|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 3, 2012 20:47:03 GMT -5
Here is an interesting thread started by Greg on 3jacks' golf forum. richie3jack.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=generalgolf&action=display&thread=3649I think that the "effect on ball flight" resulting from non-centered hits is the Achilles heel of Trackman devices and makes them of questionable utility. I believe that Trackman fanatics (like cdwlaw223) have still not addressed this problem-issue in a comprehensive and rational manner. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Jul 3, 2012 22:56:02 GMT -5
It would seem like you need impact tape on every shot to really know what was going on with the actual flight of the ball.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 3, 2012 23:52:47 GMT -5
Greg,
I agree that one needs to know the degree of off-center hit to accurately interpret Trackman readings. Then, one still needs to know what is causing the swing fault that results in non-optimum ball flight. For example, in the 3jack forum thread, cdwlaw223 admits that he frequently suffers from toe hits, but he doesn't know what's the biomechanical reason for this problem. Trackman doesn't solve this issue. So, what value does he actually derive from frequently using a Trackman device? He has not demonstrated that a golfer will become a better golfer as a result of being a habitual Trackman user.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Jul 5, 2012 8:53:42 GMT -5
If you have Trackman, you don't need impact tape. You can look at the path and face numbers, then look at the spin axis and be able to understand from there. Of course, if your path and face numbers should produce a fade and you hit it off the heel, then you may not understand that you're hitting it off the heel.
One of the things I've found impact tape being helpful is that when you miss low or high on the sweetspot, it can make a toe hit feel like a heel hit and vice versa.
As far as Trackman goes, this is a point that I brought up in a post and got skewered for. In fact, Jared Willerson claimed that he no longer thought of me as a 'forward thinker' because of the criticism I made.
From what I understand of the viewpoint of people like Willerson is that they feel you can take your swing to a Trackman and if you practice it enough you can more or less organically change your mechanics. I think more often than not it doesn't work for people or in the case of the Tour Trackman owners I showed, it may help them out in the short term, but then they go right back to hitting it like they used to. I also think that when you can combine knowledge of swing mechanics and Trackman (particularly the newer models which have a video camera), you can get the greatest effect towards improvement (provided the mechanical theory and reasoning is relatively sound).
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 11, 2012 16:47:24 GMT -5
I use a trackman and love it. It isn't the entire enchilada but it is a very useful tool. I'd really miss it if I didn't have it anymore.
Jeff, if you find the trackman to be of questionable utility, what is your suggested alternative to the info it provides?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 11, 2012 17:06:50 GMT -5
Virtuoso,
You asked-: "Jeff, if you find the trackman to be of questionable utility, what is your suggested alternative to the info it provides?"
I don't believe the Trackman has questionable utility when it comes to more accurately determining the actual clubhead path and likely clubface orientation at impact with centered strikes, and I know of no better device. However, I believe that the Trackman device has no utility in explaining what biomechanically/mechanically causes an undesirtable clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact.
Let's presume that a golfer wants to zero-out his Trackman readings at impact, and he discovers that his clubhead path is 7 degrees (in-to-out) at impact. What is causing his clubhead path problem and how should he alter his swing (from a mechanical/biomechanical perspective) to zero-out his clubhead path by impact?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 12, 2012 10:53:10 GMT -5
yes, agreed, of course the trackman will not tell you what you are doing mechanically.
But let me ask you this: for the golfer that is 7 degrees inside with his path, are you saying that he has to consciously and intellectually know the proper mechanical fixes to change his path at all? Are you saying that he is absolutely stuck at 7 degrees inside without the mechanical prognosis?
Is it possible that a golfer could improve the path some by just thinking,"Wow, by club needs to be swinging less out to the right."? Or is this not even remotely possible?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 12, 2012 14:35:27 GMT -5
How can a golfer make the clubhead path less inside-out by just thinking that he needs to do "something" to zero-out the clubhead path? That "something" must be a biomechanical/mechanical action - even if the golfer doesn't consciously know what he is doing, or should be doing. If he wants to do the same action repeatedly/consistently from swing-to-swing, then surely he must follow a guideline that makes the "corrective" swing action consistently repeatable.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 12, 2012 14:40:03 GMT -5
Yes, the thought, by itself would not do anything, but is it possible for a golfer to physically change the path without consciuosly knowing the correct mechanical action, ie, he could swing more to the left without being able to articulate how he did it?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 12, 2012 14:49:34 GMT -5
Of course!
A golfer could easily make a "corrective" move without being conscious of how he did it. The problem then becomes how does he do it consistently from one day-to-the next day if he doesn't remedy his swing mechanics/biomechanics using a consistently repeatable biomechanical process that is mechanically/biomechanically sound.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 12, 2012 15:07:58 GMT -5
Ok, would it be better to be 7 degrees inside, or less so, even if he couldn't do it consistently?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 12, 2012 18:38:09 GMT -5
I am not sure that I understand your question, but the desired clubhead path at impact depends on the golfer's ball flight intentions eg. zeroed-out for a straight ball flight using a level strike on the sweetspot and in-to-out by a finite amount for a push-draw ball flight. To consistently hit a push-draw of a certain pattern, the degree of in-to-out clubhead path at impact must be consistently repeatable.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 12, 2012 18:47:10 GMT -5
Well, what I'm trying to say that any improvement on 7 degrees from the inside is desirable, even if someone goes to 4 and it is an inconsistent 4.
Have you ever seen what the flight it looks like when someone is 7 degrees from the inside? I have, it's borderline unplayable.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 12, 2012 20:34:59 GMT -5
I agree that 4 is better than 7 - even if it is inconsistent. However, if the golfer wants to consistently generate a smaller clubhead path value (eg. 2 degrees in-to-out), then he needs to learn to modify his swing action in a consistent manner.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jul 13, 2012 12:56:04 GMT -5
Can't argue with you there.
|
|