Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Richie3Jack » Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:04 pm

golfingplease wrote:Would you say, Richie, that Trackman is more useful for driving than iron shots?


Yes. Not only from an instruction perspective, but from a club fitting perspective as well.





3JACK
Richie3Jack
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:20 am

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby turn » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:01 am

Ded2Journey wrote:Do the machines measure acceleration rates or declines pre and post impact?

No they do not, but they do measure smash factor which shows how effectively you transferred energy into the ball. I would assume PIA intentions would lead to better ball flight on off center hits...but to me that is a moot point when you put elite ball strikers together.

That would be interesting information to me.

Why? It is impossible to accelerate the clubhead past impact, physics proves that. The ball is the only way to track the importance of Post Impact Intentions...

okay i've seen this argument before, that you cannot accelerate the club past impact, and had some thoughts about it.

imagine you swing extremely slowly. at transition the club head is going 0 mph, and you accelerate all the way to 1 mph. you swing down at 1 mph until you impact the ball. after you hit the ball, you accelerate the club head up to 2 mph for a few feet, then it slows down to 0 mph at the finish of your swing.

you could do the same slow motion swing, starting at 0 mph at transition. then accelerate to 1 mph, 2 mph, 3 mph (impact the ball), keep accelerating to 4 mph after hitting the ball, and finally slow down to 0 mph at the end of your swing. anyone could do this slow motion swing and the physics of hitting the ball would not stop the acceleration of the club head.

if you can imaging the slow motion swing accelerating after impact then the same thing would be possible for a full speed swing.

another way to think about is that the club head at any point can be doing three things: it can speed up, slow down, or maintain its current speed. we all agree that from transition to some point before impact the club head is speeding up. why would the point of impact with the ball be the point where no further acceleration can take place? actually, in the couple of feet before and after impact, the club head can either be speeding up, slowing down, or maintaining its current rate of velocity. Technically nothing stays at exactly its same rate of speed to the 0.000000 mph but for our understanding we could call it the same speed.

a third thought: one of the previous arguments i read in a different thread was that physics says impacting the ball would slow down the club head, therefore the club head cannot accelerate after impact. while the club head does slow down as a result of impact, it could just slow down the acceleration of the club head. again, think about the slow motion swing description. if the club head is accelerating from 0 mph to 3 mph to impact, and keeps accelerating to 4 mph after impact, clearly the ball is not going to stop the acceleration of the club head. the club head may accelerate at a slightly slower rate, but it is still accelerating.
turn
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Ded2Journey » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:02 am

Let's get back on track here, launch monitors don't have to measure acceleration. The ball will provide the necessary feedback.

Let's assume you accelerate past impact, because physics says the ball will cause an opposing force on the ball causing it to rapidly decelerate. So, acceleration past impact would result in higher compression rates, higher friction and better spin rates, more consistent trajectory, and more consistent transfers of energy to the ball...leading to higher smash factors, ball speeds and carry distances.

Thus, ABS protocols would only show up as elite ball striking numbers.

So, again, LM'S will help provide proof that ABS is uperior...especially on off center hits. So, why don't you use it again? Forget chasing the numbers...why not use it to prove your theories on hitting vs. Swinging?
"People have always been telling me what I can't do. I guess I have wanted to show them. That's been one of my driving forces all my life." -Ben Hogan
Ded2Journey
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby 1teebox » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:11 am

Could the proving part be done and documented as well, or better, by an engineer who is doing ABS?
User avatar
1teebox
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Richie3Jack » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:48 am

Ded2Journey wrote:Let's get back on track here, launch monitors don't have to measure acceleration. The ball will provide the necessary feedback.


I don't understand this statement. You can cheat the numbers, but you can also cheat the ball flight as well. Especially on off-center hits with the sweet spot only being the size of a needle point. Then you have to factor in rate of closure which even the scientists are more or less in the dark about when it comes to the results from varying rates of closure.

And I think John acknowledges that you will decelerate the club after impact, but he is more curious about how much deceleration and looking at the players with less deceleration versus those with more abrupt deceleration rates. I have no idea what difference it will actually make, but I would be curious to see.

As far as 'proving' hitting or swinging theories...I would have a hard time using Trackman for scientific purposes if I want to make it a legitimate finding(s). The margin of error on Trackman is nowhere near what it claims. Instead, you would need a Phantom Camera and other high tech software that would go upwards to $200k to have. Not to mention having to pay the researchers and test conductors.




3JACK
Richie3Jack
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:20 am

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Ded2Journey » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:30 pm

3Jack,

I've never been able to "cheat the numbers"...this interests me a lot. How do you do this?
As far as how fast/slow a club decelerates...I too am interested. That goes back to my argument above: If you start from impact (ground zero--after maximum deceleration and full compression of the golf ball)--COULD YOU MEASURE ACCELERATION? What would it show?

I would have to really disagree that the tolerances/specs of LM's are totally off base and erroneous. Maybe indoors every now and then...but not outdoors. I've never seen an "obvious" error when using trackman/flightscope outdoors. Also, I've rarely seen "obvious" errors indoors on the GC2. Since the GC is camera based and the HMT is camera based--the two combine for somewhat consistent readings. In proper lighting, I get 1 error about every 40-50 shots (estimate).

Additionally, there have been a few independent studies that have proven this technology to be quite accurate. I can't find them on my hard drive at the moment...but I'll keep searching. I've read a few...
"People have always been telling me what I can't do. I guess I have wanted to show them. That's been one of my driving forces all my life." -Ben Hogan
Ded2Journey
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Range Rat » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:59 pm

In the end, I think it serves a purpose, but I think the golfer needs to pick and choose how, when and why to use a launch monitor.


If there is a flat spot on that monitor I'll use it to hold my drink. :lol:
You're ahead of where you were, and behind where you're going.
User avatar
Range Rat
 
Posts: 2368
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:30 am

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Richie3Jack » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:52 am

Ded2Journey wrote:3Jack,

I've never been able to "cheat the numbers"...this interests me a lot. How do you do this?


Cheating the numbers means you are able to achieve the numbers without altering your mechanics to the mechanics you want to achieve. For example, if I'm trying to flatten out the Vertical Swing Plane by getting more external rotation of the right shoulder on the downswing, I may be able to flatten out that VSP in a variety of ways without externally rotating the right shoulder (I could swing out to the right more, pronate the left forearm, take the club far more inside, etc.) In the end, you would achieve the numbers...but it would likely be a short term change because you haven't incorporated the mechanics you wish to achieve.

I would have to really disagree that the tolerances/specs of LM's are totally off base and erroneous. Maybe indoors every now and then...but not outdoors.


The Quintic Consultancy Group and other researchers like Alex Dee from Fujikura and Dr. Paul Wood from Ping have discovered these errors.

Here's a small summation from the Quintic Consultancy Group:

http://jeffygolf.com/attachment.php?att ... 1360001672

The club head speed with the driver is usually about 3-5 mph slow because it measures too close to the heel of the club head. This causes impossible smash factors of greater than 1.49 It also has large accuracy issues on mis-hits and the sweet spot is only the size of a needle point, so even Tour players mis-hit shots frequently. It can't measure the face angle because of where it's pointing so it has to calculate the face angle which can be very inaccurate in its calculations, particularly on off-center hits. The attack angle with irons is often steeper than what Trackman says due to the shaft inflection driving the head more downward at impact. The path numbers are up to as much as 2-3 degrees off(admitted by Tuxen and company in January of 2014) because it uses a 'blob' to measure and calculate the path and that blob is different from the actual path of the club face which is what we use to hit the ball with.


I've never seen an "obvious" error when using trackman/flightscope outdoors.


I find this astonishing. The last time I used a FlightScope X2 I was with an instructor and there was a reading preposterously bad. I piped a driver down the middle and the path and face angle numbers would have had the ball traveling 60 yards left. The instructor's/owner's response was 'sometimes I hate this <expletive> thing!'

Also, I've rarely seen "obvious" errors indoors on the GC2. Since the GC is camera based and the HMT is camera based--the two combine for somewhat consistent readings. In proper lighting, I get 1 error about every 40-50 shots (estimate).


Then you must have a great machine. About a year ago I was using Trackman. We started using it indoors that day because we had a storm coming thru. It said my carry with my 3-iron was only 192 yards. We then took it outdoors when the rain stopped and the carry with my 3-iron was still 192 yards. Then we went out on the course and on a par-3 that was flat with no wind out and we measured it to a flagstick on a green where we could see where the pitch marks were and I was routinely hitting the 3-iron with 215-222 yards of carry.

I see plenty of errors happen all of the time. You have to work around it and get a decent ballpark of what you are doing from my experience. And I have access to 4 different Trackmans and 1 FlightScope X2 that I have carte blanche to use anytime I want.

Additionally, there have been a few independent studies that have proven this technology to be quite accurate. I can't find them on my hard drive at the moment...but I'll keep searching. I've read a few...


The only one I've read is the study done by...Trackman. The Quintic Consultancy Group did the study for the European PGA because they had many instructors from Europe telling the European PGA that they had many issues with Trackman and they paid QCG to take a look at it. Here's a few videos of some of the discrepancies that QCG found:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrA7_4Opr28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIso9EcNMX0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6928VZkJmBI

We see large differences in club head speed, smash factor, attack angle, path, face, etc.






3JACK
Richie3Jack
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:20 am

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby stevemcgee99 » Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:55 am

In my case we see large differences in club head speed, smash factor, attack angle, path, face, etc. ;)

But so far I'm getting a lot out of just knowing some theory / method, and aiming shots at targets, then continuing to hit until I get closer and closer. Between the feel and the result I find I'm getting lots of feedback. Then add my friend I get even more feedback.


By the way - today I was at the range. Then afterwards I was waiting to get some grips done and played on the monitor. Used a toaster til I couldn't stand it, then I brought in my 1951. Still was slicing (not every time...)

Funny thing is: outdoors at the range I saw my sliced balls continue to arc in their path to the right well after they hit the ground, sometimes ending up rolling 90 degrees to the original trajectory. The LM always showed my ball going in a straight line from launch to landing and rolling out.

On the course, when I slice and just about every time I shoot my ball never goes in a straight line. There's always a vertical and horizontal arc.
McGee
User avatar
stevemcgee99
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:27 am

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Ded2Journey » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:52 pm

Richie3Jack wrote:
Ded2Journey wrote:3Jack,

I've never been able to "cheat the numbers"...this interests me a lot. How do you do this?


Cheating the numbers means you are able to achieve the numbers without altering your mechanics to the mechanics you want to achieve. For example, if I'm trying to flatten out the Vertical Swing Plane by getting more external rotation of the right shoulder on the downswing, I may be able to flatten out that VSP in a variety of ways without externally rotating the right shoulder (I could swing out to the right more, pronate the left forearm, take the club far more inside, etc.) In the end, you would achieve the numbers...but it would likely be a short term change because you haven't incorporated the mechanics you wish to achieve.

I would have to really disagree that the tolerances/specs of LM's are totally off base and erroneous. Maybe indoors every now and then...but not outdoors.


The Quintic Consultancy Group and other researchers like Alex Dee from Fujikura and Dr. Paul Wood from Ping have discovered these errors.

Here's a small summation from the Quintic Consultancy Group:

http://jeffygolf.com/attachment.php?att ... 1360001672

The club head speed with the driver is usually about 3-5 mph slow because it measures too close to the heel of the club head. This causes impossible smash factors of greater than 1.49 It also has large accuracy issues on mis-hits and the sweet spot is only the size of a needle point, so even Tour players mis-hit shots frequently. It can't measure the face angle because of where it's pointing so it has to calculate the face angle which can be very inaccurate in its calculations, particularly on off-center hits. The attack angle with irons is often steeper than what Trackman says due to the shaft inflection driving the head more downward at impact. The path numbers are up to as much as 2-3 degrees off(admitted by Tuxen and company in January of 2014) because it uses a 'blob' to measure and calculate the path and that blob is different from the actual path of the club face which is what we use to hit the ball with.


I've never seen an "obvious" error when using trackman/flightscope outdoors.


I find this astonishing. The last time I used a FlightScope X2 I was with an instructor and there was a reading preposterously bad. I piped a driver down the middle and the path and face angle numbers would have had the ball traveling 60 yards left. The instructor's/owner's response was 'sometimes I hate this <expletive> thing!'

Also, I've rarely seen "obvious" errors indoors on the GC2. Since the GC is camera based and the HMT is camera based--the two combine for somewhat consistent readings. In proper lighting, I get 1 error about every 40-50 shots (estimate).


Then you must have a great machine. About a year ago I was using Trackman. We started using it indoors that day because we had a storm coming thru. It said my carry with my 3-iron was only 192 yards. We then took it outdoors when the rain stopped and the carry with my 3-iron was still 192 yards. Then we went out on the course and on a par-3 that was flat with no wind out and we measured it to a flagstick on a green where we could see where the pitch marks were and I was routinely hitting the 3-iron with 215-222 yards of carry.

I see plenty of errors happen all of the time. You have to work around it and get a decent ballpark of what you are doing from my experience. And I have access to 4 different Trackmans and 1 FlightScope X2 that I have carte blanche to use anytime I want.

Additionally, there have been a few independent studies that have proven this technology to be quite accurate. I can't find them on my hard drive at the moment...but I'll keep searching. I've read a few...


The only one I've read is the study done by...Trackman. The Quintic Consultancy Group did the study for the European PGA because they had many instructors from Europe telling the European PGA that they had many issues with Trackman and they paid QCG to take a look at it. Here's a few videos of some of the discrepancies that QCG found:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrA7_4Opr28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIso9EcNMX0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6928VZkJmBI

We see large differences in club head speed, smash factor, attack angle, path, face, etc.






3JACK


Wow...this was eye opening. I'm not a huge fan of trackman...but it is the most utilized and documented device. Thus, I tend to gravitate towards their newsletters and theories for education...

This study was done 2 years ago--I would hope someone took notice. As I mentioned before, I really started diving into LM's about 6 months ago. Is it possible that the algorithms and technology has improved since then?

I do not think the machines I use are insanely accurate, but I do believe that they are within the tolerances in their manual. The Trackman/Flightscopes I've hit outdoors may have had a few errors, but well within reason or they just didn't display anything. If I remember correctly, it had me carrying my 8 iron 150-155 which I easily carry 160...but the launch, spin rates, ball speed, etc. seemed reasonable +/- a degree or so. Come to think of it, we decided that the wind had a bit to do with it--but who knows.

I will say that you've had a lot of bad experiences and have seen much more data than I have. Thanks for educating me...I never knew the study existed.
"People have always been telling me what I can't do. I guess I have wanted to show them. That's been one of my driving forces all my life." -Ben Hogan
Ded2Journey
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Public Forum- Concepts in Advanced Ball Striking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron