Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 99

Thread: Finney

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    For those interested, the crux of the McGill/Gracovetsky debate:


    mcgill.PNG


    And the reality: two modelers saying their model is better with no way to prove it.


    mcgill 1.PNG




    Jeff

  2. #77

    That's what Manzella and Co

    Say all the time in debates, just look at the hitting down on driver debate years back, the list is endless. Somehow they "win" debates but their science ends up being junk 6 months later.

    IT STANDS TO REASON that you have lost every debate on each topic. I award you no points

  3. #78
    Why would we believe that Wile E Finneyote could interpret any conversation with Cheetham? He got the simple linear regression from Dr. Cheetham wrong...didn't know the mean from the standard deviation from the correlation and then tried to claim that the 0.62 is a 'moderate' correlation. This all despite the chart, plain as day, has the points mapped showing a strong linear relationship.

    It's obvious Wile E Finneyote and all of his 'seems as if' talk just means he doesn't know how to read a simple linear regression chart which scientists use frequently. And then when it *still* proved him wrong...he made up that 0.62 correlation is 'moderate.'

    This is typical of how they try to 'make the evidence fit' and well, lying.

    article-1327845-0BF704CC000005DC-414_468x286.jpg




    3JACK

  4. #79
    Lloyd Higley Guest
    Hmmmm Jeff 100 - Finney ZERO. Results count

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Richie Hunt View Post
    Why would we believe that Wile E Finneyote could interpret any conversation with Cheetham? He got the simple linear regression from Dr. Cheetham wrong...didn't know the mean from the standard deviation from the correlation and then tried to claim that the 0.62 is a 'moderate' correlation. This all despite the chart, plain as day, has the points mapped showing a strong linear relationship.

    It's obvious Wile E Finneyote and all of his 'seems as if' talk just means he doesn't know how to read a simple linear regression chart which scientists use frequently. And then when it *still* proved him wrong...he made up that 0.62 correlation is 'moderate.'

    This is typical of how they try to 'make the evidence fit' and well, lying.




    3JACK
    Well, it's worse than that; he starts off stating, authoritatively:

    "And when you say "lower handle twist velocirty, consequently, (lower) club face rate of closure"....you make the Jeffy leap that gets you and Kelvin in trouble time and time again - how do you know that these two vastly diffferent parameters correspond 1 to 1. The answer is you don't know - you just make assumptions and move on assuming everyone is on your page."

    Of course, the answer is I "knew" the two values corresponded 0.62 to 1 (not 1 to 1) because two people he endlessly trumpets as "his" experts laid it all out in Cheetham's dissertation. This shows Finney doesn't have the slightest idea what he is reading. To say HTV and ROC are "vastly diffferent [sic] parameters" is breathtakingly ignorant.





    Jeff

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Screen Shot 2015-04-06 at 11.38.19 PM.png

    Guess what? Chapter 6 of The Spinal Engine summarizes five experiments that validate Gracovetskty's model, and concludes with this:


    photo.JPG



    Perhaps you can summarize for us how Gracovetsky's validation compares to McGill's validation?







    Jeff

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Screen Shot 2015-04-06 at 11.57.06 PM.png


    Yes, Kel is describing how release of the coupled motion will accelerate the shoulders, so "spine engine" is too broad of a description.

    BTW, that video was posted by Kelvin, not me, five years ago, so I don't see the relevance to your fatuous claim that I "haven't been right about anything during the past four years".





    Jeff

  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Higley View Post
    Hmmmm Jeff 100 - Finney ZERO. Results count
    Yes, much like the roadrunner cartoon.

    3b7790c70ab43237425c0e4fe214aa37.jpg







    3JACK

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Screen Shot 2015-04-07 at 12.13.14 AM.png


    Wrong again, Wile E. The edition of The Spinal Engine I have was updated and published in October 2008. In any case, publication date is irrelevant. Either the models are validated or they aren't. Please provide for us an analysis of the strength of the respective validations.

    Also, I'm not interested in your "opinion", ask one of your scientists whether or not converting the forces that create lateral bend of the spine into an axial torque applied to the pelvis would be additive. The answer is "of course it would". Cheetham will tell you that (if he didn't already, but, one can hardly expect that you would have understood him). It is in the published literature. Just ask him.




    Jeff

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Martin View Post
    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
    There is a huge difference between avoiding global flexion and avoiding lumbar flexion under load. The results of models and in vivo real-world situations are quite clear on this. In fact Dr. McGill (and Greg Rose) will work on restoring a balanced flexion pattern with numerous back pain cases. TPI is also a strong advocate of posterior pelvic tilting through/around impact. It shows up in at least 2 of their movement screens and is high on the list of things to address first. I fully agree with you on Wolter's swing - I can't possibly comment on how it got that way, though.

    McGill's work is being either grossly misinterpreted or simply pigeon-holed. Either is a disservice. The maintenance of lordosis is again a general tenet of both McGill and Gracovetsky and not implied to strictly apply to the follow through of a golf swing. I'm sorry if I did imply that.

    I was discussing neither Tom House nor pitching mechanics. Perhaps Tom is misinterpreting or mis-applying the work? I hope that possibility has at least crossed your mind.

    The literature and publications and results of McGill are practical and extensively successful. Dr. Gracovetsky has some interesting modeling publications but far less real-world RCT. That's fine - I think we need both to improve our understanding.

    All models have issues - Gracovetsky has some serious ones of his own. The old 1980's debates are done and gone - the two guys talked it out long ago. They agree on far more than you're warranting. Rather than make it a black and white he said-she said thing, we should be looking for the nuggets where 2 great minds agree.

    I'll re-state my current opinion to hopefully emphasize the common ground: coupled spine motion and McGill's superstiffness are not at odds in any athletic endeavor I can think of. They each have significant research to support them and complement one another quite nicely. The two concepts are littered throughout Kelvin's fine articles, though he may not term them as such.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    fin.PNG

    Well, of course that's the reaction you got. You obviously didn't explain the contribution of coupled motion of the spine to pelvis rotation in the downswing correctly and obviously misinterpreted Kelvin's video, which I already told you is discussing what happens after the coupling is released, which does not occur during the downswing, but happens around impact.

    Stop trying to have discussions about topics you don't understand, like correlation coefficients and coupled motion of the spine. The fact that coupled motion of the spine converts linear force acting on the lumbar spine into axial torque applied to the pelvis has been published in peer-reviewed papers, and acknowledged by Cheetham to apply to the golf swing.

    And to repeat, the linear forces applied to the lumbar spine during lateral bend are composed of gravity's force acting on the player's upper body, which is bending over, obviously, and represents 60% of a human's mass, plus the contraction of the right side lateral flexors. Those are the forces that are converted into axial torque and adds torque incrementally to that provided by the rest of the musculature. The "snap-back" in Kelvin's video happens when the new axial torque is released, which occurs when the player goes into PPT or loses lateral bend.

    However, just as important as any incremental power derived from the coupled motion, is the stability to HTV and ROC that results from the open hip position the coupled motion helps create, as documented in Dr. Cheetham's PhD dissertation.

    You're inability to communicate with McGill, Cheetham and others in a logical and intelligent fashion on this topic (and I assume every other topic) doesn't change those facts. I'll get in touch with them myself and report back.




    Jeff

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Here is the question I sent McGill and Cheetham:

    My understanding from the literature is that when the lumbar spine is in lordosis (which would be the case if the pelvis was in anterior pelvic tilt (APT)), and a golfer lateral bends to the right (which will apply a linear force to the lumbar spine), coupled motion of the lumbar spine will convert that linear force into a counter-clockwise axial torque applied to the pelvis. The linear force applied to the lumbar spine is presumably composed of at least some portion of the force of gravity acting on the upper body (since it is bent over) plus the pull of the lateral flexors which induced the lateral bend. As a consequence, this combined linear force creates an incremental torque applied to the pelvis above and beyond that created by the contra-lateral musculature of the back and abdomen. Does that sound reasonable?

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Take care,




    Jeff

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    yep.PNG


    Yep, I'm done with you. As my wife is fond of telling me, only a fool argues with a fool, and the prior four days of exchanges has proven her right once again. Despite running off the cliff time after time, you ignore the facts and repeat the same false claims, just like Jeff Mann, then go even further and misrepresent my views to others to illicit damning responses. Through my exchanges with Dr. Kwon, I know first hand how you (or your proxies) misrepresented to him my views about the role of coupled motion of the spine in the golf swing. What was told to him was ludicrous and, of course, should have been rejected out of hand. As a result, all comments from you along the lines of "we have shared your ideas with the scientists and they say so-and-so" must be ignored. You have zero credibility.

    I assume you did the same with McGill and whoever else you corresponded with the past couple of days. The only way you or Mann "win" is through dishonesty. Hope you are proud of that.

    So, in the future, if you want a response from me to what a scientist you contacted has to say about my views, publish, verbatim, both what you told them my views are and their response.




    Jeff

  14. #89
    Lloyd Higley Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Martin View Post
    yep.PNG


    Yep, I'm done with you. As my wife is fond of telling me, only a fool argues with a fool, and the prior four days of exchanges has proven her right once again.


    Jeff
    My thoughts too...smart woman

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096

    Let's set the record straight: my exchange with Dr. Kwon regarding the role of the spine engine in the golf swing

    Mike Finney and his proxies are deliberately misrepresenting to their biomechanist friends my views on the role in the golf swing of coupled motion of the spine in order to illicit damning responses, which he then publishes. This activity was exposed about a year ago in my exchange with Dr. Kwon, reproduced here in its entirety:

    kwon 1.PNG
    kwon 2.PNG
    kwon 3.PNG
    kwon 4 annotated.PNG


    This is the video Kwon is referring to above:



    kwon 5 annotated.PNG
    kwon 6.PNG
    kwon 7.PNG


    There was no further discussion on the topic.

    BTW, Kwon does not accurately describe what Kelvin says in the video: Kel DOES NOT say in the video anything like the "snapping action" is "the main driving force of the initial downswing". My guess is that was a lie Finney (or his proxies) told Kwon.

    Based on Finney's post yesterday, he's still at it, claiming, this time to McGill, that Kel's video describing the "snap back" of the spine once the coupled motion is disengaged is a foundation of what he teaches. Obviously, it's not, but the truth doesn't matter to Finney.




    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
  •