|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 28, 2013 1:46:21 GMT -5
Jeff, now you're not only doing a disfavour to yourself but you're compromising yourself.
Let God put a light onto your lost soul.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 28, 2013 22:18:35 GMT -5
Let's consider this PA#5 release action from another perspective. Consider this photo posted by Iacas in his thread - which shows a change in the right wrist angle of 27 degrees between P6.8 (when it was at 123 degrees) and at P7.2 (when it is at 150 degrees). The definition of a PA implies that it contributes to swing power, and therefore if the "right wrist straightening action" is deemed to be a PA then the action must be active. If the right wrist straightens passively - simply because the right palm remains in contact with PP#1 as the club moves from P6.8 to P7.2 - then it could not possibly be a PA (which has to load and actively unload). What beneficial effect could an active right wrist straightening action have in that golfer (who maintains a FLW from P6.8-P7.2) if the degree of right wrist straightening is 27 degrees? Remember that the definitional endpoint for the release of PA#4 occurs when both arms are straight - which usually happens between P7.2-7.3. So, if the right wrist actively straightens through impact it can possibly apply a push-pressure at PP#1 and possibly assist in the final unloading of PA#4. Between P6.8 and P7, PA#3 is completing its release, so any push-pressure applied at PP#1 can possibly assist in the final release of PA#3. Note that PA#2 has virtually completed its release at P6.8 and any push-pressure applied at PP#1 would not affect its final release. So, even if one plays the devil's advocate, and even if one presumes that the right wrist straightening action is active in that golfer featured in the photo, it could only contribute to swing power by assisting in the final release of PA#4 and PA#3 - if the right wrist straightening action is perfectly synchronised with the left-sided forces that are responsible for the release of PA#4 and PA#3.Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by natep on Feb 28, 2013 22:18:46 GMT -5
I don't know why you wish to hang your hat on Tutelman and Malm.
Tutelman is a confirmed dunce, and nmgolfer has testified here to the pathetic nature of his papers.
Malm was the brains behind jeffy and kelvin's line drawing, continuously accelerating Sadlowski pelvis failure of a theory.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 28, 2013 22:32:18 GMT -5
Natep shows his personal bias by referring to DT and Rick Malm as "dunces". However, I never discount a theoretical explanation simply because I have a negative personal perspective of the originator of the explanatory theory. I judge the explanatory theory on its own merits - irrespective of who originates the theory. If Natep (or any forum member) thinks that he has a valid criticism of the "DT/RM evidence" posted in that DT article, then they need to provide a detailed counterargument that rationally validates their criticism.
When I criticize BM, I always explain why I believe that his "explanations" re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics are wrong - even if I also call him a "dunce". My criticism is only valid if it effectively destroys the validity of BM's explanatory theory, and it doesn't become valid simply because I personally think that BM is a "dunce".
Natep only shows his personal bias and his close-minded attitude by discounting the DT/RM explanations - simply because he thinks that they are "dunces".
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by natep on Mar 2, 2013 17:07:30 GMT -5
Tutelman's site has already been debated on this forum, and you participated in the debate.
Malm's theory on Sadlowski's continuously accelerating hips has been thoroughly debunked just recently across several fora, I'm sure all of your readers are familiar with that episode.
Do I really need to rehash it?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 2, 2013 20:14:30 GMT -5
Natep,
If you have the ability to demonstrate using a "counterargument" that DT/Malm are wrong about the issue of "right wrist straightening in the late downswing", then I will seriously review your "counterargument". Whether I agree, or disgaree, with DT or Rick Malm about other golf swing issues (eg. Sadlowski's pelvic acceleration) is irrelevant - because that relates to another issue. I am sympathetic to DT's article on the issue of the "right arm hit", but I will seriously review any "counterargument" that attempts to demonstrate that DT is wrong. Both you and Dariusz are "full of hot air" because you both arbitrarily choose to disbelieve DT, but you both cannot produce a serious "counterargument" that proves him wrong. That's the difference between me and you (and Dariusz) - I will revise my opinion re:golf swing mechanics/biomechanics if another person can produce a strong counterargument that has a high verifiability factor and low falsifiability factor, and I will not endlessly cling to an "idea" if I cannot find flaws in a critical counterargument that soundly criticizes that "idea". You may arbitrarily believe that right wrist straightening can increase CH speed, but you have never explained how that is possible - so why should any forum member regard your personal opinion as being meritorious?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Mar 3, 2013 5:34:23 GMT -5
Jeff,
What we can do if you reject even the most obvious ? There is really hard to find a better example to show how a hinge can contribute to creating more momentum/velocity of the end mass than nunchaku. What do you need more ? To present mathematical complicated calculations ? I am not capable of doing it, sorry.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 3, 2013 10:36:18 GMT -5
Dariusz, You wrote-: " What we can do if you reject even the most obvious ? There is really hard to find a better example to show how a hinge can contribute to creating more momentum/velocity of the end mass than nunchaku. What do you need more?" How can you be so unknowledgeable about TGM mechanics? Why don't you even make an attempt to understand TGM mechanics - before you adopt an anti-TGM position. The nunchaku example is the fundamental basis of the TGM swinging model, where the straight left arm is the central lever and the clubshaft is the peripheral lever. The only difference between a nunchaku and a double pendulum is that the DP is designed to release in only one plane, and it cannot wobble about like a nunchaku. The left wrist joint acts as a simple hinge joint and the club releases because the hinge joint follows a circular motion in space. Here is a video of me demonstrating the nunchaku (DP) model. You don't have to supply the underlying mathematics - because here is a link to nmg's mathematical explanation (which I still believe is the best explanation). perfectgolfswingreview.net/New%20Millennium%20Golf%20Science.htmThe club releases because the left hand moves in a non-straight line manner, and the speed of club release depends on the speed of left hand motion along the hand arc path and the degree of circularity of the hand arc path (rate of change of left hand direction per unit time) during the club releasing phase of the downswing (what BM calls phase 2 of the downswing). The key point is that it is the left wrist joint that is the hinge joint and the club releases in the plane of left wrist radial => ulnar deviation. The right wrist joint is not involved in the club release mechanics in this swing model. Unhinging of the right wrist joint can only affect the club-release phenomenon by applying a push-force against the left thumb (PP#1) which is above the coupling point, or a push-force against the aft side of the grip below the coupling point (via PP#3). DT has shown that i) any application of this right sided push-force (either from a right arm straightening action or a right wrist straightening action) cannot increase CH speed at impact - using the standard computer modeling program that is often used by golf researchers. He has also shown that in "real life" that professional golfers manifest forward shaft lean between P6 and P7 and he claims that positive wrist torque that speeds up the club release action cannot exist under those conditions and thirdly, he has shown iii) that human beings cannot actively straighten their right wrist angle by 90 degrees faster than 70msec (time it takes for a CF-release to automatically release the club by 90 degrees). Neither you or Natep have proven that DT is wrong with respect to those 3 claims. Neither you or Natep have provided any "evidence" that active/passive right wrist straightening between P6 and P7 can increase CH speed. Why should any forum member take you/Natep seriously when neither of you produce any coherent counterargument where you provide a detailed explanation complemented by scientific "evidence"? Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Mar 3, 2013 13:10:18 GMT -5
Jeff,
OK, you convinced me we are on the same page as regards nunchaku action at last. What you still are mistaken with is turning around with TGM world which is flawed because it looks through the prism of 2-D geometry, while the reality is much more complex and different; its all grey, there are no either-or black-or-white situations.
Why in the plane of ulnar-radial deviation ? There is second plane, i.e. wrist palmar-dorsal flexion. 99,9% of wrist movements are mixture of using both planes. You exclude wrist flexion as it shouldn't exist here. The reality is the true plane depends on many anatomical factors such as lead hand grip strength or lead forearm motion.
How one can say such nonsense. Again, if a golfer holds a club with both hands, it means both arms/wrists/hands take part in a motion. One does not swing a club with one arm, that's why this model is not real. This is why one-armed models (using double pendulum model and assuming the hub of the swing is located in the lead shoulder joint) are unreal and, therefore, all the conclusions are flawed.
The two points above make further analysis of TGM or Tutelman's model aimless, at least for myself.
One more thing. Your model of hinge which is being shown on the film assumes that the hinge is blocked and the peripheral arm cannot move further. It moves only to the position of forming straight relationship with the central arm. Of course, this is also unreal. Human wrists RoM is obviously bigger and momentum of the club will never cause the wrist stop moving, unless it is consciously blocked which must jeopardize clubhead velocity. Again, I do not have a mathematical proof for it, however, a common sense is enough here.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 3, 2013 16:08:06 GMT -5
Dariusz,
The nature of your questions demonstrates how clueless you are regarding TGM mechanics.
You asked-: "Why in the plane of ulnar-radial deviation ? There is second plane, i.e. wrist palmar-dorsal flexion. 99,9% of wrist movements are mixture of using both planes. You exclude wrist flexion as it shouldn't exist here. The reality is the true plane depends on many anatomical factors such as lead hand grip strength or lead forearm motion."
The fact that you cannot understand why the club releases in the plane of left wrist radial-deviation shows how little you understand about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. The entire concept of the LAFW is predicated on the club releasing within the plane of left wrist radial/ulnar deviation - so that there is no "wobble" of the clubshaft during its downswing and followthrough motion. Left wrist hinging in a horizontal plane will destroy the intact LAFW because all clubshaft release motions must only operate in the plane of the LAFW. The intact LAFW can rotate in 3-D space if a golfer uses a non-strong left hand grip, and that necessitates the use of a PA#3 release action to rotate the intact LAFW into impact in order to square the clubface. However, the club still releases within the plane of the LAFW - even during the PA#3 release action and that is why the left wrist must remain flat between P4 and P7.5+.
You have no excuse for not understanding the TGM concept of the LAFW as I have posted many links to my video presentation on that topic.
You also wrote-: "Onemore thing. Your model of hinge which is being shown on the film assumes that the hinge is blocked and the peripheral arm cannot move further. "
Nonsense!
The peripheral arm can bypass the central arm if it gains enough momentum to bypass the left arm. There is no blocking of the hinge joint. The only reason why the peripheral arm didn't bypass the central arm in my demonstration is because I controllably stalled the motion of the central arm and I also didn't over-accelerate the motion of the central arm in the early downswing.
You also wrote-: "How one can say such nonsense. Again, if a golfer holds a club with both hands, it means both arms/wrists/hands take part in a motion. One does not swing a club with one arm, that's why this model is not real. This is why one-armed models (using double pendulum model and assuming the hub of the swing is located in the lead shoulder joint) are unreal and, therefore, all the conclusions are flawed."
That's unadulterated nonsense! Even if the right hand is involved in the motion of the central arm, it doesn't affect the laws of physics that dictate that the speed of club release is dependent on the directional motion of the hinge joint (and not dependent on how power is supplied to move the central arm). In a TGM swinger's swing action, PA#4 (central arm) is powered by both the pivot motion (via the left shoulder socket motion) and by the left shoulder girdle muscles and also by the right arm/RFFFW combo which causes the right palm to apply push-pressure against the aft side of the left thumb at PP#1.
I am willing to have a Skype video conversation with you re: this issue to clear up your many misunderstandings - if you are interested.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Mar 3, 2013 16:52:21 GMT -5
Jeff,
I do not use this Skype programme, but thank you for your proposal. I appreciate if someone is willing to help, no matter with what.
Concerning your comments -- I do not care about TGM mechanics. I do care about physics and anatomy of real life that are obviously different.
As I said before, I even bought the book. The problem is that this book contains impractical theory only. It governs physics and anatomy to the 2-D geometry.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 3, 2013 20:29:57 GMT -5
Dariusz, You wrote-: " Concerning your comments -- I do not care about TGM mechanics. I do care about physics and anatomy of real life that are obviously different.
As I said before, I even bought the book. The problem is that this book contains impractical theory only. It governs physics and anatomy to the 2-D geometry." That's unadulterated nonsense! You have such a flawed/limited understanding of TGM mechanics. It operates in 3-D and one can easily move an intact LAFW in 3-D space while simultaneously remaining on-plane - as I demonstrate in these video capture images. The white plastic rod shows that my LAFW is intact (clubshaft and left arm are in a straight line relationship). Image 3 shows the club starting to release - within the plane of the LAFW. Here is Keegan Bradley doing it is a "real life" golf swing. His FLW is parallel to the inclined plane, and his clubshaft releases within the plane of his LAFW (within the plane of left wrist radial-ulnar deviation). That's why he doesn't ever have to unhinge (flip) his left wrist in a horizontal plane at any time point between P4 and P7.5. Your inability to mentally visualize the motion of an intact LAFW in 3-D space is a major handicap that will markedly limit your ability to understand optimum golf swing mechanics (as performed by the majority of PGA tour golfers). Between P4 and P6, KB's right arm/RFFW can apply push-pressure against PP#1 and thereby assist in the release of PA#4 (images 1 and 2). Between P6 and P7 (when the right arm straightens +/- right wrist straightens) the straightening right arm can apply push-pressure at PP#1 to assist in the release of PA#4 and PA#3. However, because the push-pressure is applied at PP#1 (which is above the coupling point), it doesn't affect the club release phenomenon, which happens in exactly the same passive CF-release manner - irrespective of whether push-pressure is applied at PP#1, or not. The club release phenomenon works according to the nmg's-described mathematical law - and that simply depends on the shape of the hand arc path and the speed of motion of the left hand along that hand arc path. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 3, 2013 23:45:42 GMT -5
I found this super DTL video of VJ Singh's swing action. Here are capture images from P4 to P7.3. It clearly shows how VJ maintains an intact LAFW/FLW from P4 to P7.3 - even though his right palm separates away from PP#1 after impact. Virtually all professional golfers maintain an intact LAFW/FLW during their downswing action and there is no horizontal unhinging motion of the left wrist between P4 and P7.3 - a "fact" which Dariusz seemingly cannot yet understand, considering that he wrongly wrote-: " Why in the plane of ulnar-radial deviation ? There is second plane, i.e. wrist palmar-dorsal flexion. 99.9% of wrist movements are mixture of using both planes.)" Look at this KM-produced video taken at 15,000 frames/second. Note that Shawn Lu maintains a FLW from P6 to P7.3 - and there is no horizontal left wrist motion happening in his downswing/followthrough swing action. He rotates his intact LAFW/FLW into impact using a PA#3 release action. This video clearly shows how the club continues to release within the plane of the LAFW between P6 and P7 - even while the intact LAFW/FLW rotates into impact. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Mar 4, 2013 4:25:34 GMT -5
Jeff,
This discussion does not make sense. You are not able to free your mind from schemates.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 4, 2013 10:23:38 GMT -5
Dariusz wrote-: " This discussion does not make sense. You are not able to free your mind from schemates." When I used to lecture on the topic of "evidence-based medicine", medical students who couldn't understand how to evaluate the scientific evidence derived from clinical studies used to say "that the discussion of the clinical evidence didn't make sense". However, they didn't take the rash mental step of claiming that the theories underlying "evidence-based medicine" were invalid - simply because they couldn't understand the theories. Dariusz and BM groupies have rejected TGM theories like the LAFW/FLW concept because they cannot mentally comprehend the concept, and not because the theory is invalid. I can partly understand why golfers reject TGM theory as presented in HK's TGM book - because its prose presentation is so poor/inadequate and the textual content is barely comprehensible. It took me 200 hours of reading and re-reading the TGM book before I began to fully understand the TGM concepts. Also, HK only spent 1/2 page writing about the "flying wedge concept", which is the most important TGM concept (from my personal perspective). I don't believe in the validity of the intact LAFW/FLW concept because I read HK's TGM book - in fact, I think that HK got many things wrong - I believe in the intact LAFW/FLW concept because I discovered that most professional golfers routinely use that TGM concept without being conscious of that fact. In other words, the intact LAFW/FLW concept only became valid in my mind when I discovered that virtually all professional golfers maintain an intact LAFW/FLW from P4 to P7.2+. Jeff.
|
|