Trackman data: PGA and LPGA Averages
- Thread starter lia41985
- Start date
- Status
S
SteveT
Guest
Hey!!! .... those LPGA Tour averages look like my numbers!!!!!
As for the PGA averages, I wonder what the driver data might be for the range of clubhead speeds and AoA.
Maybe they would look like this:
Club speed = 100 mph .... AoA = -2.0º
Club speed = 112 mph .... AoA = -1.3º
Club speed = 124 mph .... AoA = +0.6º
Club speed = 134 mph .... AoA = +3.0º ...????
As for the PGA averages, I wonder what the driver data might be for the range of clubhead speeds and AoA.
Maybe they would look like this:
Club speed = 100 mph .... AoA = -2.0º
Club speed = 112 mph .... AoA = -1.3º
Club speed = 124 mph .... AoA = +0.6º
Club speed = 134 mph .... AoA = +3.0º ...????
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
How bout that 3wood carry for the LPGA? Not even two bills.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Those are a couple of years old.
hp12c
New
Great! I really suck then cause I bet the lpga got better!
I made the statement a few years ago (pre Trackman era) that really good ball strikers have the ball apex at the same height regardless of club. The apex would be further "down range" for longer clubs than for shorter ones. Looks like Trackman backs that up + or minus 2 yards in height from the median for men.
Bruce
Bruce
Brian Manzella
Administrator
You were dead on correct Bruce!
drewyallop
New
Amazing. So counterintuitive. Longer shots always seem lower but I guess that is a visual illusion.
Any idea on what combination of d plane variables is required to obtain this consistency. Obviously static loft and club length vary. So what does the pro do differently from club to club that keeps the ball height the same?
Last edited:
I'm assuming they are not as available because they vary so much? But the individual stats would be interesting in that we could see how they match the numbers. Like a +6 path and a -1 face is really genius for anybody who repeats it!
dschultz6072
New
I know at least 4 people who hit the ball that high with the driver and still carry at least 285, so it's not some open faced slap that goes nowhere but up. Hell, even when I was hitting my 95 mile an hour bunts I still got the ball to go 22-23 yards high on average.
I know also many players who hit it much higher than me. I got problems to go over the full grown tree, but FS gives me height of 35 meters with driver regularly.
Anyway again, more is more, less is less, and we can use that data for teaching and learning. The question is that can we use that for scientific manner.
Dariusz J.
New member
That's a pretty interesting topic. According to Toski (who eye-witnessed Hogan's practice with a group of other pros), Hogan spent so much time on the range not because of his high-mantenance swing could go into pieces (as many wrongly think), but to work on a very serious goal - to keep the same trajectory independently on loft and length of a club.
Cheers
Cheers
I ain't no mathematician for sure, but reading the TM comments on the site in general it seem to me that TM uses the ball flight to calculate the variables that it cannot measure: as far as I know these variables make up what is now known as the "top vector". This fact coupled with the incredible control of ball flight, inc. trajectory, of the tour pros could explain this bizarre consistency (0.3* club to club).
For those who find this a bit cryptic, here it is in clear English: if the ball flight is X then it follows that AoA + Face must have been Y.
As Brian explained in his video about TM measurement true face angle cannot be measured because even with 100,000 fps cameras the measurable face angle at impact is not the true face angle relating to the D-plane.
So all in all we're looking at numbers which may (or may not be) MORE accurate than truly measured numbers.
PS is the difference between TM and FS PURELY the algorithms/formulas?
For those who find this a bit cryptic, here it is in clear English: if the ball flight is X then it follows that AoA + Face must have been Y.
As Brian explained in his video about TM measurement true face angle cannot be measured because even with 100,000 fps cameras the measurable face angle at impact is not the true face angle relating to the D-plane.
So all in all we're looking at numbers which may (or may not be) MORE accurate than truly measured numbers.
PS is the difference between TM and FS PURELY the algorithms/formulas?
Good luck getting that 0.3* difference from iron to iron.To me that smacks of intuition, not pracrice on TM. Any experts out there with an explanation for this remarkable consistency of the change from iron to iron thro the set?
Wulsy,
Averages can be deceiving. Kind of like hitting 100 drivers on TM and half of them go right and half of them go left, half of them you hit down and half of them you hit up. In the end, TM will say you're averages are nearly zero and there's a chance you didn't hit any of them at zero. I use a chart from TM that shows the averages and the extremes.
I think its a good idea to try to achieve tour quality A of A #'s, but also realizing that there is a relatively wide margin of error.
- Status