|
Post by tomdavis76 on Dec 14, 2012 12:49:02 GMT -5
See this BM-forum thread - www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/17915-would-guy-hit-farther-if-he-quit-stalling.htmlMF stated with respect to the golfer in this next video-: " would this guy hit it farther if he quit stalling.... or does he hit it far because he stalls....??" MF is implying that this golfer stalls his pelvic motion. I disagree - because I define reality differently. To assess pelvic rotation during the left hip clearing action, I look at the i) rotary motion of the left pelvis in a counterclcokwise direction and the ii) counterclockwise rotation of the left upper thigh. I can see no slowing of the rotation of those two elements in the downswing. In fact, one can see the golfer spinning his left foot through/after impact because he has such an active counterlockwise rotation of the left left thigh/leg during the late downswing and through impact. Jeff. That's why it's called The Land of the Blind!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 14, 2012 23:17:05 GMT -5
I happened to come across this 3jack forum thread. richie3jack.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=generalgolf&action=display&thread=3978Playa quoted KM as follows: " But Jamie's swing is even more violent and powerful. His hips and shoulders reach their 2nd velocity peaks right at impact. All of this adds to his speed AND effective mass at impact. The added mass of his body firing at high speed right at impact will add to his smash factor and higher ball speeds at impact. This is sledgehammering at its finest." How can the added effective mass of the body at impact increase smash factor and ball speed? Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 13, 2013 12:07:46 GMT -5
This is BM's latest attempt to prove that Sadlowski's pelvis slows down pre-impact. www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/17987-jamie-s-6-dof-3d.htmlThe problem with these 3-D measurements is that one has no idea where's the axis of measurement, and with respect to the pelvis are they measuring the speed of the "left hip clearing action" or they are they actually looking at the motion of the right pelvis. Also, what is that pelvic angle graph and why does it steadily increase throughout the downswing and reach a maximum at impact? BM is much more interesting in winning points than understanding what is he is really seeing. I wish that I had an opportunity to visit all these scientists, and I certainly wouldn't let then get away with unclear/incomplete explanations. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 13, 2013 13:51:49 GMT -5
cwdlaw223 wrote in the BM-forum thread.
"The trade winds just stopped blowing in Hawaii. The new argument is that the old MATT data didn't show this information. I think their "scienceand "calculcations" were screwed up, not the data. Regardless, the continuous acceleration theory for a "gold medal winner" just took a fatal blow." "
Natep doesn't even bother to make partisan comments anymore - he simply posts childish images.
That those two individuals are partisan is obvious. What is also obvious is that they readily accept 3-D graphs that support their partisan opinion, but reject 3-D graphs that do not support their partisan opinion - and in both situations they do not really understand the intracacies, and potential flaws, in these measurements. That's why BM repetitively gets away with incomplete posts on a routine basis - the BM-groupies simply "want to believe" that he is right, and that his detractors are wrong. There is no "real" vigorous debate in that golf forum - only endless/repetitive/one-sided BM assertions of victory and reactive partisan hand-clapping from the BM-groupie gallery.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 13, 2013 19:32:31 GMT -5
Lia posted this graph BM seemingly acknowledges that the graph reflects pelvic rotation speed. It is also obvious that there is no massive deceleration in the late downswing in that graph, and all that BM can do is mutter incoherently about a problem of complex interactions. In the meantime, the BM groupie gallery can only hysterically claim that it is their detractors that misperceive reality. Crazy! The BM forum is like a bizarre soap opera, and BM is apparently wise enough to change his future plans by making his forum private, rather than public. That will allow BM and the BM groupies to create their own "virtual reality" and ensure that it is free of public criticism. That's the path taken by an endless number of cults who cannot stand-up to the pressures of public scrutiny of their "weird ideology". Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Jan 13, 2013 20:55:15 GMT -5
Golf swing mechanics are extremely partisan, makes politics seems like childs play. You are not allowed to take positions for or against different ideas in fear of being castigated. Its not very open minded, I suppose becuase there is real money involved here. For me I have nothing to gain, nothing to lose so I really dont care who's ideas I agree or disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 13, 2013 21:15:33 GMT -5
The graph is of hip rotation v. time. The slope of the line indicates rotational velocity and the change in slope reflects acceleration. Manzella could not be more lost.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 13, 2013 21:28:46 GMT -5
Jeffy, If you are correct about that "pelvic angle" graph (and I suspect that you are) then that graph and your graph are showing the same thing - that there is no pelvic deceleration in JS's downswing (other than near-impact which could be artefactual). BM often inadvertently "puts-his-foot-in-his-mouth" when he displays videos/graphs and he simply makes a fool of himself - and the foolish BM groupies continue to cheer-and-clap, and continue to lambast the BM-detractors (Lia and you) who clearly demonstrate BM's foolishness. If the slope of the graph remains constant between P4 and P6.9, then that means that the rate of acceleration remains constant, and that's a concept that cwdlaw223 seemingly cannot fathom. Although we don't agree on the biomechanics of a DH release action, we at least agree that a golfer should maintain a FLW/intact LAFW from P6.9 to P7.3+. BM continues to believe that golfers must flip after impact. perfectgolfswingreview.net/BMFlickingRelease.jpg [/img] That's what happens when one follows BM's advice to release the club near impact - like a hockey player. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 13, 2013 21:41:34 GMT -5
Greg,
You wrote-: "Golf swing mechanics are extremely partisan, makes politics seems like childs play. You are not allowed to take positions for or against different ideas in fear of being castigated. Its not very open minded."
Debates re: golf swing mechanics are very partisan, but the debate-situation in this forum is very open-minded because one can criticize any forum member's opinion re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics without fear of being banned, although one has to be thick-skinned to withstand added remarks (like nonsensical, wrongheaded, idiotic) that are often directed at another forum member's counterargument, and not his person. I personally endure those additional hyperbolic remarks without complaint, as long as there is a vigorous counterargument re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics that I can intellectually analyze. I focus my attention on the logic (or lack of logic) of the counterargument and I ignore the added hyperbolic remarks (which I also often add to my counterarguments).
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 13, 2013 22:26:58 GMT -5
Jeffy, If you are correct about that "pelvic angle" graph (and I suspect that you are) then that graph and your graph are showing the same thing - that there is no pelvic deceleration in JS's downswing (other than near-impact which could be artefactual). BM often inadvertently "puts-his-foot-in-his-mouth" when he displays videos/graphs and he simply makes a fool of himself - and the foolish BM groupies continue to cheer-and-clap, and continue to lambast the BM-detractors (Lia and you) who clearly demonstrate BM's foolishness. If the slope of the graph remains constant between P4 and P6.9, then that means that the rate of acceleration remains constant, and that's a concept that cwdlaw223 seemingly cannot fathom. Although we don't agree on the biomechanics of a DH release action, we at least agree that a golfer should maintain a FLW/intact LAFW from P6.9 to P7.3+. BM continues to believe that golfers must flip after impact. perfectgolfswingreview.net/BMFlickingRelease.jpg [/img] That's what happens when one follows BM's advice to release the club near impact - like a hockey player. Jeff.[/quote] Actually, no: a constant slope means constant velocity and no acceleration. The amazing thing, though, is that this isn't even close: as my Nana might have said, a blind man on a galloping horse can see that the rotational velocity graph is just plain wrong. Even cw has thrown in the towel (over at Richie's)!
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 13, 2013 23:10:51 GMT -5
Jeffy,
You are correct if the Y axis is a measurement of pelvic angles because then the slope of the graph is a measure of the pelvic rotational velocity. I was temporarily, but wrongly, thinking of rotational velocity being on the Y axis when I wrote that sentence in that last post, and under those circumstances the slope of the graph would reflect the rate of rotational acceleration. Pardon my error! Hopefully, that's only a temporary Alzheimic-type-of-mistake!
I definitely think that you won this "fight" and I am not surprised that even cwdlaw223 has thrown in the towel.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 15, 2013 12:15:38 GMT -5
This is what MF had to say about the Sadlowski swing AMM measurements in the BM-forum.
"According to the AMM data, JS's hips are 9* open when he hits his peak angular velocity (650*/sec)......if he were to keep this angular velocity CONSTANT until impact (about .10 seconds later), his hips would be 65* more open - 74* open at impact......alas, JS's hips are only 47* open at impact due to deceleration.....
We rest our case......our case is rested ".
He might rest his case, but that doesn't mean that the case is settled. Those peak angular velocity measurements are not compatible with the pelvic angle graph, which suggests a constant pelvic rotational velocity. So, why should I believe in the accuracy of his calculated peak velocity measurement rather than the accuracy of that pelvic angle graph?
Then, MJ starts a thread to state that the measurements of pelvic rotational velocity will be different if one uses a global reference measurement system rather than a local reference measurement system. Why should they be different? If they are different, then how do we know whether one, or both, of those measurements are inaccurate?
I have zero belief in the accuracy of any graphs, or calculated rotational velocity measurements, made by those 3-D systems - because they are internally inconsistent, and also externally inconsistent (the pelvic rotational velocity graphs produced by TPI look nothing like the graphs produced by Chris Welch or Tapio). If the three 3-D researchers produce three different graphs, why should I believe in the accuracy of any of the three graphs?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Jan 15, 2013 13:29:19 GMT -5
I would like to a sequence of swings from JS rather than a cherry picked graph from a partisan group.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 15, 2013 14:30:33 GMT -5
Jared wrote the following in the BM-forum.
"Hit the ball.
Some will do different things, everyone has to slow the hips to allow the clubhead to catch up. Spinning out is a tough ailment to overcome, and one that will never allow an athletic motion through the ball. Spinning out is what most people will do when they hear "keep those hips turning through the ball"
Turn them just enough to hit the ball as hard as possible (I'm talking full power shots). A golfer has only a certain optimal distance to get his or her body in position to hit the ball hard. A frontier of time and space, if you will. When rotating too fast, the golfer can't catch up and is not as efficient as he or she should be. "
That's a ridiculously wrong-headed argument. Obviously, there is only a finite amount of space/time to go from P4 to P7 in one's downswing action. However, if the arms/hands don't get to impact in time to achieve good impact alignments, it doesn't automatically mean that the pelvic rotation was too fast - it could mean that the arm/hand motion was too slow. The remedy in that situation would not be to slow down the pelvic motion (as Jared suggests is the correct solution for all golfers), but to speed up the arm/hand motion. I think that Jamie Sadlowski can both rotate his pelvis very fast during his downswing action, but he can also move his arms/hands appropriately fast to allow him to have a well-coordinated, rhythmic downswing action.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 15, 2013 16:38:56 GMT -5
This is what MF had to say about the Sadlowski swing AMM measurements in the BM-forum. " According to the AMM data, JS's hips are 9* open when he hits his peak angular velocity (650*/sec)......if he were to keep this angular velocity CONSTANT until impact (about .10 seconds later), his hips would be 65* more open - 74* open at impact......alas, JS's hips are only 47* open at impact due to deceleration.....
We rest our case......our case is rested ". He might rest his case, but that doesn't mean that the case is settled. Those peak angular velocity measurements are not compatible with the pelvic angle graph, which suggests a constant pelvic rotational velocity. So, why should I believe in the accuracy of his calculated peak velocity measurement rather than the accuracy of that pelvic angle graph? Then, MJ starts a thread to state that the measurements of pelvic rotational velocity will be different if one uses a global reference measurement system rather than a local reference measurement system. Why should they be different? If they are different, then how do we know whether one, or both, of those measurements are inaccurate? I have zero belief in the accuracy of any graphs, or calculated rotational velocity measurements, made by those 3-D systems - because they are internally inconsistent, and also externally inconsistent (the pelvic rotational velocity graphs produced by TPI look nothing like the graphs produced by Chris Welch or Tapio). If the three 3-D researchers produce three different graphs, why should I believe in the accuracy of any of the three graphs? Jeff. Finney pulled that down right away last night. His figures were wrong. I've calculated the correct numbers off the AMM3D "pelvis angles" graph and they are almost identical to what I calculated in November off of the Motion Reality video Manzella posted. So who's the lunatic now, Mike???
|
|