|
Post by gmbtempe on Mar 17, 2010 14:30:15 GMT -5
This is why so many people like Brian when he is just demonstrating and talking about the golf swing.
I still wonder though how this works with a 20 handicapper who is so out of position that almost every swing is going to have wild results because of multiple problems.
I know for me it would be nice to know that a nice shot, but albeit an offline shot, is off because of the path or the face.
|
|
joec
'88 Apex Redlines
Posts: 161
|
Post by joec on Mar 17, 2010 15:45:34 GMT -5
tempe, you are right. brian can be very effective when he does it the right way. i have known him for twenty some years, and stood next to him in a booth many times while he was giving a lesson. his GTE is going to help some people also. he is getting better. by the way, how do you quote someone and give your answer under their quote?
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Mar 17, 2010 16:08:21 GMT -5
tempe, you are right. brian can be very effective when he does it the right way. i have known him for twenty some years, and stood next to him in a booth many times while he was giving a lesson. his GTE is going to help some people also. he is getting better. by the way, how do you quote someone and give your answer under their quote? when your reading the reply there should be the word "quote" in the upper right hand corner of the post, hit that instead of hitting "reply".
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Mar 17, 2010 16:46:03 GMT -5
For starters, it can help introduce some key concepts and terms to the 20 handicapper. Most of them have no idea what inside-to-out or outside-to-in path is or it's effect on the swing or how much they do it.
And remember the thing that Brian reiterates in the video. It diagnoses the issues with path and clubface which can often be misinterpreted with an off center hit.
I just wrote about this in the latest blog post. The spin axis of the ball (the hook spin, slice spin or straight spin) can be tremendously effected by a strike that is only ONE DIMPLE off the sweetspot. So the shot can FEEL solid, sound solid and look solid and result in a draw spin, but Trackman can show that the strike was towards the toe and the face and clubpath where set up for a slice.
THAT is the danger of learning by yourself by watching the ball flight. Especially if you're an inexperienced golfer who doesn't have a great feel of the sweetspot and what a sweetspot hit feels like.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by needham on Mar 17, 2010 17:00:44 GMT -5
that was one of the best manzella vids in a while I would say....plus it is all starting to make more and more sence to me so I KNOW what happened when it happens
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Mar 17, 2010 17:08:10 GMT -5
The problem I see is very few teachers have this and even if they did the student would only have access to it a brief period of time.
I guess Flightscope is adding the technology to their machines (not sure how good they can do it yet) but ideally the marketplace opens up and it becomes the common technology in simulators and thus is more affordable to teachers or even serious students.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 17, 2010 18:56:11 GMT -5
I actually think that this video shows that Trackman has little value.
Brian has an inconsistent swing in terms of clubface/clubhead path through impact - despite a consistent swing pattern (reverse slot swing style). On his third shot he pulled the ball left because of his inability to consistently generate an appropriately accurate clubhead path and clubface orientation. The Trackman readings simply confirm that Brian cannot control his clubhead path/clubface orientation consistently from swing-to-swing.
Now, if Brian has an inconsistent clubhead path/clubface orientation from swing-to-swing, then can you imagine what will happen with a 20 handicap golfer. His Trackman readings will vary considerably from swing-to-swing, and that 20-handicap golfer still needs to learn how to move his body/arms in space. I don't need Trackman to pick up gross errors in clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact in a high handicap, inconsistent golfer.
I think that Trackman may be invaluable for a professional golfer who is trying to fine-tune his swing, but I still cannot understand why it should be deemed to be useful for an inconsistent, high handicap golfer.
Jeff.
|
|
brianmanzella
Apex II's
3Jack Top 50 Swing & Top 20 Short Game Instructor
Posts: 63
|
Post by brianmanzella on Mar 17, 2010 20:56:48 GMT -5
I actually think that this video shows that Trackman has little value. I have been teaching 28 years, and I think it is the single best thing ever invented. I said the same thing when I did not own one, so this is NOT marketing. As much a golf swing junkie as you are Jeff, if I gave you one, the world may never hear form you again. Brian has an inconsistent swing in terms of clubface/clubhead path through impact - despite a consistent swing pattern (reverse slot swing style). On his third shot he pulled the ball left because of his inability to consistently generate an appropriately accurate clubhead path and clubface orientation. The Trackman readings simply confirm that Brian cannot control his clubhead path/clubface orientation consistently from swing-to-swing. That is just wrong. Do you think I was trying 100% on every shot? I was trying to make swings that were a little sloppy and then show how I could fix them quickly. One day soon, when the TrackMan combine is out (an 80 ball test that everyone from Tiger to Mr. Fanerkle will take and have a score on) you'll find out how well old Manzella can hit it. Right after the video, I took the 10 ball APPROACH TEST test from 160 yards out. I would normally use a 7-iron, but it was cold and I was using range balls, so I used a 6. Here is my score: Trackman gives you points for how close to the hole you get, and then assigns a "a handicap" to the scores. For example a hacker would make like 20 points, and TrackMan would assign those shots a handicap of 35 or so. My handicap for the 91 points...+10 You are WAY OFF on all this Jeff. Just like the goofballs who make fun of the D-Plane's importance. I'll accept your apology on my swing and your despise fro TrackMan any time. BTW, I hit 13 of 14 fairways today at English Turn in the wind. Must be that loop.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Mar 17, 2010 21:06:57 GMT -5
I actually like your swing changes compared to some other video's I have seen the past couple of years.
Reverse loop or the opposite in the vertical lift and droppers.....its all about the impact.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Mar 17, 2010 21:11:24 GMT -5
I gotta agree with Brian on this one. It looked very obvious to me that he was showing different path and face angles from shot to shot to demonstrate a point.
I've read approximatey 50 different Trackman reports, everything from the PGA Tour pro to the 20 handicapper (I admit, I just love reading those reports for whatever reason). The common theme I see, even for the 20 handicapper, is that the path usually stays about the same. If a golfer has an outside-to-in path on one swing, chances are they will have one with just about every swing on Trackman. But the clubface tends to vary a lot, even with really good players. Of course, the PGA Tour pro reports I've read usually have a very consistent clubface that is very square to the target.
I'm kind of against the Trackman combine idea mainly because I think it may get a lot of use out of college coaches and from my experience with college coaches, they tend to not have a clue to what they are doing and mis-use the product. And instead of taking the true best golfer or getting off their ass and doing some investigation to find the golfer with great potential and then finding a way to tap into that potential, they'll just be taking Trackman numbers and picking their team from there.
3JACK
|
|
brianmanzella
Apex II's
3Jack Top 50 Swing & Top 20 Short Game Instructor
Posts: 63
|
Post by brianmanzella on Mar 17, 2010 21:32:51 GMT -5
Richie,
That 91 I put up ain't no joke.
Ask Kevin Shields.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Mar 17, 2010 21:44:31 GMT -5
I'm sure it isn't. For what it's worth, I thought your 'real' swing has been looking great! I got a question to ask, but I'll ask it over at your forum since it really doesn't pertain to this thread.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by jonnygrouville on Mar 17, 2010 23:38:19 GMT -5
I can see the benefit for teaching. You won’t just have a pro telling you the path was better even if the shot looked funny, the machine will be able to provide corroborative evidence. I see this as a massive benefit for the student. Could also provide the opportunity to try different things until something works for the student as everyone is different and some things might click for some and not for others.
All of a sudden, the pro sitting back and going ‘things will get worse before they get better’ will be a thing of the past. If they are trying to fix a path and it isn’t working, the student will know about it so would take some balls for a pro to use it!
I can see Jeff’s point to some degree. The machine barks out the numbers, but it doesn’t tell you what to do next in terms of moving your body, arms and club. Fortunately for pros around the world, I think artificial intelligence is still some way off. Give ten astrophysicists or particle technicians the same evidence, the same scientific data, and watch them produce different conclusions. You will still need someone to interpret both the numbers and the action, suggest changes to the action and then listen for ‘better’ numbers.
I don’t see this as a question of Brian’s ability though. There is enough poncing around and posing about on the internet, but this video was not for this. Besides, I would rather watch a video of Brian giving a lesson showing the student objective improvement via Trackman than watching him hit balls. I’ve had lessons from people I can beat, but I still listened to them!
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 18, 2010 1:04:10 GMT -5
Brian,
I find your explanations unsatisfactory.
You did not start your video demonstration with an introduction and state up-front that you were deliberately trying to mishit shots.
Your video performance showed that you were inconsistent in your control of your clubhead path and clubface orientation.
Your first swing was an in-to-out clubhead path, which produced a nice draw.
Then you hit a pull hook on a subsequent swing with a out-to-in clubhead path of 1.1 degrees and a closed clubface of 3 degrees. You made the statement that you must have been "punch-drunk or something". In other words, that was not a deliberate (pre-announced) pull-hook designed to make an educational point. The pull-hook was a reflection of a small swing error in terms of both clubhead path and clubface orientation. Now, when I hit a pull-hook, I don't need a Trackman device to tell me that my clubhead path was out-to-in and that my clubface was too closed relative to the clubhead path. Based on simple knowledge of D-plane theory, I know that fact. I would then have to study my swing to determine what swing fault caused me to produce that swing error. The point that I am making is that the Trackman machine can give you information on clubhead path and clubface orientation when you hit a pull-hook, but it doesn't explain why it occurred. I believe that a golfer needs to identify the cause of the swing error in terms of golf swing biomechanics/mechanics so that he can correct the error. It cannot be based on "feel" - which are extremely vague sensations (for the average golfer).
A little later in the video, you hit a good shot (which satisfied you) and you then stated that you wanted to remember the "feel" of the shot so that you could duplicate the shot. You also made a comment of "getting in the groove". I don't have any sympathy for a golf instructional improvement methodology that is based on "feel" and "getting in a groove". When I am practicing at a golf practice facility, I sometimes get into a temporary "groove" and hit 5-6 eight-iron shots that have a perfect ball flight and that land within a few yards of each other. I "feel" great, but I have not learnt anything useful because I don't why it happened and I don't know why that remarkable temporary consistency doesn't routinely translate to a "real life" golf course. I have zero sympathy for the idea of hitting multiple balls at a golf practice facility and hoping to remember the "feel" of a good shot.
You are amazingly thin-skinned about your ball striking prowess. You are obviously a fairly good ball-striker and you don't need to try and prove that point by stating that you hit 13 of 14 fairways and scored 91 point on a Trackman test.
The point is that you are not a perfect ball-striker and you sometimes unintentionally hit pulls/pushes +/- varying degrees of slice/draw spin +/- a certain amount of off-center shots. The Trackman machine may accurately identify the clubhead path and clubface orientation in those mishit shots, which is useful information, but it doesn't explain the cause of the mishits from a biomechanical/mechanical perspective. That is what really interests me - how to eliminate swing faults by improving one's golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. A Trackman device will not offer a golfer (who is not a professional and knowledgeable golf instructor - like you) any advice on how to correct his mishits. It will only identify the clubhead path/clubface orientation problem at impact. If a golfer lacks golf instructional insights, he can hit thousands of golf shots in front of a Trackman for a continuous time period of 6-12 hours without necessarily learning what swing fault is causing his mishits (whether his mishit percentage is 5%, or 10% or 20% or 50%).
It is crazy to think that I have any reason to despise a Trackman machine. It is a wonderful device that can more precisely explain ball flight patterns in terms of clubhead path and clubface orientation and the exact degree of toe/heel hits. However, I cannot understand how it can help an amateur golfer improve his golf swing biomechanics/mechanics if that golfer lacks golf instructional insights.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 18, 2010 10:50:58 GMT -5
Here is a post in BM's forum on this same thread.
"Does Dr mann realize in the real world you cant get a human to repeat something with any precision unless he knows exactly what he is trying to do? And... has ... effective reliable feedback. (cheers pelzy) Improving movement patterns is crap if you dont understand how to apply it to the D-Plane, you might just hit it further into the garbage."
Two important points that the poster made - i) "knows exactly what is trying to do" and ii) "reliable feedback".
Let's presume that a golfer knows what he wants do - which is to hit the ball straight. D-plane theory states that he should have a clubhead path that is slightly left of the target (if he is hitting down on the ball) and a clubface orientation that is facing the target at impact. Let's presume that he aims his baseline a few degrees left and that he tries to create a symmetrical "on-plane" swing relative to that baseline, so that the clubface at impact (which is behind low point) will be facing the target.
Now, consider the issue of reliable feedback. What represents reliable feedback? I think that the ball flight pattern represents reliable feedback. If a golfer pull-hooks the ball, then he knows that he had his clubface too closed relative to his clubhead path (which may also be too out-to-in). A Trackman device would considerably refine his feedback knowledge by providing actual clubhead path/ clubface orientation numbers, which is great. However, neither his ball flight pattern, or his Trackman numbers, will tell him what swing fault(s) caused his incorrect ball flight pattern, and he is unlikely to improve until he learns how to improve his swing from a biomechanical/mechanical/geometrical perspective, so that he can avoid pull-hooking the ball. That's the primary point that I am trying to bring to this forum's attention.
Jeff.
|
|