Golf swing analyzing/training mat system with ball striking-related feedback
A golf practice mat includes an impact sensor disposed in a vicinity bounding the location of where a golf ball would be placed for striking. The golf practice mat may also include, for example, a “crosshair” target imprint that is disposed on a golf club impact sensor portion of the practice surface and indicates the point/line of contact that the club face should hit the ground after the ball has been struck with the club head in a descending blow. A microcontroller receives and analyzes the output of the impact sensor and generates a display/output message that is coupled to a display that is, for example, embodied on the golf practice mat to provide user shot-related feedback. The display may indicate, for example, the user's golf club, the estimated distance the ball will travel depending upon the impact data analyzed, the club chosen by the user, input backswing data and/or a three-dimensional simulation of the resulting golf stroke.
This application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of Provisional Application Nos. 60/815,254 and 60/842,011, filed Jun. 21, 2006 and Sep. 5, 2006, respectively, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in this application. This application is also related to application Ser. No. 11/582,546 filed Oct. 17, 2006, entitled “ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED GOLF SWING ANALYZING/Training MAT System WITH BALL STRIKING-RELATED FEEDBACK”, Attorney docket No. 4919-4.
FIELD OF THE INVENTIONThe invention generally relates to golf practice equipment apparatus and methodology. More particularly, the invention relates to an electronically controlled, golf swing analyzing/training/instructional mat system which provides a wide range of golf ball striking feedback.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTIONThe game of golf has been a source of frustration for multitudes of golfers who have struggled to achieve consistently good results when playing this very difficult game.
Part of the difficulty in reducing golf scores and/or striking the ball consistently well is that much of what is required to be a good golfer is anti-intuitive to most players. For example, while great emphasis is placed in many golf courses on hitting the ball a long distance, attempts by beginner golfers to strike the ball with great impact, typically leads to the golfer tensing up and failing to hit the ball with the smooth, seemingly effortless stroke that often characterizes a long ball hitter having proper swing and ball striking techniques.
Similarly, beginner golfers attempting, for example, to hit a high arching shot using a pitching wedge, intuitively attempt to swing up at the ball in a misguided effort to hit it high. In contrast, the proper ball striking technique involves hitting down on the ball just prior to impact and letting the angle of the club face work to loft the ball.
There is a need for golf practice equipment that provides a wide range of user feedback to reinforce a swing that will result in good ball contact and to help correct a habitual swing/ball strike that will predictably result in bad ball contact. In this fashion, particularly when coupled with professional guidance, a golfer may develop a swing that results in optimum ball striking that becomes second nature. Without proper instructional guidance and positive feedback, proper ball striking cannot be readily accomplished.
In accordance with a first exemplary, non-limiting implementation of the present invention, a golf practice mat includes an impact sensor disposed in a vicinity bounding the location of where a golf ball is to be envisioned by the user. By way of example only, a circular indication of the position where a golf ball would be placed for striking is embodied on the practice mat.
The golf practice mat also includes, in an exemplary implementation, a “crosshair” target imprint that is disposed on a golf club impact sensor portion of the practice surface. The target imprint indicates the point/line of contact that the club face should hit the ground after the ball has been struck with the club head in a descending blow. The “crosshair” location reflects the prevailing view that, when a golf ball is to be struck on a golf course fairway, the proper ball striking technique requires hitting down on the ball at impact.
In an exemplary embodiment, a microcontroller receives and analyzes the output of the impact sensor and generates display-related data/output message that is coupled to a display that is, for example, embodied on the golf practice mat to provide stroke/shot-related feedback. In an illustrative embodiment, the display may, for example, provide an indication of the club chosen by the user, the user input amount of backswing rotation, the projected path of the ball after being struck, the estimated distance the ball will travel based upon a projection in light of the impact data analyzed, and/or a line of club head contact with the mat indicative of the disposition of a divot on an actual golf course. In an illustrative implementation, the display may include a 3D simulation of the resulting golf stroke and ball flight.
In an illustrative implementation, an Initial Strike Feedback Circle is embodied on the practice mat that pinpoints exactly where the golfer's initial club head strike fell with respect to an ideal strike point to thereby provide a divot-related indication. The idea behind this is to stimulate the golfer to adjust his/her stroke on the next swing to match an ideal strike point. In an illustrative embodiment, two circles are drawn around the center of a mat zero line, which is the ideal strike point. These circles are populated with closely-packed LEDs that can be individually activated to display, for example, the initial club head strike line.
Certain of the illustrative implementations are based in part upon a recognition that by a microcontroller analyzing the output of an array of impact sensors that detect club head contact at the points corresponding to where a divot would be taken on an actual golf course much can be learned/projected about the golfer's swing and the resulting golf shot. For example, much can be learned about the quality of the golfer's swing just from the size of the initial club head footprint on the impact mat/sensors and its horizontal X-Y position and rotational angle. Then, expanding this 2D geometric model to 3D, more can be learned from the footprint's initial vertical Y-Z downward pressure and rotational angle from toe to heel gleaned from small deltas in the pressure gradient across the length of the footprint in the Y-Z plane. Moreover, even more can be learned within each footprint from any small positional and rotational deltas that are described herein.
In an exemplary embodiment, the device stores a set of a user's golf club impact data over time and analyzes such data for stroke/shot-related trends, e.g., typically makes contact with the clubface open or closed to result in a ball path to the right or left, typically makes contact too far in front or behind the ball, etc. In this fashion, a user may be provided with 1) a wide range of real time and long range swing/ball striking-related feedback and/or 2) real time projected golf shot-related feed back.
Moreover, such data may be processed in accordance with an illustrative implementation such that it may be used by golf club manufacturers and retail outlets for club fitting and optimum golf club selection tailored to the swing of a given golfer. In accordance with illustrative implementations, this data may be processed and advantageously utilized to assist in the selection and/or fitting of the optimum golf club, e.g., TaylorMade, Callaway, Ping, etc., tailored to the swing of a user. Thus, the golf apparatus described herein may be utilized for other applications beyond golf training.
In accordance with a non-limiting exemplary implementation, the visual display may be accompanied by or, if desired, replaced with an audio indication of the stroke analysis.
In accordance with a non-limiting, exemplary implementation, the golf practice mat may include an input mechanism enabling the user to select, for example, a club and stroke to utilize, e.g., a sand wedge to be hit with a short, medium or full backswing. Such backswings, when analogized to the hands of a clock are often referred to, for example, as 7:30, 9:00 and 10:30 position backswings.
In accordance with an exemplary implementation, the optimum distance traveled for each club desired to be included is stored in a memory table embodied in the practice mat's associated microcontroller-based electronics. In one illustrative embodiment, the memory table associates for each club and each of a variety of backswings, an optimum distance value. The table is accessed by the microcontroller to compute stroke distance.
A user, in accordance with an exemplary implementation, selects a manual or automatic mode of operation. In the manual mode of operation, the user inputs the mode of operation defining the club and the stroke utilized. In an automated mode of operation, the microcontroller informs the user via the display and/or an audio output such club and stroke information and sequences through pre-programmed practice drills.
In accordance with a further exemplary embodiment, a user is provided with instructional materials depicting the proper ball striking stroke for various type of shots, such as a distance wedge, short chip, etc. Such materials may be provided in a booklet form provided in association with the golf practice mat.
In a further exemplary embodiment, such golf swing instructional materials may be provided, for example, in a memory card associated with a portable or any other type of computing device. The portable computing device may in accordance with such an exemplary embodiment display a sequence of videographic displays that show, for example, the proper body position for the backswing, ball strike/impact and follow through positions. Because there are varying views with respect to the proper stroke, such memory cards may be generated to represent the approach taught by various well-respected golf professionals/schools (e.g., Dave Pelz, A J Bonar, etc.) and users will preferably be provided with a choice of instructional golf swing sequences. Alternatively, in a further illustrative implementation, the memory card may be received in a memory input port associated with the practice mat microcontroller and the instructional materials may be displayed on the practice mat display.
In yet a further exemplary embodiment, the portable computing device may be utilized to communicate to the microcontroller and control the practice mat display. The mode of operation may be selected by the user from a portable computing device via, for example, conventional wireless communication protocols.
Further, in an illustrative embodiment, after the practice mat microcontroller has analyzed the impact related data, results may be wirelessly communicated to the portable or other computing device for generation of the display of a three-dimensional animated simulation of the results of the stroke that may include the replication of any desired golf course hole. Such a simulated display may be generated on a display screen of any size, including a large TV screen display.
In accordance with further exemplary embodiments, the practice mat may be supplemented with putting extensions/attachments for recording and displaying putts made from various distances in a putting mode of operation. Instructional putting videographic sequences may also be associated with this mode of operation.
In a further exemplary embodiment, the mat be utilized in conjunction with a tethered whiffle golf ball or a hollow, partial or substantially spherical rubber golf ball shell replica fixed to the mat to aid the golfer in envisioning an actual golf placement while practicing golf strokes.
These and other features and advantages of the illustrative embodiments described herein will become apparent with reference to the following drawings and accompanying specification.
While the apparatus and methodology embodying the present invention may be implemented in many different forms, there is shown in the following drawings and will be described in detail herein specific embodiments thereof, with the understanding that the present disclosure is to be considered as an illustration of some of the many ways of using the claimed invention. This description should not be construed to limit the claimed invention to the specific embodiments described and illustrated herein.
By way of example only, the non-ball striking portion of mat 1 may, in accordance with a low cost implementation, be constructed using a carpet-like material such as, for example, a sturdy outdoor carpet. In an exemplary embodiment, the ball striking practice portion of the mat may be constructed from an artificial turf base such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,931, (the '931 patent). The '931 patent is directed to a golf swing practice structure comprising a low friction flexible and resilient top sheet that is contacted by the golf club. The top sheet has a rigidity of 40 pounds per square inch or less and has an underlying supporting pad for supporting the top sheet and for providing space for the top sheet to move under force of the club. The support pad is compressible to 50% of its resting height in any area near its center line by an applied pressure of 8 psi or less. A bottom sheet is used underneath the support pad.
Alternatively, the mat fabric may be constructed primarily of the artificial turf structures as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,913,799; 6,139,443; or 5,885,168. Each of the above-identified exemplary golf practice mat artificial turf structures are incorporated herein by reference.
In an illustrative implementation, golf practice mat 1 includes an impact sensor 2, having a golf ball representation/replica/imprint 3 and a target 5 imprinted or otherwise fixed thereto. Although in this illustrative embodiment, a circle the diameter of a golf ball may be used as a golf ball representation/imprint/replica (golf ball representation) 3, it should be understood that the golf ball may be represented in various other ways. In one implementation, an actual whiffle golf ball that, for example, is tethered to and placed on an indicated golf ball imprint also may be utilized. Additionally, in an exemplary embodiment, a hollow, partially or substantially completely spherical golf ball-dimensioned shell fastened to the mat may be utilized to give the golfer a three-dimensional target. This target should be constructed using a highly elastic substance, e.g., rubber, that will not be damaged by the full brunt of repeated swings. In this fashion, a golfer can practice ball striking with an object resembling a golf ball without damaging the object by repeated striking.
The golf ball imprint 3 position may be varied in its disposition on impact sensor 2 in various implementations. As shown in
The target 5 is preferably disposed in relation to golf ball imprint so as to reinforce the well known golf ball striking methodology of hitting down on the ball and using the angle of the club face to direct the ball to the optimum height.
The design of impact sensor 2 may be varied widely depending upon the desired stroke analysis. For example, merely detecting that the club head made contact with impact sensor 2 after the swing passes golf ball imprint 3, requires a coarser detection methodology than if it is desired to determine the angle of the club face upon contact.
Impact sensor 2 may, by way of example, be constructed with a contact touch pad including impact and/or pressure sensors to permit derivation of multiple contact point information, such that a set of club contact data points are generated. Impact sensor 2 is mounted on golf practice mat 1 such that it is substantially coplanar with the rest of the top fabric practice mat surface.
Impact sensor 2 may be the sensor element (and if desired may include the interface controller and software) of the real-time electronic tactile sensor from Sensor Products, Incorporated commercially available as Tactilus. Tactilus is an electronic tactile force and pressure-indicating sensor. The sensor system allows the user to monitor precisely how force is dispersed between any two contacting or mating surfaces in real-time while the event occurs. In one illustrative implementation, the golf club head contact with the impact sensor portion of the practice mat may be monitored with Tactilus, a system that is capable of use in systems where pressure lies between 0.001 PSI (0.0007 Kg/cm2) to 2,000 PSI (140.61 kg/cm2).
The Tactilus sensor element is essentially a thin flexible or rigid sheet that is densely packed with sensing points or pixels. These sensing points can be spaced as close as 1 mm (0.04″) apart and can collect data as rapidly as 2,000 readings per second. The sensing points may use capacitance, resistance or piezoresistance architectures. The Tactilus system may be used to generate 2D, 3D and 360 degree image rendering with extensive user control, local point and region-of-interest (ROI) analysis, force integration and average pressure, pressure vs. time graph and pressure histogram, sophisticated calibration control and offers an extensive software library for application customization. An exemplary implementation using the Tactilus sensor is described in detail below.
Alternatively, as an alternative to the Tactilus impact sensor that is described in detail below, impact sensor 2 may be a tactile sensor of the various types disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,515,586 (the '586 patent), which is incorporated herein by reference. For example, in the '586 patent as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 (see these figures for the cited sensor component reference numerals that follow), a tactile sensory surface is comprised of three layers consisting of a surface layer 204, a backing or foundation layer 206, and a sensory layer 208. The sensory layer 208 may be located between the surface and backing layers, 204 and 206, respectively. The sensors 202 may be integrated directly into the top or bottom side of the backing layer 206 at the time of manufacturing. The surface layer 204 may be, for example, a carpet layer where the sensors 202 are woven directly into the carpet fibers or in an artificial turf. As described in the '586 patent, the sensors may be embodied in any desired size surface area.
As described in the '586 patent and as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 therein, sensory layer 208 may include plurality of sensors 202, sensor leads 210, width resistor indicators 212, width resistor wire pairs 214, length resistor indicators 216, a length resistor wire pair 218, multiplexers (or row multiplexers) 220 and a data bus 222. The sensors 202 can be arranged in any suitable pattern or field, including, but not limited to a grid pattern, hexagonal pattern, and so forth.
In the present impact sensor 2 application, although sensors 202 are preferably disposed in a pattern placed in rows, sensors 202 can be arranged in any suitable manner, including horizontally, vertically or diagonally. In an exemplary embodiment, the sensors are arranged in rows 209 to form a grid, and run across the width of the tactile sensory surface. Each separate row of sensors 202 can be spaced the same distance apart as the distance between individual sensors 202 in a row 209 to form a square/rectangular grid pattern. The sensors are, for example, about one cm. in diameter and are arranged in rows 209 with spacing between sensors of about 0.5 cm or less within each row 209.
Within a given row 209, there are a suitable number of sensors 202 connected to at least one row multiplexer via one or more sensor leads. The sensor lead can comprise one continuous wire as shown, or can include a series of wires running between each sensor 202, such that there is a small gap within the diameter of the sensor 202 where a wire or sensor lead 210 is not present.
Each sensor 202, when activated, sends out a particular signal to the row multiplexer 220 for that row, depending on the type of sensor 202, and in some cases, the degree of activation.
The sensors 202 can be any suitable type, such as force sensors or pressure sensors. Force sensors include, but are not limited to, piezo polymers and ceramic strain gauges. A pressure sensor gives the same constant force reading, which is inversely proportional to the area of the applied force. In one embodiment, the sensors 202 are responsive to variable pressures and can be adjusted. In an alternative embodiment, the sensors 202 are binary “on/off” sensors having a minimum threshold pressure needed to activate. For example, the minimum threshold pressure may be set to be less than about seven (7) bars (about 0.5 psi), up to about 1.5 bars (about 10 psi) to about 15 bars (about 100 psi) or more.
In a further embodiment, each sensor 202 may be comprised of layers of material which can detect contact pressure or whose electrical resistance or capacitance changes with an increase in pressure applied to the sensor 202. Such materials include, but are not limited to thin film sensors, such as piezo film. Piezo film is available in a wide variety of thicknesses and configurations, and is known to be flexible, lightweight and durable.
Another type of thin film sensor which can be used is a sensor device known as a force and position-sensing resistor (FSR). Such a device can detect both force and position, and typically displays a resistance of the square root of the area of the applied force. Two basic types of FSRs include an FSR-LP linear potentiometer and an “XYZ” pad. The FSR-LP has conducting fingers shunted by a conductive polymer, such that a greater number of shunted fingers produces a greater dynamic range and resolution. The XYZ pad or tablet is essentially two FSR-LPS set back-to-back. FSR devices are known to be impervious to moisture, chemicals, vibration and magnetism. The FSR device used can be of any suitable size and shape. The current should be set at a level appropriate to the golf practice mat application. In a particular embodiment, the sensors used are FSR devices from Interlink Electronics in Camarillo, Calif.
In accordance with a further exemplary embodiment, impact sensor 2 may be modular in design so that it may be readily replaced if damaged. Such a modular approach may be particularly useful for implementations when the sensor array is constructed with sensors that are relatively susceptible to damage. The use of a sensor array that may be readily replaced may advantageously increase the practicality of using sensors that are lower in cost. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, such an impact sensor 2 should be designed using, for example, multiplexers to minimize the number of conductors at the impact sensor module interface.
In accordance with a low cost implementation, impact sensor 2 may be implemented with a material that may change in contour to visually indicate the point at which the club head made contact with the practice mat 1. Alternatively, the material may be pressure sensitive so as to change in color in response to contact with a club head. For example, in one illustrative implementation, the impact sensor 2 may be comprised of a visco-elastic material beneath and, for example, adhesively attached to an artificial turf/outdoor carpet-type top mat surface. The characteristics of such a material is that it combines viscous and elastic behaviors; the scientific term to describe memory foam. Visco-elastic, or memory foam is a temperature and pressure sensitive material often used in mattresses and pillows to relieve pressure, ease and prevent back and neck problems. Visco-elastic foam is made of thousands of tiny cells which mold to any shape and revert back to their original form. In such a low cost implementation, this material may be used to provide a visual indication/feedback of the initial club strike point and the nature of a resulting divot had the stroke been performed on a golf fairway. Such visco-elastic material may be used in conjunction with any of the other embodiments to at least a limited extent to provide further visual feedback as to the initial club strike point. Further, any of these embodiments may be used with a replica of a golf ball with a visual cue (e.g., as reflected by a nail-like shaft going through the center of the golf ball) such as is shown in
Whether the club contact points are indicated by a color, color shade, and/or contour change, the user would be provided with visual feedback as to how close the club head came to the ideal striking point. Such material will provide a visual indication of where in relation to the target a divot would have been taken if the swing were made at, for example, a golf course fairway. The user will, for example, be able to determine whether ball contact would have been made behind the ball.
Golf practice/training mat 1 also includes, in an exemplary embodiment, a display 6, one or more speakers 11 and a mode/control panel 10. Coupled to the mode/control panel 10 and impact sensor 2 is a microprocessor/microcontroller 4.
Display 6 may be any of a wide range of displays including an LCD or an LED display. By way of example only, display 6 may be mounted in practice mat 1 to be flush with the mat surface. Alternatively, display 6 may be an LCD display hingedly mounted such that it may be raised from the mat surface and angled to promote ease of visibility. In accordance with an illustrative embodiment, LCD display 6 may be include associated broadcast TV/video recording/playback (e.g., DVD) electronics to permit a user to practice while, for example, watch a golf instructional video, golf tournament or any desired programming. In a further embodiment, display 6 may be coupled to the golf practice mat 1 such that it is not disposed on the golf practice mat surface, but rather may be a display which is external to the mat and coupled to the microcontroller 4 via a wired or wireless connection.
Microprocessor/microcontroller 4 receives stroke data from impact sensor 2, analyzes the data and, as will be explained further below, generates a videographics display that is coupled to display 6 and an associated audio output that is coupled to speakers 11. As will be explained further below, in one implementation, microcontroller 4, after analyzing the practice stroke data from impact sensor 2, generates a display on display 6 that identifies the club and backswing used (e.g., sand wedge (SW) and 9:00 stroke (see
Associated with microprocessor/controller 4 is a memory 8 that, for example, stores the software executed by microcontroller 4 together with memory tables utilized to generate the user's golf club yardage distance. Memory 8 may, for example, be a removable memory card, e.g., a flash memory card that is insertable into a memory receiving port (not shown) in mat 1. Memory 8 may alternatively be permanently resident in mat 1.
Microprocessor/microcontroller 4 is also operatively coupled to a mode/control input module 10. Mode/control input module 10 includes one or more control keys that are utilized, for example, to define the club and stroke used during a practice session segment. The club and stroke may be, in an exemplary embodiment, selected in response to a menu displayed on display 6. Alternatively, mode/control input module 10 may permit a user to key in a desired mode of operation as will be explained further below. Further, in accordance with yet another embodiment, mode/control input module 10 may be wirelessly coupled to microprocessor/microcontroller 4 to permit remote input of operating mode information and may be part of any of a number of commercially available portable or other computing device such as a PC.
The electronic components of practice mat 1 are powered by batteries/AC adapter 9 as shown in
By way of example only, golf practice mat 1 may include foot position imprints 12 that, for example, aid the user in assuming the proper ball striking position during the session, e.g., the ball disposed half way between the user's feet, with the front foot disposed at a slight angle towards the target.
In such a low cost implementation, this material may be used to provide a contour changing visual indication/feedback of the initial club strike point 17 and the nature of a resulting divot had the stroke been performed on a golf fairway, as is generally represented in
As shown in
As shown in
Golf is an activity where it is important to practice utilizing the proper swing/ball striking technique. While what constitutes a proper technique may vary between golf schools/golf professionals, in a preferred implementation, the golf practice mat 1 should be utilized in conjunction with swing/ball striking instructional materials. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, a user is provided with instructional written materials depicting the proper ball striking stroke for various type of shots, such as a distance wedge, short chip, etc.
In a further exemplary embodiment, such golf swing instructional materials may be provided, for example, on a memory card inserted into a memory port of a portable computing device 14 shown in
The short game stroke depicted in, for example,
Portable computing device 14, in the
It should be recognized that manual modes L1-L3, S1-S3 and P1-P3 are merely illustrative modes. Each and every golf club and type of backswing/stroke may, if desired, be incorporated into an illustrative embodiment of the present invention.
An illustrative embodiment of the present invention also contemplates an automatic mode of operation where microcontroller 4, if an automatic programmed mode is selected, controls the system to, for example, display a club and backswing, show an instructional swing sequence and await a user to practice the stroke using practice mat 1.
After detecting output signals from impact sensor 2, receiving and analyzing such impact sensor data, a shot result message is displayed utilizing, for example, the
In accordance with an illustrative embodiment, if the impact sensor data reveals that the club face was open upon contact of the club face with impact sensor 2, then a ball flight “right” display will be shown as is graphically indicated in
As shown in
As can be seen in
In accordance with an illustrative implementation, when a user putts a ball that rolls into cup 23, the ball is funneled to a bottom portion of cup 23 so as to close a switch (not shown) that generates a signal on conductors 18′ and 18 to provide microcontroller 4 with a signal indicating a made putt.
In accordance with an illustrative embodiment of the present invention, a user may enter a putting mode, by, for example, selecting one of various putting modes from a menu via portable computing device 14 or by selection via control key(s) associated with mode control input 10.
In accordance with one illustrative implementation, a putting instructional videographic sequence may be displayed on portable computer device 14 or display 26 to show the user an example of correct putting form. Various putting modes may be selected such as, for example, putting from 3 feet, 5 feet, 7 feet or any combination thereof. Additionally, in one mode of operation, a selection may be made of a predetermined number of putts, such as 10 putts or 20 putts.
In an exemplary embodiment, a user will have a program selected period of time to complete the putts. For example, 90 seconds may be allocated for the user to complete ten 5 foot putts. In this example, at the end of the time period, the user's number of made putts and number of putts taken may be displayed. It should be recognized that the time period for putting may be any desired time.
Additionally, as will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, alternative/more sophisticated methods of keeping track of the number of putts taken, the length of the putt taken and the putts made may be utilized and more sophisticated putting statistics may be displayed. For example, as will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, a light emitter and photodetector pair disposed in the vicinity of cup 23 and aligned perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the putting extension may be utilized to detect a putting attempt by detecting an interrupted light beam by a putt. Additional, light emitter/photodetector pairs may be used to detect, for example, whether the putt was a 3 foot, 5 foot or 7 foot attempt.
Further, as shown in
The program stored in ROM 26 additionally controls communications between CPU 20 and portable (and/or any other) computer device 14 via interface 28, which preferably takes place in a wireless mode utilizing wireless transmitter/receiver circuitry 30 embodied in microcontroller 4.
Additionally, CPU 20 processes data input from impact sensor 2 under the control of the software stored in ROM 26. ROM 26 additionally may store memory tables such as those shown in
Microcontroller 4 may be a single chip microcontroller that, for example, includes a timer module that will allow the microcontroller to perform time period dependent tasks. In a illustrative embodiment, microcontroller 4 also includes a wide array of ports (e.g., USB, IEEE Firewire, etc.) to allow data to flow between the microcontroller and other devices, such as a PC or portable computing device 14, to permit operations in a wired or wireless communication modes. It is also contemplated that interface 28/wireless XMIT/RCVR 30 support Internet communications to permit golf simulations involving a user and one or more remotely located friends.
Microcontroller 4 may be implemented in an illustrative embodiment by any of a wide array of commercially available microprocessor/microcontrollers such as, for example, a Motorola 68HC11 microcontroller. The nature of the microcontroller selected may vary depending upon the sophistication of the desired implementation.
Additionally, in an illustrative embodiment, microcontroller 4 generates an operational mode selection menu (not shown) on display 6 (32). Such a mode menu permits a user to select a manual mode of operation in which any mode such as L1-L3, S1-S3 and P1-P3 may be input via, for example, mode control keys 10 or alternatively via portable computing device 14. The mode selection menu may, in an illustrative implementation, provide the user with an option of selecting a further automatic mode menu to select one of several automated program control sequences running through a variety of different clubs and strokes. In more sophisticated implementations, a set of golf holes may be selected for simulated play via a menu selection.
Microcontroller 4 then checks to determine whether the user has selected/input a mode (34). After a predetermined period of time has passed after the mode menu display, if no mode has been input, microcontroller 4 defaults to a manual default mode that may, for example, result in the selection of mode S2 thereby selecting a sand wedge with a 9:00 backswing.
If a mode input has been detected, microcontroller 4 sets the selected mode (38). For example, if mode S2 is selected distance calculations are based upon analysis of impact data and a stored distance data for a sand wedge with a 9:00 backswing.
A check is then made to determine whether an output signal has been generated by impact sensor 2 (40). If not, the routine loops back in a wait mode to continuously check to determine if a club head impact has been detected. In accordance with an illustrative embodiment, one or more vibration sensors may be utilized (not shown) to detect an impact outside the range of impact sensor 2. In accordance with such an embodiment, if the vibration sensor detects contact with golf practice mat outside the confines of impact sensor 2, a display may be generated to request, for example, that the user try again.
When the check at block 40 detects an impact, microcontroller 4 detects the various points of impact and stores corresponding data points in a microprocessor RAM memory that may be resident in either memory 8 or the internal microcontroller RAM 24 shown in
Thereafter, microcontroller 4 analyzes the contact pattern (44), as will be explained further below in conjunction with the flowchart of
Upon detecting that a graphics data card/memory module has been inserted, a options menu is preferably generated on the portable computing device's display screen for the user to select an operational mode (56). After a user selects an operational mode, the mode is preferably wirelessly transmitted to microcontroller 4 (58).
Portable computing device 14 then enters a wait mode and continually checks to determine whether a ball contact analysis has been received from microcontroller 4 (60).
The ball contact analysis in an illustrative embodiment will indicate the yardage obtained as a result of the user stroke. In more sophisticated implementations such as is described below, an indication of ball flight including the projected direction of the ball based on an analysis of club face angle data as, for example, it changes over time also is included.
With respect to the distance data, although optimum distances are recorded in a memory table as shown in
After the contact analysis data has been received, portable computing device 14 will generate a 3-D stroke simulation on a simulated golf course hole (62) such as is shown in
The software may be designed to automatically choose the appropriate club for the user depending upon the results of the prior stroke. It should be understood that the three clubs identified in
After microcontroller 4 analyzes the golf club contact pattern (44), in addition to displaying a shot related message on display 6 (46), the analysis is transmitted to portable computing device 14 for generation of the portable computing device's 3D stroke simulation on a simulated golf course such as is shown in
Based on the initial pad contact point data, a straight line approximation of the data representing the club head contact with the mat is generated. Based upon the straight line representation of the club head contact data, a determination is made as to where the club head intersected the x-axis, indicating an offset from the target 5 (81). In more sophisticated further illustrative implementations, the impact data may be analyzed to determine the extent to which the club face is closing during the period of contact with the practice mat surface and an indication of such may, if desired, be provided to the user.
A check is then made to determine whether the club contacted the x-axis within a predetermined threshold distance from target 5 (83).
If the processing at block 83 indicates that the club face contact was outside the target contact x-axis distance threshold, a missed shot-related feedback message is generated on the user's display 6 and/or alternatively, on the portable (or other) computing device 14 display.
The straight line approximation indicating the points of initial contact with impact sensor 2 is utilized to determine club head angle at impact (87). If, for example, as shown in
Thereafter, based upon the club/backswing mode entry and x-axis intersection, a projected distance is generated (89). Such distance, as indicated above, may either be the distance shown in the
Thereafter, a shot-related message is displayed to the user (91). By way of example only, the shot related message may include the club used, the backswing stroke (9:00) and the projected distance. Alternatively, a three-dimensional display as is shown in
In an alternative embodiment, golf practice mat 1 may be utilized in conjunction with a rubberized golf tee of the type utilized in driving ranges. In accordance with a further embodiment of the present invention, a sensor (not shown) may be disposed in the tee to determine whether, for example, a driver appropriately contacted the ball by determining whether there has been contact with the tee. In a more sophisticated embodiment, in addition to measuring whether the tee has been contacted by the club head, the direction of movement may be sensed by, for example, one or more accelerometers mounted in a lower portion of the tee to provide data for determining the likely direction of ball flight. As in the other embodiments described above, a display of shot related indicia is contemplated for display to the user.
Based upon the foregoing description of various illustrative embodiments, a wide range of golf practice training apparatus having a wide variety of features may be implemented providing a wide range of feedback and shot-related projections. The desired degree of accuracy of such feedback and shot-related projections may vary greatly depending upon the desired application goals. It should be understood that the accuracy of shot projections will vary depending upon the amount of resolution provided by impact sensor 2. In accordance with many illustrative implementations, a low cost, coarse projection may function as a highly desirable, practical golf training device. Other illustrative implementations may desirably incorporate higher degrees of accuracy.
In the illustrative, non-limiting embodiments which follow, the practice mats shown, for example, in
Above ground golf stroke analysis concepts typically observationally attempt to diagnose a golfer's stroke as he/she swings a club through an arc that, hopefully, passes through the center of the ball, yielding a shot that, hopefully, goes a reasonable distance toward the target flag at the next green. Such analyses often get bogged down attempting to correlate deviations of the golfer's swing, from a prescribed perfect swing, with the actual resulting deviations of the ball, veering off the perfect path to the target.
While such above-ground analyses are often helpful at curing particular eccentricities in the golfer's swing, there is nonetheless a wealth of information available “below ground” that can also help the golfer using, for example, the practice mat 1 and impact sensor 2 described above. That is, rather than diagnosing the visible arc of the golfer's swing from the side and the rear, illustrative implementations determine just how close the club face actually came to an optimum impact with the center of the ball.
Even though a golfer executes a seemingly proper swing, the ball can still fly awry of the target line. This is because, regardless of how perfect the golfer's swing appears to be to the untrained observer, it is how perfect the impact of the club face is with the center of the ball that determines where the shot will go. Just a small ‘delta’ right or left, up or down, face open or face closed, can ‘juke’ a shot well off the perfect path. The illustrative embodiment that follows endeavors to measure these small ‘deltas’ in club face position and angle, and show how far each stroke was off the perfect impact.
In the illustrative implementation, these small ‘deltas’ from a perfect model are measured by an array of pressure sensors within the mat, which indicate:
[1] the initial strike where the club first contacts the mat
[2] the strike path the club takes as it slides across the mat
[3] the downward pressure exerted by the club into the mat along the path, and
[4] any angular rotation of the club face and/or the swing itself.
The following discussion provides detailed information of an illustrative embodiment for a sand wedge stroke for a right-hand [RH] golfer, disclosed generally in
More specifically,
As for the program flowcharts,
Turning to
The “X” or forward axis 105 is coaxial with target line 103, allowing the golfer to visually align the path of the ball with the target flag. The X axis is positive for strokes that strike ahead of the ball—typically resulting in “thin” shots, and negative for strokes that land behind the ball—typically resulting in “fat” shots.
Similarly, by visualizing the “Y” or horizontal axis 107 allows the golfer to visually align with the ball, e.g., to adjust his/her stance prior to swinging. As will be explained further below, the Y axis is positive to identify the position of shots that “hook” or veer left, and negative to identify the position of shots that “slice” or veer right.
The “Z” or vertical axis 109 is typically oriented positive to identify the position of shots that rise up, as the name “skied” shots suggests, and negative for strokes that exert a downward force into the ground.
[1] ideally, the club face will be squared up 111, or perpendicular to the target line 103, which normally generates a “straight shot” to the target; or
[2] the club face is being turned too slowly into the ball, impacting it with an open face 113 which normally generates a pull or “hook” to the left; or
[3] the club face is being turned too fast into the ball, impacting it with a closed face 115 which normally generates a push or “slice” to the right.
All of the abovementioned shots are graphically depicted, along with their underlying dynamics of motion, in
Before analyzing why a particular sand wedge shot went bad, it is helpful to first define what an ideal swing would be. The criteria for an ideal swing shown below is set forth for purposes of illustrating the methodology described herein. In this example, we first identify what the independent controlling parameters of a sand wedge stroke are, and secondly, what the ideal values would be for an ideal straight shot:
Table 1 defines the illustrative shaft angles that the sand wedge must be held at in order to execute an ideal stroke with respect to the ground. The next table 2 defines the illustrative positions, angles and rotations that the shaft and club face must swing through to execute an ideal stroke with respect to the ball:
All of the abovementioned lines, positions, angles and rotations are graphically depicted, along with their underlying dynamics of motion, in
At the top, club head 117 is being driven downward by the shaft 119 through the center of the ball at the proper 15° swing angle of attack 121. The swing arc 123 first strikes the mat ahead of the ball right at Zero Line 125, and then continues down strike path 127 at a modest depth into the ground. This is considered an ideal swing 129 along the X axis 105 in the vertical plane.
In contrast, if club head 117 comes in too high, it will strike the ground well ahead of the ball [if at all], and generally leave a strike path of only slight depth. This will result in a thin shot 131, as depicted in the center. Also, at an extreme, a thin shot can become a topped shot, as will be discussed later.
At the other extreme, if club head 117 comes in too low, it will strike the ground behind the ball, and generally leave a strike path of more severe depth. This will result in a fat shot 133, as shown at the bottom. Also, a fat shot can become a skied shot, as will be discussed later.
At the top, club head 117 is shown passing through the ball [obscured from view] perfectly horizontal with the ground along the Y axis 107. As a result, shaft 119 makes a perfect 60° lie angle 135, which exerts equal pressure on the heel 137 and toe 139 across the 2″ bottom edge. Coupled with the ideal swing 129 of
In contrast, if shaft 119 is tilted too far back, the lie angle drops below 60° which is considered too upright for a good shot. This ‘delta’ from the proper vertical shaft angle is reflected as heavy pressure at the heel 144 and light-to-zero pressure at the toe. This Z rotation typically will result in a pull 143 or hook 145 to the left, as depicted in the center of
At the other extreme, if shaft 119 is tilted too far forward, the lie angle rises above 60° which is considered too flat for a good shot. This delta from the proper vertical shaft angle is reflected as heavy pressure at the toe 148 and light-to-zero pressure at the heel. This Z rotation will typically result in a push 147 or slice 149 to the right, as depicted at the bottom of
In geometric terms, these toe-to-heel pressure deltas serve to identify and quantify either a CCW [too upright] or CW [too flat] rotation of the club head 117 in the vertical Y-Z plane around the forward X axis 105.
The target line 103 points straight up for all 9 cases and the large arrows depict the general direction of the resulting shot. The 9 shot variations shown in
Ideal Swing
Center Hub—starting with the best case, the ideal swing 129 in the center hub shows the ideal rotation of the club face through the center of the ball. Namely, the face is open 113 just prior to impact with the ball center, squared up 111 just as it impacts the center, and closed 115 just after impact. When this ideal face rotation is combined with a centered swing 151, the result is the desired straight shot 141 to the target.
Changing the Face Angle Only
10:30—next, just varying one variable, the face angle, from squared up 111 to closed 115==>yields a hook left 145. The curved ‘hook’ deviation is due primarily to the CCW sidespin imparted as the ball rolls off the closed face.
4:30—similarly, varying the face angle from squared up 111 to open 113==>yields a slice right 149. The curved ‘slice’ deviation is due primarily to the CW sidespin imparted as the ball rolls off the open face toward the toe.
Changing the Swing Arc Only
7:30—as parallel motion dynamics to the above 2 cases, just varying another variable, the swing arc, from centered 151 to inside-out 153==>yields another hook left 145. In this case, the curved ‘hook’ is due to CCW spin imparted by the club face sliding outward within the stroke arc, just as its name suggests—i.e., the golfer's follow-through came further out overhead.
1:30—similarly, varying the swing arc, from centered 151 to outside-in 157==>yields another slice right 149. In this case, the curved ‘slice’ is due to CW spin imparted by the club face sliding inward within the stroke arc—i.e., the golfer's follow-through went further back over the shoulder.
Combining Opposing Sidespin Forces
12:00—as countering motion dynamics to the above cases, varying both variables—face angle and swing arc—in opposing directions tends to straighten out the shot. Namely, combining a closed face 115 with an outside-in swing 157 ==>yields a pull shot 143 straight left. The 2 opposing CW/CCW sidespins negate each other, essentially straightening out a hook.
6:00—similarly, combining the mirror-image variables, an open face 113 with an inside-out swing 153==>yields a push shot 147 straight right. Once again, the 2 opposing sidespin rotations tend to negate each other, straightening out what would otherwise be a slice.
Combining Parallel Sidespin Forces
9:00—as reinforcing motion dynamics to the above cases, varying both variables—face angle and swing arc—in parallel directions tends to magnify the shot error. Namely, combining a closed face 115 with an inside-out swing 153==>yields a hook sharply left 155. The 2 parallel CCW/CCW sidespins reinforce each other, essentially doubling the hook's severity.
3:00—similarly, combining the mirror-image variables, an open face 113 with an outside-in swing 157==>yields a slice sharply right 159. Once again, the 2 parallel sidespin rotations tend to reinforce each other, doubling the severity of what would otherwise have been an ordinary slice.
What the Wheel of Horizontal Trajectories in
As the club swings through the ball, the ball impact line 201 becomes the reference focal point. This is because the quality of the shot is determined by how close the golfer got the center of the club face to impact line 201, which is coaxial with the ball's horizontal axis 107.
This proximity of the club face to the impact line 201 can be worked backward from the strike line 203, following golf professional A J Bonar's teachings as to proper sand wedge stroke angles and the strike line distance ahead of the ball [see Table 2]. As a first illustrative parameter, how close the given stroke came to the ball center on impact line 201 can be assessed by how close the golfer's initial strike came to strike line 203.
The sensors next continue to register and readout changes in pressure as the club slides down the mat, revealing both positional and pressure data. As a second illustrative parameter, how close the club's face angle came to being squared up to the ball's forward axis 105 can be assessed by looking at changes to the club's footprint 205 [described in the next
Once the footprint rotation angle has been identified and quantified, the initial face angle at the ball impact line 201 can be calculated backward from the first strike point. In the example listed in
In the example shown in
The swing of the RH club face:
—struck the ball at the Ball Impact Line with the face 2.1° Open
(based on. 84″ Ball Radius×2.5° Ideal Rotation=2.1°)
—next struck the mat right at that mat zero line (no +/−error) with the face squared up @ 0° ROTATION ANGLE.
The following chart tabulates how fast the club head is traveling across the mat at different swing speeds, which put an upper limit on the number of snapshots that can be taken of that motion. For ease of reference, the chart is repeated below.
As, shown above, the range of speeds varies from 80==>120 mph, corresponding to a below average golfer at the low end and a tour pro at the high end. Thus, the average golfer, assumed to swing at 90 mph, falls nicely within the reach of the 2000 Hz sampling rate. That is, moving at 1584″ per second, about 1¼ snapshots can be taken for every inch of travel—which translates to 5 snapshots for 4 inches of travel. And, even for the worst-case 120 mph tour pro, at least 3 snapshots can be taken for the same 4 inches of travel.
The example at the bottom of
In addition, successive lateral shifts across the horizontal Y axis 107 in frames (1)==>(5) reveal a higher-order rotation 209 in the strike path itself. Such positive Y shifts signify that this stroke has an outside-in swing arc. Conversely, had the Y axis shifts been negative [creeping up instead of down, as shown here] this stroke would have had an inside-out swing arc.
Given the right balance of sampling rate and pulse width, the trail edge 215 can effectively represent the first lead edge 213 that occurred at strike line 203. This essentially becomes the footprint reference length, rotation angle, and pressure gradient to which every footprint that follows can be compared. This becomes significant, first, when calculating overall face angle rotation [from lead edge 213] across, say, 5 snapshots; and, second, when rotating the initial strike line 203 [from the first trail edge 215] backward to the ball impact line 201, to see how far the face angle was off of ‘square’.
Moreover, there is additional valuable data available from the pressure gradient 219 [in psi ‘deltas’ ], running the length 217 of the footprint from toe 139 to heel 137. In the example here, increasing from low-to-zero pressure at toe 139==>high pressure at heel 137 signifies that the stroke is too upright with a fading lie angle<60°, resulting in a pull 143 or hook 145 [see
Thus, in summary, in this example, by itself, each snapshot of the club footprint reveals the following:
LEAD EDGE 213 defined by the left-most sensors “ON” during the sample indicates the instantaneous face angle
LENGTH 217 indicates how flush the stroke is WRT the ground; clubs with beveled-arc soles must first be normalized
TRAIL EDGE 215 selectively defined by the pulse width of sample indicates the instantaneous direction down the STRIKE PATH
PRESSURE GRADIENT 219 defined by “ON” sensors highest PSI values during sample
LO toe→HI heel (shown here) stroke is TOO UPRIGHT—results in Hook (see
HI toe→LO heel (opposite case) stroke is TOO FLAT—results in Slice (see
STRIKE PATH taken together, snapshots of successive footprints reveal:
changes in LEADING EDGE—indicate rotation of face angle (see
changes in LENGTH—indicates stroke rising off mat prematurely (see
changes in PRESSURE GRADIENT—indicate shaft rotating away from original lie angle (see
In this example, the golf ball 101 and mat zero line 300 remain as imprints in the center of the mat. The sensor array 301 comprises a hi-res area 302 surrounded by a lo-res apron 303, which will be described in more detail in
The entire golf swing training process and facilitating mechanisms can be tracked from one end of the illustrative mat 1 to the other. Starting at the lower end, there is, in this example, a calibration pad 304 where sand wedges with many different sole contours can be ‘normalized’ to a standard 2″ flat length. By this unique mechanism, footprints made by bottom contours with up to a 3″ arc can be reconfigured to lie flat on the mat, regardless of their X-Y positional orientation, their Y-Z pressure gradients, or any offsetting angular rotation.
The golfer begins each new swing by simply tapping reset switch 305, indicating that he/she has seen and reviewed the results of last swing and stands ready to swing again. Both the initial calibration and sequential swing processes use the red/yellow/green status LEDs 306 to reflect the status of the CAL or the current swing—e.g., ‘green’ for ready to go, ‘yellow’ for processing results, and ‘red’ for results on display.
The golfer stands in foot imprints 12 and swings at the zero line 300, going through ball imprint 101. Hopefully, the stroke lands entirely within hi-res sensor area 302 so as to create a viable shot, albeit with a bad hook or slice. Should he/she stray from the hi-res area, the lo-res apron 303 will pick up any failed attempts to strike outside the hi-res zone and evaluate the nature of the error shot for feedback to the golfer.
During the given golf swing, microcontroller 4 [not shown, see
All of this is done preserving as much raw and calculated information as possible that can serve as constructive feedback to the golfer: for example, displaying how close to a perfect swing he/she was, or what error shot resulted and what most likely caused it. Pertinent calculations and overall summary data are stored as archival data in memory 8 [also not shown] for cumulative trend analysis such as performance deltas and error repetitions.
At the upper end of
The most important LED “0” sits in the center reflecting a perfect shot 141 straight at the target. Immediately in front of LED “0” is another LED that signifies the last stroke achieved a perfect lie angle @ 60° which is perhaps equally as difficult [discussed further at
Running down either side of the far end is another array of stroke feedback LEDs 310 that reveal which fatal error[s] the golfer made on the last stroke.
These reflect the primary error shot deviations from the perfect stroke, especially for such errors as ‘thin’ and ‘shank’ shots.
All of this is done within the natural vision of the golfer looking toward the horizon following his/her current golf swing. These arrays of LED displays are quite cost-effective in that they are self-contained within the same mat as the sensor array 301 and microcontroller 4, especially where space is limited.
In this example, there is one more illustrative output that acts as a final confirmation of just how close the golfer's current stroke was to an ideal stroke. The initial strike feedback circle 307 pinpoints exactly where his/her initial strike fell with respect to mat Zero Line 300. This is a visual aid to help the golfer judge how much he/she must adjust a stroke to match the ideal strike point in the center of the circle, as opposed to looking at a resulting shot and guessing what must be changed to correct the error [to be discussed at
In summary, in this example, exemplary outputs include: LED's indicate ball direction (based on initial launch data)
shots up to 36° left or right (>36° are bogus, LED 18 flashes)
multiple LEDs indicate HOOK or SLICE (i.e., next higher 1-2 LEDs light up for emphasis, depending on severity of CW/CCW English)
advantages of LED display outputs at end of mat:
(A) LEDs conveniently constructed/operated/portable within the same mat as the sensor array (B) instantaneous visual feedback without looking up, coupled with LOS tracer path LEDs for effect (C) very reliable, very inexpensive, self-explanatory—hence, a highly cost-effective output.An important point on the sand wedge is the center 311 of the 5th line up the club face 313: this is the ideal impact point 311 with the center of golf ball 101. According to golf professional, A J Bonar, this is the point on the club face that must match squared up with the ball's X axis centerline 105 in order to achieve an ideal straight shot 141 toward the target.
The golfer simply inserts his/her sand wedge into the CAL pad perfectly horizontal, with gradually increasing pressure downward. As the deepest point 325 on the sole contour reaches the bottom, the pressure sensor 333 beneath it registers 5 psi max and signals the golfer to stop pushing down. As the club is pushed down, the CAL pad continuously monitors pressure at each end 327 to verify that the club bottom has remained horizontal.
The CAL routine next stores all 58 pressure values, with the deepest point 325 marked as Cal Ref. The routine first determines how far Cal Ref is off center, and shifts the entire set of 29 values left or right until Cal Ref reaches the center. The routine then calculates how much each neighboring sensor 331 must be scaled up to reach the same uniform pressure depth of 5 psi, out to a maximum distance 329 of 1 inch on either side of the Cal Ref point. This same standardization process is likewise applied to the trail edge 319.
This normalization of the club sole essentially ‘zeroes out’ the pressure gradient 219 from heel 137==>toe 139 so that, for all analytic purposes, the club footprint appears perfectly flat when horizontal. To reduce the amount of data that must be stored, accessed and archived, the normalized contour for each club is simplified down to just the shift distance for Cal Ref 325 and the scale factors for Mid points 331 and Max points 329.
Two circles are drawn around the center of the mat zero line 203, which is the ideal strike point 332. These circles are populated with closely-packed LEDs 1/16″ apart that can be individually activated. The inner circle has a ½″ radius representing a desired strike area 333 that yields reasonable-to-exceptional shots. The outer circle has a 1⅛″ radius [half the nominal club face width of 2¼″] representing a viable shot area 335 where shots are marginal at best. Outside these circles are non-viable shots, including such extremes as thin shots 131, fat shots 133, shags 337 and shanks 339.
The idea is to display the radial distance from the ideal strike point 332 to the center of the golfer's initial strike line 203. This small delta dramatizes exactly how close the golfer got to executing the elusive perfect shot. Rather than being discouraged by witnessing error shots that veer off by tens of yards, the golfer will be encouraged when he/she realizes the correction is literally a fraction of an inch down at the Zero Line. This is an effective visual aid to help the golfer judge how much he must adjust his stroke to match the ideal strike point, e.g., in the center of the circle.
The primary goal of this practice mat is to steer the golfer ever closer to turning ON the straight shot LED “0” in the center of the mat. A secondary goal is to reward the golfer for turning ON the flat lie angle LED 135 on the target line out to LED “0”—even if he/she did not succeed at a straight shot.
The sensor array 301 comprises a central hi-resolution (hi-res) strike area 302 surrounded by lo-resolution (lo-res) side aprons 303. In this example, these arrays contain successive rows of impact sensors, may be implemented by the Tactilus sensors described above (or the '586 patent tactile sensor incorporated by reference earlier). The small impact sensors 401 have a diameter of only 0.004″ [1 cm], so they can be readily configured into the densely populated hi-res array of ⅛″ columns by 1/16″ rows [0.0625″], as shown in
The right and left side lo-res side aprons 303 are generally reduced to a ¼″ resolution, with a mid-res front and rear apron 403 at 3/16″ resolution, due to alternate overlapping at ⅛″ intervals. The resolution was reduced in these peripheral areas simply because no viable golf shot can be generated that far from the Zero Line 300. Hence, these lo- and mid-res sensors are merely present to detect failed shots as feedback to the errant golfer. Thus, the golfer can strike anywhere within the overall 6″×8″ area and get some level of constructive feedback.
The hi-res area runs reaches 2″ behind the Zero Line 300 to pick up possible viable “fat” shots 133 behind the ball, and likewise reaches 5″ ahead to pick up possible viable “thin” shots 131 considerably ahead of the ball 101. More importantly, the 5″ extended hi-res area ahead of the ball allows more space to possibly get 5 snapshots of a high-speed golf swing @ 100+ mph, as described in
The idea for employing such a long stretch of forward hi-res sensors is to capture as many snapshots as possible of a given stroke. Each additional snapshot inherently improves data integrity and, equally important, permits the system to detect very small rotation angles in the swing arc and/or the club face, e.g., <2°, that might otherwise go unnoticed. This was process was described in
Although the sensor array may be of a wide variety of specific configurations, in this example, the illustrative array is configured as follows:
SENSOR ARRAY 6″ wide×8″ long
Level of Resolution
As can be seen from the top row of angles, the 7 inches along X provide a substantial range of measurable rotations from −26°==>+51° with respect to zero reference sensors 405. The four arcs were drawn at 1″==>4″ radii to illustrate how the worst-case rotation of a 2″ long footprint can be tracked.
The minimum angle detectable [i.e., maximum resolution possible 407] from the hi-res sensor array 302 is shown at the top of
In summary, the high resolution sensor array in the illustrative implementation has the following exemplary characteristics:
Overview of Hi-Res Sensor Array 302
range of 51°27° in angular RH rotation CCW
sensors spaced @ ⅛″ intervals across Y
sensors detect 2″ club footprint anywhere from +2″>Y>−2″
sensors can next track any amount of footprint rotation
The MAX RESOLUTION is 1.8° rotation in 1/16″ for typical 2″ flat footprint of golf club (see next
At the far right of
Thus, the hi-res sensor array 302, as presently configured, is capable of measuring the smallest incremental deltas in position, rotation and pressure that might affect a stroke. Such data enables “rule-of-thumb” low-level analyses and all high-level evaluations of golf strokes that deviate from the ideal sand wedge stroke shown in
In the example in
the solid vertical line represents LEAD edge of club footprint 2″ long
for a RH swing, the footprint rotates CCW, as shown above
angular (club face) rotation is indicated by footprint ‘deltas’ in 2 ways:
1) within each footprint, by deltas (transitions) between LEAD and TRAIL edges
2) within successive snapshots, by deltas between farthest LEAD and initial TRAIL edges.
for large rotations>3.5°, as exemplified in the 9th transition:
1) the bottom of the LEAD EDGE of the footprint is anchored in Row N
2) the Angle of Rotation is defined by the depth of the transition into Row NH ( 1/16″ ahead)
3) a large rotation>3.8° will span more than 2 rows starting with Row N+2 (see
To avoid confusion, the reader should recognize that, as a convention for all flowcharts and subroutine descriptions herein, the letters X, Y and Z are interchangeably used for 3 independent purposes:
[1] to represent the forward X axis, horizontal Y axis, and vertical Z axis [per
[2] to represent 2 sets of sensor/memory rows, such as Lead edge X and Trail edge Y
[3] to act as internal loop counters X/Y/Z, generally incremented as X+1, Y+1, Z+1
The first step after startup is to reset all system level switches and counters and set the system parameters back to their default state (501). The system then displays a start up screen on, for example, an external display 14 or on display 6 for the golfer (503). It then issues, for example, a beep alert and flashes a “Select Mode” (505) message to the user, asking the user for his name, what club he would like, and whether to use auto or manual input mode. The system then waits for the user to enter his name (507), select the manual input mode (509) and select a club (511).
Function block 513 shows some exemplary clubs the user has to chose from, including irons 3-9, pitching wedge, lob wedge, and sand wedge. In the present illustrative example, the user chooses a sand wedge. Had he chosen a 3-9 iron or a pitching wedge or a lob wedge, the mainline routine would have swapped in the appropriate iron subroutine or wedge subroutine (515) and returned to start (525). In this case, with the sand wedge chosen, the program next asks whether right-hand or left-hand has been selected (517), with right-hand being selected in this example.
The routine then checks to determine whether a backswing rotation was selected (519). In this instance, the user has selected a 9:00 backswing. Had he chosen the short 7:30 backswing or a full 10:30 backswing (521), the mainline routine would have swapped in the appropriate 7:30 or 10:30 backswing subroutine (523) and returned to start (535). The program then displays the user's name, the choice of sand wedge and the 9:00 backswing (527).
In this example, the program next issues a beep alert and flashes two messages to the user “Calibrate sand wedge” (529) and “The bottom of the club must be perfectly horizontal” (531).
The mainline routine next calls its first major subroutine Calibrate (533), which “normalizes” any irregular bottom edge contour to perfectly flat, as will be shown in the flowchart of
Once the preliminary step of calibrating the golfer's sand wedge is completed, the mainline routine enters a loop that processes each golf swing, as explained below. When the golfer is ready to take another swing, he hits the reset switch on the mat (535). Upon detection of the golfer's reset, the mainline routine (537) first calls the Detect subroutine (539) which scans for the impact of the golf club on the mat. Once this has occurred, the mainline routine then calls the Analyze subroutine (541) which examines the three-dimensional contact pattern from sensors 2 in the mat 1 and determines what kind of shot would result from such a pattern.
When the subroutine is finished, the mainline routine tests for any system error (543) and ends the program (545) upon such an error. If there is no system error, the mainline routine then calls the final subroutine Display (547) that issues a shot-related message and various forms of feedback containing the results of the last shot taken. The mainline routine repeats this cycle for as long as the golfer wishes to keep swinging. When he is done, and the reset switch remains idle for a preset timeframe (535), system will time out and end the program (536).
While only the Lead Edge front row is discussed here, the back row is also processed in parallel in the exact same manner. For this process of ‘normalizing’ any irregularly curved bottom edge to a flat edge, all 29 sensors have been initially calibrated @ 1-5 psi.
The illustrative program first issues a beep alert and flashes a message to the golfer, “place your club inside the Calibration Pad” [601]. It then resets all internal switches and counters, and turns on all CAL LEDs [603]. It then enters a loop where it polls all 29 CAL sensors [605] until a sensor goes above the Min threshold of 1 psi [607], which indicates the club has been inserted.
The program next issues a beep alert and flashes a message to the golfer, “push your club down perfectly horizontal” [609] and starts flashing all LEDs [611]. It then enters a loop where it polls all 29 CAL sensors [613] until the first sensor X reaches the Max threshold of 5 psi [615], indicating the club has been pushed all the way to the bottom of the pad.
The program next issues a beep alert and flashes the message, “stop pushing your club down” [617], turns off the flashing LEDs, turns the LED X on, and stores all resulting sensor readings as contour points 1-29 for both Lead and Trail edges [619]. At this point, the program checks the end conditions of the sensor array to see if either end of the club is tilted [621]. If so, it issues a non-fatal error message to the golfer “the bottom of your club is not horizontal”[623] and returns to restart CALIBRATE [625] for another try.
If the club passes the horizontal test, the program next enters its process loop to calibrate any sensors left or right of sensor X that are not perfectly horizontal—that is, any sensors that have not reached Max threshold 5 psi.
The first step in the CAL process loop is to see if sensor X is in the middle at center point 15 [627]. If not, the program turns off LED X, shifts all contour points by one position, turns on the LED at new position X, and returns to test for center point 15 again [629].
Once sensor X appears at center point 15 [627], the program next tests whether the sensors left and right of center exceed the max curvature allowed by the system [an arc>3″ radius]. It does this by testing 2 groups of end sensors that must be greater than 3 psi [631, 637] and 2 groups of mid sensors that must be greater than 4 psi [633, 635] which indicates that all points on the curved bottom of the club lie on an arc>3″ radius. If not, the program issues a fatal error message to the golfer, “the bottom contour of your club is curved upward” [639] and returns to START over [641].
Once this test is passed, the CAL program can calibrate the Lead Edge values in the following sequence [643] prior to its return [645]:
[1] store the original contour values for all 29 sensors
[2] store the shift distance for center point 15 [which may be zero]
[3] scale the MID points L7/R23 up to the max 5 psi reference level
[4] scale the MAX points L11/R29 up to the max 5 psi reference level
[5] store the scale values for MID/MAX
[6] turn on the associated LEDs for center/MID/MAX points
[7] repeat above steps 1-6 for the Trail Edge [usually the same values]
This calibration process serves to ‘normalize’ the bottom edge of any club, which is generally curved upward on both ends at different arc curve rates, to a flat edge that lies perfectly horizontal for parametric analysis purposes.
The subroutine first does its housekeeping chores, primarily resetting all memory banks, e.g., M1==>M8, to zero, and then turns on the green “ready” light [647] to inform the golfer that the system is ready for a swing at any time. The routine then begins to poll [649] the entire array of pressure sensors at a sampling rate of 2000 Hz, which translates to 0.0005 seconds per sample. Note: in this example to optimize the system's highest level of resolution around the average golf swing, the width of the sampling pulse within each 0.0005 seconds can be selectively varied to keep it ON just long enough for the club footprint's Lead Edge 213 to transition across 2 successive sensor rows at 80 mph, as depicted in
The subroutine then proceeds to cycle through its eight memory banks Mx, starting with the loop index X=1 [649]. Thereafter, for each sample X taken [modulo 8], it converts all analog sensor values to digital, and stores them for sample Sx==>memory bank Mx [651]. That is, for each sample Sx, memory bank Mx stores the time the sample was taken, plus A-to-D values from the following arrays of pressure sensors [per
[1] 40 rows×64 sensors from the Hi-Res Array 302
[2] 12 rows×9 sensors from the Mid-Res Arrays 403
[3] 16 rows×4 sensors from the Lo-Res Arrays 303 [653]
The subroutine then scans the preceding memory bank Mx-4 [modulo 8] for any non-zero values [655], which signifies that the golf club has finally struck down on the mat. If the data is all zeroes [657], the loop index X is incremented to X+1 [659] and tested for reaching 8 loop passes [661] where it is reset, modulo 8, back to 1 for the next sample Sx [651].
If the memory scan does find non-zero values, the subroutine sets its Strike Pointer to the first non-zero data point in memory bank Mx-4, turns off the green light, stops the polling of sensors [663] begun at [649] and returns to the Mainline [645]. The last five memory banks Mx, Mx-1, . . . , Mx-4 now contain up to 5 snapshots of the current strike path.
It should be noted that in the illustrative implementation off-loading sampled data to 8 memory banks advantageously provides a flexible built-in engineering design feature. The effect of stopping the cyclic polling is to instantly freeze the last 8 samples [i.e., Mx, Mx−1, . . . , Mx−6, Mx−7]. This allows a potentially slower scanning loop [655] to run asynchronously with a potentially faster sampling loop [651]. That is, the extended memory storage allows the current bank being scanned to “drift” slowly away from the current bank storing fresh samples, up to a cumulative maximum drift time of 8 banks×0.0005 secs=40 microseconds. It can likewise be used to accommodate up to 40 microseconds of any fixed “lag time” needed to perform an intervening A-to-D conversion prior to scanning for non-zero digital data. If more time is needed, “n” banks can be added by modifying test [661] to “index X>modulo 8+n”.
The subroutine first does its housekeeping chores which, in this case, includes resetting all global flags, counters, switches, lights, and time stamps that are set/reset during first-layer processing, as well as all data points and variables related to each new swing [667].
It then retrieves the CAL data [669] defining the actual contour of the golf club's sole and the center shift and MID/MAX scale factors that normalize the irregular-shaped sole into a standard perfectly flat footprint, 2″ long by ⅛″ wide [the width of 2 rows of sensors].
Finally, it retrieves the Strike Pointer from the preceding Detect subroutine [669] which points to the first snapshot within memory bank Mx−5 containing the initial strike data.
The subroutine then proceeds to cycle through up to 5 snapshots. It first sets internal loop counter X=Strike Pointer [671] and then calls the Footprint subroutine [673]. Upon Footprint's return, it first checks for a Zero Memory flag [675] which, if it occurs during the first snapshot, is considered a fatal System Error that must be flagged and displayed as a Zero Memory SysErr [689] prior to returning to Analyze [691].
If there is no zero memory flag [675], the subroutine continues on through its primary Footprint loop, storing the most recent Footprint data for snapshot X within current memory bank Mx. The subroutine then checks to see if the loop has reached the 5th and final snapshot [679] and, if not, increments loop counter X [685] after a modulo 8 test [681] and reset [683]. By this process, Analyze goes through Footprint up to 5 times, once for each snapshot.
If it is the 5th snapshot [679] or the Zero Memory flag tells Analyze there is no more data for the next snapshot [687], Analyze then calls the Strike Path subroutine [693] which calculates cumulative data across up to 5 current snapshots. Upon Strike Path's return, it stores all cumulative data generated by Strike Path [693] and returns to Analyze [691].
All variables, flags, and errors generated at this subroutine level are listed at the bottom of
The following is a function block for the
FUNCTIONS: find LEAD/TRAIL edge
calculate current/cumulative MPH
Test fringe areas for failed shots
INPUT PARAMETERS: next memory bank Mx
NOTE: sensor rows are numbered from −3″→5″ in ⅛″ increments as −24→40″.
As shown in earlier
It is noted that the raw sensor data is stored within each memory bank Mx just as it was captured from sensor array 301, namely, as rows −24==>+40 [wherein −Y axis=row 0], which corresponds to all sensor rows from −3 ==>+5 inches in ⅛″ increments Also, each of the 64 rows comprises 16 columns, numbered 1==>64 along the Y axis, which corresponds to the sensor columns from −2==>+2 inches in 1/16″ increments.
Footprint first does its housekeeping chores by resetting all local variables [701], including its internal row index X. It then proceeds to define where and how large the footprint is by finding its Lead edge and Trail edge. It does this by scanning down memory Mx from row 40==>−24 until it detects the first non-zero row [703], which is the desired Lead edge. If there is no data in Mx, this scan will arrive at the last row −24 without a “hit” [705], which forces a Zero Memory flag [707] and an early Return to Analyze [709].
If this scan does find the Lead edge, i.e., at row X>−24, the subroutine then continues to scan down memory Mx from the next row X−1==>−24 until it detects the first all-zero row [711], which is the desired Trail edge. If the scan stops at the next row X−1 [713], then the footprint has no measurable width, which forces a Bad Width flag [715] and an Error return to Analyze [717].
If the footprint is at least two rows wide [713] then the subroutine can store the Lead and Trail edges just found [2×32 data points] which correspond to row X/X−1 and Y/Y−1, respectively [719]. At this point in this example, Footprint has enough information to calculate a rule-of-thumb estimate of the golfer's swing speed, using the formula shown at [721]. This MPH calculation of the club head speed is essentially the sampling rate [2000 samples/second] times the distance the club traveled in one sample [row Y==>row X], divided by the unit rate of speed at 1 MPH [17.6″ per second].
As a final check in this example on footprint viability, the subroutine next tests whether either the Lead or Trail edge is less than 1″ long. This is because a length of <1″ will obscure the location of the center point of the normal-size 2″ footprint and preclude measuring most rotational angles. This forces a Bad Length flag [725] and an Error return to Analyze [717].
If both edges are >1″ in length [723], Footprint proceeds to scan all sensors in the aprons surrounding the Hi-Res sensor array 302 in an effort to identify any failed shots out in the “fringe areas” of the sensor array 301. It does this by scanning the sensor values [727] from the Lo-Res side aprons 303 and Mid-Res front/rear aprons 403, per
If there are any Lo-Res hits in the left apron [729] or right apron [737], then the current golf stroke is a “shank” [731] or a “shag” [739], respectively, which forces an Error exit back to Analyze [735] after storing the farthest Lo-Res data point from the Zero Line 300 [733]. If there are any Mid-Res hits ahead of the Zero line [741] or behind the Zero line [743], then the current stroke is a “thin” shot [747] or a “fat” shot [753], respectively.
These latter two shots are still considered viable, so the subroutine first stores the farthest Mid-Res data point from the Zero line [749] and then interpolates all missing ⅛″ values [due to the overlapped Mid-Res configuration] to yield a uniform 2″ footprint for continuing analysis by subroutine Pressure [745].
If no failed shots are discovered in the “fringe areas”, Footprint can then start the detailed analysis of the Lead and Trail edges that it just identified and qualified. It does this by calling its 3rd-layer subroutines, Pressure [745] and Rotate [755], providing them in this illustrative implementation with the club's bottom contour CAL data along with Lead and Trail edge positional data.
Upon return from these 2 subroutines, Footprint stores the results of all their positional and angular calculations. Namely, it stores Rangle, Xangle, Yangle, and Rshift plus 4 shot-related flags from Rotate [757], and it stores Pratio plus 6 shot-related flags from Pressure [759]. Footprint then executes a normal Return back to Analyze [761].
The net value of all these calculations is that, along with the pressure gradient 219 from the raw sensor data, they completely define the footprint in the current memory bank Mx as a 3-dimensional object that has a length of up to 2″, a width from the Lead edge to the Trail edge, and a depth contour shaped like the pressure gradient from toe to heel. It is the initial values and changes in position, angle and depth of this 3D object across the mat that help define the quality and direction of the golfer's stroke, as will be described below with the analysis of the other 2nd-level subroutine, STRIKE PATH, at
The following is a function block for the
INPUT PARAMETERS: LEAD/TRAIL edges pressure values P numbered HEEL1→TOE 16
calibration data<center shift distance scale fore ach MID/MAX
FUNCTION: Analyze pressure across footprint
Test for excess downward force: high angle of attack
Test for excess TOE/HEEL pressure: bad lie angle
Lie angle=60°→PTOE=PHEEL→straight shot
Lie angle>60°→PTOE=PHEEL→PUSH shot
Lie angle<60°→PTOE=PHEEL→PULL shot
The former “downward” force is a rule-of-thumb indicator as to how far off the stroke is from the correct vertical shaft alignment. The latter “tilt” force from toe to heel reveals how far the club bottom is from lying perfectly flat, which translates to bad vertical lie angle. That is, if the golfer has swung his club through the ball at the correct built-in, e.g., 60°, lie angle, the bottom will remain perfectly flat as it strikes a path down the mat.
The subroutine first does its housekeeping chores, e.g., by setting its test limits to system defaults [763]. Next, assuming the club sole is slightly curved up at both ends, it sets out to “normalize” the curved bottom by applying the CAL data generated at system startup:
[1] shift all data points by the center shift distance established during the CAL;
[2] apply the scale factors for the right/left Mid and Max points to make them flat
[3] fill in intervening points Center==>Mid==>Max by interpolating the scale factors
This normalization process [765] serves to transform any irregular sole contour into a perfectly straight bottom edge that will lie perfectly flat at the preordained 60° lie angle [see
Pressure starts off by calculating Pratio [767], which is the ratio of downward pressure at the toe, Ptoe [16th of 16 Lead edge values], to the downward pressure at the heel, Pheel [1st of 16 Lead values] expressed as a percentage. If the pressure P recorded by any sensor exceeds a preset default limit signifying in this illustration that the shaft is tilted forward >20° off vertical [769], the High Angle flag is set [771], which could mature to a “Sky” shot [775] if the Trail edge is <1″ behind the ball [773], forcing an early Error return [779].
Assuming no high angle is indicated, Pressure next tests whether the golfer has succeeded at keeping his club flat. That is, if he can keep the toe pressure, Ptoe, within +/−3% of the heel pressure, Pheel, then he is rewarded with a Lie Angle flag [783] and an early Return to Analyze [785]. In an illustrative implementation, this positive feedback flag ultimately tells the output Display routine [
Thus, after shots with no apparent vertical errors are eliminated, all that is left are shots that went astray for one reason or another. Pressure can now assess what type of shot error may have occurred and at what level of severity. In this example, it does this by comparing the toe/heel pressure “delta” to increasing thresholds of severity, preset at 3 default levels: moderate<10% delta; heavy<20% delta; and severe>20% delta.
If Ptoe<Pheel [781], then for shots that veer off to the left of target:
if Ptoe+10%>Pheel [785], then this moderate delta produces a “Pull” shot [786];
if Ptoe+20%>Pheel [787], then this heavy delta produces a “Hook” shot [788];
otherwise, the severe delta>20% of Ptoe produces an uncertain “Shank” shot [789].
If Ptoe>Pheel [781], then for shots that veer off to the right of target:
if Pheel+10%>Ptoe [793], then this moderate delta produces a “Pull” shot [797];
if Pheel+20%>Ptoe [795], then this heavy delta produces a “Slice” shot [798];
otherwise, the severe delta>20% of Pheel produces an uncertain “Shag” shot [794].
Owing to the uncertain nature of the Shank and Shag misfires, which are hit by the hosel and the toe edge respectively, no further analyses can be conducted on them so they exit as a fatal Error [791]. The remaining 4 error shots are still considered viable for further analyses, so they make a normal Return [785].
The following is a function block for the
FUNCTION: calculate row-to-row transitions to find angular rotation of club face
INPUT PARAMETERS: LEAD edge (rows X, X−1)
-
- TRAIL edge (rows Y, Y−1)
- NOTE: within each row, points are numbered 1→37 from bottom up
Later on in this illustrative implementation, these same incremental rotations per snapshot can be integrated into a larger cumulative rotation across all 5 snapshots by the Strike Path routine [
Rotate performs the same identical rotational analysis on the Lead edge [rows X, X−1] and the Trail edge [rows Y, Y−1] each time it is called by Analyze. To do this it simply sets its internal row pointers, Z and Z−1, first to Lead edge row X and row X−1 [801] and, when that loop is done, to Trail edge row Y and row Y−1 [802]. In this example, it's only housekeeping chore is to reset its internal Zequal switch [803] at the beginning of each process loop.
Rotate's purpose is to exhaustively test all possible row-to-row transitions, as illustrated in
Rotate first tests the top points, Z compared to Z−1 [804], to find the direction of rotation:
if Z=Z−1, there is no angular rotation detectable down to the Max resolution of 1.8°;
if Z>Z−1, there is a positive Z angle increasing CCW in an arc to the left of
if Z<Z−1, there is a negative Z angle decreasing CW in an arc to the right of
If Z=Z−1 [804], Rotate next tests the bottom points, Z compared to Z−1 [833], to confirm the direction of rotation established [at 804]:
if Z=Z−1, there is no angular rotation indicated, so it sets Zequal and Zangle [837];
if Z>Z−1, there is a positive Z angle [809] increasing CCW to the left side of
if Z<Z−1, there is a negative Z angle [827] decreasing CW to the right side of
If Z>Z−1 [804], Rotate next tests the bottom points, Z compared to Z−1 [805], to confirm the direction of rotation established [at 804]:
if Z>Z−1, there is no angular rotation indicated, so it exits out to reset Zangle [837];
if Z=Z−1, there is a positive Z angle [809] increasing CCW to the left side of
if Z<Z−1, the club is falling down upon the mat [807] so it exits to reset Zangle [837].
If Z<Z−1 [804], Rotate next tests the bottom points, Z compared to Z−1 [823], to confirm the direction of rotation established [at 804]:
if Z<Z−1, there is no angular rotation indicated, so it exits out to reset Zangle [837];
if Z=Z−1, there is a negative Z angle [827] decreasing CW to the right side of
if Z<Z−1, the club is rising up off the mat [825] so it exits out to reset Zangle [837].
Depending on the 9 outcomes above, Rotate closes its process loop in one of 3 ways:
For 5 of the outcomes, it resets Zangle to zero [837] indicating there is no rotation;
For 2 of the outcomes, it calculates a positive Zangle [809] as the arctan of 1/Zpoint;
For 2 of the outcomes, it calculates a negative Zangle [827] as the arctan of −1/Zpoint.
Once its process loop is completed, Rotate then tests whether the Trail edge [row Y] has been analyzed [811]. If not, it stores the Zequal/Zangle values into Xequal and Xangle [829] and recycles through its process loop after resetting Zequal [802].
If the Trail edge has been processed [811], it stores the latest Zequal/Zangle values into Yequal and Yangle [813]. Armed with this incremental end point data, Rotate can now calculate its only output value: the average rotation from the Trail edge to the Lead edge [which is the distance from row Y==>row X] as Rangle=(Xangle+Yangle)/2.
Rotate then performs its last process check to see whether the Lead edge or Trail edge indicated any angular rotation within the footprint, which is now reflected by Xequal and Yequal being set [819]. If both are not set, it Returns to Analyze [821]. If both are set, Rotate must call its 4th-level SHIFT sub-subroutine [820] to check whether there is any rotation within the strike path itself. Rotate then executes a Return to Analyze [821].
The following is a function block for the
FUNCTION: Test equal-length LEAD/TRAIL edges
calculate LEAD-to-TRAIL position shifts to find inward or outward swing variations
INPUT PARAMETERS: same as calling routine
NOTE: shifts are gradual, often ⅛′ per snapshot
Shift's purpose is to calculate the amount of lateral shift made by the footprint within the current snapshot: Rshift=(Lead edge−Trail edge) top points/(row X−row Y) [841].
It also double-checks for moderate delta on the pressure profile: Plead<Ptrail +/−10%.
Shift then tests whether Rshift has a non-zero value, which confirms a swing arc delta:
if Rshift>0 [843], then the golfer has an inside-out golf swing and a flag is set [845];
if Rshift<0 [847], then the golfer has an outside-in golf swing and a flag is set [849];
if Rshift=0 [847], then the golfer has a centered golf swing and no flag is set;
for all 3 outcomes, Shift makes a normal Return to Rotate [851].
The following is a function block for the
NOTE: strike path comprises 1-5 snapshots
FUNCTION: this subroutine only looks at HI-RES area
-
- every shot in HI-RES gets projected back to ball impact
- subroutine uses cumulative deltas in angles/shifts/pressure from successive footprints across strike path
INPUT PARAMETERS: R angle/R shift across strike path cumulative LEAD edge deltas in position/pressure.
Strike Path first does its housekeeping chores by resetting its local variables and setting its test limits to system defaults for 2 or more snapshots [901]. In order to describe the system at its full capacity here, it is assumed that there are 5 snapshots to be analyzed.
This is established at the outset by testing for just 1 snapshot [903] and, if so, setting the test limits back to a single snapshot [905].
Strike Path first clears the way to calculate cumulative rotational angles by testing for excessive angular rotation by the club face. In this example, it tests if the angle of the 5th footprint>14°, or if that same angle>the angle of the 1st footprint+30%. If so, it sets the fatal error for excess Club Rotation [909] and takes an Error exit.
In this non-limiting example, Strike Path now calculates the cumulative rotational angle across all 5 snapshots [915] and then rotate it backward to the center of the ball to find the club face angle at impact:
Bangle=Rangle1−[(Rangle5−Rangle1)/(X5−Y1 inches)]*(Y1+0.84″)
where
Bangle is the golfer's club face angle at impact with the center of the ball,
Rangle1 is the first Lead angle upon the club's initial strike,
Rangle5 is the final Lead angle of the last available snapshot 5,
Y1 is the distance of the first Trail angle from the mat Zero Line 300,
X5 is the distance of the final Lead angle from the mat Zero Line 300,
0.84″ is the distance from the Zero Line back to the center of the golf ball.
Stated in simple terms, the club face angle at impact Bangle=the initial strike angle−(the rate of angular change)*(the offset distance from the center of the ball)
For relative comparison, Strike Path calculates the angular delta from a perfect strike:
Bdelta=Bangle−2.5°*(Y1+0.84″)
where
Bdelta is degree of angular error from a perfect strike where the club face angle=0°
and Bangle, Y1, and 0.84″ are the same as above.
In this example, Strike Path now determines whether the resulting shot went straight or veered off: i.e., if Bangle>5° [917], then the face was closing at impact, resulting in a “hook” [919]; or if Bangle<−5° [921], then the face was opening at impact, resulting in a “slice” [923].
In any event, the illustrative subroutine next calculates the pressure delta across the strike path [929]:
Pdelta=Pratio5−Pratio 1
where
Pdelta is the pressure change from the 1st footprint, Pratio1, to the 5th footprint, Pratio5.
It then tests whether the resulting cumulative toe-to-heel pressure change, Pdelta, is excessive or not [931]. That is, if Pdelta>3%, then the “Toe” gets flagged [933], or else if Pdelta<−3%, then the “Heel” gets flagged [935].
In any event, in the illustrative implementation the subroutine next checks for excessive swing arc rotation. It does this by first testing whether the 5th footprint's lateral shift, Rshift5>½″ [937], and second, by testing whether the delta between Rshift5 and the lateral shift of the 1st footprint, Rshift1, was excessive: Rshift5>Rshift1+30% [943]. If either case was true, it sets the fatal Swing Rotation error [939] and takes an Error exit.
In this example, Strike Path can now calculate the cumulative lateral shift across all 5 snapshots [945] and then shift it backward to the center of the ball to find the club face's position at impact:
Bshift=Rshift1−[(Rshift5−Rshift1)/(X5−Y1 inches)]*(Y1+0.84″)
where
Bshift is the golfer's club face lateral position at impact with the center of the ball,
Rshift1 is the first Lead edge shift upon the club's initial strike,
Rshift5 is the final Lead edge shift of the last available snapshot 5,
Y1 is the distance of the first Trail edge shift from the mat Zero Line 300,
X5 is the distance of the final Lead edge shift from the mat Zero Line 300,
0.84″ is the distance from the Zero Line back to the center of the golf ball.
Armed with the Bshift at ball impact, the subroutine can now declare positional errors:
if Bshift>1.25″, the club heel was shifted toward the ball producing a “Shank” [949];
if Bshift<−1.25″, the club toe was shifted toward the ball producing a “Shag” [953];
if either is true, the subroutine has nothing more to analyze and takes an error exit [911].
Otherwise, Strike Path looks at how far the initial strike was behind or ahead of the ball:
if the initial Trail edge<−1″ behind the Zero Line, then this is a “Fat” shot [957];
if the initial Trail edge>+1″ ahead of the Zero Line, then this is a “Thin” shot [957].
In any event, Strike Path can now finally check for the last fatal shot errors, based on two pairs of flags set earlier by different subroutines in the program flow:
if the “Club Rising” and “Thin Shot” flags are set, then this is a “Topped” shot [963];
if the “Club Falling” and “Fat Shot” flags are set, then this is a “Sky” shot [969];
if either is true, Strike Path takes an Error exit [965]; if not, it takes normal Return [971].
It is noted that the type, format, level, and media used to present this feedback is merely exemplary, and could be easily presented in a variety of other, effective ways and means. It is also noted that, between the LEDs and Display media, the shot data feedback to the golfer is redundant by design [see LED description at
It should be understood that, in any given implementation, the type of feedback and the media selected will be tailored to the application goals including cost considerations. For example, only LED displays may be used, if desired, in a low cost implementation. In other implementations where cost is not a major consideration, all the forms of feedback described herein may be provided.
In this implementation, the Display subroutine operates on the multitude of variables/flags/errors from Analyze, which are listed at the bottom of
Among these four levels, a failed shot [4] may be partially attributable to a shot error [3], such as “club face rotated excessively” [level 4] may lead to a “sharp hook” [level 3]. Similarly, a viable shot [2] may be degraded by one or more stroke errors [3], such as viable shot initially heading off “straight at 6° off target” [level 2] could be aggravated by an inside-out swing arc into a “hook at 8°+off target” [level 3]. Taken to the extreme, an ideal shot [level 1] is essentially a viable shot [level 2] aimed straight at the target without any stroke errors [level 3].
The following is a function block for the
-
- inputs from analyze subroutine (listed at bottom
FIG. 28 ) - outputs to display 6 and LEDs on the mat (
FIG. 19 ) - LED array shown on
FIG. 21B as center 0, 1-17 viable shots, 18-26 errors.
- inputs from analyze subroutine (listed at bottom
In
If there is one, it takes the FATAL exit [1055] to the end of the program.
If there are no footprint errors, it displays the MPH speed [1007] and tests the lie angle [1009]. If the lie angle is a perfect 60°, Display turns on the desired green “flat angle” LED [1011]. Otherwise, if the lie angle is <60°, it tests the “HEEL dug-in” error [1013] and, if so, sets LED L26 [1015]. As a mirror image, if the lie angle is >60°, it tests the “TOE dug-in” error [1017] and, if so, sets LED R26 [1019]. In any event, all of these paths next flow toward the center to check whether there are any Swing Errors [1021].
In this illustrative implementation, if there are Swing Errors [1021], Display proceeds to test each “failed shot”, starting with “excessive swing arc, in or out” [1023] where, if so, it sets R25 [1025]. It next proceeds to test for “excessive club face rotation, open or closed” [1027] where, if so, it sets L25 [1029]. In the same way, it then proceeds to test the remaining failed shots sequentially: “TOPPED” shot [1031] setting L24 if true, then “SKIED” shot [1035] setting R24 if true, then “FAT” shot [1039] setting R23 if true, then “THIN” shot [1043] setting L23 if true, then “SHAG” [1047] setting L22 if true, and finally “SHANK” [1051] setting R22 if true. In all above cases, the subroutine takes the FATAL exit [1055] to the end of the program.
If there are no Swing Errors [1022], there are no more “failed shots”, so Display proceeds down the center to test the club face [1101]. If the club face is closed, it goes left to test for shots going left. It first tests for an “outside-in swing arc” [1103] where, if so, it sets L21 to reflect a “PULL” shot [1105]. If not, it next tests for an “inside-out swing arc” [1107] where, if so, it sets L20 to reflect the two CCW forces combining into a “sharp hook left” [1109]. Otherwise, it sets L19 to reflect a simple “HOOK” shot left [1113]. This outcome is also created by a square club face [1101] combining with an “inside-out swing arc” [1111] which also yields a simple “HOOK” at L19 [1113]. All the above outcomes flow down to next test if the club face Bangle is >35° at impact [1115].
If the club face is open [1101], Display goes right to conduct a series of mirror image tests for shots going right. It first tests for an “inside-out swing arc” [1121] where, if so, it sets R21 to reflect a “PUSH” shot to the left [1123]. If not, it next tests for an “outside-in swing arc” [1125] where, if so, it sets R20 to reflect the two CW forces combining into a “sharp slice right” [1127]. Otherwise, it sets R19 to reflect a simple “SLICE” shot right [1131]. This outcome is also created by a square club face [1101] combining with an “outside-in swing arc” [1129] which also yields a simple “SLICE” at R19
All the above outcomes flow down to next test if the club face Bangle is >35° at impact [1133].
At this point in the program flow, it should be noted that, in this example, any shot with Bangle>35° is considered a non-viable stroke error. Even though the system can easily continue to process shots with a club face angle>35°, it is of little value for the golfer to know and/or watch his shot going 50 yards far left or right out of play into the next fairway. Therefore, only shots with club face<35° are considered viable and further processed.
Thus, on the left side of
Turn on LED Lx, where x=2 times Bangle for any LED between L17<==Lx<==L1
As a final step, Display next checks whether L19 is ON reflecting a HOOK [1149], and if so, sets LED Lx+1 [1151] to signify a “HOOK” left. All above outcomes from L18 on down exit at the bottom to Display process CIRCLE [1119] shown on
Similarly, as a mirror image on the right side of
Turn on LED Rx, where x=2 times Bangle for any LED between R1==>Rx==>R17
As a final step, Display next checks whether R19 is ON reflecting a SLICE [1131], and if so, sets LED Lx+1 [1143] to signify a “SLICE” left. All above outcomes from R18 on down exit at the bottom to Display process CIRCLE [1119] shown on
Moreover, if the current shot has survived the process flow from Lie Angle=60° [1009] down the center of
The following is a function block for the
-
- STRIKE LINE=TRAIL EDGE 1 comprising data points 1→32 accessed via LED index Z
- LEDs in feedback circle 307 are a mirror-image of the HI-RES sensors (X, Y, Z) 302 within 1⅛″ radius of the center of zero line (1→36 data points).
Display continues from
Turn on Circle LED Z=ZeroLine (0, −1.125+Z, Z), where Z runs from 1<=Z<=36
To initialize “mapping” the Strike Line into the Feedback Circle, Display first resets the internal index Z=1 [1201] and then proceeds to turn on all 32 LEDs corresponding to the Trail Edge 1 of the initial Strike Line. It does this by first testing the viability of each data point Z comprising Trail Edge 1 of the initial Strike Line, observing the following data algorithm [1203]:
Test current point Z=TrailEdge (X, Y, Z), where Z runs from 1<=Z<=32, and its radial distance Rz from the circle origin “0” is the square root of (Xsquared+Ysquared).
Display next tests if current data point Z lies beyond the 1⅛″ radius of Feedback Circle 307 [1205] and, if so, skips to increment index Z [1211]. But, if it is within the 1⅛″ radius, it then turns on each LED corresponding to Trail Edge 1 of the initial Strike Line, observing the following LED algorithm [1201]:
Flash red Circle LED (X, Y, Z)=TrailEdge (X, Y, Z), where Z runs from 1<=Z<=32
After incrementing index Z [1211], Display next checks if it has processed all 32 data points [1213] and, if not, returns to test the next data point [1203]. If it has finished, Display stores the resulting LED pattern for later display on the LCD/CRT display. [1215].
In this example, Display next rates the current golf stroke on a scale of 0==>100% and stores the results. The ratings herein are intended to be illustrative. Empirical data and additional or different criteria may be utilized to tailor ratings to enhance the accuracy of the rating as desired. In this example, Display rates the stroke by the degree of relative variation, or ‘delta’, from an ideal reference value, such as the Zero Line and “squared up” face upon impact with the ball [1217]:
It is noted that these rating formulas [1217] are based on absolute values for Bdelta, Pdelta, and Bshift. The resulting Overall rating weights each of the 4 parameters equally, but empirical data from future use of this trainer may ultimate suggest the first parameter, radial distance of the Strike Line from the Zero Line, exerts far more than 25% influence.
Upon completing the ratings, Display proceeds to query its higher-level outputs, which is the reentry point for all FATAL shots [1055]. It first tests if a trend analysis has been selected, e.g., via Mode Control Input 10 [1219]. If so, Display performs a trend analysis across all strokes by the same golfer and displays the results, e.g., as bar graphs [1221]. Such analysis could examine, for example, the ratio of viable shots to failed shots, what failed shots are prevalent, which shot errors dominate the golfer's viable shots, what percentage improvement the golfer is making over time in each given category, etc. Further, as described further below, a bar graph may be used in an “optimum club selection” mode to demonstrate, for example, that a TaylorMade 5 iron is a better fit for a given golfer than the same club manufactured by Callaway.
Display next queries whether a 3D display of the current shot or a previous shot has been selected [1223]. If so, Display provides all pertinent trajectory data to a 3D visual graphics engine [1225]. It would also calculate a rule-of-thumb flight distance based on previously stored shot distance data, as shown in
Display next queries whether export to, or import from, a wireless portable device 14 has been selected [1227] as shown in
Finally, after clearing all three post-processing queries, Display returns to the calling program [1231] to reset the entire program, upon command, for the golfer's next swing.
The golf training apparatus described herein (particularly the immediately preceding illustrative implementation) may be advantageously utilized to assist in the selection and/or fitting of the optimum golf club, e.g., TaylorMade, Callaway, Ping, etc., tailored to the swing of a user. For example, in accordance with an illustrative implementation, a user may select, e.g., by clicking on an options menu, an optimum club selection mode of operation. The user may then take, for example, five (or ten) swings with a TaylorMade five iron and five (or ten) swings with a Callaway five iron. The club face contact data for each club is then processed and stored, for example, in the manner described above. For example, the output of
In accordance with an illustrative implementation, a recommendation may be displayed to the user as to which club, if any, yielded the better results and was determined to be a better club for that user.
In accordance with an illustrative implementation, this club selection analysis may be augmented by utilizing stored optimum contact data measured based upon the data obtained from a golf professional for each club. In this fashion, even without comparing one manufacturer's club with another manufacturer's club, a comparison of the user's contact data with the optimum data may be used to determine if a given club is appropriate for a user by determining that the user obtained results within a predetermined threshold of the optimum.
While the invention has been described in connection with what is presently considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited to the disclosed embodiments, but on the contrary, is intended to cover various modifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
Claims
1. Golf practice apparatus for practicing a golf swing with a golf club comprising:
- a golf ball position indicator;
- a sensor array for generating data;
- processing circuitry coupled to said sensor array for analyzing data from said sensor array to provide feedback to a user reinforcing a downwardly descending golf stroke in the vicinity of the golf ball position indicator, said processing circuitry being operable to detect a downwardly descending golf stroke such that the stroke if used with a golf ball on a turf surface would result in a divot after striking the ball.
2. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 1, further including an LCD display coupled to said processing circuitry for providing feedback to a user based upon the analysis of said data from said sensor array.
3. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said golf ball position indicator, said sensor array and said processing circuitry are embodied in a practice mat, said practice mat including an array of LED display devices for identifying the projected ball flight direction based upon the analysis of said data from said sensor array.
4. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 1, further including a golf club target disposed adjacent said golf ball position indicator, said golf club target identifying the desired point relative to a golf ball positioned at said golf ball position indicator for said divot to be taken, and a display indicative of the position of the projected divot generated by a practice golf stroke relative to said golf ball club target.
5. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 4, wherein said display is a display indicating the initial strike of the club head on said sensor array.
6. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 5, wherein said display is an LED display identifying an initial strike area.
7. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 5, wherein said display further indicates a desired strike area.
8. Golf practice apparatus for use by a user practicing a golf swing with a golf club for reinforcing a downwardly descending golf stroke comprising:
- a bounded practice surface for use by a user practicing a golf swing;
- an area of said practice surface indicating the position of a golf ball and a target indicator disposed adjacent to said area of said practice surface indicating the position of a golf ball, wherein said target indicator is disposed at a point on the practice surface corresponding to a point in a golf swing where a divot would have been made if an actual golf had been placed at the golf ball representation and a downwardly descending stroke at ball impact was executed on a golf course fairway;
- an impact sensor disposed in a golf club impact area of said practice surface for detecting contact with said impact area by a golf club swung by said user and for generating golf club contact data; and
- processing circuitry operatively coupled to said impact sensor for receiving and analyzing said golf club contact data.
9. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 8, further including an output mechanism for providing feedback to said user related to the analysis of said golf club contact data by said processing circuitry.
10. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 8, wherein said target indicator is disposed at a point on the practice surface corresponding to a point in a downwardly descending golf swing after ball contact would have been made if an actual golf had been placed at the indicated position of a golf ball.
11. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 8, wherein said impact sensor comprises a grid of sensors.
12. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 8, wherein said impact sensor comprises an array of pressure sensors.
13. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 8, wherein said processing circuitry in response to said golf club contact data generates a golf club stroke yardage indicating signal.
14. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 8, wherein said processing circuitry in response to said golf club contact data generates data indicative of a detected pattern related to a user's golf swing.
15. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 8, further including three-dimensional display generation circuitry for generating data for displaying a simulated golf shot based upon said golf club contact data.
16. Golf practice apparatus for a user practicing a golf swing with a golf club comprising:
- a bounded practice surface for use by a user practicing a golf swing;
- an area of said practice surface including a golf ball position indicator indicating the position where the user is to envision a golf ball to be struck;
- a visual cue visually indicating to the user to generate a downwardly descending stroke with respect to the golf ball position indicator; and
- a golf club head impact area in the vicinity of said golf ball position indicator; wherein the practice mat provides at least a temporary indication to the user of the area struck by the club head.
17. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 16, wherein said visual cue is a golf ball replica with a shaft piercing the golf ball replica and indicating the desired downward angle of the golf stroke.
18. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the visual cue is a target indicator disposed adjacent to said area of said practice surface indicating the position of a golf ball, wherein said target indicator is disposed at a point on the practice surface corresponding to a point in a golf swing where a divot would have been made if an actual golf had been placed at the golf ball representation and a downward stroke after ball impact was executed on a golf course fairway.
19. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 16, wherein said golf club impact area includes a material that changes its contour upon being struck by said club head.
20. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 19, wherein said material is a visco-elastic material.
21. Golf practice apparatus according to claim 1, further including a display for generating a divot-related display indicative of the position of said divot relative to a golf ball related target.
Type: Application
Filed: Oct 18, 2006
Publication Date: Dec 27, 2007
Inventors: Mark E. Nusbaum (McLean, VA), Jan E. Rhoads (Grapevine, TX)
Application Number: 11/582,545
