Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 99

Thread: Finney

  1. #61
    Didn't macgill use dead pigs in his lab.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    fin5.PNG

    That's nice. I have a specific question: where can we find the peer-reviewed paper that confirms experimentally the conclusions of McGill's 1986 paper that Gracovetsky references in his book?

    Also, could you ask McGill for his thoughts about the possible cause of the Tommy John surgery epidemic afflicting American baseball pitchers that is not present among pitchers in Japan? Here are Gracovetsky's thoughts after I showed him the video below ("old school" mechanics on the left, which prevail in Japan, "modern pitching mechanics" on the right, universally taught in the US, which reflect McGill's influence on Tom House):

    "I found the pitcher movie interesting. Obviously, the coach did not understand what the spine was doing and thought the motion was essentially due to the arm. Hence the emphasis on arm motion and the corresponding injuries."




    Anyway, what does a debate between two rival researchers about lifting loads have to do with anything golf related, let alone your claim that I "haven't been right about anything for four years"?




    Jeff

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by John Thomas View Post
    Didn't macgill use dead pigs in his lab.
    Yes, many, if not most, of his papers on the spine are based on vertebrae taken from pigs. You know, they walk around on their hind legs just like humans, so the vertebrae must have identical properties...




    Jeff

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    fin6.PNG


    Actually, there are peer-reviewed papers that quantify the conversion of the lateral forces on the lumbar spine into the axial torque applied to the pelvis, using lumbar spines from cadavers, but no one has done studies on live golfers that I know of. My recollection is that the biomechanists think that's impossible with existing technology, but, by all means, ask them. However, it ought to be something that can be easily modeled based on the existing literature. Perhaps McGill can do it.




    Jeff

  5. #65
    Finney the out toss was part of the ground breaking project 1.68, so that's bullshit as well now? Manuela was bagging Nmgolfer for years because he was saying look at nesbitt but Manuela was kissing mandarins butt. Heck even the polish guy Dariusz J told Manuela to get a clue and look at biomechanics and GRF. It's nothing new you dweeb.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    latest.PNG


    Right. So, despite being at this since Saturday, you still haven't come up with a single thing that I was wrong about for the "past four years" other than the hip decel, yet you still carry on as if you have a list a mile long. Don't you think that makes you look, you know, kind of stupid?



    Jeff

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by John Thomas View Post

    Jeff Martin's Experts

    Here's another thing you've gotten wrong - over and over again. You seem to pick your "experts" based on the fact that they are NOT EXPERTS in the area which they post about. I really don't understand the rationale, but it's uncanny that you have yet to talk in any detail with a PhD in Biomechanics about......wait for it.......BIOMECHANICS. Everyone you buy into is a one off or two off or five off expert on the material. Names like Doug Marsh, Atanau Muhjerkee, Max Prokopy, and (for a short time) Tapio Santala come to mind as people you have lauded as "experts" who have backed up your uncanny qualitative observations. When one of your "theories' is challenged by an actual PhD in Biomechanics - you do something very predictable - you trash the entire field of BIOMECHANICS - and even post pictures of these real experts with their young daughters and make disparaging comments. All because they aren't buying into to your "line of reasoning".You're a despicable person for doing that, Jeff Martin.
    Wow - I seriously doubt Jeff would even claim me as any expert! I've only been in touch with him for 7 days...and already this. Oh well. I was in touch with Kelvin 2 years ago but realized I needed to learn more about his approach before even considering I could properly evaluate it.

    I guess Mr. Finney does not know the meaning of the term biomechanics: it is simply the study of movement, and in our case in vivo with humans. One can accomplish that with a host of methods. He has confused precision with accuracy or validity...a shame.

    My observations are clearly not qualitative. That was whole point of sending the graph(s) to Kelvin!

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Martin View Post
    Yes, many, if not most, of his papers on the spine are based on vertebrae taken from pigs. You know, they walk around on their hind legs just like humans, so the vertebrae must have identical properties...




    Jeff
    The tensile and other material properties are remarkably congruent with a human spine. Pig C4 and human L4...I have a ton of thoughts on this but do not want to contaminate the thread...I also need more time to finish reading Dr. Gracovetsky's full book.

    Jeff - I have pdfs of many of McGill's publications and if you want specific papers, I'm happy to help. He has a wide array pf publications. If you are looking for results, he has them in droves, with world-class athletes. I expect he would personally welcome you to observe and discuss in his lab or discuss results/concepts in detail.

    My initial thoughts are that Gracovetsky and McGill have a ton in common. Don't let the mid-80's tiffs fool you.

    Here is a link to one of the letter to the editor exchanges. Not sure if you can access it, let me know and I'll send you a copy.

    http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.15.1b...t|S.sh.18.19|0

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Prokopy View Post
    The tensile and other material properties are remarkably congruent with a human spine. Pig C4 and human L4...I have a ton of thoughts on this but do not want to contaminate the thread...I also need more time to finish reading Dr. Gracovetsky's full book.

    Jeff - I have pdfs of many of McGill's publications and if you want specific papers, I'm happy to help. He has a wide array pf publications. If you are looking for results, he has them in droves, with world-class athletes. I expect he would personally welcome you to observe and discuss in his lab or discuss results/concepts in detail.

    My initial thoughts are that Gracovetsky and McGill have a ton in common. Don't let the mid-80's tiffs fool you.

    Here is a link to one of the letter to the editor exchanges. Not sure if you can access it, let me know and I'll send you a copy.

    http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.15.1b...t|S.sh.18.19|0

    Yes, droves of American pitchers with blown UCLs.

    My view is that McGill is myopically, perhaps fanatically, focused on avoiding spinal flexion, to the point that his views are causing injuries to parts of the body that are overtaxed because the spine's contribution has been eliminated.

    As you probably know, being TPI certified, his influence extends to golf at TPI where Dr. Greg Rose also preaches that spinal flexion should be avoided. Rose has coached long-drive champion Carl Wolter, who looks like he is about to break in two in the follow-through while swinging with an absence of right side lateral bend in the downswing, in contrast to Jamie Sadlowski, who generates just as much club head speed while being considerably smaller, and his pelvis looks much more controlled post-impact. Wolter is 6' 4" and 225 pounds, Jamie is 5' 11" and 170 pounds.










    Notice how Jamie goes into PPT through impact and his pelvis slows to a complete stop. PPT flattens the lumbar spine, which in turn will deactivate the coupled motion driving the pelvis counter-clockwise. This deactivation automatically slows the pelvis, which will help avoid injury.

    Wolter, on the other hand, goes into lower spine extension post-impact and right side lateral bends, which, perversely, could engage coupled motion of the spine and drive the pelvis counter-clockwise post-impact, rather than decelerating it. Tiger was doing something similar last year and injured his back. Perhaps just a coincidence, perhaps not.




    Jeff

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    77
    I don't know of a single pitcher McGill has worked with. Can you name some, Jeff? I'd like to know more. I do know of multiple Olympians in multiple sports as well as power lifters, MMA, and so forth. The results are overwhelmingly positive. Here is a video of him in action with powerlifter Brian Carroll, who went from debilitation in 2013 to a successful return to competition following work with Dr. McGill. He is currently ranked #2 in the world after avoiding surgery. The applications to golf are quite clear.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdveLFrh9U8

    http://www.elitefts.com/education/tr...mcgill-part-1/


    I do not think the McGill work is being correctly understood in this instance. McGill is not on TPI's advisory board nor is there a record of his certification therein. Research supports the goal to avoid loaded spinal flexion as an independent excursion (e.g., traditional sit-ups). Maintaining lordosis is a key component to back health for both Gracovetsky and McGill - as I said there is more in common than meets the eye.

    His neuromuscular pulse and superstiffness concepts are both applicable to golf and supported by in vivo peer-reviewed research. They do not violate Gracovetsky's tenets (the ones of which I am aware) in terms of spine coupling as a source of locomotion or rotation. The torso musculature will pulse, relax, and pulse again...allowing for both coupled motion and force propagation. These are essentially mini stretch-shortening cycles throughout the torso and fit with Gracovetsky's early model of the "land fish" learning how to "walk."

    Happy to discuss more - perhaps a separate thread so as not to derail this one.
    Max

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    fin1.PNG

    I like Phil, he quickly understood what Kelvin was talking about during the Golf Biomechanists exchanges a couple of summers ago and was taking the conversation in a constructive direction when Chertock abruptly booted Kelvin. In fact, Phil got visibly annoyed with his biomechanist's colleagues who couldn't seem to grasp the concept of the "second fire" despite Phil's repeated explanations.

    Regarding your conversation with Dr. Cheetham. The role of the spine engine in rotating the pelvis and torso is pretty non-controversial: the contra-lateral muscles of the back drive both. I assume you are again incorrectly referring to coupled motion of the spine as the "spine engine", and I assume Phil told you exactly what he told me regarding the applicability of coupled motion of the spine to the golf swing. If he contradicted what I reported, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Glad this is finally settled.


    fin2.PNG


    There are two sides to every story and, naturally, you are "selectively" presenting just the side you want to. You haven't read The Spinal Engine, where Gracovetsky explains and defends his work, so you are shamelessly guilty of what you falsely accuse me of doing. Should we spend another few days watching you flail around trying to substantiate more empty claims? Be my guest.




    Jeff

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Prokopy View Post
    I don't know of a single pitcher McGill has worked with. Can you name some, Jeff? I'd like to know more. I do know of multiple Olympians in multiple sports as well as power lifters, MMA, and so forth. The results are overwhelmingly positive. Here is a video of him in action with powerlifter Brian Carroll, who went from debilitation in 2013 to a successful return to competition following work with Dr. McGill. He is currently ranked #2 in the world after avoiding surgery. The applications to golf are quite clear.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdveLFrh9U8

    http://www.elitefts.com/education/tr...mcgill-part-1/


    I do not think the McGill work is being correctly understood in this instance. McGill is not on TPI's advisory board nor is there a record of his certification therein. Research supports the goal to avoid loaded spinal flexion as an independent excursion (e.g., traditional sit-ups). Maintaining lordosis is a key component to back health for both Gracovetsky and McGill - as I said there is more in common than meets the eye.

    His neuromuscular pulse and superstiffness concepts are both applicable to golf and supported by in vivo peer-reviewed research. They do not violate Gracovetsky's tenets (the ones of which I am aware) in terms of spine coupling as a source of locomotion or rotation. The torso musculature will pulse, relax, and pulse again...allowing for both coupled motion and force propagation. These are essentially mini stretch-shortening cycles throughout the torso and fit with Gracovetsky's early model of the "land fish" learning how to "walk."

    Happy to discuss more - perhaps a separate thread so as not to derail this one.
    Max
    See this thread for a discussion of what's going on in baseball:

    http://jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?...rican-baseball

    Dr. Tom House is the father of "modern pitching mechanics" and Dr. House, a TPI fitness advisory board member and certification instructor, has embraced McGill's philosophy of avoiding spinal flexion at all costs, just as Dr. Greg Rose and the rest of TPI has. McGill doesn't need to have worked with a single American pitcher to shoulder substantial blame for this tragedy.

    BTW, maintaining lordosis post-impact in a golf swing is not a very good idea because it can induce coupled motion if there is any right side lateral bend, applying axial torque to the pelvis at the time the pelvis should be decelerating.

    After you finish reading Serge's book, email him and ask to have a call some evening. Hold onto your hat when the discussion turns to McGill and associates and their obsession with avoiding flexion.




    Jeff

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    fin3.PNG

    Why would Cheetham mention any of those three things? Coupled motion of the spine is a phenomena first observed and reported in the literature before Gracovetsky was born. Both you and Jeff Mann seem incapable of grasping that coupled motion of the spine is not Gracovetsky's spine engine, it is a characteristic of the spine engine. And what does the second fire have to do with coupled motion of the spine? Or why would Phil mention me? I asked him about the role of coupled motion of the spine in the golf swing and he agreed with my understanding. Why would he bring that up?


    fin4.PNG

    Keep dreaming. Your own team has conceded the ROC/stability debate, the "spine engine truly drives the golf swing" has been thoroughly debunked (and the video you linked says nothing of the kind), I never expressed any opinion about the education credentials of any experts, and, as we discussed at the PGA show, no research has been published that proves one way or another whether a player can make movements at impact that stabilizes the face. For "not being right about anything for four years", you don't have much of a list. I must have been awfully quiet those four years.



    Jeff

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    fin5.PNG


    Now you're doing that spooky thing you were doing to Lucas and others at the PGA show: repeating back to them what they just said. Very persuasive debating technique!

    By the way, what I have been posting is called "evidence", what people in the real world produce to support their arguments. You might try that technique sometime. But, I guess that's hard to do if you don't have any...






    Jeff

  15. #75
    That "letter" by macgill and norman makes them look like a couple of butt hurting gays.

Posting Permissions

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