New Laws/D-Plane/Trackman

[Steve Greffen]

hmmmmmmmmmm tits AND beer.


the only reason I ask is I do not want to find out 10 years from now we were all duped. and we all know how Golf runs in its cycles and has its fads.

but tits and beer sounds good to me.

The proof is in the ball flight. If people like Kevin only hit balls into a net while using the Trackman, then we could say well maybe it's off, but they are outside hitting shots seeing ball flight corresponding to the numbers. Numbers equal a shot pattern and the player works toward both when they use it.

Burner, your assumption is that when Kevin uses TM with a higher handicap that he has them reach the "perfect" numbers. I'm sure that someone with slice numbers that can start to acheive draw numbers can start to see/feel what is supposed to happen to create the different/better shot pattern. So with your suggestion that most can't try to gain consistency with numbers on TM then I guess those same people can't work at hitting more consistent shots on the range. People get better many ways, practice, lessons, video, reading, BM's forum (!) and when they do they hit it more consistent getting more consistent numbers that TM would only prove. So you may be right that most players can not get the exact numbers to register on TM but your dead wrong that it can't help many more than you suggest. Especially and mostly if someone like Kevin is operating the TM.

Steve

 

[Kevin Shields]

And one more thing...

I havent even scratched the surface of what this thing can do. We are still figuring out what numbers are important to what golfers and when. Obviously path and face and attack angle are a no brainer but you just have to read the newsletter to really understand how ball flight is affected by the smallest things.

 

[needham]

Kevin-

it is an awesome tool, I am sure. How much do you let your students see and know the numbers?
I am sure you show them the numbers when explaining, but how much does the 15 handi need to know? or does the 15 handi need to know even more than the 2?
It seems to me that the better player would get more out of a trackman session?

once again, not knocking TM at all. I know from people I have talked to that TM is the only way to be fitted. Just wondering more on how TM lessons go.
with all this new info it is a wonder we ever had a chance to hit it straight to begin with!lol

thanks

 

[Kevin Shields]

Its totally dependent on the individual. There is a misconception that the better player would benefit more. Nothing could be further from the truth. For a 15hdcp slicer, the club data is so easy to understand. Thus, they get instant feedback because its very easy to see a change in data for severe path or face issues.

Trust me, I'm not close to perfecting a "Trackman lesson" yet. But its been an unbelievable tool. There is a users summit coming up and i will post a full report.

 

[Burner]

The last post - from me on this subject.

Burner, your assumption is that when Kevin uses TM with a higher handicap that he has them reach the "perfect" numbers. I'm sure that someone with slice numbers that can start to acheive draw numbers can start to see/feel what is supposed to happen to create the different/better shot pattern.

My only "assumption" (I prefer assertion) is that 99.90% of golfdom when asked to hit 100 shots with a 6i, e.g, will generate very close to, if not exactly, 100 different sets of trackman numbers. This no matter how hard they try; and we all know that most will soon get disillusioned and quit.

Pros would fare better, its their job and earnings depend on results. But, if Mr Hogan, "I only hit about 1 or 2 shots in a round that I am totally happy with" (paraphrased) gets, by definition, 99 different answers what chance do we mere mortals really have.

The best we can do is to absorb the rudiments and persevere as best we can. Repeated assessments on trackman and such would serve no real purpose but would generate a very real expense pretty darned quick.

So with your suggestion that most can't try to gain consistency with numbers

How in the name of creation do you conclude that is what I am saying?

People get better many ways, practice, lessons, video, reading, BM's forum (!) and when they do they hit it more consistent getting more consistent numbers that TM would only prove.

You don't need trackman numbers to tell you that you are improving and hitting the ball better. BM can tell you that by simple process of observation.

So you may be right that most players can not get the exact numbers to register on TM but your dead wrong that it can't help many more than you suggest. Especially and mostly if someone like Kevin is operating the TM.
Steve

I am right in that that most players will only ever hit exact numbers by accident. Also I am not dead wrong "that it can't help many more than I am suggesting". I did say earlier, if you remember, that knowledge is a good thing but its what you do with it that counts.

My sole premise is that 99.90% of golfdom will never be good enough to hit optimal trackman numbers on anything like a basis regular enough for them to benefit from such an (expensive) assessment. BM will get them the same amount, if not more, of improvement in ball striking.

In the annals of golf trackman has already proved a revelation but what it is revealing was already known to the enlightened - just not by how many degrees.

 

[Brian Manzella]

We need to visit a few of these points....

My only "assumption" (I prefer assertion) is that 99.90% of golfdom when asked to hit 100 shots with a 6i, e.g, will generate very close to, if not exactly, 100 different sets of trackman numbers. This no matter how hard they try; and we all know that most will soon get disillusioned and quit.

No.

A given golfer's ability to reproduce what the golf club is doing, and what the ball is doing—after all, that is what TrackMan is gathering—depends mostly on three things:

1. Can they see the ball?
2. If they can see the ball, are they trying to "just make the ball go to the target."
3. Or, are they trying to do something mechanically different on purpose.

Suffice to say, a 15 handicapper would produce very consistent numbers COMPARED TO a 2 handicapper.

Pros would fare better, its their job and earnings depend on results. But, if Mr Hogan, "I only hit about 1 or 2 shots in a round that I am totally happy with" (paraphrased) gets, by definition, 99 different answers what chance do we mere mortals really have.

My Dad was a 6. He made the close to the same damn swing nearly every time.

See above.

The best we can do is to absorb the rudiments and persevere as best we can. Repeated assessments on trackman and such would serve no real purpose but would generate a very real expense pretty darned quick.

Totally wrong.

Given a CLUE on what numbers they NEED, and HOW TO get to those numbers, the hacker would improve exponentially faster is they TrackManned every shot.

You don't need trackman numbers to tell you that you are improving and hitting the ball better. BM can tell you that by simple process of observation.

Yaeh, and Buddy Rich couldn't "sight-read" either.

I am right in that that most players will only ever hit exact numbers by accident. Also I am not dead wrong "that it can't help many more than I am suggesting". I did say earlier, if you remember, that knowledge is a good thing but its what you do with it that counts.

You are—dead wrong, in my opinion.

My sole premise is that 99.90% of golfdom will never be good enough to hit optimal trackman numbers on anything like a basis regular enough for them to benefit from such an (expensive) assessment. BM will get them the same amount, if not more, of improvement in ball striking.

One day, every golfer lesson will be on a TrackMan-like device.

Or at least as many as use video now.

In the annals of golf trackman has already proved a revelation but what it is revealing was already known to the enlightened - just not by how many degrees.

I have learned more from TrackMan than from any source except Ben and Homer and TrackMan proved they weren't spot on either.

 

[footwedge]

Its totally dependent on the individual. There is a misconception that the better player would benefit more. Nothing could be further from the truth. For a 15hdcp slicer, the club data is so easy to understand. Thus, they get instant feedback because its very easy to see a change in data for severe path or face issues.

Trust me, I'm not close to perfecting a "Trackman lesson" yet. But its been an unbelievable tool. There is a users summit coming up and i will post a full report.

Question :Kevin could you help a 15hdcp faster, to fix a slice with T.M. In other words how much does it make your teaching easier and the students learning faster?

 

[Kevin Shields]

Only if the student is resistent as to the cause of the slice and needs further proof and understanding as to why they are slicing.

 

[huestisc]

Brian or Kevin,

How hard is it to move your trackman numbers noticibly?

What I mean is, I am sure we all have taken lessons, and you have given thousands, where you tell a student they are too inside out, give them a thought to fix it...the student FEELS like they are doing something radically different, ball flight improves (hooks less, but doesn't become a fade or a slice), and on video the swing LOOKS almost the same as before, nowhere near the change that is felt.

Is it similar with trackman? Does a 6 degree inside out path have to feel radically different to get to say 2 degrees inside out?

How about other parameters like angle of attack, is it harder or easier to manipulate?

 

[puttmad]

My sole premise is that 99.90% of golfdom will never be good enough to hit optimal trackman numbers on anything like a basis regular enough for them to benefit from such an (expensive) assessment. BM will get them the same amount, if not more, of improvement in ball striking.

Surely Burner, that is the whole point of trackman anyway?...

Isn't it better to have the real "goods" after hitting a shot, than thinking "what the hell did I do there?"....

In order to solve a problem, you first need to identify it correctly, which Trackman seems to do very accurately (as some good instructors will also do), but if analysed correctly, surely it would be more efficient, even for a good instructor, to have the info immediately available...

 

[mitch1981]

to me trackman is like a GPS unit.

To get from A to B a GPS unit needs to first know where you are now and then where you want to get to.

Trackman does that as it gives you your coordinates at the moment and allows the golfer to figure out how to get to where he wants to go.

How many golfers are there that don´t have a clue as to what they are doing and so it makes it alot harder to change what they are doing.

 

[Steve Greffen]

Also I am not dead wrong "that it can't help many more than I am suggesting".

Yes you are...dead wrong, sorry.

 

[niblick1]

Suffice to say, a 15 handicapper would produce very consistent numbers COMPARED TO a 2 handicapper.

My Dad was a 6. He made the close to the same damn swing nearly every time.

That is such an interesting observation. The general impression is no doubt that the higher the handicap the more variation and less repetition in the swing. And yet when you watch a class being taught you see how hard it is for typical golfers to move towards the center of the matrix and away from their ingrained swing.

 

[softconsult]

It is, at first glance, counter intuitive, but then very logical.

Lower handicap can play different shots, both fade/draw and trajectories.
Therefore, they can manipulate their swings. Higher handicap makes the
same swing and struggles to make changes.

 

[softconsult]

Usefulness of Trackman is the subject.

So after my tournament yesterday, I went to the range to play around with the Driver.
Specifically to experiment with swinging up and inside out. Point is this. How am I supposed to know, with any certainty, whether I am accomplishing this? I have an idea that I was doing it somewhat, but not sure. Seems obvious to me that Trackman and the associated instructor would help.