Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 99

Thread: Finney

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096

    Here I go again, I can't help myself...

    From Finney:

    Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 10.34.51 AM.png


    First off, I admitted that was wrong. I want some others. Second, it was based on a very detailed analysis of Jamie Sadlowski's swing shot at 300fps that Rick Malm took and analyzed. It's the "gray pants" video everyone has seen and it is not blurry. But, despite being very meticulous, 3D analysis shows it was wrong.


    Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 10.40.10 AM.png


    Dr. Phil Cheetham's PhD dissertation showed that Kelvin was right from day one on this: right side lateral bend and open hips at impact are positively correlated with lower handle twist velocity and, consequently, lower club face rate of closure, i.e., a more stable club face through impact. Also, your own team members acknowledged long ago that early supination also reduces ROC. Fail.


    Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 10.43.28 AM.png


    You're free to interpret what Kelvin wrote any way you want. I don't remember ever saying the spine engine was the main source of power in the swing. I do know that Kel and I have been saying since at least May 2011 that the second half of the downswing, or the "second fire", is the "power phase of the downswing", when the "fearsome foursome" is unleashed:

    Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 10.47.36 AM.png

    http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyl...rn-part-2.html

    Also, I do know that what Kel wrote in May 2010 is true:

    Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 10.54.35 AM.png


    BTW, at the PGA show, I confirmed with Dr. Cheetham the role of coupled motion of the spine in the golf swing (i.e., opening the hips), although he didn't mention it in the dissertation. He said "absolutely" it powers pelvis rotation.

    As well as being a power source in the golf swing, which will reduce club head speed if omitted, it is also true that Tom House's "modern pitching mechanics" strip out the power contribution of coupled motion of the spine to the throwing motion, and, as a result, are directly responsible for the current epidemic of torn UCLs among American pitchers, whereas in Japan, where "old school" mechanics rule, there is no such epidemic.

    BTW, "primary" meaning "main" or "first" relates to Dr. Gracovetsky theory of locomotion: the spine preceded the legs in moving land creatures around. He always wrote that the legs produce the most power, an evolutionary advantage of getting the powerful hip muscles out of the abdominal cavity. If you knew anything about his theory, you would have always known that.

    As for my "experts", well, I'll take my team against your team any day of the week, twice on Sundays. As for Duffey, what his students say about him should be far more troubling than anything I've posted about him. Let's leave it at that.




    Jeff

  2. #32
    Footwedge was outraged when I posted back when the 'new release' video by Jacobs was posted that I said 'many of the things they discovered were things that Mac discovered years ago.'

    I also stated that I liked the video in general and the only things I disagreed with where the 'out-toss' and the 'flick'. But, that's besides the point.

    Eventually footwedge PM'd me and said that he was wrong and that I was right. And that he went thru some old instruction videos and some instructor did a video discussing many of the same things in the new release video and that instructor credited...Mac O'Grady for what the found. He even offered to upload that for me so I could put it on my site. But, I didn't need to prove anything...I didn't imagine I had learned things like where the low point of the hands where versus the low point of the club at Lakewood CC with John Dochety. And how the aiming point concept from TGM was flawed because if you direct the thrust in that fashion, the force along the club will actually increase your likelihood of flipping. And the other various stuff I learned from George Hunt before.

    When I mentioned that a member of my forum (didn't mention any names) had told me that they had a video proving that I was right, footwedge became furious with me. It was ridiculous just as Finney is ridiculous.

    The only thing good about talking about Finney is that it is fun to see him get figuratively dropped on his head and look like an idiot. He speaks up, everybody lets out a collective groan. It's funny to see Wile E Finney fall off a cliff the first hundred times, but after a while some get sick of it.

    We also know that he kissed Atanu's ass along with other scientists and researchers. They were 'real scientists' in his eyes until they saw that he was a fraud trying to sell him on his agenda. And when that didn't work out and they said 'you're wrong, the science tells us otherwise' he backstabbed them as well.

    So just like footwedge, it's important for people to know with what type of people they are dealing with. Again, so much for Brian keeping Wile E Finney in check.







    3JACK

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096

    A revision...

    How long it has been....

    Kelvin first talked about the role the "spine engine" in initiating the downswing and of the glutes powering the "second fire" of the downswing in June 2009. And that has never changed.

    http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyl...ower-from.html




    Jeff

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    stable.PNG

    Two things.

    First, my recollection is that Paul Wood provided data to Phil that showed a very strong correlation between HTV and ROC. It's in the paper.

    Second, I explicitly discussed with Dr. Cheetham that the low HTV group had a more "stable" club face, i.e., lower ROC, and he agreed that was the case.

    So, to recap, other than the hip decel thing, which I admitted was wrong long ago, you have nothing. What a surprise!




    Jeff

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    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...


    phil 1.PNG
    phil 2.PNG




    Jeff

  6. #36

    Never message Finney

    Hey, Rich - kissing ass is something you probably know very well. Does this qualify with regard to me and Atnu Muhjerkee?


    Michael Finney
    Atanu, I read your observations on the current state of the models used to describe the golf swing from a biomechanics perspective.
    I have two comments of my own:
    1. Your posts seem to make a very compelling argument for attempting to "model", "describe", and "explain" the kinetics of the golf swing rather than the kinematics. You used the phrase "across the dots" several times which would lead me to believe that MUCH is going on behind the scenes of the visible positions. Thoughts?
    2. Your worries about the inadequacies of the current models make me ask this question: If today's models fall woefully short, then how can reverting back to a "draw a line on a screen" analysis be considered a better option? It seems that your condemnation of the current modelling limitations only further convict the efforts of "the seems as if" lines drawn by the golf professionals at the forum you posted your observations. Thoughts?
    Thank you very much for taking the time to post and to possibly answer my questions.
    Mike Finney

    Atanu Mukherjee
    Hi Mike -
    I think conversations on these kind of topics gets a little noisy and distorted on messenger. Perhaps, you can put your comments in the blog and I could reply. Or you can send me email atanu@alum.mit.edu. I must say though, I may not be able to provide you complete information though due to lack of completeness and/or confidentiality.
    Thanks,
    Atanu

    Michael Finney
    1/23, 12:23pm
    Michael Finney
    Unfortunately, I am not allowed to post at that site because of prior disagreements with Jeff Martin - or I would post my thoughts there.
    I guess what I'm saying is that in a hundred years, won't your posts still be valid but with a new set of criteria that will compare the 2115 state of biomechanics with the hoped for 2130 state of biomechanics?
    The researchers are using the current available technology and money at their disposal. The set of facts you laid out will NEVER cease to exist in the pursuit of understanding the golf swing.
    Michael Finney
    1/23, 12:24pm
    Michael Finney
    Thanks so much for getting back to me.

    Atanu Mukherjee
    1/23, 12:39pm
    Atanu Mukherjee
    I am not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say. There are different approaches to solving a problem. Based on my body of knowledge and experience as a computer scientist, researcher, engineer, economist, mathematician and a reasonably good golfer at 2.4 index - and based on the available data and facts , I believe that the current approach to modeling is inadequate to understand the dynamics of a golf swing.

    Michael Finney
    1/23, 12:59pm
    Michael Finney
    Is "line drawing" on a video still of a golf swing a better model than what is currently being done by Nesbit, MacKenzie, Neal, Cheetham, and Kwon?
    and model should be in quotes above....

    Atanu Mukherjee
    1/23, 1:06pm
    Atanu Mukherjee
    I am not sure we are talking of line drawings in video as models. When , I am referring to representation of a golfer I mean a geometric model - which has a mathematical representation. I am talking of constructing the geometric model of the golfer from video and camera using techniques from computer vision.

    Michael Finney
    1/23, 1:30pm
    Michael Finney
    Ok, I should back up....
    The web forum where you posted your views is populated by golf professional swing theorists who use "drawing lines on a screen" as their bedrock. They observe, measure, and describe the golf swing in this way.
    They have also, in the past, dedicated sections of their forum highlighting in much less detail than you, the shortcoming of the current biomechanical models.
    I find it disingenuous of them to belittle the current modelling efforts of degreed researchers while they offer their strong opinions on the golf swing using techniques that would obviously fall short in every way if you were to use your same scrutiny toward their process.
    I don't disagree that the simplifications and assumptions have slowed the understanding. But each researcher I know is just merely attempting to build upon the prior research (good and bad) and add something to the discussion. I just don't see how a group of teachers using primitive methods (such as line drawing and their keen observational skills) can criticize those best positioned to conduct a real study, however limited it might be.

    Atanu Mukherjee
    1/23, 1:41pm
    Atanu Mukherjee
    Well , that is there perspective based on their understanding of the facts - right or wrong they have a right to their opinion. Also, I find the distinction between degreed and non-degreed as a proxy to knowledge and understanding pretty amusing. Anyways, I have an amateur qualifier coming up in the morning, so got to get some sleep. Thanks for reaching out and Good Night.

    Michael Finney
    1/23, 1:49pm
    Michael Finney
    I agree they have a right to their opinion as do I. If the "degreed" comment offends you, than I withdraw it. But the separation between the two (degreed and no degreed) is a baseline that sometime helps. Sasho Mackenzie is peer reviewed - Kelvin Miyahara is not. That frees him up to criticize the researchers and keep his opinion intact.
    That usually leads to these exact discussions while unsuspecting students fall prey to advice - "if you learn to fire some key muscles in the forearm just before impact, you can reverse the closing of the club face and hit straighter shots with a more stable club head through the impact interval.
    Do they have a right to that opinion when there has never been a golf club measured that hasn't had a "closure rate" ramping up into impact?
    I'm trying to fight bad instruction - instruction purported to be scientific - instruction pushed by people who get their self worth from poor mouthing the researchers and their models.
    Thanks for taking the time to respond.

  7. #37
    A whole page of bullshit when all Finney had to ask was " Am i superior than line drawers because my scientists are better"

  8. #38
    Atanu must be a good cricketer, he played Finney with a very straight bat.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096

    This is too much...

    Uh, Mike, better check with one of your scientists on speed-dial. The observed ratio of HTV to clubhead closing velocity has a mean value of 0.62, with a standard deviation of 0.096. The correlation coefficient value (r-squared) of the observed relationship is 0.8935, which falls at the high-end of the "strong" strength of correlation range.

    Off the cliff again. Can't make this stuff up...

    cliff.PNG




    Jeff

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096

    Off the cliff again...

    Finney doesn't think I have "responded" to one of Cheetham's premature conclusions from his dissertation:

    "We divided our databases of golfers into two groups of 32. One group with high handle twist velocities, the Hi-HTV group, and the other with low handle twist velocities, the Lo-HTV group. For both accuracy and clubhead speed at impact we found that there was no significant difference between the group means between the Hi-HTV and Lo-HTV groups"


    I have noted on this forum and elsewhere the inadequate statistical analysis that formed the basis of this conclusion. Cheetham only looked at the correlation with the PGA tour's "driving accuracy percentage" statistic (the percentage of fairways hit). Richie's analysis of "driving effectiveness" (i.e., correlation with par-4 and par-5 scoring average and par-5 "go for its") shows that effective driving is more closely correlated with what he calls the three "precision" metrics from the ShotLink database: "fairway bunker tendency", average "distance from the edge of the fairway" on drives that miss the fairway and "missed fairway percent - other": drives that come to rest other than in the fairway or rough, i.e., water or out-of-bounds. Until a correlation is done using those stats, no conclusion can be drawn about a correlation with "accuracy". I discussed this with Phil at the PGA show and he agreed to make his data available to Richie for deeper analysis, although I don't know if that has happened yet.

    As an illustration of why including the "precision" metrics is so important, in 2013 Rory McIlroy had a much worse year driving the ball than in the prior year, yet he hit a higher percentage of fairways in 2013 than 2012. His performance in the three precision metrics collapsed in 2013, though, so, when he missed a fairway, his misses where bigger and found trouble more often. See below for the details:

    rory.PNG


    The above analysis also illustrates how Mark Broadie's "Strokes Gained Driving" metric does not reflect as well the "precision" metrics as Richie's "Driving Effectiveness" metric and, as a a result, will tend to over-rank long but imprecise hitters, like Jason Day, and under-rate shorter but very precise drivers, like Heath Slocum. In an email exchange, I have made Broadie aware of the shortcomings of his methodology, but he seemed indifferent.





    Jeff

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    spine.PNG

    Off the cliff again. You failed to include that in the June 2009 article where Kel's quote came from, he was including the glutes ("that huge power source") as part of the "spine engine", and stated that they powered the "second fire".

    2nd.PNG
    glutes.PNG



    In the May 2011 article, he did not include the glutes in the "spine engine", but separately in the "fearsome foursome". But the glutes are doing the same thing either way.





    Jeff

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    broadie.PNG


    Of course I "rely on" Richie's numbers: Broadie's don't make any sense. This is Broadie's ranking of Tiger's driving during the Haney years:


    tiger annotated.PNG


    Is top-10 driver in any way plausible during any year with Haney?

    Here are Richie's numbers:


    richie tiger haney.PNG


    Broadie's driver rankings for Tiger are nonsensical. I showed him Richie's rankings and explained the differences in methodology and he had no defense. His method gets weaker the farther away you get from the hole, and how he rates Tiger's driving with Haney is all the proof you need.




    Jeff

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    spine 2.PNG


    Off the cliff again.

    Uh, Kel didn't change his mind at all about the correct use of the spine, he just stopped including the glutes as part of the "spine engine".

    And nobody "blows out his spine" using coupled motion of the spine, it's pitchers who don't use coupled motion that are blowing out UCLs every day, thanks to your buddy McGill and his follower Tom House.




    Jeff

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    dude.PNG


    Dude, give up. Neither of us ever said that the spine engine contributed more than the glutes in powering the swing, except when the glutes were included in the spine engine in that 2009 article! Two years later, and four years ago, the glutes were classified as part of the "fearsome foursome" that drove the "power phase" of the downswing. Those are the facts. Anything different is just a fantasy of yours.





    Jeff

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    dude 2.PNG

    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.

    back.PNG


    Neither Kel or I revised "primary" as it relates to the golf swing; see the 2009 and 2011 articles. The "primary" discussion that arose recently with Jeff Mann was with respect to Gracovetsky's theory of locomotion, which Mann, naturally, misrepresented.

    So let's recap, other than the hip decel, which I conceded up front, you have no errors.




    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
  •