|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 15:19:32 GMT -5
cwdlaw223, How do precise measurements of rotation rates (made by a 3-D machine) allow you to understand golf swing biomechanics/mechanics better? You have still not given one example of where you learned something very useful about golf swing mechanics/biomechanics from a 3-D machine - that I couldn't learn from watching videos using a swing analyser program. You also stated-: " The axis keeps changing to determine a rate." That problem-issue actually applies to 3-D machines, and not video because one doesn't try to measure rotation rates using video. 3-D machine operators cannot even agree on the "correct" axis of measurement when it comes to body parts (eg. left arm, left hand) and they certainly don't agree on how to determine if that axis-of-measurement is changing at different time points during the swing. Tapio's graphs look nothing like the TPI graphs, and I find them both of no practical use. Jeff. Jeff Mann - Tell that to Kelvin. He uses video to explain that Jamie's pelvis continuously speeds up theory. Nobody uses Tapio's machine other than himself and why anyone would use his graphs to justify anything is beyond me. Tapio admitted his machine isn't "stabile" [sic] so that's an issue that he has to deal with. If someone can't break 80 I'm not sure a 3D machine is for them. Maybe it helps the teacher better understand, but that player has a lot more work until he/she could benefit from the information provided by these machines. Let met guess, you've never been on a 3D machine have you?
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 16:39:33 GMT -5
cwdlaw223, How do precise measurements of rotation rates (made by a 3-D machine) allow you to understand golf swing biomechanics/mechanics better? You have still not given one example of where you learned something very useful about golf swing mechanics/biomechanics from a 3-D machine - that I couldn't learn from watching videos using a swing analyser program. You also stated-: " The axis keeps changing to determine a rate." That problem-issue actually applies to 3-D machines, and not video because one doesn't try to measure rotation rates using video. 3-D machine operators cannot even agree on the "correct" axis of measurement when it comes to body parts (eg. left arm, left hand) and they certainly don't agree on how to determine if that axis-of-measurement is changing at different time points during the swing. Tapio's graphs look nothing like the TPI graphs, and I find them both of no practical use. Jeff. Jeff Mann - Tell that to Kelvin. He uses video to explain that Jamie's pelvis continuously speeds up theory. Wrong. Rick Malm videoed Jamie from face-on and down-the-line and very carefully constructed a 3D equivalent view (you can easily calculate rotation speed using 3D video, of course). Turns out Rick was right, based on the Motion Reality 3D data of Sadlowski that Manzella posted. You are in no position to evaluate the quality of the 4DSwing data. It could easily be superior to anything competing 3D systems spits out. I don't understand how the information from those systems would only be helpful for 80 breakers. And since the kinetic sequence premise has not been proven to be optimal, there is a legitimate reason to question whether they are helpful for ANYBODY!!
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 17:13:30 GMT -5
Jeffy - You are in no position to say that Tapio's data is correct when Tapio admits his system isn't "stabile." I love how "could be" means "is" in your world. What a joke. Nobody knows if Tapio's system works because nobody uses it. It could very well work, but I'll take Phil Cheatem over Tapio any day. Phil works with Olympians. Tapio doesn't even work with one PGA tour player. You can have his hack data. I'll take Phil's anytime. I love how your guy "very carefully" calculated the rotation speed and therefore it must be correct. You can very easily screw up something that's hard to do. Go talk to Tapio about the problems with rotation speeds from video. It's not easy or simple to get such information. People that don't play a lot of golf don't need all of the bells and whistles with machines like Trackman and AMM3D. Video is fine for such golfers since their errors are so big they can be readily seen on video. If you aren't breaking 80 consistently you have a lot of MAJOR MOVES to work on. So how exactly did you prove the kinematic sequence isn't optimal for generating speed? The non peer reviewed Rick Malm? ?? Jamie can't generate more speed from a proper sequence?
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 17:42:34 GMT -5
Jeffy - You are in no position to say that Tapio's data is correct when Tapio admits his system isn't "stabile." I love how "could be" means "is" in your world. What a joke. Nobody knows if Tapio's system works because nobody uses it. It could very well work, but I'll take Phil Cheatem over Tapio any day. Phil works with Olympians. Tapio doesn't even work with one PGA tour player. You can have his hack data. I'll take Phil's anytime. You never stop making stuff up. I didn't say 4Dswing was "correct". I said you are in no position to evaluate the quality of the 4DSwing information. And you aren't. Simple fact. Blah, blah, blah. Please, try reading what I post before responding. I didn't say Rick "must be correct" because he was "very careful". I said the 3D Motion Reality data of Sadlowski that Manzella posted showed that Rick was correct! Jesus... There are plenty of guys on tour that have a lot of "MAJOR MOVES to work on" that are "readily seen on video" if they want to swing to their body's potential. Trackman and 3D systems won't tell them what they are. Sounds like you are just parroting Manzella again. I don't have to prove anything. The kinetic sequence theory hasn't been proven to be optimal, it's still just a theory. If you think it's optimal, where is your proof?
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 20:14:52 GMT -5
Jeffy -
You aren't in a position either. Tapio admitted it isn't stabile. I take him at his word and therefore, the machine and corresponding data aren't ready. I'm not going to hold that against Tapio and I hope his machine makes it to market.
I'm sure you truly believe you have the answers for tour players. That is laughable and shows how little you know about playing golf and executing under pressure. No tour player would even listen to you. As soon as you told one of them about 24 micro moves they would run. Brian will keep teaching a major winner. That has to eat at you. This game is about execution, not just knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 21:53:26 GMT -5
Jeffy - You aren't in a position either. Tapio admitted it isn't stabile. I take him at his word and therefore, the machine and corresponding data aren't ready. I'm not going to hold that against Tapio and I hope his machine makes it to market. He also told you the other 3D systems aren't "stabile". If you knew anything about how they worked, you'd already know that. You have no more reason to believe their data as you do 4DSwing's. You just pick and choose what you want to believe, I suspect based on what you think Manzella wants you to believe. Again, where do you get these insane ideas? Why would I ever expect a tour player to listen to me? And just because they are on tour dosen't mean some (most?) of them don't way underperform with their full swing. Golf isn't golf swing, you know, and being a good player doesn't mean you have a great swing. How obvious is that? And why would I care that David Toms takes lessons from Manzella? Most of the guys on tour are totally clueless about instruction and mechanics! In just one year, Butch Harmon took Gary Woodland from one of the best drivers on tour to below average, yet Harmon is the most sought after teacher in golf! Look at what Gilchrist has done to Yani Tseng and what Leadbetter has done to Wie, yet their junior programs are overflowing. It is all about reputation in pop golf instruction, not results. Martin Hall is the #3 ranked instructor in golf!!!! That's all you need to know to see how screwed up that industry is. Of course playing and scoring is all about execution. Why wouldn't I know that? It's pretty fucking obvious. Why do you think that is such a mystery? Sadlowski doesn't have the slightest idea about why he swings so well. I suspect most of the top swingers are "naturals" with little or no knowledge of mechanics. You certainly fall into that category. But, so what? Does that mean to be a good golfer you can't know anything? Do you have a point anywhere in there???
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 22:05:28 GMT -5
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Toms keeps losing clubhead speed: he now ranks DEAD LAST in that category!!! That's not much of a way to prolong a career!
You think it "eats at me" that Toms takes lessons from Manzella??? It makes me laugh out loud, especially when I think about how you and others seem to believe that Manzella "teaching" Toms is some kind of endorsement. In fact, it's pretty strong evidence that Brian, Toms and fans of Bman like you are completely clueless!
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 22:10:45 GMT -5
Jeffy -
You care because you're obsessed with Bman. You don't understand that knowledge isn't enough for great golf. Maybe too much knowledge/thoughts hurts athleticism. I suspect you've never thought about that because all you do is hit balls on a range or play golf in your mind. Tapio never told me other systems aren't "stabile." He said they were just plain wrong.
You pick and choose the facts you want and say that others do that. Just like you ban people for disagreeing with you and rail against Brian for doing the same thing.
Why you are focused on Sadlowski is sad. He isn't even the straightest long driver based upon championships. Zubak has him beat. Plus, nobody on tour gets anywhere near 135+ clubhead speed. Basing a pattern off a long driver is ridiculous. Keep searching.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 22:14:46 GMT -5
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Toms keeps losing clubhead speed: he now ranks DEAD LAST in that category!!! That's not much of a way to prolong a career! You think it "eats at me" that Toms takes lessons from Manzella??? It makes me laugh out loud, especially when I think about how you and others seem to believe that Manzella "teaching" Toms is some kind of endorsement. In fact, it's pretty strong evidence that Brian, Toms and fans of Bman like you are completely clueless! I guess if you want to break par you go with Bman. If you want to hit balls on the range people should follow you. Maybe one day Kelvin will teach someone who actually makes a living playing golf. So sad that you cannot see that your system is paralysis by analysis. Endless micromoves and no athleticism. You should take some time off and play. People might start to listen if you could take what you say and actually execute. I'm clueless and yet I now break par consistently with Brian's help? I dropped from a 5 to scratch wtih Brian's help. What have you done to improve your game?
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 22:19:12 GMT -5
Jeffy - You care because you're obsessed with Bman. You don't understand that knowledge isn't enough for great golf and yet you post as if you have all of the answers. Again, where do you get such idiotic ideas? Most good players are good players because they are good athletes that learned to play as kids and teenagers (like you!). Bubba Watson is the best driver on tour and never took a lesson. How much "knowledge" does he have? LOL! You didn't really post that??? Nobody's perfect! Take a look at this thread. I suspect it is way over your head, but try really hard to understand it: jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?546-Fun-with-binomial-probability!!!
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 22:24:54 GMT -5
Jeffy -
Count the makes but ignore the misses. Think on that for awhile. Off to bed and hopefully Trackman tomorrow.
Anytime you want an epistemological and/or soteriological argument you let me know.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 22:30:33 GMT -5
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Toms keeps losing clubhead speed: he now ranks DEAD LAST in that category!!! That's not much of a way to prolong a career! You think it "eats at me" that Toms takes lessons from Manzella??? It makes me laugh out loud, especially when I think about how you and others seem to believe that Manzella "teaching" Toms is some kind of endorsement. In fact, it's pretty strong evidence that Brian, Toms and fans of Bman like you are completely clueless! I guess if you want to break par you go with Bman. If you want to hit balls on the range people should follow you. Maybe one day Kelvin will teach someone who actually makes a living playing golf. So sad that you cannot see that your system is paralysis by analysis. Endless micromoves and no athleticism. You should take some time off and play. People might start to listen if you could take what you say and actually execute. A system based on Jamie Sadlowski, Bubba Watson and young Tiger Woods has "no athleticism" ? You ever look at the before and after of Lucas Wald's swing? Before is when he was working with kinetic sequence guru Chris Welch of Zenolink, a buddy of Manzella's: By your own admission you are clueless about swing mechanics! Those are your words, not mine!
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 22:35:24 GMT -5
Jeffy -
Sometimes I use satire, sometimes I don't. I know my swing and it's the one I care about the most.
The more thoughts you put into your head the less athleticism one can use when swinging a club. Someone working on endless micro moves will have paralysis by analysis. If Lucas Wald improved with Kelvin good for him. Kelvin has great stuff on the spine. I want instructors who focus on impact, not looks.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 22:51:14 GMT -5
Jeffy - Sometimes I use satire, sometimes I don't. I know my swing and it's the one I care about the most. The more thoughts you put into your head the less athleticism one can use when swinging a club. Someone working on endless micro moves will have paralysis by analysis.Well, that's just your opinion and I don't think you are qualified AT ALL to speak about the best way for an adult to learn an optimal swing. You learned to play as an athletically talented teenager. You are no doubt completely unaware of what makes your swingspeed so fast. Obviously, when one is playing, all you want to think about is the shot, not mechanics. I try to have ZERO mechanical thoughts when I play. Listen to greats like Nickliaus, Trevino and Mickey Wright: they think about what they want the CLUBFACE to do, not the body. Why would you think that I'd try to do it differently?? Lucas is perhaps the best ballstriker I've ever played with. If he had the right mental outlook, he'd be on tour. Easily. But golf isn't golf swing, in case you didn't know. He has achieved great impact by learning to move his body like Sadlowski. And, naturally, his body movements LOOK like Sadlowski's! Again, this "look" business you keep bringing up is just something you're parroting from Manzella. Of course, if my students' swings looked as bad as Manzella's, I'd go around bashing how a swing "looks" as well! Notice how Manzella almost never posts a student's swing? It's not an accident...
|
|