mjstrong
New
It sounds like you might not have enough distance from the ball to the net. We use ours outdoors, but the only time I really worked with it indoors I didn't notice any such effects...
Trackman Face Calculation - Center Hit - No Gear Effect
- Thread starter cwdlaw223
- Start date
- Status
It sounds like you might not have enough distance from the ball to the net. We use ours outdoors, but the only time I really worked with it indoors I didn't notice any such effects...
Using FS X2 indoors, I occassionally get overly positive AofA #'s (with irons too...something I haven't seen with TM) skewing the limited flight too much toward a fade. I plan on asking David Nel tomorrow about this at the Show. TM reads fat shots differently than FS. I tested them both on the same day within the last 2 weeks. If the club hits the mat prior to the ball, TM still read it as a negative AoA, still resulting in a draw much of the time, FS, the reverse. The player knew and felt the draw.
Its troublesome.
Its troublesome.
Yes you are right, we are just little tight with that, but this all actually just proves that reading the ball flight is main point with those devices and most of the things are calculated from that.
mjstrong
New
Sure. Here's the way I imagine it:
Radar based monitors measure everything the ball does in flight (even indoors) fairly accurately (in comparing to real ball flight, I've never noticed any glaring errors in ball data. It also measures certain aspects of the club head's (or COG/centre of mass, etc.) motion through the ball. I would think that Vertical Plane is fairly accurate, but the other 3 (AoA, Horizontal Path, and Horizontal Plane) would likely be a combination of measuring and calculating, while face numbers are almost purely calculated with an ever-evolving algorithm that uses the earlier info.
Still just my opinion, but the machines are easily good enough to be a huge help to anybody, but will also likely continue to improve.
Is there really any advantage to measuring vs calculating?
If the math is right and has been confirmed and checked using all methods available then calculations may actually be MORE accurate than measurements. Let's not forget there is an inherent margin for error in measuring anything.
The facts that Brian highlighted in the other thread about face/CoG/path relationships and how the actual face angle may be to a certain degree "irrelevant" regarding its effect on ball flight would be a further argument for calculation over measurement. Of course expert interpretation of the data would be a prerequisite.
If the math is right and has been confirmed and checked using all methods available then calculations may actually be MORE accurate than measurements. Let's not forget there is an inherent margin for error in measuring anything.
The facts that Brian highlighted in the other thread about face/CoG/path relationships and how the actual face angle may be to a certain degree "irrelevant" regarding its effect on ball flight would be a further argument for calculation over measurement. Of course expert interpretation of the data would be a prerequisite.
The advantage would be that we would see also other moments around impact and make conclusions about swing that way. So nothing wrong with that measurement or it's accuracy, but I'd like to see more information about the club head, which would tell me more about players swing and what kind of weak points it has even the impact data is 8/10 good. Some players can have bit worse impact data, but 9,6/10 the same and they can be much better players under pressure.
Just always dreaming about better world ;D
I don't care what kind of system it would be, but I'd like to see something we can call "sharpness" in those moves. Rate of closure, how quickly the head moves in after impact or how long it moves out and how long it stays open for example. Also AoA from different positions would help me more than just one data of impact.
Those other things we can see quite well now, but rate of closure is impossible for us and also AoA we need to define better. Also we got only that 170fps and have to calculate things between the frames, so some other system could be better for that if we want exact information.
I remember back in the 90s people would talk about some swings being "better" under pressure than others, usually quoting things such as rate of closure etc. They used to talk about swings being too "handsy", and praised "body releases" and "less moving parts". I believed it then. Now I think consistency has more to to with the person than his swing. But I have nothing against being proved wrong.
Yes of course mine experience is also limited, but as analyzed few hundred players there seems to be some connections with guys who are known to be really wild sometimes and those who we know are more steady ball strikers. Things that are really easy to recognize and almost visible by naked eye if you are experienced with that.
wulsy -
You would be banned at other sites for such wisdom! We are all flawed/limited/deficient and everyone can't be fit into one pattern. There is timing in every swing that has to be accounted for. Brian's recent post about the left wrist closing rates in the downswing was excellent. The difference between fast and slow "closers" was in microseconds! You have to practice to get AND KEEP the timing. Plenty of "goofy" swings that work time after time for that golfer.
You would be banned at other sites for such wisdom! We are all flawed/limited/deficient and everyone can't be fit into one pattern. There is timing in every swing that has to be accounted for. Brian's recent post about the left wrist closing rates in the downswing was excellent. The difference between fast and slow "closers" was in microseconds! You have to practice to get AND KEEP the timing. Plenty of "goofy" swings that work time after time for that golfer.
What things can you see with the naked eye, and what things can see on camera, and what things can you see with FS?
The main part I can see from graphs about crossing lines of hands and club head, from camera it's about impossible because of 2D distortion and camera angle issues. Also there is many other marks like big deceleration of hands before impact and ch lateral orientation grooving much more at ch than hands. Quite impossible to explain without showing it from screen and comparing those players.
FS I use to track the ball flight and of course check how the numbers are. For steady players it's more important to change them a bit if needed, but those wild ones we have to make bigger changes about how they use their body and hands. Then it's graphs and hi-speed video again combined.
dschultz6072
New
This is exactly why I think Tiger is nuts for changing his swing so many damn times, taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back. The same thing could be said about Rory's meltdown during the Masters, as if it was his swing's fault he snap hooked his way down the back nine. Nope...it's just the pressure cooker.
But "less moving parts" does look pretty on video, right?
- Status