|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 12, 2012 10:07:28 GMT -5
Greg, You wrote-: " It seems to me, all those threads the past year or two, saying how you really are just guessing if you don't have this device for face and path were completely without merit." It definitely demonstrates the invalidity of his position. I strongly suspect that the research-a-thon's final conclusions will conclude that TM's calculated measurements are even more inaccurate than we ever imagined. Jeff. My first driver swing it said I was 5 degrees left, the ball hooked slightly, so that meant the face had to be closed to the path, I cant remember if it was according to Tman but the ball was only pulled maybe 20 yards left of target. KM had it like 1 degree left which certainly fit the ball flight. But hey, it was not perfectly centered contact, I am sure a Tman teacher would have noticed that and figured that out into his Tman influenced instruction
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 12, 2012 10:18:20 GMT -5
Greg,
You have pointed out the Achilles heel related to the use of TM as a teaching aid. It does not produce "degrees of off-center strike" information when it spews out clubhead path and clubface angle measurements. How can the golfer, or golf instructor, know whether the ball was struck significantly off-center?
It is interesting that you have learned how to zero-out your clubhead path and clubface angle at impact in such a way that it enables you to frequently hit the ball straight - without using a TM device. My brother is a 1-handicap golfer, and he routinely hits his approach shots straight at the flag - and he knows nothing about the ball flight laws or TM theory. He simply aims at the target and squares the back of his FLW by impact, and he maintains a stable FLW-that-faces-the-target between P6.9 and P7.1.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 12, 2012 10:36:29 GMT -5
Greg, You have pointed out the Achilles heel related to the use of TM as a teaching aid. It does not produce "degrees of off-center strike" information when it spews out clubhead path and clubface angle measurements. How can the golfer, or golf instructor, know whether the ball was struck significantly off-center? It is interesting that you have learned how to zero-out your clubhead path and clubface angle at impact in such a way that it enables you to frequently hit the ball straight - without using a TM device. My brother is a 1-handicap golfer, and he routinely hits his approach shots straight at the flag - and he knows nothing about the ball flight laws or TM theory. He simply aims at the target and squares the back of his FLW by impact, and he maintains a stable FLW-that-faces-the-target between P6.9 and P7.1. Jeff. To follow that up when I first got into golf swing theory I had a really bad hook, I mean bad, was a duck hook. I studied the ball flight law theory which told me the relationship to path and face from there I just self corrected it without any aid of a device. I am a cynic by nature so when all this rush to have a Tman or talk that you were somehow an inadequate instructor or student if you did not engage with it I always wanted to see more proof. I thought it looked cool, but the hype seemed to be a little more about $$$ than about what it could actually do for the student.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 12, 2012 10:49:25 GMT -5
Tapio - Trackman is more than just radar and radar by itself isn't a measuring device. Trackman performs measurements and calculcations from the information it gathers from radar. Just as someone who uses video and tries to make measurements/calculcations on the information contained in the video. One of the challenges raised against Trackman's clubface calculcation is that it is a calculation instead of a measurement and therefore flawed. That's why it's so important to use the words measurement and calculation correctly in these types of debates. I could be wrong but all summer many of us have been saying the calculations have been off, wrong, not trustworthy, whatever have you, but you were a staunch defender that the calculations were enough to use to determine what you were doing wrong with ones clubface at impact as a teaching tool? This is my recollection from the threads at Richie's. It seems to me, all those threads the past year or two, saying how you really are just guessing if you dont have this device for face and path were completely without merit. Your recollection above is correct and I still believe the calculations are good enough without knowing the formulas. Nobody knows their face/path angles in numerical form without a device and they are guessing. I have yet to see any final findings by Jeffy and have not seen any evidence that Trackman's calculcations are incorrect for the way they define their calculation for face angle. I woulnd't be surprised if Jeffy uses first touch for face angle. Trackman doesn't use first touch to define face angle. I'm a scratch golfer and I need detailed information regarding impact to improve. (I used to hover around a 5/6 about two years ago before I got into the D-plane/Trackman. I also used to suffer from massive hooks for years). Trackman works wonders for better players. Some people don't need to use it and some people use it very effectively. I know my swing and it has helped me immensely. Trackman can help grove my swing back faster than going to the range. It's a great tool for me. Nobody consistently gets a face/path reading of 2* or less for both unless they are a very good player. I'm not a big fan of just open or closed to help someone get better. I want and need precision. Trackman takes the adjectives and turns them into numbers. Much easier to see and feel the difference with numbers than just adjectives. Digging swings out of the dirt take too long!
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 12, 2012 12:07:15 GMT -5
$199 and as good as Trackman?
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 12, 2012 13:56:42 GMT -5
I still like my Zelocity for carry distance. Never practice without it to groove wedge distance. Looks promising and good post Greg.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Dec 12, 2012 16:11:13 GMT -5
Greg, You have pointed out the Achilles heel related to the use of TM as a teaching aid. It does not produce "degrees of off-center strike" information when it spews out clubhead path and clubface angle measurements. How can the golfer, or golf instructor, know whether the ball was struck significantly off-center? Face tape.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Dec 12, 2012 16:21:22 GMT -5
Greg, You have pointed out the Achilles heel related to the use of TM as a teaching aid. It does not produce "degrees of off-center strike" information when it spews out clubhead path and clubface angle measurements. How can the golfer, or golf instructor, know whether the ball was struck significantly off-center?
[/size] Face tape.[/quote] I think experienced Trackman operators have an idea where impact occurs by looking at the numbers. Someone named Todd Kos looked at Lifter's Trackman numbers yesterday and gave a very precise estimate of how far towards the toe impact was on average. It will be fun to check how close he gets, although we won't know precisely without COG location. I don't like face tape because it takes off A LOT of spin. We used an inexpensive spray foot powder (Dr. Scholl's comes out way too thick...) that Rick got at the 99 cent store. You can also use dry erase markers. We are measuring at point of impact and maximum compression, what we've been told Trackman does, but, of course, we can do it at any time during the impact interval and at any point on the face. It's video.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Dec 12, 2012 19:47:41 GMT -5
yep, spray foot powder is even better than face tape.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 12, 2012 22:26:37 GMT -5
Greg, You have pointed out the Achilles heel related to the use of TM as a teaching aid. It does not produce "degrees of off-center strike" information when it spews out clubhead path and clubface angle measurements. How can the golfer, or golf instructor, know whether the ball was struck significantly off-center? It is interesting that you have learned how to zero-out your clubhead path and clubface angle at impact in such a way that it enables you to frequently hit the ball straight - without using a TM device. My brother is a 1-handicap golfer, and he routinely hits his approach shots straight at the flag - and he knows nothing about the ball flight laws or TM theory. He simply aims at the target and squares the back of his FLW by impact, and he maintains a stable FLW-that-faces-the-target between P6.9 and P7.1. Jeff. How? That's easy. Anyone who has used this device quickly learns that you look at ballflight and the face/path numbers. That's how the machine was designed to be used. You shouldn't just look at the numbers and exclude the ballflight because the machine was never built to be used that way. If the path says 0* the face says 4* open and the ball hooked it was a toe shot. Not that hard to figure out. How much of a shot on the toe? You could always use spray if you were that curious and look on the face and guess.But if you don't have numbers for face/path all you have are just adjectives of open and closed which isn't that useful most of the time if you want to speed up your learning. You don't need a Trackman to become a great golfer, but it sure cuts down on the mystery and practice time in the right hands. It did for me and it does for the pros. Have you ever been on a Trackman?
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 13, 2012 0:02:05 GMT -5
Greg, You have pointed out the Achilles heel related to the use of TM as a teaching aid. It does not produce "degrees of off-center strike" information when it spews out clubhead path and clubface angle measurements. How can the golfer, or golf instructor, know whether the ball was struck significantly off-center? Face tape. I agree that you would have to have this information, would be imparative to make any type of real conclusion, though I cant say any of the popular "orange box lessons" you find on youtube even mention this should be done or use some sort of face marking.
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 13, 2012 0:44:27 GMT -5
Greg, You have pointed out the Achilles heel related to the use of TM as a teaching aid. It does not produce "degrees of off-center strike" information when it spews out clubhead path and clubface angle measurements. How can the golfer, or golf instructor, know whether the ball was struck significantly off-center? It is interesting that you have learned how to zero-out your clubhead path and clubface angle at impact in such a way that it enables you to frequently hit the ball straight - without using a TM device. My brother is a 1-handicap golfer, and he routinely hits his approach shots straight at the flag - and he knows nothing about the ball flight laws or TM theory. He simply aims at the target and squares the back of his FLW by impact, and he maintains a stable FLW-that-faces-the-target between P6.9 and P7.1. Jeff. How? That's easy. Anyone who has used this device quickly learns that you look at ballflight and the face/path numbers. That's how the machine was designed to be used. You shouldn't just look at the numbers and exclude the ballflight because the machine was never built to be used that way. If the path says 0* the face says 4* open and the ball hooked it was a toe shot. Not that hard to figure out. How much of a shot on the toe? You could always use spray if you were that curious and look on the face and guess.But if you don't have numbers for face/path all you have are just adjectives of open and closed which isn't that useful most of the time if you want to speed up your learning. You don't need a Trackman to become a great golfer, but it sure cuts down on the mystery and practice time in the right hands. It did for me and it does for the pros. Have you ever been on a Trackman? Lol... so every time it gives wrong numbers, the explanation is toe or heel... yep yep... CW, sorry but now I have to tell you that I have seen the source code and I know how those devices work. I also understand very well why they get better all the time just by updating the SW. I know if it would be legal, you will marry Trackman, but try to understand that there is much much better players than you who have found it mostly useless. If you got real problems with impact data, it can be great help when you learn to look right things, but like I have said, my better student's just get bored with that because it really doesn't give any valid information for them. Their good shots are just good enough and they make them all the time at range and 95% on course. That last 5% which is left is golf and how the game is handled. If you are scr level golfer you really should understand that if you want to get +4 and those 5% are never visible at TM measurements. If you really think golf is something around the impact data, you are totally wrong. The basic is at the body movements behind the impact data and then it just begins. Then you go to the course and learn to play the game. BTW.. if your impact data is good or bad, how can you change it? For example, if your path is 2 deg out to in and you want it to opposite, how you fix that and how do the device see how it is fixed?
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 6:17:09 GMT -5
So have you given up using your Flightscope since it's wrong? I'm suspect you looked at the source code. I heard it cost $100,000 to look. Maybe you did pay, but I doubt it or the price is a lot lower.
How is their calculation is wrong? If you've seen the source code then you should know how the face angle is calculated. Please tell us. Shouldn't be that hard and you might help Jeffy from making a mistake in viewing the video so he can compare apples to apples and not use a different face angle definition than Tman.
Trackman gives me immediate feedback so I can make subtle tweaks. Not that hard for me and it cuts down on my practice time and guessing impact. Feel players can feel path and face in greater precision.
I don't have enough time to get to +3 or +4. As I've said before, some people use it effectively some don't. Many paths to great golf, but impact conditions is what counts in the end. The movements you reference are useless unless they generate good impact conditions. I want numbers for impact, not adjectives.
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 13, 2012 7:32:10 GMT -5
So have you given up using your Flightscope since it's wrong? I'm suspect you looked at the source code. I heard it cost $100,000 to look. Maybe you did pay, but I doubt it or the price is a lot lower. How is their calculation is wrong? If you've seen the source code then you should know how the face angle is calculated. Please tell us. Shouldn't be that hard and you might help Jeffy from making a mistake in viewing the video so he can compare apples to apples and not use a different face angle definition than Tman. Trackman gives me immediate feedback so I can make subtle tweaks. Not that hard for me and it cuts down on my practice time and guessing impact. Feel players can feel path and face in greater precision. I don't have enough time to get to +3 or +4. As I've said before, some people use it effectively some don't. Many paths to great golf, but impact conditions is what counts in the end. The movements you reference are useless unless they generate good impact conditions. I want numbers for impact, not adjectives. No, CW, you seem to have serious problem to understand it as I have explained it about 100 times. They are great devices for someone who got problems with impact values. It doesn't matter if the numbers are right or wrong as far there is a logic behind them and you can point it out to the student. For better players that doesn't give a lot, because their problems are totally somewhere else than in impact data. Also every shot is different and there is no two of a kind. Also if they need to change something, the change has to happen in their body. It's easy to say you got this wrong, but those devices really don't tell anything about how to change it. That's why it's much more important to analyze what their bodies are doing during the swing and see what to change to get better results. If someone is having low club head speed and slices the ball, do you think he needs impact data of TM to figure it out? Or maybe learn why that CHS is so low and face open? The problem is that they try to make it scientific proof and tell those numbers are real. And about the 100.000... I know nothing about that as we work together. Flightscope is integrated to 4DSwing system and every device comes with that. By NDA I'm not able to tell more than what is already told in publicity.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 8:30:52 GMT -5
I never said or implied Trackman fixes your swing and to infer otherwise is ridiculous. It's a tool to understand impact. Use video or 3D to view the swing.
|
|