|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 15, 2012 19:36:57 GMT -5
I suspect more scrutiny over the process.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 16, 2012 1:57:53 GMT -5
There will be some people that will not accept the results, they have a lot of skin in the game. I have no beef either way, I was frankly surprised at the deviation, I thought it would be closer.
I am a novice though and maybe its easier for me to accept simple pictures, heck I did not even realize Trackman did not actually measure face angle until this past summer, I had accepted the accuracy reported as fact based on its cool abilities and supporters.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 16, 2012 15:42:19 GMT -5
Not accepting results cuts both ways. Maybe Tman will divulge more about their face angle calculation and the math behind the calculation, maybe they won't.
Every number is constantly changing. All systems will reflect a moment in time.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 23, 2012 23:00:32 GMT -5
Here is an interesting BM-forum thread - www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/17925-e-molinari-trackman-vs-flightscope-6.htmlSome experienced TM and Flightscope users are suggesting that if one compares two radar devices at the same time (eg. TM versus TM or TM versus Flightscope) that one can get different readings. That "fact" calls into question the accuracy of radar device readings. I noted that cwdlaw223 also wrote-: " EVERY SHOT I've ever hit a shot with less than 2* on face and path (ex. 1.2* face angle, 1.0* path) was a "straight" shot." If true, then why does he need a TM device when he hits the ball straight? Secondly, why doesn't he simply use the same swing biomechanics that he routinely uses for his straight shots for his non-straight shots? For example, if he hits the ball non-straight (eg, pull or push shot), then he doesn't have to look at his TM readings because he already knows that they are going to be non-desirable. He could simply think of hitting a straight shot on his next swing - using the same swing biomechanics that produces his straight shots. Consider my practice session today - when I hit about 150 balls. Approximately 80% of the shots went straight towards the desired distance-target. When I hit a non-straight shot, I obviously knew that my swing biomechanics were non-optimal. I didn't try to make a swing correction based on the non-straight ball flight because I already knew that I had to try and repeat the swing biomechanics I routinely use for my straight shots. Obtaining TM readings wouldn't help me - because my brain is already programmed for the desired swing biomechanics/mechanics/physics/geometry that will produce a straight ball flight. My problem is that my body doesn't automatically follow my brain's pre-programmed swing instructions - because I am an imperfect golfer. My swing problems are not related to not knowing what swing biomechanics/mechanics/geometry will produce a straight shot. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 24, 2012 13:04:44 GMT -5
Jeff -
I don't know what level of golf that you play at, but I play to break 70 every time I play. Thus, I want/need precise feedback to get better and Trackman gives me precision and helps me groove my swing A LOT faster than hitting balls. Educated hands! Not that hard for me, maybe it is for others.
BTW - I don't try to hit perfectly straight shots. Hardest shot in golf IMO. Much easier for me to play a draw. I look for consistency on Tman numbers, not perfect numbers. Under your logic why take advantage of any technology? Just eye ball it.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 24, 2012 15:16:37 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
It doesn't sound like we play at different levels - because we both expect to land our ball within a few feet of a distant target from a distance of 10-300 yards. That requires precision ball-striking. I find it easier to generate a straight ball flight, which means that I must zero-out the clubhead path and clubface orientation angle at impact. I cannot understand how a TM device can help me - because I simply monitor my ball flight. If my ball goes straight towards a distant target, then I simply presume that my TM readings would be optimal (<1-2 degrees from zero). Why do I need to actually obtain TM readings if my ball flight is straight towards my desired target - using a particular set of swing biomechanics? If my ball flight is off, and not straight towards my desired target, then I automatically know that my swing biomechanics/mechanics were faulty. I don't need a TM reading to know that fact. I still cannot understand how TM will help me improve my full golf swing action.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 24, 2012 16:03:34 GMT -5
You hit it 300? You play tournament golf?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 24, 2012 16:25:35 GMT -5
Nope - my average drive is 230-240 yards.
However, the principle of trying to be accurate still applies to my driver swing as it applies to a pro golfer's driver swing.
I have no idea why you are nitpicking this driver-distance issue, while avoiding dealing with the issue of how any golfer (whether he is an amateur golfer or a tour golfer) can benefit from using a TM device. You have still not explained how an amateur golfer can benefit from using a TM device if he is simply trying to acquire the particular set of swing biomechanics that will result in a straight ball flight towards a distant target (as I have previously described).
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 24, 2012 16:47:17 GMT -5
You stated that it doesn't sound like we play at different levels. I disagree. The level of precision for my game is completely different than yours. You can put the ball in the fairway with a face/path differential that is much larger than mine because your swing speed is so much lower (i.e., geometry of the shot). Precision isn't nitpicking, it's the benefit of Trackman. Generally speaking, the better the play the more one will benefit from using Trackman (assuming someone is intelligent and takes the time to understand the numbers). Some guys shouldn't be on Trackman because it might make them too technical. There's a psychological level to tournament golf that is rarely discussed on these threads. All of the knowledge aint worth crap if you can't execute under pressure.
The benefit of Trackman is obvious. You get a snapshot in time of what happened at impact. You just look at your shot and are unable to place a numerical value on your face, path and/or attack angle. You have no idea just eyeballing shots if you truly "zeroed out" a shot (all zeros on Trackman is very, very difficult - I suspect how you define zero out is different than how I define the term). Trackman shows the ballflight and the impact data. Why would anyone avoid technology if it benefits their game? It's like using an abacus vs. a calculator. If you can't benefit from knowing impact data then I suggest you don't use the machine and save your money.
Trackman isn't designed to teach/show swing biomechanics. I often use it to dial in my timing (i.e., educated hands). I know my swing and can make changes. Trackman is a tool that helps you understand the why behind the BALLFLIGHT AS A RESULT OF IMPACT CONDITIONS. Video/3D systems are designed to give the why behind biomechanics. Trackman is not an end in and of itself (although impact is in my opinion - I don't care how you do it under pressure, as long as one does it!). If one can't use feedback from devices like Trackman/Video/3D systems to make biomechanical changes then that person might never be able to change.
BTW - I don't hit every shot under 2* on Tman. The post was about the accuracy of Tman. If it was inaccurate on good shots I could see all of the fuss. For example, if you had a face/path of 0.7 and 1.2 and the ball went 50 yards right I could see why people would avoid the machine. That doesn't happen.
People practice differently. It seems like you just want to eyeball shots. I don't. Tman has done wonders for my game and cut down on my practice time.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 24, 2012 17:24:27 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
You wrote-: "You claimed that it doesn't sound like we play at different levels. We do play at different levels. The level of precision for my game is completely different than yours."
Not necessarily!
Your endpoint for precision with a driver is probably a ball that lands on the fairway. My endpoint is a ball that lands within a few yards of my target (which is the center of the fairway). To achieve my desired level of precision, I need to routinely zero-out my clubhead path and clubface orientation angle at impact with my driver (presuming a level strike on the sweetspot) to achieve my goal. However, I do not need TM number-confirmation if my ball flight is straight towards the center of the fairway.
When it comes to iron approach shots we both obviously want the ball to land near the target (often the pin-in-the-hole) and I obviously want to acquire precision ball-striking results if I want the ball to go straight towards the flag. You have still not explained how TM numbers can benefit me in trying to achieve that goal.
You also wrote-: "The benefit of Trackman is obvious. You get a snapshot in time of what happened at impact. You just look at your shot and are unable to place a numerical value on your face, path and/or attack angle. You have no idea just eyeballing shots if you truly "zeroed out" a shot (all zeros on Trackman is very, very difficult - I suspect how you define zero out is different than how I define the term."
I agree that if I just look at shot, that I do not get numerical values for clubhead path and clubface angle. However, I don't need them to interpret my swing action. If my ball flight is straight towards my desired target, then I know that I have basically zeroed-out my TM numbers. If my ball flight is non-optimal because it is non-straight, then I automatically know that my swing biomechanics/mechanics were flawed. I don't need official TM numbers to confirm that fact. How can the actual TM numbers improve my golf swing action from a biomechanical/mechanical perspective.
You also wrote-: "Trackman is a tool that helps you understand the why behind the BALLFLIGHT AS A RESULT OF IMPACT CONDITIONS"
You may need help from TM numbers to understand the "why" of ball flight patterns. However, I don't - because I understand the new ball flight laws and D-plane theory. I have no difficulty understanding why my ball curves in a non-optimal manner and I have no difficulty estimating the likely divergence between the clubhead path and clubface angle at impact.
You also wrote-: "If you can't benefit from knowing impact data then I suggest you don't use the machine and save your money."
I will follow your advice. By the way, you have still not explained how a golfer can improve his swing action by knowing the TM numbers at impact.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 24, 2012 18:33:42 GMT -5
You improve your swing action just as you would do it when you hit a good shot. How do you do it just hitting balls? Same principle, just more specific information with Tman to help.
Isn't your intention good impact conditions? I want numbers, not adjectives. Tman is the tool that tells you if you did it with specificity. Plenty of great golfers before Tman.
|
|
|
Post by nate on Dec 24, 2012 20:26:28 GMT -5
How are you gonna eyeball AoA, HSP, Dynamic loft, spin, or VSP?
You aren't.
These are all variables, along with face and path, that can help the golfer optimize his swing and his practice time and give something very specific to work towards.
It is absolutely not the same thing as beating balls on the range and guessing.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 24, 2012 21:49:35 GMT -5
Nate,
If those parameters are important to your golf swing action, then you need to use a TM device to optimize them. I try to achieve a level (or near-level) strike with all clubs, and I make no attempt to vary my clubhead attack angle. I am fully aware that one can get a few more yards (10-15 yards) with a driver by optimizing one's ball launch angle, but I prefer to simply achieve close to a level strike with my driver swing. My brother, who is a 1-handicap golfer who never practises and who only plays golf two days per week, went for a driver fitting using a TM device. He used his regular driver swing action with 5 different drivers and 5 different shaft variations - all his balls landed within 10 yards of each other. His launch angle was about 13-14 degrees and his spin was ~2,900rpm and he is not interesting in changing his driver swing action in order to get a few more yards. He is very happy to be routinely hitting the ball 260-280 yards down the center of the fairway. He eventually chose a Ping V2 Rapture driver simply because he liked the aesthetic shape of the clubhead.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by nate on Dec 25, 2012 2:09:15 GMT -5
There's no way that you can "feel" your AoA without TM.
It's not just hitting up on a driver that's important.
Dynamic loft, spin loft, and AoA are critical factors for distance control with irons.
Practicing on TM to get optimal impact numbers will result in better distance control.
If you want to play your best golf, you need to know what's going on at impact.
Practicing on TM is the only way to make that happen.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 25, 2012 10:15:40 GMT -5
Nate wrote-: "If you want to play your best golf, you need to know what's going on at impact.
Practicing on TM is the only way to make that happen."
Nate is free to harbor that biased opinion.
I guess that Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus didn't play their best golf when they were in their prime - because they didn't have a TM device to tell them what was happening at impact.
Jeff.
|
|