|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 9, 2012 19:55:05 GMT -5
Iacas -
You're approximately 34 years old (96 for High School and 2001 for College). You aren't old enough to be posting the way you post about the past.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 9, 2012 21:49:30 GMT -5
CWD: 1) Read what's written and not what you think I'm saying. 2) The PGA manual isn't as old as you seem to think it is. Again, who cares about the 80s? It's not my fault you're old.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 10, 2012 3:40:24 GMT -5
I claim it's new and you claim it's old without proof from history. I never said anything about the PGA Manual in this post (but it was incomplete). Quit posting like an old man with all knowledge about the past when you didn't live it. 34 isn't young chappy!!!
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 10, 2012 4:00:48 GMT -5
I claim it's new and you claim it's old without proof from history. I never said anything about the PGA Manual in this post (but it was incomplete). Quit posting like an old man with all knowledge about the past when you didn't live it. 34 isn't young chappy!!! I didn't. I said "path" is the result that already factors in AoA. I said almost nobody who said "path" was talking about the HSP. I said plenty of people WHO GRASPED THE RIGHT BFL understood the relationship between AoA and path. I didn't say "in the 80s." Unfortunately, this has still been a problem in the 2000s! Then I again said almost nobody who said "path" but KNEW THE CORRECT BFL before Trackman meant HSP. I shared some of the teaching we've done, owning a Trackman, and rarely changing AoA to change the path. Then I said that again. You're right: you didn't mention the manual. You quoted and responded to a post that did along with a mention of the 80s. You are the one who keeps trying to tie this to the 80s and 90s. Who cares about those decades? I never once mentioned them or put a time frame on the things I've been saying. For all you know I'm talking about the time frame since The Physics of Golf was published. You're reading things the way you want to read them, not the way they're written.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on May 10, 2012 7:33:19 GMT -5
I read what Brandel said.
It was in particular a hoot that he discussed Butch Harmon and the ball flight laws.
Well, there's proof of Butch not knowing the ball flight laws in his own book.
Furthermore, IIRC, Cloran had a post here where he discussed asking some of Butch's underlings about them getting the ball flight laws incorrect and they claimed that they are correct (initial direction is due to the path they claim) and that Trackman was wrong. And that was Harmon's stance as well.
What I've grown tired of is every time this stuff is asked by these people, they give the same response starting off with 'they infer that the laws of ball flight have changed over the years.'
Nobody is inferring or implying or hinting or alluding to the laws of physics with regards to the flight of the ball 'changing.' Sorry, you lose on that one. If you cannot see that people are saying that they were told that the laws of physics with regards to ball flight were one thing and then they found the accurate depiction, then you have something to hide because I don't recall anybody ever saying that, much less inferring that.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 10, 2012 8:15:47 GMT -5
Please name the "plenty" there Iacas and exactly when you believe the "plenty" starting knowing this stuff! Where's your evidence of the plenty! I can't think of one named instructor in the 80s, 90s or early 2000s who was dealing with this stuff except for MOG and he didn't share his information.
I don't deny that some knew in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s about the relationship between ballflight laws and impact, but no way "plenty" knew. There wasn't a way to communicate this information widely and/or have a way to measure/calculate the face angle/path relationship accurately before Trackman.
A lot of people on this site care about those decades because that's when they grew up and developed their golf swing.
I guess if someone it hitting down 7* with a driver you just leave the attack angle alone. That's your choice as a teacher. You post as though you've been playing or teaching for over 20-30 years. Your information on the PGA website shows that you've only been teaching since the late 2009. You've only been teaching golf for three years! Chill with the certainty about the past when you didn't live it.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 10, 2012 8:17:31 GMT -5
Amen Richie! I still don't know where these "plenty" are who knew that Iacas refers to. The descriptions are NEW!
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on May 10, 2012 8:37:03 GMT -5
The reason why the 80's and 90's 'matter' is that Sham-blee is claiming that he had those ball flight laws correct all along. He played in the 80's. Same with guys like McLean, who wrote his book the 8-step swing, where he never mentions the correct ball flight laws, back in '93-ish.
I don't agree that Trackman was the first to bring this to the masses. I have zero affiliation with Plummer and Bennett, but they were the first ones I recall attempting to bring this to the masses. I think what Trackman did, among other things, was verify the ball flight laws and you had golfers who believed in the quality of the technology along with realizing that the correct ball flight laws made a helluva lot more sense. What we are seeing now is guys like Sham-blee and McLean realize that their ball flight laws were incorrect and that they can't blow off some little known golf instructor or a scientist as being insignificant now because Trackman's doppler radar technology refutes their version of the ball flight laws. So the simple answer is 'I knew them all along.' Thankfully every time I hear them discuss missed shots or how to work a shot, it's readily apparent that they still don't know how to apply it.
They are like the kids in school who get caught cheating on a test and say 'well I knew the answer, I just wanted to know what Joey had put down for the answer.'
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 10, 2012 8:41:48 GMT -5
I thank Plummer and Bennett and I suspect they got their knowledge from Mac. The hours of frustration that can be saved/avoided by knowing correct causation between impact and ballflight are endless!!!!
I'm not trying to take anything away from P&B at all.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on May 10, 2012 8:59:42 GMT -5
I'm not trying to take anything away from Trackman either.
I just think when it comes to teaching the *masses* about the correct ball flight laws, I remember P&B doing that first. Like I said, I don't know P&B from Adam. But I have to give some of the credit where I think it is due. And P&B now use Trackman extensively.
I think when it comes to the ball flight laws Trackman has helped verify the correct ones and has helped promote them. As far as AoA goes, Trackman has done a great job of explaing AoA versus VSP which most golfers would get confused. It also brought forth HSP and how that ties in with the path. Then there's Spin Loft which I generally like the concept of, but I think there are some potential flaws in it. And of course, it's a fantastic tool for driver fitting.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 10, 2012 9:41:11 GMT -5
I will never buy another driving without being fitted on Trackman. I gained 20 yards easily by getting the right metrics. How? Less spin and therefore lower maximum height and better landing angle. Incredible fitting tool (not sure a cost effective fitting tool).
|
|
|
Post by woodbury on May 10, 2012 11:03:05 GMT -5
Brandel isnt old enough to go on so many "In my day..." type rants, sort of like the "Bitter Old Man" character on Saturday Night Live. Seems as though he fancies himself the 'keeper of golf history' and that all new fads suck, and all old fads are cool. Im waiting for Brandel to get so fed up that he challenges Sean Foley to a duel.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on May 10, 2012 12:16:33 GMT -5
I read what Brandel said. It was in particular a hoot that he discussed Butch Harmon and the ball flight laws. Well, there's proof of Butch not knowing the ball flight laws in his own book. Furthermore, IIRC, Cloran had a post here where he discussed asking some of Butch's underlings about them getting the ball flight laws incorrect and they claimed that they are correct (initial direction is due to the path they claim) and that Trackman was wrong. And that was Harmon's stance as well. 3JACK Not about the AoA, but this really feels crazy if they claim that. Cochran& Stobbs had this image in their book at -68 where they show club face direction has bigger influence to the starting direction than path. Don't care about those curves, this is just iPhone photo and in the book lines are straight. And in text at page 124 they answer this question: Nearer the direction along which the club face is pointing than that along which it is being swung. I think there is also question of amount of compression and like Pelz says from putter face the ball starts to 90% of the direction of the face and I think in driver it's not that much by compression, but still a lot. AoA is more difficult case, but I feel terrible if some people still thinks ball starts to direction of path when it was already told at -68 in that basic book I thought every instructor has read. And yes, I think that book destroyed golf instruction for years in many ways, but at least they had this right.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on May 10, 2012 15:43:34 GMT -5
Please name the "plenty" there Iacas and exactly when you believe the "plenty" starting knowing this stuff! Where's your evidence of the plenty! I can't think of one named instructor in the 80s, 90s or early 2000s who was dealing with this stuff except for MOG and he didn't share his information. You're the only one talking about the 80s. I guess if someone it hitting down 7* with a driver you just leave the attack angle alone. I never said anything like that. You post as though you've been playing or teaching for over 20-30 years. You clearly continue to read what you want to read. Your information on the PGA website shows that you've only been teaching since the late 2009. Your point? Chill with the certainty about the past when you didn't live it. You're the only one talking about the 80s. Until you can stop with the insults and putting words in my mouth, I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on May 10, 2012 17:32:06 GMT -5
Iacas -
Keep avoiding proof of the "plenty" that knew. You and Tapio were the only ones who claimed that most knew and yet you've presented nothing to support your claim. Not one name! (At least Tapio presented the C&S picture and referenced the book).
You have a bad habit of making bold statements without proof in this thread (and others) and then get mad when challenged. Forget the 80s if that makes you happy, there was nothing in the 1990s on this subject and nothing in the 2000s until 2007-2008. That's 18 years where you think "plenty" knew and you don't provide any proof. You're just wrong about your assumption about the level of knowledge and even Richie agrees with me (and gets mad as well when others claimed they knew - understanbly so).
You claim that you don't teach AoA to fix path. (That's an absolute statement). I guess -7 degree AoA on your Trackman wouldn't be the first thing fixed if the path was way in to out.
My point about you only teaching for three years is that you post on this site with such authority and yet you've only been teaching for three years. Pretty difficult to have all of the answers in any job with only three years on the job experience. You aren't that far removed from us amateurs (who've studied the swing/golf as well and have been playing longer).
|
|