|
Post by iacas on Apr 12, 2012 21:21:38 GMT -5
Not trying to be funny but imagine in a gun shop they will test people's aim as well and then sell people guns with different aiming mechanism, under the logo: point sideways to shoot straight! Unfortunately I think you chose a poor example: no two guns can be sighted in the same way, and small things like exactly how you rest your cheek on the stock can dramatically affect the aim (i.e. even a "sighted in" gun won't behave the same for different people). Even if you could train yourself to aim anything, why would you want to when you can dedicate that time to it if you can skip all the time spent training yourself to aim?
|
|
|
Post by playa on Apr 12, 2012 21:48:19 GMT -5
Well, I will leave others to judge if the gun analogy is poor... To me, barring the tech issues, the underlying principle is the same: to use compensation to make up for personal deficits.
I am not sure skipping all the time spent training oneself is necessarily a good thing. To develop a skill, to own something, to be a REAL student of the game, one must spend time tolling. This principle applies to anything and everything worthy of one's effort. The concept of correct practice is not foreign to golfing students. Perhaps aiming has not been properly taught nor correctly practiced. Until I am shown the so called research data in the black box, I must assume that people in general do not have much of a clue on how to learn and teach aim and consequently we fall for quick fix because,,,because it is easier and less consuming.
Perhaps all these gadgets are in vogue because they feed into people's desire to acquire things via short cut. In this case, the patch, the short cut is being questioned by me on its validity, on this proposition that a person's aiming deficit is permanent and cannot be improved with proper training. And therefore 300-500 dollars need to be spent for corrective measures where some claim benefits and others like I have witnessed lack of change.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Apr 12, 2012 22:18:05 GMT -5
Well, I will leave others to judge if the gun analogy is poor... To me, barring the tech issues, the underlying principle is the same: to use compensation to make up for personal deficits. I don't see it as a personal deficit. It's not like the putters aren't square. They're all square - they're just not seen as square by people. Some are seen as open. Some are seen as closed. The TrueAim people are making claims about this idea working with other clubs as well. Drivers in particular. And therefore 300-500 dollars need to be spent for corrective measures where some claim benefits and others like I have witnessed lack of change. Other putters cost $300, and they're not one-of-a-kind. So even if all that you say is true, to some extent... who cares? People can get a unique, one-of-a-kind putter for a pretty good price.
|
|
kosmos
Beat up Radials
Posts: 4
|
Post by kosmos on Apr 16, 2012 22:36:08 GMT -5
They do fit shotguns. You can learn to make putts aiming left or right. Why not aim straight and learn to make an uncompensated stroke. Straight aim only makes putts with trained strokes. Not really a shortcut. Just smart.
Yes I do own a custom fitted Beretta shotgun and an Edel putter. They shoot where I look.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Apr 22, 2012 19:04:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pavaveda on Apr 23, 2012 9:42:42 GMT -5
Nice!
What's with the 1,2,3?
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Apr 23, 2012 11:29:29 GMT -5
Nice! What's with the 1,2,3? Just the way I wanted to do it. I think it's unique. It's my 1 wedge, 2 wedge, and 3 wedge.
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Apr 23, 2012 16:14:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Apr 23, 2012 16:54:52 GMT -5
Pixl is a separate company. They sold their own putters for awhile, then were involved with PING for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Apr 23, 2012 17:01:17 GMT -5
Outstanding! Mike Adams doesn't come back north until May 1st, but I'm on the list for when he gets here. Kelvin loves his Edel's, BTW. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Apr 23, 2012 19:07:28 GMT -5
Pixl is a separate company. They sold their own putters for awhile, then were involved with PING for a bit. Does Edel own that tech now?
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Apr 23, 2012 19:26:47 GMT -5
Pixl is a separate company. They sold their own putters for awhile, then were involved with PING for a bit. Does Edel own that tech now? I don't know. You can't really find much out about the "Pixl" people. I remember looking a year ago or so. I'll ask.
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Apr 23, 2012 20:07:56 GMT -5
Chou Design is inactive as a business, but The Beta Group still lists the Pixel technology as theirs... and two other technologies that have yet to be marketed.
Edel must now own it, have the rights to use it from TBG, or they cut Art Chou in on part of the deal. It's 100% Pixl... right down to the lone gold rod.
Really interesting stuff.
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Apr 23, 2012 20:11:00 GMT -5
Art's new patent... (how new?)... interchangeable pixels.
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Apr 23, 2012 20:21:24 GMT -5
|
|