30 replies to this topic

[bortimus]

Warning... long read

 

Starting around post #41 in "An apple falls from a tree" thread, there's some very interesting discussion about how the levels of difficulty can be programmed into the game.  Most of the ideas focused on the swing meter itself and the amount of information given to the player on the screen.  

 

The swing meter images posted by IanD and Kablammo dealt with the click based swing, which presents unique problems when trying to determine levels of difficulty.  A comprehensive mouse movement based swing (I'll use PowerStroke from LINKS as an example) has enough player input to determine clubhead speed, face angle, club path, quality of strike, and timing of release to calculate the ball flight.  The benefit of this is that it is likely the truest representation to date of how well the player can "swing" (swing meaning being responsible for as many of the parameters of a golf swing in a logical way on a computer).  The drawback... it's very difficult and most didn't have the patience to learn the system.  Some found it awkward to use.   

 

The click swing (full disclosure, my preferred method) demands very little from the user except for a few brief moments of hand-eye coordination.  Not saying it's easy, but in comparison to something like PS, there's less "to do"

 

So the reason I'm blathering on is this:  PG is using Trackman data/real life physics to program the gameplay. If easier levels lessen the distance/direction penalty for mishits, this means it has abandoned the true ball flight physics data that is the core of the game.  At that point the club/ball have become self correcting.          

 

Since a player earns his ball flight more with a comprehensive mouse movement based swing, it automatically creates levels of separation of players based on the amount of input required. Especially in terms of distance, some folks can just create more clubhead speed than others.    

 

For the clickers, how do we separate players on different levels of difficulty?  Links did this with variations of sidehill lie effects and increased missed snap penalties (also Elite levels had no top cam aiming)

 I feel it should all be in the swing.  But maybe there should be a trade-off...     

 

Both IanD and Kablammo had interesting thoughts about lessening the amount of lines/numbers/percentages on the swingmeter itself for harder levels, and placing emphasis on the value of rhythm.  Lessening the amount of help/information on the swing meter does make it more difficult to judge shots.  One problem is that it doesn't address the problem of all clickers being at a standard distance level.

 

So an interesting thought for clickers is "how can one player create more clubhead speed than the other player?" Usually we have a stock meter and although you can try to overswing for a little more, there's always distance "given" to us with a click swing.

 

RHYTHM and TIMING.  More for us players "to do"

 

What if to hit the ball farther with a click swing, you have to do more?

 

In other golf games, there's no reward within the game for doing more or having less help. It's just harder.    Yes it's a welcome challenge, but the player in the game doesn't have anything to balance out against someone at an easier swing level.  The game plays out fairway to green just like the other player.  The holes don't "feel" different to players on harder levels.  The same players are confined by the same hazards because of their distance.    

 

So here's the tradeoff...

 

How about easier levels have less "given" distance, and in order for a player to hit professional level distances, they have to accept more to do.  What if that means an easier swing meter doesn't get you 280-290 yards with your driver?  (I can hear the boos now)  With a system like this, we may finally see a bunch of clickers not having the same distance approach shot into the greens or using the same clubs on par 3s.

 

How do we incorporate things like rhythm and timing and a strong release of the clubhead into a click swing?  

Progressively faster meters are one way, and although potentially unpopular, does make some sense to me. The faster the meter, the more clubhead speed represented and more timing dependent it becomes.  The faster meters can hit it far, but potentially very crooked (not because of increased mishit penalties, but because it's just harder to time it right).

 

I want to clarify, I'm not talking about crazy fast swing meters here.  Maybe a range to choose from and the player is free to accept whatever challenge they see fit. 

 

Also suggested was a partially obscured swing meter to rely more on feel than just the visual meter.  Again, maybe a range of visual obstruction to choose from.   

 

Any other thoughts on this?  Am I completely crazy?  Probably.

[Davefevs]

My thoughts based on a clicker:

I think a player should be able to set their CHS. This might be via a slider, where the range us say 95-105%. The tradeoff being how big or small a mishit penalises you.

Then you add difficulty. This could be by size of sweet spot or speed of swing meter, or a bit of both.

You can then add in things like clubs and how they might impact distance and accuracy.

[shimonko]

If I was doing it, I think I'd have the central online server taking statistics on the accuracy and distance of all players on all swing-modes and simulators.

 

Then as time goes on, introduce adjustments factors into distance and accuracy so no input mechanism gets a reputation of being easier to score with.

 

A simple example:  if the GC2 simulator was taken as the standard and 5% of its users average over 270 yard drives, then the distance on each other input mechanism could be adjusted so only 5% hit over 270 using it. Same applies for accuracy. I'd also somehow factor in the migration of better players to harder input mechanisms and ask players to nominate their real handicaps to also help weight the swing methods against each other.

 

A simpler method would be to introduce handicaps so that no one particular input mechanism wins all the time.

[Kablammo11]

Good read, bortimus. Thanks for making a new thread about this.

I could live with a slight distance bonus for more advanced swing meter settings. Still, no matter if there is a standartized swing meter or not, players can and should always "do more" in all the other departments of the game: Course management, shot selection, spacial perception, imagination, focus, strategy etc. The activation of the swing meter is only the culmination of a lot of previous work (identitcal for clickers and true-swingers). 

If we likened playing a golf shot to firing a gun, the swing meter would be akin to pulling the trigger. You won't always hit your target even if you pull the trigger impeccably cleanly. Selecting the target, aiming, even breath control all play a part. 

Temperament is also a big factor. Some players always want to go for the max, overswing to the max, focus like mad on the snap, push the envelope, go for glory and "damn the torpedoes". Others have concluded that staying within themselves, easy does it, nilly-willy, is what they are good at. The beauty of golf, IRL and on PC, is that gives room to both these approaches and does not favor one over the other.

Myself, I have slowly developed, over the year, my own and unique way of knowing when to attack and when to play the percentages. I want a swing meter that lets me do both and I certainly would not want to be snookered into an aggressive setting all of the time. So I conclude that a swing meter system that forces me to take crazy risks for a bit more distance, all of the time, is not necessarily a perfect representation of my own reality. 

 

"POWER IS NOTHING WITHOUT CONTROL". A good swing meter, I'd say, offers me both. Both together or one or the other - depending on my choice.

 

​Ah well, so much to talk about… and now it's movie time. Below there is a link to my latest Vimeo thing: I went and added motion to my previous swing meter designs. I also found out that 50-75-100% marks are enough and abandonend the old decimal 60-70-80-90 system. There's no message here, just a brief glimpse into what could be or not...

 

Click for Video:

[axe360]

Just curious, don't you guy's think that while removing the aids for the harder levels is fine, wouldn't also speeding up the meter work for ya too? I mean having the same speed thru all the levels seems like it would be easy to master, maybe to easy? Just a thought..

 

Also, TSwingers never have anything to tell us when to swing, no matter what difficulty level we play, (and let's keep it that way) but as we go to a harder level, we must watch our swing/tempo etc because it becomes harder to hit the perfect shot,(as it should) at least that's the way it is in TS for TW's PC series and I hope this is how TS is implemented here.  I wouldn't want any aids for TS, you should just have to be more careful with your swing tempo...

 

And please don't implement the stupid "Putt-O-Meter" for TS that TWO tried, very lame indeed. TS needs to stay All visual and feel IMO... In TW PC Series you can almost feel your club hitting the ball, with gr8 sound effects...

 

Ya'll have a Merry Christmas and a Super 2014!!

[Kablammo11]

Just curious, don't you guy's think that while removing the aids for the harder levels is fine, wouldn't also speeding up the meter work for ya too? 

 

Nah, it sorta wouldna… It may be necessary to speed the swing meter up, simply for the sake of cranking up the difficulty. But then again, that would send exactly the wrong kind of message about the painful mysteries of swinging a club in real life. Because in real golf, my friend, last time I looked the swing speed of the pros was not necessarily faster than the one used by amateurs or beginners - if ever, many newbies swing too hard and too fast and yet must learn how to get more out of less. One of golf's many, grand teachings...

 

Of course, distance is a direct result of club loft + clubhead speed, but practiced golfers know and learn how to swing efficiently to unleash and maximize clubhead speed at the exact, needed point. Just speeding up the entire swing process is not necessarily true to the game. Rather than speeding up the swing, narrowing the sweet spot inside the snap zone and increasing penalties for slight mishits would have the same effect, yet be more representative of the skill challenge of real golf.

 

That's why I keep advocating an accelerated downswing, starting very slow and slowly gathering pace all the way down, until it is ripping through the snap zone at the bottom so fast that it defeats the corrective capabilities of hand-eye-coordination, forcing the clicker to commit to a click of faith in order hit his ball sweetly. Added difficulty would stem from making the window for "that click" smaller and smaller, the penalties for missing it larger and larger, and the motion leading up to that click more and more dynamic. 

(Said click, of course, to be practiced, fine-tuned and commited to muscle memory on the nearest virutal driving range. Like in real life).

 

So, no need to buff the swing speed: Wrong mechanic, wrong message, wrong skill requirement.

Have a super holiday shindig yourself!

[bortimus]

Thanks for having the patience to read through my long ramblings...

 

Kablammo, your comments here: 

 

 

Temperament is also a big factor. Some players always want to go for the max, overswing to the max, focus like mad on the snap, push the envelope, go for glory and "damn the torpedoes". Others have concluded that staying within themselves, easy does it, nilly-willy, is what they are good at. The beauty of golf, IRL and on PC, is that gives room to both these approaches and does not favor one over the other.

Myself, I have slowly developed, over the year, my own and unique way of knowing when to attack and when to play the percentages. I want a swing meter that lets me do both and I certainly would not want to be snookered into an aggressive setting all of the time. So I conclude that a swing meter system that forces me to take crazy risks for a bit more distance, all of the time, is not necessarily a perfect representation of my own reality. 

 

Got me to thinking...

 

What if a range of full swing meters is available to everyone on each shot?  Then they decide how aggressive/conservative they want to be, just like real golf?  Ballflights will reflect the type of swing.  Maybe a small window opens with three meters on the teebox/approach shot.  You choose.  

 

It might look like this: (Just making up distances/numbers here btw) 

 

The smooth swing meter:  Moves slower and/or has a larger snap point.  With this swing, a driver goes 250, and all the irons fly shorter, lower,  and have less backspin because they are hit more softly.  Ballflight data used for this swing could be comparable to an LPGA player? (just guessing)

 

A "normal" swing meter: Less forgiving snap point/moves faster. Driver goes 275-280, irons fly higher, carry farther, more backspin.. average PGA player ballflight data

 

The aggressive swing:  Fast meter/small snap point. Driver potentially goes 300 +, highest ball flight, even more carry and backspin etc...

Ball flight data from the longest hitting top tier professional players

 

 

A few nice things about this:

 

The player can choose on each shot how hard they want to swing and strategically challenge/fly hazards if they are willing to risk it.

They can use different types of spin/ball flights for approach shots.

Everyone has these options at their disposal at whatever their level so they can play the round with complete freedom of choice.

A wide range of distance potential is available on each shot without resorting to one stock distance for everyone all the time. 

 

 

Chipping and putting would fall outside of the scope of this idea.  

[ray devitt]

Tigerwoods online on pc had a very simple swing meter
and the game was great it had some flaws.but the gameplay
was first class.is there a date for when this game will
start

[Blackadar]

Just some off the cuff observations and comments in no particular order:

 

1.  I always have thought that when you create a golfer you should have to choose one of about 4 defined shot types.  No golfer hits the ball dead straight.  So high/draw (more distance, less backspin), low/draw (most distance, least backspin), high/fade (most backspin, least distance) or low/fade (lesser distance, more backspin).  Once chosen, that swing type would be with that character forever.  Now because there's a natural shot type, players now have to account for that variable when hitting the ball.  No more aiming dead at the flag.  It also comes into play with course management.  How do I play this hole when it goes against my natural shot type?  Naturally then certain courses are going to play easier to certain swing types.  That's the way it is in real life too.  

 

I really can't stress this point enough (and you'll see how it applies further on).  No one has done this, yet this is what EVERY golfer deals with in the real world.  Want to make your game stand out?  Start with this one.  It's not hard to implement, but it makes a world of difference.

 

2.  You don't have to speed up the swing meter to make the game harder.  You can just make the proper impact point smaller so long as mishits are treated the same way every time.  Let me state that again - TREAT THE SAME MISHITS THE SAME WAY EVERY TIME.  World Golf Tour is AWFUL in that regard.  A slight mishit one time would result in nothing, while the same thing the next hole would result in being off 50-100 feet.  It's the primary reason I quit.  I can't stress this enough.  Make the friggin' results consistent.  

 

3.  Adjust mishits for the type of natural swing.  If I'm a draw swing and I hit it a bit early, that goes along with my natural swing so maybe that shouldn't be treated as harshly.  However, if I snap late, that goes against my natural swing and should be treated more harshly.  Or perhaps the converse is true - snapping early results in a duck hook while snapping late just results in a straighter shot or a slight push.  Logically, you could go either way but it adds a layer of difficulty without screwing around with the core mechanics.  Again, make the mishits consistent for that type of swing, but you can add a pretty neat and logical variable with this.  

 

4.  Tru-swings and click swings are tough to make equally difficult, especially when competing online.  I remember the old tru swing could be fooled just by having a straight book next to your mouse.  Run it up the book, click, run it back down the book - straight shot every time.  I don't know how to solve this - even a curved tru-swing will result in someone crafting a block of wood in their garage to match the curvature of the swing.  But it does destroy online tournaments unless you enforce the type of swing when playing online.  Maybe that's the answer - matches have to be one or the other when starting the match.  Personally, I'm a clicker because I'm often playing in hotels and other places where the desks are different height.

 

5.  To make a really good golf game, distance can NOT be the only real variable to success.  It is in most golf games and it's annoying.  Yeah, there's a slight reward for hitting a 3W off the tee to end up in the fairway but there's a MASSIVE reward for hitting an 8 iron versus the 6 into the green.  So you pull the driver every single time and do everything to maximize distance.  Tiger Woods, WGT, Pangya, so forth....all of these massively rewarded distance over every other variable.  

 

Real golf isn't played this way.  If you want to make a great golf game, reward players for playing smart.  That means making the driver a tough club to hit.  That means allowing the 6I to have good backspin if you hit it dead on.  That means building courses to reward smart play.  

 

Yeah it's fun to hit the ball 350 yards in a golf game.  But it destroys the game when you can put it 350 in the fairway 90% of the time and the other 10% is an easy wedge out of the rough to the green.   

 

6.  Frankly, I loved the ability in Links to set up your feet and ball placement.  It really separated the great players from the good ones.  I can't tell you how many matches I won because someone who was a decent clicker didn't know enough or bother to set up their swing to adjust for the hole or the wind.  It makes a big difference over the course of a match if you can do these things.  Again, I'd love to see the natural swing come into play here.  You're a low draw hitter trying to hit a high fade?  Ok, the mishits are going to be doubled because you're trying a swing that's not your natural one.  It'd be very easy to implement too.  If you think about it, there are 4 choices Low Draw / High Draw / Low Fade / High Fade.  Go from low to high (or vice versa) = 25% more mishit penalty (mind you, only on mishits).  Go from Draw to Fade (or vice versa) - 50%.  Change both?  100%.  

 

So you have that low draw to maximize your distance at a lot of courses?  Cool.  Now you're standing on Pebble #8 with the wind coming in off the ocean.  Good luck with that low draw...or pray you can pull off that high fade perfectly, because it's not really a shot you have in your bag.  

 

Those are just some thoughts, I'm sure I'll have something to add later.

[bortimus]

Here's another thought that might be better than my 3 meter suggestion in post #7, but would hopefully accomplish the same thing. The idea that some have suggested of a smaller snap point is intriguing.  What if the meter was always the same speed, but the snap point dynamically changed relative to the length of your backswing?  As the meter progresses, you can see the snap point becoming smaller and smaller.  

A normal backswing would start with a relatively wide margin of snap tolerance, becomes smaller as you progress into 70-80-90%, and as you reach 100%, it has reached the size of the normal swing snap point. If the backswing continues to the fullest amount of overswing, the snap point continues to shrink until it reaches it's most unforgiving size.  This hinges on the idea that a full overswing will get you enough gain in distance that it's worth the risk of trying.

Now, the trade-off of stopping the swing early with the widest margin of error is of course less distance, lower ball flight, less backspin on the irons... etc

 

This may be a good way to emulate someone trying to really go after the ball for an extra 20+ yards off the tee or more backspin and loft with an approach.

[jedi_mike]

funny you should bring up that kind of swing meter bortimus,time i read it i thought of this game. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=alPTQ1VYzEI  .i got this game now on my wii. but i like your last idea on the swing meter.wgt sort of has that kind of swing meter i think.the more power u try to add the the snap gets smaller.

[Kablammo11]

Good stuff, everybody. Enjoyed reading it. Two "Likes" for both these posts….

 

 

 

What if the meter was always the same speed, but the snap point dynamically changed relative to the length of your backswing?  As the meter progresses, you can see the snap point becoming smaller and smaller.  

This may be a good way to emulate someone trying to really go after the ball for an extra 20+ yards off the tee or more backspin and loft with an approach.

 

Dynamic Sweet Spot: Very good idea!

That would be new and it sounds interesting. Definitely worth ruminating over. 

 

 

1.  I always have thought that when you create a golfer you should have to choose one of about 4 defined shot types.  No golfer hits the ball dead straight.  So high/draw (more distance, less backspin), low/draw (most distance, least backspin), high/fade (most backspin, least distance) or low/fade (lesser distance, more backspin).  Once chosen, that swing type would be with that character forever.  Now because there's a natural shot type, players now have to account for that variable when hitting the ball.  No more aiming dead at the flag.  It also comes into play with course management.  How do I play this hole when it goes against my natural shot type?  Naturally then certain courses are going to play easier to certain swing types.  That's the way it is in real life too.  

I really can't stress this point enough (and you'll see how it applies further on).  No one has done this, yet this is what EVERY golfer deals with in the real world.  Want to make your game stand out?  Start with this one.  It's not hard to implement, but it makes a world of difference.

3.  Adjust mishits for the type of natural swing.  If I'm a draw swing and I hit it a bit early, that goes along with my natural swing so maybe that shouldn't be treated as harshly.  However, if I snap late, that goes against my natural swing and should be treated more harshly.  

 

Natural swings, eh? Just one word, Blackadar: YES!

I suggested something similar a while ago (just two types: natural draw and natural fade) and this would really make for more realism and diversity. And to have the Swing Meter take this into account would be very clever. Let's specify that of course all the more "un"-natural shot types would also be available to players, but would be made more difficult to hit. It's more of a game play issue than a swing meter affair. 

I also agree with everything else you wrote. 

[Davefevs]

Blackadar - I made a similar post way back.

Completely agree that we all play IRL with a natural shape, and would be great to replicate in PG. I think you are spot on that if you select draw and you miss the snap on the wrong side you should be punished more.

Assuming the ball physics replicate a draw going further and lower than a fade (generally) then players can choose their strategy. You might get 10-20 yards mire for choosing draw type, but you hit a lovely tee shot to the FW and have an approach to front right pin behind a bunker you introduce a new risk element, and suddenly course management comes into play. Which is what I think most of us want to make it realistic.

Another thing I posted was that when you hit it into the trees, depending on your aim, you might not be able to hit it full distance, e.g. Back swing or follow through impeded. As you rotate your aim this might increase / decrease..

Bortimus - also like the dynamic sweet spot.

[bortimus]

Great discussion here.  The dynamic sweet spot idea is growing on me more because it eliminates the need for any tweaks to the actual ball flight physics for different difficulty levels.  No more forgiving levels, lessened mishits...and so on.  We all get the same swing meter and the player judges how much swing they can handle.  Again, difficulty levels can be determined by more/less markings on the swing meter, less information given during the game etc...

 

 

The thought occurred to me that some may find it distracting to actually see the snap point changing while watching the meter.  This of course could be toggled on/off.  If off, it would be changing but hidden, and then the snap point would appear as you stop your backswing.  I think many players will quickly find their comfort zone while practicing and not need to see the snap point actually changing.  

 

 

I made an earlier statement about the overswing needing to be worth the risk of the small snap point.  In my opinion a player who can time the snap for an overswing shot should be able to crush the ball with the driver.  Not saying fly the ball 320 or anything, but a few players have carry distances of close to 300 yards now on tour.  No doubt about it.  A FEW players.  Not everyone will be overswinging, but give them the choice.

 Of course, the risk for mishit is greatly increased, but a SMALL snap miss on an overswing should not be soooo severely punished that no one can or ever tries to hit the ball that far.  The LINKS overswing meter was so punitive compared to the benefit that it wasn't worth using.  If there can be a good balance found there, what a great addition to the game it would be.      

[AndyJumbo]

Oh yeah guys a Dynamic spot could be a good idea to try in the game, maybe a bit tough but let's try it!

[bortimus]

I really shouldn't use the term overswing anymore because it implies an additional penalty for a missed snap. I'm basically thinking of a clubhead speed meter, there is no 70/80/90/100/110% etc. Its wherever you feel the snap point is big enough for you.

Having the swing meter marked with something on easier levels to give players reference points is fine, but dont mark the higher club speeds any differently (i.e. No red warning area or anything like that)

[Dazmaniac]

They usually say a straight shot is the hardest to hit, as more often than not a player will naturally hit a draw, a fade, a pull, a cut, a hook or a slice. Usually the reason for the straight shot is the players 'natural' swing was offset by a slight error in the swing itself, such as a slightly open club face at impact, but still swinging on the in-to-out swing path.

 

I would be all for a player pre-selecting draw or fade as their preferred swing path, and if the 'snap' is hit 100% the result is a slight draw or fade. If the snap is missed slightly either side, if with a draw swing it would result in a bigger draw or a straighter hit, like a block. Miss the snap by even more and the pull/cut and then even the hook/slice enters the fray. Then throw the wind in to the equation along with the lie of the land and it's fun all the way.

 

It would certainly be a way of trying to eliminate the aim directly at target, hit perfect snap, ball flies dead straight scenario.

 

Kudos, to all posters prior to my reply, a very interesting read/discussion (and just what is needed to make PG the biggest and the best).

 

[Acrilix]

To me, the need to select a 'natural swing' just shows how bad the click method simulates real golf. If it did a good job everyone would have a natural game swing. I play powerstroke on Links and I definitely have a natural draw. There are times when this goes out the window, but for the most part I have to aim up the right side of holes because I am far more likely to draw it than fade it. If clicking is not affecting players in the same way then maybe it is in need of a major revision. Clicking is, after all, really nothing but a reaction test in most golf games. Real golf is nothing like a reaction test. It is more about coordination and rhythm.

Maybe multiple swing meters running at the same time (eg. for distance, CHS and snap), that you have to stop individually are the answer! That would be a far better simulation of the complexities of a real golf swing.    

[axe360]

To me, the need to select a 'natural swing' just shows how bad the click method simulates real golf. If it did a good job everyone would have a natural game swing. I play powerstroke on Links and I definitely have a natural draw. There are times when this goes out the window, but for the most part I have to aim up the right side of holes because I am far more likely to draw it than fade it. If clicking is not affecting players in the same way then maybe it is in need of a major revision. Clicking is, after all, really nothing but a reaction test in most golf games. Real golf is nothing like a reaction test. It is more about coordination and rhythm.

Maybe multiple swing meters running at the same time (eg. for distance, CHS and snap), that you have to stop individually are the answer! That would be a far better simulation of the complexities of a real golf swing.    

 

 

You are wise Acrilix, adjust your aim for your type of shot..

[bortimus]

The link that Kablammo posted of his work in another thread:

http://i1332.photobu...pg?t=1387719693

 

Again these are my favorite swing meters offered to date, and the snap point size variation from novice-intermediate-expert on his meters can easily be visualized with the dynamic shrinking snap.  I'm thinking that the range of humanly attainable clubhead speeds for each club could be programmed in and would be represented by the meter, but not with any numbers. Here's why:  

 

My earlier statement that there is no percentage of swing power on the meter means that everybody hits the practice range and finds out if they are more Corey Pavin or Bubba Watson (likely somewhere in between) based on their control of the swingmeter.  Then the player would take note of their own club distances and snap tendencies etc...  Now we have the most personalized golf game to date.  It's literally different for every single player.

 

Some players will just be able to hit the ball farther with control, and that's ok.  They have better timing, eye-hand coordination etc...  

Some players will be bunting it around the course but keeping it in the short grass, relying on smart course management to score well.  And that's ok too.

And everything in between!

 

The reason I realized that I needed to stop using the term overswing is this:  Let's say the smallest margin of early missed snap equates to a 1/2  degree closed clubface (making up numbers here)

 

Through the range of clubhead speeds, this shot produces different ballflights based on the Trackman data that the PP guys are using.  At the highest speeds, this shot will still produce a high soft controlled draw that carries a long way.  There should be no penalizing multiplier effect just because the player swung at the highest point on the swingmeter.  Stopping the snap just before/after the perfect snap point even on the fastest swings should still produce playable shots.