Are we wasting our time?

[drewyallop]

There is much here of positions -wrist, hands, pivot etc. - based on photographs of swings. Considering Manzella's post "Line drawing is for dummies" and other Manzella teachers' comments on the fallibility of 2D photos, are discussions based on these photos a waste of time?

Drew

 

[Phil Rosenbaum]

It all depends on what you are thinking that you are seeing in 2d. Too many people are drawing conclusions based on 2d. What you see in 2d is not always what is actually happening in 3d. Damons MATT system has changed how I view every swing I see. There is a time and place for 2d but that time is quickly being passed by.

 

[duckjr78]

I would imagine that if you were simply trying to measure 1 thing, 2d would work OK. But how often is that really true during the golf swing?

 

[westy]

the main thing to remember is that the ball doesnt care how you look.
but there are patterns, and some of them work......

 

[ayatalim1979]

Using 2D or 3D drawing may be not so serious because this game is all depends on our experiences and something in our mind: maybe the sense of space and distance.

 

[birdie_man]

I think the deal is we can still learn from photos and vids. But you have to realize and take into account parallax. (the perspective you are looking at something at i.e. how traintracks look to NOT be parallel when you look "down the tracks")

Also, as per a thread like mandrin's "Invisible Exertions", the golfer's intentions are not known. And subtle things, often tough or impossible to see (or identify) with the naked eye or even images, can make big differences.

Was just thinking about that today actually. Brian has said his "best looking" swings often produced the worst results. And the "ugliest" swings often were the best!

I can make what to me are big changes, and see an improvement in play, and it might be tough to see on video. (esp if you didn't know what was changed)