|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 15, 2014 11:52:22 GMT -5
Interesting article that challengenes the credentials of the inventor: grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/I have no idea if this article is accurate, but the inventor had some serious issues if this article is true. She (or he - read the article in its entirety) is now deceased according to this article. The article gets interesting and creepy half way through.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 15, 2014 13:49:02 GMT -5
Jeffy -
You spoke directly with Dr. V in the past. Any comments about this article?
|
|
|
Post by golfbaka on Jan 15, 2014 21:29:16 GMT -5
Wow what a story
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 15, 2014 21:31:52 GMT -5
Exactly what I thought. The putter might work, but it doesn't look like it was designed by a superior scientific/aeronautical designer.
Maybe people just putt better for a shorter period after they change putters no matter what they use.
|
|
|
Post by golfbaka on Jan 15, 2014 21:49:05 GMT -5
I never really looked into the YAR putter, as I've always putted pretty well with an anser style putter anyway. Don't seem the need to construct a bs background story to sell the science of the putter. And 'her' name ... Sounds like a Sienfeld episode...
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jan 16, 2014 10:08:33 GMT -5
Wow! What an incredible story. It reminds me a bit of the story of Liz Carmichael (you can read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_CarmichaelI stopped putting with the YAR about a month ago. I could not find any consistency with the putter. When I first got it, I was putting lights out with it. Then I went thru a drought of putting awful with it. Eventually, this led to me basically putting pretty well with it one day, then awful the next. Here's a look at Aaron Baddeley's putts gained around the time of the Well Fargo Championship in 2012: (click to enlarge) 0 is the baseline. Anything above that is above the average. +0.5 is what I would call 'good putting.' +1.0 is excellent putting and likely in the top-10 for the tournament. My issue with the putter I think stems from 2 things: 1. Very flat lie angle. The putter is 38.25" long (fitted for me) and has a very flat lie angle. 2. Low amount of loft. What I found interesting about Baddeley was his claims that it only worked well on certain greens. I found that I would hit the putter often times right thru the break. I can't reconcile that fact like I want to because of my knowledge of the physics of ball speed and putting. But I can only say that I would often hit putts that looked like they were going to break say, 4-inches and they would go right thru the break without the appearance of me hitting the ball too hard. When I went back to the Edel, the ball would then break back towards the hole. I understand the author's indication that the putter may have 'worked' because we were influenced to believe so. But, the UVA study needs much more than 41 participants and a bigger cross section of golfers to be valid. I think that study would be laughed out of the building for Peer Review because of the small sample size and selection bias. I will say this as well. You cannot open the blade with this putter. Furthermore, I found it fairly easy to make good contact with the putter while looking at the cup. I can't do that with any other putter. Furthermore, I have let other golfers putt with it, many of whom were harsh skeptics of the putter and all of them gave it rave reviews. That's why this story reminds me a lot of Liz Carmichael. Sure, Stephen Krol was a con man and a fraud. But, like The Dale car, the YAR putter has its merits. I don't putt with it anymore, but I have no problem with telling somebody that they may want to give it a try. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 16, 2014 11:37:43 GMT -5
Clay-
I had two conversations with her. As the writer said, she was far more polished and articulate in conversation. Her writings posted on the website were pretty strange and the "scientific" materials she sent were unintelligible. I figured it would take a lot more conversations to get a grasp of the "science" and decided the time wasn't worth it.
I think the putter design is "good", and it definitely swings without any opening or closing of the blade. That part I feel is very legitimate. But I am now pretty skeptical about the desirability of the length and lie and looking at the hole.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 16, 2014 11:51:24 GMT -5
I still think the putter deserves a try. I'm not sure I could ever look at the hole though in competition.
I'm using Kuchar's putter right now and that stops wrist break. Neat putter design.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jan 16, 2014 12:58:05 GMT -5
The entire looking at the hole thing is not quite the problem that people think it is. I think the perception is that they could not make good contact looking at the hole when the pressure is on. I didn't even find that a problem. The bigger issue was the mechanics as to where to look. Are you looking at the hole? Are you looking at a spot on the line of the putt?
I've talked to a few people that have delved into the neuroscience of putting like Geoff Mangum and they all agree that you would get a better sense of the stroke that needs to be made for the proper speed by looking at the hole. As Mangum explained in his Reality of Putting DVD, it's much like going to grab and turn a door knob. It's very instinctual, particularly if you can look at the doorknob. So that's where I've always been intrigued by looking at the hole while making the stroke. And I found from a contact perspective, the YAR is the only putter that can consistently allow the golfer to do so. It's just that it's an entirely different viewpoint/perspective than what we are used to. For example, if we are throwing a football pass that has to be lobbed over a defender, the target is about eye level for us and thru instincts we more or less naturally feel the amount of loft we have to add to the throw and how far to throw it. The same with shooting a free throw in basketball. It's a little different when you're trying to hit the ball with a stick and the target as at ground level.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Jan 16, 2014 18:46:54 GMT -5
Wow... just, wow.
|
|
|
Post by mchepp on Jan 18, 2014 0:44:00 GMT -5
Clay- But I am now pretty skeptical about the desirability of the length and lie and looking at the hole. Jeff I agree with this part. The length has always bothered me. The ball rolls end over end very consistently but I wonder now about if the length of the putter was accurate.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 23, 2014 11:12:03 GMT -5
Exactly what I thought. The putter might work, but it doesn't look like it was designed by a superior scientific/aeronautical designer.Maybe people just putt better for a shorter period after they change putters no matter what they use. The design concept that I think went into the Yar putter is so fundamental to aircraft design you wouldn't need to be a "superior scientific/aeronautical designer" to conceive and execute it. Yar, deliberately or by mistake, misstated the concept by saying the putter had "zero MOI", which is impossible. To achieve stable flight, or equilibrium, all the torques acting on an aircraft must perfectly offset each other such that the net torque is zero. "Moment" in physics means the same thing as "torque", and is the term used in aircraft design. So, in aircraft design jargon, an aircraft's moments sum to zero when it is equilibrium. All Yar did is find someone who could design a putter where all its moments summed to zero when swung on an arc. Shouldn't have been very difficult.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 23, 2014 11:48:18 GMT -5
Jeffy -
How do you really know its moments are zero? Just stating it is zero or through feel in your hand isn't good enough.
Huge difference between selling a putter by someone who was an aeronatical engineer vs. "Joe off the street." Therein lies the real issue. Using the perceived trustworthiness of science to sell the putter when nobody has a clue how the putter was "scientifically" designed (let alone in reference to an airplane). If you don't have the "science" supporting the design of the putter you don't get the "buzz" for the putter.
Golfers are gullible (myself included)!!! Put some "science" behind a theory or equipment and doubt often fades away.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 23, 2014 12:07:10 GMT -5
Jeffy - How do you really know its moments are zero? Just stating it is zero or through feel in your hand isn't good enough.Huge difference between selling a putter by someone who was an aeronatical engineer vs. "Joe off the street." Therein lies the real issue. Using the perceived trustworthiness of science to sell the putter when nobody has a clue how the putter was "scientifically" designed (let alone in reference to an airplane). If you don't have the "science" supporting the design of the putter you don't get the "buzz" for the putter. Golfers are gullible (myself included)!!! Put some "science" behind a theory or equipment and doubt often fades away. The feel in my hands is good enough for me, and the concept of "zero moments" is consistent with what is being described in this video. vimeo.com/57575756"Zero MOI" is nonsense but "zero moments" is real and a basic part of aircraft design. Don't care what you think.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 23, 2014 12:10:27 GMT -5
I'm surprised that is sufficient for you! You're getting soft!
|
|