Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 13, 2013 20:28:40 GMT -5
See this Jeffy forum thread - jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?818-Absolutely-brilliant-October-article-by-Kelvin
That thread refers to this KM article - www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2013-10-planeology.html
Jeffy thinks that the article was brilliant and he stated-: "Nobody in golf has the intelligence, requisite knowledge and discipline to put the pieces together like Kelvin. This article is full of unique insights."
What unique insights?
Jeffy also wrote-: "Reading the article for the second time. So much makes sense now, especially in my own swing. Complexification does simplify understanding."
What makes sense now that Jeffy didn't previously understand before reading article?
When I read the article, I can find no unique insights, but I do find a lot of stuff that is wrong-headed. Here are some examples.
KM only draws one plane in his capture images, and that is the hand plane at address. That seems to be the reference plane for KM. However, I think that it is meaningless to use the hand plane as a reference plane for the mid-downswing plane or the impact plane because there is no biomechanical/mechanical reason why a golfer should be on the hand plane during the mid-downswing or at impact.
Secondly, KM refers to being on-plane in another sense - the TGM sense of having the butt end of the club point at the ball-target line in the mid-downswing (specifically at the P5 position).
KM posted this image from a 2000-year swing video of Tiger Woods.
KM drew a blue dotted line that shows that the butt end of Tiger's club is pointing at the ball-target line. Is that line accurate?
To accurately show where the clubshaft is pointing when using a DTL camera viewing position, the clubshaft must be parallel to the camera lens , which means that it must be vertical to the ground. One can correctly surmise that Tiger's clubshaft is vertical to the ground at the P5 position (when viewed from a face-on viewing perspective) if he has a 90 degree angle between his clubshaft and left arm - because his left arm is parallel to the ball-target line at the P5 position (defined as the position when the left arm is parallel to the ground). So, I would agree with KM when he infers that the butt end of Tiger's clubshaft is pointing at the ball-target line.
However, he then posts this image of Tiger at the P5 position (from the Haney era).
Note that the blue dotted line points outside the ball-target line, and KM infers that Tiger is not on-plane. However. note that Tiger's left arm is angled backwards (away from the ball-target line), so if his clubshaft is 90 degrees angled relative to the left arm, then the clubshaft cannot be parallel to the DTL camera viewing lens.
KM makes the same mistake with Robert Garrigus' swing.
Note that he draws the blue line and implies that it points outside the ball-target line. However, note that Robert's left arm is angled forward (closer to the ball-target line) and if he has a 90 degree angle of the clubshaft relative to his left arm, then the clubshaft cannot be parallel to a DTL camera viewing lens.
KM is seemingly oblivious of parallax distortion in those DTL images.
Here is my DTL image of Badds.
One can reasonably infer that Badds's clubshaft is parallel to the DTL camera viewing lens in image 1 - because i) he has a 90 degree angle between his left arm and clubshaft and ii) his left arm is parallel to the ball-target line in image 1. Therefore, when his clubshaft points at the ball-target line (yellow dotted line) in image 1, he is on-plane.
In image 2 and 3, Badds is still on-plane and his clubshaft points at the ball-target line (at points X and Y on the yellow dotted line). Note that I am taking into account parallax distortion because I know that his clubshaft is not parallel to the camera lens in those two images and I am making a "corrective" adjustment to take that factor into account. KM ignores the problem of parallax distortion when interpreting DTL 2-D capture images images.
Consider how KM defines "laid-off". In his article, he states "Golf people call a club that is pointed left of target at the top of the backswing “laid off” and a club pointed to the right of target at the top of backswing “crossing the line.”
I don't know which "golf people" KM is referring to in that sentence, but that's not my definition of being "laid-off" at the P4 position.
Here is Stuart Appleby at the P4 position.
Image 5 shows SA at the P4 position - note that his clubshaft is pointing left-of-the-target. However, I do not regard SA's clubshaft as being "laid-off" because it still on-plane (butt end of the club may still be pointing at an extension of the ball-target line). To be "laid-off" at the P4 position, the club must not only point left of the target, it must also be off-plane (flattened to an off-plane condition so that an imaginary line drawn from the butt end of the club points well outside the ball-target line). What causes the clubshaft to flatten into a "laid-off" position.
KM posts this image of Tiger Woods in his article.
Note that Tiger's clubshaft is off-plane - and it is "laid-off" (dropped to a shallower plane than an on-plane clubshaft). Compare TW's flattened clubshaft to SA's angled-upwards clubshaft.
Note that KM draws a curved orange arrow in that image, and he infers that Tiger's clubshaft is laid-off due to a clockwise rotary motion of his left arm. I agree! In other words, what makes a clubshaft go off-plane to a "laid-off" position between the P3 position and P4 position is a clockwise rotation of the left upper limb. However, I disagree with KM's causality opinion - KM states that it is due to internal rotation of the left arm, while I believe that the primary biomechanical cause is more likely an increase degree of pronation of the left forearm. Another causal factor that KM mentions as a causality factor is the fact that Tiger Woods has an AFLW (slightly palmar flexed left wrist) rather than a GFLW at the P4 position. I agree.
Much more critical commentary regarding the planeology article will be posted in the near future.
Jeff.
That thread refers to this KM article - www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2013-10-planeology.html
Jeffy thinks that the article was brilliant and he stated-: "Nobody in golf has the intelligence, requisite knowledge and discipline to put the pieces together like Kelvin. This article is full of unique insights."
What unique insights?
Jeffy also wrote-: "Reading the article for the second time. So much makes sense now, especially in my own swing. Complexification does simplify understanding."
What makes sense now that Jeffy didn't previously understand before reading article?
When I read the article, I can find no unique insights, but I do find a lot of stuff that is wrong-headed. Here are some examples.
KM only draws one plane in his capture images, and that is the hand plane at address. That seems to be the reference plane for KM. However, I think that it is meaningless to use the hand plane as a reference plane for the mid-downswing plane or the impact plane because there is no biomechanical/mechanical reason why a golfer should be on the hand plane during the mid-downswing or at impact.
Secondly, KM refers to being on-plane in another sense - the TGM sense of having the butt end of the club point at the ball-target line in the mid-downswing (specifically at the P5 position).
KM posted this image from a 2000-year swing video of Tiger Woods.
KM drew a blue dotted line that shows that the butt end of Tiger's club is pointing at the ball-target line. Is that line accurate?
To accurately show where the clubshaft is pointing when using a DTL camera viewing position, the clubshaft must be parallel to the camera lens , which means that it must be vertical to the ground. One can correctly surmise that Tiger's clubshaft is vertical to the ground at the P5 position (when viewed from a face-on viewing perspective) if he has a 90 degree angle between his clubshaft and left arm - because his left arm is parallel to the ball-target line at the P5 position (defined as the position when the left arm is parallel to the ground). So, I would agree with KM when he infers that the butt end of Tiger's clubshaft is pointing at the ball-target line.
However, he then posts this image of Tiger at the P5 position (from the Haney era).
Note that the blue dotted line points outside the ball-target line, and KM infers that Tiger is not on-plane. However. note that Tiger's left arm is angled backwards (away from the ball-target line), so if his clubshaft is 90 degrees angled relative to the left arm, then the clubshaft cannot be parallel to the DTL camera viewing lens.
KM makes the same mistake with Robert Garrigus' swing.
Note that he draws the blue line and implies that it points outside the ball-target line. However, note that Robert's left arm is angled forward (closer to the ball-target line) and if he has a 90 degree angle of the clubshaft relative to his left arm, then the clubshaft cannot be parallel to a DTL camera viewing lens.
KM is seemingly oblivious of parallax distortion in those DTL images.
Here is my DTL image of Badds.
One can reasonably infer that Badds's clubshaft is parallel to the DTL camera viewing lens in image 1 - because i) he has a 90 degree angle between his left arm and clubshaft and ii) his left arm is parallel to the ball-target line in image 1. Therefore, when his clubshaft points at the ball-target line (yellow dotted line) in image 1, he is on-plane.
In image 2 and 3, Badds is still on-plane and his clubshaft points at the ball-target line (at points X and Y on the yellow dotted line). Note that I am taking into account parallax distortion because I know that his clubshaft is not parallel to the camera lens in those two images and I am making a "corrective" adjustment to take that factor into account. KM ignores the problem of parallax distortion when interpreting DTL 2-D capture images images.
Consider how KM defines "laid-off". In his article, he states "Golf people call a club that is pointed left of target at the top of the backswing “laid off” and a club pointed to the right of target at the top of backswing “crossing the line.”
I don't know which "golf people" KM is referring to in that sentence, but that's not my definition of being "laid-off" at the P4 position.
Here is Stuart Appleby at the P4 position.
Image 5 shows SA at the P4 position - note that his clubshaft is pointing left-of-the-target. However, I do not regard SA's clubshaft as being "laid-off" because it still on-plane (butt end of the club may still be pointing at an extension of the ball-target line). To be "laid-off" at the P4 position, the club must not only point left of the target, it must also be off-plane (flattened to an off-plane condition so that an imaginary line drawn from the butt end of the club points well outside the ball-target line). What causes the clubshaft to flatten into a "laid-off" position.
KM posts this image of Tiger Woods in his article.
Note that Tiger's clubshaft is off-plane - and it is "laid-off" (dropped to a shallower plane than an on-plane clubshaft). Compare TW's flattened clubshaft to SA's angled-upwards clubshaft.
Note that KM draws a curved orange arrow in that image, and he infers that Tiger's clubshaft is laid-off due to a clockwise rotary motion of his left arm. I agree! In other words, what makes a clubshaft go off-plane to a "laid-off" position between the P3 position and P4 position is a clockwise rotation of the left upper limb. However, I disagree with KM's causality opinion - KM states that it is due to internal rotation of the left arm, while I believe that the primary biomechanical cause is more likely an increase degree of pronation of the left forearm. Another causal factor that KM mentions as a causality factor is the fact that Tiger Woods has an AFLW (slightly palmar flexed left wrist) rather than a GFLW at the P4 position. I agree.
Much more critical commentary regarding the planeology article will be posted in the near future.
Jeff.