High-Speed Impact Video (with Manzella response)

[Michael Finney]

INSANE GOLF OBSERVER #1
"What Kelvin did is not at all far off from what the University of Loughborough is doing. They are using reflective markers on the crown and use PONTOS tracking software. We can use dots on the crown and track it with our software. Same thing."

WRONG

you may need to re-read the 6 pages - what part of "point cloud" do you not understand?

 

[drewyallop]

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

Do you have a link to the research Michael?

 

[tongzilla]

forgive my ignorance, but seems like gear effect calculated (or measured?) by trackman is like a 'fudge factor' or 'balancing item' that consists of everything that cannot be explained simply by considering the true face and true path.

 

[Kevin Shields]

BTW, does this thread put a nail in the coffin of the man from Island in the Pacific's credibility? It will be a hard one to recover from, that's for sure.

Apparently, "it was a teaser" is code for "back to the drawing board".

 

[Brian Manzella]

I sent the video to 5 of my scientists.

Collectively, they found dozens and dozens of mistakes with the process and assumptions.

I could easily post them up here, but why? To help who?

If you are smart enough to call a great research University to find out the camera you are using is good enough, you can probably find out what processes folks in the real world of scientific research do TO COLLECT THE DATA correctly.

But, even after you put a whole bunch of markers in the right place, use a ball better than a used range ball, line everything up with lasers, get pre-tested test clubs, and collect a whole bunch of good data, you still have a monumental problem.....

YOU THEN NEED SOMEONE WAY SMARTER THAT YOUR INNER CIRCLE TO DO THE MATH!

And find someone who understands collision physics to interpret the math.

And then, way down the road, you'll realize that Paul Wood and Fredrik Tuxen were there years ago.

And we were right all along.

You see, you guys really don't want to find out the truth. You are just hoping that the bizarre theory of the golfer re-opening the face is correct in some alternate universe and I got something wrong in explaining all of this ball-flight stuff along the way.

Really though, it is no different that a few other methodologies out there who do "research" just to prove their theories right and bash the competition.

Which is—of course—in the long run, a colossal waste of time.

At Project 1.68 we try to find out the truth for the truth's sake. Something so rare in the golf instruction business that it has made us great friends in the scientific community who are like minded.

Good luck trying to catch us while trying to prove our scientists wrong.

This was your last "run." You got waxed like Rain Dance again.

This thread, and non-debate is over.