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 physics. 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. Both disciplines are

research driven, and believe that informing their reader with their results is the important part.

Geared towards audiences in product development, these two disciplines provide information

useful to the research of new products.

The first topic, 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. Written by Ashley Richardson,

Andrew Mitchell, and Gerwyn Hughes wrote a paper testing how hitting different points on the

golf ball can 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 presumed to be familiar with the reader. This is important to the paper

because if the reader cannot understand the language used in the article then they have no reason

to read it. Important information such as names of the putters and golf balls used in the

experiment. Lastly, the number of the artificial turf let the reader know how authentic the turf
was to real grass. 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. 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. 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. This is an example of

audience, or the intended reader.

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 and 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 forge the club because they are more precise than other forging methods. Lasers have allowed

better precision club making than previous methods. 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 the results with subtitles, Aldrich goes

into detail how each aspect of golf spin, putting, and club making is affected by lasers. This type

of writing style reveals a lot about the writer. The writer does not voice his opinion because it is

not important. This is one of the limitations about writing this type of discipline. Since this piece

is informative, the authors opinion is not needed in order to accomplish the main goal of the

piece.

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 intended audience. 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

performance while Aldrich focuses on the manufacturing. Through the use of research, the

dimple error group is able to reassure their audience that dimple error isnt an issue. 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.