Is this a good theory about Irons?

[Matt Saternus]

1353362561[/url]' post='79652']

Can't wait to hear what Matt has to say about the bolded text

 

Actually I'd be interested too, but I think Matt's real name must be John Connor. That would explain his overall hatred for robots.

 

Actually I think this would be a great test for a robot because it would eliminate the human preference for one style over another. What people need to understand is that there are tests where a robot could tell you something interesting and some where they won't. The majority of the time the more interesting information is going to come from flesh and blood holders. But now we are off topic.

[JMiller]

oh I agree that majority of tests the best data would come from humans. The example I tossed out was just one perfect example that a human variable needs to be removed from the equation to eliminate variances or mental preferences. If someone goes into a testing thinking "I can't hit this blade" then it is likely you are not going to get the best results from that person they have mentally set themselves up for failure.

 

I would just like to see the theory of "blades have a tighter dispersion when hit in the true sweet spot over cb, gi, sgi" either proved or killed to some degree scientifically in theory. To do that you have to eliminate as many variances as possible. Humans a a major variance in scientific data you need a larger sample from human testers then you would a robot. A shaft is a variance, swing weight variance, there are a lot of little things if we eliminate the data becomes more accurate in my example.

 

Sorry way off topic I know.