1. Art's numbers were clearly NOT the right numbers. He was unclear as well. That's why he put the (???)
Do these yahoos realize how many different sets of 3D numbers we've looked at in the last year??? None, zero, zilch, nada groups of numbers are that far apart in the PGA TOUR PLAYER group.
2. Who cares what the heck DJ looks like in THAT video, bad camera angle. The point is by the 45° point (saying that impact is zero, and level is 90°) he and a lot of guys look somewhat the same clubface wise.
3.Yeah, if his ENSO-pro numbers blow up the theory, then what?
4. Yup.
Dear Brian, AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT LIKE ME, ANXIOUSLY OPENS THIS STRING OF POSTS TO SEE WHAT IS NEW,
I will present little to no data here so some of you may want to hit the 'skip' button NOW BUT, please hold on,
I live in Pacific Palisades California (so what ??), a town built around and originally dedicated to almost every possible religion; a real church town.
For many years as the leader of the parish council, I was called upon to participate in discussions/debates on local issues that were of interest to many and sometimes all of the churches in town. While this to an athlete like all of you on this site, and wanting to WIN anything that might negatively impact OUR church, AND the clear understanding that I had a responsibility to the clergy AND the parishioners, I soon realized what I believe we need to do to address this ROC debate we are having.
I believe strongly that we need to recognize that from all the opinions that I have read, we have much more in common than we have the form of differences. For instance, since there are more than 2 sides to this issue, would anyone disagree that in golf terms, the face of the club is OPEN at the top of the back swing? What about when the club is in the down swing and vertical? Clearly we all agree it must be square at impact, so I think we can ALL agree, it was ‘closing during the early part of the downswing, and therefore, in technical terms, ‘alpha was increasing’ Everybody OK to here??
Oh, but did it start to open during the pre-impact time frame?? NO AGREEMENT HERE FROM WHAT I READ But, if it did, we MUST agree that at some point, ‘alpha’ started to decelerate but if so, there had to be a negative alpha torque, so let’s at least review the available DATA NOT THE AVAILABLE OPINIONS TO BE ABLE TO OBJECTIVELY ASSESS THIS DIFFERENCE.
Last, it feels foolish to bring up, but I want to go on record as saying that ROC as defined ONLY AT IMPACT will vary greatly from golfer to golfer, club to club, and swing to swing, so get ready for the need to conduct a whole lot of expensive ENSO testing to try to please everyone.
As my wonderful New York Jewish friends would say, “Art, enough already” so I will honor that now.
My bottom line is that ‘art’, (that would be me), presented on this string (#104), one number I believe was WRONG, NOT AN ENTIRE PIECE OF WRONG ANALYSIS, OR ADDITIONAL DATA FROM AN OBSOLETE PIECE OF HIGH QUALITY INSTRUMENTATION. So for the one wrong piece of data I have already apologized, but for the usefulness of the TPI/AMM system to provide ME, and I hope US both useful trend analyses and working data as we continue to seek ‘golf truth’ this system is IMO very, very worthwhile , (or Michael Jacobs just wasted a lot of hard earned money).
So, I have just spent many more hours reviewing the ‘avatar’ and tabular data from 3 swings of 3 different golfers on the demonstration software. (IMO, if anyone reading this has NOT down loaded and reviewed this free software, and they comment on this subject, they are doing themselves, and the rest of us a disservice by missing the opportunity to understand, AND see what is really happening during a golf swing ). For instance, the 240 cycles per second often quoted, is JUST THE DATA SAMPLING AND PRESENTATION RATE. See your local qualified engineering dynamics expert for a full explanation of the differences AND REAL LIMITATIONS OF THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF A SYSTEM.
IMO, the review of the continuous characteristics of the body joint parameters affecting ROC even if beyond the 240 cycles per second data rate, any decelerations or reversals in ‘alpha’ would still be very visible..
All I will say here is when you actually SEE how the parameters affecting ROC are changing during the downswing, you will be able to at least discuss it intelligently with others who have taken the time to also understand the REAL VALUE of the ‘CONTINUOUS DATA, NOT JUST THE VALUES AT PARALLEL, OR IMPACT.
So, in summary, I now, because of the value to me of this controversy, am not finished, I am just starting. The ENSO system as I am sure you realize has 3 partners, Fujikara, Vicon, and Bentley 3. I live about 10 miles from Vicon, and a longer but beautiful coastline drive from home to Bentley. I plan on visiting both of these facilities/folks certainly within a month, and will double up at TPI which is very close to Mike Bentleys facility. If a full ENSO system is not available at these places, Fujikura has a facility in Vista California, which will definitely replace my side trip to TPI if necessary.
My interest is certainly not just ROC as these wonderful pieces of equipment can, and I hope will be used to unlock much of the golf learning ‘constipation’ regarding the true dynamic, not just video and ‘feel-based’ interactions that have been driving the teaching progress, but also the regress in some cases.
Stay tuned, and if you can, please help and if appropriate, endorse me if you have relationships with these people/companies; I am REALLY, AND ONLY SEEKING GOLF TRUTH, not for just me, but for all of us, and for all golfers.
Thanks for listening/reading,
art
