|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 13, 2013 18:47:01 GMT -5
Richie - I disagree with you for a change. They were out to prove Trackman wrong and made a big production of their questioning of Trackman. Disingenuous to question Trackman with such intensity and then not produce your own data for fear/reluctance of similar questioning. They thought if they beat Trackman the teachers who use Trackman would have their credibility hurt. I just don't see it that way or if that was the case, they didn't need to do a research-a-thon to accomplish their goal. The Quintic Consultancy published their work and came up with the same findings. IIRC, they knew about the Quintic Consultancy's work on researching Trackman before the Research-a-thon happened. Then you have Andrew Rice, a Trackman owner, and Paul Wood from PING both saying 'take Trackman's face angle readings with a grain of salt.' Should Paul Wood publish data showing why he feels that you should take the face angle calculations with a grain of salt? 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 13, 2013 19:31:14 GMT -5
Ping has six of them! If you can't see what Jeffy was trying to do we can just agree to disagree. I'll take the machine with its faults. I personally use it more for finding my path. He most certainly should publish data if he's going to rail against the device for months and then hold a research a thon about it after inviting the world to attend. What findings Richie? That was the point of the post. We have no final findings. How can nothing final match quintic's findings?
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Jul 13, 2013 23:19:36 GMT -5
That's a cop out by them if that's what they're telling you. Maybe they were in over their heads. Maybe they discovered Trackman is horribly wrong. For all of the buildup they let a lot of people hanging. That's all they tried to do with Trackman.. Pick it apart. No one's told me anything, thats probably my first post on golf swing stuff in months.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 13, 2013 23:28:36 GMT -5
Richie - I disagree with you for a change. They were out to prove Trackman wrong and made a big production of their questioning of Trackman. Disingenuous to question Trackman with such intensity and then not produce your own data for fear/reluctance of similar questioning. They thought if they beat Trackman the teachers who use Trackman would have their credibility hurt. I just don't see it that way or if that was the case, they didn't need to do a research-a-thon to accomplish their goal. The Quintic Consultancy published their work and came up with the same findings. IIRC, they knew about the Quintic Consultancy's work on researching Trackman before the Research-a-thon happened. Then you have Andrew Rice, a Trackman owner, and Paul Wood from PING both saying 'take Trackman's face angle readings with a grain of salt.' Should Paul Wood publish data showing why he feels that you should take the face angle calculations with a grain of salt? 3JACK Why all the b.s.let's just call it for what it really was, " they" have an axe to grind with a certain teacher who uses Trackman and promotes Trackman, it's not even about Trackman, Trackman was just a vessel for their real purpose. At least one could respect them if they just said we are out to get even with that so and so and we are going to use everything at our disposal to trash the guy and his crew. You could say well at least their honest about their intentions. The real truth is it's all because an old guy got banned from a certain forum and told he couldn't attend a certain function to question the scientist's attending that function, it's all because of that person wanting revenge. Why the pretense that it's about Trackman is ridiculous. Like anyone would think that Trackman or F.S. or 4dSwing or any of these systems are perfect and without problems....really?
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 14, 2013 2:44:48 GMT -5
Sorry CWD but you are wrong. We who understand how those devices works, we know what are problems with those but as there is multiple options to show it, it's pretty complicated and that's huge marketing department can easily attack against that research as they did with quinton That has been the problem with you for years. You accept all BS from "big names" and never listen those who make you think and know about things. Tapio - Stay on topic which was WHY their data/findings weren't released. They're afraid to submit themselves to the same type of questioning they submit to Trackman? That's ridiculous and a cop out. If that makes them feel good so be it. BUT, what they did is rail against Trackman and they had/have no proof that it's wildly inacurrate. If a marketing department can point out scientific errors I can only imagine what a real scientist would do. You certainly aren't qualified to interpret their algorithms. You only accept yourself which has been the problem with you for years. I know you just got banned at secret in the dirt website and that you're looking for another fight. It's not going to happen here. CWD, I'm really on topic here as I was in SITD. There I just didn't accept Mikes policy that you should answer ridiculous claims in another thread. That was really funny debate there and showed me great way what is the level of golf forums and how people accept everything or deny everything depending who says, not what has been said. So now there is lot of people that believe forearm rotation can make hands moving faster because Bradley said so So back to this thread and I try to explain it better. We who work with those devices (and are honest) know how to fool them. I can make both TM and FS easily show numbers that when you see the ball flight, you directly know it wasn't true. But their calculation at that "accepted area" is pretty good and it's very very complicated to prove what part of the measurement was wrong and big companies are always ready to put their marketing department for work like they did in quintic case. I think you know that report also But anyway what I meant with that posting is that the amount of information can be so huge and confusing that it's about impossible to figure out what really is what. And when adding there all possible claims about using mirrors in wrong angles etc... no, I wouldn't publish anything. It's same with golf swing. World is full of instructors who tells you this and this and that should be like this. If you really pick all those things you easily get list of 200 very very important moves and positions in swing. After years of research I found that none of them is important. That's what I tried to tell you and for some others in hips thread few months ago.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 14, 2013 2:59:17 GMT -5
I'll take the machine with its faults. I personally use it more for finding my path. How you calibrate and aim that to the target with 0,2 degree. Or if you accept bigger mistake, how much is that?
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 14, 2013 13:40:37 GMT -5
I'll take the machine with its faults. I personally use it more for finding my path. How you calibrate and aim that to the target with 0,2 degree. Or if you accept bigger mistake, how much is that? Golfers of all levels are doing that all the time, that's one of the parts of the game....aiming to a target....and they have no choice but to accept the result.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 14, 2013 13:57:31 GMT -5
Why all the b.s.let's just call it for what it really was, " they" have an axe to grind with a certain teacher who uses Trackman and promotes Trackman, it's not even about Trackman, Trackman was just a vessel for their real purpose. I don't disagree that they have their dislike for Manzella. But from the people whom I talked to that participated in the Research-a-thon, the Trackman stuff was only part of it. There was reportedly a lot of study on other factors like rate of closure, something that Trackman can't measure. That's a big part of why I don't feel that it was just a study to bash Trackman and Manzella. There was other data being collected that had nothing to do with Trackman. Secondly, if they don't use a Trackman...despite using a Phantom camera....it would have been immediately dismissed by Manzella, Tuxen and others because it's not Trackman technology. As we've heard Manzella and other state almost ad nauseum 'if you don't have Trackman, you're just guessing at impact.' But since they showed the how and the why of Trackman's faulty calculations, it's now trying to be dismissed as 'they just have an axe to grind.' I would have more doubt about Kelvin and Jeffy's original claims if the Quintic Consultancy, who published their work, didn't agree with them. And Quintic report showed how ANYTHING that Trackman calculates can be well off in their readings. So that includes, face angle, path, AoA, etc. So there is guesswork in what Trackman provides as well. Personally, I'm more interested in Kelvin's and Jeffy's findings because I want to know about the other stuff they researched like how RoC affects impact and ball flight. I don't need to read about Trackman's claims for margin of error being nowhere near what they stated because I have known that was the case for a while. One look at the smash factor readings one can get on Trackman should have told us this a while ago. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 14, 2013 13:59:39 GMT -5
How you calibrate and aim that to the target with 0,2 degree. Or if you accept bigger mistake, how much is that? Golfers of all levels are doing that all the time, that's one of the parts of the game....aiming to a target....and they have no choice but to accept the result. I meant how you aim that device with that tolerance
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 14, 2013 14:14:32 GMT -5
Why all the b.s.let's just call it for what it really was, " they" have an axe to grind with a certain teacher who uses Trackman and promotes Trackman, it's not even about Trackman, Trackman was just a vessel for their real purpose. I don't disagree that they have their dislike for Manzella. But from the people whom I talked to that participated in the Research-a-thon, the Trackman stuff was only part of it. There was reportedly a lot of study on other factors like rate of closure, something that Trackman can't measure. That's a big part of why I don't feel that it was just a study to bash Trackman and Manzella. There was other data being collected that had nothing to do with Trackman. Secondly, if they don't use a Trackman...despite using a Phantom camera....it would have been immediately dismissed by Manzella, Tuxen and others because it's not Trackman technology. As we've heard Manzella and other state almost ad nauseum 'if you don't have Trackman, you're just guessing at impact.' But since they showed the how and the why of Trackman's faulty calculations, it's now trying to be dismissed as 'they just have an axe to grind.' I would have more doubt about Kelvin and Jeffy's original claims if the Quintic Consultancy, who published their work, didn't agree with them. And Quintic report showed how ANYTHING that Trackman calculates can be well off in their readings. So that includes, face angle, path, AoA, etc. So there is guesswork in what Trackman provides as well. Personally, I'm more interested in Kelvin's and Jeffy's findings because I want to know about the other stuff they researched like how RoC affects impact and ball flight. I don't need to read about Trackman's claims for margin of error being nowhere near what they stated because I have known that was the case for a while. One look at the smash factor readings one can get on Trackman should have told us this a while ago. 3JACK First off they never even cared about Trackman before all this stuff with Manzella, they were never on one or used one by their own admission. Well all the other stuff i.e. rate of closure etc. were things that " they" and B.M.'s crew also argued about and 85% of a certain forum is all about bashing Manzella and was started because that person running that forum couldn't do that here anymore and decided to start his own forum. All one has to do is read the posts in that forum from the start to understand where all this is coming from. Like I said it all has to do with a certain old guy getting banned and refused admission to a summit held by Manzella and him wanting to get even. Matter of fact he even threatened to sue Manzella over it. Who does that? Who starts a forum with the sole original purpose of trashing a teacher who banned them from their forum? Your naive and mis-informed if you think there is another reason behind this guy's actions. Anyone can just read his forum and draw their own conclusions!
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 14, 2013 14:35:29 GMT -5
rj, without any comment about Jeffy and his forum, I know very well how interested Kelvin has been of those things for many years. I also know he hasn't believed TM results from the first days as he understands what those devices can see and what they can't.
I hope people don't take so strong their positions to be on side or against something. Just think what they did and I hope we will see something and think ourselves those results.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 14, 2013 15:20:31 GMT -5
Kelvin is a teacher and for sure is interested in all of this in the right way....on the other hand the other guy has a different agenda. I seriously doubt those results will ever see the light of day.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 14, 2013 15:37:42 GMT -5
Kelvin is a teacher and for sure is interested in all of this in the right way....on the other hand the other guy has a different agenda. I seriously doubt those results will ever see the light of day. Kelvin is much more than a teacher. He is really chasing the truth and understanding when most teachers are just chasing money. About Jeffy, I think you all know we are not friends at all, but I still have to respect him by the same reason than Kelvin. They don't accept claims that they see are not true, no matter who says those. Same with me and sometimes it gives us hard times, but also self respect.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 14, 2013 15:50:12 GMT -5
Kelvin is a teacher and for sure is interested in all of this in the right way....on the other hand the other guy has a different agenda. I seriously doubt those results will ever see the light of day. Kelvin is much more than a teacher. He is really chasing the truth and understanding when most teachers are just chasing money. About Jeffy, I think you all know we are not friends at all, but I still have to respect him by the same reason than Kelvin. They don't accept claims that they see are not true, no matter who says those. Same with me and sometimes it gives us hard times, but also self respect. You think Kelvin isn't trying to make a living from teaching....really? I think he has a few items for sale...lol! So spare me the he isn't chasing money routine. He has to make a living and this has nothing to do with that. In regards to the other guy I'll just say you don't have all the facts.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 14, 2013 16:49:52 GMT -5
You hit the nail on the head Tapio. Kelvin was biased against Tman from day one as indicated in your post. Why? This has been explained numerous times so listen up, it's because he didn't take the time to understand the numbers. Gear effect was lost upon him.
You keep making all these claims about everyone else not being correct or true and it hasn't dawned on you that you might fall into that camp.
State the errors and why Tapio or stop the preaching.
It's not about sight, but impact dynamics. Good luck with eyesight and a Casio for detailed impact data. Neither is designed to provide such data.
|
|