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

[Birgir Bjornsson]

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.

Which article was the bold part in?

[Jeff Martin]

The latest from The One-Eyed Manzella:

Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 12.16.43 AM.png

Is this a pattern you'd recommend? I wouldn't. So, why should I care about any of that stuff? It's like knowing the lap times and g-forces of a Prius: who gives a fuck?

In any case, those elements are easy to see in swings where unobstructed front and back videos are available. Take off the masking and give me a back view. Then I'll take a guess.

You never answered my question from earlier: why is it important to know when the counter-clockwise ground reaction moment begins? Why is it important to know when and where the COP shifts? That information does not tell you what movements an elite pattern demands, any more than lap times tell you how to design an F1 car. You're off in la-la land.





Jeff

[Lloyd Higley]

Is he paying you for the education ? Does he get a Jeffy certification ?

[Jeff Martin]

OK, this is pretty simple stuff, so I'll go ahead and guess while looking at the masked video, which is less than ideal because the black pants blend with the background. I'll assume it was shot with a steady camera.

wh 1.PNG


Unlike Rory and Jamie, this player begins upper body rotation very early, while keeping the lower body very still or "quiet". Can you say "modern swing"? He also has no lower body right load and no up-move.

wh 2.PNG

As a result, while the upper body is rotating, the right hip is resisting going into internal rotation, and the right leg and foot will want to twist clockwise. So expect to see a counter-clockwise ground reaction moment pretty soon during the takeaway.

Also, the arms and club move away from the target, as does the head and upper body, so you will see the COM move away from the target a little bit, but not as much as Jamie.

Since the player is trying to maintain a "stable" lower body, and not sway or slide away from the target, pressure will build up under the right foot as it resists the momentum of the arms, club and upper body, which will be "pulling" the player away from the target. So you'll see a COP build-up on the right side that will quickly exceed the COM shift.

Since the player has very little right hip internal rotation during the backswing, the sacrum won't move much towards the target, so there won't be as much shift of the COM or COP back towards the target in the second half of the backswing, like we saw with Jamie.

wh 3.PNG


There will be a big COM and COP shift to the left in transition, as his head and hips move in front of the address position:

wh 4.PNG


Obviously, the movements dictate the ground reaction moments and COP and COM shifts. If it "helps" this player to know that there will be an early pressure build-up in his right foot as a result of maintaining a stable lower body, as well as an early clockwise twisting of the right foot that the friction between the foot and the ground needs to resist, that's great. But I don't see how the player would "reverse engineer" all these movements from that knowledge.



Where should I send my bill?






Jeff

[Jeff Martin]

Speaking of force plates, Lucas had a conversation with a well-known instructor who taught Yani Tseng early in her US career, before she signed on with a "bigger name" instructor, Gary Gilchrist. Naturally, her former coach is very disturbed by her unprecedented nose-dive: from Rolex number 1 at the age of 22, with twice as many points as the runner-up, as well as five majors, to Rolex #83, with no end in sight.

During last summer, Yani paid him a visit with her current coach, Kevin Smeltz, who, like Gilchrist, is another Leadbetter product and, it appears, an avid follower of the "science".

When asked what they were working on to get her back on track, Kevin enthusiastically explained that they were working extensively on her COP movements, using force plates. Yani's former coach asked how did they know what her COP trace was when she was world number 1 and racking up majors? Kevin admitted that they didn't. Her former coach then asked "how do you know what is right for Yani?" Well, it's "science"; you know, force plates...

Naturally, she continues to struggle, misssing the cut in three of five majors in 2014, and to fall in the rankings. Where is the outrage???





Jeff

[Lloyd Higley]

Thats what happens when you teach the "flavor" of the month...

[Clay Davidson]

I'm not sure the scientists would consider the COP tracing machines as force plates since there is no magnitude with these devices and they don't separate out each foot.

I've been on SwingCatalyst and if you breathe the COP moves. Unless there some God awful movements I have no idea how someone would make small changes with the COP and still allow the golfer to maintain their natural athleticism. Sort of like trying to trace your signature instead of just signing naturally.

Snowflake Kinetics!!!

[Jeff Martin]

I'm not sure the scientists would consider the COP tracing machines as force plates since there is no magnitude with these devices and there don't separate out each foot.

I've been on SwingCatalyst and if you breathe the COP moves. Unless there some God awaful movements I have no idea how someone would make small changes with the COP and still allow the golfer to maintain their natural athleticism. Sort of like trying to trace your signature instead of just signing naturally.

Snowflake Kinetics!!!

Then they are even more useless than I thought!

This whole topic is such a waste of time. This is material that should be in the footnotes, not in the main text.




Jeff

[Clay Davidson]

What do you mean? It all starts from the ground up! Down to up! Easy when I look at the golfer and they stand on the ground.

I know some guys get touchy over pressure/combined pressure vs. force. I don't care.

If you want to create a new/better swing from science you need to look elsewhere and what better place to start than the hidden forces that can't be seen??? We have better science now so the swings have to be better!!!

Maybe it has to deal with the fact that they don't know how the body works in an elite swing so therefore ignore the body and just presume that creating new movements with the feet will magically cure all of the other problems???? People love this stuff. Just mention science and they fall overboard that they will eventually become a good golfer. I fell for it with Tman.

[Jeff Martin]

manz 6.PNG



Obviously, the right foot of the "early shifter late turners" won't want to spin clockwise as soon as the "no shifter early turners", for reasons already discussed. So, for Jamie and Rory, the counter-clockwise ground reaction moment will start later.

Also, the targetward pressure under the right foot to keep the body from being pulled away from the target by the momentum of the club, arms, head and upper body will appear later, as a consequence of the "right load", and may be more intense. Also, "pushing" the sacrum, and COM, towards the target through right hip internal rotation will also add pressure under the right foot during the second half of the backswing. No wonder the right foot wiggles for those guys!


BTW, Brian, this is starting to add up...





Jeff

[Jeff Martin]

manz 7.PNG


Because that's how they learned to swing the club.

In general, you don't want an early turn, because you don't want to trigger the downswing SSCs early, which can cause bad things like "hitting from the top" and getting your arms "stuck" behind you.

Golfers who don't shift and don't turn have just one option for the takeaway: pull back with just the arms, which increases the risk of them getting behind the body and stuck. As a result, most good players who don't shift, opt to turn, and keep the arms wide.






Jeff

[Jeff Martin]

manz 8.PNG


From Doug Marsh:

com analysis combined.PNG


What causes the COM shift is the separation of the legs, which turns the hips to square, and a drop-down of the upper body towards the target:







Jeff

[Lukman Ahmed]

manz 7.PNG


Because that's how they learned to swing the club.

In general, you want an early turn, because you don't want to trigger the downswing SSCs early, which can cause bad things like "hitting from the top" and getting your arms "stuck" behind you.

Golfers who don't shift and don't turn have just one option for the takeaway: pull back with just the arms, which increases the risk of them getting behind the body and stuck. As a result, most good players who don't shift, opt to turn, and keep the arms wide.






Jeff

I agree with this but it's not going to be the answer he's looking for.

I haven't dug very deeply into the CoM/CoP stuff because I haven't found even a decent explanation for why it's useful, much less essential to creating an effective swing but...

Notice that he's used the term "interaction". For "early, trail side shifters" the CoM and CoP would conceivably move "together." So there's probably some explanation involving a moment arm. Because the two "centers" move together there's less of a moment arm. However, "early turners" conceivably "offset" the CoM and CoP, that is to say that they are more "displaced" from one another and that, (seemingly) as a result, creates a moment arm that generates force that causes the turn.

Seemingly a golfer could do both moves early with a lot of flexibility and a very offset stance, which to me highlights the fact that the body and not the kinetics are more important. But perhaps it's the mind that's most important, which is why I strongly agree with Jeff--it's a matter of what they've learned/done

[Simon Stebbing]

Love the signature analogy Clay.

This question was just asked in the GSS group:

"Will greater force into the ground in the transition, all things being equal, result in a faster swing speed?"

To which the first answer was "Definitely as long as the upper body can coordinate the rotational force and keep up."

As that answer came from a respected instructor, I've decided to put on weight and no longer feel guilty ordering pizza. Hopefully if I put on 20 pounds I can gain 10% in swing speed.

[Jeff Martin]

Love the signature analogy Clay.

This question was just asked in the GSS group:

"Will greater force into the ground in the transition, all things being equal, result in a faster swing speed?"

To which the first answer was "Definitely as long as the upper body can coordinate the rotational force and keep up."

As that answer came from a respected instructor, I've decided to put on weight and no longer feel guilty ordering pizza. Hopefully if I put on 20 pounds I can gain 10% in swing speed.

How do they think one puts force "into the ground"? Serious question.




Jeff