Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Jeff Mann

  1. #16
    I see he has now done a critique of Richie's swing , oh boy .... Can someone ask him to put up a critique of his own swing . I'd pay 20 bucks for a front row seat

  2. #17
    Thanks for pointing that out.

    I don't have golf students. I'm not an instructor.

    I actually agree with a lot of what Jeff pointed out, mainly because I have been working on those things:

    - getting rid of early extension (used to be worse, shaft plane was steeper in transition. Shaft plane more shallow and the EE is not as bad)
    - trying to get rid of early secondary axis tilt.
    - trying to get more hip rotation instead of hip slide.
    - too much spine tilt and not enough extension at p4...body is tilting too far towards the target at p4.








    3JACK

  3. #18
    You are free to label my swing commentary rudimentary. I personally believe otherwise! I believe that my ideas re: the virtues of playing golf with an intact LAFW/fFLW and my ideas on the biomechanics/mechanics of the DH-release action have no equal. I certainly am not aware of any contribution that you have ever made with respect to the world's global knowledge regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.


    WOW IS HE IN LA LA LAND?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Grant's discussion of the spine has sure brought Jeff Mann to life, but on another fool's errand. Dr. Mann has written thousands of words attacking, as usual, a strawman. His most recent target he sums up this way:


    strawman.PNG


    Uh, Dr. Mann, where exactly does Kelvin state that, during the transition, right side lateral bend causes the pelvic motion initiating the downswing? Let's look at what Kelvin actually states occurs during transition and the early downswing (from What's a Hip Turn? Part 2):


    oops.PNG


    hmmmm... I don't see any reference to lateral bend.

    More specifically, what does Kel say about the initiator of the pelvic motion? Could it be what Dr. Mann calls "pelvic girdle muscles"?:


    dual.PNG


    Kel even provides a handy illustration of the relevant muscle group. The psoas major and iliacus comprise the iliopsoas, also known as the dorsal hip muscles, the initiator of pelvic rotation in the downswing, along with the psoas minor.


    iliopsoas.PNG



    Here is a closer look at the iliopsoas and the psoas minor:


    psoas.PNG



    Yes, Kel believes the spine engine does add power to the swing, but in addition to the muscles of the pelvis, as Kel states in What's a Shoulder Turn? Part 3:


    sources.PNG


    In the article How to shift your weight without sliding, Kel discusses a new micro move involving the pelvis, left pelvic tilt, as well as the timing of right side lateral bend. It ain't at the beginning of transition:


    lpt.PNG



    So, there you have it: untold hours spent attacking a figment of his imagination. Another job well done, Doctor!




    Jeff

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Dr. Mann not only spends hours attacking strawmen of his own making, he also likes to use "evidence" that is absurd on its face. For example, the Doctor is fond of this unfortunate illustration from Ben Hogan's Five Lessons:

    Screen Shot 2014-06-19 at 11.20.51 PM.png


    That illustration shows Hogan going from left hip flexion at P4 to left hip extension at P5.5, not P4.5. But, what does Hogan really look like from P4 (top of the backswing) to P4.5 (left arm at a 45 degree angle above horizontal)? Nothing like that at all: if anything, hip flexion increases, exactly what would result from contracting the iliopsoas and psoas minor. Here he is from P4 to P4.5+:


    Screen Shot 2014-06-19 at 11.34.06 PM.png


    From down-the-line, it is easy to see that the movement from P4 to P5+ is towards increased left hip flexion, not extension as shown in the bogus Five Lessons illustration, and can be entirely driven by contraction of the iliopsoas and the psoas minor, squaring the hips and increasing hip flexion by more than 10 degrees:


    Screen Shot 2014-06-19 at 11.54.09 PM.png



    As usual, just more fantasies from Dr. Mann and Tattoo!










    Jeff

  6. #21
    its kind of funny.... literally, like i said.... when there is nothing on television, i go to newton. i post. and then i never go back to read the replies. glad to hear im not blocked. LOL. it may be unfair to do that, and even un-beneficial in case other people are reading for educational purposes. i have to be honest. i think that jeff is a smart guy, and i agree with a lot of what he says. but the things i disagree with are enough to do significant damage, i believe, to those who would learn from him. i don't think he has any real-life experience with teaching the golf swing and obtaining results, and as i said there, while its not everything.... its significant. there should absolutely be a positive correlation between good teaching and good swing changes, overall, over a large sample.... and the opposite would be true with bad teaching.

    i almost cant resist to comment, because of what you highlighted above. he is on a witch hunt, evidenced by the fact that i'll see him state kelvins teaching for kelvin, not in kels words....but in his words....and then dismantle it. THE PROBLEM IS THIS: ill read him say "kelvin miyahara believes __________" and ill say .... "wait, a second.... thats nothing ive heard kelvin say before....that doesnt sound right." its absolute maddening to watch someone debate so dishonestly.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hooper View Post
    its kind of funny.... literally, like i said.... when there is nothing on television, i go to newton. i post. and then i never go back to read the replies. glad to hear im not blocked. LOL. it may be unfair to do that, and even un-beneficial in case other people are reading for educational purposes. i have to be honest. i think that jeff is a smart guy, and i agree with a lot of what he says. but the things i disagree with are enough to do significant damage, i believe, to those who would learn from him. i don't think he has any real-life experience with teaching the golf swing and obtaining results, and as i said there, while its not everything.... its significant. there should absolutely be a positive correlation between good teaching and good swing changes, overall, over a large sample.... and the opposite would be true with bad teaching.

    i almost cant resist to comment, because of what you highlighted above. he is on a witch hunt, evidenced by the fact that i'll see him state kelvins teaching for kelvin, not in kels words....but in his words....and then dismantle it. THE PROBLEM IS THIS: ill read him say "kelvin miyahara believes __________" and ill say .... "wait, a second.... thats nothing ive heard kelvin say before....that doesnt sound right." its absolute maddening to watch someone debate so dishonestly.

    You have put your finger exactly on it. Jeff Mann is a deliberate and systematic liar. He is very fond of creating strawmen, then knocking them down. One of his favorites is to claim that Kelvin says that ALL drive/holders, for example, MUST do so-and-so, then find a drive/holder that doesn't do so-and-so and declare that Kelvin is WRONG. But, of course, Kel never talks in absolutes: he states that golfers aren't robots and that there will be variations and exceptions. But that type of chronic dishonesty by Jeff Mann is just a pathetic way to draw attention to himself, sort of like the kid claiming his father is an astronaut, or a secret agent or John Elway...


    http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...dad-john-elway





    Jeff

  8. #23
    your exactly right. ill give you one of many many many examples. he argues why kel is wrong that lateral bend must happen right at transition. well, kel never says that. kel prefers that, and teaches that. but like you said its not absolute. kel says that it is easiest to do it that way, but kel speaks highly of carl petterson and his late lateral bend.

    i agree that lpt and lat bend need to be at the same time.... one big twisting move on the whole body synced. i do beleive you can do it later, but you prolly have to have less lpt or something in order to lat bend later. i dunno, point is i do agree they are at the same time, but there are exceptions.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hooper View Post
    your exactly right. ill give you one of many many many examples. he argues why kel is wrong that lateral bend must happen right at transition. well, kel never says that. kel prefers that, and teaches that. but like you said its not absolute. kel says that it is easiest to do it that way, but kel speaks highly of carl petterson and his late lateral bend.

    i agree that lpt and lat bend need to be at the same time.... one big twisting move on the whole body synced. i do beleive you can do it later, but you prolly have to have less lpt or something in order to lat bend later. i dunno, point is i do agree they are at the same time, but there are exceptions.

    On this one, Jeff Mann is just playing a stupid game. The spine is typically in left side lateral bend at the top. What Kel is advising, and the graphs produced by TPI and Doug Marsh clearly show good players doing, is to have the spine start moving towards right side lateral bend at the top. In the case of Mr. Elite and Arron Oberholser (Pro3), that reversal begins before the top of the backswing. Mann's strawman is that Kel wants a player to somehow instantaneously jump from being in left lateral bend to being in right lateral bend. Right. All those posts of Mann's attacking this strawman are a ridiculous waste of time, and shows his level of desperation for attention.


    Screen Shot 2014-06-21 at 12.18.36 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-06-21 at 12.20.11 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-06-21 at 12.20.35 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-06-21 at 12.20.50 PM.png






    Jeff

  10. #25
    I am the worlds foremost authority on the golf swing and it's bio mechanics and everyone else has a nonsensical view

  11. #26
    Well I know Jeff will be reading this, so I will be nice. I'll say that I do like that Jeff replies in such great detail and I do believe that he knows a lot about biomechanics, and that he is very good at observation and analysis, but that he (like he accuses kelvin of) has a lot of pre-set bias that keeps him from always being as accurate as he could be. With his amount of knowledge, if he was a blank slate that had not emotional interests such as a vendetta against Kelvin... and if he was open-minded and fairly assessed people's own views, rather than misquoting and creating strawmen... well, I think that he could have as much of an influence as Kelvin and gather quite a big following. Unfortunately, from a distance, to me, this is what I posted on his site that I see him as doing...

    Your overemphasizing biomechanical correctness is like the equivalent of a writer that overemphasizes grammar and in doing so, is not able to recognize a piece of writing. Of course, the only purpose of grade school grammar rules are to give a writer an ability to clearly structure their thoughts in a way that can be understood by the reader... so to be hung up on those details, would be meaningless. The question would not be “did the writer follow grammar rules?” The question would be whether a writer was able to efficiently convey a message in a way that flows and is able to be reasonably understood. And even then, a writer’s ability to express themselves in a legible way is not the end-all-be-all. It’s just one of the details that goes into the production of a great piece of writing. The purspose of biomechanics for a golf teacher is not the end all be all. They only need to understand it to the extent that they are informed enough to be able to accurately convey their instruction to the player. Once again, to go one level further, in golf instruction... even a teacher’s ability to convey what they know is simply a detail... and a teacher can do a good job of explaining a wrong idea, or a bad job of explaining a good one. These are all factors, but the end all be all is instruction that makes players swing better. Biomechanics is still two levels back. It simply informs a teacher’s ability to communicate. The field is not “biomechanics.” The field is golf instruction. You need to understand the body more to be a doctor than you do to be a golf instructor... and things such as a good training aide (there are not many) or being able to describe a feeling with an analygy are just a few examples of ways that good instruction can be displayed by someone who does not have a doctors-level understanding of biomechanics. Unless you think golf instructors should have to go to school for 8 years also?

    It's also a bit suspicious that in this case, these thorough critiques happen to overemphasize what you happen to be good at and passionate about—biomechanics, and underemphasize something that you have less experience with—teaching experience that leads to making players better (sometimes even just by trial and error over many years, though now we have the technology to skip that step.) I cannot read your mind, but what would you think if you saw this: A 4th grade grammar teacher that is obsessed with and passionate about writing novels and submits all sorts of work to try to get published, but fails to produce any great literature... and then this teacher starts a website where she critiques in great detail, the grammar and sentence structure of beloved novels like "a tale of two cities" and "lord of the rings" to try to prove that the greatest writers in the world are actual inferior, due to inability to follow grammar rules. Over and over again, she corrects them with her superior grammar knowledge, and she even tweaks what was said in some instances, to build a better case against them. Wouldn't you say she kind-of missed the point and maybe was the only one who believed that the grammar was actually more important than the literature itself? Results are what matter. Those who are experts at grammar don't write classic stories or win the Pulitzer... they teach 9th grade English. There have been great stories and great pieces of writing produced by people with less-than-perfect grammar because their goal is to produce great writing, not to produce the mostly correctly structured sentences. The reason people pull their hair out when they read your posts here and literally are astounded by how much you seem to miss the point, in your overemphasizing the details and detracting from the big picture. That is my OPINION.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Jeff Mann is hilarious. He has been stating for weeks that pelvic rotation in the downswing is powered by the "pelvic girdle muscles", but, guess what? None of the "pelvic girdle muscles" are positioned in a way that allows them to rotate the pelvis in the horizontal plane! The good Doctor needs to go back to medical school.

    Also, Dr. Mann seems to be unaware that it was observed over a 100 years ago that lateral bending of the spine will induce rotation of the pelvis in the opposite direction. It is one of "Fryette's Laws". Dr. Gracovetsky devotes an entire chapter to the subject in his treatise "The Spinal Engine". Even though it is obvious that Dr. Mann has not read Dr. Gracovetsky's work (he no doubt can't afford it at $100 per copy), he feels entitled to criticize it. Pathetic.



    Jeff

  13. #28
    im sure he will be responding to you...

    I have a question though.

    that doesnt seem right..... if i just stand up and side bend left right around my ribcage....then side bend right..... it doesnt feel like my pelvis needs to move???

    i dont understand. or is my spine actually not bending when im doing that? does it have to occur during an athletic motion? like when i twist my upper and lower in opposite directions at the top?

    so when i right side bend in my swing and if my pelvis doesnt rotate (that appearence of leaning back and lateral bend without lordosis)...... im not actually bending the spine? aren't i still bending the upper part of it?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    You need to have lordosis of the lumbar spine, or anterior pelvic tilt, to induce rotation. When a player tucks his hips at the end of the swing, the axial torque is released.


    Jeff

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hooper View Post
    im sure he will be responding to you...
    You were right and, boy, is he stupid.

    This what he posted:

    mann1.PNG
    mann2.PNG


    There are so many mistakes, it is hard to keep track of them all. For example, he starts off with this:

    On page 115, he describes the 6 lateral rotator muscles that are used to rotate the pelvis externally from a position of internal rotation (eg. baseball player performing a hitting or pitching action) - piriformis, gemellus superior. gemullus inferior, obturator externus, obturator internus and quadrator femoris.


    That sentence is nonsensical because the pelvis does not rotate internally or externally: only the femur in the hip joint rotates internally or externally. An overview of pelvic movements is provided on pages 106 and 108 of the reference book Mann linked to:

    http://zuary.com/browse.php?u=HOKASD...R3%2Bc%3D&b=29

    pelvic motions.PNG
    pelvic motions 2.PNG


    You'll note that there is no internal or external rotation listed for the pelvis, only for the hips. The motion of interest is transverse pelvic rotation. A review of each muscle group listed in the text shows that none of them have "transverse pelvic rotation" included as one of their actions. For example, here is page 115:

    page 115.PNG


    The action of the lateral rotaters is external hip rotation, i.e. to rotate the femur externally. Similarly, the gluteus medius actions listed below include abduction, external hip rotation and internal hip rotation, but no reference to transverse pelvic rotation.


    page 117.PNG


    Yet, Dr. Mann writes one nonsensical thing after another:

    How can Jeffy justifiably claim that those pelvic girdle muscles are not positioned correctly to rotate the pelvis in the horizontal plane as the left hip joint becomes externally rotated?

    For starters, for the pelvis to rotate around the left hip joint during external rotation would require the left femur to be immobilized. That doesn't happen until very late in the downswing, at the earliest. Second, left hip external rotation with a fixed femur would rotate the pelvis away from the target, the opposite of what happens in the downswing. And, third, under Mann's theory, external rotation of both hips, present in some elite swings, prohibit any rotation and would fix the pelvis in place. Obviously, that doesn't happen either.

    Mann follows with another gem:

    Also, read the section on gluteus medius on page 117. It states that the posterior fibres externally rotate the pelvis when the ipsilateral femur abducts. How can Jeffy justifiably claim that the gluteus medius muscle is not positioned in a way that it can cause the pelvis to externally rotate in a horizontal plane?

    Again, Dr. Mann incorrectly substitutes "pelvis" for "hip", creating an absurdity: the pelvis does not rotate internally or externally.

    And Mann does it again, substituting "pelvis" for "hip", creating more nonsense:

    Also, the author claims that the gluteus maximums muscle assists in external rotation of the pelvis as the left leg straightens and the left femur becomes more extended at the level of the hip joint.

    To finish things off, Mann offers an ignaratio elenchi (aka "irrelevant conclusion"), that has nothing to do with whether any pelvic girdle muscles create transverse pelvic rotation:

    Look at Bubba Watson's lead hip joint motion at the start of his downswing action - and note the prominent external rotation of his lead femur at the level of the hip joint. Do you believe that the 6 lateral pelvic rotator muscles are not involved? Note how his lead femur becomes progressively more abducted during his early downswing action. Do you think that his lead gluteus medius muscle is not actively involved in rotating his lead femur during this time period?

    What does external rotation and abduction of the left femur have to do with transverse rotation of the pelvis? Mann is acting like a schizophrenic, creating his own world lacking reason or logic.




    Jeff







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •