|
Post by tomdavis76 on Dec 13, 2012 21:06:47 GMT -5
It would have been interesting to have a Flightscope there as well to see the differences between the two systems. Maybe next time!
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 13, 2012 21:11:18 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
You wrote-: "When I use Trackman I really focus 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."
OK.
Then I noted that Jeffy is claiming that TM's AOA readings can be inaccurate by 3.5-6.0 degrees. That would be a large degree of inaccuracy. Is that true? By the way, has anybody compared TM to Flightscope under scientifically rigid conditions to see if they come up with the same readings for AoA, CFace and CPath?
Jeff.
p.s. I have never used TM other than during a driver fitting experience.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 22:26:06 GMT -5
Fscope is making those claims, not Jeffy. No idea how two machines can read the exact shot at once. No idea if the Tman used in comparison to Fscope was calibrated correctly or the current Tman model (I don't deny they keep tweaking their machines). No idea if the Fscope model was the one they actually sell. If Trackman's claims are skeptical, so should claims by Fscope (especially by one against a competitor). Why trust any of them? Tapio said he saw Fscope's source code and the calculations are wrong. I don't know how Tapio knows what's wrong with the calculations and so far he's not telling anyone. Hopefully Jeffy will use his tracing program on Fscope's video to see what he gets. I suspect it will be different. Why? Because the number given by these machines most likely are from calculations over a period of time (ex. First touch to max compression). How they weight each moment in time to come up with one number is probably proprietary. I think the Enzo can give reams of face angle numbers. Not sure if more than one number is even necessary for me. I know that some people want the first touch reading and I understand their reasoning and don't disagree with their logic. I might not mind that number, but for now it isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 22:31:13 GMT -5
Jeff -
How can the machine test the same shot at once? They both can't be at ball level and on the target line at the same time. If those machines aren't set up properly the numbers are thrown off. Of course, if the swing was exactly the same they could do it. No human can repeat their swing exactly.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 13, 2012 22:37:16 GMT -5
cwdlaw223, You wrote-: " If Trackman's claims are skeptical, so should claims by Fscope (especially by one against a competitor). Why trust any of them?" I agree. That's why I find KM's research-a-thon project so interesting. He should be able to determine whether TM's Cpath and CFace readings are accurate - because his Phantom camera measurements should be very accurate for Cpath and Cface. He could also do a similar comparative test with Flightscope. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 22:54:54 GMT -5
I suspect the problem will be how face angle is defined. Jeffy will define it as X and Tman/Fscope as Y. What moment in time to use over 1/2000th of a second to define face angle? What to do with all of those pictures from first touch through maximum compression? 20+ face angles? An even better question is why is 2D video accurate just because it's slower? What's happening to the part of the face behind the ball? Is that counted as face angle or not? What about off COG hits (almost ever shot) that don't show the clubface that can be seen not moving but the face behind is affected? I want a club to be the measuring device itself. That would be optimal.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 23:04:29 GMT -5
Even if the face angle is different from video, who is going to take a shot with a phantom camera, get the line drawing program out, measure the video and then get a number 10-15 minutes later for one shot? It's impractical.
The reason I asked Jeffy for the AoA from the Fscope video is to compare a known AoA with another phantom.
Presumably Jeffy will provide the age, model and date of last calibration for the phantom that he used.
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 13, 2012 23:35:58 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. Really I can't understand that you dont understand so simple and obvious things. Anyway it's not the first time when man gets totally confused by love But as I slept so well, I'm fresh and powerful to try it one more time: That machine don't know where you are aiming that shot and eye of the human being cant even know it inside those degrees. So when hitting to TM and getting path numbers of -2 to +2 you really can't know why you get those and why they change. It can be your swing movement or it can be your alignment or both together. And those devices are not wrong, but people who are in love with those can't see the reality. Path / face relation is very good to follow, as well to see the path generally if it's many degrees to some direction. That's why I've said my best students get frustrated with it. It really doesn't give a lot for them. For basic level students it gives a lot as when showed from screen they start to believe they have to change it.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 13, 2012 23:40:20 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
You wrote-: "Even if the face angle is different from video, who is going to take a shot with a phantom camera, get the line drawing program out, measure the video and then get a number 10-15 minutes later for one shot? It's impractical."
I agree that the Phantom camera is not practical for teaching. However, it is very practical for determining the Cface angle at impact when comparing it to a radar device (like TM and Flightscope) to determine whether those radar devices give accurate Cface readings for centered shots. The issue of CF distortion under the ball during the impact interval may be another issue that needs further study. However, I eagerly await the preliminary results from the research-a-thon, which seemed to be well executed.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 13, 2012 23:41:15 GMT -5
Tapio said he saw Fscope's source code and the calculations are wrong. I don't know how Tapio knows what's wrong with the calculations and so far he's not telling anyone. . I have said before that STOP THAT BULLSHIT and don't put words to my mouth. I have never said by any word that the calculation is wrong. So shut up Wher do this kind of idiots born...
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 23:46:56 GMT -5
Tapio said he saw Fscope's source code and the calculations are wrong. I don't know how Tapio knows what's wrong with the calculations and so far he's not telling anyone. . I have said before that STOP THAT BULLSHIT and don't put words to my mouth. I have never said by any word that the calculation is wrong. So shut up Wher do this kind of idiots born... If you say they aren't wrong that's good enough for me. I thought you said their calculations were wrong after you looked at source code.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 23:48:41 GMT -5
cwdlaw223, You wrote-: " Even if the face angle is different from video, who is going to take a shot with a phantom camera, get the line drawing program out, measure the video and then get a number 10-15 minutes later for one shot? It's impractical." I agree that the Phantom camera is not practical for teaching. However, it is very practical for determining the Cface angle at impact when comparing it to a radar device (like TM and Flightscope) to determine whether those radar devices give accurate Cface readings for centered shots. The issue of CF distortion under the ball during the impact interval may be another issue that needs further study. However, I eagerly await the preliminary results from the research-a-thon, which seemed to be well executed. Jeff. Why is video more practical (not for teaching obviously) when it can't see anything behind the face actually in contact with the ball? Unless there's going to be a calculation from ballfight on video which puts us right back with Tman/Fscope.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 13, 2012 23:53:48 GMT -5
Tapio wrote-: "I have said before that STOP THAT BULLSHIT and don't put words to my mouth.
I have never said by any word that the calculation is wrong. So shut up
Wher do this kind of idiots born..."
I previously/repeatedly warned Tapio that I would not tolerate this type of ad hominem attack post in this NGI forum. I have contacted Rand Smith (Administrator) and I have requested that he ban Tapio from this forum.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 23:55:27 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. Really I can't understand that you dont understand so simple and obvious things. Anyway it's not the first time when man gets totally confused by love But as I slept so well, I'm fresh and powerful to try it one more time: That machine don't know where you are aiming that shot and eye of the human being cant even know it inside those degrees. So when hitting to TM and getting path numbers of -2 to +2 you really can't know why you get those and why they change. It can be your swing movement or it can be your alignment or both together. And those devices are not wrong, but people who are in love with those can't see the reality. Path / face relation is very good to follow, as well to see the path generally if it's many degrees to some direction. That's why I've said my best students get frustrated with it. It really doesn't give a lot for them. For basic level students it gives a lot as when showed from screen they start to believe they have to change it. How does anyone really know their path if nobody knows where they're aiming? That applies to everyone with or without Trackman. It could be my alignment, but I doubt it. It could also be from my swing and intentional changes in my swing. Sometimes I change alignment slightly (but not often). That's part of tweaking a swing. You can always go back to eyeballing ballflight to guess what happened at impact! I don't trust my eyes and that provides me very little detail. I like the results from knowing impact. Like I said, path and AoA are the ones I focus on the most.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 13, 2012 23:56:50 GMT -5
Tapio wrote-: " I have said before that STOP THAT BULLSHIT and don't put words to my mouth.
I have never said by any word that the calculation is wrong. So shut up
Wher do this kind of idiots born..." I previously/repeatedly warned Tapio that I would not tolerate this type of ad hominem attack post in this NGI forum. I have contacted Rand Smith (Administrator) and I have requested that he ban Tapio from this forum. Jeff. Jeff - If I mistated Tapio's position I would request that he not be banned. I viewed his post #71 as claiming that every time the machine gave "wrong numbers" he was challenging the toe/heel hit explanation. He specifically stated the machine was giving "wrong numbers." (I'm not offended by his post BTW). If the machines are giving wrong numbers then there must be something wrong with their calculations and he knows the correct numbers or calculations.
|
|