Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 93

Thread: What's wrong with this picture??

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    96
    Jeffy,
    These series of posts have been great. I wonder what all of the scientists will say about these.

  2. #17
    Brilliant! Well done Jeff!!!!

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pacific Palisades, California
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by KC Todd View Post
    Jeffy,
    These series of posts have been great. I wonder what all of the scientists will say about these.
    Apologies for returning to post on this blog after being given the
    good riddance' treatment, but I could not turn down this invitation.

    First, I greatly value the content and depth of understanding of especially this thread, BUT a really important point seems to being missed, or not felt to be important. IMO, the passion of seeking a second peak of energy/angular velocity for the 'elite' golfers has taken the attention away from the real contributor to swing performance, the lead arm. The lifts of the pelvis and torso near impact are insignificant in comparison to the potential contribution of the ability of the humerus to be accelerated upward from the huge force to weight capability of the shoulder girdle elements. So, rather than just being critical, I suggest for completeness, the comparisons of the 'elite' golfer, and the 3 TPI sample files be expanded to include the same depth of analysis of the body element that most affects the efficacy of the swing, the lead arm (and of course the types of releases so very well discussed in another recent thread.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by art View Post
    Apologies for returning to post on this blog after being given the
    good riddance' treatment, but I could not turn down this invitation.

    First, I greatly value the content and depth of understanding of especially this thread, BUT a really important point seems to being missed, or not felt to be important. IMO, the passion of seeking a second peak of energy/angular velocity for the 'elite' golfers has taken the attention away from the real contributor to swing performance, the lead arm. The lifts of the pelvis and torso near impact are insignificant in comparison to the potential contribution of the ability of the humerus to be accelerated upward from the huge force to weight capability of the shoulder girdle elements. So, rather than just being critical, I suggest for completeness, the comparisons of the 'elite' golfer, and the 3 TPI sample files be expanded to include the same depth of analysis of the body element that most affects the efficacy of the swing, the lead arm (and of course the types of releases so very well discussed in another recent thread.

    art-

    We are fully aware of the importance of the left side pull of the shoulder. In fact, I was busy rehearsing it when I was alerted to your post. The proper movements are thoroughly explained in this article:

    http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyl...e-release.html


    Have you read it?

    Perhaps you are more familiar than I am with the TPI data base. When I looked, I couldn't find what I thought were appropriate metrics to make such a comparison. Please direct me to them if you know what, and where, they are. And please don't ask me to do a Google search for a thread over on Manzella's...



    Jeff

  5. #20
    Lukman Ahmed Guest

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pacific Palisades, California
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Martin View Post
    art-

    We are fully aware of the importance of the left side pull of the shoulder. In fact, I was busy rehearsing it when I was alerted to your post. The proper movements are thoroughly explained in this article:

    http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyl...e-release.html


    Have you read it?

    Perhaps you are more familiar than I am with the TPI data base. When I looked, I couldn't find what I thought were appropriate metrics to make such a comparison. Please direct me to them if you know what, and where, they are. And please don't ask me to do a Google search for a thread over on Manzella's...



    Jeff
    Jeff,

    I read with great interest all of Kelvins articles and the analyses you and your group post on this site. I find all of it very interesting and hope you still plan on documenting the results of the high speed impact testing done last year.

    Regarding the further details of the lead arm data, I only have the TPI 3D 'Demonstration' software that does not even have the depth of data you provided.

    So, Phil Cheetham, can you provide the lead arm data for the demonstration software please ??

    Regards,
    Art

  7. #22
    Lukman Ahmed Guest
    Name:  Screenshot_2014-05-10-21-50-05.jpg
Views: 595
Size:  195.6 KB

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by art View Post
    Jeff,

    I read with great interest all of Kelvins articles and the analyses you and your group post on this site. I find all of it very interesting and hope you still plan on documenting the results of the high speed impact testing done last year.

    Regarding the further details of the lead arm data, I only have the TPI 3D 'Demonstration' software that does not even have the depth of data you provided.

    So, Phil Cheetham, can you provide the lead arm data for the demonstration software please ??

    Regards,
    Art

    art-

    I use the publicly available TPI 3D Pro Analyzer software available for download to anyone who registers with TPI. All of my analysis comes from it. I linked to it earlier; it is available here:

    http://beta.mytpi.com/mytpi05/tpi3d/category.asp?id=104

    Perhaps you aren't aware of the feature I am using. When you click on "Analysis", select "Graph", right click for the graph menu, then click on "Param vs. Time Graph". That will open a box with a drop-down menu that permits you to graph any of the TPI defined parameters.



    Jeff

  9. #24
    Lukman Ahmed Guest
    Manzella used to have a quote along the lines of beating someone with their own eleven. This was his self congratulatory way of declaring victory in a debate. It was a football reference.

    Fast forward years later and golf's self proclaimed answer man has several people trying to feed him answers. Be they Duffey, Kwon, or Cheatham. Manwithsmartfriends can't debate the science because he doesn't know it and can't learn it.

    Jeffy has taken on these scientist proxies and beaten Manzella with his own eleven.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by lia41985 View Post
    Manzella used to have a quote along the lines of beating someone with their own eleven. This was his self congratulatory way of declaring victory in a debate. It was a football reference.

    Fast forward years later and golf's self proclaimed answer man has several people trying to feed him answers. Be they Duffey, Kwon, or Cheatham. Manwithsmartfriends can't debate the science because he doesn't know it and can't learn it.

    Jeffy has taken on these scientist proxies and beaten Manzella with his own eleven.
    I agree Lia. These graphs show later decel of the hips, simultaneous peaking and less decel from peak. They show the percentage of peak rotational velocities being contributed to proper LB. They also show which releases are the most stable and why. Take Arron for example. He has good rotation but his second fire is non existent. He does however make up for the lack of speed generated by the second fire by having his lead wrist move toward extension and trail wrist to flexion. But there is a price to pay for this kind of action...

    Luke

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Great observation, Luke. I wondered why Arron released so much earlier than Mr. Elite, and that is a great explanation.



    Jeff

  12. #27
    Mike Duffey Guest
    Jeff,
    You have posted a lot of updated information, which is great for furthering this conversation. A good portion of this thread refers to some conversations from a year ago, I think it would be good to review what the original conversation was. Since I was part of that conversation, I'll point out that the original discussion was whether pelvis rotational/angular velocity could or would stay high (or could speed back up) going into impact. Dr. Kwon's earliest comments that have been reposted here address that concept. There is still not evidence that pattern exists, though we would all be interested in seeing it.
    What then happened was the definition seemed to change, and Kel began talking about the knee and hip extension, referring to that as the second fire. That portion of the discussion went quite well (I felt) with at least possible support on both the instruction and science sides. So it would be inappropriate to take some of the older comments out of context their original context and apply them to the current discussion of hip and knee extension.

    You also wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Martin View Post
    I have been trying to explain the "second fire" concept to Dr. Kwon, without much luck. I guess I'd forgotten how many pieces there are; of course, they are all outlined in Kelvin's articles, but Dr. Kwon doesn't seem to have read any of them.
    Jeff
    I'm virtually certain that if Kelvin has published anything in a scientific journal, Dr. Kwon would have read it. Has he?
    Assuming he has not, then you have to agree that there is so much material being posted on the web by Kelvin and other instructors that it is literally impossible to read through all of it. And an even harder task is working through the material and trying to divide out the useful from the garbage that has incorrect information and/or the fluff that has no real information. It shouldn't be taken as an insult to either Dr. Kwon or Kelvin that he has not read Kelvin's stuff; there are easily thousands of people like you who follow and truly believe in a particular instructor. Finding the right ones to read isn't easy in our internet information era.

    If you actually want him to read the material, I'd encourage you to put together a concise package of the material you would like Dr. Kwon to read and send it to him. You might even want to include some commentary of your own to help him understand where you are coming from and trying to go wit the discussion. If you would like to send the same to me, I'd be happy to read through it as well and offer any feedback you would like.

  13. #28
    Lloyd Higley Guest
    Thanks for joining the discussion Mike. Guys lets keep the discussion about the material and keep the personal attacks out. JMHO

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Duffey View Post
    Jeff,
    You have posted a lot of updated information, which is great for furthering this conversation. A good portion of this thread refers to some conversations from a year ago, I think it would be good to review what the original conversation was. Since I was part of that conversation, I'll point out that the original discussion was whether pelvis rotational/angular velocity could or would stay high (or could speed back up) going into impact. Dr. Kwon's earliest comments that have been reposted here address that concept. There is still not evidence that pattern exists, though we would all be interested in seeing it.
    Well, there is evidence that pattern exists, which was discussed at length at the time: the 4Dswing analysis of Alex Noren. BTW, nothing was "reposted": those posts you are referring to were posted in this thread last summer. They are where they have always been.

    What then happened was the definition seemed to change, and Kel began talking about the knee and hip extension, referring to that as the second fire.
    Kel's definition did not change: what happened was your understanding of elite lower body movements and the second fire was incomplete, so that element seemed new to you.

    A few weeks ago, on March 31st, in response to your request for "enlightenment", I linked to an article by Kel, published in May 2011, that laid out all the movements of the hips and legs in the downswing, including the second fire. Have you read it?

    That portion of the discussion went quite well (I felt) with at least possible support on both the instruction and science sides.
    That conversation was truncated when Nick Chertock abruptly ejected Kel from the forum. As I posted above, we became aware of all of Phil's constructive comments just recently. You never shared them with us here.

    So it would be inappropriate to take some of the older comments out of context their original context and apply them to the current discussion of hip and knee extension.
    No "older comments" were taken out of their original context: they remain unchanged from when they were made. I have made no reference to them, in or out of context, in any of my recent posts.

    I'm virtually certain that if Kelvin has published anything in a scientific journal, Dr. Kwon would have read it. Has he?

    Assuming he has not, then you have to agree that there is so much material being posted on the web by Kelvin and other instructors that it is literally impossible to read through all of it. And an even harder task is working through the material and trying to divide out the useful from the garbage that has incorrect information and/or the fluff that has no real information. It shouldn't be taken as an insult to either Dr. Kwon or Kelvin that he has not read Kelvin's stuff; there are easily thousands of people like you who follow and truly believe in a particular instructor. Finding the right ones to read isn't easy in our internet information era.

    If you actually want him to read the material, I'd encourage you to put together a concise package of the material you would like Dr. Kwon to read and send it to him. You might even want to include some commentary of your own to help him understand where you are coming from and trying to go wit the discussion.
    That is precisely what I have done, beginning on March 3rd, in a series of PMs, where I included detailed commentary, using Jamie Sadlowski for illustration, and linked to the most relevant article (the one I suggested you read).

    If you would like to send the same to me, I'd be happy to read through it as well and offer any feedback you would like.

    No thanks.



    Jeff

  15. #30
    Mike Duffey Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Martin View Post
    Well, there is evidence that pattern exists, which was discussed at length at the time: the 4Dswing analysis of Alex Noren. BTW, nothing was "reposted": those posts you are referring to were posted in this thread last summer. They are where they have always been.

    Kel's definition did not change: what happened was your understanding of elite lower body movements and the second fire was incomplete, so that element seemed new to you.

    No "older comments" were taken out of their original context: they remain unchanged from when they were made. I have made no reference to them, in or out of context, in any of my recent posts.



    No thanks.

    Jeff
    Jeff, the title of that thread was, "Johnny Miller in his prime, "second fire" in the downswing. Is this a movement you would teach? How would you guess this shows up in a kinematic sequence graph?".
    If Kelvin never meant for the second fire to related to pelvis angular velocity - which I'm sure he knows is what the kinematic sequence shows - then why did he title it that way? If he knew it was something different, then there is no purpose in asking if/how it would show up in the KS.

    I'm sure you are familiar with his Skype session with Tapio. You only need to work through the first five minutes to hear them going through the kinematic sequence. Tapio brings up the apparent second acceleration of the shoulders - which is very clearly and specifically a rotational velocity - and Kelvin refers to that as a "Second Fire". He makes no effort to clarify that he is talking about a non-rotational motion. A minute or so earlier, when the topic is pelvis rotation in the KS, he makes no effort to mention that his second fire would be a different kind of motion.

    In fact, in that thread when Kelvin was asked why he added some lines to the video, he responded,
    "What are the yellow lines for? To help those that cannot see 2D movement with their own eyes. It's up to the biomechanists to explain this movement to us. We just make observations. Where in the current graphs is this motion buried? Why do our observations not jibe with the deceleration shown in the graphs?"

    I have to think that Kelvin understands the different between rotation and linear translation. If not, he is an idiot who has no business teaching anything in golf. I believe he is not an idiot. So he keeps asserting that this motion should be seen in a graph of rotational velocity.

    So, maybe he knew and maybe he didn't. Reading through the thread, it become eminently clear that the people in the conversation originally understood the Kelvin's second fire to be a rotational motion, not a linear one, and that understanding changed over time. Kelvin made no effort early on to clear up the topic.

    What is absolutely clear is that many of the early comments were made under the belief that Kelvin was discussing a second rotational velocity peak. My comment about not taking them out of context is that the discussion here, as it did in the original thread, has shifted to a linear motion. I agree that you have not reposted them, I'm trying to save anyone who starts reading this discussion now the headache that we went through as the conversation shifted from a rotational to a linear motion discussion.

    As for putting together a good compilation of reading material, why not do it? It seems it would only help people understand the topic.

Posting Permissions

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