Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Ded2Journey » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:34 am

It's not always bad and that may work, but from what I've read recently on skill acquisition, motor skills learning, cognitive learning, etc...it's extremely limited and it will take longer to actually get the job accomplished.


Can you share any of this stuff? I'm always trying to find more efficient ways to learn and progress my skillset.
"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 norcalvol » Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:14 pm

lagpressure wrote:...Good golf is MUCH more about not hitting bad shots than it is great shots. A really bad shot will likely cost you bogey or worse. A great shot will not guarantee a lower score. A perfect drive has only a slight advantage over a drive 30 yards away but still in the fairway. An iron hit six feet from the pin ends up with the same score as an up and down from short right of the green if the putt is missed. But the drive hit out of bounds costs two shots every time....


And I just found this quote harboring the same advice...

“Play the shot you’ve got the greatest chance of playing well and play the shot that makes the next shot easy. It is not solely the capacity to make great shots that makes champions, but the essential quality of making very few bad shots.” --- Tommy Armour

This philosophy --- a simple but profound wisdom --- kind of stopped me in my tracks... first when I read Lag's advice on this forum and then when I found the quote. I've heard this kind of advice before, years ago, but sometimes you're not ready to really embrace wisdom until it comes back around multiple times... and then for whatever reason you are ready to receive it.

I will be taking this to heart immediately.
Accelerate forever!
User avatar
norcalvol
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:01 pm
Location: Bay Area, California

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Richie3Jack » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:50 am

lagpressure wrote:I think if you could see the same numbers every time, then that would be better than striving for some ideal ball flight that has been proclaimed optimum by a random expert.


I think we are seeing more Tour players that are Trackman users and their coaches seeing it that way as well. I have a Tour player that hit his driver the best when he was about -2 degrees down. Trackman will tell you that should strive to hit up on the driver. But this player simply strikes the driver best at about -2 degrees. We discussed this with his teacher and his teacher stated that given the player's swing, it would be difficult for him to hit up on the driver and drive it consistently well. So the teacher's goal was to keep him consistently at about -2 degrees downward.

It's the same mentality for other parts of the game. Another player I had improved his putting greatly from his previous years on Tour. When I asked what he did differently he stated I stuck with a plan and worked on that plan until I could perform the best I could with that plan instead of changing from one set of techniques to the other any time I started to struggle.

Consistency is key for Tour players when it comes to actual performance. And I think the same holds true for amateurs. When Trackman first came out, we would see Tour players get on the machine and it was amazing how they could consistently hit the same numbers. But, I think what happened with many players is that they were told to achieve different numbers and they couldn't hit those numbers as consistently.

The same thing can be said for putting when we look at SAM Puttlab reports (sort of the Trackman version for putting). Loren Roberts aims about 2 degrees left of the target at address and then would use a cut-across type of putting stroke. But, he would get the putter facing the target at impact. His 'stroke' scores (the score given to the quality of his stroke) wasn't very good, but his consistency scores were fantastic.

I think if you're struggling for an extended period of time, then you need to make changes and those changes will come slowly. But if you're pretty good at something then it is likely due to your ability to consistently do what you do and not so much because you hit 'perfect numbers.'






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

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby norcalvol » Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:39 pm

Richie3Jack wrote:...I think what happened with many players is that they were told to achieve different numbers and they couldn't hit those numbers as consistently... But if you're pretty good at something then it is likely due to your ability to consistently do what you do and not so much because you hit 'perfect numbers.'


Now I understand what 'chasing numbers' means. Thanks.

I don't use any kind of machine like Trackman, so I can't relate directly to this. But, it certainly sounds similar to other things, such as alignment and the fetish with alignment sticks. Some pretty good advice that I am trying to take to heart and implement is "find flush first." A player might discover that when he strikes the ball the purest, it goes out to the right from his alignment or intended path. But, in the same sense of 'chasing the numbers', the player will resist accepting the "flush always goes right" observation and instead will try to force what he thinks he is supposed to do - hit the ball along the path of his alignment at address - instead of simply aligning left of intended target an let his flushes knock down pins.

Trevino (and others) made a pretty good living by doing just that.

In this way, I personally relate to the debility of 'chasing numbers'.
Accelerate forever!
User avatar
norcalvol
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:01 pm
Location: Bay Area, California

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Ded2Journey » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:50 pm

It's the same mentality for other parts of the game. Another player I had improved his putting greatly from his previous years on Tour. When I asked what he did differently he stated I stuck with a plan and worked on that plan until I could perform the best I could with that plan instead of changing from one set of techniques to the other any time I started to struggle


Richie,

I think you need a good balance. Sticking with bad putting form is ok because it won't put your body at risk and your mind won't know the difference. Billy Mayfair comes to mind--who was a great putter until he changed his stroke after looking at video.

Conversely, bad swing technique should NOT be grooved. I see a lot of pretty swings that fall apart after impact these days...hell, look at Jimmy Walker's finish yesterday. Unfortunately, in today's world there is no time for tinkering, which forces you to stick bad technique and work on your "mental game" or eventually get injured. This seems asinine to me. Why not just build a pressure-proof swing???

Sam Snead, Hogan, Bobby Jones, Nicklaus, Trevino, Venturi, Burke, etc. all had incredible swings from P3-P4. From what I've read, none of them really had to practice ball striking all that hard--though most did strictly out of pleasure. However, nowadays you'll see pros on the range for hours and hours. This tells me that they are grooving timing, not technique. Hell, Hogan was belting it 250+ into his 80's after serious health issues from the accident...that is ALL technique.

If there is anything I've learned from ABS, it is that proper ball striking technique leads to confidence. I know when the season starts this year, I'm going to have it every day...it may not always be at its sharpest, but it'll be there. The more I focus on improving techniques, the better it gets (tightening the bolts from both ends)...that's sticking with something worth sticking with--not grooving bad habits that will fail under a tiny bit of pressure.

BOTTOM LINE: Consistency is important, but it cannot solely be developed through repetition. Experimentation, technique modification and SOUND fundamentals are required.

On a side note, IMHO a -2 attack angle with a driver is bad technique. I would venture to guess that this individual is not utilizing proper ground pressures nor loading the transition properly. Since I've taken on ABS and really started to understand PIA...all of my AoA numbers have taken care of themselves with NO thought or change in ball position.
"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 Richie3Jack » Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:53 am

Ded2Journey wrote:
On a side note, IMHO a -2 attack angle with a driver is bad technique. I would venture to guess that this individual is not utilizing proper ground pressures nor loading the transition properly. Since I've taken on ABS and really started to understand PIA...all of my AoA numbers have taken care of themselves with NO thought or change in ball position.


I have a difficult time going with the theory that a -2 degree attack angle is a 'bad technique.'

Boo Weekley is one of the very best drivers on Tour statistically. He hits it a good length and is very accurate by today's standards and he uses an AoA of -3 degrees. The Tour Average is still -1.3 degrees with the driver and if you look at the most effective drivers of the ball, there are usually a few that hit down on the driver.

Hitting up can be almost as bad. The spin loft becomes less and this tilts the ball's axis even more. According to Tuxen, all things being equal the ball will travel more offline by hitting upward by the same amount versus downward by the same amount. And what we are seeing from Tuxen's data, that hitting up on the driver can be hazardous for anybody generating more than 95 mph of club head speed because of the risk of how far it can travel off line.

I think a flat attack angle (-1 to +1) is probably going to yield the best results for the most golfers because you get the balance of better launch angles without having too little of spin loft and reducing the tilt of the ball's axis. But there are too many excellent drivers of the ball with a downward attack angle to equate that to being a 'bad technique.'





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

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby Ded2Journey » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm

Richie3Jack wrote:
Ded2Journey wrote:
On a side note, IMHO a -2 attack angle with a driver is bad technique. I would venture to guess that this individual is not utilizing proper ground pressures nor loading the transition properly. Since I've taken on ABS and really started to understand PIA...all of my AoA numbers have taken care of themselves with NO thought or change in ball position.


I have a difficult time going with the theory that a -2 degree attack angle is a 'bad technique.'

Boo Weekley is one of the very best drivers on Tour statistically. He hits it a good length and is very accurate by today's standards and he uses an AoA of -3 degrees. The Tour Average is still -1.3 degrees with the driver and if you look at the most effective drivers of the ball, there are usually a few that hit down on the driver.

Hitting up can be almost as bad. The spin loft becomes less and this tilts the ball's axis even more. According to Tuxen, all things being equal the ball will travel more offline by hitting upward by the same amount versus downward by the same amount. And what we are seeing from Tuxen's data, that hitting up on the driver can be hazardous for anybody generating more than 95 mph of club head speed because of the risk of how far it can travel off line.

I think a flat attack angle (-1 to +1) is probably going to yield the best results for the most golfers because you get the balance of better launch angles without having too little of spin loft and reducing the tilt of the ball's axis. But there are too many excellent drivers of the ball with a downward attack angle to equate that to being a 'bad technique.'





3JACK


3Jack,

I guess we were talking at each other...gotta love written communications. I agree anything under 1 degree either way is optimum for distance and control when driving the ball. I've actually brought my AoA down from +3 to 1ish degrees. I like hitting up for feel purposes mostly--but could see how negative numbers increase accuracy.

I think anything beyond 1 degree is now making the instrument/club/tools we play with less efficient--fighting club design essentially. I completely believe that we are all capable of maintaining a SOUND TECHNIQUE that keeps your "numbers" inside 1 degree for every single face/path category (minus AoA with irons). Assuming the LM's can be consistent in reading face/path angles.
"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 k2baloo » Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:32 pm

I had to get some lofts adjusted on my irons today, so I decided to also bring my persimmon driver in and compare it to something modern on the monitor. I really don't trust the system I was on. First off, the distances were very inconsistent. I hit one with the modern driver that felt pretty good and it went 260. Teed up another one and the strike felt identical to me and the ball went 320.... Very weird. Secondly, almost all of my shots were hooking - I haven't struggled with a hook in quite some time so I also thought that was really strange.... No idea, maybe I developed a snap hook overnight, but the experience was disappointing. Also, I was hitting my persimmon further off the deck than the tee, what!? And I am talking about carry distance, not total....

Assuming the numbers had any merit at all, it looked like my persimmon was about 20-30 yards behind the modern stuff I tried. Again, the machine seemed a bit off so I'm not going to put much stock into the experience. Happy to stick with the vintage stuff, but I thought I would share a couple thoughts from my time today.
k2baloo
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 5:43 pm

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby lagpressure » Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:04 pm

The few times I have been on those machines, I have seen some very odd numbers. I am sure some machines are better than others, but I am certain that I know what the ball is doing more than the machine does. Science isn't supposed to be like that!

There is probably some value using these indoors in the cold winter months. Can't think of one reason I'd use one outdoors in the better weather.

Wind, lie, trajectory, temperature, humidity, topography, so many things to consider when hitting a shot.
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: Healthy Launch Monitor Debate

Postby k2baloo » Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:22 pm

Yeah I've had better experiences on simulators, but this one left me scratching my head
k2baloo
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 5:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Public Forum- Concepts in Advanced Ball Striking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests