|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 21, 2014 9:13:33 GMT -5
Again somehow you seem very angry about my statement that TOM is a sales person and it makes you misread what I wrote! Let's go over your claim, again, in order: 1. You claimed that MOI matching was 'pseudo science.' 2. You claimed that MOI matching was worse than swingweight matching because it is being sold to the public as science. 3. You stated 'A sales person selling clubmakers components comes up with an idea that OEM can not follow...Just let this combination sink in' I won't even bother with 'didn't answer as usual' piece. If you tell me that wasn't in reference to Tom, then so be it. I will believe you. But, the 'salesperson' comment is bothersome because there is no way to really interpret it other than Tom is trying to take something he knows is without merit and sell it to us poor, unsuspecting fools that are golfers and clubmakers. Yes, Tom Wishon does some form of salesmanship for his company. Most owners/CEO's do that on some level. But, he's also the chief designer, researcher and club fitter for the company. I don't find it just a coincidence that you chose the word 'sales person' to describe Tom. You chose that word carefully. You wanted to give a negative depiction of Tom as sales people are often depicted negatively and the 'just let this combination sink in' implies that he is trying to sell a service he knows that is faulty, but money is more important to him than integrity. I have seen examples where Tom Wishon has done things for golfers at his expense and no benefit to him whatsoever. I don't have a problem with accusations if they are backed up and the person is guilty of it. But, I am more frustrated with the way you have attacked Tom because: A. You could have just e-mailed him to get your answer. B. You have some sort of anger or negative opinion of Tom when it comes to MOI matching (and maybe other areas) and you won't come clean about it. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 21, 2014 9:38:19 GMT -5
I have ZERO problem with your questions. I think you do raise some good points.
But, I find your tact to be poor. You obviously have a negative opinion about Tom when it comes to MOI matching and you're basically trying to say that he's trying to pull one over on people with 'pseudo science.' And when I told you how it comes off as attacking Tom's integrity, you then claim that you were never attacking his integrity.
I found the 'salesperson' comment to be an indictment of your negative opinion about Tom. It was a cheap shot.
Have you e-mailed Tom about your questions about the MOI machine?
I don't expect Trackman or FlightScope to give away proprietary information otherwise it would not be proprietary. And I've found Trackman and Tuxen to be fairly honest about the questions I have. But, at least I've asked those questions instead of assuming that they are wrong.
I suspect that MOI matching is a minor fraction of Tom's business. The golfing population either has never heard of MOI matching or is put off by the idea that it goes against the swingweight methodology or assumes there is little benefit to swingweight matching, so MOI matching wouldn't help much either.
If you read a lot of Tom's posts on GolfWRX forums you see that a lot of the time he references swingweight because most posters over there don't understand MOI matching and don't care to and their questions were swingweight related anyway.
I've said time and time again....
I don't have any issue with criticism and questions.
I've also wrote in a post that I am fully confident in the future there will be an even better method to MOI matching. Technology and research changes over time and provides us with a better understanding over time.
Your questions are not the problem. Your accusations and the way you handle it are. I like Tom as a person, but I know him as a clubmaker, club designer, club fitter and club researcher far more.
And that's why I recommend you e-mail him with your questions. You may not get every question answered, but you will likely get some answered and then you can better formulate your thoughts and opinions on MOI matching.
I like Trackman and FlightScope, but I don't think they are all what they are cracked up to be, particularly with their accuracy. But, I could never come to that consensus if it weren't for asking the people at Trackman and FlightScope questions and giving my criticisms.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 21, 2014 9:42:16 GMT -5
I accidentally hit the edit button instead of the reply button on one of Frans posts (the last post on the 1st page). I then hit 'save changes' thinking it was the reply button.
I had to go back and re-do Frans' post. Nothing was changed from what he has written except I don't have the quotes of mine that he used to reply to the post.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 9:46:38 GMT -5
immunity But, the 'salesperson' comment is bothersome because there is no way to really interpret it other than Tom is trying to take something he knows is without merit and sell it to us poor, unsuspecting fools that are golfers and clubmakers.............................. I don't find it just a coincidence that you chose the word 'sales person' to describe Tom. You chose that word carefully. You wanted to give a negative depiction of Tom as sales people are often depicted negatively and the 'just let this combination sink in' implies that he is trying to sell a service he knows that is faulty, but money is more important to him than integrity. Yes, Of course the word "salesperson" is deliberately chosen! It is done to express he did that in that position. Not in the position as clubfitter or designer or writer or father or husband. No, he did it in his position as sales person responsibly for sales and survival of his company. And if you would question him about it then there will be no discussion\answer about MOI as such but only that he finds that the MOI procedure he promotes is a "common sense" procedure well within the reach of the public he is selling too. It's you that makes it into a big negative thing and claims me attacking his integrity. I'm only stating that you should review MOI within the context of those who promote it and be aware of the possible issues. I do not condemn him, I don't defend some moral high ground here, I fully accept that owning a business means that one can not always tell everything. TOM is a nice guy, did fantastic things for golfers and the clubmaking and clubfitting industry. Does that mean we can't asked questions anymore about certain procedures he promotes? Does being a good person give you immunity? Of course not!
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 10:07:31 GMT -5
But, I could never come to that consensus if it weren't for asking the people at Trackman and FlightScope questions and giving my criticisms. If I would follow you way of reasoning that I could now have said that you are questioning Tuxen's integrity...However I'm not saying that. I would be saying that you understand the situation Tuxen is in and that any answer he gives you is reviewed in that context. And you accept that not all that is said is 100% correct.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 21, 2014 10:18:04 GMT -5
But, I could never come to that consensus if it weren't for asking the people at Trackman and FlightScope questions and giving my criticisms. If I would follow you way of reasoning that I could now have said that you are questioning Tuxen's integrity...However I'm not saying that. I would be saying that you understand the situation Tuxen is in and that any answer he gives you is reviewed in that context. And you accept that not all that is said is 100% correct. This is my last time repeating this. I do not have a problem with you having questions and criticisms. Stop stating that I do when I tell you over and over that I don't. If I did, I would delete your posts. I even *stated* that I think you have some good points with your questions and criticisms. My point on TM and FS is that I actually asked them questions directly. It seems like you have NOT asked Tom Wishon directly. You appear to assume that he won't give you any answers because you assume it will hurt his business. But, you have not actually asked those questions to him. It's not the criticisms and questions that are a problem...it's your unwillingness to e-mail Tom with your questions and criticisms and assuming you have both sides of the story. He would know more about the MOI machine than me. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 10:37:52 GMT -5
My point on TM and FS is that I actually asked them questions directly. and when asking if they really do measure the spin-axis tilt what did they tell you? You saw the reply from TOMI when asked directly? Or Zelocity? You know what I learned from doing that? I learned that you should not ask but do research first, learn the correct language and terms used. And then with the results of your research confront them in order to make absolutely sure you ask the correct questions using the correct terms. And using the knowledge of your research you can spot any "bending" of the truth. It seems like you have NOT asked Tom Wishon directly. You are aware that TOM has been asked about it more then once in a time span of 9 years? And that his reply always has been the same? ...it's your unwillingness to e-mail Tom with your questions and criticisms and assuming you have both sides of the story. I'm sorry I don't follow, which two sides of the story? Can I conclude from your answer that you will not enter into a discussion about MOI? Because till now you have not answered my question about the rotation axis. And all that unwillingness to enter into a discussion just because you think I have not asked TOM about this?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 11:03:43 GMT -5
I have an other nice example : I know you really like statistics. Did you ever read the SST-pure testing results? sstpure.com/pdf/sstpure_study_08.pdf?I wrote a posting about on the (now gone) European Golfsmith forum about it claiming that the document itself in fact proved that sst puring doesn't help but flo-ing does. Do you agree ?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 11:04:22 GMT -5
..double post.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 21, 2014 16:02:36 GMT -5
I disagree with your assessment that you should not bother asking them directly.
If you ask and they are caught lying, then we know that the person(s) are not trustworthy.
If they are asked and they come back with a faulty answer that doesn't account for something, then we at least know their perspective and their flaws.
If you ask them directly and they come back with a decent answer, even if it is not ultimately correct, it can lead to discovering the right answer in the long run.
If you ask them directly and they refuse to answer, then you can come away with them not wanting to answer and being suspicious of their claims.
I have never questioned Zelocity because I've never been interested in their product. By the time I had any interest in Zelocity, Trackman was already out.
I've never been interested in the TOMI because the SAM Puttlab was out and I feel that is a superior product.
I don't expect any machine to be infallible. And I'm far from the most well liked person at Trackman and FlightScope headquarters. But, when I've asked them questions and I have felt they are spinning the truth to some degree, at least I could better understand their counters to my criticisms and I could at least say that I gave them a chance to explain themselves.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 22, 2014 3:09:46 GMT -5
I disagree with your assessment that you should not bother asking them directly. I think it's me not being native English because once again that is not what I said. I said you should do your own research, learn the language\terminology and then start asking questions. How else can you ask the correct question? And understand the answer? But then again not agreeing with the order in which I do things is one thing, not agreeing with my arguments is another. I've never been interested in the TOMI because the SAM Puttlab was out and I feel that is a superior product. But what is that "feel" based on and how sure are you that your "feel" is correct? The Puttlab is a nice example of understanding what to ask and the terminology used before asking. If you would ask what the sample rate is then the answer given would be : 210hz. We would then assume that this answer means it is measuring the putting movement 210 times per second. Which is a rather nice speed for a slow movement that the putting stroke is. I don't expect any machine to be infallible. I'm not talking about infallible, I'm talking about claims that are nonsense either about what the machine does or what it's measurements really are or how the measurement relate to the subject it's supposed to have a relation with.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 22, 2014 3:27:45 GMT -5
I wrote a rather large post about the PuttLab but then realized that till this moment you did not answer a single question I asked you but that the only postings you made where postings explaining - how bad my attitude is - the lack of tact I have - that the order I do things is wrong and almost all I wrote has been miss-read by you for whatever reason.
I assumed that like with the swing you where interested in understanding the background/principles of clubmaking and fitting and would enjoy a discussion about the tools used in this art called clubfitting.
Sorry for posting in this thread. I have no trouble with you removing my posting from this thread so it can return to what it originally was. This is my last post on this forum, feel free to remove my account.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 22, 2014 8:12:51 GMT -5
I haven't removed any posts and don't intend to.
I haven't answered your question because I'm not the foremost expert on the MOI machine and never stated nor implied that I was.
What I have asked is that you personally ask the person who would know a lot more about it, Tom Wishon.
When I posed that to you, your assumption is that it is not worth doing because you believe Tom will not give you an answer.
You made a lot of half-cocked accusations and feel there's no need to try and get the other side's explanation.
I'm willing to bet that MOI matching is a very minute fraction of Tom's business. Of course, nobody likes to be found out to be wrong. Perhaps it's a cultural issue, but US culture tends to try and get the other side's explanation.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 25, 2014 5:49:46 GMT -5
I disagree with your assessment that you should not bother asking them directly. If you ask and they are caught lying, then we know that the person(s) are not trustworthy. If they are asked and they come back with a faulty answer that doesn't account for something, then we at least know their perspective and their flaws. If you ask them directly and they come back with a decent answer, even if it is not ultimately correct, it can lead to discovering the right answer in the long run. If you ask them directly and they refuse to answer, then you can come away with them not wanting to answer and being suspicious of their claims. I have never questioned Zelocity because I've never been interested in their product. By the time I had any interest in Zelocity, Trackman was already out. I've never been interested in the TOMI because the SAM Puttlab was out and I feel that is a superior product. I don't expect any machine to be infallible. And I'm far from the most well liked person at Trackman and FlightScope headquarters. But, when I've asked them questions and I have felt they are spinning the truth to some degree, at least I could better understand their counters to my criticisms and I could at least say that I gave them a chance to explain themselves. 3JACK Without about any deeper understanding about MOI or SW, I have been asking questions many times and never get prompt answer regarding radars or balance boards. Only good conversation about radar systems I have had with Frans and that's just because he understands how they work and what they can see. It's same with boards as you can of course compare results, but there is no way to know actions behind them. Manufacturers can't tell that, or they don't understand those, but it's about impossible to have good conversation with them if you understand a lot yourself. I think what Frans tried to say is that in MOI there is so many factors, it can't be put to one model and by that it's not scientific. SW is simple and by that scientific, as you can create formula that fits all the time. That doesn't say anything about it which one is right or better or which helps fitter or player more. In both these examples there is functions that can change the result or even get similar results for two very different actions.
|
|
|
Post by ericpaul2 on Jul 25, 2014 8:56:13 GMT -5
It's really quite simple. Frans can criticize based on theory all he wants. The fact is, consistency of solid contact increases with MOI matching. Many, many people have observed it. Period.
In addition, Richie has been reporting an improvement in curvature with MOI Index Balancing. The sample size is much smaller, but early results appear positive. Period.
To criticize so adamantly without observing someone who knows what they're doing demonstrating the results comes off as obstinate.
People will buy into scientific claims to a point and that point is when the predictions based on those claims cease to make sense, and that's what's happening with Trackman. I honestly think they attempted to "dumb it down" and make overblown marketing claims, and now they're in a bad position trying to backpedal and explain without admitting that they didn't share some key assumptions early on and that they made claims that were effectively untrue (though one could spin it, which they have). One of the biggest is not explaining how critical the "assuming centered contact" statement is.
Balance boards are a different problem. I truly believe no one is 100% sure what is "correct" or desirable in all cases. They started commercializing the product before really understanding the complexity. Let's be honest, COM and COP dynamics are way down the chain (sorry, I mean that euphamistically, not related to the kinematic chain) from ball flight. There is a lot of complexity between here and there.
I agree, you have to ask and then evaluate for yourself. Same thing happens in my industry...lots of equipment manufacturers make a lot of performance claims...at some point you just ask for the data and evaluate performance yourself.
|
|