Interesting Trackman Data

[ggsjpc]

If your hand path is more away from you, you'd BETTER steepen the shaft.

Or whiff it.

Do you mean whiff it left of the heal?

 

[Brian Manzella]

When a player steps into a Trackman and makes some swings, is there a target set of numbers that we know good players achieve?

If this player is say—you, then I am looking for what you do on your good and bad shots.

As a teacher, can you see the numbers output from a Trackman and know what needs to be done for a player to achieve the "target" numbers?

Almost instantly, IF we know the shot the student wants to—or needs to—hit.

Do the numbers dictate how you teach now?

You bet your sweet bippy!

does the Trackman make your teaching more accurate and easier, or does it add a level of complexity for the teacher to overcome?

In the "make the ball fly straighter" stage, it absolutely makes it easier.

Realizing, Steve, we are in the INFANT stage of development.

And....if a player gets a Trackman lesson, does it make it more difficult to practice since you would be unable to see if you are moving your numbers towards a goal unless you are on a Trackman.

It sure has made it easier for me.

Also....will a Trackman lesson become the "gold standard" for instruction and will all top level teachers pretty much be required to become proficient teaching with the Trackman?

Most guys are just getting comfortable with drawing lines with 60fps video.

is Trackman overkill for all but the very best ball strikers?

Video is overkill for a slicer.


Here is an important point, the more I used video, the less I needed to.

Why?

Because my eye was trained by a 1/2000th shutter.

The more I look at 420 frame and 1000 frame per second video, the less I am surprised.

Same with TrackMan.

 

[Zztop]

Exactly.

Sort of.

You see, "Zz," without TrackMan, all you see is three "identical" shots.

But they weren't.

So now, we know, the this player has a "save move" when he gets a little under plane.

Maybe this will tell us what happens when he hits it right-to-right and makes 6 and loses a tournament.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a way to make him even better.

"There is always a better way." —Biagio Manzella​

Baloney!

It is NOT a fact that this player can't get more consistent.

He IS getting better already due to working with TrackMan......and Kevin, of course.




If everyone thought that way all the time, we'd still be living in caves.

Goofy.

Listen, the numbers are IMPORTANT. And, it is obvious that they are a THREAT.

The truth is always a threat.

And always the path that leads to a better next step.




Here are some stats for losers:

Go find two players who hit the ball very well on the range. Both have similar short games and hit the ball similar distances.

The one that can beat the other regularly will DESTROY the other on TrackMan.




But you can get closer.

One day, TrackMan—or something like it, or better—will be used by 99% of every good player alive.

Trust me, I teach WAY BETTER knowing what TrackMan tells me.

Not even close.




They—and I—were flat out GUESSING.

And trust me, Harvey didn't help 'em all.

Neither do I.....but I get closer everyday.




If you shoot 66 in a legit tournament, you TrackMan numbers added up pretty good.



Bad analogy.

It looked better on video BUT TRUST ME, IT WOULD HAVE LOOKED WAY WORSE ON TRACKMAN!!!!!!




Trust me, there are NO semi-repeating QUALITY SHOTS with BAD TrackMan numbers.

None.




Can't be any worse than the field.




Go pick up all the sliced pieces of yourself, and then ask your pieces this simple question:

What on earth made me say so many silly things?

to get that response above! and did the good semi repeating quality shots happen because of trackman #'s or did trackman #'s show that they were good shots which you could see anyways ,you don't need trackman to hit good quality golf shots, people have been doing that for years. you don't hit good shots because a machine said you did, it just confirms what you already knew how to do, and i'm talking about good shots not bad one's. it's a tool for a teacher to help a student. but the student doesn't need to know all the data, like teaching someone to drive a car, just show me how to do it, i don't need to know how it was built, just how to drive it. eventually i have to take responsibility for my driving or golf just like everything else. and i'm still in one piece. and your argument about two players been the same and one beating the other most of the time will kill him on trackman is a backward argument. the reason he beats him regularly is he has more ability, not because trackman just confirms his #'s are superior, his #'s are superior because he's superior in talent.talent, ability,the right knowledge, hard work,and a little luck will win most times, i don't need a machine to confirm that. give me two people one with little ability, one with outstanding ability, put both on trackman whose #'s are going to be better? geez i wonder. i'm not saying it can't help
people. i'm saying knowing it is one thing ,doing it is a different thing. the original post was about someone hitting quality shots, if so why fix it if it ain't broke, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone, that's also a tool for a teacher to use if their smart enough! i just think were talking about different things. also that player could still take a six on a hole and loose the tournament even with trackmans help, he could hit a different bad shot or the same bad shot then what? back to trackman , we are humans, bad shots are going to happen, you can't fix them all, because you never know when their going to happen, that's part of every sport, the human factor,overcoming these mistakes, that's what winners do! that's what makes watching sports exciting.!
trackman is a way to improve, not a way to perfection and you said sometime in the future 99% of every good player will use something similiar to trackman ,what about the not so good player what are they going to use? oh yeah they can guess like everyone from harvey pennick to jack nicklaus wow that's some good guessing!

 

[Kevin Shields]

OK.....

I'm a guy that likes to see numbers and I like to know where my numbers need to move towards in order to be as good as I can be.

Which brings me to my dilemma.

When a player steps into a Trackman and makes some swings, is there a target set of numbers that we know good players achieve? As a teacher, can you see the numbers output from a Trackman and know what needs to be done for a player to achieve the "target" numbers? Do the numbers dictate how you teach now?

I guess what I want to know is; does the Trackman make your teaching more accurate and easier, or does it add a level of complexity for the teacher to overcome?

And....if a player gets a Trackman lesson, does it make it more difficult to practice since you would be unable to see if you are moving your numbers towards a goal unless you are on a Trackman.

Also....will a Trackman lesson become the "gold standard" for instruction and will all top level teachers pretty much be required to become proficient teaching with the Trackman? Or is Trackman overkill for all but the very best ball strikers?

These may be the dumbest questions in the history of golf instruction....but then I may be the dumbest golfer in history.

These arent dumb questions at all. At least for now, the students dont necessarily need to see their numbers or know what they mean. It shows me their tendencies with all their clubs, when they 3/4 a shot, when trouble is left or right, into the wind, etc. The whole post was find out if anybody else found it interesting. I know what im doing with the data with each student.

I do think at some point every top teacher will have to be proficient in this type of instruction. As for your question about not having the Trackman around. Its no different than practicing without a video camera. Trackman helps humans (as ZZTop so pointed out) feel what they are doing wrong so much better than anything else. Its very easy to "feel" the numbers. It shows your weakest link and trouble areas unbelievably well.

All this other talk about specific data is for anybody who is interested.

 

[Kevin Shields]

ZZ, I dont agree with your "talent' argument one bit. I'm sure you'll try to slice me up for saying this, but as far as physical talent, I have as much as just about anyone on Tour. But I was passed by sooooo many "lesser talents" because they had more repeatable actions. I would have looked like a 10 handicap on Trackman. It was the talent that kept me in there. If I would have had this machine when i was 19, like the two kids it was purchased for, i dont want to even think about it.

You see, i dont have a horse in this race, per se. I didnt but Trackman and then set out to justify it to the world to make myself feel good. I just know it is the most incredible learning tool ever. Do i know WHY every player puts up every single digit, of course not. But i'm better off now, thats for damn sure.

Did i reeeally "trash" Fred Couples? Get a life. I think I was frustrated being a fan of his because he hits alot of wayward shots under the gun. He's one of my favorite player.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Do you mean whiff it left of the heal?

Yup.

 

[GPM1985]

I really don't think there's much of an argument to be made over the usefulness of a Trackman. It provides a quantitative assessment of whatever shot you're hitting, and that to me is invaluable.

The way I understand it, golfers now have oppurtunity to assign to each type of shot they hit a certain set of parameters. If I'm on a Trackman and I'm hitting some nice, high draws, I can check and see exactly what I'm doing to create that ballflight.

For whatever reason, some people view technological breakthroughs like the Trackman as unnecessary or corruptive. That's okay. Some of history's greatest inventions were greeted with suspicion and contempt by small-minded rubes. Those who welcome technology benefit and those who don't typically fall by the wayside.

I think it's great that golfers no longer have to rely on "feel," a term I've come to genuinely despise and now realize equates to "guessing." Right now, Trackman is a boon for the progressive golfer, and as others have pointed out, it will be the industry standard at some point. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I think it's great that golfers no longer have to rely on "feel," a term I've come to genuinely despise and now realize equates to "guessing."

Feel isn't going anywhere my friend; let's say you are on Trackman and (just whipping out an example) and your path is 4* inside out and your clubface is 4*open FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE.

So now that Trackman told me the teacher that your path isn't so bad but the clubface needs to be more closed to the path you're telling me that if i tell you, "hey, we need to get that clubface a wee bit more closed for you to hit a normal draw." You are just going to ask me, "Well how many degrees?" and you just expect to be able to do it?

You are going to have to make a bunch of swings and adjust maybe your grip or your left wrist to get the clubface more closed while i monitor it on a Trackman until we get it right for you.

 

[GPM1985]

Feel isn't going anywhere my friend; let's say you are on Trackman and (just whipping out an example) and your path is 4* inside out and your clubface is 4*open FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE.

So now that Trackman told me the teacher that your path isn't so bad but the clubface needs to be more closed to the path you're telling me that if i tell you, "hey, we need to get that clubface a wee bit more closed for you to hit a normal draw." You are just going to ask me, "Well how many degrees?" and you just expect to be able to do it?

I expect that once I am able to do it, I would look at the numbers and know exactly what I am doing. "Real" instead of "feel."

 

[Zztop]

ZZ, I dont agree with your "talent' argument one bit. I'm sure you'll try to slice me up for saying this, but as far as physical talent, I have as much as just about anyone on Tour. But I was passed by sooooo many "lesser talents" because they had more repeatable actions. I would have looked like a 10 handicap on Trackman. It was the talent that kept me in there. If I would have had this machine when i was 19, like the two kids it was purchased for, i dont want to even think about it.

You see, i dont have a horse in this race, per se. I didnt but Trackman and then set out to justify it to the world to make myself feel good. I just know it is the most incredible learning tool ever. Do i know WHY every player puts up every single digit, of course not. But i'm better off now, thats for damn sure.

Did i reeeally "trash" Fred Couples? Get a life. I think I was frustrated being a fan of his because he hits alot of wayward shots under the gun. He's one of my favorite player.

they had more repeatable actions because of trackman or because of ability,
your starting to sound like sergio, your better than others but only if this or that. if they had more repeatable actions how did they do it? wish it!

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I expect that once I am able to do it, I would look at the numbers and know exactly what I am doing. "Real" instead of "feel."

No offense, but when feel turns into real for many golfers; almost every golfer i know and eve watching tour pro's they "over do it" and then need to be "undone" a bit.

You are too idealistic to think once you have the numbers you're done forever. If that was true, the guys who have access to Trackman's whenever they want on tour would all have perfect ballflights.

 

[Zztop]

No offense, but when feel turns into real for many golfers; almost every golfer i know and eve watching tour pro's they "over do it" and then need to be "undone" a bit.

You are too idealistic to think once you have the numbers you're done forever. If that was true, the guys who have access to Trackman's whenever they want on tour would all have perfect ballflights.

exactly if trackman was the be all end all why would we need instructors? would you put a 6yr. old kid on it and tell him all that important data, would kind of take all the fun out of it for the kid, but the operator of trackman would be happy

 

[Zztop]

one more thing, who on tour has the best trackman #'s was it jim furyk? if so why doesn't he win all the tournaments must be some other factors involved besides #'s, but that can't be right can it?

 

[Michael Finney]

one more thing, who on tour has the best trackman #'s was it jim furyk? if so why doesn't he win all the tournaments must be some other factors involved besides #'s, but that can't be right can it?

he had the most consistent numbers....not exactly the same thing as the best numbers....

and then there's this little thing called putting...got it, bronco?

 

[Zztop]

he had the most consistent numbers....not exactly the same thing as the best numbers....

and then there's this little thing called putting...got it, bronco?

are you sure about that or is that your best guess?

 

[Kevin Shields]

Some people are missing the point entirely. Its just a tool for learning. If you dont like it or want to learn about it, then don't.

Jim, why are you so anti Trackman?

ZZ, you can say whatever you want about me, I dont care. I didnt say the guys who passed me up did it because of trackman or whatever you said. I felt i had as much pure talent but couldnt figure out a swing that produced consistent enough results and they did. With Trackman data i would have, period. You sound very desperate in your attempt to discredit an awesome teaching tool. Why would you suggest that we dont know that there is more to golf than perfect swings? Nobody ever said that.

Again, it was a thread for anybody interested in discussing good player's abilities to put up identical path numbers with different swing components.

 

[Kevin Shields]

No offense, but when feel turns into real for many golfers; almost every golfer i know and eve watching tour pro's they "over do it" and then need to be "undone" a bit.

You are too idealistic to think once you have the numbers you're done forever. If that was true, the guys who have access to Trackman's whenever they want on tour would all have perfect ballflights.

The "over doing" and the "undoing" are much easier with Trackman. No doubt.

 

[ggsjpc]

Some people are missing the point entirely. Its just a tool for learning. If you dont like it or want to learn about it, then don't.

Jim, why are you so anti Trackman?

ZZ, you can say whatever you want about me, I dont care. I didnt say the guys who passed me up did it because of trackman or whatever you said. I felt i had as much pure talent but couldnt figure out a swing that produced consistent enough results and they did. With Trackman data i would have, period. You sound very desperate in your attempt to discredit an awesome teaching tool. Why would you suggest that we dont know that there is more to golf than perfect swings? Nobody ever said that.

Again, it was a thread for anybody interested in discussing good player's abilities to put up identical path numbers with different swing components.

I'm still interested....Looking at some of data of a couple of my players from trackman day showed similar things.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Exactly, John. My point is my particular student did all relatively the same things to get his path. Swung a little right, hit a little down, made the path 3.5 in to out. No biggie, go play. But if on a couple of swings his HSW was 3* left and he hit 7* down and got the same 3.5 path, we have a problem. You cant beat anybody doing that. Nobodies eye is good enough even with Casio to tell how much attack angle there is without trackman. Its a better way. Anybody who doesnt believe that is high.

 

[Zztop]

Some people are missing the point entirely. Its just a tool for learning. If you dont like it or want to learn about it, then don't.

Jim, why are you so anti Trackman?

ZZ, you can say whatever you want about me, I dont care. I didnt say the guys who passed me up did it because of trackman or whatever you said. I felt i had as much pure talent but couldnt figure out a swing that produced consistent enough results and they did. With Trackman data i would have, period. You sound very desperate in your attempt to discredit an awesome teaching tool. Why would you suggest that we dont know that there is more to golf than perfect swings? Nobody ever said that.

Again, it was a thread for anybody interested in discussing good player's abilities to put up identical path numbers with different swing components.

it's not that i want to discredit a teaching tool like trackman, it's that i think it needs to get put in proper perspective it may be the cat's meow, but it ain't the cat if you get that? the teacher/ instructor is the cat. that's my best guess.