vs. Your Titanium Driver

Nov 3, 2014 | 87 Comments

Andrew Rice

comments

Join The Discussion

EJ

7 years ago

I can hit more fairways, over and over again with a fade than I can with a draw. My draws tend to be a little hot and unpredictable. For the difference of yardage. I ll take my fade and or straight ball.

Michael Woods

7 years ago

Just makes you wonder how the longest drive has been won with a fade

Phillip Vfl Werner

7 years ago

So it’s definitely time for a new shaft for me my spin rate is 3800

ChickenWing

8 years ago

I HATE hitting a draw. But, a draw goes farther then a fade, period, end of sentence. Now, can I hit a fade farther, heck yeah. Because I can swing 100 percent without worrying about a hook.

art

8 years ago

Wing, here’s a link to Flightscopes ball flight simulator. Let me know when you can show that a draw unequivocally goes farther than a fade…I won’t hold my breath. http://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/ The tilting of the spin axis, left vs right, has absolutely nothing to do with how far a ball travels–period, end of sentence. Physics is ambidextrous.
Maybe you meant to say something else?

mike

9 years ago

Amazing this item came up. Draw versus fade story. When I was a young professional, I was handed Practical Golf and told to learn every word of it. I then was told that I couldn’t teach golf until I answered one question correctly. Why does a draw go further than a fade. However, I had to provide ALL the reasons and present the answer clearly and concisely. So, this was my study and it took me 4 months!! Now, the one thing I could do very well at that time was playing – my draw ALWAYS went further than my fade – I knew that from a players’ perspective. Now just before I am told that maybe my playing skills are limited, I recall Ian Woosnam doing exactly the same – a series of fades followed by a few draws and EVERY draw went further. So here we go folks…… 4 months work, a lot of reading, and I was allowed to teach after this;

1. A closed clubface relative to the ball-to-target line reduces effective loft.
2. Less loft increases bounces and roll.
3. A more inside-to-out path is more shallow and strikes more of the backside of ball.
4. Arm rotation used to promote a closed clubface is an accelerator of clubhead speed.

That’s the answer. I had to present it to a team of extremely skilled teaching professionals. That was about 35 years ago. They let me teach the day afterwards becasue I was told that was one of the toughest questions they could come up with.

Andre

9 years ago

For each swing speed, there are optimal values of launch angle and spin.
If a golfer regularly hit fades and is properly fitted with his driver to obtain the launch parameters that maximize his distance, and if he suddently hits a draw, he will lower his dynamic loft which will lead to less carry and, maybe less distance depending onthe quality of the fairway.

Another way that helps understand why there is no reason why comparatevely with a well fitted driver for a fader a draw should give more distance is the fact that if this was true, more draw would go farther than some draw and more more draw would give even more distance, and so on. This is obvuously not true…

Now, if a golfer that fades, and of whom the driver is perfectly well fitted for that, starts hitting draws with the same swing speed and, at the same time, succeeds to obtain a higer angle of attack (which won’t be that easy), he might well be able, due to less spin loft, and therefore less spin, together with the proper launch angle, to gain distance. But there are many “if”…

Andre

9 years ago

This is a false interpretation of numbers. Not regarding the SS,The fact that, in your example,, the draw goes farher than the fade is solely due to the diiferent dynamic loft in both cases. Take a driver with the proper loft for maximizing distance with the fade,and it will be longer than when played in draw !

Ron

9 years ago

Does a golf ball know if you are right handed or left handed?

Blake

9 years ago

One thing Trackman doesn’t measure is width in the golf swing. Drawers usually have a wider swing arc than faders – which means that the clubhead travels further, thus creating more distance.

TS

9 years ago

Thank you for the article guys.

A question for you guys though. What was the natural shot shape for the golfers in the test? I feel like that is an important missing component.

For example:

If Player A (a 10 handicap) naturally hits a draw and you ask him to hit a fade (not a natural shot for said player) this will often result in a swing in which the player does not release the club properly and effectively “slaps” at it with an open face…sure it fades but the numbers are awful (even the best 5).

Conversely if Player B (also a 10 handicap) a natural fader of the ball is asked to hit a draw, the tendency is to roll the hands and hit some low hooks. However, the best 5 from this player will be much better than Player A because Player B is still releasing the club, not “slapping” at it.

If I am way off base here, please explain, this is just something I have noticed with playing partners over the past few years as they try to work the ball both ways. Ultimately, I appreciate the article and hope you continue the good work!

Jeff

9 years ago

TS,
Very well said and true.
This is what I tend to do.

Robert

9 years ago

The author states under test parameters “I tested 12 golfers (all right handers) who each had a fairly predictable shot shape pattern at the time of testing”. I take this to mean he picked 6 drawers and 6 faders. He also states “This meant that this test evaluated 30 fades ( 6 x 5 shots) and 30 draws (6 x 5 shots)”, which I take to mean 6 drawers times 5 shots and 6 faders times 5 shots.

thehacker

9 years ago

I’m neither a scientist or intellectual, and I do find it hard to follow some of the arguments here. However, from a simpleton’s point of view, I feel that this test, like many other test by human golfers, are flawed.

Not only is the sample size limited, it is performed by golfers who can never swing the same overtime. Tell me, who can swing the club at exactly 100 mph, with the same degree of swing path, angle of attack etc every time? How about impact of fatigue and other human factors (like preference over colour of the golf clubs)? Don’t pretend it doesn’t ultimately impact the performance numbers, because it does. You know it, I know it.

So this test, like every other golf test done by human players, is flawed. One can argue all day that golf is played by humans in varying playing conditions. But if you want to do a proper scientific test, you have to keep as many factors constant as possible, otherwise the findings and conclusion will be anything but compelling.

And if you (the forum writers) can’t even convince a simpleton like me, what makes you think other contributors who has far more solid ideas than mine would be convinced?

Finally, this being a forum where there is space provided for readers to voice their opinion, I am very proud to say that there has been tonnes load of quality posts here and even in our disagreements, everybody has been very civilised. I think this says much about the quality of audience here ( even those who do not agree with the articles contributed here ).

Golfwhiler

9 years ago

If I hear one more person proclaim that science is unbiased, I think I’ll give up believing in human rationality. “Science” is nothing without scientists. Scientists are not and will never be unbiased or purely objective. Scientists use methodS, they interpret data, and make judgments. They include and exclude. There are no uninterpreted facts. There are plenty of uninterpreted scientists. This is the physical and there is understanding. Reduce the latter into the former, and you have eliminated science. Separate the two, and you have done the same. Distinguish the two inseparables, and you might begin to understand golf. Life, like golf, is not realized in controlled conditions. Thanks for the article, Andrew.

Art

9 years ago

Golfwhiler, science is a system of study. It doesn’t think or feel. It can’t have bias. I agree with your take on scientists, and scientific findings–bias can exist, interpretations occur. However good and respectable scientist are aware of their human flaws, which is why a system of study was developed. It is an attempt to minimize these flaws. Maybe your teetering faith in humanity should hinge on a more nefarious group of people?

Funny, for all the bias in science, over the last 60 years progress in scientific discovery (should you choose to cal it progress) has been astounding.

Where has the institution of golf instruction brought us? As I understand it, the average amateur golfer’s score hasn’t improved a stroke. Most golfers don’t break 100 on an average day. 80% of amateur golfers still hit a weak slice.

How will your faith in humanity handle one more claim of a golf instructor’s guarantee? :)

Golfwhiler

9 years ago

If I hear one more person proclaim that science is unbiased, I think I’ll give up believing in human rationality. “Science” is nothing without scientists. Scientists are not and will never be unbiased or purely objective. Scientists use methodS, they interpret data, and make judgments. They include and exclude. There are no uninterpreted facts. There are plenty of uninterpreted scientists. There ismatte physical and there is understanding. Reduce the latter into the former, and you have eliminated science. Separate the two, and you have done the same. Distinguish the two inseparables, and you might begin to understand golf. Life, like golf, is not realized in controlled conditions. Thanks for the article, Andrew.

Art

9 years ago

That may be the best comment on this forum! May I add the fact that storms spin in opposite directions, northern hemisphere vs. southern.

Mike G

9 years ago

I wonder whether you hit a draw in the northern hemisphere vs in the southerm hemisphere will make any difference?
maybe a draw in the northern hemisphere will go further than one in the south. just like the fact that water in the toilet spins one way in the north and the other way in the south.

Tony Covey

9 years ago

Old myth…disproven several times over. You might want to google it.

Blade

9 years ago

Haha, too funny! No, the curve itself in one direction or the other has nothing to do with one traveling farther than the other. It’s what happens in the swing required to create a draw that puts a bit more energy into the ball along with lower spin and typically a more penetrating trajectory that makes the difference.

Art

9 years ago

Mike, I should elaborate on why I think you comment is fantastic. I suspect you are posing your questions from one of two perspectives.

1-You know exactly what you are asking and are looking for the colorful replies.
2-Rather than pretend to know what “everybody knows”, you are making observations and asking questions. History is filled with instances where “everybody” was wrong.

Either way, very refreshing.

Tony, the Coriolis effect is a myth?

Tony Covey

9 years ago

No…not what I said. Not even close.

The Coriolis effect impacts large things over large areas. So yes, the Coriolis effect impacts storm systems (large things) over continents, land masses, etc.. The myth is that the Coriolis effect influences small things in a small area (like the water in your toilet bowl, or a golf ball over a 200-400 yard range. The former has specifically been proven false.

Chad

9 years ago

As the Golden Bear always said, “If you want to hit the ball farther, hit it more in the center of the club”. The quality of the strike if the most important and spin is a definite influence. I think of it like tennis- a draw has topspin and will roll harder and a fade has backspin which rolls less.

Regis

9 years ago

For whatever reason I’ve been thinking about this for most of the day. Although I had a fairly respectable liberal arts education, I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert in applied physics. I have however spent a good deal of time dealing with engineers and other forensic experts either preparing them for trial or cross-examining them on the stand. The hammer/nail analogy seems misplaced. Both components of that analogy are solid steel, straight faced and designed for a specific purpose. Conversely the evolution of rifling a bore on a rifle was engineered to impart spin so as to increase the projectile’s velocity. The modern bowling ball has arranged weight blocks and different cover characteristics so as to increase the hook spin once the ball stops skidding and start its revolution so to increase the “draw” of the ball thereby increasing the force as it hits to the pocket. Similarly modern golf balls are engineered in their core and their cover so as to produce managed spin and clubfaces are engineered so as to produce both gear effect and various degrees of fitted spin. So it would appear that spin plays a part in increased velocity and therefore distance and that is reflected in both the ball’s and the club’s design. My personal experience is that an inside out upward angle of attack combined with a closed face to path produces a controlled draw that for me produces increased overall distance. My two cents. Now just learning how to game it consistently is the daunting aspect of the applied physics. Thanks so much for the article. I obviously appreciated it

Jon Silverberg

9 years ago

“Conversely the evolution of rifling a bore on a rifle was engineered to impart spin so as to increase the projectile’s velocity.” Regis, I believe the purpose of rifling is to aerodynamically stabilize the projectile, thereby improving accuracy, not velocity.

Andrew Rice

9 years ago

Hi all,

The comments on this post are the biggest challenge that golf forums face. A self-proclaimed “physics expert” commandeers the thread, and because he does have a measure of intellect and sounds somewhat reasonable, manages to sway a few readers toward his very skewed way of seeing the world. Before you know he he has rewritten the test and has proclaimed the findings to be null and void.

A few points to consider: Who knows the physics behind impact better – myself or the “expert”? Who has given more golf lessons? Who knows and understands how a human responds when they hit a ball one way versus another better? Do I, the tester and author of this article, have anything to gain by skewing the findings one way or another? Do you believe this is a covert ad for my golf school? Do you believe fades go further than draws? If you don’t, then why do you think draws go further than fades?

Please understand that both myself and the folks at MyGolfSpy go out of our way to come up with interesting and informative tests and research for you, the golfing public, to read and ultimately benefit from. It does neither entity any good to mislead or misrepresent our findings.

I appreciate your interest and readership and I will continue to run real-world research in the hopes that somebody might benefit from it and enjoy the game a little more.

Cheers,
Andrew

Jon Silverberg

9 years ago

Mr. Rice:
As I requested in an earlier post, it would be helpful if you provided more information, such as:
1) what is spin loft and how does it differ from launch angle? Why didn’t you report launch angle?
2) What do you mean by club path: left-right? up-down? How can drawers and faders both be plus?
3) I suggested two reasons why you might have gotten the results you did: a) better players make better strikes and better players have been taught to draw the ball; therefore, you have a positive feedback loop; perhaps draws didn’t go further in years past, when teaching and feedback were more rudimentary.
b) Better players play better/newer equipment, which may well lead to more optimal spin rates off the tee, and, in combination with better players hitting draws, has led to draws going further..
It would be useful for you to respond to these points.

thehacker

9 years ago

It’s not about motivation here. All the contributors here who disagree with the method in the study also have no other motive rather than in interest in seeing the best quality of discussion and information is being shared here.

As it is, there are already many myths in golf that has been perpetuated by people who thinks they know it all, maybe because have have years of teaching and playing and testing experience.

But in the end, many people reading this article with their common sense engaged would tend to find this study, and may other club testing flawed, and as such unconvinced. The best thing this forum could do is to accept there are differences, and maybe even consider what the detractors are saying.

We are not saying what we said to put you down, but we do have the interest in keeping this site lively and interesting, with different points of view being shared.

Graham Riley

9 years ago

Methinks there are some people who just like stirring, then standing back to watch the fallout…….. now ain’t that the truth. Guys instead of bemoaning the ‘facts or lack of them’ why not go to the coarse and try it out for yourselves……… I’m so out of here, got some golf to play!

Gabe

9 years ago

The only thing I wish was different was if you could have broken down the numbers from those who hit true draws and fades vs those who’s were caused by gear effect

Graham Riley

9 years ago

Hey Golfspy – You are never going to win with these guys no matter what info you put in front of them……….. some guys just seem to know better. It does not matter if you took 10,000 people and 500 shots each, you are still going to get the same BS flack, no matter what.
I have done my homework over the last 15 odd years on tee heights, sweet spots, hot spots, spin factors and distances gained by doing X and Y and I am still going to get a whole lot of people come back and tell me I’m talking BS – the fact is IF they actually went out and tried it they would find out for themselves that what has been said works – but man o man it is a whole lot easier to sit on the couch and pass comments.
Everybody knows that a draw gets you longer distance period……… and then you are going to get a few guys who can nail a fade a thousand miles….. go figure – but the general masses WILL get more distance with a draw (and its easier to hit). Thanks for a good article.

Art

9 years ago

Graham, what might help the general masses and what is fact can unfortunately be two different things. Why not convey fact, which could help the general masses AND the minority? There is a reason a few guys can nail a fade a thousand miles, and why many golfers could benefit from trying to hit a draw. That reason is not addresses in this article, and “fact” is missing.

Everybody knew the world was flat at one time.

Art

9 years ago

Graham, thank you for the link to “Instant Golf”. There, Robert claims just having the wrong golf ball can cost you 20 yards, wow! (of course, since he claims it, on the internet no less, it MUST be true) That alone covers the discrepancy in the average drive distance, if the faders are using the wrong ball…OR…maybe the drawers were using the wrong ball and could have been out-driving the other group by ANOTHER 20 yards!!

But then Titelist claims the ProV is the best distance ball–for everyone. Period. I’m so confused. :(

Graham Riley

9 years ago

Hi Art – don’t know which article you read, thats if you actually read it because nowhere was ‘golf’ balls’ really mentioned (although I am sure some balls go further than others???) – what was mentioned though was things like gear effect, height of your tee in relation to where you would if fact strike the ball, hot spots versus sweet spots etc etc. Maybe a re-read would help…. !!!

Art

9 years ago

Graham, here is the link to the home page of the gut you reference. Near the bottom third of the page Robert references a tour pro who gained 20 yards with the correct golf ball.

Sorry to read deeper than your recommendation, I didn’t know we were cherry picking information to best fit our beliefs.

Art

9 years ago

http://www.instantgolflesson.com/

Graham Riley

9 years ago

Guys IF you want to find out what spin does to distance and how club head speeds (heel v toe hit shots) can and will affect your shots go to this link by Robert Cotter, it might help – http://www.instantgolflesson.com/golf-driver-hot-spot.php

Jeff

9 years ago

Graham,
Very well said

Graham Riley

9 years ago

Just reading through all the comments – some draw and some like to fade the ball and round and round it goes. Ernie Els once said to me ‘If something works for you, leave it the hell alone because if you start tampering with it, its going to bite you in the a_ _ ‘ I think maybe he had a point…… take Tiger at the moment, shees this guy is having a bad one. So if a fade or draw works for you – stick to it but continue to improve it and adapt it, makes for a better all round golfer.

The other gem he dropped that day was ‘Don’t try to swing like the next guy, you have your own unique swing. Stick to some basics and you will find your own swing.’ His point was that if I tried to swing like Jim Furyk I would probably do myself an injury but it works for Jim… !!!

kenneth.nilsson

9 years ago

Thanks,

Again you make it understandble for most of my student, thanks for your effort and good work!

Vincent

9 years ago

Oh, man, hasn’t this discussion gone on waaaay toooooo long here and everywhere else !

You cannot test with any sort of reliable accuracy for this using humans, it’s not possible. I gotta go with Art here. If you’re not using an Iron Byron machine under exacting controlled conditions you’re getting a guess and nothing more and since you mention that you took only the best 5 of out of god knows how many before they got 5 good ones this test is a COMPLETE BUST. I usually don’t get into this stuff but Art’s right, this is an article that shouldn’t even have been written.

mygolfspy

9 years ago

We did our homework, you’re wrong:

http://mygolfspy.com/golf-club-testing-results-you-can-trust/

Art

9 years ago

mygolfspy, what are you saying is wrong? I’ve read the link you posted, and it’s full of stuff you-said-they-said. I think I’m missing your point.

Vince

9 years ago

That’s your scientific response, that I’m wrong? Then link me to an article you wrote as proof of your expertness on the subject? You host a nice web site so I’m assuming you cannot be a stupid person. You CANNOT get the type of absolute consistency you need from using humans swinging a club at inconsistent speeds with inconsistent contact, even missing the sweet spot by 1/64 of an inch, or a change of 1 or 2 mph or a quarter degree in either loft or face angle will give you different results, there’s no getting around the science of this, none.

But the worst part of your so-called “homework” is laughable at best. You took the five best of thirty shots by golfers ranging from an LPGA probably a plus something to a 12hi and a swing speed range of around 17 mph. Laying it out – there was NOTHING scientific or accurate about your findings and most people reading this know it.

Final note to the Regis / Jon S thread – you do realize that rifling the bore improves accuracy by either removing, limiting or reducing inefficiencies in flight of the projectile s0 Regis is really right.

A lot of what you do on this site is great but this test and analysis? A bust for you, a bust.

Tony Covey

9 years ago

I think you are missing the point. As Andrew said at the outset, all relevant factors being equal (ball speed, launch angle, spin rate, path, angle of attack, etc.) draws and fades will go exactly the same distance. It’s the stuff that’s unique to the individual that cause the real-world differences.

Apart from the mountain of data Trackman has collected on the subject, this knowledge borders on common sense. There’s absolutely nothing magical about a draw compared to a fade.

The article basically assumes that particular fact to be just that (It’s an established fact, not open for debate – you can run a few scenarios for yourself using FlightScope’s Trajectory optimizer (available online) or other similar tool), what Andrew does in this article is to explain the reasons why, in the real world, draws have a tendency to create more total distance than fades. Short story…it’s because of all of the things humans do when we swing a golf club.

No article is all things to all people. Sorry if this didn’t explain everything you wanted it to. Ague sample size all you want, but that doesn’t make the finding inaccurate. We’re in the process of testing drivers right now (using industry best-practice methodologies for sample size and sorting), and we’re seeing EXACTLY what Andrew laid out here. Draws consistently go further than fades for exactly the reasons he listed here.

Regarding robots…it’s been talked to death. Yes, we published the article (did you actually read it?), and I personally provided the framework for it (the banter that makes it a good read), but the supporting context for our argument against robots…we didn’t pull it out of our backsides. We solicited input from industry experts, which in addition to the heads of R&D at two major golf companies, included feedback from the guy who invented the golf robot.

This is one of the few subjects where there is nothing less than 100% agreement across the industry. We actually learned this while in the process of looking into getting a robot of our own for testing.

Maybe you know something the golf club R&D guys don’t about robot testing, so if you do, but all means state your qualifications. Otherwise, you should probably come to terms with the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of golf club performance testing is done using humans, because robots don’t provide a full picture of real-world results.

Blade

9 years ago

If you set up a robot to hit draws and fades with the same dynamics other than curve direction, it would be a complete waste of time for two reasons. One, if the launch conditions are the same, both shots will fly the same. Thre is absolutely no need for a robot to tell you that. Two, you will not find a person that will hit fades and draws with same launch conditions. It won’t happen in the real world. Getting a robot to do would have no relation to what really happens. As far as this test, the only thing I would submit is comparing six people who draw the ball to six who fade it isn’t a great way to test. You can normalize the data. And I don’t believe there’s truly a problem with the data presented here. It backs up what has been already established as a typical result. However, it leaves the door open to the complainers due to the small sample size. I truly believe the results would be the same if the sample size were 10,000 golfers. But someone with a chip on their shoulder about it won’t accept that.

I think a better way to do the test would be to find a dozen golfers who can effectively hit both fades and draws. Then compare the differences each golfer has between their own shots. That’s what counts for everyone playing. It’s not whether I can hit a draw longer than someone else’s fade. Someone else can be a longer hitter and hit their fade farther than my draw. The take-away is that YOUR draw will almost surely go farther than YOUR fade. Same for me and everyone else swinging a club that can do both effectively. The only way to show that is have each tester hit both shots. A robot would be absolutely useless for this test.

Art

9 years ago

Tony,

Do you get your own MyGolfSpy emaill blasts? Here is how you set the stage.

“Want to hit it longer? You might want to read this!
Most golfers know that draws go further than fades. The burning question though is…why?
Come join MyGolfSpy and Andrew Rice today to find out the science behind why this happens and how you are now guaranteed to hit it longer.
P.S. – Take a guess…how much longer are draws (vs) fades?
(5,10, 20 or more than 20 yards)”

So all things being equal, a fade and a draw go the same distance. True, agreed–so we’ll disregard that guarantee you and Andrew make in the non-advertising email? Right? By the way, did you ever answer the “P.S.” question you posed for us to guess on? How much longer are draws vs. fades?? Oops, no, all things being equal they are no different. And you have the “science” to clear up this confusion that the draw is at the same time longer and equal to the fade. Awesome! in the name of “science” lets go!!

You know why I love science? Science is unbiased. Scientific studies use certifiable measuring devices, isolate variables, have reproducible and unambiguous results, which all combine to indicate if your hypothesis is true or false.

Lets take a look at your hypothesis. “Fact: draws go further than fades”. No that’s not it. It’s this: “There always seems to be something that makes a draw go further than a fade and the purpose of this test was to gain a better understanding of what those factors might be.” No-no-no, it’s this: “…all the factors other than curvature through the air were the same, we would find that draws and fades travel the exact same distance. Or maybe “We gaurantee you’ll hit the ball further if you will click on our link, as it’s well known fact that draws go further than fades (by…wink-wink-nudge-nudge…20 yards or more!.)” These are all your statements, not mine.

Never mind. Let’s look at the “research” data Andrew has collected, which will isolate this very elusive variable indicating a draw is better than a fade. Guaranteed. Except when all things are equal. (The next article will take a look at the conditions when a fade goes further than a draw? Maybe??)

You tested 12 golfers in each group. So from the start, your results are statistically insignificant. Oh, no, you used only six of the twelve it appears?? Okay, lets disregard that variable. We’ll look at the quality of data collection on each golfer. How many hundreds of shots? Not hundreds? Dozens? No? 5??? as in count one hand–5????? Well, at least they had similar abilities, had all been fitted for their driver, right? Oh, skill level ranged from a 12 handicap to a tour pro?? Hmmm…well, lets skip those variables, I’m sure none of them will have any bearing on the results. On to the results!

Well, the draw group is clearly longer, by more than 10%. Why?
Club speed: 5.7mph difference. Could faster club head speed be why? No we “adjusted” those!!
Smash factor: the draw group was higher. Huh.
Spin loft: Another un-isolated variable. Is anybody keeping count?
Club path: another variable. And what is it relative to? Target? Club face? So it’s undefined and variable?! Perfect!!!
Spin rate: wow, a 25% change! Let’s assume the lower number is the better variable on that one–and hey it’s the draw group! what a coincidence!! But look at this next variable!!!!:
Spin axis: The draw group has DOUBLE the spin axis!!! (we assume, because both are indicated in the same direction.) DOUBLE!!!!!!

Conclusion:

The more side spin you put on the ball the farther it goes… or the more swing speed you generate…. wait, could club path have an effect? Surely club path equates to club speed. Look, it’s clear in the research!! Or is it spin rate? It appears low spin rate is product of high club head speed! Swing faster!!! Yes, that’s the conclusion. Except when it isn’t.

Great job guys.

Mike

9 years ago

What about dead straight balls? Hard to believe that’s a flight that’s left out.

Art

9 years ago

That’s because the straight ball is the hardest to hit!! :)

But it is the longest ball. Draws/fades are imparting a component of the club head’s energy in a direction left/right of your target. It’s wasted energy, if you want to maximize distance.

Jeff

9 years ago

Art ,
The straightest ball in my view is not the longest.
Have you not seen Tigers (zinger) three wood. Goes hooky and long.
Jeff

Art

9 years ago

Just because it goes hooky and long doesn’t mean it wouldn’t go straight and longer.

Think about driving a nail into a board with a hammer. Would you want to hit the nail perfectly square on the head, or would you want to hit it off-axis, from one side or the other (a fade/draw)? If you want to drive the nail the deepest with one single blow, you have to hit it square on the head, straight down the shaft of the nail.

The same holds true for a golf ball. Deliver your energy in the direction you want the ball to go for maximum energy transfer. That is straight down the line. Any energy you use to make the ball go right or left of your target is then no longer available to move the ball toward your target. It is simple physics. Conservation of energy is law.

Jeff

9 years ago

Hi Art.
This is now very complicated.
I will argue that if you hit a driver with an inside out swing or a pull shoulder around swing you must get more distance.And it does .The ball has to go further because of the spin .

To me it makes sense

Bob Pegram

9 years ago

A hook is caused by a clubface that is slightly closed to the clubhead path. A closed face reduces the loft slightly which affects distance.

Jon

9 years ago

Last time I checked, nails don’t spin. If you hit the nail onto a fairway, I don’t think it’d roll. Bad analogy. Surely the whole point of this thread is based on the fact that no one can consistently hit a straight shot. Given this, Andrew is simply asking which is the longer shot – a draw or a fade. We all know it’s a draw and he concludes the obvious. But it’s interesting to note that you get better roll on a draw strike that a fade despite the carry being similar. Until you can pop 30 shots straight out there Art, we’ll have to accept your unproven theory.

Bob Pegram

9 years ago

The other issue is ability to hit the fairway consistently. If a golfer can hit a fade more consistently than a draw, he will hit the fairway more often. A drive in the fairway will roll farther than a drive in the rough regardless of fade or draw.
If I try to hook the ball, I am inconsistent – some hook, some fade. If I try to hit it straight and my slight miss is a small fade, I hit the fairway more resulting in more AVERAGE roll and easier second shots.
Some very good golfers hit fades off the tee as a standard shot. Billy Casper won over 50 tournaments on the PGA Tour with a fade. On very narrow fairways more roll can be detrimental – it can roll into the rough instead of stopping.
If a golfer can hit a draw dependably, more power to him, great! I can’t. I use a 48 inch driver – control is more critical with that club.

tHeHacker

9 years ago

Again this is one area where I say using an Iron Byron makes sense. You can’t do a fair comparison when you have golfer A with 95 mph swing hitting fade with golfer B with 105 mph swing hitting draws, and then conclude that draws are longer. Both golfers have very different swing characteristics and very different launch perimeters, how can the conclusion be valid?

If you used a robot, you can set up everything else to be the same, and tweak the approach path and face angle to manufacture and fade or draw as needed, then it would be a slightly more valid comparison. I.e. provided the effects of wind is accounted for.

Leftienige

9 years ago

The touble with the “Iron Byron” is that it only has an “arm-swing” , no provision to simulate a “body-turn” . It can never truly replicate a human swing .

THEHacker

9 years ago

While Iron Byron can’t really replicate a human swing, it can do one thing consistently well, replicate the same ball striking parameters over and over again.

You can set it up, to keep factors like where the ball is struck on the club face, the clubbed speed, the angle of attack constant, while varying the the club face angle relative to swing path to create a draw, fade or dead straight shot shape.

This test have so many flaws, I am not convinced it has any validity at all. In order for the test to be scientifically valid (or least compelling), you need to keep as many factors constant as possible. Ideally, all other factors should be constant leaving only one thing to prove or disprove.

I have said before elsewhere, human testers have it’s limits. While it’s kinda fun to perform the experiment, the results should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

Regis

9 years ago

If I were to take every poster at his word, every golfer has 105-120 mph swing speed and carries his driver at least 260 yards. Me? I’m in the 80-85 mph range and try to achieve a consistent 200 yard tee shot. So whenever I sign on to any review I have to do some interpretation to even enjoy the review let alone use it to determine whether a particular club, ball or shaft should peak my interest. It’s the part of the dance that I enjoy. So It makes no difference to me whether the results were assimilated by using a robot, a touring pro or a regular golfer with bad shots culled from the data. The one thing I like here is that they give separate results for those with SS<100 mph. Much more relevant than basing results on handicap. In a perfect world you might be able to program a robot to replicate my normal swing mechanics . Then I would be glued to the screen but I doubt very many others would be.

thehacker

9 years ago

Its very possible to set up a robot to hit the ball at 80 mph too my friend. Whether or not it makes useful or interesting information to your good self, that’s something you will decide for yourself.

The thing is we should not pretend that this is a scientific study, because it is not. It is full of holes and the conclusion is heavily flawed although it sort of agrees with what many of us suspect all along.

I know I am very anal about it, and it bothers me when people use flawed studies to prove or disprove any theories. Yes I know in real life golf is played by humans with golf conditions changing all the time, subject to many many variables, the golf shots that results would be different. It’s almost nearly impossible to perfectly replicate the golf swing / shot you have made a few seconds ago. And precisely because of that, using humans to test to prove and disprove any theories in golf (especially) is bound to be flawed. In a truly scientific test, you want to keep as many factors constant as possible.

Have a look at the result posted above again, you are comparing a draw shot at 99mph with a fade shot at 94mph, and conclude that the draw shot is longer. How do you know the longer carry and total distance is not due to the higher club head speed?

At most this has been a fun outing for all the testers, whether it is for the sake of comparing one brand of driver to another, or like in this case one shot shape to another. But I honestly feel the conclusions should be taken with a pinch of salt.

JEM

9 years ago

I would be very interested in seeing this kind of study done with an “Iron Byron” in which all extraneous factors such as toe or heel strike, swing speed, etc. are taken out of the mix. However, I’m not sure machines like this are even capable of taking an in to out or out to in swing path, and maybe humans are the only option.

Graham Riley

9 years ago

Another bit of info for the ‘long drive roll out’ – if the ball is teed up to half ball rule (half the ball showing behind the club head) and hitting it slightly above dead center (generally the sweet spot is dead centre) will give you either a draw or a fade that travels further BUT set it up the same as above and move away from the ball slightly so that your ball impact is still above the middle of the club head but slightly further towards the toe (5mm closer to the toe) and you then hit the ‘hot spot’ and you automatically get a draw because of the gear effect and more rotation around your body and it will fly further (+- 10 to 20 yards further). Robert Cotter explained it best – that part of the head is moving faster than the inside of the head by up to 2 miles an hour faster…… ???? I just play the game guys.

Tom

9 years ago

Could it be as simple as:
Fade = open face to path = + loft and spin loft
Draw = closed face to path = – loft and spin lot?

Art

9 years ago

It isn’t quite that simple, but that is often how it plays out, and especially with us amateurs.

Chal

9 years ago

I am curious if this holds true assuming perfect launch conditions. If I swing the club 110 mph and am able to generate 17 degree launch with 1700 spin, does it matter if I am hitting a draw or a fade? Would the distance be similar.

Chris G

9 years ago

This is pretty interesting given the in-out path required for both shapes. I would have the thought the “slamming door” factor from releasing vs holding off the toe would be more in play. Paradoxically, I am a much better driver of the ball and hence a slightly better player (by handicap) by having switched from a draw to an inside-out path fade off the tee a few years ago. I’m guessing an OTT cut is more costly to distance?

Regis

9 years ago

My SS has dropped to an anemic 80-85 mph (age ,disability) but I’ve always had decent mechanics. I’m ordinarily a straight ball hitter but when my mechanics are at their best I hit a slight draw. I play predominately in the Northeast so the effective distance gain seems minimal compared to the posted results When I try and hit an intentional draw the distance gain is more dramatic but much less predictable. Going forward I think the key is to find my optimum face to path angle on some trackman sessions. Then all I have to do is switch my focus to fairways, crisper irons, chipping, pitching, sand play and putting. Hope springs eternal !

Mike

9 years ago

Those who drew the ball had a higher smash factor, indicating better contact (as expected given more experienced plays are more likely to draw the ball and hit the sweet spot more).

The thing you guys left out is launch angle and dynamic loft. Delofting the club while increasing angle of attack to keep up the launch angle will reduce spin loft and therefore spin, which is a major factor on driver distance.

Roger

9 years ago

While you can’t argue that draws go farther than fades, all that matters in the end is whether or not you can consistantly find the fairway. I have about 105 SS and whenever I connect with one trying to hit a draw it was gone, but would suffer coming too much from the inside, causing me to hook the ball from time to time. Switched to hitting a cut, and while a bit shorter, I hit it much more solidly and accurately.
Good work on the data. Enjoy reading up on the “why” of the golf swing.

Jon Silverberg

9 years ago

Andrew:

1) With regard to the results: a) Please define spin axis, spin loft and club path as they relate to the numbers shown; and b) why do you not report launch angle?
2) a) Did most of the lower handicap members of the group hit draws? (If yes, more centered face contact could explain the better smash factor for those who draw the ball)
b) If the answer to question 2a was yes, did that group use drivers that were newer generation than the higher handicap members of the group? (If yes, that could explain the lower spin rate).

Thank you for the research.

William McAllister

9 years ago

Would be closer if you found people who faded it properly with a leftward swing path as opposed to weak faced fades with a path to the right.

Dave N

9 years ago

Andrew- Maybe this is what you were saying in the last line about upgrading to an effective draw, but here’s my observation: I’m a natural straight to slight fade hitter with the driver. I feel like my swing is more accurate this way as it’s similar to my iron swing, but I know I give up yards. Typical swing speed is mid 90s. If I try to hit a draw, which isn’t that difficult for me (but harder to control), I seem to consistently swing closer to the low 100s (on a monitor) with the same swing “effort”, and on-course distance gains are minimum 15-20 yards, usually more. If I step on it with the draw, I can even squeeze a few more mph into it to bring me to the mid 100s, but this gets me in trouble on- course because of a block tendency. If I step on it with a fade/straight swing, I get no speed gains and a lot of crooked. Do you know if there’s anything physics wise to this, generally speaking? Or perhaps MY draw swing is more “on plane” than MY fade/straight swing” and thus more efficient at transferring to club head speed? Anyway, for the same or similar physical effort, I get way more mileage out of a draw swing… If only I could control it.

David Felker

9 years ago

the primary reason for the distance difference is the fade generates more spin. Higher spin generates more lift and more drag. The fade shot may carry approximately the same distance because it has a higher trajectory and stays in the air longer. However, the fade hits the ground at a steeper decent angle than the draw and it also hits the ground at a slightly slower velocity. Steeper decent angle means less energy is translated in the forward direction and lower ball speed means there is less energy to transfer – so the fade rolls out less. The Fade shot is a good shot to play is you want to maximize carry but minimize roll, and the wind is not too bad (or you want to take advantage of the wind to drift the ball in a cross wind).

imgolfing4

9 years ago

Hmmm, wonder why Jack, Hogan and a host of other players hit fades instead of draws?

BR

9 years ago

Possibly several reasons but most likely for control. Most of their tee shots were strategic in regards to their second, third shots.

Kenny B

9 years ago

“When adjusting for the difference in speed, if the faders and drawers both had club speeds of 100 MPH, the fades carry 222 yards with a total distance of 249 yards and the draws carry 224 yards with a total of 258 yards. I found it interesting that the carry distance was very similar, yet due to the lower spin rates for the draws, the total difference was a more substantial 9 yards.”

More information is needed. How did you adjust for the difference in speed? The draws adjustment is negligible as it was almost 100 anyway, but adjusting the fades is not so obvious. With increased speed comes increased spin which will translate into less distance. So, the difference could be even greater than shown.

Andrew Rice

9 years ago

You divide the average club speed into the average carry to find the average yards per MPH of club speed. Then you multiply by whatever speed you want to use as an example.

Crash2k1

9 years ago

Thanks Andrew. Love your stuff. For me, furthering my understanding of the conditions at impact has continually led to improved and more consistent ball striking.

Ron

9 years ago

Terrific news, which, as you said, everyone already knows. Now, what is the best way to consistently hit a draw?

Andrew Rice

9 years ago

Get the clubhead traveling from in to out through impact Ron. Sounds easy, but for many it’s not. Get some sound advice and then work at it – hard!

Jeff McCarthy

9 years ago

Good info.
I have the ability to hit what I term as a Pull Draw that with the driver is a lowish running ball ideal for hitting into to wind and with mid irons High or low pull shots.
The ball definatlly goes much further.
I thought that Jack N hit a lot of Pull draws.

Steve

9 years ago

The draw people had a lot more club head speed. Your adjustment for this tells us that virtually all of the gains were due to roll out. Also I believe the drawers just make a more quality of contact. Currently and in the past the guys known as the longest on tour were faders. Currently Bubba, Holmes, English and I could go on. In the past Nicklaus, Love and Couples. The little guys can’t catch them with a draw. Although it does go farther. Teach us to improve our “quality of contact” and let our shot shape stay with what works best for us.

Bob Pegram

9 years ago

Interesting observations. Fades tend to stay in play better – at least for me. Billy Casper passed away this week. He won 51 tournaments and was a fader. He kept the ball in play.
I’d much rather be hitting a 6iron from the fairway than a 7iron from the rough – or worse.

On the other hand, I hit the ball a long way, so distance usually isn’t a major factor for me.
I use a 48 inch driver on the course. If I try to draw it, I have no idea where it will end up. Straight balls to slight fades are relatively easy to keep in the fairway with it.

Jon

9 years ago

Is a 48 inch driver legal?

Bob Pegram

9 years ago

Yes. The maximum length allowed is 48 inches. When you get that close to the limit, knowing how to measure the length is important. I doubt I could control a club any longer than that anyway.

In early long drive competitions there was no club length limit. Some drivers were well over 50 inches. The 48 inch length limit went into effect at some point. It is the same limit as the USGA has. I was never a long drive competitor. I don’t hit it far enough for that.

By the way, my driver has a very light head so the swingweight isn’t off the charts heavy. I built it from scratch to be that long. The head is 195 grams.

John Krug

8 years ago

Bob, how tall are you?

Bob Pegram

8 years ago

Hi John –
I am 6 feet tall with shorter than average arms. As I used the 48 inch driver more it became apparent that it was a little too long to be comfortable. I cut it down a 1/2 inch which seemed better. Then I realized that it had a draw bias – when I was hitting it straight I was fading every other club. When I was hitting every other club straight, I was duck-hooking the driver. The head was somewhat heel weighted which promotes a draw. I took the head off and replaced it with an Adams head from a few years ago that has 4 removeable weights in the back. I hit it the same direction as my other clubs – end of problem. Also the shaft went into the head 1/2 inch farther than the other one so it is now 47 inch. I stand tall so it is very comfortable. I don’t need to do anything to my swing to accommodate it.
By the way, my 3 wood is 45 inches, my 5 wood is 44.25 inches. My irons are all 1-1/2 overlength (39-1/2 inch 5 iron, etc.). They all have very stiff graphite shafts which keeps the weight down.

Art

9 years ago

So really, a better hit ball goes further than a less well hit ball….wow

Disappointing “fact” finding here, Golf Spy

Andrew Rice

9 years ago

Please show me where we say that Art? You seem awfully grumpy over a few people going out of their way to provide well sourced information – cheer up. Life’s not that bad is it?

Art

9 years ago

No life is not that bad, but bad information is frustrating, and I do get grumpy over bad information. :)

I paraphrased with my “better hit/less well hit” comment–you didn’t say that. I’ll try to explain. One ball is hit (on average) with a higher club head speed, a higher smash factor, and a more optimal spin rate. This is the “better hit ball”.
One ball is hit (on average) with a lower club head speed, a lower smash factor, and a higher than optimal spin rate. This is the “less well hit ball”. The draw/fade component is falsely used as the substantiation for the better drive average. It is FAR more complicated than that.

If, on average, all components of each set were equal, and we simply applied an equal amount of off-axis spin to the two groups, neither draw nor fade would prove to be longer. The laws of physics apply equally to +/- axis spin.

Draws don’t go farther than fades, “better hit balls” go farther than “less well hit balls”.

Blade

9 years ago

You totally, totally missed the point. The physics of what creates a draw is what creates the faster club head speed and better smash factor to begin with. No duh two balls launched at exactly the same angle, same spin and speed but with the spin axis tilted slightly left and right will travel the same distance. But a player hitting a draw with one shot and a fade with the next, will NOT produce the same launch conditions between the two shots. If both shots are well struck, the draw will almost always go farther unless they have a fitting issue going on with their driver or something and they’re hitting it too low to begin with.

Art

9 years ago

Blade, I’m sorry but your call to physics, club head speed, and smash factor is inaccurate and misunderstood. By the way thanks for the “no duh” input, very insightful and certainly makes your argument more intelligent and persuasive.

My point is a player CAN potentially hit a fade or draw with equitable ball dynamics other than the spin axis. And believe it or not, some do. My point is, the assertion made in the article is not factual, and is not supported by the presentation. All that’s been shown is one group of players were better ball strikers than the other group.

In part I agree with you and Andrew. What we often observe on the golf course are people hitting high slices or low hooks. And as indicated here, the players hitting draws are often swinging with mechanics closer to ideal. However we could also find a group of players that hit fades better than the group in this “study” who hit draws. Could we then proclaim “FACT: Fades go further”? By the logic and argument presented here, we should. But that doesn’t make it 100% fact as it’s been ADverstised here in the article, that one shot direction goes further than the other–and it is just an advertisement for a golf school.

Blade

9 years ago

I’ll have to reply to my own post as there is no reply button under Art’s.

You’re still arguing that a draw and fade are the same shot curving in different directions and therefore go the same distance. The NO DUH comes from the fact that if both balls had the same launch conditions, no kidding they will go the same distance. That’s a no brainer if there ever was one.

Comparing one person’s draw to another person’s fade is absolutely pointless. I actually don’t agree with the test parameters comparing a number of faders with drawers. I suppose if you had a huge database to collect data from, that could identify a trend.

BUT, for the most part a draw WILL go farther than a fade for the SAME person hitting both shots. The chances of that person executing both shots and creating the same launch conditions except for the spin axis tilt are almost ZERO. In the real world, that doesn’t happen with any regularity, if at all.

The exception to a draw going farther for the same person hitting a fade would be if they can’t effectively execute a draw, or if their standard shot is a solid fade AND they have their driver truly optimized for their swing and desired flight. In that case, hitting a draw for them has a good chance of launching a bit too low and losing distance. But the fact remains, that a person hitting both shots will produce different launch conditions between them. The point of the article was not to say a ball curving to the left will go farther due to the curve itself.

JEM

9 years ago

They’re really not saying “well hit” or “not well hit”. A fade can be very well hit, and many great players have favored a fade. The researcher is just saying that, all things being equal, a ball curving right to left (draw) tends to get more distance than the fade or cut shot. I’ve always heard this, and I’ve always wondered why. This answers the question to my satisfaction.

Blade

9 years ago

It’s not the curving to the left that makes it go farther. Don’t misunderstand that part.

Art

9 years ago

Blade, I agree with your “for the most part” ideas, for the most part! :)

John Dee

9 years ago

The test information offered is not complete because a vital piece of the puzzle is missing.
Where the ball impacted on the face is vital information as that affects ball speed, spin , smash factor , launch angle and gear effect.
It is rapidly becoming apparent from latest Trackman and Quintic High Speed Photography studies that where the ball impacts the face is actually THE most important factor .
When Trackman indications and actual ball flight achieved contradict one another it INVARIABLY is because of compensating factors caused by the face impact position.
The most important…and cheapest…swing aid on the planet is now a can of foot powder.
You do not need Trackman…all the ESSENTIAL info confirming why you achieved a particular ball flight on that last shot with the driver will be there.
Botton Line…It now IS rocket science.
You do not need a swing coach.
You do not need a new driver.
Get to it.

Taylor Price

9 years ago

Say you’re hitting a low spin driver like the sldr. Would hitting fades and draws with it affect distance a lot considering it is already low spinning?

Art

9 years ago

Any side spin, draw or fade, reduces distance. The draw or fade aspect is irrelevant.

Andrew Rice

9 years ago

In a laboratory that might be the case Art, but in the real world things don’t work quite that neatly. The results of the test show what I see on a daily basis.

Art

9 years ago

No Andrew, physics is physics. Lab or real world. Earth or outer space. I agree, collecting neat data in the real world is difficult. Unfortunately that doesn’t make your assertion of “fact” any more valid; quite the opposite.

And for the record, now I am grumpy with you. A trackman master, you are? You might be a wonderful instructor with a student in front of you. But for those of us who can’t afford your school, or $75/hr for lessons, we have to search for information and attempt to build a swing. Many of us don’t know good information from bad, and I’m guessing you see the product regularly.

Reader beware.

Blade

9 years ago

Dude, it’s not that a ball with it’s spin axis tilted slightly left goes farther than one tilted right. If that were true a fade for a lefty would go farther than their draw.

It’s the dynamics of the swing needed to create a draw and what the club is doing that makes adraw typically longer. The club is releasing a bit more in relation to its path for a draw. That will create a bit more club head speed without swinging any faster. The little bit of extra head rotation that happens in that process will also tend to translate into a better energy transfer as well. Both of those create a little more ball speed to begin with. Then you add in the fact of a lower spin loft and more positive angle of attack and you’ve optimized the launch conditions over what a typical fade produces. That combined with the ball speed being a little faster typically, translate to a longer carry. They also put the ball on a flatter angle of descent with less spin. That gives it more roll when it lands compared to a typical fade.

There will always be players that just can’t draw a ball and trying to screws them up swing-wise so bad it’s a disaster. But for the most part, with well struck shots in both directions, the physics of generating a draw will produce a longer shot. Physics is physics, in the real world or not.

And BTW, YEA you are grumpy!

Andrew Rice

9 years ago

It depends on the shape of the shot you’re hitting Taylor…

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.