Am.i the only one who thinks launch angles, spin, AoA, etc for chips is overkill info?

[getitdaily]

Lots of threads and instructors going heavy on trackman data paralysis for chips. Just seems overkill.

 

Setup

Wrist action 

Landing spot

Go practice

 

This is all I focus on. Cam Mccormick was doing golf channel academy stuff showing trackman data and my eyes glossed over.

 

To me, want to make chipping a chore...introduce aoa, launch angle, spin rate, etc data into your head...go chasing "optimals" like we do for drivers.

 

I like to keep it simple on this topic.

[skim4]

For average Joes 100%. Like I don’t even know what the D plane is. 
 

But as a theoretical discussion amongst instructors. looking at something “ new” . 
i think it’s pretty cool. 

[SNIPERBBB]

I think it's good to know the why on how it works but it's hardly something I would want to focus on during practice session unless I really need to prove something for whatever reason 

[Scottbox]

No offence, but I've always thought Joe Mayo to be kind of intense in his opinions. And I'm beginning to think that Viktor Hovland moved on because Joe Mayo was a little too Joe Mayo for Viktor's liking.

[PoeKingShankspeare]

I can see it very useful for those golfers who are 2%er, Maybe??. But, For the rest of the 98% of golfers, it is over kill IMO. Just get a coach.. but if someone feels they can benefit from trackman data, then go for it.  Texas wedge or 8i has a larger room for error than a LB or SW for chipping.

[Dabetic]

I think it depends, in part, on how you analyze information - a technical person may like it. I guess it's okay to know time to time (really just out of curiosity), but not something one should consistently rely on.

 

Inside a certain yardage, and definitely ~around the greens, I'm all feel. It's much more art than science. My sort of mantra is to just watch and learn from the ball / learn to manipulate it to do what you want it to do. Outside of extremely bad form, I don't think data is required

[bnperrone]

For chipping? I didn't even know that was a thing. As others have said, yeah, it's gotta be the best golfers in the world who could even benefit and most of them would probably be better off without it.

 

Can't wait to hear an 18-handicapper tell me how he's been working on the AoA on his chips.

[Zitlow]

There's an intangible they leave out of the equation, touch. 

[getitdaily]

2 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

There's an intangible they leave out of the equation, touch. 

Oxymoron....intangible touch

[iacas]

Is GEARS, force plates, launch monitors in general, video, nearly every training aid, etc. overkill?

 

Everything has its place. And just because people are talking about it and learning about it doesn’t mean you have to think about it when you’re hitting a shot on the golf course.

[Binson]

I get it's not for everybody but I love all the club and ball data. This is coming from someone who is not even a true numbers geek.  Is it required? No.  But can pros and joes alike benefit from some basic understanding without being a PHD in mathematics and physics? I think so.  

 

Being able to verify with a launch monitor if a particular feel you're trying to implement is leading to the results you want in real-time is invaluable.  Being able to know what your technique and equipment in combination is delivering compared to what is possible is useful to knowing which levers you can pull to improve. 

 

On the course, it is not something you actually think about.  It's something you use to build a feel in practice, so you have trust in the feels you've developed when you're playing.  At that point, it becomes just visualizing the shot you want to hit with the feel you want to hit it with.  There are no AoA and spin numbers floating around in your head. 

 

If you have an understanding of the numbers, it allows more efficient and precise communication and understanding even when working with a coach.  When you're off your game, it becomes easier to diagnose the cause.

 

There are people that have a phobia of numbers of any kind.  As someone who struggled with calculus, I get that.  Without an understanding of the club and ball data, I get why people would gloss over;'.  A good coach should educate and contextualize important data to look at if the student is receptive.  A good, receptive student would ask the coach which pieces of data they should focus on and why (or even do some research on their own before the lesson to familiarize with the language).

[getitdaily]

15 minutes ago, Binson said:

I get it's not for everybody but I love all the club and ball data. This is coming from someone who is not even a true numbers geek.  Is it required? No.  But can pros and joes alike benefit from some basic understanding without being a PHD in mathematics and physics? I think so.  

 

Being able to verify with a launch monitor if a particular feel you're trying to implement is leading to the results you want in real-time is invaluable.  Being able to know what your technique and equipment in combination is delivering compared to what is possible is useful to knowing which levers you can pull to improve. 

 

On the course, it is not something you actually think about.  It's something you use to build a feel in practice, so you have trust in the feels you've developed when you're playing.  At that point, it becomes just visualizing the shot you want to hit with the feel you want to hit it with.  There are no AoA and spin numbers floating around in your head. 

 

If you have an understanding of the numbers, it allows more efficient and precise communication and understanding even when working with a coach.  When you're off your game, it becomes easier to diagnose the cause.

 

There are people that have a phobia of numbers of any kind.  As someone who struggled with calculus, I get that.  Without an understanding of the club and ball data, I get why people would gloss over;'.  A good coach should educate and contextualize important data to look at if the student is receptive.  A good, receptive student would ask the coach which pieces of data they should focus on and why (or even do some research on their own before the lesson to familiarize with the language).

I get that, I really do. But I've NEVER seen a yahoo amateur put a launch monitor down for chipping. I have a mevo+ and could do it myself, but haven't even desired to try. 

 

It's just really easy to judge if your technique is working by evaluating whether you hit your landing spot and the ball rolled out close enough to the hole...

 

I'm ALL about data feedback for full shots.

[mat562]

Nipping one in off hardpan to see who could get the most screeching to a stop ball reaction and rpm number among a group would be fun.

 

For about ten minutes.

[getitdaily]

1 minute ago, mat562 said:

Nipping one in off hardpan to see who could get the most screeching to a stop ball reaction and rpm number among a group would be fun.

 

For about ten minutes.

Folks have been playing that game for a long time, without a launch monitor. 

 

Zippers, cut the legs off, etc. Doing that stuff teaches you what you need....

[DaveGoodrich]

What I really need to know is whether I have the trajectory and spin needed to make the ball stop near the hole.  It doesn't take a Trackman to see that.  Knowing, in a technical sense, the factors that produce various trajectories and spin rates, is a good thing.  I see Mayo's contribution to this discussion as a positive in that sense.  But fixating on optimizing numbers is probably not helpful for most folks.  

[RogerinNewZealand]

Chip with 9,8,7 irons. Chip too a pin with 1 or 2 uphill gradients and usually 22 to 26 yards. Yes i pace it out.10..10..10. I get close. The test is to stop them all within 1 put distance of hole, then do the ten puts..

[byoung14]

It’s cool for feedback but the whole argument about shallow or steep has just gotten out of hand. Instead of finding a suitable technique and going out to practice different shots, people are spending too much time arguing about trying to find a perfect solution when the goal of chipping/pitching is to hit the ball close as possible to the hole with the right trajectory/spin.

[Pepperturbo]

For most people, excessive analysis is paralysis = crappy chipping leads to lots of crying.  There's always practice.

 

Remember,  

“Don't cry my son
Don't cry because life is a redeemed fight
Life is a fight that will demean the weak person
And will always exalt the strong ones”   ― Antonio Goncalves Dias

[Zitlow]

1 hour ago, getitdaily said:

Oxymoron....intangible touch

 

Thanks, was just saying you don't hear much about touch and feel when it comes to the short game. 

[Binson]

1 hour ago, getitdaily said:

I get that, I really do. But I've NEVER seen a yahoo amateur put a launch monitor down for chipping. I have a mevo+ and could do it myself, but haven't even desired to try. 

 

It's just really easy to judge if your technique is working by evaluating whether you hit your landing spot and the ball rolled out close enough to the hole...

 

I'm ALL about data feedback for full shots.

I getcha.  Especially if you already have the shots you want to hit.  I also don't use one outdoors when chipping, but that's more of a cost constraint.  Once I've built that feel indoors though on a trackman simulator, I am fine with taking that feel to the course and experimenting with it as needed to adapt to the course without a monitor.

 

For me, putting is where I have not used the club and ball data (doesn't mean it can't be useful).  That said, the make percentage data by distance and hole capture rate vs. speed I found very helpful in setting the right expectations and priorities.

[b.mattay]

Absolutely not overkill IMO...I WISH I had access to that stuff.

To me, that feedback would be invaluable, because the short game is much harder for me (technique-wise) full swing.

I find the smaller swing makes it harder to compensate well. 

 

[getitdaily]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Is GEARS, force plates, launch monitors in general, video, nearly every training aid, etc. overkill?

This is a thread on chipping, not the straw man you threw up.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Zitlow said:

Thanks, was just saying you don't hear much about touch and feel when it comes to the short game. 

 

Because good technique allows you to use your touch/feel.

 

If you have bad technique, and the ball launches differently, your contact is different, etc. all the time… you can't express your touch/feel.

 

12 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

This is a thread on chipping, not the straw man you threw up.

 

This isn't a straw man. I was answering your question by posing a semi-rhetorical question.

 

I'm making the point that at some level, being able to measure or get data is helpful. It doesn't mean your average 10 handicapper needs to know if he's launching it at 33° or 28.5°. He has bigger problems to solve.

 

Tech has its place.

 

As I siad, that you didn't quote:

 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Everything has its place. And just because people are talking about it and learning about it doesn’t mean you have to think about it when you’re hitting a shot on the golf course.

 

So, as with the other tools and tech, measuring chip shots and pitch shots has its place.

 

Edited February 9 by iacas
Added other reply

[getitdaily]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Because good technique allows you to use your touch/feel.

 

If you have bad technique, and the ball launches differently, your contact is different, etc. all the time… you can't express your touch/feel.

 

 

This isn't a straw man. I was answering your question by posing a semi-rhetorical question.

 

I'm making the point that at some level, being able to measure or get data is helpful. It doesn't mean your average 10 handicapper needs to know if he's launching it at 33° or 28.5°. He has bigger problems to solve.

 

Tech has its place.

 

As I siad, that you didn't quote:

 

 

So, as with the other tools and tech, measuring chip shots and pitch shots has its place.

 

It's overkill for chipping for nearly every golfer that isn't playing at the collegiate or professional level.

 

Not going to argue with you on this. You have disagreed. Leave it at that or stop taking my posts off ignore.

[johnrobison]

3 hours ago, getitdaily said:

I get that, I really do. But I've NEVER seen a yahoo amateur put a launch monitor down for chipping. I have a mevo+ and could do it myself, but haven't even desired to try. 

 

It's just really easy to judge if your technique is working by evaluating whether you hit your landing spot and the ball rolled out close enough to the hole...

 

I'm ALL about data feedback for full shots.

Perhaps it’s a matter of expectations and the margin of error you tolerate.

 

Where are you on using similar data for putting?

[getitdaily]

Just now, johnrobison said:

Perhaps it’s a matter of expectations and the margin of error you tolerate.

 

Where are you on using similar data for putting?

I love data on putting. I would buy a sam puttlab if they were in a price range that doesn't include my wife cutting me in my sleep.

 

Putting - yes

General swing - yes

Driver and 3w - yes

Chipping - overkill 

 

 

[Ty_Webb]

I think for 99% of golfers, it doesn't really matter what your launch angle is, so long as it's about the same each time you hit it. If sometimes it's 25 and sometimes it's 35, then your feel has no chance of resulting in good chip shots. But if it's always 28 or always 33, that allows you to learn how hard to hit it to have it go a certain distance. It's quite plausible that there are some slight benefits to it being 28 and not 31, so for the 1% who can make use of that, have at it. 

 

It's also pretty easy to ignore those sorts of threads/posts etc. if it bothers you.

[johnrobison]

2 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

I love data on putting. I would buy a sam puttlab if they were in a price range that doesn't include my wife cutting me in my sleep.

 

Putting - yes

General swing - yes

Driver and 3w - yes

Chipping - overkill 

 

 

So I’m thinking it’s your outcome expectations and what you’re willing to tolerate from each. If, as you said, it’s important at a highly competitive level, it’s because the expectations there are higher than yours. Whereas you’re willing to accept close enough to the hole, they’re expecting to hole every one. If your acceptable margin of error for chipping was as small as it is for your putting and full swing, you’d want the data. That’s what I’m thinking, anyway.

[getitdaily]

8 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

So I’m thinking it’s your outcome expectations and what you’re willing to tolerate from each. If, as you said, it’s important at a highly competitive level, it’s because the expectations there are higher than yours. Whereas you’re willing to accept close enough to the hole, they’re expecting to hole every one. If your acceptable margin of error for chipping was as small as it is for your putting and full swing, you’d want the data. That’s what I’m thinking, anyway.

You're close but not quite.

 

I expect to make a chip about as much as I expect to make a 50 foot putt.

 

For a chip, the club moves very little so there's very little (should be very little) issues with fave rotation. You need to he able to consistently hit a landing spot and know how much each club runs out. Then you just need repetition. 

 

Chipping is pretty straightforward if you spend time.on it. Ball forward for higher and softer. Ball back for low runner. Learn how the ball reacts pitching into slopes. If you can't consistently execute basic chips then trying to understand launch angle and spin rates is rather futile.

 

Tell someone who can chip that they hit one that launched higher and spun more than another one and they'll give you a "duh" look...because you can see that outcome on the practice green.

[johnrobison]

1 minute ago, getitdaily said:

You're close but not quite.

 

I expect to make a chip about as much as I expect to make a 50 foot putt.

 

For a chip, the club moves very little so there's very little (should be very little) issues with fave rotation. You need to he able to consistently hit a landing spot and know how much each club runs out. Then you just need repetition. 

 

Chipping is pretty straightforward if you spend time.on it. Ball forward for higher and softer. Ball back for low runner. Learn how the ball reacts pitching into slopes. If you can't consistently execute basic chips then trying to understand launch angle and spin rates is rather futile.

 

Tell someone who can chip that they hit one that launched higher and spun more than another one and they'll give you a "duh" look...because you can see that outcome on the practice green.

Fair enough but putting is pretty straight forward, too, and the club moves very little. Why is the data more meaningful to you there than for chipping?