|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 4, 2014 4:11:08 GMT -5
Does the SW machine measure the swing around the same axis as the swing? Why do you ask? Is there any documents/posting/books whatever to be found that make the claim that it (SW) does "measure the swing[sic] around the same axis as the swing"? very weird question, could it be a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man again trying to derail this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Aug 4, 2014 8:18:54 GMT -5
He's asking because of your claims that swingweight is better than MOI matching.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Aug 4, 2014 8:59:59 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. You wanted to stay on subject which as you stated is about MOI and SW. I have stopped asking or posting about the fitting procedure questions and have followed the posted subject. Yet you have derailed from answering the SW question 3 times now. You have also posted that any professional should be able to answer the question on MOI. I would pose if you are a professional then you should be able to answer the same question on SW. I am not sure why it is a weird question to ask about SW when you state the subject is about both MOI and SW. Is the substance of the discussion only about MOI then?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 4, 2014 16:49:55 GMT -5
Is there any documents/posting/books whatever to be found that make the claim that it (SW) does "measure the swing[sic] around the same axis as the swing"?
if not why ask that question?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 4, 2014 16:53:40 GMT -5
He's asking because of your claims that swingweight is better than MOI matching. 3JACK And did I defend such a statement by saying that SW "measure the swing around the same axis as the swing?" ? In which posting did I make that claim?
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Aug 5, 2014 7:55:50 GMT -5
And did I defend such a statement by saying that SW "measure the swing around the same axis as the swing?" ? In which posting did I make that claim? The logic is that: 1. You did say that SW was better than MOI matching. 2. Your gripe against MOI matching was that it does not measure around the same axis as the swing. It infers that SW must measure around the same axis as the swing because why would SW be better than MOI if your complaint about MOI is that it does no measure the same axis as the swing? Personally, I never thought you believe that SW measures the same axis as the swing. But, your claims that SW is better than MOI has never been substantiated. Thus, the question from greenmonster brings into question your logic as to SW being better than MOI. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Aug 5, 2014 22:52:06 GMT -5
And did I defend such a statement by saying that SW "measure the swing around the same axis as the swing?" ? In which posting did I make that claim? The logic is that: 1. You did say that SW was better than MOI matching. 2. Your gripe against MOI matching was that it does not measure around the same axis as the swing. It infers that SW must measure around the same axis as the swing because why would SW be better than MOI if your complaint about MOI is that it does no measure the same axis as the swing? Personally, I never thought you believe that SW measures the same axis as the swing. But, your claims that SW is better than MOI has never been substantiated. Thus, the question from greenmonster brings into question your logic as to SW being better than MOI. 3JACK Frans these are statements you have posted below and the Quote above from 3Jack is spot on to what I was getting at:That statement in itself states that you are saying SW is better than MOI. I am ok that this is your opinion but you did post this and you have not backed it up with any answers why SW is better than MOI. You state you can defend any point, but you continue to deflect from answering the same question when it is posed using SW. I never said you stated that SW is measured around the rotational swing axis of the swing. But you use that question to dismiss that MOI as being a valid use for fitting. Have you ever used the MOI machine? Your words not mind in this post from you. The last thing you write in this quote is "MOI is such a procedure" which you are stating it should not be used in a professional environment. I would ask then what exactly is your reasons to state this? It would be nice if you would give some substance to prove your statement.
Do you consider the Tour vans on the PGA tour where they build clubs a professional environment?
I have stayed on subject and you still deflect from answering questions. This can only lead me to believe you have no intention of having a 2 way discussion on this subject.
It seems in your post's that you discount MOI due to the answer to your question would be "No" in my opinion. Yet you will not answer the same question when you change MOI to SW. As 3Jack stated that infers that when the question is posed but with SW as the subject the answer would be yes. So I would like your answer instead of deflecting with another question.
Frans it's a fair question for me to ask if you are going to discount MOI as pseudo-science because the answer to your question would be "No" in my opinion.
fransatfrance said: very weird question, could it be a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man again trying to derail this discussion? Not sure what this is about. I have no idea what your talking about here.
Here are my questions:
Is the SW machine measuring SW around the swing’s rotational axis?
Why do you prefer SW over MOI?
Is SW or MOI better?
These are all on subject, so you can either answer or deflect. It's up to you whether you intend to have a good discussion on the subject or not. Just to be clear, I believe MOI to be a very valid method and prefer it over SW.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 6, 2014 17:23:17 GMT -5
2. Your gripe against MOI matching was that it does not measure around the same axis as the swing. No, again that is not what I said! You were the one that came with the following to defend the MOI I feel it applies here in equipment because the golf club requires force to be applied to its rotational axis as the golfer's wrists un-cock and the clubface 'releases' into hopefully a 'square' position at impact. I then pointed out that can not be possible because it's not what the machine is measuring. Then some remarks\postings\TOM quotes where made about how MOI makes the "feel" between clubs the same. Again I explained that that is not possible included quotes from the book references to the chapter and the authors name. In which if you take time to read it even includes the math in the appendixes. The somehow Greenmonster feeling upset tries to come up with a weird question that has no relation at all with SW and wants me to answer it. So what is next? Should I now ask you both if MOI is measuring the golfclub at a 14 inch balance point?? ----------------- My point was and is the same : SW is based on a observation, made by a gifted clubmaker, that the clubs in a set of clubs played by professionals (in his era) all seemed to be balanced at the same position or with other words are SW matched. He made an instrument allowing to find this balance and included a scale so sets can be compared. Looking forward to someone trying to debunk this FACT. MOI is based on around the "statement" that the same MOI will mean the same swing feel. This is proven to be wrong and now even TOM will finally admit that. It's proven wrong by the math, and as quoted you need the three dynamic parameters the be the same (Mass, First Moment, Second Moment) before "feel" is the same. Again just a simple FACT Then there is the issue that the MOI machine used doesn't measure the MOI around the same axis as the swing axis. Again just a FACT So we have a SW procedure allowing to have clubs matched based on observation and we have a MOI procedure based on wrong assumption (or just bad math) and an machine making the wrong calculations. Which part of my original statement "MOI being worse then SW because it's based on pseudo-science and that pseudo-science is then feed to the public while SW was nothing more then an observation made into a instrument." was wrong?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 6, 2014 17:30:08 GMT -5
It's impossible to argue against believes. If you ever return to using facts/data/math in defending MOI I will try to explain which fact was not a fact but just an assumption, what data was wrongly recorded or interpreted and where in the math the error was made.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Aug 7, 2014 1:10:45 GMT -5
[ Which part of my original statement "MOI being worse then SW because it's based on pseudo-science and that pseudo-science is then feed to the public while SW was nothing more then an observation made into a instrument." was wrong? Do you mean that MOI can work but also it can lead to bigger mistakes than SW? So using pseudo science formula that miss some possible differences in swing bio can lead to situation where in some cases that makes fault assumption for those players who's swing pattern doesn't fit to assumptions?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 7, 2014 3:15:21 GMT -5
Do you mean that MOI can work but also it can lead to bigger mistakes than SW? So using pseudo science formula that miss some possible differences in swing bio can lead to situation where in some cases that makes fault assumption for those players who's swing pattern doesn't fit to assumptions? Sounds like a good conclusion. And as MOI is never stable\fixed within a set (irons having an other MOI then Woods etc) it already shows it's inadequate as a method to "capture" the swing in one (fitting) value. It's therefor that different MOI procedures exist, they all try to solve that problem. However start searching for an improvement in the MOI procedure without understanding how the swing reacts to fitting parameters is the incorrect order in how to solve the problem. Only a small group of fitters exist that understand that you can fit someone into different combinations that will ALL generate good\correct results but where the properties of those clubs found are completely different!
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Aug 7, 2014 4:55:50 GMT -5
It's impossible to argue against believes. If you ever return to using facts/data/math in defending MOI I will try to explain which fact was not a fact but just an assumption, what data was wrongly recorded or interpreted and where in the math the error was made. Nice play on words! The SW and MOI machines are tools that when calibrated and used properly give consistent readings. Can you explain why an MOI machine would give consistent readings and also from machine to machine? When you say the math is wrong. Can you explain where that info comes from?
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Aug 7, 2014 8:12:57 GMT -5
When you say the math is wrong. Can you explain where that info comes from? Do you know the math behind the MOI? I don't but I think Frans knows and that's where his opinions are based. I hope you all continue this with real information so we all can learn something about it. I understand Frans in a way as I have been in about same situation telling people what radars and balance boards can measure and what they tell us they read there. There is more holes in those than anywhere
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Aug 7, 2014 23:08:48 GMT -5
When you say the math is wrong. Can you explain where that info comes from? Do you know the math behind the MOI? I don't but I think Frans knows and that's where his opinions are based. I hope you all continue this with real information so we all can learn something about it. I understand Frans in a way as I have been in about same situation telling people what radars and balance boards can measure and what they tell us they read there. There is more holes in those than anywhere Hey TeeAce, I like the username. I will be honest here about your math question. Hope Frans does not torch me but I don't mind sharing my opinions and what I have experienced. I do have the math and it is built into a spreadsheet that I used to use. But truthfully I have not used it for the past 2 years. I used to do all the calculations then check my MOI number against the MOI Auditor machine. The thing is, the number was always the same and it just seemed like a lot of extra work that was not needed. I also used to use my MOI period counter and again same MOI numbers. This does not make the math correct. Because if the formula is the same with both MOI tools and my spreadsheet. Then logically it should be the same MOI number and that is why it's consistent. In my opinion and experience we use tools to build and fit clubs. The tools we use need to consistently repeat the same information. If they do not repeat then that's a problem. In my experience the SW and MOI machines repeat the numbers and are very accurate when used properly. How a fitter uses that information is where the difference is. I will go off subject a bit here. But you mentioned about the radars. Basically I agree that the high tech Launch monitors are not perfect but they are good tools that provide good information. I do not build clubs directly off of launch monitor numbers. I like to see ball flight and in my experience you see some slight differences from someone hitting into a net and hitting at the range to a target. The MOI auditor is a tool that when setup properly will provide repeatable numbers from machine to machine. It has always been my opinion that MOI was designed around the swing release area of the club and not the full swing. I would also say the release area is where you want consistency. As far as MOI numbers and something Frans brings up. Your iron MOI And your Driver or Fairway wood number is not the same MOI number. I think Frans point is this should be the same from some of the MOI claims by Tom Wishon. Hopefully Frans will add his comments to clarify as I can only make assumptions from his previous posts. I can only tell you that if you asked TW this several years ago he would give you the same answer as he would today. The number is different. I know because I asked him in an email many years ago. First TW is a great guy that is very willing to share information and he is a leader in the industry to evolving the techniques of fitting and building clubs. He has no reservations about speaking honestly about how we have evolved to where we are and he is open and honest about what's changed and why. I for one am glad that TW is into continuous improvement. My argument to the point that MOI is incorrect because the MOI number should be the same in all clubs is. If I SW a 6 iron in a fitting and find that SW D2 is perfect for that 6 iron. I cannot build all the clubs to D2 off that one club fitting using the same SW without having to make slight adjustments to each club. Definitely not a Driver or Fairway wood. I would have to do a fitting to at least one or two other irons and certainly not the driver or a fairway wood and guess what the SW would be different then the irons. MOI is the same thing in the driver or fairway wood but I have found that the irons MOI Number is consistent in my fittings. Maybe I don't fit SW correctly but someone will have to share what they do if they get consistency using SW. To me it's not about the math or theory. It's about the practical application of the fitting process. I have applied both methods, meaning SW or MOI, to fit people and the data consistently shows that the MOI sets were preferred. This is why I fit using MOI. If the math behind the engineering of a machine was flawed in some way then the machine would not provide repeatable and consistent data. There would be serious discrepancies in the data the MOI auditor provides. If it's Frans argument that the Math behind MOI was built around the full swing and that is incorrect. Then he's correct. But to say that means MOI does not work. I say he is wrong. Also I would like to see more detailed information as to what is wrong with the math and why MOI is worse than SW.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Aug 8, 2014 18:25:57 GMT -5
...Also I would like to see more detailed information as to what is wrong with the math.... Did you read my posting with the quotes about needing 3 dynamic parameters? Here is what I posted Any serious discussion of the matching of clubs requires an understanding of the mechanical properties of a club described by its three dynamic parameters. These dynamic parameters determine how the club swings in the hands of the golfer........One of these dynamic parameters is the total mass M of the club. Another is the first moment, S, about the wrist-cock axis, which it taken here to be 5 in. from the grip end of the club. The third dynamic parameter is the second moment, of the moment of inertia, I, about the same axis.................. Thus for all clubs of a set to feel the same in identical swings, they must have all three dynamic parameters respectively the same.
|
|