|
Post by teeace on Jul 15, 2013 13:42:10 GMT -5
Tapio - Most of the cutting edge pros/scientists are using AMM3D (your competitor) to understand the biomechanics of the swing and Tman for impact data. Two different devices and two different purposes. Yes, just like we do. The problem is that I don't trust that data specially indoors and that's because it can't see the club face at impact area and thy have to guess it. I think you have seen this: How you explain those speed and acceleration profiles?
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 15, 2013 13:59:36 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. I don't agree that an agenda means the scientific process is immediately flawed. I am fully aware of what goes into published work that is peer reviewed as I have worked on projects that were published and peer reviewed when I was in college. It's not like the judicial system as researchers do not have to recuse themselves for having an agenda or relationship with the subject at hand. I think the rest I've stated or attempted to state in this thread. I don't have an issue with your skepticism towards K&J due to the obvious motives. I think we are at the point where we need to disprove some of the things they have initially reported. For instance, K&J have stated that Trackman consistently understates the club head speed. Trackman claims that the calculate club head speed by calculating the geometric CoG of the club head. And that their calculation of the geometric CoG is so fractionally off that the discrepancy in club head speed is minute. However, we can see by smash factor readings which are often routinely above 1.49 with the driver on Trackman that these discrepancies are much larger than Trackman claims. As Wishon has stated (a Trackman owner), the COR limits relegate the smash factor readings to no higher than 1.49. Furthermore, Wishon has stated that reaching 1.49 is extremely difficult to do because of many swing factors. For picking apart Trackman, K&J have reported initially that they find their ball flight measurements and calculations to be accurate. The QCG report states the same thing as well. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that Trackman's claims for clubhead speed accuracy are not as close as they believe and that K&J's claims that Trackman understates the clubhead speed appear to be true based on other experts that do not have a bias or agenda. Instead, what I have read in this thread is more or less 'K&J can't be right because they had an agenda going into the research.' You don't need to prove there is an agenda to me. You need to prove me where their initial statements are wrong. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 15, 2013 14:06:57 GMT -5
Where did anyone say they can't be right because they have an agenda? It's like you keep ignoring the fact that what they reported was already known and they never produced any final results or conclusions from their research-a-thon. They are not scientists with the know how to produce credible results and anything they produced was already known.
That's the disappointing part, after all the run up....there's nothing!
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 14:29:10 GMT -5
Tapio -
I believe Tman works better outdoors just like a camera normally works better during the day than at night. All about conditions and use.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 14:37:47 GMT -5
Richie -
Let me be clear: Kelvin could be right and Tman wrong!
Rick Malm might be able to save K&J from themselves. He's the only guy on that team who is a scientist. How good? I don't know.
I'm particularly aware of people asserting bias and therefore everything is wrong. Happens to lawyers over the billable hour all the time. There's an inherent conflict with an attorney's self interest and the billable hour. True professionals rise above it and give clients correct advice regardless of the immediate short term impact.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 15, 2013 14:40:45 GMT -5
For instance, K&J have stated that Trackman consistently understates the club head speed. Trackman claims that the calculate club head speed by calculating the geometric CoG of the club head. And that their calculation of the geometric CoG is so fractionally off that the discrepancy in club head speed is minute. However, we can see by smash factor readings which are often routinely above 1.49 with the driver on Trackman that these discrepancies are much larger than Trackman claims. As Wishon has stated (a Trackman owner), the COR limits relegate the smash factor readings to no higher than 1.49. Furthermore, Wishon has stated that reaching 1.49 is extremely difficult to do because of many swing factors. For picking apart Trackman, K&J have reported initially that [ b]they find their ball flight measurements and calculations to be accurate[/b][/font]. The QCG report states the same thing as well. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that Trackman's claims for clubhead speed accuracy are not as close as they believe and that K&J's claims that Trackman understates the clubhead speed appear to be true based on other experts that do not have a bias or agenda. Instead, what I have read in this thread is more or less 'K&J can't be right because they had an agenda going into the research.' You don't need to prove there is an agenda to me. You need to prove me where their initial statements are wrong. 3JACK [/quote] There is also one good reason for that and it's measurement frequency. If it's enough to see the CH movements, there would bee too much data from ball flight and the analyze never would be ready in few seconds (even less) with normal laptop.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 15, 2013 14:41:20 GMT -5
Tapio - I believe Tman works better outdoors just like a camera normally works better during the day than at night. All about conditions and use. Why you think it works better outdoors?
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 15, 2013 14:41:45 GMT -5
Tapio - I believe Tman works better outdoors just like a camera normally works better during the day than at night. All about conditions and use. Why you think it works better outdoors?
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 15, 2013 14:58:53 GMT -5
IIRC, indoors data requires Trackman to calculate more of the ball flight data instead of being able to measure the ball flight data. Thus, with outdoors use, you're deriving club calculations from measured ball flight data. Indoors use you're deriving club calculations from calculated ball flight data.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 15, 2013 15:05:42 GMT -5
IIRC, indoors data requires Trackman to calculate more of the ball flight data instead of being able to measure the ball flight data. Thus, with outdoors use, you're deriving club calculations from measured ball flight data. Indoors use you're deriving club calculations from calculated ball flight data. 3JACK Excactly, but I hoped you were not the one to answer this Honest question as I really don't know, but is there an accurate way to put TM pointing exactly to the right target? With FS there isn't so putting it half an inch to wrong direction changes the path and fac angle quite a lot
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 15:08:43 GMT -5
I believe Richie answered your question Tapio. The only thing I would add is that indoors generally comes with a space limitation. Just as more light generally allows for a better picture more space means Tman has a better chance to work properly. You need to be more subtle with trap questions!
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 15, 2013 15:12:58 GMT -5
I believe Richie answered your question Tapio. The only thing I would add is that indoors generally comes with a space limitation. Just as more light generally allows for a better picture more space means Tman has a better chance to work properly. You need to be more subtle with trap questions! The point was that if it sees the club face, it shouldn't matter if you do it indoors or outdoors. There is enough room for club head, isn't there
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 15:22:21 GMT -5
I keep telling you it doesn't see the face behind the ball. Maybe one day you'll listen.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 15, 2013 15:28:19 GMT -5
I keep telling you it doesn't see the face behind the ball. Maybe one day you'll listen. I told that to you many many months ago and you didn't accept that. Now I tell you it's pretty long distance both sides of the ball when it last time sees the CH. Between those it's just a guess how it goes. That's why those devices have also problems to see the path right way. I bet you will not listen now either
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jul 15, 2013 16:02:38 GMT -5
Tee -
Tman doesn't see the face behind the ball and I don't know how many times I have to keep telling you this fact. If you don't believe me, why don't you call up your Fscope rep since it's synced with your system.
|
|