|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 24, 2017 11:00:03 GMT -5
David C wrote the following in the GolfWRX thread-: " I just clicked on the link above by bronson, scrolled down and saw JM standing in front of a fence, underflipping the **** out of the club like a total beginner and offering a hundred dollars for an impossible non-bet, namely underflipping the club without it passing the hands.
If that doesn't show someone twisting things to prove (their own) point, that no one else is remotely arguing, I don't know what does. What professional (what hcp under 10 in fact) releases the club like that??!!!?!!! " David C asks in that bold-highlighted question which pro golfer underflips (his term for a scenario where the clubshaft does not bypass the left arm at P7.2) the club in that release manner. The answer is simple - it pertains to all the pro golfers who are DHers (like Adam Scott, Justin Rose, Justin Thomas, David Toms, Henrik Stenson, Charlie Hoffmann and Dustin Johnson in the capture images below). Adam Scott Justin Rose Justin Thomas David Toms Henrik Stenson Charlie Hoffmann Dustin Johnson Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 24, 2017 15:14:56 GMT -5
David C responded to my post above by writing the following in the GolfWRX thread (see italics), which I have dissected-: i) Has flipped his left wrist mainly. I flipped my left wrist in image 3 (when I was at the P7.2 position) to demonstrate how 5 degrees of left wrist extension would cause the clubshaft to frankly bypass the left arm. However, my left wrist is not flipped in image 2. ii) Hasn't supinated his left forearm (key to how the club can not be past the left arm but is moving towards passing it aka going into extension but not extended)This expressed opinion that left forearm supination causes "extension" (which is usually used to describe the post-impact left wrist extending phenomenon secondary to left wrist flipping) is so wrong that it is frankly beyond bizarre! It is even more bizarre to opine that left forearm supination will not cause the clubshaft to bypass the left arm. Here are a series of capture images (captured from the 1:00 hour time point of part 7 video from my video project) that shows how left forearm supination causes the clubshaft to bypass the left arm - with the degree of clubshaft-byassing depending on the accumulator #3 angle. The blue line shows the middle of the left antecubital fossa and the red line is drawn over the radial bone of the left lower forearm. In image 1, I have adopted a low palmar left hand grip, which creates a moderate-sized accumulator #3 angle at impact. Note how much the clubshaft bypasses the left arm when I supinate my left forearm by ~60 degrees. In image 2, I have adopted a mid-palmar left hand grip, which creates a very small accumulator #3 angle at impact. Note that performing left forearm supination by roughly the same amount (actually greater than ~60 degrees) causes the clubshaft to bypass the left arm far less for the same degree of left forearm supinatory roll. In both cases, I have kept my left wrist geometrically flat by not altering the degree of left wrist dorsiflexion, so that any clubshaft-bypassing is entirely due to a left forearm supinatory motion. iii) Has fired his right shoulder out and is staring at the clubhead and turned to face it. That's irrelevant!!! iv) Hands are about a full foot behind where a pro would be. That's a nonsensical claim! My hands are about 3-4" bypassed my left thigh at P7.2 (when viewed from face-on) and it is similar to the hand position seen in those capture images of pro golfers. Also, by definition, the left arm must be angled about 20 degrees from vertical at P7.2 if the left arm is vertical at impact. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 24, 2017 18:06:44 GMT -5
Bronson wrote the following in post #349 of the GolfWRX thread-: " The latest drivel. I'm wondering if nearing impact when the radial deviation is now ulnar deviation if Mann's little demo still holds water?
I'm thinking that changes everything about his theory that the club shaft bypasses the left arm due to supination/gamma torque/HTV. I think he again shows a position that isn't happening in a good players swing at the time period he shows, he demos a position at waist height and has a radial deviated wrist position which will result in( beta torque), when in reality that won't be the position of the wrist nearing impact which is now ulnar deviation and leads to Gamma Torque. That changes the travel of the club from one that bypasses the lead arm a beta torque to a gamma torque which doesn't bypass the lead arm, the definitions one can find by googling them." Bronson wrongheadly thinks that the clubshaft will not bypass the left arm if the left forearm actively supinates (thereby applying a gamma torque to the clubshaft) between P7 and P7.2 because he doesn't believe that a pro golfer will have a moderate-sized, or large-sized, accumulator #3 angle at impact. However, golfers who shallow their clubshaft down to the hand plane (original shaft plane ) during their late downswing will come into impact with their left arm near-vertical and with their left wrist slightly radially-deviated, thereby creating a moderate-sized, or large-sized, accumulator #3 angle at the time of impact. Here are two examples - Hunter Mahan (image 1) and Sergio Garcia (image 2). I have drawn a red line down the length of their clubshaft and I have drawn a yellow line down the length of their left arm at impact. The green line is an imaginary extension of the yellow line and the angle between the red line and the green line reflects the size of the accumulator #3 angle. Hunter Mahan has a moderate-sized accumulator #3 angle at impact while Sergio Garcia has a large-sized accumulator #3 angle at impact. If they both continued to supinate their left forearm between P7 and P7.2, Sergio's clubshaft would bypass his left arm by a greater amount (greater angle) for the same degree of counterclockwise roll of the left forearm. By contrast, here is a golfer (Bryson DeChambeau) who has a small accumulator #3 angle at impact. Bryson DeChambeau adopts a mid-palmar left hand grip at address and he uses a zero-plane shift golf swing action that brings his clubshaft down a steep path (that is very close to the TSP) during his downswing. His clubshaft is roughly positioned on the TSP at impact and his left arm is more outstretched at impact. Bryson DeChambeau has a small accumulator #3 angle at impact, and therefore his clubshaft will not bypass his left arm by very much if he significantly supinates his left forearm between P7 and P7.2. By the way, Bronson's comments on beta torque are nonsensical, because beta torque applies to torque forces being applied in an off-plane manner. If a beta-torque is applied to the clubshaft between P4 and P6 it will steepen the clubshaft angle, and if a beta torque is applied near-impact (when the left arm is near vertical at P7 and when the back of the left wrist-hand faces the target) then it will simply change the magnitude of the accumulator #3 angle and make it smaller. The only torque force being exerted during a left forearm supinatory action between P7 and P7.2 is a gamma torque. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 24, 2017 22:42:18 GMT -5
Bronson wrote the following in post #356 in the GolfWRX thread-:
"Mann you have no clue, the demo you did is beta torque not gamma torque... why you ask ... well it's because at waist high the club in a real swing will become out of plane in your demo which is beta torque. It's not in front of you at that time in the swing at waist high as you show in your ridiculous demo.
I know very well that beta is out of plane, that's the whole point you are showing a club at waist high in front of you when in a real swing that doesn't happen the club isn't there at waist high!!! You couldn't even touch the ball if anyone did what you are demonstrating and end up smacking your left leg with the club head.
That radial deviation you think you see dtl is an illusion, Sergio is in ulnar deviation near impact and is gamma torquing the s*** out of the club!! He got there because before that he beta torqued the club somewhere around p6 and I can say for sure at P6 the club isn't in front of him like you demo!!!
Around the 1:12 mark Sergio has almost no radial deviation and after that even less, he's in ulnar deviation and the club is moving forward because of the Alpha Torque not Gamma Torque/supination AND HIS LEAD WRIST IS EXTENDING!!!"
Bronson's ignorance regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics is so vast and his unwillingness to actually watch my video presentation is so considerable that he cannot even understand what I was demonstrating. I was only holding the club at waist level in my demonstration with my left arm outstretched to visually demonstrate how much the clubhaft will bypass the left arm if the left forearm is supinated between P7 and P7.2 - presuming that the accumulator #3 angle at impact is large (as actually exists in Sergio Garcia's golf swing between P7 and P7.2). I was not trying to mimic what is happening at the P6 position in my demonstration and I was simply demonstrating what would happen to a golfer's clubshaft (in terms of its angulation relative to the straight left arm) between P7 and P7.2 if the left forearm supinates while the accumulator #3 angle is moderate in size or large in size. Therefore Bronson's following statement - "Mann you have no clue, the demo you did is beta torque not gamma torque... why you ask ... well it's because at waist high the club in a real swing will become out of plane in your demo which is beta torque. It's not in front of you at that time in the swing at waist high as you show in your ridiculous demo. I know very well that beta is out of plane, that's the whole point you are showing a club at waist high in front of you when in a real swing that doesn't happen the club isn't there at waist high!!! You couldn't even touch the ball if anyone did what you are demonstrating and end up smacking your left leg with the club head." - is irrelevant gobbledygook!
Bronson also irrationally wrote-: "That radial deviation you think you see dtl is an illusion, Sergio is in ulnar deviation near impact and is gamma torquing the s*** out of the club!!" Of course he is gamma torquing the club in the late downswing between P6.5 and P7 (representing the release of PA#3) and it's also obvious that his left wrist is moving from radial deviation towards ulnar deviation during his later downswing secondary to the release of the club (representing the release of PA#2), but his left wrist is not ulnar-deviated at impact because he has a large accumulator #3 angle at impact. His left wrist is still minimally radially-deviated at impact - according to the true anatomical definition of a "neutral left wrist", which is defined as being present when a straight line drawn along the radial side of the left forearm that is extended peripherally will run along the radial side of the second finger. According to that standard anatomical definition, Sergio Garcia's left wrist is still minimally radially-deviated at impact.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by DC on Jul 25, 2017 2:48:53 GMT -5
This expressed opinion that left forearm supination causes "extension" (which is usually used to describe the post-impact left wrist extending phenomenon secondary to left wrist flipping) is so wrong that it is frankly beyond bizarre! It is even more bizarre to opine that left forearm supination will not cause the clubshaft to bypass the left arm.
I didn't say supination 'causes' extension.
I disagree that left forearm supination will cause the clubshaft to bypass the arm. I think you show it doesn't in your demonstration. It will if you define it how you define it. I think most people take it as read that the wrist extension causes the club to pass the hands.
In your last post you say beta torque steepens the club. I think this is correct. A total beginner might apply a lot of it too early. A good player will allow negative initially, then apply a lot of positive ie going with then fighting gravity. It is even present when most people can't see it.
I also think you are correct that the #3 angle narrows but that is not only what happens when it occurs at that point in the swing. I'm not sure most people have the back of their hand facing the target unless they have a super weak grip. I think you are incorrect to say it is applied at that point unless you want to hit terrible shots. To occur then it is applied earlier.
The third point you make about supination only causing the club to rotate is incorrect. It is a fluid, compound action whose effects aren't isolated.
|
|
|
Post by DC on Jul 25, 2017 2:50:46 GMT -5
This was what I was referring to: If a beta-torque is applied to the clubshaft between P4 and P6 it will steepen the clubshaft angle, and if a beta torque is applied near-impact (when the left arm is near vertical at P7 and when the back of the left wrist-hand faces the target) then it will simply change the magnitude of the accumulator #3 angle and make it smaller. The only torque force being exerted during a left forearm supinatory action between P7 and P7.2 is a gamma torque. Read more: newtongolfinstitute.proboards.com/thread/610/intact-left-arm-flying-wedges?page=5#ixzz4npNEHrPJ
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 25, 2017 5:30:39 GMT -5
Response to DC's post above. If 'negative' beta torque (as defined and explained by Manzella in this video below) is applied between P4 and P6 , won't it shallow out the clubshaft plane not steepen it? He advises against positive beta torque as that will cause an OTT move. I don't think about beta torques in my swing because by using a 'pitching right elbow move', this shallows the club for me, while my right wrist ('right arm flying wedge') supports my 'Left Arm Flying Wedge' while keeping it 'On Plane' (ie. tracing the base plane line). I thought alpha torque changes the accumulator #3 angle? vimeo.com/121990372
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 25, 2017 5:56:32 GMT -5
bph7 wrote the following in post #359 of the GolfWRX thread-:
"Mann's been moving the goalposts all over the place, but his latest point IMO shows his total lack of understanding of how swinging a club works. He keeps insisting that if one is extending a lot and or has a lot of supination, the club must pass the hands by p7.2 or 7.4 or whatever. This is demonstrably false to anyone who knows the basic movements and a real (not toy) golf club. If you are in major flexion at p6, you absolutely can extend like crazy and still be in flexion well into the follow through. As for supination, if you are in a good p6, supination and proper releasing of number 3 will rotate the club square to the arc. It takes like 30 seconds with a club to try these moves."
bph7's understanding of what I am saying is so deficient that he gets his facts very wrong. I was only referring to the P7 => P7.2 time period in my demonstration and I automatically presumed that the clubface was square at impact and that the golfer had an intact LAFW/GFLW at impact (where the clubshaft is straight-in-line with the left arm). Then, to prevent the clubshaft from bypassing the left arm between P7 and P7.2, one has to avoid any significant amount of left forearm supination and any left wrist extending (> 5 degrees) during the P7 => P7.2 time period.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 25, 2017 6:08:07 GMT -5
This expressed opinion that left forearm supination causes "extension" (which is usually used to describe the post-impact left wrist extending phenomenon secondary to left wrist flipping) is so wrong that it is frankly beyond bizarre! It is even more bizarre to opine that left forearm supination will not cause the clubshaft to bypass the left arm. I didn't say supination 'causes' extension. I disagree that left forearm supination will cause the clubshaft to bypass the arm. I think you show it doesn't in your demonstration. It will if you define it how you define it. I think most people take it as read that the wrist extension causes the club to pass the hands. In your last post you say beta torque steepens the club. I think this is correct. A total beginner might apply a lot of it too early. A good player will allow negative initially, then apply a lot of positive ie going with then fighting gravity. It is even present when most people can't see it. I also think you are correct that the #3 angle narrows but that is not only what happens when it occurs at that point in the swing. I'm not sure most people have the back of their hand facing the target unless they have a super weak grip. I think you are incorrect to say it is applied at that point unless you want to hit terrible shots. To occur then it is applied earlier. The third point you make about supination only causing the club to rotate is incorrect. It is a fluid, compound action whose effects aren't isolated. DC Guest wrote-: " I disagree that left forearm supination will cause the clubshaft to bypass the arm. I think you show it doesn't in your demonstration. It will if you define it how you define it. I think most people take it as read that the wrist extension causes the club to pass the hands." I believe that the clubshaft is bypassing the left arm in the following image (as viewed from a face-on perspective) and it is entirely due to left forearm supination. I think that it is impossible to claim that the clubshaft has not bypassed my left arm in image 1 - considering the "fact" that the clubshaft was straight-in-line with my left arm when I started the demonstration at the simulated P7 position - see the 59:05 minute time point in this part 7 video at youtu.be/MzW3eCrM5KU . As I demonstrate in the video, there are two causes of clubshaft bypassing the left arm during the P7 => P7.2 time period - i) left wrist extension and ii) left forearm supination (presuming that the accumulator #3 angle is sufficiently large). DC Guest also wrote-: " The third point you make about supination only causing the club to rotate is incorrect. It is a fluid, compound action whose effects aren't isolated." I think that left forearm supination between P7 and P7.2 is an individual biomechanical action that will cause the clubshaft to bypass the left arm due to angulation of the club - with the amount of angulation being greater if the accumulator #3 angle is greater. The amount the handle twists around its longitudinal axis per unit amount of clubhead travel along the clubhead arc during his time period is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the accumulator #3 angle. Jeff. p.s. I rarely along guests to post and I routinely delete posts by guests. I would therefore encourage DC guest to register as a new forum member if he wants to ensure that his future posts are not deleted.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 25, 2017 6:38:03 GMT -5
Response to DC's post above. If 'negative' beta torque (as defined and explained by Manzella in this video below) is applied between P4 and P6 , won't it shallow out the clubshaft plane not steepen it? He advises against positive beta torque as that will cause an OTT move. I don't think about beta torques in my swing because by using a 'pitching right elbow move', this shallows the club for me, while my right wrist ('right arm flying wedge') supports my 'Left Arm Flying Wedge' while keeping it 'On Plane' (ie. tracing the base plane line). I thought alpha torque changes the accumulator #3 angle? vimeo.com/121990372DB, Alpha torque is an in-plane torque and it changes the accumulator #3 angle when the intact LAFW is parallel to the inclined plane between P4 and P6, but any alpha torque applied at impact is being applied perpendicular to the intact LAFW and it will disrupt the intact LAFW alignment if it causes left wrist bending. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 25, 2017 18:24:58 GMT -5
Seems like the thread on Golfwrx has been deleted (must have been something I said). To be honest, the tone of the thread was becoming hijacked by several posters trying to stir up personal attacks than adding any value to the debate. Hopefully Dr Phil Cheetham will still post his data for all to see.
ps. Some posters found the debate very interesting and said they had learned quite a lot (I certainly have).
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 25, 2017 18:59:41 GMT -5
Seems like the thread on Golfwrx has been deleted (must have been something I said). To be honest, the tone of the thread was becoming hijacked by several posters trying to stir up personal attacks than adding any value to the debate. Hopefully Dr Phil Cheetham will still post his data for all to see. ps. Some posters found the debate very interesting and said they had learned quite a lot (I certainly have). I am not surprised that the GolfWRX thread has been deleted and you are certainly not the cause of the deletion. Every GolfWRX thread that involves me (even if tangentially) has eventually been deleted and I think that a major reason is that they hate to have to deal with my contrary viewpoints and my relentless criticism of their general ignorance regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I never cease to be amazed at how ignorant many of the GolfWRX forum members are when it comes to a basic understanding of golf swing biomechanics/mechanics and how resistant they are to first studying, and then subsequently critiquing, alternative viewpoints. For example, I have no problem if they disagree with my thinking regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics, but I find it totally inexcusable when they boorishly trash my opinions without ever first making an attempt to actually understand my personal opinions. The GolfWRX forum member, bph7, is a major transgressor in this regard, and he never showed any interest in even trying to understand my personal perspective. He even admitted once in a GolfWRX thread post that he didn't know what's a drive-hold hand release action and then he immediately stated that he didn't even care! He constantly tried to ridicule me, and he never made a serious intellectual attempt to try to understand why I have a different personal perspective (relative to him) regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. His attitude was simply to win an argument - rather than making a serious attempt to better understand an alternative way to think about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I don't mind if bph7 disagrees with my thinking re: DH-versus-non-DH hand release actions, but he should have at least attempted to first undertand my thinking. However, the true reality is that his posting behaviour is not unusual at GolfWRX and it is very typical of the partisan ideological thinking of many Golf WRX forum members, who simply demonstrate no interest in intellectually understanding alternative viewpoints that are very different to their partisan ideological viewpoints. Some of the GolfWRX forum members, like Monte Scheinblum, are so intellectually disinterested in an in-depth discussion about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics, that they never even attempt to muster a counterargument based on some level of intellectual reasoning. They, instead, only indulge in uncivilized ad hominem insults (like talking about "laying pipe"), which is astonishly crude, and which doesn't advance any golfer's understanding of golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 25, 2017 20:58:06 GMT -5
I couldn't understand why Iteach didn't ask his student to swing that 3 Wood without a ball and maybe just missing the turf. To then check if that 'plateau' area still existed in the 3D AMM graph trace. But it seemed more like a 'team effort' to protect the integrity of the 3D AMM system rather than a search for the 'truth'. It won't do them or the golfing industry any favours in the long term if the 3D AMM system is found to be inadequate to model what is really happening in a large section of pga pros (ie. Drive Holders).
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 26, 2017 14:25:55 GMT -5
I couldn't understand why Iteach didn't ask his student to swing that 3 Wood without a ball and maybe just missing the turf. To then check if that 'plateau' area still existed in the 3D AMM graph trace. But it seemed more like a 'team effort' to protect the integrity of the 3D AMM system rather than a search for the 'truth'. It won't do them or the golfing industry any favours in the long term if the 3D AMM system is found to be inadequate to model what is really happening in a large section of pga pros (ie. Drive Holders). I am not surprised if Dan Carraher decides not to pursue that investigative option because he is not really open-minded and constantly trying to better his understanding of golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I think that he is a close-minded golf instructor, who has many deficiencies in his understanding of golf swing biomechanics. For example, in his last post in the GolfWRX thread he stated that the clubface can never be square to the clubhead arc between P7 and P7.2 and he also stated that there is no such thing as a "no-roll" subtype of DH-hand release action! Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 27, 2017 7:53:53 GMT -5
Actually, there was an older thread created in Jan 2017 relating to your 'How To Swing Like A PGA Tour player' video and I just added my opinion as to why the other thread was deleted . As soon as I did that , they deleted the thread again! I suspect it was my comment that '3D AMM' data integrity could be questioned and this could have repercussions on the marketing and trustworthiness of the system from a golf instruction perspective. In the end , these GOLFWRX forums are all about advertising, marketing and trying to 'fish' for golfers (especially hackers) to buy into their 'expert' golf instruction. The 'pros' post comments that seem intuitive at the time without any evidence to back their claims but mostly addressing symptoms rather than root causes. I've requested de-registration from GOLFWRX and 'THE SANDTRAP' as it seems to be a pointless recycling of issues/comments (like a golfing 'Groundhog Day' ).
|
|