what's harder to chase "ideal" or "optimal"?....

[Michael Finney]

"Some guy had a good post on another forum where he said he thought golf is entering a period where a bunch of players and teachers will chase "ideal" Trackman numbers and just wind up lost and confused. I think there is no escaping the hard truth that building sound golf swings, meaning swings that minimize the opportunity for errors, requires an understanding of the optimal biomechanical movements."

 

[Bigwill]

I think it's harder to chase the optimal biomechanical movements, because most people will fall short of being able to achieve them; they don't have the flexibility or strength, or they have some old injury that affects them. I think it's much easier to find out how to produce the optimal numbers with the swing you have, and that change is probably the one that will stick the quickest and longest. Heck if I could get great numbers looking like Jim Thorpe and Tommy Gainey's love child on crack, I'd be happy as a clam. Getting away from trying to make everyone hit certain positions, and rather having them trying to achieve better numbers (or more specifically a better number range) with whatever action they have, is going to lead to a happier group of golfers I think...

 

[johnnymarlboro]

What good is having ideal numbers if you don't look like your favorite golfers on video?

 

[natep]

"Some guy had a good post on another forum where he said he thought golf is entering a period where a bunch of players and teachers will chase "ideal" Trackman numbers and just wind up lost and confused."

lol

 

[SteveT]

"Some guy had a good post on another forum where he said he thought golf is entering a period where a bunch of players and teachers will chase "ideal" Trackman numbers and just wind up lost and confused.

I think there is no escaping the hard truth that building sound golf swings, meaning swings that minimize the opportunity for errors, requires an understanding of the optimal biomechanical movements."

Pre-Trackman, everybody had homemade golfswings displayed on video and pics. Post-Trackman, we now have an objective source of technical information about the golfswing results, but not golfswing itself. Understanding of Jorgenson's D-plane provides the theory behind Trackman and is the nexus between the swing and the data, but still not the swing itself.

Homemade golfswings are subjective and based on unique feedback feel of the individual golfer. Video is only a superficial representation of that swing. A golfswing built on Trackman data requires an objective source of coaching to be effective. Just owning a Trackman for personal use only creates a situation of trial and error and error and error.... and no definitive conclusions because in the end you still don't know what is causing the new results.

What we are witnessing now is the pragmatic use of Trackman ... the analysis of the ball flight and impact parameters. It's typical of "back-engineering" (the analysis of a completed system in order to isolate and identify its individual components or building blocks). The problem and challenge is to analyze the complete golfswing system because Trackman doesn't tell you how deep into the golfswing you must go to properly change the results.

Only an objective analysis and complete assessment of the swing from the ground up can determine the "ideal" biomechanics for that golfer's body type to achieve "optimal" results.

One of the silliest thing I have seen is a lone golfer with a Trackman, trying to change their impact and flight data. That's like shooting in the dark. If they were using it to confirm their swing results, that's a might expensive and transient swing solution. Reminds me of that big swing path ring being used prior to a round of golf and still not being able to carry it to the course. What does the desperate golfer do if his practice Trackman results don't follow him to the course? I would think a mental breakdown is looming...

 

[cwdlaw223]

"One of the silliest thing I have seen is a lone golfer with a Trackman, trying to change their impact and flight data. That's like shooting in the dark."

That's one of the silliest statements that I've heard. Good players flock to Trackman because it can help them change impact and feel the change. Maybe you can't do it SteveT, but the guys I play with can make subtle changes from Trackman. There's no guarantee your swing will always be the same. It's like a pendulum that swings back and forth over time. Even tour players have times when they play good and bad.

The reality is that if your Trackman numbers are good you've hit a good shot. If your swing looks good on video it does NOT guarantee you've hit a good shot or have good impact data. There is no guarantee that any swing, whether Trackman based or video based, will automatically work under pressure all of the time. However, if you obtain good Trackman results your chances of hitting a good shot under pressure are much, much higher than a good looking swing will produce a good shot under pressure. Swing mechaincs count, but impact counts the most. I would rather be blind to my swing on video than blind to impact. I use both, but focus on impact a lot more because I know my swing isn't going to change that much, I don't have time to change it and I don't want to make major changes just to conform to someone else's ideal pattern for them.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

Every swing is homemade- FACT

 

[Bonesy]

I'm dying to know Steve T's handicap. Please share oh great one.

 

[SteveT]

"That's one of the silliest statements that I've heard. Good players flock to Trackman because it can help them change impact and feel the change."

You and Bigwill are both quite wrong and obviously ignorant about Perception and Motor Control within the human body and mind. Everything you have written is circumstantial or anecdotally subjective. Perhaps a highly trained and kinesthetically superior pro golfer can make changes and carry those changes to the golf course, after a Trackman session, but that doesn't prove it's applicable to you or the average golfer.

You proclaim: "Swing mechaincs count, but impact counts the most."

Your argument depends on "impact" which is quite insignificant to body biomechanics. Impact is only a feedback feel, and by the time you "feeel" impact, the ball is already 5 yards/meters in flight. In play on the course, it's doubtful you can retain what you learned about your swing or "feeel" from a Trackman session that only provides you with raw data.

You jump from general conclusions about good players to your own personal conclusions, both of which are unsubstantiated and quite counter to what we know from Human Motor Control science.

Btw.. the golfswing is not like a "pendulum"... it more like a Kinetic Chain that produces a Newtonian Hub. Read mandrin and Nesbit.

 

[Kevin Shields]

"Some guy had a good post on another forum where he said he thought golf is entering a period where a bunch of players and teachers will chase "ideal" Trackman numbers and just wind up lost and confused. I think there is no escaping the hard truth that building sound golf swings, meaning swings that minimize the opportunity for errors, requires an understanding of the optimal biomechanical movements."

That's just an opinion. Some people automatically assume the persons using the Trackman don't know what they're doing. It's so friggin easy to get good numbers the right way if you do know what you are doing. Sure, if a novice or intermediate player, or for that matter, a Tour player, tries to alter numbers and doesn't know the best way to go about it, they'll be confused. But i guarentee less confused than trying to chase down some look on video and trying to read why the ball is flying the way it is. "But I thought if I get some more ER or this bend or that bend, it'll straighten me out? " Bullshit.

I also love this crap about, "Well, what if the face is wide open coming into impact then flip closes. How does Trackman know this?" Why the hell does Trackman have to know that? If you have a guy that has face problems, it'll show up no matter what. If you have some über talented guy who can square the face up with it being wide open late in the downswing, it'll show up as not having a face issue. If that person has sporadic ballflight under pressure or can't play in the wind, any good teacher can see that could be an issue without Trackman. Because its an addition to a teachers toolbox!!!! For the last time, hopefully.

 

[cwdlaw223]

Best teaching tool by FAR in my opinion. Nothing comes close for me.

 

[cwdlaw223]

"That's one of the silliest statements that I've heard. Good players flock to Trackman because it can help them change impact and feel the change."

You and Bigwill are both quite wrong and obviously ignorant about Perception and Motor Control within the human body and mind. Everything you have written is circumstantial or anecdotally subjective. Perhaps a highly trained and kinesthetically superior pro golfer can make changes and carry those changes to the golf course, after a Trackman session, but that doesn't prove it's applicable to you or the average golfer.

You proclaim: "Swing mechaincs count, but impact counts the most."

Your argument depends on "impact" which is quite insignificant to body biomechanics. Impact is only a feedback feel, and by the ti
me you "feeel" impact, the ball is already 5 yards/meters in flight. In play on the course, it's doubtful you can retain what you learned about your swing or "feeel" from a Trackman session that only provides you with raw data.

You jump from general conclusions about good players to your own personal conclusions, both of which are unsubstantiated and quite counter to what we know from Human Motor Control science.

Btw.. the golfswing is not like a "pendulum"... it more like a Kinetic Chain that produces a Newtonian Hub. Read mandrin and Nesbit.

My pendulum reference was to the game of golf in general, not a swing. We play good and bad like a pendulum moving back and forth. I honestly wonder if you've ever played golf under pressure with just your own ball counting. I thought Tapio was gone. You make statements that have no connection with the experience of people who play competitively.

 

[Bigwill]

That's just an opinion. Some people automatically assume the persons using the Trackman don't know what they're doing. It's so friggin easy to get good numbers the right way if you do know what you are doing. Sure, if a novice or intermediate player, or for that matter, a Tour player, tries to alter numbers and doesn't know the best way to go about it, they'll be confused. But i guarentee less confused than trying to chase down some look on video and trying to read why the ball is flying the way it is. "But I thought if I get some more ER or this bend or that bend, it'll straighten me out? " Bullshit.

I also love this crap about, "Well, what if the face is wide open coming into impact then flip closes. How does Trackman know this?" Why the hell does Trackman have to know that? If you have a guy that has face problems, it'll show up no matter what. If you have some über talented guy who can square the face up with it being wide open late in the downswing, it'll show up as not having a face issue. If that person has sporadic ballflight under pressure or can't play in the wind, any good teacher can see that could be an issue without Trackman. Because its an addition to a teachers toolbox!!!! For the last time, hopefully.

C'mon, Kevin. You know it won't be the last time that needs to be said, LOL.

 

[Bigwill]

My pendulum reference was to the game of golf in general, not a swing. We play good and bad like a pendulum moving back and forth. I honestly wonder if you've ever played golf under pressure with just your own ball counting. I thought Tapio was gone. You make statements that have no connection with the experience of people who play competitively.

I think you'll get through to him this time. I really do

 

[Brian Manzella]

I own a TrackMan, in fact I am on my second one. I love my TrackMan III and I use it every minute of every lesson unless weather is a serious factor. But, what can TrackMan do, and what can a TrackMan not do? And, where it the near future of golf instruction going with TrackMan and other club measurement devices.

TrackMan's #1 quality is taken the GUESS out of what happened on the last shot.

Every golfer in the history of golf, and every teacher in the history of golf, was STONE COLD GUESSING on what the club did on the last swing. Now, they know.

And knowledge is power.

Now, what makes one teacher better than another teacher is that teacher's ability to get their students to hit the ball better and score better when the heat is on. I know a lot of teachers who own club measurement devices, and 99.9% of them ain't ever going back.

TrackMan does NOT tell WHAT to do if your numbers are off. That is the job of the teacher or the golfer who teaches themselves. The totally goofy idea that you could CONSISTENTLY put up great numbers with a bad swing on TrackMan is a complete lie.

Can't be done.

Now you may look like Jim Furyk, or Jim Thorpe—or may BE Jim Furyk or Jim Thorpe, but if you can light up TM like a pinball machine, you can golf your ball.

What about the golfer trying to help themselves with TrackMan?

I know a few of them, and a couple of them are students of mine and TrackMan owners. Ask them. It makes it easier not to go up any bad roads. Period.

WHat about teacher's ignoring mechanics to get good numbers?

Well, I teach a PGA Tour player, and I don't ignore his kinetics or kinematics. Of any kind.

Sean Foley and Joe Mayo are friends of mine, and they teach a lot of tour players and they don't band-aid for numbers. They teach what they think is the best swing and they check their work with the little orange guy.

TrackMan and other devices that do similar things will NO DOUBT influence golf instruction AWAY from positions and toward forces that CAUSE positions.

And so will I.

 

[KGlennCole]

Brian,

I argue for optimal. To most, I'm a hack.. a mid-teens handicap guy.. that struggles for 4-5 holes a round...I'm (almost) old.. 57. I have some physical limitations (even before the neck surgery in Feb). I do know, without question, the 'numbers' make sense and help. You were a HUGE help last Fall. I started playing how I knew I could and wanted. What amazed me is that you could replicate my swing's numbers and results in only 1-2 tries... thereby, helping me truly understand what I needed to do and how it should 'feel'.

So, to the naysayers, I can't thank Brian enough. Are 'numbers' the be-all to end-all? No. But, I didn't have to guess or say "I think so" during our time together. I had a good idea of what was 'optimal' for me.

 

[mgranato]

"Some guy had a good post on another forum where he said he thought golf is entering a period where a bunch of players and teachers will chase "ideal" Trackman numbers and just wind up lost and confused. I think there is no escaping the hard truth that building sound golf swings, meaning swings that minimize the opportunity for errors, requires an understanding of the optimal biomechanical movements."

Oh the dangers of "ideal" numbers. You know another "ideal" number that scares the hell out of this crowd... a score.

 

[siksta]

Every golfer in the history of golf, and every teacher in the history of golf, was STONE COLD GUESSING on what the club did on the last swing. Now, they know

Agree 100%

TrackMan does NOT tell WHAT to do if your numbers are off. That is the job of the teacher or the golfer who teaches themselves. The totally goofy idea that you could CONSISTENTLY put up great numbers with a bad swing on TrackMan is a complete lie

.

Agree 100%

I know a few of them, and a couple of them are students of mine and TrackMan owners. Ask them. It makes it easier not to go up any bad roads. Period.

Agree 100%

I hope teachers learn from TM .... not like when JCV video or allstar or other brands where teachers tried to change the picture from the last swing because this pro looks a certain way! TM gives you facts and its up to the teacher to make those numbers better or more consistent ... not like video changing swing to swing. We have a great tool now learn to use it

 

[Brian Manzella]

I was watching a little clip of the Haney Project that appeared somewhere in the web yesterday in a promo.

He was drawing that line, and the big guy he was teaching had finally swung down that line.

Had to be 8 degrees inside-out if it it was 1.

Geez.

 

[siksta]

He was drawing that line, and the big guy he was teaching had finally swung down that line.

Had to be 8 degrees inside-out if it it was 1.

There's probably a million golfers who can swing down that line.... yet the teacher says great swing hmmmm and hook into the woods or block right