|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 19, 2013 13:00:29 GMT -5
I think that piece of advice applies more to you than me, especially when it comes to your frequent propensity to come up with wild allegations (eg. your over-the-top allegation that Cheetham was flagrantly misrepresenting reality with his TPI graphs - an allegation which you eventually were forced to correct). If you could present a rational argument that justifies the concept of having a floating/rotating left leg through impact, then you would have presented that argument by now. This situation reminds me of BM who asserted that massive pelvic deceleration was essential in a full golf swing - but he could never provide a coherent reason for adopting that position. Jeff. Jeff, old friend, I'm not playing your game anymore. Just like when you were carrying on a week or so ago about Kelvin "never" explaining how to execute a drive/hold release, I'm not going to spoon-feed you what has been laid out precisely in Kelvin's articles, videos and forum posts about float/rotation. Sorry to spoil your fun, but life's too short!
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 19, 2013 13:17:46 GMT -5
Jeffy,
That's OK about not "playing my game". I don't mind if you decide not to respond to any/all of my posts with targeted comments relating to golf swing mechanics/biomechanics.
However, over many years, I have learned that you always bring up that "old argument about not spoon-feeding me" whenever you cannot produce a coherent counterargument, or whenever you cannot quote a specific statement (by your present-day golf guru) in a paper/article to bolster your counterargument.
You are obviously free to provide any targeted comments re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics whenever you choose, and you are not obliged to post if you choose not to contribute any targeted comments to any discussion/debate re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 19, 2013 13:57:37 GMT -5
Jeffy, That's OK about not "playing my game". I don't mind if you decide not to respond to any/all of my posts with targeted comments relating to golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. However, over many years, I have learned that you always bring up that "old argument about not spoon-feeding me" whenever you cannot produce a coherent counterargument, or whenever you cannot quote a specific statement (by your present-day golf guru) in a paper/article to bolster your counterargument.You are obviously free to provide any targeted comments re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics whenever you choose, and you are not obliged to post if you choose not to contribute any targeted comments to any discussion/debate re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. Jeff. That's is simply your biased personal opinion. My biased personal opinion is that you know full well that I have coherent counter-arguments and quotes are at my fingertips but you just want someone to play with and have run out of legitimate "challenges".
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 19, 2013 16:16:14 GMT -5
Jeffy,
I do agree with this comment-: "you just want someone to play with and have run out of legitimate "challenges"."
I get bored with the task of solely commenting on the inane opinions expressed by BM and MF and MJ, and the BM groupies. I wish that I could be exposed to some strenuous counterarguments, that could help me to improve my knowledge re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 20, 2013 16:51:49 GMT -5
Here is a you-tube video where Cheetham analyses a golfer's imperfect swing - by referring to his 3-D graphs.
I don't need to study those 3-D graphs to come to those same conclusions. I can easily see those swing faults when looking at the visually-apparent motion of that swing figure.
In other words, I still cannot understand why one needs a 3-D kinematic graph to recognize visually-obvious swing faults.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 20, 2013 19:16:42 GMT -5
Jeffy,
You wrote the following in a Jeffy-forum thread-: "As for the configuration of the AMM3D system, I know it has twelve sensors, and my understanding is that the pelvis motion is gathered from just one sensor located on the lower back.
To reiterate, I don't believe Cheetham's rotational velocities data for Sadlowski is an accurate representation of reality, and have never stated otherwise."
The sensor used to measure pelvic rotational velocity is not placed on the lower back - it is placed over the sacrum (which is a point between the two pelvic iliac bones on the posterior aspect of the pelvis).
Secondly, you have not explained why you believe that Cheetham's rotational velocities for Sadlowski is not an accurate representation of reality (or did I miss your explanation?).
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 20, 2013 21:53:47 GMT -5
Jeffy, You wrote the following in a Jeffy-forum thread-: " As for the configuration of the AMM3D system, I know it has twelve sensors, and my understanding is that the pelvis motion is gathered from just one sensor located on the lower back.
To reiterate, I don't believe Cheetham's rotational velocities data for Sadlowski is an accurate representation of reality, and have never stated otherwise." The sensor used to measure pelvic rotational velocity is not placed on the lower back - it is placed over the sacrum (which is a point between the two pelvic iliac bones on the posterior aspect of the pelvis). Secondly, you have not explained why you believe that Cheetham's rotational velocities for Sadlowski is not an accurate representation of reality (or did I miss your explanation?). Jeff. Read it again; it's in there.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 20, 2013 23:39:02 GMT -5
Jeffy,
The only comment that I have found relates to your distrust of sensor readings, where the sensors are simply placed on the surface of the body and not embedded in bone. I think that your criticism is invalid, because there is no reason to believe that a sensor placed over the skin over the sacrum doesn't truly reflect rotation of the sacrum - as there is no interposed soft tissue layers that will cause a significant measurement error. Secondly, you measured JS's pelvic rotation velocity by simply measuring the change in angle of that green line which was supposedly perpendicular to the sacrum. If that is good enough - then a sensor placed over the sacrum should be equally as accurate, and I am not surprised that your pelvic angle graph duplicated the TPI pelvic angle graph, and both graphs should reflect reality.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 21, 2013 22:50:27 GMT -5
See post #9 in this Jeffy-forum thread jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?579-Tiger-2006-Super-Slo-MoHe states that the five great golfers - Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Ben Hogan, Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus - have the floating/rotating left foot scenario recommended by KM. I think that's totally untrue. Those five golfers are merely rotating their left forefoot counterclockwise while keeping their left heel solidly grounded. That's perfectly acceptable. What I find biomechanically unacceptable is the floating/rotating left foot scenario where the left forefoot remains in contact with the ground and where the left heel is floating/rotating and where the left foot is then pulled back and replanted 6-12" further away from the target - as seen in Scott Stallings' swing. That's the primary example Jeffy gave of a a floating/rotating left foot and that's what Jeffy implied that KM recommended. Jeff.
|
|