No acrimony with TrackMan here. My problem is with the way some are interpreting the data and misrepresenting the numbers to further their agendas while bashing others.

Kevin

I think Homer would have loved to have a Trackman in his garage. He might not have agreed with some of the "deductions" though. Thats normal though right? Sorta like a bunch of doctors looking at a radiology report . You get different opinions. Then you got your bartender looking at the report and giving you his opinion.

Got be careful with who's opinion your trusting. You're insurance salesman is trying to sell you more life . Your barber thinks you need a shave. You trainer thinks you need to work out more etc.

Nothing wrong with the machine though.

Homer would have used the Trackman gismo as a door stop. It's a poor substitute for understanding the geometry of the Golf Swing. Knowing how poorly your stroke performs is not the first step to correcting it.

I wouldn't spend a nickle on a teacher who bought and/or uses Trackman. They should have named it the "ACME Golf Swing Fixer-upper".

So if you use a forty year old book as your only resource, you have all the answers, but any current technology you aren't any good??? A guy that wrote and re-wrote a book seven times was obviously interested in getting it right. Do you seriously think he wouldn't use every resource possible if alive today?

Do you think the data it is able to collect is inaccurate? That would sway me.

Homer WAS the walking trackman of his era. He brought information to the masses that no one had.......some embraced it, and surely many immediately beat up on him and discredited him versus looking into it. To act as if he would just overlook anything and everything as if he already had every answer on every topic, while meant as a defense, is a discredit to his dedication.

Yup. Homer was in a real fight in his day. Up against guys who thought the balls initial direction was a product of path. "How could Jacks ball flight rules be wrong?" " The greatest golfer of all time , arguably ." etc. To which Homer reasoned that the laws of physics can not be ignored by anybody , even by Jack. That to curve the ball as he wished , he must have complied with physics . Even if only subconsciously. Very few could buy this explanation understandably but in the end he was right. Its something I find interesting. All those perfect little cut shots Jack hit , all those guys hit. Man. I did it myself too. Weird.

Sean Foley said that he watched Jack's clinic at the Memorial a few years back and saw him as shaping the shot with his path. Despite the fact he was still saying he did it the other way round.

A Trackman in Homers hands would have validated his side of that debate.

P.S . I am not saying Homer was perfect by the way. Amazing , but no ones perfect.

Homer was Perfect.

Angle of Approach and Attack anywhere on the Circle is "0". For an Angle of Approach to exist, you need Two Points. First, the "Impact-Separation" Point, and second, the point at which the Club was designed to produce Straight-Away Flight without manipulation of Hook Face - LP(Low Point).



Trackman says that the location of the Ball where it touches the ground is Low Point (if the per-determined angle of Attack is used by the player). It then says that Angle of Approach is the Inside-out or Outside-in measurement of the Clubhead Path Approach to the Ball.

Really?? You don't see the Flaw? (many Flaws) So if your Trackman reading says that you're 3 degrees Flat, then all you need to change is to Uncock your Left Wrist "more" for Impact.

That's a relief: :confused1 for a moment, I thought Trackman was going to force me to learn to swing the club.

I don't own a Trackman, but I can sure use a Door Stop.

Where does trackman say you're 3 degrees flat? Or suggest swing changes?
Im glad that Homer himself didn't think he was perfect and decided to keep updating his information.

Btw, I don't believe that measuring the angle of attack relative to a ball that sits on the ground is calling the ball lowpoint.

Trackman
 

Trackman is measuring the ballflight via radar technology.

Angle of attack, planelines and all other degrees is calculated. They programmed the thing. It doesn't measure the club or clubheads movement through impact.

A couple of years ago, when I visited the Trackman offices here in Denmark and amongst others spoke to the tech wizard and co-inventer there, Frederik Tuxen, he told me he had no knowledge of TGM. But their data confirmed the ballflight theory of Mr. Kelley.

Back to the instruction video : If you can get the ball to go straight with open or closed planelines either this guy is right, or the machine is getting fooled by the ballflight. For example: Trackman doesn't know anything about hinging and what it'll do to the ballflight. So the program will tell you that the only way you could produce this high a ballflight was with an open planeline, even if you actually had a square planeline but was using angled or even vertical hinging. ???

I guess it's just me but I still can't see straight ballflights from closed or open planelines....