|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 5, 2010 1:17:52 GMT -5
Brian is now selling access to 6 hours of taped video of his Anti-Summit for $100. I paid my $100 and I have viewed all the material.
This is my biased opinion.
The price is fair for ~ 6 hours of material. The quality of the video production is excellent. It is a lot cheaper, and therefore much better value for money, than the $250 payed by attendees.
I am now very happy that I didn't waste $250 going to the Anti-Summit. It would have driven me crazy to be there "live" in attendance.
Brian actually did a good job moderating the Anti-summit and he covered the expected topics.
The quality of the "experts" opinions was much worse than I ever anticipated. There was only a minimal amount of "science" presented at the Anti-summit, and it was virtually only related to the topic of the ball-clubface interaction. The rest of the discussion was simply non-science - the same kind of biased personal opinions expressed by forum members (including me) on golf forums.
Paul Wood's only contribution was related to discussions of the PingMan machine. He never contributed to any discussion regarding golf swing swing mechanics/biomechanics, which is understandable considering his background.
Rob Neal's limited knowledge regarding many of the topics shocked me. He was clueless about TGM and many basic topics eg. swinging versus hitting, release phenomenon.
Aaron Zick's main contribution related to his 2-D model using two torque generators, which I think has little utility with respect to understanding the power mechanics of a "real life" golf swing. He also talked about other topics - and I thought that his ideas were amazingly amateurish (eg. pivot center behind the upper back, swinging "on plane" from above-below the plane, hinging actions).
Brian obviously had his own agenda, which was to push his personal opinions regarding many golf swing topics. He easily succeeded because there was no opposition. It was a one-man show. The audience seemed to ask few questions, and most of the questions were insigificant and there was no deep discussions regarding golf swing mechanics/biomechanics.
I was astonished to discover that there was not a single attendee who expressed an opinion that demonstrated even a basic knowledge of the TGM system. Brian and Aaron made so many errors regarding any discussion that could be said to be related to TGM, that the TGM literalists would weep.
I don't know if there is any value starting any threads relating to discussions that occurred at the Anti-Summit, because I already have such a bad reputation for attacking BM's opinions. I will give this matter some thought. If other forum members view the video of the Anti-Summit, and want to discuss certain topics/comments, I am sure that I will be willing to contribute by expressing my personal opinions regarding that topic.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by wedgey on Dec 5, 2010 1:41:50 GMT -5
Doesn't sound like it was worth $250 or even the $100. Was there even anything that was a big surprise and would change golf instruction as they said it would?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 5, 2010 2:39:08 GMT -5
Wedgey,
Not from my perspective.
However, I have been debating these issues for a long time, so I have considerable background knowledge. A novice golfer may learn a lot of useful stuff about ball-clubface interactions.
There was nothing "new" from my perspective regarding golf swing biomechanics - my main area of interest.
Jeff.
|
|
ef425
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by ef425 on Dec 5, 2010 11:50:18 GMT -5
In one of Brian's videos before the summit he said the first question on the floor would be "where should the weight be at impact."
I think most people would answer >80% on the leading side.
Was this discussed? Was there a surprising answer?
I'm still debating getting the video. I'm interested of course but is there something in there that will really lower my scores?
Emmett
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 5, 2010 12:16:17 GMT -5
Emmett,
That was discussed. Rob Neal actually did a good job of explaining why all the beliefs about the "correct" of amount of weight on the front foot (eg. 80%) are meaningless - because they are based on static weight, rather than dynamic weight. The issue of dynamic weight is very complex because one may be increasing dynamic weight on the front foot in the early downswing as one transfers weight from right-to-left, and then have less dynamic weight there at impact, because one is already rotating the torso inside-left. Also, he stated that there is considerable variability between different golfers, and different golf styles.
That's why I never discuss the magnitude of weight values for how much weight should be on the front foot versus back foot at the end-backswing position, and at impact.
The price of $100 is cheap - considering that there is ~6 hours of material. The stuff on ball-impact conditions etc. was excellent. I didn't think that the discussion regarding golf swing biomechanics was accurate or useful - but remember that I harbor many personally biased opinions regarding the topic of golf swing biomechanics.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by youngsiwalker on Dec 5, 2010 14:38:57 GMT -5
Jeff,
Thanks for the honest opinion jeff, i did wonder what the quality of discussion would be like when i saw brian being the boss over those 14 seconds.
I am Looking forward to the next ustream tommorow night (GMT)
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 5, 2010 14:51:49 GMT -5
Simon,
It is interesting how one can learn from someone even if one doesn't agree with that person's explanation.
I was watching segment 2 again today on the release timing phenomenon and I suddenly had a "Eureka!" experience when watching the video. They were talking about activating the release of PA#2 earlier via an active muscular motion (applying positive torque at wrist level) but they didn't explain how a golfer should perform this action biomechanically. I suddenly worked out in my mind how the biomechanics would work - and that's a "new" insight for me.
In that sense, this BM Anti-Summit video may turn out to be worth more than $100 for me. Even if one disagrees with certain explanations given by the "experts", it does provide a lot of discussion, which is always useful for deeply-analytical golfers.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by youngsiwalker on Dec 5, 2010 18:29:02 GMT -5
That is very true, I actually sometimes view brians videos as I do want to learn as much as i can, so your very correct.
That is great about the eureka moment regarding the release, will you be discussing this in the near future or building a paper review first, either way really look forward to reading/watching your findings.
Im still struggling with the swingers release so you may be sitting on a goldmine of information for me.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 5, 2010 19:59:55 GMT -5
Simon,
I am presently writing a review paper on the power mechanics of swinging, hitting and swing-hitting and my "new" insights will be expressed in that review paper.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 6, 2010 10:56:51 GMT -5
Kevin Shields wrote the following post in the BM-forum-: "why I'm a Manzellion for life. No BS, only stuff that is rooted in fact so I can sort through it and use it in teaching and playing without going down some dark tunnel and finding out later its junk."
He states that BM teaches only stuff that is rooted in "facts". I think that his belief is totally wrong. If you watch the Anti-Summit video, you can see that there are few "facts" - scientifically validated methods of executing a golf swing.
Brian did a very good job of asking many relevant question during the Anti-Summit. He specifically wanted the "expert panel" (with participatory help from audience members) to answer the following questions.
1) What is the optimum position of the arms at the end-backswing position - steeper than the shoulder turn angle, or across the shoulder turn angle?
2) How should one optimally start the transition in terms of moving the arms/club?
3) Which pivot action is better - a centralised pivot action or a rightwards pivot action where one can perform a "run-up" in the downswing action?
4) What is the optimum release time point and release pattern - a sweep release versus a late release?
5) How should one optimally power the swing - swinging versus hitting versus swing-hitting?
6) How should one optimally perform a followthrough action?
Not one of these questions was answered in terms of "facts" (scientifically validated evidence or biomechanically sound logic). The end-result is that Brian, like most golf instructors (and the author of this post), harbors personal opinions regarding these questions. Those personal opinions do not constitute a "fact-based" swing methodological teaching approach.
At the Anti-Summit, Brian bemoaned the fact that there has been no "new" scientific insights in the field of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics during the last 40 years - since the publication of the "Search for the Perfect Swing" book and the TGM book. I agree with Brian.
To learn more about the golf swing in a scientific sense, we would have to perform the "correct" type of research - and that requires the use of i) pressure sensors in the clubshaft at PP#2, PP#1 and PP#3 combined with ii) EMG probes in many muscles, both time-coordinated with motion analysis study data.
After watching the videos for a second time, I have become increasingly convinced, that in the absence of scientific evidence, that certain TGM concepts are invaluable. From my perspective, the most useful mental TGM concept is the concept of the LAFW and the supportive role of the RFFW. The next most useful mental concept is the PA loading/release concept - which forces one to think in a coherent manner of how one can mechanically/biomechanically power the swing. It has to happen via the mechanism of PA loading and release.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 6, 2010 19:34:52 GMT -5
Here is an example of the type of irrational reasoning used by AZ at the Anti-Summit.
He was trying to show the difference between TGM swinging and TGM hitting. To demonstrate TGM hitting, he took the club and held it in his right arm hand and then performed a right arm-only swing. He then stated that he was pushing the club forward. He then stated that TGM hitting is biomechanically unstable, because "pushing" is more unbalanced/unstable than swinging - giving as an example the pulling of an object (eg. toy wagon) with a string, where the wagon would follow the puller in a straight line, while it would weave left-and-right if pushed by a pusher.
From my perspective, that clearly shows that he doesn't understand TGM hitting.
A TGM hitter applies push force to the left hand at PP#1 in the early downswing to release PA#4. That causes the left hand to move forward, and the left hand still pulls the club. The only difference to swinging - with respect to the unloading of PA#4 - is that a TGM swinger releases PA#4 via a pivot action, combined with left shoulder girdle muscle contraction; while a TGM hitter releases PA#4 via a right arm powered push force. In both cases, the left hand still pulls the club in the early downswing. In the late downswing, a TGM hitter drive-loads the release of PA#2 via push-pressure applied directly to the shaft, while a TGM swinger uses a CF-induced release of PA#2.
Jeff.
|
|
daryl
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by daryl on Dec 6, 2010 20:25:48 GMT -5
Jeff,
Brian has a G.S.E.D. I wonder, if he knows any of that why he didn't correctly demonstrate or explain "Hitting" for AZ?
That gives new meaning to the word "Anti-Summit"
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 6, 2010 20:32:42 GMT -5
Daryl,
I don't really know what Brian knows about TGM.
If you get a chance, then you should view this Anti-Summit video.
You should have seen AZ describe hinging actions. It was a riot! Rob Neal, who had never previously heard of hinging actions, stated at one point that it is impossible for a golfer to perform angled hinging.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by teddyirons on Dec 7, 2010 2:12:04 GMT -5
Kevin Shields wrote the following post in the BM-forum-: "why I'm a Manzellion for life. No BS, only stuff that is rooted in fact so I can sort through it and use it in teaching and playing without going down some dark tunnel and finding out later its junk." He states that BM teaches only stuff that is rooted in "facts". If Brian only teaches things that are rooted in fact, then I suppose the science is settled? If not, then that means some of the facts being used to teach are not actually facts and will be modified over time - which is in fact the case with Brian who has modified his beliefs over time. Brian did a very good job of asking many relevant question during the Anti-Summit. He specifically wanted the "expert panel" (with participatory help from audience members) to answer the following questions. 1) What is the optimum position of the arms at the end-backswing position - steeper than the shoulder turn angle, or across the shoulder turn angle? 2) How should one optimally start the transition in terms of moving the arms/club? 3) Which pivot action is better - a centralised pivot action or a rightwards pivot action where one can perform a "run-up" in the downswing action? 4) What is the optimum release time point and release pattern - a sweep release versus a late release? 5) How should one optimally power the swing - swinging versus hitting versus swing-hitting? 6) How should one optimally perform a followthrough action? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I really don't believe these are questions that a scientist can answer as well as a top professional golfer who fully understands his/her own swing. I personally see this continuous reference to science as a fad that will go away when they realize that the level of science required to understand good golf versus bad golf within the human body is lightyears away. The rest of the stuff they can keep - such as the new science on separation, which honestly doesn't change how any of us hit a golf ball one iota.
|
|
daryl
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by daryl on Dec 7, 2010 3:13:16 GMT -5
Hi Jeff,
First, congratulations in finding and participating in this forum. I think that a forum inclined toward research is more appropriate and I hope that you can work with the owner to organize the Forum in that way. It would attract like minded people and stand obviously apart from the "method Forums" currently available.
Second, I'd like to extend my appreciation to you for all of your efforts in discussing the "Anti-Summit". You and I and many others are types that welcome such opportunities, but not without caution. Your leadership by asking important questions has single handedly questioned claims that could otherwise remain unchallenged.
You did a great job by framing the 6 questions sought to be answered by the Panel and audience participants. Although they seem complex, answering them may lead to the same conclusion, that there are thousands of ways to swing a golf-club.
I am a little surprised that you aren't aware of the voluminous amount of research performed during the past 40 years which continues today all over the globe. The "Science and Golf" proceedings alone could fill a website to its breaking point and the new "golf ball tunnel", I think owned by the USGA, has already performed breakthrough research not to mention the thousands of golf club designers working to apply all of this research.
Although I'm not as familiar with TPI as I would like to be, I'm sure that they too have something to comment about the tens of thousands of golf swings they've observed and recorded.
Current research about the Golf Stroke does not find us, we have to find it.
Well, what a great opportunity for you and the "Newton Golf Institute".
|
|