The other problem we are dealing with here is that all of the anecdotal testimony about this or that is the result of testing by us humans. As Dr. Phil put it when discussing weight loss, we subconsciously work to meet our expectations. If we are handed a golf club that we believe is better, it will be, at least for a while, EVEN IF THE CLUB HAS NOT CHANGED PHYSICALLY AT ALL. As Dave said, until we have a working analytical model that we can use to investigate the effect of spines and have experimentally validated it there is insufficient quality testing from which to draw meaningful conclusions.
If spines of modern magnitude (less than 5 cpm) do have a measurable effect, it is going to take some very careful analysis and experimental work to quantify, and I am very confident that it will be below the threshold of human recognition (probably even the pro's).
Grind away folks,
Alan Brooks
At 05:19 PM 10/8/2003 -0400, you (Dave T.) wrote:
Until we have a working analytical model for why spine alignment helps, we won't know how accurate the alignment has to be. I have to guess it isn't very critical. If it were -- and given the truth about how hard it is to align to better than 5 degrees -- the data from hitting actual clubs would be even more random than it is.
