|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 13, 2012 10:21:36 GMT -5
No matter how hard I try, I cannot understand cwdlaw223s position regarding the usefulness of TM.
He states-: "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."
He states that he wants to achieve specific/desired TM numbers for impact. That makes no sense - because surely he wants a desired ball flight. So, if we desires to hit the ball straight towards a distant target, then he really wants TM impact numbers that will produce a straight ball flight. Now, if he hits the ball straight towards the distant target, but the clubface reading is very open, then he apparently discounts the TM reading and presumes that he hit the ball on the toe. (so that the gear effect counteracted the effect of an open clubface). So, the TM readings are really meaningless in that shot. Secondly, if he hits the ball straight and he gets TM readings that are compatible with a straight ball flight, then he presumably accepts the TM impact numbers as being desirable. But, why does he really need those desirable TM numbers if the ball went straight? Does he need them to know that he didn't hit the ball off-center? Can't he "feel" an off-center strike and can't he also quickly check his clubface for evidence of an off-center impact mark.
Finally, let's presume that he gets a non-desired ball flight (non-straight ball flight), and he notes that the TM numbers can explain why the ball didn't go straight. How does he understand what went wrong biomechanically/mechanically to cause that non-desired ball flight, and how does he know how to correct the problem? He states that he makes "corrections" based on "feel", but how can "feel" improve one's swing biomechanics/mechanics if there is no causal connection between "feel" and "real" (a soundly improved change in one's swing mechanics/biomechanics)?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 13:10:47 GMT -5
Jeff -
I want impact conditions like I stated and the ballflight occurs thereafter. Heck, I want to hole every shot but that doesn't happen. I rarely try to hit a ball straight. I play draws 98% of the time. When I use Trackman I really focuse on AoA and path. The face angle reading is more a function of timing. Once I get my path down my face angle readings generally fall in place but not always.
How do I understand what went wrong? Because I know my swing and can feel the changes I make, see the improved impact conditions and ballflight. Trackman is a tool to take the guessing away. Where is there no casual connection between feel and real? I'm not at a point where I need to make any big changes to my swing. It works very well for me under pressure. TM readings aren't meaningless for toe shots. AoA and Path are useful for every shot. Trackman is a tool for me to feel what happened. Just like K-Vest is a tool to feel body movement. You can always just guess and try to dig it out of the dirt like they did before. I use technonoclogy to get better faster and more efficiently.
Quickly check my face? Hugh? I don't hit balls that much with impact tape and don't need to. I can't always feel the subtle toe/heel shots and at my ballspeed level (170-175) gear effect is more pronounced. The face angle number is evidence of timing. Just like the "rate of closure" stuff that you read about. It takes practice to get it down correctly. How do you know how hard to hit a tennis shot? You just do it.
Have you ever been on a Trackman? You speak an awful lot about it but I'm not sure you've ever used it.
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 13, 2012 13:59:09 GMT -5
So CW, how you know you aim it in that for example -2/+2 degrees path well enough for every shot? If TM gives you numbers that varies between 1in and 1 out, do you know why?
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 14:13:09 GMT -5
If I can keep my path and face angle readings at 1* or less for each shot I would quit my day job. That's a tight tolernace. I don't understand your question.
Are you going to tell Henri Johnson his machine is wrong? I think that you should tell him and see what he says.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 14:27:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 13, 2012 14:32:35 GMT -5
If I can keep my path and face angle readings at 1* or less for each shot I would quit my day job. That's a tight tolernace. I don't understand your question. So.. I don't understand you.. how wild is your path then and how can TM help you if it goes that much around? Do you really use that to see that it was 4 left in one shot and 4 right in another? And even 4 degrees is not at all a lot in lining... So I try to put it more simple way. If TM tells you about changes in your path, how can you know why that change happens if it's only around 2-3 degrees?
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 15:24:15 GMT -5
For my level of play I need the path around 2* or less. What I consider wild and what someone else considers wild is probably very different. I can feel a 3-4* path change. It's not that hard as long as I have feedback which I get from Trackman. Thereafter, I can groove the path. Much more difficult to feel a 3-4* path change without Trackman or video. I've been playing golf for over 25 years and understand my swing. I only need slight changes. I'm not just trying to put the ball in play, I'm trying to break par everytime I go out. I need precise feedback to make small changes. I don't need big changes.
How could I do this without Trackman and so quickly is a much better question! Beating balls to grove a swing takes a lot of time and effort. I want to cut down on that time and effort so I use technology to my benefit.
When are you going to tell Henri that his machine is wrong? I suspect a letter would be preferable and I can get you his address. Fscope is a well run company and I suspect they will eventually win the radar wars. Better price point and synchronization with other applications/devices than Tman. Sort of like VHS vs. Beta.
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 13, 2012 15:35:35 GMT -5
For my level of play I need the path around 2* or less. What I consider wild and what someone else considers wild is probably very different. I can feel a 3-4* path change. It's not that hard as long as I have feedback which I get from Trackman. Thereafter, I can groove the path. Much more difficult to feel a 3-4* path change without Trackman or video. I've been playing golf for over 25 years and understand my swing. I only need slight changes. I'm not just trying to put the ball in play, I'm trying to break par everytime I go out. I need precise feedback to make small changes. I don't need big changes. How could I do this without Trackman and so quickly is a much better question! Beating balls to grove a swing takes a lot of time and effort. I want to cut down on that time and effort so I use technology to my benefit. When are you going to tell Henri that his machine is wrong? I suspect a letter would be preferable and I can get you his address. Fscope is a well run company and I suspect they will eventually win the radar wars. Better price point and synchronization with other applications/devices than Tman. Sort of like VHS vs. Beta. So you still didn't understand... I give up with you. You are just amazing and I can't believe any more you are serious at all.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 16:19:10 GMT -5
What can't you understand? I've stated my position very clearly how I use Trackman. I told you that I didn't understand your question so maybe that is why you don't understand me. Trackman gives me precise feedback. It's that simple for me and that's what I want and need to improve. I don't need a swing coach standing over me 24 hours a day or when I play. Do coaches help? Of course they do and I still take lessons. But in the end, you're on an island when you're playing and you better be able to change on your own when under the crucible of competition.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Dec 13, 2012 18:40:11 GMT -5
That data has been released, at least into the "grapevine", and I posted it December 3rd on my site as well as at Richie's. They say Trackman is consistently off by 3.5 to 6 degrees too steep on AoA, Flightscope is nearly always within 1 degree.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 13, 2012 19:18:12 GMT -5
That data has been released, at least into the "grapevine", and I posted it December 3rd on my site as well as at Richie's. They say Trackman is consistently off by 3.5 to 6 degrees too steep on AoA, Flightscope is nearly always within 1 degree. Trackman was pretty constant that I was 3 degrees down, I think it was closer to a degree or pretty level based on the camera.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 19:32:16 GMT -5
That data has been released, at least into the "grapevine", and I posted it December 3rd on my site as well as at Richie's. They say Trackman is consistently off by 3.5 to 6 degrees too steep on AoA, Flightscope is nearly always within 1 degree. Was this a swing by a robot?
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 13, 2012 20:07:11 GMT -5
It would have been interesting to have a Flightscope there as well to see the differences between the two systems.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 20:29:17 GMT -5
How do you have both units directly behind the ball on the target line at the same time? Not sure how both units can test the exact same shot.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Dec 13, 2012 21:05:26 GMT -5
That data has been released, at least into the "grapevine", and I posted it December 3rd on my site as well as at Richie's. They say Trackman is consistently off by 3.5 to 6 degrees too steep on AoA, Flightscope is nearly always within 1 degree. Was this a swing by a robot? "Tour pros", reportedly.
|
|