Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 99

Thread: Finney

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    mcg.PNG


    You could do that. Or you could look at the table of contents of Gracovetsky's book and see the list of things contained in his model.


    photo.JPG


    So, this is what it's come to, from telling me "to my face" that I haven't been right about anything for four years, you are reduced to quibbling over whether things written about the spine engine six years ago were precisely correct. You don't see what a loser you are?




    Jeff

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by John Thomas View Post
    Atanu must be a good cricketer, he played Finney with a very straight bat.
    Indeed.

    Like I said, he kissed Atanu's ass because he was trying to sell Atanu on his agenda. When Atanu asked questions and saw how Wile E. Finney misrepresented the spine engine theory, that's when Wile E. Finney's tone changed towards Atanu.

    Of course, Wile E. Finney only *proved* my point. Just like he did when I said that he always references my 'association' with Jeff whenever I post anything in the golf biomechanics forum. He just kept bringing up Jeff Martin and showed that he's a mark for Jeff.

    As Jeff likes to say 'you can't make this stuff up.'






    3JACK

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Martin View Post
    Here is the HTV/ROC correlation, from pages 11 and 12 of Cheetham's dissertation; BTW, a r-squared of 0.9 is a very high correlation. Off the cliff again...


    Attachment 3797
    Attachment 3798




    Jeff
    Yup, ole Wile E. Coyote can't even read a simple regression analysis from the scientists. Has to make the world wonder what else he's gotten wrong.

    Even if it was at 0.62...that's not 'moderate.' That's actually considered a 'strong positive relationship.' Check out Pearson's R Correlation.






    3JACK

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096

    Can't make this stuff up...

    So Finney says:

    "So you included the glutes in the spine engine - which was incorrect as Gracovetsky's model was limited to the lumbar spine and immediate surroundings - the size of a hotdog according to Stu McGill.. "


    I post:

    "The spine engine includes all the musculature and fascia of the back which also connect to the glutes. Kel set it out at the beginning of the 2009 article. If he was 'wrong' in including the glutes, he corrected it two years later. The role of the glutes never changed. And either you misunderstood McGill about the scope of the spine engine or he is wrong."

    Finney posts:

    "My money is on McGill's understanding of Gracoversky's model - not yours or Kelvin's. I'll find the emails - at home now watching guys dunk using the spine engine."

    I show that I was correct, that Gracovetsky's model includes much more than a "hotdog":


    photo.JPG


    Then Finney posts this, which says nothing about "hotdogs"; all it says is that McGill thinks his computer model is better than Gracovetsky's computer model. That doesn't "prove" anything. Anyone familiar with computer modeling knows that it is easy to make any claims you want with computer models. Without access to the code and all the assumptions, an outsider has no means to validate any computer model.

    "
    Getting back to these spinal engine and these theories of Doctor Gracovetsky, he was a brilliant engineer and very persuasive speaker. He came up with his colleague, Harry Farfan at the time, who was a spine surgeon who had theories on how the spine worked. He would say things like, 'Well, the muscles of the spine are not strong enough. Now let’s look at this power lifter picking up 400 Kilos from the floor. There’s no way the spine muscles are large enough. Therefore, there must be mechanisms that we do not understand or are in current models.' So he came up with the lumbodorsal fascia theory where the fascia gets stretched behind the muscles and takes some of the load. And increases the mechanical advantage of the extensors and this sort of thing..

    "But when I went at it with my model, I in those days had something like 96 lips of muscle. Everything that crossed the low back and if you take an MRI slice through the lumbar spine, you will see the lumbar musculature cutting cross-section and you’ll measure its size. What you don’t realize is there are muscles all the way up the back that also contribute to that force. But when they are at the lumbar level through the layer of the skin, they’re just a little tendon so you can’t see the muscle. So the fact that his models were ignoring all of this musculature, the latisimmus dorsi, big lat muscles working through the fascia, I didn’t think it was anatomically accurate. If you just captured the anatomy correctly, you didn’t need these very esoteric explanations about how the back was. In fact, it became quite simplified. Then his ideas on when we walk, we move the hips."


    And this is somehow a "big loss"? Hey, Mike: Jeff Mann, footwedge and Tapio are waiting on the first tee. Have a nice round!




    Jeff


  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Screen Shot 2015-04-05 at 12.18.11 AM.png

    hmmmm... Still no mention of any "hotdogs".

    Let's look at the full sentence from McGill:

    "So the fact that his models were ignoring all of this musculature, the latisimmus dorsi, big lat muscles working through the fascia, I didn’t think it was anatomically accurate."

    OK, and what do we see listed in the table of contents?

    photo.JPG


    Give up.




    Jeff

  6. #51
    Why would Gracovetsky put that in the table of contents and not written about it in his book? Surely he wrote about it in his book?

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by John Thomas View Post
    Why would Gracovetsky put that in the table of contents and not written about it in his book? Surely he wrote about it in his book?
    These are things that logical people would look at and ask before arguing with somebody about. Just like understanding what r-squared means from a researcher you reference before arguing about it.






    3JACK

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Screen Shot 2015-04-05 at 12.04.21 PM.png


    Off the cliff again.

    From The Spinal Engine, Appendix 1 - Three Dimensional Model of the Human Spine:


    photo-6.JPG


    From Chapter 3 - Functional Anatomy:

    photo-2.JPG
    photo-1.JPG


    From Chapter 4 - Mathematical Formulation:

    photo-5.JPG
    photo-3.JPG
    photo-4.JPG



    So, what will it be next from Finney? This?

    "Because it is listed in two chapters and an appendix as being in his model, that means it is included in his model? What planet are you on?"


    Can't make this stuff up.




    Jeff

  9. #54
    He's reading the book for free @ jeffy.com, next lesson chapter 5!

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Richie Hunt View Post
    These are things that logical people would look at and ask before arguing with somebody about. Just like understanding what r-squared means from a researcher you reference before arguing about it.

    3JACK

    Honest, rational and logical are antonyms for Michael Finney, Jeff Mann, footwedge and Tapio. The "fearsome foursome" of the golf internet!




    Jeff

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Now we have the "there must be two models" theory. Oh, boy...

    Screen Shot 2015-04-05 at 7.43.16 PM.png


    Off the cliff again.

    BTW, what does any of this have to do with your claim that I "haven't been right about anything" for four years? Everyone familiar with the dispute between McGill and Gracovetsky from the mid-1980s knows that Gracovetsky assigned a role to the fascia (the posterior ligamentous system, PLS) in lifting and McGill thought it was bunk and wrote a computer model that relied solely on muscles. But, as Gracovetsky points out, McGill's results were never confirmed experimentally with humans. And, as far as I know, that's where the dispute still stands.


    Screen Shot 2015-04-05 at 8.29.47 PM.jpg


    Can't make this stuff up.


    Jeff

  12. #57

  13. #58
    Manuela not man enough to take this whipping, he's left Finney in some jailhouse in Liberia

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Off the cliff again, three more times...

    fin1.PNG


    Wrong. First, I think all are in agreement that the musculature surrounding the spine throughout the upper body, which power the spine engine, are utilized in any powerful golf swing. Second, when you say "spine engine", I assume you actually mean "coupled motion of the spine", which is a feature of the spine engine, but not the spine engine itself. This is a mistake you have made too many times to count. I discussed the role of coupled motion of the spine with Dr. Phil Cheetham at the PGA show and he said it is "absolutely" applicable to the golf swing. We've already covered this, but, like Jeff Mann, you just pretend being proven wrong never happens.



    fin2.PNG


    Wrong again. How quickly you forget: we also covered this on Saturday. That quote is from a June 2009 article where Kel included the glutes in the spine engine. He excluded them from the spine engine in May 2011 and that hasn't changed. Again, just like Jeff Mann, you keep repeating "arguments" that have been thoroughly debunked. Maybe you should stop pushing the "reset" button in your head.



    fin3.PNG


    In fact, I did a study using AMM TPI data, which you already know about. Early lateral bend was positively correlated with hip rotation at impact (exactly what Cheetham's dissertation concluded) as well as rotational velocity at impact. The torque required to do those two things must have come from somewhere.

    http://jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?...=9495#post9495


    I know logic isn't your long-suit, so share this with one of your scientists. It stands to reason that if the forces inducing right-side lateral bend (gravity acting on the upper body, which represents about 60% of a human's mass, plus the contraction of the lateral flexors) are converted, through the coupled motion of the spine, into a counter-clockwise axial torque applied to the pelvis, incremental torque is added to power pelvic rotation. Please have one of your scientists explain any flaws with that logic. Also, it ought to be relatively simple for them to take a stab at quantifying the incremental torque. Don't be afraid, go ahead and ask them.




    Jeff

  15. #60
    Yo finney what happened to hitting down on the driver years back with manuela shouting from the roof of his glass house that the long ball hitters were going down or the out toss bullshit that is never mentioned anymore or the rest of the crap he's been blabbing on about over the years

Posting Permissions

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