|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 28, 2014 4:51:43 GMT -5
To me you follow are certain process and see where it leads you. If the results are better than what I have been doing then I feel I am going in a better direction. If the results are not as good then you step back to the original process. People pay serious money to get fitted by me, I can not afford the luxury to try, re-try, step back etc. So any procedure new or old should definitely not be based on BS or pseudo-science bla-bla Are you saying what I do is BS or pseudo-science? What is your point with this post?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 28, 2014 13:09:32 GMT -5
People pay serious money to get fitted by me, I can not afford the luxury to try, re-try, step back etc. So any procedure new or old should definitely not be based on BS or pseudo-science bla-bla Are you saying what I do is BS or pseudo-science? What is your point with this post? The point I'm trying to make is that I can not afford to "just try" and "retry" until something works because people expect high quality fitting from me. So each new procedure (or machine) proposed is reviewed for BS and pseudo-science bla-bla. If the review shows that the procedure has some serious issues then that procedure should not be used in a professional environment. MOI is such a procedure. If I was just fitting some good friends who would accept a screw-up then there is no risk when "just trying" and "retrying" and sometimes you might be lucky...
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 29, 2014 6:07:12 GMT -5
Are you saying what I do is BS or pseudo-science? What is your point with this post? The point I'm trying to make is that I can not afford to "just try" and "retry" until something works because people expect high quality fitting from me. So each new procedure (or machine) proposed is reviewed for BS and pseudo-science bla-bla. If the review shows that the procedure has some serious issues then that procedure should not be used in a professional environment. MOI is such a procedure. If I was just fitting some good friends who would accept a screw-up then there is no risk when "just trying" and "retrying" and sometimes you might be lucky... I must be the luckiest club fitter there is. Actually I am not lucky, I do things in a logical and controlled way. I understand what I am trying to accomplish before I put a plan in place, if I am making a change to my process. I don't just try and retry and just throw components together with the hope it will work. Hope is not a plan. I also would not experiment on someone's clubs when I am not confident of the results. I find it interesting that you don't change things or try to improve your process. If the club fitting world followed your methods, the club fitting world would not have grown to where it is today. Apparently continuous improvement is not something you believe in. As far as MOI and SW our opinions differ. I will put an MOI fitted club set up against a matched SW set anytime. You say that MOI is not professional. I would say that's a very uneducated comment. Professional or unprofessional is about how a fitter applies a method and services his clients. If you service your clients like you answer posts on this subject makes wonder about your professionalism. I find it disappointing how you generalize but will not share exactly how you fit or build clubs. You pick and choose what you answer and avoid answering certain questions or only give partial answers. You dismiss MOI as pseudo-science and an unprofessional method yet you won't give more detailed information to back up your opinion. Even with some of the posts between 3Jack and yourself I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant well and were misunderstood in your posts. I had hoped that we could have an intelligent discussion, with my thought that I may learn something more, about club building and fitting. Unfortunately, all I learned was you have no intention of sharing any real information that could help anyone improve there methods and all you want to say is you know better and MOI is pseudo-science. It's to bad your so closed minded and not willing to participate in a good intelligent discussion.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 29, 2014 8:55:32 GMT -5
You pick and choose what you answer and avoid answering certain questions or only give partial answers. Yes, that is intentional because I like it when a thread stays on topic. This thread was about MOI and SW. If you want to talk clubfitting procedures then opening a thread would be the best thing to do. That way THIS thread can continue being a discussion about MOI/SW You dismiss MOI as pseudo-science and an unprofessional method yet you won't give more detailed information to back up your opinion. I asked a question that any professional using the tool should be able to answer. If that person can not answer that simple "swing rotation axis" question how is it possible to dive any deeper into this subject? It's like asking me to talk in depth about some nice mathematical problem and then missing the knowledge to understand "sum up". It's to bad your so closed minded and not willing to participate in a good intelligent discussion. discussion means people participating, so give me an answer to the question to show you are willing to participate instead of derailing this MOI/SW thread into a fitting procedure discussion.
|
|
MattF
Apex II's
Posts: 78
|
Post by MattF on Jul 31, 2014 9:10:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 31, 2014 17:47:18 GMT -5
Well that answers some questions. Nice post Matt.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 1, 2014 17:58:52 GMT -5
First he explains (wrongly*) what should happen for a set of club to have "the same swing feel" and then somehow has no problem to claim that his completely different MOI procedure however ALSO will generate a set of clubs that "requite the same effort". How is this possible? ....well it's not. *How is it possible to refer to the mathematical work that Jorgensen did and then fail to quote him correctly?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 1, 2014 18:06:46 GMT -5
PS and please note the incorrect assumptions about the swing axis. Looking forward to any prove that there is a) "the MOI of the club about the axis of rotation that is our spine" and b) "the MOI of the club about the axis of rotation of the release of the wrist cock angle"
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 1, 2014 18:07:32 GMT -5
Well that answers some questions. which one?
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Aug 1, 2014 20:42:40 GMT -5
PS and please note the incorrect assumptions about the swing axis. Looking forward to any prove that there is a) "the MOI of the club about the axis of rotation that is our spine" and b) "the MOI of the club about the axis of rotation of the release of the wrist cock angle" Typical deflection post from you with no substance to disprove what TW says other than your own opinion. You have posted no scientific information to disprove MOI does not work. You talk about professionalism when all you do is state your own opinion. What scientific evidence do you have that SW works? Does the SW machine measure the swing around the same axis as the swing?
|
|
MattF
Apex II's
Posts: 78
|
Post by MattF on Aug 2, 2014 7:08:03 GMT -5
Greenmonster, Why are you so harsh with Franz? He's not trying to build a scientific demonstration in order to deconstruct those statements. But simply points some incoherences in Tom's post. ___________ From Tom's post, I will retain that: - MOI matching "is a system that works for golfers and from it, can be better than swingweight matching".
- The only way to obtain the same feel is to build the same club.
But that doesn't sound triumphant said like this, doesn't it? That sums up where we are now: No fast fitting/building method that could successfully fit anybody, and allow to build clubs that feel the same from club to club for anyone. ___________ At the very beginning, Franz asked: -
To me the answer is yes. Because it puts back the golfer at the center of the fitting process. - The real 3D rotation point? Hard to find precisely, or maybe using an Enso-like system with highspeed cameras everywhere.
But we can probably make a chart, based on a list of patterns (playing positions, clubpath, release type, etc.), all observable during the fitting process using a simple highspeed camera, don't you think?
- So we should check some shots with a 3-iron and a wedge in order to spot for a change in the swinging pattern, and if appropriate make a correction.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 2, 2014 15:59:02 GMT -5
Thank you Matt! Good to see that someone did understand the points I'm trying to make. Greenmonster, From Tom's post, I will retain that: - The only way to obtain the same feel is to build the same club.
My issue is that he made the above statement and then connects it to the work of Jorgensen. However when someone does take the time to read Jorgensen work and specially chapter 11 he will find the following : He [Jorgensen] then continues : Jorgensen then however continues explaining how it is possible to make a perfect matching clubs with different head weights and lengths: So TOM's followed with a referral to the work of Jorgensen where that work itself disagrees with TOM's remark!
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 3, 2014 4:20:08 GMT -5
Small passive transmitter on the shaft just below the grip, a ir lamp and one well placed high-speed camera will get you a long way. Total cost would be around 100-400 euro depending on the resolution and frames/sec of the chosen camera. So we should check some shots with a 3-iron and a wedge in order to spot for a change in the swinging pattern, and if appropriate make a correction. Plot the found data for three clubs (or more) and use some basic line-fitting to find the rotation points for the other clubs.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Aug 3, 2014 22:25:36 GMT -5
Greenmonster, Why are you so harsh with Franz? He's not trying to build a scientific demonstration in order to deconstruct those statements. But simply points some incoherences in Tom's post. ___________ From Tom's post, I will retain that: - MOI matching "is a system that works for golfers and from it, can be better than swingweight matching".
- The only way to obtain the same feel is to build the same club.
But that doesn't sound triumphant said like this, doesn't it? That sums up where we are now: No fast fitting/building method that could successfully fit anybody, and allow to build clubs that feel the same from club to club for anyone. ___________ At the very beginning, Franz asked: -
To me the answer is yes. Because it puts back the golfer at the center of the fitting process. - The real 3D rotation point? Hard to find precisely, or maybe using an Enso-like system with highspeed cameras everywhere.
But we can probably make a chart, based on a list of patterns (playing positions, clubpath, release type, etc.), all observable during the fitting process using a simple highspeed camera, don't you think?
- So we should check some shots with a 3-iron and a wedge in order to spot for a change in the swinging pattern, and if appropriate make a correction.
Tell you what I will ease up.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Aug 3, 2014 22:31:06 GMT -5
Thank you Matt! Good to see that someone did understand the points I'm trying to make. Greenmonster, From Tom's post, I will retain that: - The only way to obtain the same feel is to build the same club.
My issue is that he made the above statement and then connects it to the work of Jorgensen. However when someone does take the time to read Jorgensen work and specially chapter 11 he will find the following : He [Jorgensen] then continues : Jorgensen then however continues explaining how it is possible to make a perfect matching clubs with different head weights and lengths: So TOM's followed with a referral to the work of Jorgensen where that work itself disagrees with TOM's remark! Everyone has there opinion and I respect that. Instead of me rebutting some of your post's and it would probably be a waste as I would just be stating my opinion and I think I could make a decent argument back on a couple points. But I think that would not answer your points so I will pass on that.
I would like an answer if the questions were turned around though and instead of stating the questions on MOI put SW in those questions. This stays on the subject posted and is a fair question. I have asked at least twice with no answer.
Does the SW machine measure the swing around the same axis as the swing?
|
|