Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 79

Thread: Nice to see some original thinking emerge from the rubble of The Land of the Blind...

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Sorry if I offend anyone, but this sounds retarded:


    Screen Shot 2015-01-11 at 7.36.37 PM.png


    Is Manzella saying that the feet start to slow the body's rotation in the backswing before the body has started rotating in the backswing??? Sounds like it to me.

    For the really great swingers, there is very little rotation during the takeaway: it is more of a right load and sometimes an up move. Here's Jamie; yellow indicates hip and head position at address:

    Screen Shot 2015-01-09 at 7.17.46 PM.png


    In the second half of the backswing, nearly all of the rotation takes place, and the rotation ends for someone like Jamie when he runs out of range-of-motion, specifically, when he reaches his limit for right knee external rotation, right leg extension, right hip internal rotation, right shoulder retraction, left shoulder protraction and extension of the wrists. The limits of his body dictate when the backswing ends, not his feet. Isn't that obvious to everybody?

    Here is Jamie's top of the backswing; red circle is his head position at the end of the takeaway:

    Screen Shot 2015-01-09 at 7.20.14 PM.png


    You can easily see that the right leg "wants" to spin clockwise, so, naturally, there is a counter-clockwise ground reaction moment under the right foot. But, on what basis does Manzella, or anyone else, conclude that this counter-clockwise ground reaction moment is responsible for, or intended to be responsible for, "slowing" the backswing?

    And, why would anyone particularly care? Why is this knowledge, if it is correct, which I doubt, important? What's the big deal about being "correct" on this element? How does being "correct" translate into faster club head speed and/or greater consistency? Or faster learning of the correct movements? How does this information (the kinetics) even shed any light on the correct movements or how to learn them?

    Brian, what's the point? Other than to talk about something nobody else talks about and act like it is super-important?






    Jeff

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre van Staden View Post
    The lateral fascial lines create this in transition. This is old news, cart before the horse AGAIN!
    Lateral Fascial lines? I did a quick search, but a ton of stuff came up. Can you be more specific? Thanks Andre!

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KC Todd View Post
    It amazese what comes out of his mouth. He doesn't think at all about what he is saying.

    When you are just parroting something you were told but don't understand, it is impossible to "think" about what you are saying...




    Jeff

  4. #19
    Lloyd Higley Guest
    You would think with all the time he spends here he would start to learn something...

  5. #20
    Lukman Ahmed Guest
    Screen Shot 2015-01-11 at 10.32.23 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2015-01-11 at 10.22.02 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2015-01-11 at 10.22.26 PM.png

    I will say that these two posts by Brian feature assertions that are hard to disagree with. I appreciate the more nuanced discussion.

    Also, see the following: http://gifmaker.me/PlayGIFAnimation....JJXylw&start=0

    Look at the foot and knee action there. A lot to appreciate and investigate there.

    However, and to reiterate, it is the golfer's movement that should be of primary concern here. How effective GRF studies are in "reverse engineering" the movement analysis and study is up for debate. What's not debatable, to me, is the collaboration that's needsd between the quantitative and qualitative analysts. Collaboration is important. Again, nuance helps further understanding.

    On another note, in regards to Brian's point about Rory's right foot action. Kelvin explained this, referring to his and Ishikawa's right foot wiggle years ago. Kelvin did that with qualitative, video-based analysis. Which further substantiates the notion that more collaboration is a good thing.

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Vernon Russell View Post
    Lateral Fascial lines? I did a quick search, but a ton of stuff came up. Can you be more specific? Thanks Andre!
    There are various fascial lines (trains) in the body eg. spiral lines, deep back arm line etc etc; including the lateral lines which run on either side of the body from the neck all the way down into the feet. As the spine moves from left lateral bend on the backswing, to right lateral bend in the transition, the lateral lines (fascia) on the right side creates this movement that we see in the right foot. You could say that the right lateral bend is what creates this movement in the foot, not from the feet going up as Brian seems to be saying.

    A good book to read is Anatomy Trains by Tom Myers, although, it took a lot of explaining from Kelvin for me to fully understand how these trains work in the swing

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Lukman Ahmed View Post
    Screen Shot 2015-01-11 at 10.32.23 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2015-01-11 at 10.22.02 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2015-01-11 at 10.22.26 PM.png

    I will say that these two posts by Brian feature assertions that are hard to disagree with. I appreciate the more nuanced discussion.

    Lukman-


    I resized your images so they fit better on the screen.

    Please help me out and go through the "assertions" you are referring to, explain what they mean and why they are "hard to disagree with". I'm not following.

    Thanks!




    Jeff

  8. #23
    Lukman Ahmed Guest
    Jeff,

    I regret putting that out there without giving it the treatment you asked for. A couple, perhaps somewhat introductory points:

    1.) EMG activity definitely has shortcomings. Kelvin made a similar point in regards to using measurements of muscular activity in regards to horses and PGA Tour players in one of his articles. In brief, all measurements we get are "indirect"--there's always the "causation conundrum", which although frustrating to accept, is what it is. Karl Popper is the archetype of this view. However, if you were to speak to the most "thoughtful" biomechanists, they would say something alongs those lines. In the end, you "move past that" by getting at what both you, Manzella, and Como all advocate--"results are what count."

    2.) I disagree, completely with the notion that if you just learn the kinetics everything will fall in place. What does it mean to "learn the kinetics"? What does it mean to have "the movement you want"? In my opinion, this is Brian's continued confusion over cause-and-effect because, it appears to me, he "learns the kinetics" by trying, along with scientists apparently, to "reverse engineer" what the movements and kinematics were.

    3.) In regards to measuring forces and torques--when these forces/torques are measured "directly" they will give a much "truer" sense of when those forces and torques were generated than when studied on video alone.

    I probably over-stated things earlier in regards to Brian's assertions. Nevertheless, I do appreciate that he's getting a little more nuanced and detailed with his explanations.

    I'll re-state what Lloyd said some time back when yours and Lucas's trip to Denton was cancelled. It would have created more avenues for learning.

    I understand why you guys's didn't want to go.

    Again, results are what count. If you guys are getting the results you want then that's fine. Particularly, and justifiably, when others have been hostile to your approach.

    I hope that helps. Let me know if anything else is unclear.

  9. #24
    What are the standard kinetics?

    How can one understand the kinetics/forces on the range without any equipment but a Tman and their eyes?

    There might be some "standards" for COP tracing, but that's it and even then, I suspect the ranges for "standard" have a massive deviation. The scientists themselves have stated there are no standard kinetics (yet). Of course, didn't we hear six months ago that in two to three months there would be a machine out here by now that would clear up all of the kinetic issues? There is always a big announcement every three to six months (Pattern 13 is the new one even though Project 1.68 has never been published or even organized) that will change golf forever. It's the same pattern over and over. People want to believe there is a secret that can only be seen/taught by a few. Having a scientist agree with an interpretation isn't science unless the interpretation is tested by the scientific method!

    I call this stuff "snowflake kinetics" because like a snowflake, each person has their own unique kinetics and the ranges of standard kinetics are unknown.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Lukman Ahmed View Post
    Jeff,

    I regret putting that out there without giving it the treatment you asked for. A couple, perhaps somewhat introductory points:

    1.) EMG activity definitely has shortcomings. Kelvin made a similar point in regards to using measurements of muscular activity in regards to horses and PGA Tour players in one of his articles. In brief, all measurements we get are "indirect"--there's always the "causation conundrum", which although frustrating to accept, is what it is. Karl Popper is the archetype of this view. However, if you were to speak to the most "thoughtful" biomechanists, they would say something alongs those lines. In the end, you "move past that" by getting at what both you, Manzella, and Como all advocate--"results are what count."
    OK, got it. Don't really give this area much thought, because it is completely impractical for measuring a golf swing.


    2.) I disagree, completely with the notion that if you just learn the kinetics everything will fall in place. What does it mean to "learn the kinetics"? What does it mean to have "the movement you want"? In my opinion, this is Brian's continued confusion over cause-and-effect because, it appears to me, he "learns the kinetics" by trying, along with scientists apparently, to "reverse engineer" what the movements and kinematics were.
    I agree. The best you can say is understanding the kinetics would give the student a fuller picture of the swing, but, I don't see that as a crucial element. I have gone to a couple driving schools, and understanding how the tires interact with ground during braking, turning and accelerating is helpful to understanding how to avoid, or correct, understeer and oversteer, but that knowledge alone isn't going to teach you how to pick the correct line and maximize your speed along it.


    3.) In regards to measuring forces and torques--when these forces/torques are measured "directly" they will give a much "truer" sense of when those forces and torques were generated than when studied on video alone.
    How can it be otherwise?


    I probably over-stated things earlier in regards to Brian's assertions. Nevertheless, I do appreciate that he's getting a little more nuanced and detailed with his explanations.

    I'll re-state what Lloyd said some time back when yours and Lucas's trip to Denton was cancelled. It would have created more avenues for learning.

    I understand why you guys's didn't want to go.
    Well, it would have cost us money and we didn't think we'd get much of anything out of it, but they would learn a lot. When Kwon started insulting me and Kelvin's research, it was an easy call.

    Anyway, what is stopping them from doing the qualitative research Kelvin has done? Kwon, Duffey, etc. rely on the teaching pros who visit the labs for qualitative understanding, so they really are unqualified to be designing and conducting quantitative studies.


    Again, results are what count. If you guys are getting the results you want then that's fine. Particularly, and justifiably, when others have been hostile to your approach.

    I hope that helps. Let me know if anything else is unclear.

    Thanks! Very helpful.





    Jeff

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    OK...

    manz 5.PNG


    Does this clear anything up? More carny-speak...





    Jeff

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre van Staden View Post
    There are various fascial lines (trains) in the body eg. spiral lines, deep back arm line etc etc; including the lateral lines which run on either side of the body from the neck all the way down into the feet. As the spine moves from left lateral bend on the backswing, to right lateral bend in the transition, the lateral lines (fascia) on the right side creates this movement that we see in the right foot. You could say that the right lateral bend is what creates this movement in the foot, not from the feet going up as Brian seems to be saying.

    A good book to read is Anatomy Trains by Tom Myers, although, it took a lot of explaining from Kelvin for me to fully understand how these trains work in the swing
    Gotcha. Thanks Andre! Gonna check the book out. Sounds interesting.

  13. #28
    Lloyd Higley Guest
    Some scientist told him to say that

  14. #29
    Why would someone shout about new scientific truths as the key to great teaching when such new scientific truths can't be verified on the range for the student? I get it that if someone had all of the "bells and whistles" of a state of the art lab they could assert that their teaching is substantively different. But I'm not aware of anyone teaching of out a lab at a university, let alone students who have been taught in such lab coming away with unbridled success. There is no way that someone can see when the force is 90* to the hand path on the range, the magnitude of such 90* force, the magnitude of the GRF of each individual foot on the range, the forces and torques about the shaft during the entire swing on the range. That begs the question, what is the practical effect of this alleged new scientific knowledge? There is no science that tells you how to swing the club as a whole. Only bits and pieces of scientific data that are geared toward certain ideas for maximum speed and without regard to face angle, path, centerness of hit and the repeatability of face angle, path, and centerness of hit.

    TGM built a following with this worldview (i.e., scientism) and it never goes away.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Found this GIF in my Photobucket album which illustrates the shift of the COM/COP towards the target in the second half of the backswing, as well as the right foot "wiggle" Bman and his scientists fantasize is the right foot "pushing towards the target" to slow rotation in the backswing, before rotation has started. The blind men and the elephant...

    And the best part: no force plates needed!








    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
  •