Tour Tempo theory mistake!!!

[crapula]

[quote name='Mr. Herbert' timestamp='1349995366' post='5782865']
You left out the transition time from backswing to forward. If it takes four or five frames for that transition, the ratio is around 3:1.
[/quote]

So are you saying that the 3:1 ratio is incomplete?

It should be a 4.5:1:2 ratio for (back swing:transition:down swing to impact)???

[crapula]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349997494' post='5782995']
Instead of beating this subject to death, someone should just email John. He's a very good guy and will surely respond. If he doesn't respond from his webiste, I'm sure I have his personal email address somewhere.
[/quote]

And if he responds saying that the OP is correct? He'll owe a lot of refunds.

[BrianL99]

No offense to anyone, but Tour Tempo has been around for 8 years. I find it hard to believe that a "major flaw" hasn't been discovered in all that time.

[crapula]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349998232' post='5783037']
No offense to anyone, but Tour Tempo has been around for 8 years. I find it hard to believe that a "major flaw" hasn't been discovered in all that time.
[/quote]

Initial ball direction is primarily influenced by club head path.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='crapula' timestamp='1349998341' post='5783045']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349998232' post='5783037']
No offense to anyone, but Tour Tempo has been around for 8 years. I find it hard to believe that a "major flaw" hasn't been discovered in all that time.
[/quote]

Initial ball direction is primarily influenced by club head path.
[/quote]

Anyone who believed that, probably believed the world is flat. It defies common sense.

[Golfzalo]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349997494' post='5782995']
Instead of beating this subject to death, someone should just email John. He's a very good guy and will surely respond. If he doesn't respond from his webiste, I'm sure I have his personal email address somewhere.
[/quote]

I already sent him a PM, right after I posted the topic, just see his impression abut it. Again, I'm not criticising the whole method and all in his book, not at all. I'm just saying there is a discrepancy between the ratios of the pro's swings and the audio he uses to teach.

G

[Golfzalo]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349998232' post='5783037']
No offense to anyone, but Tour Tempo has been around for 8 years. I find it hard to believe that a "major flaw" hasn't been discovered in all that time.
[/quote]

Brian, no offense taken, but I'm pretty sure (positive) that the audios (beeps and songs) are in a 2:1 ratio.

[crapula]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349998465' post='5783057']
[quote name='crapula' timestamp='1349998341' post='5783045']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349998232' post='5783037']
No offense to anyone, but Tour Tempo has been around for 8 years. I find it hard to believe that a "major flaw" hasn't been discovered in all that time.
[/quote]

Initial ball direction is primarily influenced by club head path.
[/quote]

Anyone who believed that, probably believed the world is flat. It defies common sense.
[/quote]


You just proved what I was saying by referencing something else that was believed to be true for a long time.


And again, not discounting the 3:1 theory, only discounting that the audio tracks are 2:1 if followed on the beats suggested.

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349998232' post='5783037']
No offense to anyone, but Tour Tempo has been around for 8 years. I find it hard to believe that a "major flaw" hasn't been discovered in all that time.
[/quote]

The main golf message board from that time is no longer around, so we can't really go back and look, but there are others out there if you want to google them. The topic has come up before. I noticed it when the book came out but didn't say anything to anyone. Others may be the same.

[Mr. Herbert]

[quote name='Golfzalo' timestamp='1349998648' post='5783069']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1349998232' post='5783037']
No offense to anyone, but Tour Tempo has been around for 8 years. I find it hard to believe that a "major flaw" hasn't been discovered in all that time.
[/quote]

Brian, no offense taken, but I'm pretty sure (positive) that the audios (beeps and songs) are in a 2:1 ratio.
[/quote]

So why not video yourself using the method and count the actual frames and see what you get? Seems that would be the easiest way to put this to rest.

[Mr. Herbert]

[quote name='crapula' timestamp='1349997539' post='5782999']
[quote name='Mr. Herbert' timestamp='1349995366' post='5782865']
You left out the transition time from backswing to forward. If it takes four or five frames for that transition, the ratio is around 3:1.
[/quote]

So are you saying that the 3:1 ratio is incomplete?

It should be a 4.5:1:2 ratio for (back swing:transition:down swing to impact)???
[/quote]

That's ridiculous. The is a backswing and then a front swing. But the front swing doesn't start at the exact moment that you hear the tone. If it does then you are doing it wrong.

[TeeAce]

I checked it once more. IMO those beeps got nothing to do with any ratio as linear sequence/timing, but they lead the player to 1:3 ratio. There could be 2 or 10 beeps before transition and still produce 1:3 ratio.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350027964' post='5784311']
I checked it once more. IMO those beeps got nothing to do with any ratio as linear sequence/timing, but they lead the player to 1:3 ratio. There could be 2 or 10 beeps before transition and still produce 1:3 ratio.
[/quote]

exactly....all the musicians need to stop worrying about what count these beeps are on or whatever else they are interpreting. just follow the instructions and take a video of your swing reacting to the beeps as intended. then watch your video and break it down by frames. if done properly there will be a 3:1 ratio.

[statepgm]

This is pretty straightforward.

1) The methodology says 3/1 ratio.
2) The audio uses a 2/1 ratio.

Both factual statements. The only question is whether that difference is intentional (possibly for reasons some have posited itt) or actually a mistake.

[TeeAce]

[quote name='statepgm' timestamp='1350051588' post='5784961']
This is pretty straightforward.

1) The methodology says 3/1 ratio.
2) The audio uses a 2/1 ratio.

Both factual statements. The only question is whether that difference is intentional (possibly for reasons some have posited itt) or actually a mistake.
[/quote]

No, audio does also 3:1 in time but it's not timed at all. It's not linear frequency.

But another thing for all, and sorry in advance....

I used today about one hour to find someone who is more out of 1:3 ratio than timing of 30fps videos frame length. I didn't find one from those players who got hdcp lower than 25. Not even one.

What I found was that all those players had DSW ratio to BSW between 23 and 28%, so they are quite near to the 1:3 ratio.

Now the problem with 30fps video, even the hands are not moving really fast at that point, is that you don't really even know if transition has happened or not. I know it sounds strange, but if you think a while I think you find the answer.

So the clue is that all watched from 30fps video will match to those percents I told. There is some exceptions also, but I would say they are more statistic illusions than real things.

And really this is nothing against that training method and i think that beep system can help many guys to stay more in their rhythm, but looking answers from 30fps video. Not.

[Golfzalo]

[quote name='statepgm' timestamp='1350051588' post='5784961']
This is pretty straightforward.

1) The methodology says 3/1 ratio.
2) The audio uses a 2/1 ratio.

Both factual statements. The only question is whether that difference is intentional (possibly for reasons some have posited itt) or actually a mistake.
[/quote]

Exactly! That's the fact!

I think that's a question to be answered by John Novosel. Maybe there's an explanation for that discrepancy.

G

[TeeAce]

[quote name='Golfzalo' timestamp='1350058849' post='5785423']
[quote name='statepgm' timestamp='1350051588' post='5784961']
This is pretty straightforward.

1) The methodology says 3/1 ratio.
2) The audio uses a 2/1 ratio.

Both factual statements. The only question is whether that difference is intentional (possibly for reasons some have posited itt) or actually a mistake.
[/quote]

Exactly! That's the fact!

I think that's a question to be answered by John Novosel. Maybe there's an explanation for that discrepancy.

G
[/quote]

How much time there is between first and 3rd beep? And how much time between 3rd and 4th?

[crapula]

This is pretty straightforward.

 

1) The methodology says 3/1 ratio.

2) The audio uses a 2/1 ratio.

 

Both factual statements. The only question is whether that difference is intentional (possibly for reasons some have posited itt) or actually a mistake.

 

Exactly! That's the fact!

 

I think that's a question to be answered by John Novosel. Maybe there's an explanation for that discrepancy.

 

G

 

How much time there is between first and 3rd beep? And how much time between 3rd and 4th?

 

Are you freakin serious?? I've already answered this a few times.

 

Seriously people, if you are going to have an argument at least know the facts.

 

 

24fps

 

Which is .83333333 seconds (back swing) and .4166666666 seconds (downswing to impact), not a 3:1 ratio. Also, if you take into account that the transition is reactionary you would have to start the downswing 4 frames late and arrive at impact 2 frames late in order to achieve a 3:1 ratio. If the intent of this system is to assume people will be late and never notice, fine (though a silly way to teach, especially for those that pay attention to details).

[TeeAce]

This is pretty straightforward.

 

1) The methodology says 3/1 ratio.

2) The audio uses a 2/1 ratio.

 

Both factual statements. The only question is whether that difference is intentional (possibly for reasons some have posited itt) or actually a mistake.

 

Exactly! That's the fact!

 

I think that's a question to be answered by John Novosel. Maybe there's an explanation for that discrepancy.

 

G

 

How much time there is between first and 3rd beep? And how much time between 3rd and 4th?

 

Are you freakin serious?? I've already answered this a few times.

 

Seriously people, if you are going to have an argument at least know the facts.

 

 

24fps

 

Which is .83333333 seconds (back swing) and .4166666666 seconds (downswing to impact), not a 3:1 ratio. Also, if you take into account that the transition is reactionary you would have to start the downswing 4 frames late and arrive at impact 2 frames late in order to achieve a 3:1 ratio. If the intent of this system is to assume people will be late and never notice, fine (though a silly way to teach, especially for those that pay attention to details).

 

Yes, I'm serious, but some people wrote that they were not linear like that at all, that's why I asked. What you show there as a timeline is of course 1:2 ratio, but I had the idea that beeps are not like that.

[crapula]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350060130' post='5785507']
Yes, I'm serious, but some people wrote that they were not linear like that at all, that's why I asked. What you show there as a timeline is of course 1:2 ratio, but I had the idea that beeps are not like that.
[/quote]

The beeps are on 1, 3, and 4.

[Golfzalo]

This is pretty straightforward.

 

1) The methodology says 3/1 ratio.

2) The audio uses a 2/1 ratio.

 

Both factual statements. The only question is whether that difference is intentional (possibly for reasons some have posited itt) or actually a mistake.

 

Exactly! That's the fact!

 

I think that's a question to be answered by John Novosel. Maybe there's an explanation for that discrepancy.

 

G

 

How much time there is between first and 3rd beep? And how much time between 3rd and 4th?

 

Are you freakin serious?? I've already answered this a few times.

 

Seriously people, if you are going to have an argument at least know the facts.

 

 

24fps

 

Which is .83333333 seconds (back swing) and .4166666666 seconds (downswing to impact), not a 3:1 ratio. Also, if you take into account that the transition is reactionary you would have to start the downswing 4 frames late and arrive at impact 2 frames late in order to achieve a 3:1 ratio. If the intent of this system is to assume people will be late and never notice, fine (though a silly way to teach, especially for those that pay attention to details).

 

Yes, I'm serious, but some people wrote that they were not linear like that at all, that's why I asked. What you show there as a timeline is of course 1:2 ratio, but I had the idea that beeps are not like that.

 

It is not linear ONLY because, according to Novosel's method, you have to react to the beep, so the first beep is off-set, so it is intended you move on-beat. If you understand that from reading the book, the argument about the microseconds and the beep being not exact on time, is out of this discussion . But please don't think that "because it is not perfect on-beat" you are not supposed to swing on-beat. Actually, the principle is that you have to follow a steady tempo, as a drummer would follow a click track, or will you tell me that a drummer "react" to a click track? So Novosel, make it easier for someone to react, but you can do exactly the same swing with a metronome if you can swing on time following a clicks and no trying to react to it.

 

G

[TeeAce]

[quote name='Golfzalo' timestamp='1350060804' post='5785551']


It is not linear ONLY because, according to Novosel's method, you have to react to the beep, so the first beep is off-set, so it is intended you move on-beat. If you understand that from reading the book, the argument about the microseconds and the beep being not exact on time, is out of this discussion . But please don't think that "because it is not perfect on-beat" you are not supposed to swing on-beat. Actually, the principle is that you have to follow a steady tempo, as a drummer would follow a click track, or will you tell me that a drummer "react" to a click track? So Novosel, make it easier for someone to react, but you can do exactly the same swing with a metronome if you can swing on time following a clicks and no trying to react to it.

G
[/quote]

Understood.

Anyway the discussion about tempo and rhythm is interesting. I have seen so many slow swings under 1 second and quick ones over 1,2s But they are always pretty close to 1:3 ratio (actually haven't seen one being 1:2 or 1:4 so this 1:3 is bit funny) and if we look more exact percents, there is not normally more than 1% change during the years for the same player. Maybe it's more natural thing than something to spend lot of time and try to change it.

[hoganfan924]

Good mechanics generally produce a good tempo (with a few notable exceptions) close to the 3:1 ratio. Novosel simply approached this problem from the opposite direction (teaching good tempo would improve mechanics). I tried it years ago when my swing wasn't very good (way too long and out of synch). Unfortunately it just made my too long backswing, too long and too fast. lol

Still, I think that the answer is simply as stated prior - you react to the first 2 tones and time the 3 to be at impact. That phase shifts the timing of the first two so that your results will be close to the 3:1 ratio. Nothing more complicated than that, IMO.

[Golfzalo]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1350064811' post='5785809']
Good mechanics generally produce a good tempo (with a few notable exceptions) close to the 3:1 ratio. Novosel simply approached this problem from the opposite direction (teaching good tempo would improve mechanics). I tried it years ago when my swing wasn't very good (way too long and out of synch). Unfortunately it just made my too long backswing, too long and too fast. lol

Still, I think that the answer is simply as stated prior - you react to the first 2 tones and time the 3 to be at impact. That phase shifts the timing of the first two so that your results will be close to the 3:1 ratio. Nothing more complicated than that, IMO.
[/quote]

Actually, if you read the book, the phase shift is intended to make it a "1 (2) 3 Hit", which as we have proven here is a 2:1 ratio.

[QCart]

Ha! My head hurts now!

[gators78]

So what ratio do you get if you use the start of the first beep, the middle of the second beep (since it's a reactionary tone) and then the start of the third?

[Hawkeye77]

It's not a music theory issue, and the guy that started this thread is not accurate in his use of music theory anyway.

There have been threads on this elsewhere, probably read by the OP, that have gone on and on. No "discovery" here.

Relax and actually read the book, instead of making arguments without reading it. Not a big deal.

[donmcd]

[quote name='MDP1555' timestamp='1349972424' post='5781123']
Even in music time you are incorrect. A mesure starts ar Zero not 1. Take 4/4 time. It takes one fourth of a measure to finish to the first beat (the full extent of a quarter note). by your therory you could only have 3 quarter notes to a measure because you are assuming that the event starts at the cout of 1 but it starts at zero, 1 is the end of the first quarter measure.

Same is true In time laps. An event starts at Zero and by the of count one has been in action one unit of time. So if you start at zero seconds and it takes 3 seconds for the event to reach the first stage and one more second for the event to reach its climax the ratio between fist stage and climax is 3:1

Guitarists have always under stand that time starts at Zero. drummers are always late just ripping
[/quote]
A measure of music starts on 'one' not 'zero'.

[DaveLeeNC]

Have we finally found a golf-related (and practical) application of that Dave Brubeck classic "Take Fve" :-)

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

Just a general comment from someone who has read TTempo but never directly applied it. When I 'use the count scheme' the natural thing to do (for me) is to start the swing and then count 'one' (not sure how much time there is between start and 'one' vs. 'one' and 'two' - they seem similar).

In that case the described methodology would work as expected (against typical tour swings).

dave