|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 10, 2012 21:34:33 GMT -5
What was the purpose of this research project? To determine if Trackman was accurate or something more? If something more, what is the something?
|
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 11, 2012 8:51:44 GMT -5
What was the purpose of this research project? To determine if Trackman was accurate or something more? If something more, what is the something? IMO, more but I big part of it was to see if the two matched up, in theory they should have. One thing I noticed was on one drive I hit, using Kelivns numbers, was a path that was 0 but the face was slightly open, yet the ball was a push draw. The closure of the club may have had something to do with this odd ball flight (anti?) law. |
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 11, 2012 9:34:29 GMT -5
Gary -
What's the "more"? It has never been explained.
Your readings indicate a typical toe shot. The face should show as more open because of how Trackman calculates face angle. (I don't know how they calculate it). Some want the face angle reading at first touch without any affect on the clubface of gear effect and that's fine (I'm not against that). But that's not how I believe Trackman (or Flightscope) calculates face angle. You cannot seperate the path/face angle reading from actual ballflight and the machine was never designed to be used that way.
If you had those readings with a heel shot then hopefully we'll have a video posted that shows the shot and corresponding readings.
|
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 11, 2012 10:16:50 GMT -5
CW, the problem is that they tell us a lot about face angle and give it as an measured result. Now what if it's not at all true? Where goes every theory they have told us?
I understand perfectly how it works and how to use it, but it's bit embarrassing if there starts to be results that say that this calculation is wrong.
And like I said times ago, it doesn't make it useless. We still can hunt those numbers from the screen that produces good shots, but to use that as an scientific evidence will fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 11, 2012 10:26:45 GMT -5
cwldlaw223,
I could imagine the "more" is obtaining ball flight results that don't fit in with either the Trackman's or Phantom camera's measurements for clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact (and their predicted influence on ball flight). That type of result would suggest that there may be an unknown factor that also influences ball flight - other than the impact factors of clubhead path, clubface orientation angle and gear-effect.
Jeff.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 11, 2012 11:02:12 GMT -5
Gary - What's the "more"? It has never been explained. Your readings indicate a typical toe shot. The face should show as more open because of how Trackman calculates face angle. It was a few dimples off, but the shot was very close to center. BUT I agree with you. Kelvin said it was open every so slightly, and path was square. My memory recalls Trackman said it was 2 or 3 degrees closed. By the way its "Greg". |
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 11, 2012 11:03:59 GMT -5
cwldlaw223, I could imagine the "more" is obtaining ball flight results that don't fit in with either the Trackman's or Phantom camera's measurements for clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact (and their predicted influence on ball flight). That type of result would suggest that there may be an unknown factor that also influences ball flight - other than the impact factors of clubhead path, clubface orientation angle and gear-effect. Jeff. I would agree, but it was not my study, and I was not there pestering the researchers with questions, and honestly with some study not sure I would have understood all the numbers they were looking at. The last thing I want to do is speak for Jeff, KM, or Rick. My statements are my own interpretations and opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Dec 11, 2012 11:08:08 GMT -5
Greg, where is the cg of your driver in relation to the impact location of that shot?
|
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 11, 2012 11:28:17 GMT -5
Greg, where is the cg of your driver in relation to the impact location of that shot? I am not sure. It could explain the ball flight, which should have been a slight push fade...........but most definitely was not a face closed impact, and the path was off as well from the Orange Box. |
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Dec 11, 2012 11:35:44 GMT -5
Trackman doesn't know where you hit it on the face, it back calculates based on the flight and the head stuff it can see. Thus, if you hit a draw and the trackman doesn't know you hit it on the toe, it will assume face closed in relation to path.
Was the shot struck toward the toe? 1/5th of an inch toe-ward of cg, everything else zero-ed out is enough to hook the ball 40 feet at 250 yards distance.
If you don't know the cg location, you are stabbing in the dark.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 11, 2012 12:02:02 GMT -5
Trackman doesn't know where you hit it on the face, it back calculates based on the flight and the head stuff it can see. Thus, if you hit a draw and the trackman doesn't know you hit it on the toe, it will assume face closed in relation to path. Was the shot struck toward the toe? 1/5th of an inch toe-ward of cg, everything else zero-ed out is enough to hook the ball 40 feet at 250 yards distance. If you don't know the cg location, you are stabbing in the dark. You are obviously much more versed in this than I am. It was a push draw. I believe it was a couple dimples towards the toe. Trackman said path and face closed, camera said path straight, face slightly open. This was only one shot. But here is my issue, the big thing I listened to all summer from some of those people was that if you had this device then you were not guessing, and those learning without it was just guessing at how to fix a student. All that you say may be true, but how are teachers using the device, getting a closed face like that shot, or a path closed, and then telling me to do this or that? Thats why I asked earlier to teachers who rely a lot on this device, have some sort of way to add in my club data, mark the hits, etc etc to account for this before telling me what I did on the shot? And then correcting what is a perceived fault? |
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 11, 2012 12:04:23 GMT -5
Trackman doesn't know where you hit it on the face, it back calculates based on the flight and the head stuff it can see. I think this is the crux of some long draw out discussions on various boards, Tman was guessing (based on back calculations) but that the same time telling people it was uber accurate, and some teachers promoted that as well. If everything has to be "perfectly centered strike to the clubs CG" than what good is the device's information, which honestly is the reason its so expensive? |
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 11, 2012 12:18:59 GMT -5
cwldlaw223, I could imagine the "more" is obtaining ball flight results that don't fit in with either the Trackman's or Phantom camera's measurements for clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact (and their predicted influence on ball flight). That type of result would suggest that there may be an unknown factor that also influences ball flight - other than the impact factors of clubhead path, clubface orientation angle and gear-effect. Jeff. Jeff - Face angle is not measured on Tman. It's calculated. Until the face (or maybe a ball) becomes the measuring device itself it will have to be calculated because the face is behind the ball. |
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 11, 2012 12:23:47 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
I am fully aware that the clubface reading obtained by Trackman is a "calculated" measurement and that its "calculated measurement" is also influenced by the degree of off-center hit. However, the Phantom camera measurement of face angle is "real" and not "calculated".
What point are you trying to make anyway?
Jeff.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 11, 2012 12:43:53 GMT -5
Trackman doesn't know where you hit it on the face, it back calculates based on the flight and the head stuff it can see. I think this is the crux of some long draw out discussions on various boards, Tman was guessing (based on back calculations) but that the same time telling people it was uber accurate, and some teachers promoted that as well. If everything has to be "perfectly centered strike to the clubs CG" than what good is the device's information, which honestly is the reason its so expensive? Tman doesn't need to know COG. If you don't know where the COG is located and are trying to use video to determine face angle through maximum compression (or last touch, not 100% sure) you'll have to deal with the effect of the off center hit. Now if a person is using video and defining face angle as the angle at first touch you won't have an apples to apples comparison against Tman. It all comes down to the definition of face angle. There are many face angles from first touch to maximum compression to last touch. Tman calculates one number. I take the calculations on faith. Video doesn't provide numbers. |
|
