|
Post by chipitin on Sept 4, 2013 13:18:14 GMT -5
Simultaneous peaking is ideal from a mathematical perspective when one only analyzes the kinematic constraint equations of a linked system and doesn’t realize that forces (and torques) must act on masses (and moment s of inertia) in order to generate the ideal motions. Situations in which simultaneous peaking would be ideal would be the exception, not the norm.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 4, 2013 13:31:44 GMT -5
They answered his questions over and over, he didn't like their answers. What are they supposed to do if Kelvin doesn't believe them just keep going around in a circle forever.
Why he got banned Richie -
Kelvin wasn't banned for questioning the devices that provide data to biomechanists. He was banned because he wanted to change the debate from a biomechanical debate to a teaching debate and he ignored the definition of rotation as known by the biomechanists and tried to tell them that rotation is really rotation and translation. He didn't want to discuss biomechanics, he wanted to discuss how great a teacher he is and how the biomechanists are wrong on their own site! The site isn't about feelings or guesses, it's about trying to figure out what is actually happening from a biomechanical standpoint.
Thereafter, he went on Jeffy's site claiming nobody needs 3D, the biomechanists are trying to make money and that they use a "narrow" definition of rotation. There isn't anything narrow about their defintion of rotation, what's narrow is his view of rotation in 2D which lumps everything together.
Richie quote: I didn't say he was. I said the questions and criticisms he has asked is right in line with what would be questioned and criticized in a peer review. Many of these doctors, researchers and scientists consistently cry for Peer Reviews, then when somebody comes along and ask similar questions and has similar criticisms that a Peer Review would present, they get upset and act like they are beyond reproach.
Sounds like Kelvin you're describing above.
Me: Interesting, as one could say the exact same thing about Kelvin M.'s research. Dr. Mann has shown many problems with K.M.'s work.
Richie: Well, two wrongs don't make a right.
Me: Well so far only one has shown to be wrong!
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 4, 2013 14:22:50 GMT -5
He wasn't banned about questioning the accuracy of the devices. He was banned for trying to have a teach off against the biomechanists after he knew he lost his peak acceleration argument. He just wanted to prove them wrong in his world which isn't biomechanics. He seems to think the biomechanists are golf instructors trying to compete with him.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 4, 2013 18:51:12 GMT -5
Clay, did Nick tell you why he banned Kelvin? I know what he told others and it is not your fairy tale. Also, the biomechanists DON'T HAVE ANY THEORIES: they are not golf instructors and they are not expert in elite swings. Just ask them. They are like x-ray technicians, or the camera crew. And only one of them (Chetham) has data for elite swings. So the rest of them can't even provide a worthwhile benchmark. What would Lucas learn from Dr. Kwon if Kwon doesn't have any elite swings in his data base? Third, the biomechanists agree that the second fire exists and is an additional power source. They just don't agree that it causes acceleration of pelvic rotation as they measure it. However, systems they don't use (or sell) do report acceleration into impact. That discrepancy is unresolved. Fourth, Kel has talked about the "second fire" since December 2008, so he didn't change "midstream", as Finney claims. www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2008-12-tiger-and-sadlowski-swing-emergence-of-a-new-more-powerful-swing.htmlFifth, Kel did not "misunderstand" Putnam's paper: he quoted it verbatim!! Mackenzie just pointed out that she was in the proximal-to-distal camp, something Kel never brought up. Sixth: "Dr." Mann's critiquing of Kel's work? It is mostly of the up-is-down, black-is-white variety. Totally unserious and irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 4, 2013 20:18:48 GMT -5
No one said the biomechanists have theories. What I said was Kelvin isn't in the same league as them. You fail to grasp the difference between pure rotation and translation the combination of tilt and thrust etc. 2 very different things. Kelvin never talked about that until he was schooled on the subject.
Kelvin and you have used other examples trying to show proximal to distal is false in golf except in golf there are forces and torques acting on masses. That requires a proximal to distal sequence.
Dr. Mann can respond to the part about him.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 4, 2013 20:46:18 GMT -5
The second fire is changing from a second fire of the pelvis to now a second fire in the legs!!! Jeffy himself is changing the argument. Regardless, Kelvin actually believes the pelvis fired twice in an elite swing because he didn't understand the difference between translation and rotation. HUGE MISTAKE that no biomechanist would make. Nobody in the world measures rotation as rotation and translation except Kelvin. Why? Presumably because he didn't know any better and was stuck on 2D video. He also presumed that AMM was like K-vest and he had absolutely no clue that AMM digitizes the body before it measures and it does not measure where it is placed on the back like K-Vest. If biomechanists are so worthless, why does Kelvin keep trying to find one to agree with him? ? Carol Putnam? Please Jeffy. Her peak acceleration theory was for a massless situation which isn't golf. Biomechanists might not have theories, but they sure can prove theories wrong can't they!!!!! Kel has been wrong for over 5 years about rotation and translation mixed together? I wouldn't be proud of that if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 4, 2013 22:03:04 GMT -5
No one said the biomechanists have theories. What I said was Kelvin isn't in the same league as them. That part is right. They are not experts in golf instruction or elite golf swings. The take measurements, sort of like a tailor. Way, way out of Kel's league. That is simply wrong. He talks about them in the December 2008 article and many times after that!! But, Clay, it has never bothered you to say stuff that is totally false. Why should you start caring now? Says who? That is totally made up. Post a link to a paper that proves that. Right...
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 4, 2013 22:09:48 GMT -5
We are different Jeffy. You should be able to figure that out just by looking at the ip addresses!!! The second fire is changing from a second fire of the pelvis to now a second fire in the legs!!! Jeffy himself is changing the argument. Regardless, Kelvin actually believes the pelvis fired twice in an elite swing because he didn't understand the difference between translation and rotation. HUGE MISTAKE that no biomechanist would make. Complete nonsense. Once they understood Kelvin, the biomechanists agreed with him. That's what bothers you!!! Just a bunch of made-up drivel. Par for the course from cwdlaw!! She said simultaneous peak acceleration was achieved in a tennis foreground stroke. Is that massless? That was already pointed out on the Facebook thread. But you still keep getting it wrong! Good old Clay. Second fire theory wrong? They agree with him. Where did he do that? Just another one of your fairy tales, Clay...
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 4, 2013 22:35:38 GMT -5
I don't really know the nature of the controversy between KM and the biomechanists, so I cannot really take sides on the issue. However, I find Jeffy's basic argument totally without merit. He seems to be implying that "biomechanists" (whatever that term means) are making "quantitative measurements" without having any "true" understanding of golf swing biomechanics. By contrast, he implies that KM provides a "qualitative" analysis, which is believes is factually true. However, that merely reflects Jeffy's partisan bias. I personally think that KM's "qualitative" analysis of so-called elite golfers is markedly flawed. I have provided my reasons in multiple posts. That Jeffy rejects my reasoning as being totally "unserious and irrelevant" merely reflects his personal bias. He has never been able to counter my "black-is-white" counterarguments (eg. that the "early left forearm supination" phenomenon only produces a temporary clubfacing-closing effect that dissipates by P6.5 - I clearly demonstrated that Gary Woodland still has to use a late left forearm supination action between P6.5 and P7 to close the clubface by impact; and I clearly showed that Dustin Johnson [another DHer] also had to use a late left forearm supination action between P6.5 and P7 despite having a markedly closed clubface at the transition).
Jeffy brags that KM developed his "second firing" theory as long ago as December 2008. However, his "second firing" theory has zero merit. In that December 2008 article. KM stated- : "The second firing needs to be really explosive and it needs to drive you through the last 90 degrees of hip rotation till the end of the swing.
In a biomechanical graph, this means that Tiger has two velocity peaks for his hips and shoulders. His second hip velocity peak occurs just prior to impact and this "slingshots" his shoulders (2nd firing) into the ball with maximum force.
I think that the bold-highlighted statement is totally without any rational logic. KM is talking about "near impact" which presumably is the P6.5-P7 time period. First of all, I know of no evidence that TW has a second pelvic velocity peak during that time point. Secondly, I don't understand how any such phenomenon could "slingshot" the shoulders into the ball. I would like to see Jeffy attempt to provide a biomechanical explanation. Thirdly, the shoulders don't hit the ball. It is the club that hits the ball, and the power-forces moving the club at that time point (between P6.5 and P7) in a swinger are "forces" involving the arms (PA#4 +/- PA#1) and the CF-release action (PA#2). I think that KM/Jeffy have so little understanding of TGM mechanics that they are simply flailing away in a quagmire of ignorance with respect to the world of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics.
Of course, Jeffy will disagree with my last paragraph, but that "fact" wouldn't be new. It will also not be new for Jeffy not to be able to provide a coherent counterargument that addresses my targeted criticism, which is only aimed at KM's biomechanical claims/reasoning, and not his person.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 4, 2013 22:43:15 GMT -5
I have deleted parts of Jeffy's/Chipitin's posts that have nothing to do with golf swing mechanics/biomechanics (eg. relating to the identity of Chipitin). I don't care who he is as long as he doesn't start endlessly trading ad hominem insults with Jeffy (or any other forum member) - because I will not allow that type of post to contaminate this forum.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 4, 2013 22:44:16 GMT -5
I don't really know the nature of the controversy between KM and the biomechanists, so I cannot really take sides on the issue. However, I find Jeffy's basic argument totally without merit. He seems to be implying that "biomechanists" (whatever that term means) are making "quantitative measurements" without having any "true" understanding of golf swing swing biomechanics. By contrast, he implies that KM provides a "qualitative" analysis, which is believes is factually true. However, that merely reflects Jeffy's partisan bias. I personally think that KM's "qualitative" analysis of so-called elite golfers is markedly flawed. I have provided my reasons in multiple posts. That Jeffy rejects my reasoning as being totally "unserious and irrelevant" merely reflects his personal bias. He has never been able to counter my "black-is-white" counterarguments (eg. that the "early left forearm supination" phenomenon only produces a temporary clubfacing-closing effect that dissipates by P6.5 - I clearly demonstrated that Gary Woodland still has to use a late left forearm supination action between P6.5 and P7 to close the clubface by impact; and I clearly showed that Dustin Johnson [another DHer] also had to use a late left forearm supination action between P6.5 and P7 despite having a markedly closed clubface at the transition).Dear, me. Your "late left forearm supination action" is simply a consequence of the right shoulder going from external rotation to internal rotation, present in every swing by a human. Early supination accounts for about 10 to 20 degrees of supination prior to this movement. No need for me to do it, all has been laid out copiously over the past few years.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 4, 2013 23:18:04 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: " Dear, me. Your "late left forearm supination action" is simply a consequence of the right shoulder going from external rotation to internal rotation, present in every swing by a human." This statement is very typical of Jeffy in the sense that he doesn't provide a detailed description of the precise nature of the causal links between two biomechanical phenomena. How can internal rotation of the right humerus cause late left forearm supination? If he states that it was due to the combination of "internal rotation of the right humerus combined with right arm straightening that causes the right palm to produce a rotary push-force against PP#1" then I would agree that it is a "valid" biomechnical possibility because that is how the right forearm paddlewheeling phenomenon can synergistically assist in the efficient release of PA#3. Here is my composite photo showing Aaron Baddeley performing a right forearm paddlewheeling action. However, that "right forearm paddlewheeling" action is only a synergistic action that supplements the natural tendency of the lead arm to rotate counterclockwise between P6.5 and P7. Right forearm paddlewheeling is only the primary biomechanical source of a late downswing clubface-closing phenomenon in a "pure" right arm-only golfer. However, in a TGM swinger (like Aaron Baddeley) the "late left forearm supination" motion doesn't necessarily require much supplementary biomechanical assistance from the right arm. Also, a PA#3 release action can happen automatically/naturally/unconsciously as happens in a "pure" left arm swinger - see Sasho Mackenzie's one-arm swing video. Here are capture images - reversed so that it is presented as if he were a right-handed golfer. One can clearly see the lead forearm rotating counterclockwise between image 4 and 5. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 4, 2013 23:47:44 GMT -5
Another point that Chiptin made was related to the "belief" that "forces" in a golf swing move from proximal to distal/peripheral eg. kinetic link theory that implies that the lower body motion is the primary power source in a full golf swing. However, I believe that it only happens in a prototypical pivot-induced left arm swinger's swing action (TGM swinger's action). I can easily use a reactive pivot action (and not an active pivot action) as a left arm swinger when I use Leslie King's left arm swinging technique. www.golftoday.co.uk/proshop/tuition/lesson11.htmlAlso, consider a "pure" right arm swinger. His average drive is 240-250 yards. Do you really believe that his lower body pivot action is the primary power source? Where is your "evidence"? When I play golf using a right arm swinger's action, I power the swing only via the combination of a downplane right shoulder motion + right arm adduction motion (which together constitute the release of PA#5) followed by an active right arm straightening action (release of PA#1). Any rotation of my lower body (pelvis) that gets my pelvis slightly open to the target by impact (as occurs in this golfer) is reactive, and I don't believe that it actively powers my "right arm swinging" action. Here are capture images of me demonstrating the sequential release of PA5 => PA#1 using a piece of string (which replaces my left arm). Note that I have an open pelvis at impact, but I don't believe that my pelvic motion is actively powering my swing action. Try my right arm swinging technique and describe your "beliefs" on what is powering your right arm swinger's swing action. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 5, 2013 0:40:27 GMT -5
Jeffy said: That part is right. They are not experts in golf instruction or elite golf swings. The take measurements, sort of like a tailor. Way, way out of Kel's league.
Chipitin says: And Kelvin is no expert in biomechanics and he is way way out of his league in that.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 5, 2013 0:48:48 GMT -5
Jeffy said: Second fire theory wrong? They agree with him.
No they don't, not the way Kelvin stated his theory on how it happens. Read the posts above it's all there about translation pelvic tilt and thrust etc. Kelvin lumped it all together as pure hip rotation that accelerates through impact, he's dead wrong.
|
|