Useful or just not the truth

[IH82BOGEY]

I agree, it would be very interesting. I know YODA has spent time with a TrackMan, hopefully when his schedule allows, he'll jump in.

Kevin

Yes,
What I'm saying is this. These trackman, flightscope type devices are not far from being proliferated. It doesnt matter if you like it or not. It doesnt matter if you think they are doorstops. They are a comin. An analogy would be TV in the 50's, Computers in the 80's and cell phones in the late 90's. These devices will be used whether fair or unfair to evaluate different schools of thought when it comes to the golf swing. It will be up to the proponent of a particular school of thought to defend his numbers. For example, people at home will be comparing the ballistics of Hoganish rotary type swing patterns (swinging left) to stackandtilt to pure TGM and so on. I am not saying that trackman is a perfect device and should be used as the teacher. I am not saying it is not without fault. I am saying it will become more like V1 software, where you can select the pro you want to model. In my opinion, the instructors will be forced into defining what the numbers are for their preferred stroke patterns very soon. I want someone like Mr. Blake to be the one defining (in terms of this type of data) what a G.O.L.F. stroke is before someone else declares it to be incorrect.

[KevCarter]

Yes,
What I'm saying is this. These trackman, flightscope type devices are not far from being proliferated. It doesnt matter if you like it or not. It doesnt matter if you think they are doorstops. They are a comin. An analogy would be TV in the 50's, Computers in the 80's and cell phones in the late 90's. These devices will be used whether fair or unfair to evaluate different schools of thought when it comes to the golf swing. It will be up to the proponent of a particular school of thought to defend his numbers. For example, people at home will be comparing the ballistics of Hoganish rotary type swing patterns (swinging left) to stackandtilt to pure TGM and so on. I am not saying that trackman is a perfect device and should be used as the teacher. I am not saying it is not without fault. I am saying it will become more like V1 software, where you can select the pro you want to model. In my opinion, the instructors will be forced into defining what the numbers are for their preferred stroke patterns very soon. I want someone like Mr. Blake to be the one defining (in terms of this type of data) what a G.O.L.F. stroke is before someone else declares it to be incorrect.

Whoa Hoss, I didn't call TM a door stop, but they will never be ubiquitous while the price is so high. Hopefully in my lifetime it will be affordable for all, and we will be silly not to have it as part of the tool box, but they better move quick...

Kevin

[JerryG]

Personally, while I can see these types of aids can certainly be put to constructive use, as stated earlier, one must consider the source when it comes to interpretation. I was recently in a store and watched a fellow hitting balls into a screen and a sales person then telling him what he needed based on the numbers he had on his computer. The only thing I could see that he needed was lessons. He walked out with a new offset driver with a soft shaft.

[JTillery]

I would hope that Trackman will record the Ball Flights accurately and compute any minor differences in Geometry. That's not the problem. But, a problem does exist if you look at the numbers in the above video and conclude that a Driver should be swung with a different geometry than a Nine Iron. That they can be different is not the problem either. That they "Should be different for the same Player" is the problem.

In the above video, Trackman shows that it's possible to use different Plane Angles and Angles of Approach and Attack and still result in a straight shot. Really??? is that new??? No, of course not. But the teacher concludes that that's just the way things are. That's why I have a problem with the video and the teacher. That's not the way things are, should be or need to be. In the right hands, Trackman should be an asset to the teacher, but in the wrong teachers hands, it will be the undoing of a potentially good player, who's paying big bucks while being led to believe that this is the best solution.

Trackman is a TOOL. And, as it is with all "tools", it's ONLY as good as the person who uses it. If you as a teacher don't have a firm grasp of golf alignments, then maybe you should learn these first before you spend good money on an overpriced piece of equipment. The teacher in the video is very confident that what he teaches is fundamentally sound and correct. Nothing new about that, either.

There is no doubt that trackman should be used as a tool and not the doctor. People that use it to attack folks are as in the wrong as people that think it's useless or a symbol of evil.

Daryl, I do have a few questions for you: Please keep in mind Im not trying to attack or debunk, I have my opinions and beliefs, you have yours....that's fine. Im genuinely interested in your answers.

(1) Do you think there is one straight correct plane for all clubs after only a minor change in ball position through the bag?

(2) Why do golf balls do different things when the same club is hit more and less down on with the same clubface?

(3) Do you see guys on tv all swinging straight?, and if not, are they wrong or at least inefficient?

(4) How thick is the correct plane? If my analyzing software draws lines that are twice as thick as yours, do they still count? 3x? How many clubshaft widths could fit in one plane before it's off plane?

(5) If a certain attack angle creates a certain path and shot, but you want to alter the shot, and rotate the whole plane line to do so........doesn't that change the attack angle AGAIN? Wouldn't we end up continuously rotating around in a circle?

Just in straight away lehman's terms will do. I have conceded that you are smarter than me.

[Daryl]

Thanks for the questions. I'm trying to keep my posts above O.B. Left. He seems to be gaining on me.

There is no doubt that trackman should be used as a tool and not the doctor. People that use it to attack folks are as in the wrong as people that think it's useless or a symbol of evil.

Daryl, I do have a few questions for you: Please keep in mind Im not trying to attack or debunk, I have my opinions and beliefs, you have yours....that's fine. Im genuinely interested in your answers.

(1) Do you think there is one straight correct plane for all clubs after only a minor change in ball position through the bag?

Not at all.

(2) Why do golf balls do different things when the same club is hit more and less down on with the same clubface?

The Right Forearm Angle of Approach is 3 dimensional. Because of this, any Change in Angle of Approach will change the Angle of Attack and a change in Angle of Attack will change the Angle of Approach unless you move the ball directly along the 3 dimensional path. If you don’t move the ball directly along this path, then a straight line of compression cannot be achieved and unless it was intentional then you’ll pay the price. Unfortunately, as history demonstrates, you will not get knowledge in return for suffering. You will not learn from your mistakes.

(3) Do you see guys on tv all swinging straight?, and if not, are they wrong or at least inefficient?

You won’t post scores low enough to compete if you bend the Plane Line. Do you mean Parallel Plane and Target Lines? I think that most of the greatest Players that ever lived did not use parallel Plane and Target Lines.

(4) How thick is the correct plane? If my analyzing software draws lines that are twice as thick as yours, do they still count? 3x? How many clubshaft widths could fit in one plane before it's off plane?

Thickness is not a Plane dimension.

(5) If a certain attack angle creates a certain path and shot, but you want to alter the shot, and rotate the whole plane line to do so........doesn't that change the attack angle AGAIN? Wouldn't we end up continuously rotating around in a circle?

If, when you rotated the Plane line, you relocated the ball the same distance behind Low-Point, then Angle of Attack and Approach won't be altered. Then, all that remains, is the change in divergence between Plane and Target Lines. IMHO, this is how a True Swinger should approach curving the Path of the Ball (because a True Swinger always uses the same Right Forearm Angle of Approach). So, a True Swinger would rotate Plane and Target Lines to create a divergence, while a Hands Manipulated Swinger would move the ball, one way only (such as moving the ball back on the plane-line without changing the Plane Angle (actually, it simultaneously Flattens the Plane Angle (increases Angle of Approach) and Steepens the Angle of Attack)), and thereby, creates the divergence by changing the relationship between Angle of Attack and Approach. Fades and Draws for True Swingers and Hooks and Slices for Hands Manipulated Swingers. BUT, and this is very critical for you to understand, that both procedures are On-Line. Both, the Hands Manipulated and True Swingers are always On-Plane, never crossing the Line by trying to Swing Inside-out or Outside-in. In other words - in simple terms - never create a Plane Line to the Left of Target and Swing to the Right of Target - that would be crazy.

I wonder if any of this is in the "Trackman User Manual"?
All of it is in the little Yellow Book.

[O.B.Left]

Thanks for the questions. I'm trying to keep my posts above O.B. Left. He seems to be gaining on me.

And I thought you were going to come at me like a spider monkey with 6-N-0 or something. Shame on me, D.

[Daryl]

And I thought you were going to come at me like a spider monkey with 6-N-0 or something. Shame on me, D.

I need to stay a respectable 100 posts ahead of you. I should have stretched the previous answers to 5 posts.

[JTillery]

@Daryl - Ok so thickness isn't a dimension of plane......so if my grip points at baseline its on plane. If it was a big old fat club id have alot more tolerance then right? If my shaft and grip were pencil then I guess it'd be really hard to be on plane!!!! So its exactly the width of a clubshaft? Who decided that!?? There is no width as a dimension? Then why do you draw a line, how can you illustrate it?


You'll have to gimme that deal one more time on how to rotate the whole plane left without increasing angle of attack? If I swing down 60 degrees, then change nothing but rotate the plane line, Im coming in at more than 60 degrees from the balls perspective ....???

Finally, tell me how the "BLUR" isn't indicative of 3D path?

[Daryl]

@Daryl - Ok so thickness isn't a dimension of plane......so if my grip points at baseline its on plane. If it was a big old fat club id have alot more tolerance then right? If my shaft and grip were pencil then I guess it'd be really hard to be on plane!!!! So its exactly the width of a clubshaft? Who decided that!?? There is no width as a dimension? Then why do you draw a line, how can you illustrate it?

The line is a representation. Same as when you draw a square with a paint brush and claim the corners to be 90 degrees. But if you must know his name, I think his name was "Bob".

You'll have to gimme that deal one more time on how to rotate the whole plane left without increasing angle of attack? If I swing down 60 degrees, then change nothing but rotate the plane line, Im coming in at more than 60 degrees from the balls perspective ....???

Ok, but please understand that I'm telling you something that "appears" to contradict HK's "Swingers" procedure. But I assure you that it doesn't. I outlined the answer below, but bear with me a moment to explain something that has a very direct effect and HK assumes that YOU are completely aware of this. Anytime you move the Ball aft of Low-point, YOU MUST adjust your Plane Angle (not direction) so that the Orbiting Clubhead will intersect the ball at its new location. So, if you move the ball aft, then the Plane Angle must be "Steepened" and if you move it forward again, then you must "Flatten" the Plane Angle.

When the Ball is positioned at the Low Point, the two Plane Lines combine as one, but as the Ball is moved toward the Right Foot, these lines appear farther apart and the Angle of Approach becomes wider. Then, the steeper the Plane Angle (10-6), the steeper the Angle of Attack (2-N-1), the higher the trajectory and the deeper the Divot (7-6). So, Ball Location determines the Angle of Approach (2-J-3), making the Forearm motion three dimensional (2-C-0).

HK referenced 10-6 in the above quote because he wants you to steepen the Plane Angle by tilting the Plane from it's Plane Angle Reference Point. Turned Shoulder Plane Swingers will steepen the Plane more than an Elbow Plane Swinger.

So, when HK says to move the Ball "Aft" he is assuming that you understand that the Ball will no longer rest on the existing Plane line, but rather on the new Plane Line (closer to your feet) because YOU Steepened the Plane Angle. If the Ball was moved 3" back on the existing Plane Line, then you will "Miss the Ball" because it no longer intersects the Clubhead Orbit (unless you make a postural change).

Set-up and hit a straight shot at the Target. Then, set-up and hit a straight shot 20 yards left of Target. Then, Set-up to hit a straight shot 20 yards left of the Target but rotate the shaft/clubface in your hands clockwise. HK wants you to move the Ball Forward or Aft rather than rotate the Grip because moving the Ball aft 1" is easier than rotating the Grip 1/2 of 1 degree. However, in his procedure, he assumes that you won't change the Angle of Approach although most everyone does.

Finally, tell me how the "BLUR" isn't indicative of 3D path?

It is, but is it indicative of equal dimensions down, out and forward simultaneously?

[JTillery]

@Daryl, ok one more try for me.

"Ok, but please understand that I'm telling you something that "appears" to contradict HK's "Swingers" procedure. But I assure you that it doesn't. I outlined the answer below, but bear with me a moment to explain something that has a very direct effect and HK assumes that YOU are completely aware of this. Anytime you move the Ball aft of Low-point, YOU MUST adjust your Plane Angle (not direction) so that the Orbiting Clubhead will intersect the ball at its new location. So, if you move the ball aft, then the Plane Angle must be "Steepened" and if you move it forward again, then you must "Flatten" the Plane Angle."

So, in redneck terms, if you move the ball to your back foot and hit the ground by your front foot,...............ugh,... you missed. Aside from this, I would argue outside of theory and in the real world that most people with a ball too back will build a compensation to shallow the angle of attack. Vice versa for the guy who gets it too forward. Regardless, as you just said, moving the ball back and then on top of that increasing plane angle will have a great effect on the "down"......and unless you're swinging up and down a wall, THAT MAKES PATH PATH PATH TO THE RIGHT!!!!!

**CAN YOU SWING DOWN A STRAIGHT LINE WHILE INCREASING AND DECREASING ANGLE OF ATTACK WITHOUT CHANGING ACTUAL PATH AND AFFECTING THE GOLF BALL? DO YOU THINK YOU CAN HIT ZERO DOWN ON A BALL, 2 DEGREES DOWN ON A BALL, THEN 6 DEGREES DOWN ON A BALL WITH ALL SQUARE FACES, ALL TRACING STRAIGHT LINES, AND HIT 3 OF THE SAME STRAIGHT SHOTS?**
* Why do guys swing "under" plane with drivers on tv all the time, then point their wedges at lines that are outside of the straight line baseline?


"the steeper the Plane Angle (10-6), the steeper the Angle of Attack (2-N-1), the higher the trajectory and the deeper the Divot (7-6)."

WHAT!????? Steep plane angles and steep angles of attack hit higher trajectory golf shots? So when you play your ball back, swing down 70 degrees and take a beaver tail divot, you hit it to the moon????

I respect your convictions and dedication, but Im going to bow out now, cause we are obviously playing different games!