High-Speed Impact Video (with Manzella response)

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/52116662" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
 
D

DCgolf

New
Ah the golf forum where all the untrained wannabes get their three minutes of fame. This is argument for argument sake, and folks should have other things to do than sitting around coming up with ways to stump the pros me thinks. It's become an Internet pastime.
 
T

tallathlete

New
Kevin Shields said:
I would love to hear your observations, Joe. I know I have mine.
Click to expand...

Hi Kevin, out of respect for Brian's forum I will restrain myself from saying what I want to say. The bottom line is I have many problems with the video on many levels. It was an extremely unscientific video that was made to disprove science.
 
S

spktho

New
wulsy said:
Why not? Observation is an integral part of the scientific process, no?
Click to expand...

It is. But, incorrectly conducted observations (observations using assumptions--such as Brian pointed out with the line drawing for measuring the angle of the face and path and the center of gravity...) are...well let's just say unscientific.
 
Last edited:
hp12c

hp12c

New
Waste of time? maybe for some, but not for me. Maybe not for Bmanz either he posted 2 video answers which were excellent and the naysayers wil still disagree and that is okay by me, Ill stick with Bmanz!
 
lia41985

lia41985

New member
This video experiment leading anything new would be like re-writing Google's algorithm with an abacus. What a train wreck. Maybe the big kahuna will re-develop his shyness problem before he defends himself with a water balloon against a drone strike.
 
dschultz6072

dschultz6072

New
hp12c said:
Waste of time? maybe for some, but not for me. Maybe not for Bmanz either he posted 2 video answers which were excellent and the naysayers wil still disagree and that is okay by me, Ill stick with Bmanz!
Click to expand...
Waste of time as in studying what happens to a golf ball or clubhead in a thousandth of a second. If you don't hit it in the center, all bets are off. Plus, the ball is 40 yards away before you even realize it's gone.

 
Last edited:
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
The most interesting tidbit received from this afternoon's info gathering....the RATE of rotation of the gear effect during the impact interval is much more important than the amount of rotation because the shaft's torsional stiffness counteracts the twisting very quickly....think about that one

And this RATE of rotation is solely induced by the relationship of the two colliding objects' COM......NOT any pre impact "rate of closure" rates
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
Also, Loughborough did just this - measuring impact interval events - in a scientific way...and presented it at an international conference on sports engineering....not once did they use a protractor
 
Frans@France

Frans@France

New
wulsy said:
OK, I hear you.

So was this marking with the sharpie not necessary? Were the software updates in any way related to GE? Just askin.
Click to expand...

It only means that the TM operator must understand what he is doing and must understand how and what the machine measures.
 
Frans@France

Frans@France

New
wulsy said:
IMHO, TM's failure to accommodate the GE ....makes it an interim solution at best and somewhat misleading at worst.
Click to expand...

Is it a failure from TM when the reported ball spin axis is a hook and the face is reported open or is it a operator failure when he doesn't understand the reason behind it?

Is it a TM failure when I take 5 heads and a swing robot then making sure that the all is the same including impact is at the same spot for those 5 heads and then see different data? Or was that not again a researcher failing to understand what he was doing?

Is it a phantom failure when again using a swingrobot using head A and then hit again the ball using head B and get two different video's ?

PS : Why do you think the TM fails to accommodate for GE and what do you think the TM should report then in that same scenario that you quoted about David Howell ?

Here is story about an operator that knows how to read the TM data :p
“Fredrik was able to tell us to within a quarter
of an inch where Lisa was hitting the ball on the
clubface. We sprayed the clubface and didn’t show
it to him, but he could tell us from the TrackMan™
data and ball flight the exact impact position. It was
quite overwhelming, and I was turned over ” Martin Hall
PGA of America’s 2008 Teacher of the Year
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
W

wulsy

New
Michael Finney said:
The most interesting tidbit received from this afternoon's info gathering....the RATE of rotation of the gear effect during the impact interval is much more important than the amount of rotation because the shaft's torsional stiffness counteracts the twisting very quickly....think about that one

And this RATE of rotation is solely induced by the relationship of the two colliding objects' COM......NOT any pre impact "rate of closure" rates
Click to expand...

Interesting that it seems there there ARE aspects which influence HOW MUCH gear effect takes place and that it is not ONLY related to how far from the COG the collision occurs.

Sounds to me (and I am just a clueless layman but I am interested in the truth) like there are varying lengths of impact intervals (Loughborough) and that CH speed, CH design, shaft characteristics, maybe even ball characteristics and no doubt a few other factors all play a part in what the gear effect does to the ball. All I was trying to say was that TM does not truly measure GE and can only be regarded as a guide or approximation to what happens to the ball as a result of the collision.

I have to desire to rubbish TM and feel sometimes reactions here can be a bit aggressive if someone says something that is unpopular or maybe even wrong. I don't see any need for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top