Golf Digest piece on Trackman

[iacas]

probably off topic... I totally agree BUT he is covering tour players and talks about the best in the world and tries to act like he is still relevant and has an elitist attitude among that company. His personality kills me. I liken to the guy that got a silver medal in swimming and constantly berates Michael Phelps and talks about how and why Michael isn't that great at swimming. Just my opinion.

My point is just that the silver medalist is in a better position in a lot of ways than we are. So is Brandel. His playing career is a pro, not a con. It may or may not be super relevant but it can't really be used "against" him by the likes of us. :-)

[PirateJim]

My only experience with Trackman has been during fittings where it looks to be worth its weight in gold.  I certainly don't need to take one to the range when I go to practice, but I'm not a pro.  If I were a tour pro I think I'd have one and use it a lot, if for nothing other than assuring that my numbers didn't suddenly change unexpectedly.  If I were a successful pro, I'd probably have a spare.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jclark

probably off topic...

I totally agree BUT he is covering tour players and talks about the best in the world and tries to act like he is still relevant and has an elitist attitude among that company. His personality kills me. I liken to the guy that got a silver medal in swimming and constantly berates Michael Phelps and talks about how and why Michael isn't that great at swimming. Just my opinion.

My point is just that the silver medalist is in a better position in a lot of ways than we are.

So is Brandel. His playing career is a pro, not a con. It may or may not be super relevant but it can't really be used "against" him by the likes of us.

Also off topic, but I was given the impression by many posts on TST and asking a former pro (last week) that all golfers in the top 2000 are very close in skill level. Any of them could win a round or two over the others. It seems like any professional golfer has a pretty deep understanding about what is going on. I also feel awkward about someone having an "elitist" attitude, but it seems like they all earned it .

I'm convinced that I need to check out one of the Trakman facilities in our area. Maybe, when I get down to a 12 handicap.

[mvmac]

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/2014-03/gwar-trackman-0310

Lots of ink on Foley. Trackmanmaestro gets a mention.

Surprised I haven't seen him mention it on The Facebook yet (inside joke)

Yes every company on tour has a TrackMan or FlightScope at their disposal. There are also TrackMan tech/sales guys that are out there every week. Most players utilize it to some degree, most of it is for club fitting/getting ball data.

"Although Golf Channel's Brandel Chamblee is one of TrackMan's biggest naysayers -- "Not one tour pro needs a machine to tell him how to hit a fade or draw," he says"

The Machine doesn't tell them how to, every golfer has to figure out their own "How To" when it comes to golf. It just confirms what they are feeling. Brandel is just stuck in his dogmatic view points.

Yeah it's just a tool, like getting a blood test when you go in for a yearly physical.

If Hogan were alive today he might have found the answers on the Trackman and not in the dirt.

I think there's a great chance Hogan would have a FlightScope or TrackMan. He'd want to know exactly what is going on with his golf ball and how changes in stuff like AoA, VSP, spin loft effected ball flight.

[newtogolf]

I think there's a great chance Hogan would have a FlightScope or TrackMan. He'd want to know exactly what is going on with his golf ball and how changes in stuff like AoA, VSP, spin loft effected ball flight.

I have no doubt.  You can get a fair amount of feedback from your ball flight and divot but nothing like you get from FlightScope or Trackman which is why I think Brandel comes off very ignorant.   It's a tool that can aide a golfer in improving, you don't have to have been a pro golfer to recognize the value.

[inthehole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Chamblee probably thinks it's witchcraft.

"Although Golf Channel's Brandel Chamblee is one of TrackMan's biggest naysayers -- "Not one tour pro needs a machine to tell him how to hit a fade or draw," he says"

probably the first time I've agreed with Chamblee ... seems to be alot of paralysis by analysis in the golf world these days with all the new tools.   Obviously, they have their place, but some guys seem to build their swing based on trackman numbers (which may be the whole point of it all ... what do i know )

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

I think there's a great chance Hogan would have a FlightScope or TrackMan. He'd want to know exactly what is going on with his golf ball and how changes in stuff like AoA, VSP, spin loft effected ball flight.

I have no doubt.  You can get a fair amount of feedback from your ball flight and divot but nothing like you get from FlightScope or Trackman which is why I think Brandel comes off very ignorant.   It's a tool that can aide a golfer in improving, you don't have to have been a pro golfer to recognize the value.

I think his point is that people get too focused on distance rather than accuracy, and it causes people to swing differently with a driver and an iron.

Here's an article from another forum: http://www.golfwrx.com/127394/true-or-false-golf-radar-systems-are-ruining-golf/

Here's something else he said, which probably sparked this debate and led many of us to think he is "ignorant":

Brandel Chamblee: "The other day someone was telling me about "the new laws of ball flight," which insinuated that the laws of physics have changed. The findings were supported, he said, by the output of one of those 30,000 dollar launch monitors. I listened, and it turns out these "new laws" were semantics for things we already knew. The organic approach to teaching will always be far superior, in my view. No teacher is more in demand than Butch Harmon, and he doesn't use one of those God forsaken things. Butch knows that approach isn't expeditious, it isn't economical, and it isn't right."

[saevel25]

probably the first time I've agreed with Chamblee ... seems to be alot of paralysis by analysis in the golf world these days with all the new tools.   Obviously, they have their place, but some guys seem to build their swing based on trackman numbers (which may be the whole point of it all ... what do i know  )

Yet the Trackman can free you of that because it will tell you, Hey your numbers are OK, stop messing with it. I get people can try to get exact numbers. In the right hands its a tool the frees up a lot in teaching golf.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthehole

probably the first time I've agreed with Chamblee ... seems to be alot of paralysis by analysis in the golf world these days with all the new tools.   Obviously, they have their place, but some guys seem to build their swing based on trackman numbers (which may be the whole point of it all ... what do i know  )

Yet the Trackman can free you of that because it will tell you, Hey your numbers are OK, stop messing with it. I get people can try to get exact numbers. In the right hands its a tool the frees up a lot in teaching golf.

It's always good to have an objective means to measure your progress.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthehole

probably the first time I've agreed with Chamblee ... seems to be alot of paralysis by analysis in the golf world these days with all the new tools.   Obviously, they have their place, but some guys seem to build their swing based on trackman numbers (which may be the whole point of it all ... what do i know )

Where's the paralysis?

@saevel25 answered you, but Sean Foley said it too (probably in this article): it can actually free you more than it "paralyzes" you. That's what he's saying here:

Quote:

Foley's friend was stunned, saying, "That seems too technical to me." Foley countered that it was only "technical if you do not understand TrackMan. If you understand TrackMan, this simplifies things."

[14ledo81]

[QUOTE name="saevel25" url="/t/73156/golf-digest-piece-on-trackman#post_961861"]   [QUOTE name="Ernest Jones" url="/t/73156/golf-digest-piece-on-trackman#post_961840"] Chamblee probably thinks it's witchcraft. :bugout: [/QUOTE] "Although Golf Channel's Brandel Chamblee is one of TrackMan's biggest naysayers -- "Not one tour pro needs a machine to tell him how to hit a fade or draw," he says"   [/QUOTE] probably the first time I've agreed with Chamblee ... seems to be alot of paralysis by analysis in the golf world these days with all the new tools.   Obviously, they have their place, but some guys seem to build their swing based on trackman numbers (which may be the whole point of it all ... what do i know  :surrender: )

I would prefer to base my swing on facts versus what someone else "feels" they do.

[mvmac]

probably the first time I've agreed with Chamblee ... seems to be alot of paralysis by analysis in the golf world these days with all the new tools.   Obviously, they have their place, but some guys seem to build their swing based on trackman numbers (which may be the whole point of it all ... what do i know  )

I don't think anyone is "building" a swing based on TrackMan. They are just making tweaks, like a professional driver making adjustments to their car.

Here's numbers from a tour player that is having his best start to a season in several years. 18 yard difference with these two swings. Also better control of his start lines and curving it less. Swings were three or four months apart. If you saw his swing it's still "his" swing with some adjustments.

Before:

After (probably never get these #'s in competition but will def be better than the before):

Brandel Chamblee: "The other day someone was telling me about "the new laws of ball flight," which insinuated that the laws of physics have changed. The findings were supported, he said, by the output of one of those 30,000 dollar launch monitors. I listened, and it turns out these "new laws" were semantics for things we already knew. The organic approach to teaching will always be far superior, in my view. No teacher is more in demand than Butch Harmon, and he doesn't use one of those God forsaken things. Butch knows that approach isn't expeditious, it isn't economical, and it isn't right."

Butch may not but his academies do

From Rory's report

[Lihu]

When i read that statement, I was sure it was wrong. It just seems odd not to take advantage of current technology. And this is coming from someone using steel shafts in his woods.:hmm:

[Typhoon92]

Great thing about the GC2 is the portablity and not having to calibrate it. No settings to fiddle with like fligbtscope where you can juice the stats. We have 2 GC2's and 4 flightscopes. set up properly like ours are the numbers are similiar. I agree with the poster about the stickers for the GC2 HMT being a pain.

[saevel25]

When i read that statement, I was sure it was wrong. It just seems odd not to take advantage of current technology.

And this is coming from someone using steel shafts in his woods.

Hey, Bubba Watson uses a composite graphite and steel shaft for his driver . I would classify that as steel shaft.

Yea, I agree. Technology should be used, but with caution. If someone is chasing 300 rpm of spin, get over it, not going to happen. A simple mishit can cause a good amount of variance in the numbers. Consistent ball speed and launch angle is probably a better indicator than chasing other numbers, but still, act of futility is seeking perfection.

[Robi1026]

Chamblee is paid to be provocative. He does his job very well.

I can not stand his commentary but you hit the nail on the head ... Look at us right now, in this thread = Were talking about him/he must be doing something right ... He is a polarizing figure in the sport.

[Spitfisher]

I can not stand his commentary but you hit the nail on the head ... Look at us right now, in this thread = Were talking about him/he must be doing something right ... He is a polarizing figure in the sport.

There are Brandles everywhere doing the same for major sports, personally he doesn't bother me at all, but I understand why some may not care for him, much like I don't care for certain commentators for other sports . There are some that do not care for. Jim Nance of Phil Simms when they do football color, or Joe buck doing the World Series. The delivery is often the same, sometimes a tiny bit of gas on the fire or an objective view helps rating tremendously.

[nevets88]

There are Brandles everywhere doing the same for major sports, personally he doesn't bother me at all, but I understand why some may not care for him, much like I don't care for certain commentators for other sports . There are some that do not care for. Jim Nance of Phil Simms when they do football color, or Joe buck doing the World Series. The delivery is often the same, sometimes a tiny bit of gas on the fire or an objective view helps rating tremendously.

Bob cough cough.... COUGH Costas.