|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 15, 2013 9:05:40 GMT -5
Your analogy about Dell is misleading. A more appropriate analogy would be that Dell is taking over Oracle but Michael Dell had nothing to do with it. Paul Wood certainly knew and approved the purchase and you still haven't provided the context of his grain of salt statement. I certainly have provided the context of his grain of salt comment in a previous thread. richie3jack.proboards.com/attachment/download/380You have no proof what Paul Wood approved and why he approved it. And having spoken to many heads of R&D for major OEM's like Jon Rae (Cleveland Golf), Tom Preece (Cobra Golf) and Michael Guerette (UST Mamiya) and Tom Wishon, they utilize Trackman primarily for ball flight data. Maybe PING is different, but I tend to believe they are right in line with the other OEM's. In this very thread you admitted "I'll take the machine with its faults. I personally use it more for finding my path."One post you imply that Trackman has a greater margin of error than they claim, the next you start to act like it's perfectly infallible. They did choose FlightScope in the end. They had a Trackman and found the X2 to be more accurate and reliable. They sold the Trackman to Jeffy and kept the FlightScope. I don't know what their bias would be other than wanting the tool that they feel is the most accurate for them. How is Jeffy stating that Trackman constantly understates the swing speed and then shows how (smash factor readings that are IMPOSSIBLE to achieve) an opinion? They uncovered something in their research thru testing and based it off of the rules and regulations of how golf equipment can be designed and then hypothesized that Trackman tries to locate the 'geometric CoG" more towards the heel than towards the actual CoG. It perfectly explains the impossible smash factors that are frequently read on Trackman that can be achieved by even amateur golfers. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 9:18:07 GMT -5
Richie -
You have no proof Paul didn't know or approve the purchase. The more likely scenario is he did authorize the purchase.
Furthermore, Paul Wood's statement doesn't indicate he views it as a grain of salt. His second sentence qualifies his first sentence. You assume the face angle issue by Andrew is for all shots. I don't make that assumption. I agree the face angle number for big off center hits could be off. Who knows what the numbers really are?? Nobody on this site is qualified to scientifically state with mathematical certainty the exact number on such a hit. But many are certain that Tman is wrong without knowing what is right.
I have never said Tman was perfect and such inference is incorrect.
Jeffy has no final findings and that is a fact. If you want to try to make his preliminary findings as fact that's your issue but it reduces your credibility. You wouldn't accept part of a study that discredits darome but your thought process in this case you do accept a partial, unpublished and non-final study.
Why you take their preliminary findings as fact baffles me. It's like you want their data to be correct without finding out if their methodology and conclusions are correct.
If you can't see that Jeffy thought he could get back at Brian by challenging Trackman you are being naive.
"They" was Jeffy and company, not Dave!! Maybe X2 is more accurate. I'll use either device.
Jeffy knew that Brian was leading the charge for Tman and if he weakened Tman he could get back at Brian. You have to know that is at least a strong possibility but for some reason you think they were out for Truth without any bias.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 9:45:20 GMT -5
Richie -
Tman, like any machine, has faults. Man cannot build perfection. My posts don't imply perfection. I've stated that Tman could have problems on big off center hits. This post is about final findings and we have NONE!
Would you think it's fair if I said you believe Tman's club data is rubbish on all hits (including center)? You are taking my posts to the extreme. Is it fair if I took your posts to the extreme? I don't, but you're doing that to me.
If you believe it's better to just eyeball/guess club data then please state such fact. I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 15, 2013 10:28:15 GMT -5
cwdlaw - I have repeatedly stated that I understand Jeffy and Kelvin had motives for getting back at Brian and Trackman. But what you have failed to see is how I've repeatedly stated that I do not believe that the research-a-thon was done SOLELY to get back at Brian and Trackman. I keep saying that, showing evidence and people whom I've talked to that were actually there and you keep saying that I'm denying there was any motive to get back at Brian and Tuxen.
I've grown tired of explaining this to you and you simply do not want to read and comprehend what I've said in plain English. I do not know of any other way to explain it to you.
And let's call a spade a spade here...Andrew Rice stated that he takes the face angle readings with a grain of salt. Paul Wood stated 'that's a good policy.' Paul Wood then qualifies his agreement with Andrew Rice's statement. Wood's qualifier sounds exactly like the Quintic Consultancy Group's final conclusion of:
"However, it is the authors' opinion that in many cases the individual has no appreciation of how the data is recorded, calculated and more importantly the terminology used to explain the key parameters measure. If a PGA Professional / Coach are using the club parameters report by such radar tracking systems for coaching purposes, they may in all likelihood be giving incorrect information to their student if they are solely relying on this technology."
The QCG published report is damning of Trackman's club dimensions data and Trackman has not even attempted to refute it. It says a lot. I could debate you on your claim of 'wild mis-hits' as QCG and from what I was told from some participants at the Research-a-thon, that was hardly the case...but I will stick the main point of what we have here... a published report from QCG that is absolutely damning of Trackman's accuracy and not one single legitimate rebuttal from Trackman.
It says to me, loud and clear, that TM has been unable to refute the QCG report at this time.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 10:38:55 GMT -5
This thread isn't about Quintic! It's about Kelvin and company making a big production of the research a thon and then producing nothing but "preliminary" findings.
I wish Tman would respond to Quintic in writing. The fact that I was told Quintic was apologetic to Tuxen leads me to conclude Quintic's report isn't accurate. Could someone have lied to me? Sure. Could my source be right? Sure.
I never said or implied solely. A part of them probably wanted a valid challenge. Pretty hard to do that with massive bias admitted before the research!
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 15, 2013 11:16:35 GMT -5
You obviously don't read posts carefully enough. Also you were thrown out of SITD because you didn't follow M.M"S warning to stop posting in B.H'S thread. Many people there stated you were a disruptive entity in that thread and they were asking Maves to step in and stop you. I read that thread and you didn't add any substantive information to it. Just kept essentially repeating how you were right and Bradley was wrong, it started to sound like a religious fanatic trying to convert people over to his religion. And of course you always are correct in everything you say, and your ideas are the only correct ones. We know 4dswing is perfect ....right? Yes I'm right. If someone continues claiming that forearm rotation speeds up the hands, I just don't buy that shit. It's really not my fault that I understand geometry and some others doesn't. And 4DSwing is really far away from perfect, It got lot of issues, but we are honest with those. It can't see the club face direction, It calculates many things instead of measuring those, It can't see the spin of the ball.. many many things are missing and will be. The big point you never seem to understand is that 4DSwing got nothing to do with this. We are not competitors to TM or FS, these devices are totally made to different purposes. We don't see at all what they see, they don't see anything what we see. I see it really funny how some people are supporting everything around those radar devices, when those who got at least some idea how they work can see directly what is missing and why. Yeah like always you miss the point and don't listen and that is why you got banned from SITD. All these systems have imperfections and it doesn't take a bunch of weekend peusdo scientists in the Arizona desert to prove something that was already known. Also they provided almost ziltch from that little exercise that they performed. They can't publish dick because their methods and procedures were woefully lacking under any real scientific peer review, that's the truth. You got to be able to withstand the scrutiny of real scientists that do this stuff for a living and not just one weekend in a lifetime. What's real interesting is not the silence from Trackman but from the one's that shouted from the rooftops that they were going to have a research-a-thon and release the results for the whole golfing world to see! It reminds me of the time Geraldo Rivera. had that t.v. special about Al Capone's safe....another dud!
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 15, 2013 12:34:51 GMT -5
This thread isn't about Quintic! It's about Kelvin and company making a big production of the research a thon and then producing nothing but "preliminary" findings. You want to disprove Kelvin and Jeffy's credibility on the subject given their motives. I think your argument would be more valid if nobody else had backed K&J's initial reports of some of the issues with Trackman. It would be reasonable to say that since they haven't published anything yet, that they were pulling a hatchet job. The problem is that QCG has a published report that condemns Trackman's club dimensions. This falls right in line with what Paul Wood has stated, not only from Wood's feelings on the face angle; but also from how people don't understand how this is calculated. The reason why I bring up the QCG report is that it provides an 'association of credibility' for K&J's initial reports about Trackman discrepancies. QCG is unbiased and independent. And I would bet dollars to donuts that your source that claims QCG was 'apologetic' towards Trackman is affiliated or has a strong bias with Trackman. Furthermore, we have no context with regards to the apologetic behavior. I had heard about Tuxen calling to talk with QCG. The 'apology' wasn't exactly what I heard it was more of a 'we agree to disagree' conclusion. After hearing that, I asked QCG myself and they told me that they fully stand behind their conclusions in the report. Not one legit rebuttal has been made towards QCG's report. If you want to start to disprove K&J's initial findings on Trackman, then somebody needs to disprove QCG's published report. It's there for the entire world to see. I fully understand K&J's motives when it comes to Trackman and Brian Manzella. I do not foresee any motives from QCG. Just because you have an agenda, doesn't mean your results are automatically inaccurate. It only should make one skeptical of the results and if they can be disproved, then we understand why those results were inaccurate. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 12:52:49 GMT -5
Richie -
I can't disprove what is incomplete nor am I qualified to prove/disprove it. Do you want to take incomplete/partial findings from them as final? If so, please say so.
My source is completely biased! I have said repeatedly that I wish Tuxen would respond to Quintic. This thread isn't about Quintic, it's about the research a thon being hyped up without complete and final findings.
If you think Kelvin's preliminary findings, Quintic and Paul Wood (and other discussions you've had) taken together indicate Tman's stated accuracy is off so be it, but that wasn't what this thread was about.
People with agendas can get accurate results, but we don't have anything final and full disclosure from them. This was billed as a scientific study and therefore should be examined as scientific data should be examined.
I wouldn't be surprised if Jeffy comes on this site and starts giving a bunch of excuses or claims that the preliminary data is final. Just watch. It will magically be final in a couple days.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 15, 2013 12:56:12 GMT -5
This thread isn't about Quintic! It's about Kelvin and company making a big production of the research a thon and then producing nothing but "preliminary" findings. You want to disprove Kelvin and Jeffy's credibility on the subject given their motives. I think your argument would be more valid if nobody else had backed K&J's initial reports of some of the issues with Trackman. It would be reasonable to say that since they haven't published anything yet, that they were pulling a hatchet job. The problem is that QCG has a published report that condemns Trackman's club dimensions. This falls right in line with what Paul Wood has stated, not only from Wood's feelings on the face angle; but also from how people don't understand how this is calculated. The reason why I bring up the QCG report is that it provides an 'association of credibility' for K&J's initial reports about Trackman discrepancies. QCG is unbiased and independent. And I would bet dollars to donuts that your source that claims QCG was 'apologetic' towards Trackman is affiliated or has a strong bias with Trackman. Furthermore, we have no context with regards to the apologetic behavior. I had heard about Tuxen calling to talk with QCG. The 'apology' wasn't exactly what I heard it was more of a 'we agree to disagree' conclusion. After hearing that, I asked QCG myself and they told me that they fully stand behind their conclusions in the report. Not one legit rebuttal has been made towards QCG's report. If you want to start to disprove K&J's initial findings on Trackman, then somebody needs to disprove QCG's published report. It's there for the entire world to see. I fully understand K&J's motives when it comes to Trackman and Brian Manzella. I do not foresee any motives from QCG. Just because you have an agenda, doesn't mean your results are automatically inaccurate. It only should make one skeptical of the results and if they can be disproved, then we understand why those results were inaccurate. 3JACK You got the order of things wrong, it was Kelvin and Jeffy that latched on to this, they were not the leaders in the Trackman has some problem arena, that was already out there before they started anything. You think a couple of guys who never went on TRACKMAN or used one all of a sudden said hey let's investigate to see if Trackman has some issues....that's laughable.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 15, 2013 12:59:26 GMT -5
Also for the umpteenth time they produced nothing in final results or findings in any of the areas that they investigated. So it's a big nothing, it was already known there were issues with some of the Trackman offerings, and f.s.2 ain't perfect either.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 15, 2013 13:10:38 GMT -5
Like I stated, QCG told me personally that they *fully stand behind* their conclusions in the report. They haven't wavered from that, unless they changed their mind in the past 3 months.
QCG doesn't have a bias. You admitted that your source is completely biased. I don't see how you can expect anybody to side with you and your source's argument over QCG's report.
I'm not closed minded to QCG possibly being wrong. I just don't know where that could be at this point. I've heard some rough overviews of Tuxen's complaint to QCG, but I cannot substantiate it at this point (and from what has been alleged, I find Tuxen's argument against QCG to be weak). U
Until I hear an effective refutation to QCG's report or a retraction from QCG, I believe their conclusions in the report. And at the very least, I know the smash factor readings on Trackman are wrong because it's not within the guidelines of the USGA and R&A to manufacture driver heads with that high of a smash factor according to Tom Wishon.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 13:15:20 GMT -5
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 15, 2013 13:15:52 GMT -5
You got the order of things wrong, it was Kelvin and Jeffy that latched on to this, they were not the leaders in the Trackman has some problem arena, that was already out there before they started anything. You think a couple of guys who never went on TRACKMAN or used one all of a sudden said hey let's investigate to see if Trackman has some issues....that's laughable. RJ - I have repeatedly stated in this thread that I understand K&J have their motives against TM and Brian. You fail to understand that just because somebody has motives against something, does not mean that their results are incorrect or that their study lacks credibility. Motives only give critics the right to be skeptical about a study's results and if they can disprove those results, then we can conclude why those results were inaccurate. And you really need to stop with the condescending attitude as I will just give you the boot as well. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 15, 2013 13:19:38 GMT -5
The thing is there are no final conclusions or results from their research-a-thon a small detail you keep ignoring among a few other facts as how the order of things unfolded.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 13:24:02 GMT -5
If there is an agenda the scientific process is immediately flawed. Could it be overcome? Maybe, but the credibility is reduced greatly. That's why there's peer review to ensure that such findings are vetted.
|
|