Cav Jue

Matt Wilson

2/26/17

WP2

Golf is stereotypically known as being easy and not a real sport. However, golf is actually

very complex and two distinct academic disciplines show how complex it really is. The two

academic disciples used to talk about this subject are about surface engineering and how dimple

error affects putting. A peer-reviewed article by Darin Aldrich on surface engineering explains

how the manufacturing process of items used in golf affects performance. The other example is

written by a group and explains how putting on different parts of the golf ball affects its

trajectory. While both talk about a different aspect of golf, at the root their main topic relates to

golf.

For example, the article, The effect of dimple error on the horizontal launch angle and

side spin of the golf ball during putting, delves into the physics region of golf. Ashley

Richardson, Andrew Mitchell, and Gerwyn Hughes wrote a paper called The effect of dimple

error on the horizontal launch angle and side spin of the golf ball during putting. They tested

how hitting different points on the golf ball affects its trajectory.

The authors used different golf terms such as, the dimple of the ball, and having a square

club face. These terms are assumed to be familiar with the writer. Being familiar allows the

reader to visualize the experiment. This is important because the reader needs to visualize the

experiment in order to understand what the group is trying to prove. Visual helpers are two

putters that are used, an Odyssey White Hot #3 putter and a GEL Vicis putter. The two putters
are common putters in the golf universe. The golf balls used were the Srixon Z-Star and the

Titlelist ProV1, which any golfer knows are two of the best quality balls on the market. Other

terms such as a square club face mean that the club is perpendicular to the ground or parallel to

the ball. Lastly, the number of the artificial turf let the reader know how authentic the turf was to

real grass. These terms arent imperative to be known because the writers do a good job of

explaining how each of these terms are important, however, the experiment makes better sense if

these terms are known. Furthermore, the experiment uses visual guidance to show the different

impact points between complete contact with the dimple and contact with the side of the dimple.

The authors then explain how the experiment is constructed such as letting the reader know, the

ball was placed in the same spot every trial because two lasers intersected at the point of

placement. Also, a machine was used to prove the hypothesis, and humans were used to prove

its true with everyday golfing. Examples such as these gives the notion that the writer

encourages the reader to try to visualize the experiment even if they only have basic knowledge

about golf.

If the reader only has basic knowledge on the game of golf, this article is not selective to

sport scientists. Anyone who knows the game can easily follow along. These findings, however,

are not meant for those who are trying to improve their golf game by using their findings but

rather know that the putting path of their ball will not be changed by what part of the ball they

hit. This paper is not intended for the hardcore golfer but rather the golf coach or the casual

golfer looking to read something while on the toilet. The paper will be easy to read for those

familiar with the game of golf. It was designed to educate such as an episode of Sports Science, a

show that educates me on the game of golf but not in terms of teaching me skills.
 The second topic, Surface engineering and golf, is an article written by, Darin Aldrich, on

how the surface engineering of golf equipment affects their performance. In addition, the article

also talks about how new clubs can be designed with surface engineering. Using in-depth

analysis, Aldrich explains how texture and materials influences ball spin, putting, and resistance.

The first example, ball spin, is affected by lasers modifying the hitting surface of the

club. Since most golf clubs are made of titanium or an alloy containing titanium, lasers are used

to shape the club because they are more precise than other forging methods. Lasers have allowed

better precision club making than previous methods. The second example is how the roughness

of the grooves on a golf club affects the amount of spin produced while hitting. The higher

surface roughness a club has, the more spin on a golf ball is produced. Colliding back with

lasers, they allow the surface to be textured in a way the increases the spin produced without

increasing the side spin produced.

Secondly, club making, the manufactures focus has been material composition, surface

roughness, and the shape of the grooves milled into the surface. Lasers have been a factor due to

their low cost, scalability, and compatibility with the materials used to make clubs. Lasers are

also important because they allow precision cutting while leaving no rough edges or residue left

on the club. Little heat is also used to modify the surface of materials such as titanium.

In his paper, Aldrich first explains all the different ways how clubs are made and how

lasers are used in this manufacturing process. By labeling with subtitles, he goes in to detail how

each aspect of golf spin, putting, and club making is affected by lasers. The one thing he does not

do is give his opinion until the very end of the paper. Even then, he just states that he thinks new

technology to manufacture clubs will be invented.

 The way Aldrich writes this paper is very professional and unbiased. He writes this more

informative because there is not much controversy over the techniques used to forge golf clubs.

Throughout the whole paper, there is no opinion from Aldrich until the last sentence which is still

more of a last remark than an opinion. Additionally, Aldrich doesnt go over specific clubs that

his examples cover. Such as his example for surface roughness on wedges, Aldrich doesnt

present popular examples of wedges that utilizes these techniques. Another thing he doesnt go

over is that other than titanium, he doesnt present another alloy that is compatible with laser

cutting, but rather just states that laser surface modification is compatible with common club

materials.

Other things to note about this paper is the audience intended. Unlike the first paper, the

audience is not meant for golf enthusiasts. This is written towards manufacturers or researchers

looking for the answers on how clubs are made. The research could be used to improve

manufacturing techniques or it can be used to identify why the top products on the market are

doing well. This research cannot be used to learn how to play better as a golfer. It does not

mention any details such as how to hit the ball a certain way or explain techniques on how to

play better. It only states factual details on the surface engineering of golf.

The main difference between these two papers is that dimple error focuses on the effects

while Aldrich focuses on the manufacturing. The dimple error group approaches golf by studying

how dimple error affects your putting and assures the reader that it isnt a problem. Primarily in

their conclusion they state, golfers should not be concerned with dimple error. Then the second

one approaches golf by letting the reader know how their clubs are made and how it translates

into the game of golf. Aldrichs main statement was that the overall performance of the club is

affected by material composition, surface roughness, and the shape of the grooves milled into the
surface of the club. Both papers prove two very different points in the golf world but are similar

because they main subject is golf.