|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Dec 30, 2018 13:17:42 GMT -5
Dr Mann
I've spent many hours reading through Mr Allen's papers and have found many of his statements very confusing.
He doesn't explain biomechancially the reasoning for the 4 different type of DSI planes that he's categorised for 'Tour /Long distance driver' players.
He says that players with strong grips need more body turn??? Now that did confuse me at first , but I am assuming he thinks that the human lead arm tends to move into a neutral position approaching impact , with the back of the lead hand facing the target. That if one uses a strong grip , one would need to 'offset' the tendency of the lead arm/forearm to become neutral by using more body turn (pelvis and upper torso) to prevent premature closing of the clubface into/through impact.
He has produced lots of 'snips' of players showing what he calls an h-axis transition power action (especially from P4-P5) but he hasn't gone into much detail (biomechanically) explaining exactly how this is achieved . Some of those h-axis snips are for Jamie Sadlowski , where you have gone into much greater detail explaining the biomechanics in your Tyler Ferrell Topic 5 critical review.
Unsure, but maybe Ben Allen is inferring something similar to your statement below:
" I also stated that the the targetwards motion of the left shoulder socket between P4 and P5 can depress (lower) the left arm if the left arm is angled upwards to the 11 - 12 o'clock position at the P4 position. However, I now increasingly suspect that the left and right shoulder girdle muscles play a much more important role. Also, I now think that the downward component of the PA#4 release phenomenon is much more important in generating clubhead speed than the horizontal component, which represents a new development in my thinking regarding how to optimise the "release of PA#4" in order to maximise swing power".
From what I've read so far, he thinks Tour players are using the 'downward component' of PA#4 release to stress the clubshaft (positive torque - lag?) until release, which he mentions as occurring when forward shaft bend (negative torque) starts to occur. Not sure about the latter because I don't think release of PA#2 only happens when there is negative torque.
He is obviously more interested in re-engineering what he terms the 'modern swing' to prevent back strain in the lumbar region but I have found his alternative BAD SLAP/SNAP golf action ideas quite strange without any supporting evidence (from a biomechanical or even a physics perspective) that provides any logical reasoning. In fact , the BAD SLAP action seems very similar to Jack Kuykendall's ideas regarding the 'powering' of the golf swing using lever action but with a 'bent left/right arm' (with obvious differences in setup and grip, use of the bent left arm, arm/hand release actions). Both BAD SLAP and Kuykendall's 'Lever Power' type swings used minimal pelvic/upper body rotation and both are using decreasing swing radius to explain the increase in clubhead speed (see video below from 3:32 onwards).
Although the physics of decreasing circles (ie. in the video below 3:32 onwards) make some sort of sense on how clubhead speed can be increased, both have not taken into the account biological/physiological findings that states the golf swing needs about 30 lbs of muscle.
*** addendum I was incorrect about saying Kuykendall has not taken into account the above relating to 30 lbs of muscle. In fact, he has 'theorised' that the muscles in the arms contain enough 'fast twitch' types to outweigh the need for the use of bigger muscles (ie. legs/mid & upper torso). I haven't seen any scientific proof to back that claim but I know from my own personal experience, that I cannot generate more clubhead speed with just triceps 'leverage' vs utilising hand speed/path to evoke ''Pseudo- CF ' forces.*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Tutelman's website
Muscle energy
If classical scientific-method physics (Jorgensen's approach) doesn't satisfy you, how about biology and physiology?
Coming into impact, a golf club's kinetic energy is based on its mass and speed. It gets there from zero kinetic energy during the time of the downswing, less than half a second. This implies that the muscles have to put out a certain amount of power for half a second. Physiologists know how much power a muscle can provide for a short burst (say, half a second).
When this fairly simple calculation is cranked through, the answer is that over 30 pounds of muscle mass is needed to impart that energy to the golf club. This is muscle that is engaged in generating motion, and does not include muscle used to stabilize the body in the golf swing posture. The 30-pound number has come up consistently in quite a few separate studies aimed at this question.
There isn't anywhere near that much muscle in the forearms, hands, and wrists, so they can't be the major driving force of the swing. You need the big muscles -- the legs, thighs, torso, and shoulders -- to create that much power. That verifies that the clubhead's energy comes from body rotation, not hand torque. But it doesn't unambiguously point to centrifugal force as the enabler.
But we should be able to compute the clubhead speed that would result if we only used body rotation and not centrifugal force. Without any velocity at impact from uncocking the wrist, just from body rotation, we get only about two thirds the clubhead speed that a good swing actually accomplishes. So we need centrifugal force because:
We know the bulk of the power comes from body rotation.
We know that body rotation without wrist-uncock velocity gives a third less clubhead speed.
In order for body rotation to generate wrist-uncock velocity, we need centrifugal force -- because the small muscles in the hands and forearms can't generate that much power.
-----------------------------------------------------
Therefore it seems improbable that sole use of the arms can power the golf swing.
Ben Allen's re-engineered 'BAD SLAP' includes a GRIP recommendation that promotes dynamic movement of the club shaft into the webbing between thumb and index fingers during transition. Imho , that just doesn't make logical sense to allow the clubshaft to move around within one's palms and will increase the risk of inconsistencies.
He positions the ball off the big toe of the right foot , and he is promoting a full roll hand release action with the centre of the golf swing 'seemingly ' being the right elbow fixed to the right hip. But again , he doesn't offer any explanation on how to square the club by impact and he is making an assumption that 'it will just happen' with practice.
I've tried his BAD SLAP slowly and found it very uncomfortable and unnatural to perform . I can imagine putting a lot of jarring action on my right elbow/wrist plus excessive extension pressure on my left wrist because of rolling action (almost circumduction action) at/through impact , especially at high speed .
Look forward to your own critical review if you deem it worthwhile.
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 30, 2018 17:11:50 GMT -5
I have spent some time looking at Ben Allen's articles and I also have communicated with him via e-mail a number of times. I personally find his idiosyncratic ideas unscientific and without practical utility. He is a fierce critic of TGM ideology because he believes it to be unsupported by any scientific evidence. However, I actually think that his personal opinions are even less scientific, and I am no longer studying his work.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jan 8, 2019 23:08:16 GMT -5
There is one paper below by Ben Allen Jnr that has 'troubled me' because I can 'imagine' some sort of abstract connection with the Ryke effect. "Reengineering 11: centripetal acceleration in the golf swing" Both Kevin Ryan and Ben Allen Jnr have intimated that a smaller conical radius of the clubhead path can increase the clubheads linear velocity. Kevin Ryan says the maths is very complex (and has not found a mathematician to prove anything yet) while Ben Allen's explanation seems incredibly simple. Although what is being discussed by Ben Allen Jnr and Ryke are completely unconnected , I seem to see a vague connection (I am probably completely wrong!) ------------------------------------------------------------ Example from Ben Allen Jnr paper above: "When the force represented by the arrow is acting alone, the arrow can forecast the position of the object, the club head, after a particular interval of time. One could think of the force as a push or a pull with the arrow telling how hard and in what direction. When more than one force is acting on a club head, each one can be represented by an arrow, and the arrows can be positioned to reveal the effect of the two forces. Think of the green part of the circle as the second half of the down swing ." My translation: Two instantaneous force vectors , wg is the force created by a torque at hub 'ha', while 'cf' is the centripetal force via tension of the clubshaft. The resultant instantaneous vector is 'fg'"But do observe that fg, the diagonal, is longer than wg. Such is the case for every point on the club head path as a golfer constrains it to an arc through his lower down swing. The arrows reveal the mechanism by which travel on a circular path accelerates the club head. As the club head progresses from point to point as it traverses its circular path, each fg becomes a wg at the next point in line and drives the club head to a higher velocity. The real-world result is a burst of club head speed. Note that forcing the club head to travel a circular path is the action that accelerates the club head – not an active input of energy via a positive energy input to drive angular acceleration by a move the golfer makes." ------------------ Note the bolded sentence . Isn't that similar to the Ryke effect? The clubhead's original inertia while in the 'Double Pendulum Plane' is used (by the pitching of the lead arm) to create a torque around the axis of the lead forearm that converts the clubhead path to that of a conical pendulum (which looks like a circle from an above view). Now the complicated bit is trying to visualise the forward bend of the shaft which will remain in the same direction when it was created in the 'Double Pendulum Plane' (Tutelman proved by experiment that the forward bend of the shaft does not rotate with the shaft) while the Ryke effect is evoked to square the clubface . Now If I stretched my imagination even further, the resultant force vector 'fg' is getting larger and adding to the clubheads linear velocity until its direction is aligned with the forward bend of the shaft . Then I am guessing that 'torque' at hub 'ha' caused by the Ryke effect might not be enough to keep up with the clubheads angular velocity. The clubhead is moving too fast for the 'Ryke effect' torque to add any more linear speed. I have no evidence to prove any of my imaginations above. DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 9, 2019 10:13:11 GMT -5
There is one paper below by Ben Allen Jnr that has 'troubled me' because I can 'imagine' some sort of abstract connection with the Ryke effect. "Reengineering 11: centripetal acceleration in the golf swing" Both Kevin Ryan and Ben Allen Jnr have intimated that a smaller conical radius of the clubhead path can increase the clubheads linear velocity. Kevin Ryan says the maths is very complex (and has not found a mathematician to prove anything yet) while Ben Allen's explanation seems incredibly simple. Although what is being discussed by Ben Allen Jnr and Ryke are completely unconnected , I seem to see a vague connection (I am probably completely wrong!) ------------------------------------------------------------ Example from Ben Allen Jnr paper above: "When the force represented by the arrow is acting alone, the arrow can forecast the position of the object, the club head, after a particular interval of time. One could think of the force as a push or a pull with the arrow telling how hard and in what direction. When more than one force is acting on a club head, each one can be represented by an arrow, and the arrows can be positioned to reveal the effect of the two forces. Think of the green part of the circle as the second half of the down swing ." My translation: Two instantaneous force vectors , wg is the force created by a torque at hub 'ha', while 'cf' is the centripetal force via tension of the clubshaft. The resultant instantaneous vector is 'fg'"But do observe that fg, the diagonal, is longer than wg. Such is the case for every point on the club head path as a golfer constrains it to an arc through his lower down swing. The arrows reveal the mechanism by which travel on a circular path accelerates the club head. As the club head progresses from point to point as it traverses its circular path, each fg becomes a wg at the next point in line and drives the club head to a higher velocity. The real-world result is a burst of club head speed. Note that forcing the club head to travel a circular path is the action that accelerates the club head – not an active input of energy via a positive energy input to drive angular acceleration by a move the golfer makes." ------------------ Note the bolded sentence . Isn't that similar to the Ryke effect? The clubhead's original inertia while in the 'Double Pendulum Plane' is used (by the pitching of the lead arm) to create a torque around the axis of the lead forearm that converts the clubhead path to that of a conical pendulum (which looks like a circle from an above view). Now the complicated bit is trying to visualise the forward bend of the shaft which will remain in the same direction when it was created in the 'Double Pendulum Plane' (Tutelman proved by experiment that the forward bend of the shaft does not rotate with the shaft) while the Ryke effect is evoked to square the clubface . Now If I stretched my imagination even further, the resultant force vector 'fg' is getting larger and adding to the clubheads linear velocity until its direction is aligned with the forward bend of the shaft . Then I am guessing that 'torque' at hub 'ha' caused by the Ryke effect might not be enough to keep up with the clubheads angular velocity. The clubhead is moving too fast for the 'Ryke effect' torque to add any more linear speed. I have no evidence to prove any of my imaginations above. DG That Ben Allen example seems to be an alternative way of explaining the release of PA#2 (rather than using the D'Alembert principle) which is an in-plane motion (as seen in an Iron Byron golf club testing machine). The RYKE effect is an off-plane force that converts the in-plane motion of a double pendulum swing motion into a conical pendular motion, and I therefore presume that the explanation cannot be similar. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jan 26, 2019 6:31:03 GMT -5
Dr Mann
Will you be working on any new theories/articles this year?
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 26, 2019 10:03:01 GMT -5
Dr Mann Will you be working on any new theories/articles this year? DG I don't try to invent new theories and I only try to better understand the golf swing biomechanics/mechanics of skilled pro golfers. I think that I have a very good understanding at present, so I don't expect to invent radically new insights, but I do hope to refine/revise my present-day insights. I am presently writing a new review paper where I will be analysing the opinions expressed by the presenters at Michael Finney's Golf Swing Kinetics Seminar. See - vimeo.com/251240309Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 4, 2019 21:41:56 GMT -5
I have been communicating with Ben Allen to try and understand the physics he uses to back up his re-engineered golf actions. But unfortunately , the way he uses physics does not make sense to me. My last communication between us is below and will probably be my last.
-------------------------------- Reply From Ben Allen
Thanks for the follow up question. I recognize the "muscle statement" from as I recall from "The Search for the Perfect Swing". The assumptions that support it are erroneous, and interestingly have carried over to some of the modern 3-D analysis programs such as the Jacobs 3D one. The flaw is considering that the displacements of the club head result from real-time forces applied by the golfer with his hands. The reality is that "loading the shaft", bending it, through transition and into the upper down swing establishes elastic deformation as potential energy that when released will power all of the down swing to follow. Once released club head momentum drives the swing and the radius of the club head path through the lower down swing has a linear functional relationship to centripetal, angular, acceleration.
I discussed the confusion encountered by readers of the centripetal acceleration report with John Gerring, a PGA Hall of Fame member, who has served as a referee for all the reports online. He said that he did not understand the report until I offered a practical example, but afterwards it was clear. My example was so elementary that I was concerned that it would insult readers' intelligence: Consider the club to be a car, a stretch limousine if you wish, and the front wheels to be analogous to a golfer's hands - they serve to guide the path of the car or the butt of the club by analogy. If the rear of the car is analogous to the club head, the goal becomes to make the tail spin out as quickly as possible. Then the effect of a sharp turn versus a more gradual one becomes obvious on the basis of common experience. Wikipedia has good information on the physics of circular motion if one has the background in calculus needed to be comfortable with it.
Regards -----------------------------------------
From: "P SMITH" To: blallenjr@charter.net Cc: Sent: Monday February 4 2019 5:42:54AM Subject: Re: fr:BenAllen
Dear Ben
Many thanks for the reply and for the attachments.
There is one burning issue that means one may have no choice but to utilise some of the 'modern golf swing' actions and that is based on the 'work' (from a Physics perspective) required to swing a golf club at high speed.
What do you think of this statement below?
"Coming into impact, a golf club's kinetic energy is based on its mass and speed. It gets there from zero kinetic energy during the time of the downswing, less than half a second. This implies that the muscles have to put out a certain amount of power for half a second. Physiologists know how much power a muscle can provide for a short burst (say, half a second).
When this fairly simple calculation is cranked through, the answer is that over 30 pounds of muscle mass is needed to impart that energy to the golf club. This is muscle that is engaged in generating motion, and does not include muscle used to stabilize the body in the golf swing posture. The 30-pound number has come up consistently in quite a few separate studies aimed at this question.
There isn't anywhere near that much muscle in the forearms, hands, and wrists, so they can't be the major driving force of the swing. You need the big muscles -- the legs, thighs, torso, and shoulders -- to create that much power. That verifies that the clubhead's energy comes from body rotation, not hand torque"
To all intents and purposes, it seem that modern golf swing techniques using bigger muscles in the body to create clubhead speed (rather than those just used to move the arms/wrists) is to some degree a necessity. How we limit strain on the spine while we use the bigger muscles is obviously the best of both worlds.
------------------------------------------------
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 5, 2019 1:31:31 GMT -5
I have been communicating with Ben Allen to try and understand the physics he uses to back up his re-engineered golf actions. But unfortunately , the way he uses physics does not make sense to me. My last communication between us is below and will probably be my last. -------------------------------- Reply From Ben Allen Thanks for the follow up question. I recognize the "muscle statement" from as I recall from "The Search for the Perfect Swing". The assumptions that support it are erroneous, and interestingly have carried over to some of the modern 3-D analysis programs such as the Jacobs 3D one. The flaw is considering that the displacements of the club head result from real-time forces applied by the golfer with his hands. The reality is that "loading the shaft", bending it, through transition and into the upper down swing establishes elastic deformation as potential energy that when released will power all of the down swing to follow. Once released club head momentum drives the swing and the radius of the club head path through the lower down swing has a linear functional relationship to centripetal, angular, acceleration. I discussed the confusion encountered by readers of the centripetal acceleration report with John Gerring, a PGA Hall of Fame member, who has served as a referee for all the reports online. He said that he did not understand the report until I offered a practical example, but afterwards it was clear. My example was so elementary that I was concerned that it would insult readers' intelligence: Consider the club to be a car, a stretch limousine if you wish, and the front wheels to be analogous to a golfer's hands - they serve to guide the path of the car or the butt of the club by analogy. If the rear of the car is analogous to the club head, the goal becomes to make the tail spin out as quickly as possible. Then the effect of a sharp turn versus a more gradual one becomes obvious on the basis of common experience. Wikipedia has good information on the physics of circular motion if one has the background in calculus needed to be comfortable with it. Regards ----------------------------------------- From: "P SMITH" To: blallenjr@charter.net Cc: Sent: Monday February 4 2019 5:42:54AM Subject: Re: fr:BenAllen Dear Ben Many thanks for the reply and for the attachments. There is one burning issue that means one may have no choice but to utilise some of the 'modern golf swing' actions and that is based on the 'work' (from a Physics perspective) required to swing a golf club at high speed. What do you think of this statement below? "Coming into impact, a golf club's kinetic energy is based on its mass and speed. It gets there from zero kinetic energy during the time of the downswing, less than half a second. This implies that the muscles have to put out a certain amount of power for half a second. Physiologists know how much power a muscle can provide for a short burst (say, half a second). When this fairly simple calculation is cranked through, the answer is that over 30 pounds of muscle mass is needed to impart that energy to the golf club. This is muscle that is engaged in generating motion, and does not include muscle used to stabilize the body in the golf swing posture. The 30-pound number has come up consistently in quite a few separate studies aimed at this question. There isn't anywhere near that much muscle in the forearms, hands, and wrists, so they can't be the major driving force of the swing. You need the big muscles -- the legs, thighs, torso, and shoulders -- to create that much power. That verifies that the clubhead's energy comes from body rotation, not hand torque" To all intents and purposes, it seem that modern golf swing techniques using bigger muscles in the body to create clubhead speed (rather than those just used to move the arms/wrists) is to some degree a necessity. How we limit strain on the spine while we use the bigger muscles is obviously the best of both worlds. ------------------------------------------------ DG BA wrote-: " The reality is that "loading the shaft", bending it, through transition and into the upper down swing establishes elastic deformation as potential energy that when released will power all of the down swing to follow" The concept of "establishing elastic deformation as potential energy" that can power the clubshaft's motion during the later downswing makes no sense to me. I am not surprised that you are thinking of stopping any further communication with him. When communicating with him, I discovered that he ridicules TGM concepts without really understanding them and I thought that his personal concepts were irrational, so I personally stopped communicating with him. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 31, 2019 6:46:35 GMT -5
Dr Mann Although I think Ben Allen Jnr has made errors in the physics of the golf swing (especially his re-engineered swing concepts) , I found a few of his articles about 'horizontal-axis-shoulders- action' quite interesting . www.academia.edu/33539349/Reengineering_9_Power_Action_Mechanics_-_horizontal_axis_tactics_with_focus_on_shouldersDo you have any opinions regarding his claim that there is no contribution from the body rotation in powering the downswing from P4 - P5 for PGA Tour players? Quote By Ben Allen in his article. "The author, to the present time, has not found any Tour player who does not include a horizontal-axis-shoulders-action in his/her swing mechanics, nor a recreational golfer who does." Ben Allen Summary Summary: • The horizontal-axis-shoulders-action is the mechanism by which the modern-swing-golfer powers his swing. • The H-axis-shoulders-action requires stable body support but does not incorporate any tactic of body rotation except for that needed to position the hands for the down-swing-kinematic-sequence. • If any Tour player has recognized the H-axis-shoulders action as his power action independent from body rotation, he has failed at any effective communication effort. DG PS. Here is his original article with his basic description of the 'horizontal -axis-shoulder -action' www.academia.edu/37655758/horizontal-axis-shoulders-action_basic_description
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 31, 2019 21:58:54 GMT -5
Dr Mann Although I think Ben Allen Jnr has made errors in the physics of the golf swing (especially his re-engineered swing concepts) , I found a few of his articles about 'horizontal-axis-shoulders- action' quite interesting . www.academia.edu/33539349/Reengineering_9_Power_Action_Mechanics_-_horizontal_axis_tactics_with_focus_on_shouldersDo you have any opinions regarding his claim that there is no contribution from the body rotation in powering the downswing from P4 - P5 for PGA Tour players? Quote By Ben Allen in his article. "The author, to the present time, has not found any Tour player who does not include a horizontal-axis-shoulders-action in his/her swing mechanics, nor a recreational golfer who does." Ben Allen Summary Summary: • The horizontal-axis-shoulders-action is the mechanism by which the modern-swing-golfer powers his swing. • The H-axis-shoulders-action requires stable body support but does not incorporate any tactic of body rotation except for that needed to position the hands for the down-swing-kinematic-sequence. • If any Tour player has recognized the H-axis-shoulders action as his power action independent from body rotation, he has failed at any effective communication effort. DG PS. Here is his original article with his basic description of the 'horizontal -axis-shoulder -action' www.academia.edu/37655758/horizontal-axis-shoulders-action_basic_descriptionI disagree with his reasoning because right upper arm adduction is only partly responsible for the release of PA#4 by producing the downward component of the release of PA#4. However, the left arm does not only move downwards during the release of PA#4, and it also moves targetwards due to the targetwards motion of the left shoulder socket. Although the targetwards motion of the left shoulder socket between P4 and P5 is due to a counterclockwise rotation of the upper torso, a good kinematic sequence has the lower body (pelvis) moving first. By first rotating the pelvis counterclockwise between P4 and P5, it causes a counterclockwise rotation of the lumbar spine, which is biomechanically connected to the thoracic spine, and it makes it easier to then rotate the thoracic spine and upper torso secondarily. Most importantly, if the pelvis rotates first and faster than the upper torso between P4 and P5.5, it makes it biomechanically easier for a TGM swinger to acquire secondary axis tilt and right lateral bend, which is very beneficial with respect to allowing for a clubshaft-shallowing action and an in-to-out clubhead path. If the pelvis didn't rotate first and the upper torso does most of the counterclockwise pivot-rotation between P4 and P5, then the shoulders would rotate too horizontally producing an OTT move and an out-to-in clubhead path. From a swing power perspective, an OTT move type of downswing action can produce as much pivot-induced swing power as the standard kinematic sequence (pelvis first => upper torso second), but it is very difficult to hit the ball straight if the clubhead path is out-to-in secondary to an OTT-move golf swing action. Virtually all pro golfers have an in-to-out clubhead path during their downswing action and starting the kinematic sequence with a pelvic rotation that induces secondary axis tilt and right lateral bend (combined with a right elbow pitch motion) makes this in-to-out clubhead path phenomenon possible. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Aug 1, 2019 5:22:55 GMT -5
Dr Mann Many thanks for this . I think the proof of what you say is shown in the Jamie Sadlowski swing from P4-P5 perfectgolfswingreview.net/SadEarlyDownswing.jpgIf he is using an upper body pivot to move his left shoulder joint targetwards (from a face one view) , then I am assuming he is also rotating that left shoulder joint in a plane that is perpendicular to the axis of the thoracic spine? If yes to my statement above, then should a top view of JS's swing from P4-P5 show that left shoulder joint moving in a curved path? I think the answer is in the middle image shown below where one can clearly see that JS's left shoulder is rotating in a curved path from P4-P5 (ie. T - USD1 using Ben Allen's terminology). html1-f.scribdassets.com/2lbktvxlkw6mdzta/images/5-ad8e49faf6.jpgMany thanks again Dr Mann DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 1, 2019 9:10:57 GMT -5
Dr Mann Many thanks for this . I think the proof of what you say is shown in the Jamie Sadlowski swing from P4-P5 perfectgolfswingreview.net/SadEarlyDownswing.jpgIf he is using an upper body pivot to move his left shoulder joint targetwards (from a face one view) , then I am assuming he is also rotating that left shoulder joint in a plane that is perpendicular to the axis of the thoracic spine? If yes to my statement above, then should a top view of JS's swing from P4-P5 show that left shoulder joint moving in a curved path? I think the answer is in the middle image shown below where one can clearly see that JS's left shoulder is rotating in a curved path from P4-P5 (ie. T - USD1 using Ben Allen's terminology). html1-f.scribdassets.com/2lbktvxlkw6mdzta/images/5-ad8e49faf6.jpgMany thanks again Dr Mann DG Here are the capture images of Jamie Sadlowski between P4 and P5. The shoulders are rotating roughly perpendicular to his upper thoracic spine during the P4 => P5 time period, and the left shoulder socket's path will look slightly curved when viewed from a birds-eye viewing perspective.
Note how much his hands have dropped groundwards during this time period because of his right arm adduction action. Although the movement of the left shoulder socket towards the target is pulling the left upper arm along with it, there has not been any left arm abduction motion happening yet, and that mainly happens after P5. The release of PA#4 (which reaches its peak speed between P5.5 and P6.5) is due to the combined effects of left arm depression (due to right arm adduction) + left arm abduction (due to left shoulder socket motion in a targetwards direction, which subsequently catapults the left arm away from the chest wall). Left arm depression is the major component between P4 and P5 because Jamie starts with "high hands" at P4. However, I think that it is irrational for Ben Allen to claim that upper torso rotation, which moves the left shoulder targetwards, does not contribute to the swing power involved in the release of PA#4 in a TGM swinger.
By the way, here is a one-armed golfer driving the ball >300 yards without any rear arm.
That is a perfect example of a "pure" TGM swinging action where the power to release PA#4 is derived mainly from the torso rotation that moves the lead shoulder socket, combined with some assistance from the lead shoulder girdle muscles.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Aug 4, 2019 7:45:04 GMT -5
Dr Mann
Looking at the swing of that one armed golfer, isn't he a 'one-planer' (like Bryson DeChambeau)?
So is a 'pure' TGM swinging action only constrained to a 'one-plane ' downswing golf technique? Where the clubshafts downswing plane (and intact LFFW) is perpendicular to the axis of the thoracic spine?
DG
PS. It looks like the 'Edit' function when I reply to posts does not allow me to insert images and videos anymore (although I am allowed to paste url links)
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 4, 2019 13:49:57 GMT -5
Dr Mann Looking at the swing of that one armed golfer, isn't he a 'one-planer' (like Bryson DeChambeau)? So is a 'pure' TGM swinging action only constrained to a 'one-plane ' downswing golf technique? Where the clubshafts downswing plane (and intact LFFW) is perpendicular to the axis of the thoracic spine? DG PS. It looks like the 'Edit' function when I reply to posts does not allow me to insert images and videos anymore (although I am allowed to paste url links) I think that he shallows the clubshaft between P4 and P6 so that gets down to the elbow plane by P6. Jeff. p.s. There should be no reason why you cannot post images/videos when you write, or edit, any post - using the toggle buttons above. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Aug 4, 2019 14:17:09 GMT -5
Dr Mann Looking at the swing of that one armed golfer, isn't he a 'one-planer' (like Bryson DeChambeau)? So is a 'pure' TGM swinging action only constrained to a 'one-plane ' downswing golf technique? Where the clubshafts downswing plane (and intact LFFW) is perpendicular to the axis of the thoracic spine? DG PS. It looks like the 'Edit' function when I reply to posts does not allow me to insert images and videos anymore (although I am allowed to paste url links) I think that he shallows the clubshaft between P4 and P6 so that gets down to the elbow plane by P6. Jeff. p.s. There should be no reason why you cannot post images/videos when you write, or edit, any post - using the toggle buttons above. Jeff. Many thanks Dr Mann It seems to be a problem with Google Chrome because when I use 'Opera' browser , I can see the toggle buttons. Even the 'Add Attachment' button doesn't seem to work anymore using 'Chrome'. DG I've just attached a screenprint of what I see in 'Edit' mode using Google Chrome browser. PS. I've just fixed the problem by resetting my Chrome Browser to its original settings. Must be some 'add-on' that caused the issue. Yes , it is 'Trusteer Rapport' add-on which is the problem . So all fixed now.
|
|