Could a 12 handicapper....

[knock it close]

I played a cb/mb split before my ap2's and I can honestly say I'm not leaving anything on the table by playing the AP2's through the bag.

Frankly I don't hit my irons pure enough. I play a little bit with two kids two or so years younger than me. Ones a freshman at a top 25 school, the other committed to top 10 school and will be there next year. Last time I played with them one had ap2's and the other had Tmag mb's. The kid with the AP2's is just solid all around and a scorer. The one with MB's hits the ball real real good a hell of a lot better than me.

[Exactice808]

[quote name='knock it close' timestamp='1428474426' post='11309443']
Hey no leading questions here. No a lot has to do with my iron game. You asked for my strengths. Iron game is not a consistent strength. That does not mean it isn't important. When irons are on it takes stress of the rest of the game. I think people overestimate how important putting and chipping is and underestimate iron play.

Last hole at my course is an island green par 5. If I have 210 in I'm quite happy I got my ap2's in the bag than a set of mbs.
[/quote]

HEHEHEE Sorry I had too.... While I agree that your iron shots are very important, I am sure you hit it good enough, not tour level not pure every shot, but its safe to assume really what iron you have in your hand is not of concern? You hit irons fine to get around the course.
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428474536' post='11309447']
Knock it close- I am going to answer the question posed for too, as I claimed the right to do that some pages back..

People would be surprised to see in general that I do not really hit the ball that great. I hit it in the right spots, have a strategy and execute it, play to my strengths and have a very sound short game and putter.

That said, generally I am hitting greens. They aren't just tour pro style shots.

I agree with KIC, iron play is one of the most important aspects of the game as it can take stress off of so many other facets.
[/quote]

This I havent thought of.... maybe something to be more aware of, yes it could create less stress. good point.
[quote name='knock it close' timestamp='1428474836' post='11309461']
I played a cb/mb split before my ap2's and I can honestly say I'm not leaving anything on the table by playing the AP2's through the bag.

Frankly I don't hit my irons pure enough. I play a little bit with two kids two or so years younger than me. Ones a freshman at a top 25 school, the other committed to top 10 school and will be there next year. Last time I played with them one had ap2's and the other had Tmag mb's. The kid with the AP2's is just solid all around and a scorer. The one with MB's hits the ball real real good a hell of a lot better than me.
[/quote]

Excellent point.... so you dont have to be a pure ball striker to be a +handicap, nor do you have to be a plus handicap to be able to play with Blades....you have to have a good strategy how to get around the course.......

[Titleist 670]

[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428470801' post='11309307']
Lol. I can only make the inference based on scoring. You're right, it's difficult. You know that sound you hear when a tour pro strikes an iron? Do you make that sound?
[/quote]

I do. When I fire one off the hosel it sounds like it was shot out of a cannon.

[Nessism]

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5B61wrVO44"]https://www.youtube....h?v=y5B61wrVO44[/url] [quote name='Exactice808' timestamp='1428471129' post='11309315']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428470923' post='11309311']
And E, JPX and JPX pro is GI to me.
[/quote]

thanks more to edify my post, I play with a GI and a Blade.........Someone was complaining about Denniys referencing to his MP60 vs MP67, how they are the same.....
[/quote]

That was me, and yes, playability of the MP60 and MP67 are virtually identical as are the club specs. Just because the back side of the club looks different that doesn't mean two clubs are significantly different.

As for this business about CB's and the face compressing, only clubs specifically design to do so have a compressible face. This technology started in the GI arena but is filtering down into some players clubs now. Taylormade and their slot business showing up on their TP line being one example. A typical CB won't have any spring effect action going on though, or the effect will be so small as to be negligible. Those Bridgestone DPC irons for example.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1428496616' post='11310075']
[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5B61wrVO44"]https://www.youtube....h?v=y5B61wrVO44[/url] [quote name='Exactice808' timestamp='1428471129' post='11309315']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428470923' post='11309311']
And E, JPX and JPX pro is GI to me.
[/quote]

thanks more to edify my post, I play with a GI and a Blade.........Someone was complaining about Denniys referencing to his MP60 vs MP67, how they are the same.....
[/quote]

That was me, and yes, playability of the MP60 and MP67 are virtually identical as are the club specs. Just because the back side of the club looks different that doesn't mean two clubs are significantly different.

As for this business about CB's and the face compressing, only clubs specifically design to do so have a compressible face. This technology started in the GI arena but is filtering down into some players clubs now. Taylormade and their slot business showing up on their TP line being one example. A typical CB won't have any spring effect action going on though, or the effect will be so small as to be negligible. Those Bridgestone DPC irons for example.
[/quote]
Mp60 and mp67 are different clubs designed for different target golfers, just like Nine's Nike blades vs his CB. Just like Titleist MBs vs CB. People build combo sets with these clubs for the forgiveness of the cavity.

You cannot refute this and you have never compared an mp60 and mp67 with actual play, so keep clinging to you meaningless evaluation of numbers. By design the face of the mp60 will react differently than the mp67. I know this from actually playing them.

You may want to playtest some actual blades vs your pings too. That's how you learn beyond theories and numbers on paper.

[JasonFL]

This is one of my favorite articles testing mid to low HC golfers using cavity back clubs. Unfortunately not allowed to link the article here due to what website hosts it.

Google: Best cavity back iron MP53. Should be the first link.

Note that the most accurate club (3rd place finisher) is the smallest head size, thinnest sole, with the most muscle directly behind the center of the face. Also voted most ugly and most harsh in terms of feel.

[Mahamilto]

[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428447045' post='11306575']
[quote name='buzlin' timestamp='1428446323' post='11306519']
Man, some of you anti-blade guys act as if you have to play a single iron type for the rest of your life. some of you also freak out at any technical discussion (right or wrong, relevant or not) that may persuade someone to try blades. this is the equipment board, inhabited by ho's. relax.

btw - you nerds realize today is National Beer day. Go out and have a few (sorry Govols, gotta be over 21).
[/quote]

B, so solid. I'm rolling hahahahaaaaa. Nice.




Mahamilto, I appreciate the technical discussion, and this is just a feeling, but are these things measured or is this just the scientific theory based on mathematical models that predict what should happen?

I don't mean to be a hater, I'm just a bit of a skeptic and I don't have the technical expertise you do to refute it, so I'm relying on you to give it to me straight. Your posts are pretty awesome from an information perspective.
[/quote]

Asking for clarification isn't hating. Skepticism is a good thing! People don't question enough if anything!

That being said, the physical properties I'm discussing are well accepted and mathematically proven/ confirmed.

If you are asking about the math, well... The math on these proofs is really dense. It's a lot deep calculus and algebra, and I'm not a mathematician, and even if I were doing that sort of "proof" (as in using the math to confirm the accuracy of an equation) is just not suitable for the format of typing in this form.

Either way, others, even dating back to hundreds and even thousands of years, have developed and proved the math, so we can be comfortable these aren't just random theories and models, nor are they theoretical physics.

If you want to know the math, it's online. But be forewarned... It's dense, but it is also valid.

[Nine Miler]

[quote name='Mahamilto' timestamp='1428502061' post='11310665']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428447045' post='11306575']
[quote name='buzlin' timestamp='1428446323' post='11306519']
Man, some of you anti-blade guys act as if you have to play a single iron type for the rest of your life. some of you also freak out at any technical discussion (right or wrong, relevant or not) that may persuade someone to try blades. this is the equipment board, inhabited by ho's. relax.

btw - you nerds realize today is National Beer day. Go out and have a few (sorry Govols, gotta be over 21).
[/quote]

B, so solid. I'm rolling hahahahaaaaa. Nice.




Mahamilto, I appreciate the technical discussion, and this is just a feeling, but are these things measured or is this just the scientific theory based on mathematical models that predict what should happen?

I don't mean to be a hater, I'm just a bit of a skeptic and I don't have the technical expertise you do to refute it, so I'm relying on you to give it to me straight. Your posts are pretty awesome from an information perspective.
[/quote]

Asking for clarification isn't hating. Skepticism is a good thing! People don't question enough if anything!

That being said, the physical properties I'm discussing are well accepted and mathematically proven/ confirmed.

If you are asking about the math, well... The math on these proofs is really dense. It's a lot deep calculus and algebra, and I'm not a mathematician, and even if I were doing that sort of "proof" (as in using the math to confirm the accuracy of an equation) is just not suitable for the format of typing in this form.

Either way, others, even dating back to hundreds and even thousands of years, have developed and proved the math, so we can be comfortable these aren't just random theories and models, nor are they theoretical physics.

If you want to know the math, it's online. But be forewarned... It's dense, but it is also valid.
[/quote]

Thank you, that is good enough for me in this context. I appreciate the background on it.

[T.Beau]

[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1428496616' post='11310075']
[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5B61wrVO44"]https://www.youtube....h?v=y5B61wrVO44[/url] [quote name='Exactice808' timestamp='1428471129' post='11309315']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428470923' post='11309311']
And E, JPX and JPX pro is GI to me.
[/quote]

thanks more to edify my post, I play with a GI and a Blade.........Someone was complaining about Denniys referencing to his MP60 vs MP67, how they are the same.....
[/quote]

That was me, and yes, playability of the MP60 and MP67 are virtually identical as are the club specs. Just because the back side of the club looks different that doesn't mean two clubs are significantly different.

As for this business about CB's and the face compressing, only clubs specifically design to do so have a compressible face. This technology started in the GI arena but is filtering down into some players clubs now. Taylormade and their slot business showing up on their TP line being one example. A typical CB won't have any spring effect action going on though, or the effect will be so small as to be negligible. Those Bridgestone DPC irons for example.
[/quote]

and also me...i posted pics of the two and the other guy posted specs of the two. anyone who would use those particular irons as anything close to a reasonable comparison between a mb and cb is just way off base. plus on the backs of the two iron sets is emblazoned 'cut muscle'. does the forum think the term 'muscle' means muscle, or does the forum think the word 'muscle' means cavity? sorry to have to reduce some things down to their most elemental level, but is seems necessary around here at times...i know..i know...it's just all marketing..lol

[T.Beau]

[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1428496616' post='11310075']
[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5B61wrVO44"]https://www.youtube....h?v=y5B61wrVO44[/url] [quote name='Exactice808' timestamp='1428471129' post='11309315']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428470923' post='11309311']
And E, JPX and JPX pro is GI to me.
[/quote]

thanks more to edify my post, I play with a GI and a Blade.........Someone was complaining about Denniys referencing to his MP60 vs MP67, how they are the same.....
[/quote]

That was me, and yes, playability of the MP60 and MP67 are virtually identical as are the club specs. Just because the back side of the club looks different that doesn't mean two clubs are significantly different.

As for this business about CB's and the face compressing, only clubs specifically design to do so have a compressible face. This technology started in the GI arena but is filtering down into some players clubs now. Taylormade and their slot business showing up on their TP line being one example. A typical CB won't have any spring effect action going on though, or the effect will be so small as to be negligible. Those Bridgestone DPC irons for example.
[/quote]

didnt the compressible face stuff start w. the woods? would think it easier to design woods w. a compressible face as the heads are often quite a bit larger than irons and the batspeed greater w. a wood than an iron...

also cant see how a stationary object (a golf ball) is exerting any force to speak of against the moving object (a club)..but i;m certainly no engineer or physicist

[DeNinny]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1428505423' post='11311125']
[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1428496616' post='11310075']
[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5B61wrVO44"]https://www.youtube....h?v=y5B61wrVO44[/url] [quote name='Exactice808' timestamp='1428471129' post='11309315']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428470923' post='11309311']
And E, JPX and JPX pro is GI to me.
[/quote]

thanks more to edify my post, I play with a GI and a Blade.........Someone was complaining about Denniys referencing to his MP60 vs MP67, how they are the same.....
[/quote]

That was me, and yes, playability of the MP60 and MP67 are virtually identical as are the club specs. Just because the back side of the club looks different that doesn't mean two clubs are significantly different.

As for this business about CB's and the face compressing, only clubs specifically design to do so have a compressible face. This technology started in the GI arena but is filtering down into some players clubs now. Taylormade and their slot business showing up on their TP line being one example. A typical CB won't have any spring effect action going on though, or the effect will be so small as to be negligible. Those Bridgestone DPC irons for example.
[/quote]

and also me...i posted pics of the two and the other guy posted specs of the two. anyone who would use those particular irons as anything close to a reasonable comparison between a mb and cb is just way off base. plus on the backs of the two iron sets is emblazoned 'cut muscle'. does the forum think the term 'muscle' means muscle, or does the forum think the word 'muscle' means cavity? sorry to have to reduce some things down to their most elemental level, but is seems necessary around here at times...i know..i know...it's just all marketing..lol
[/quote]
Please. Mizuno marketed them for different golfers no different than any other manufacturers.

LOL you both block me but still cannot stop commenting on my points. Weird.

[Nine Miler]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1428505924' post='11311201']
[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1428496616' post='11310075']
[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5B61wrVO44"]https://www.youtube....h?v=y5B61wrVO44[/url] [quote name='Exactice808' timestamp='1428471129' post='11309315']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428470923' post='11309311']
And E, JPX and JPX pro is GI to me.
[/quote]

thanks more to edify my post, I play with a GI and a Blade.........Someone was complaining about Denniys referencing to his MP60 vs MP67, how they are the same.....
[/quote]

That was me, and yes, playability of the MP60 and MP67 are virtually identical as are the club specs. Just because the back side of the club looks different that doesn't mean two clubs are significantly different.

As for this business about CB's and the face compressing, only clubs specifically design to do so have a compressible face. This technology started in the GI arena but is filtering down into some players clubs now. Taylormade and their slot business showing up on their TP line being one example. A typical CB won't have any spring effect action going on though, or the effect will be so small as to be negligible. Those Bridgestone DPC irons for example.
[/quote]

didnt the compressible face stuff start w. the woods? would think it easier to design woods w. a compressible face as the heads are often quite a bit larger than irons and the batspeed greater w. a wood than an iron...

also cant see how a stationary object (a golf ball) is exerting any force to speak of against the moving object (a club)..but i;m certainly no engineer or physicist
[/quote]

From a 9 handicapper in physics, the ball exerts the same amount of force on the clubface as the clubface exerts on the ball during that split second when they collide.

[T.Beau]

Did I?

 

Mahamilto is the second smartest guy in this thread right?

 

Someone put that mind blow gif after one of my posts.

 

mahamilto seems like a zenlike golfer to me..you're just a hack....you dont even sling blades

 

i;m just trying to keep this thread on topic.........

[Nine Miler]

LOL!! Well played, well played.

[T.Beau]

[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428506067' post='11311229']
[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1428505924' post='11311201']
[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1428496616' post='11310075']
[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5B61wrVO44"]https://www.youtube....h?v=y5B61wrVO44[/url] [quote name='Exactice808' timestamp='1428471129' post='11309315']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428470923' post='11309311']
And E, JPX and JPX pro is GI to me.
[/quote]

thanks more to edify my post, I play with a GI and a Blade.........Someone was complaining about Denniys referencing to his MP60 vs MP67, how they are the same.....
[/quote]

That was me, and yes, playability of the MP60 and MP67 are virtually identical as are the club specs. Just because the back side of the club looks different that doesn't mean two clubs are significantly different.

As for this business about CB's and the face compressing, only clubs specifically design to do so have a compressible face. This technology started in the GI arena but is filtering down into some players clubs now. Taylormade and their slot business showing up on their TP line being one example. A typical CB won't have any spring effect action going on though, or the effect will be so small as to be negligible. Those Bridgestone DPC irons for example.
[/quote]

didnt the compressible face stuff start w. the woods? would think it easier to design woods w. a compressible face as the heads are often quite a bit larger than irons and the batspeed greater w. a wood than an iron...

also cant see how a stationary object (a golf ball) is exerting any force to speak of against the moving object (a club)..but i;m certainly no engineer or physicist
[/quote]

From a 9 handicapper in physics, the ball exerts the same amount of force on the clubface as the clubface exerts on the ball during that split second when they collide.
[/quote]

f=m*a ? where is the 'a' part in a stationary object (golf ball)?

[Nine Miler]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1428506847' post='11311339']
f=m*a ? where is the 'a' part in a stationary object (golf ball)?
[/quote]

DeNinnnnnnyyyy/Mahamiltoooo- help. I knos Iz right, but I dont knoes how to says it.

I think the force of the club is where the mass*acceleration piece comes in. The ball has to exert an equal and opposite force on the club because Newton says so.

[buzlin]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1428505924' post='11311201']
also cant see how a stationary object (a golf ball) is exerting any force to speak of against the moving object (a club).
[/quote]

Are you being serious?

[Nine Miler]

I am admittedly pretty over my head tryin go get into physics discussions, so I would rather just bow out here and find out who is right or wrong when the physics gurus come back.

[Matt J]

I like the comment above with the "accuracy" ratings on the irons by My Golf Spy or whatever the website.

On a basic level of design, (I gotta keep it basic because like a lot of you I'm no engineer), it appears you have two competing themes between CB and MB design. Either put the mass behind the sweet spot and get consistency and better energy transfer or perimeter weight and get the "trampoline" effect.

So, the trampoline effect will give a little better consistency as you move away from the sweet spot but the well hit shots could have a bit of inconsistency in distance and direction. So, how big is that inconsistency? According to that one test, we're talking the best irons in class are around 12 feet and the worst are 20 feet. That means there's at least 12 feet of aim that we can't even take responsibility for... even the best strikers (as good as Iron Byron are ya?) have 12 feet of inherent "miss" in their irons. That'll make you think twice about how proud you are of that next "pin seeker." Evidently any time you get it within 24 feet you should be pretty stoked.

[Matt J]

I'm no physicist either, but the equation to define velocity is very different than the theoretical Newton's 3rd law. The equation is trying to capture an estimation of the speed while the 3rd Law is describing the relationship of the contact.

Describing it in practical use would be the basic Trackman numbers i.e. clubhead speed, COR or smash, and ball speed. Basically, before, during, and after.

Force equaling mass times acceleration would be calculated for both the club and the ball to define the contact. The club would have it's own vector while the ball would be exerting force on the ground via gravity until contact at which point it's desire to "stay at rest" and maintain it's physical integrity would exert force in opposition to the club face. Much more complicated physics equation that simply F=m*a

[T.Beau]

[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428506663' post='11311309']
LOL!! Well played, well played.
[/quote]

thx bud

[duffer987]

[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428507348' post='11311393']
I am admittedly pretty over my head tryin go get into physics discussions, so I would rather just bow out here and find out who is right or wrong when the physics gurus come back.
[/quote]

Ugh, there are threads full of that, that we don't need it taking up another 6 pages here. I'm sure someone can provide the links.

TBH, there are some decent high-level demonstrations of physics concepts and how they relate to golf available via the USGA.

I'm sure someone with a such and such from a U of something would get all sniffy at the suggestion they are at all useful, just more USGA marketing for the golfing hoi polloi, but I thought they were worth a watch.

[Matt J]

Maybe to better answer your question... there is no "a" i.e. acceleration until the ball is hit. Then acceleration data would have to be calculated by gathering a minimum of two different data points with velocity differences.

[Nine Miler]

[quote name='Matt J' timestamp='1428507853' post='11311449']
I'm no physicist either, but the equation to define velocity is very different than the theoretical Newton's 3rd law. The equation is trying to capture an estimation of the speed while the 3rd Law is describing the relationship of the contact.

Describing it in practical use would be the basic Trackman numbers i.e. clubhead speed, COR or smash, and ball speed. Basically, before, during, and after.

Force equaling mass times acceleration would be calculated for both the club and the ball to define the contact. The club would have it's own vector while the ball would be exerting force on the ground via gravity until contact at which point it's desire to "stay at rest" and maintain it's physical integrity would exert force in opposition to the club face. Much more complicated physics equation that simply F=m*a
[/quote]

But basically, I'm right, as usual. Correct?

[T.Beau]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1428508217' post='11311497']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428507348' post='11311393']
I am admittedly pretty over my head tryin go get into physics discussions, so I would rather just bow out here and find out who is right or wrong when the physics gurus come back.
[/quote]

Ugh, there are threads full of that, that we don't need it taking up another 6 pages here. I'm sure someone can provide the links.

TBH, there are some decent high-level demonstrations of physics concepts and how they relate to golf available via the USGA.

I'm sure someone with a such and such from a U of something would get all sniffy at the suggestion they are at all useful, just more USGA marketing for the golfing hoi polloi, but I thought they were worth a watch.
[/quote]

i agree...my bad for getting involved. i did a very quick google search. much better to do that and get quick answers that way. but i did learn some very useless stuff (for me)

[Jon H]

[quote name='Matt J' timestamp='1428507487' post='11311403']
I like the comment above with the "accuracy" ratings on the irons by My Golf Spy or whatever the website.

On a basic level of design, (I gotta keep it basic because like a lot of you I'm no engineer), it appears you have two competing themes between CB and MB design. Either put the mass behind the sweet spot and get consistency and better energy transfer or perimeter weight and get the "trampoline" effect.

So, the trampoline effect will give a little better consistency as you move away from the sweet spot but the well hit shots could have a bit of inconsistency in distance and direction. So, how big is that inconsistency? According to that one test, we're talking the best irons in class are around 12 feet and the worst are 20 feet. That means there's at least 12 feet of aim that we can't even take responsibility for... even the best strikers (as good as Iron Byron are ya?) have 12 feet of inherent "miss" in their irons. That'll make you think twice about how proud you are of that next "pin seeker." Evidently any time you get it within 24 feet you should be pretty stoked.
[/quote]

Add probability into this and I think you are on to something.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Matt J' timestamp='1428507853' post='11311449']
I'm no physicist either, but the equation to define velocity is very different than the theoretical Newton's 3rd law. The equation is trying to capture an estimation of the speed while the 3rd Law is describing the relationship of the contact.

Describing it in practical use would be the basic Trackman numbers i.e. clubhead speed, COR or smash, and ball speed. Basically, before, during, and after.

Force equaling mass times acceleration would be calculated for both the club and the ball to define the contact. The club would have it's own vector while the ball would be exerting force on the ground via gravity until contact at which point it's desire to "stay at rest" and maintain it's physical integrity would exert force in opposition to the club face. Much more complicated physics equation that simply F=m*a
[/quote]
MattJ if you use actual Trackman numbers and data like clubhead velocity, ball velocity, clubhead weight, and ball weight, you will find they line up well with Newtons formulas and the energy/work equations.

You have to start with the energy and work balance first. Then later we can get into the forces.

The energy and work balance starts with the kinetic energy of the clubhead going into the ball. This is all the energy available to the 'system'. Mathematically this energy can be quantified as 1/2 x the clubhead mass x the clubhead velocity squared. There is no work at this time because the ball hasn't moved.

As soon as there is contact, that kinetic energy starts doing work on the ball and so it transfers into compressing it and moving it. But also since the clubhead is compressible there is work done on it too. There is also heat energy generated but primarily the kinetic energy of the clubhead transfers to work being done on the ball and then finally the ball leaves the clubface with a slightly lower kinetic energy.

More details later.

[Mahamilto]

[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428452138' post='11307221']
That perception reality thing... Wow. Someone put up the mind blown gif. I'm on mobile and it's a PITA.
[/quote]

If you are interested in the neuroscience behind the argument, here it is... if not, just skip this post, it is long.

Some fun neuroscience crash course for it. The material isn't that difficult, but it takes time to understand it at molecular level etc. As far as a broad spectrum understanding, I'll do my best to make it so someone without any background could see what I mean and enjoy it. Its not intelligence, but rather exposure to material that gave me my foundation. I majored in neuroscience with a minor in cellular and molecular biology, and people get intimidated by the sound of it, but if you put the time and effort into understanding it, I feel its really not that hard, just the huge words and math can be a real PITA.

Perception reality is a really fun argument to play with. Both sides are 100% right, depending on their perception. Its a very cyclical argument, which makes it fun, sorta "chicken or the egg" type.

The common trend today in neuro is the understanding that our brains are merely filters and encoding modules for stimulus (things we can experience). The issue is, do we ever truly know what that stimulus is? I mean really? We can only perceive stimulus that we have a mechanistic sensory apparatus to do so. We can't see infrared... but a few other animals can, so is infrared any less real? There are things in the universe we just don't have the hardware to experience, but our brains contain the software to evaluate and discriminate any stimulus we can perceive. Take temperature. Temperature is the average kinetic energy (speed) of molecules. Hot is fast moving, cold is slow (think ice vs. gas). Our body has corpuscles and nerve endings in the skin that can sense the change in the molecular movement of the matter around us (air, liquid, solid... whatever). Our brain decides that this is hot, and does so subconsciously. The subconscious element is beyond important, as there is no processing involved that we are aware of. This is because these processes occur in "subcortical" regions. Your brain has a large and furrowed frontal cortex, which evaluates and compares stimulus consciously, it is your thought center and makes up the frontal lobe (as well as some association areas). You know this is happening, it is the thoughts you have, you can influence and manipulate them. But temperature is evaluated below this region, and you are completely unaware of the chemical and electrical processes which do it, but either way... a hot object is the same to everyone.

When you then go to experience and emotion, things drastically shift. The initial processing of these stimuli is indeed subcortical, just as temperature, but then the message finds its way into your cortex (after limbic processing in the amygdala, striatum, and hippocampus). The "software" of our brain is our prior experience, this changes every second of every day. Every single thing you experience in life (consciously) will forever alter all future thoughts. The "go to" saying is in behavioral neuroscience is: "the brain influences behavior, and behavior influences the brain". Conscious processing taking place in the cortex is evaluated against all prior experiences (memory) and then perceived as thought [b]and[/b] added to memory as well. This cortical conscious processing, therefore, is occurring on different "software" from person to person, as even identical twins have very different life experiences. The "software" (memory/experience) will determine the eventual perception and no matter what anyone tells you, is absolutely the reality to that individual.

In a society, we have collectively shared tons of similar experiences. We pass these things down generations in books, media, and oral traditions. Combined with communication skills, humans have come to define "reality" as a collective group. Much of this reality is consistent to all people, and those who do not share this reality are considered to be mentally ill. Example: smiling when happy is universal to high level primates. This is an involuntary reaction, when your brain perceives something as happy, it outputs a smile. This cannot be stopped unless you are consciously preventing it (thinking to yourself do not smile). There have been studies that you can go all over the world and show anyone a picture of a smiling person and they will say the individual is happy, even if they are from a village in a remote area. Smiling and happiness are collective reality for us.

But what about people who don't react? There are known conditions where people genuinely do not know what a smile is, nor will they do it often themselves. Why? Something is different in their hardware, software, or both.

This is where you can play with the argument. Take a schizophrenic. Many of them have "auditory" hallucinations. Normally, we hear things because our ears have a mechanism for turning pressurized air waves into thoughts. So does the pattern of pressurized air ways really make up a song, or is your brain just deducing the song out of the stimulus? Kinda both. But for schizophrenics, they will have the signal of a sound sent to their brain in the absence of any actual sound waves! Wait... huh? Yeah, that is actually what the auditory hallucination is, a malfunction in the signaling pathway that convinces the brain actual sound waves were sensed. So we can question, just because nobody else heard them, are they not real to the schizophrenic?

Thats where the hot spots argument comes in. If you are a 12 cap, and frequently missing the absolute hottest part of the club and the feedback doesn't alert you to this, your "reality" is that the club goes a certain distance when centered... you don't have any way to know it wasn't centered! (a blade, you know if you miss at all) As such, when you do catch the hottest part, and it flies further, you perceive you hit a hotspot, as this is the only explanation of why that same centered shot went differently than any other centered shot. If you can't perceive the difference in the strike, you can argue that the reality of the individual was the strikes are actually the same (to them... not to physics). So... to a midcap... hotspots exist, though technically they aren't some mythical location of oddly high exit speed, they are really just the dead optimal center for exit speed.

[Mahamilto]

[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428505072' post='11311085']
[quote name='Mahamilto' timestamp='1428502061' post='11310665']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428447045' post='11306575']
[quote name='buzlin' timestamp='1428446323' post='11306519']
Man, some of you anti-blade guys act as if you have to play a single iron type for the rest of your life. some of you also freak out at any technical discussion (right or wrong, relevant or not) that may persuade someone to try blades. this is the equipment board, inhabited by ho's. relax.

btw - you nerds realize today is National Beer day. Go out and have a few (sorry Govols, gotta be over 21).
[/quote]

B, so solid. I'm rolling hahahahaaaaa. Nice.




Mahamilto, I appreciate the technical discussion, and this is just a feeling, but are these things measured or is this just the scientific theory based on mathematical models that predict what should happen?

I don't mean to be a hater, I'm just a bit of a skeptic and I don't have the technical expertise you do to refute it, so I'm relying on you to give it to me straight. Your posts are pretty awesome from an information perspective.
[/quote]

Asking for clarification isn't hating. Skepticism is a good thing! People don't question enough if anything!

That being said, the physical properties I'm discussing are well accepted and mathematically proven/ confirmed.

If you are asking about the math, well... The math on these proofs is really dense. It's a lot deep calculus and algebra, and I'm not a mathematician, and even if I were doing that sort of "proof" (as in using the math to confirm the accuracy of an equation) is just not suitable for the format of typing in this form.

Either way, others, even dating back to hundreds and even thousands of years, have developed and proved the math, so we can be comfortable these aren't just random theories and models, nor are they theoretical physics.

If you want to know the math, it's online. But be forewarned... It's dense, but it is also valid.
[/quote]

Thank you, that is good enough for me in this context. I appreciate the background on it.
[/quote]

Right on. We all have unique backgrounds, knowing or not knowing something doesn't make anyone more or less intelligent, it only reflects on their prior experience in the matter.

[buzlin]

[quote name='Mahamilto' timestamp='1428510681' post='11311847']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1428452138' post='11307221']
That perception reality thing... Wow. Someone put up the mind blown gif. I'm on mobile and it's a PITA.
[/quote]

If you are interested in the neuroscience behind the argument, here it is... if not, just skip this post, it is long.

Some fun neuroscience crash course for it. The material isn't that difficult, but it takes time to understand it at molecular level etc. As far as a broad spectrum understanding, I'll do my best to make it so someone without any background could see what I mean and enjoy it. Its not intelligence, but rather exposure to material that gave me my foundation. I majored in neuroscience with a minor in cellular and molecular biology, and people get intimidated by the sound of it, but if you put the time and effort into understanding it, I feel its really not that hard, just the huge words and math can be a real PITA.

Perception reality is a really fun argument to play with. Both sides are 100% right, depending on their perception. Its a very cyclical argument, which makes it fun, sorta "chicken or the egg" type.

The common trend today in neuro is the understanding that our brains are merely filters and encoding modules for stimulus (things we can experience). The issue is, do we ever truly know what that stimulus is? I mean really? We can only perceive stimulus that we have a mechanistic sensory apparatus to do so. We can't see infrared... but a few other animals can, so is infrared any less real? There are things in the universe we just don't have the hardware to experience, but our brains contain the software to evaluate and discriminate any stimulus we can perceive. Take temperature. Temperature is the average kinetic energy (speed) of molecules. Hot is fast moving, cold is slow (think ice vs. gas). Our body has corpuscles and nerve endings in the skin that can sense the change in the molecular movement of the matter around us (air, liquid, solid... whatever). Our brain decides that this is hot, and does so subconsciously. The subconscious element is beyond important, as there is no processing involved that we are aware of. This is because these processes occur in "subcortical" regions. Your brain has a large and furrowed frontal cortex, which evaluates and compares stimulus consciously, it is your thought center and makes up the frontal lobe (as well as some association areas). You know this is happening, it is the thoughts you have, you can influence and manipulate them. But temperature is evaluated below this region, and you are completely unaware of the chemical and electrical processes which do it, but either way... a hot object is the same to everyone.

When you then go to experience and emotion, things drastically shift. The initial processing of these stimuli is indeed subcortical, just as temperature, but then the message finds its way into your cortex (after limbic processing in the amygdala, striatum, and hippocampus). The "software" of our brain is our prior experience, this changes every second of every day. Every single thing you experience in life (consciously) will forever alter all future thoughts. The "go to" saying is in behavioral neuroscience is: "the brain influences behavior, and behavior influences the brain". Conscious processing taking place in the cortex is evaluated against all prior experiences (memory) and then perceived as thought [b]and[/b] added to memory as well. This cortical conscious processing, therefore, is occurring on different "software" from person to person, as even identical twins have very different life experiences. The "software" (memory/experience) will determine the eventual perception and no matter what anyone tells you, is absolutely the reality to that individual.

In a society, we have collectively shared tons of similar experiences. We pass these things down generations in books, media, and oral traditions. Combined with communication skills, humans have come to define "reality" as a collective group. Much of this reality is consistent to all people, and those who do not share this reality are considered to be mentally ill. Example: smiling when happy is universal to high level primates. This is an involuntary reaction, when your brain perceives something as happy, it outputs a smile. This cannot be stopped unless you are consciously preventing it (thinking to yourself do not smile). There have been studies that you can go all over the world and show anyone a picture of a smiling person and they will say the individual is happy, even if they are from a village in a remote area. Smiling and happiness are collective reality for us.

But what about people who don't react? There are known conditions where people genuinely do not know what a smile is, nor will they do it often themselves. Why? Something is different in their hardware, software, or both.

This is where you can play with the argument. Take a schizophrenic. Many of them have "auditory" hallucinations. Normally, we hear things because our ears have a mechanism for turning pressurized air waves into thoughts. So does the pattern of pressurized air ways really make up a song, or is your brain just deducing the song out of the stimulus? Kinda both. But for schizophrenics, they will have the signal of a sound sent to their brain in the absence of any actual sound waves! Wait... huh? Yeah, that is actually what the auditory hallucination is, a malfunction in the signaling pathway that convinces the brain actual sound waves were sensed. So we can question, just because nobody else heard them, are they not real to the schizophrenic?

Thats where the hot spots argument comes in. If you are a 12 cap, and frequently missing the absolute hottest part of the club and the feedback doesn't alert you to this, your "reality" is that the club goes a certain distance when centered... you don't have any way to know it wasn't centered! (a blade, you know if you miss at all) As such, when you do catch the hottest part, and it flies further, you perceive you hit a hotspot, as this is the only explanation of why that same centered shot went differently than any other centered shot. If you can't perceive the difference in the strike, you can argue that the reality of the individual was the strikes are actually the same (to them... not to physics). So... to a midcap... hotspots exist, though technically they aren't some mythical location of oddly high exit speed, they are really just the dead optimal center for exit speed.
[/quote]

So basically you're saying play what you want?

Awesome post as usual.