|
Post by nmgolfer on Jan 11, 2012 19:37:40 GMT -5
Tman pages are classic CFD (color for dummies)... impressive looking garbage
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 11, 2012 23:39:26 GMT -5
Natep,
If that is the 60msec point, then it is close to the P6 position. So, what he is presumably saying is that any straightening of the right wrist during the time period between P6 and P7 only marginally increases clubhead speed by 1.5%.
Then he is also simultaneously asserting that any attempt to rotate the club around the coupling point via a right elbow straightening action, which occurs between P5.5 and P6.5 in golfers who use a random release action, will cause the clubhead speed to decrease slightly and peak pre-impact. However, as you have stated clubhead speed peaks at impact, or near impact, even in less skilled golfers, and that could be due to the effect of straightening of the right wrist in golfers who straighten their right wrist a lot between P6 and P7 eg. Luke Donald.
My personal experience is that an optimum hand arc path that optimally releases the clubhead via the CF-action (Vclubhead = V hands + Vrel) results in a very fast release, and I am not convinced that one can straighten the right elbow fast enough to make it release better during the right forearm paddlewheeling stage of the downswing (between P6 and P7). I think that the primary benefit of an active right forearm paddlewheeling action is that it assists in the fast/fluid release of PA#3. My reason for this believe is partly related to personal experience and also partly related to the logic of Sasho's forward dynamics swing model.
Note that his model predicts that the required M arm must be much greater than M wrist to i) maximize clubhead speed and ii) square the clubface, which are the two pre-programmed endpoints for Sasho's forward dynamics model.
Sasho stated at the AntiSummitII that in his one-arm swing (generating a clubhead speed of 95mph) he has difficulty releasing PA#3 and that he has to get the clubshaft slightly under the plane to make it possible. He states that in his two-arm swing, he uses the right forearm paddlewheeling action to increase his efficiency of release of PA#3 and that allows him to generate a clubhead speed of 110mph. Interestingly, Sasho told me yesterday that his laboratory measured speed of PA#4 was also significantly faster in his two-armed swing, and that is predicted by DT's idea that pivot power (due to torquing of the central torso generator) gets the left hand to move faster if the power package is intact (between P4 and P6) because it is working through two levers. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by natep on Jan 11, 2012 23:57:38 GMT -5
I'm skeptical of everything in those Tutelman papers. I think nmgolfer's right, its junk. Nesbit is published and peer-reviewed, and has been researching the golf swing for 20+ years. I trust his work over these other guys all day long.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 12, 2012 0:14:05 GMT -5
Natep,
You are free to believe that DT's work is junk. Do you believe that his SwingPerfect software program is flawed, and less reliable than Aaron Zick's program? Where is your "evidence"? Also, Sasho presented his forward dynamic model at the BM AntiSummit and it is very different to SN's hub path model (which is based on inverse engineering). They are both scientists who have produced useful computer models, but the two models cannot be deemed to accurately reflect "reality" if they calculate very different magnitude/timing of M wrist forces. In fact, SN's model is more flawed in the sense that he didn't deal with the release of PA#3 in his computer model and he didn't calculate the timing/magnitude of Marm. SN frankly admitted that fact at the BM AntiSummit II.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by natep on Jan 12, 2012 0:37:08 GMT -5
I think Sasho is legit. Its great that he has a new model. How is it different from his previous model? How are the arm/wrist torques different in timing and magnitude from Nesbit's?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 12, 2012 10:18:10 GMT -5
Natep,
Sasho does not have a new model - it is the same forward dynamics model that he described in his research paper.
Sasho's model is different to SN's because he separated the release of PA#3 from PA#2 by considering movement of the clubshaft in a 3-D plane. SN's model has the club releasing on a single plane throughout the downswing action, and when he talks of applying torque during the club releasing phase, he doesn't include the power needed to release of PA#3 in his torque power values. Sasho's model shows that M arm is much greater than M wrist, and I think that has significant importance with respect to BM's RACP model, which ignores the issue of the release of PA#3.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 12, 2012 11:12:02 GMT -5
Natep, You wrote-: "I havent had time to go through those papers thoroughly, but I did see them mention that MOST golfers are decelerating the club into impact. Tapio has told me that that is virtually impossible, than even total hackers clubheads accel into impact. He said you'd basically have to be trying to do that on purpose for it to happen." I am not convinced. Here is Geoff Dickinson using BM's release action - in images 1-3. Note that he has released his club so early that his club has caught up to his left arm by P6.5. That means that his maximum clubhead speed is happening well before impact. I see this phenomenon a lot in amateur golfers at my local golf practice facility. They release from the top, and they cast, and they have a high right elbow which is far above the pitch location in front of the right hip area, and they reach maximum clubhead speed well before impact. Here is another example of an early release that will likely produce maximum clubhead speed before impact. In image 4 of the GD series, note how VJ Trolio is keeping his power package intact until he reaches the P6 area. That allows him to retain lag and produce a random release action that will result in maximum clubhead speed at impact. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 12, 2012 12:47:43 GMT -5
I had another useful Skype video conversation with Sasho today, and he answered a number of questions. 1) Consider this graph. Note that the application of positive wrist torque decreases clubhead speed and causes it to reach maximum speed pre-impact. Sasho states that it would not happen if a skilled "real world" golfer re-programmed his swing in order to add more positive wrist torque because they would unconsciously alter their pivot/shoulder torque to adjust the speed of release of PA#4 so that they could re-optimize their swing action in order to still maximize clubhead speed at impact. He states that the SwingPerfect and Zick computer models are probably not doing that reoptimization well, and he has to reprogram his forward dynamics swing model for "best" optimization if he decides to add more positive wrist torque to the model in order to study what happens as result of adding more wrist torque. 2) He states that SN's wrist torque values include torque values for the release of PA#3 into the hub path model's wrist torque calculations because it is based on inverse engineering. His forward dynamics model, which allows for rotation of the lead arm about its longitudinal axis, can separate the PA#2 release torque from the PA#2 release torque. He found that when he optimized the model for maximum clubhead speed and a square clubface at impact, that M wrist is very small. In his two-armed swing, he uses his rear arm between P6 and P7 mainly to optimize the release of PA#3 and he feels that the CF-releasing force (Vclubhead = Vhands + Vrel) is adequately releasing PA#2. 3) I talked to him about DT's idea that a two-armed lever can increase the speed of release of PA#4 (through pivot power working through the shorter right arm lever) and he felt that it was a less significant factor in why a two-armed golfer can generate a faster clubhead speed than a lead-arm only golfer, and that he thinks that the major element responsible for the increased clubhead speed was the right forearm paddlewheeling action between P6 and P7 which allows one i) *to maintain the forward release speed of PA#4 and ii) to release PA#3 more efficiently via push-pressure applied at PP#1. (* remember that left arm speed would automatically decrease when the club releases due to the COAM principle, but the actively straightening right arm allows one to apply push-pressure at PP#1 that will prevent the left arm from slowing down in the later downswing) 4) He stated that he can generate more clubhead speed (by a few mph) in a rear arm-only swing compared to a lead arm-only swing, but he stated that he cannot hit the ball consistently straight - because he cannot easily control the floppiness of the straightening right wrist through the impact zone. In his lead arm-only swing, he can easily mainatian a FLW through the impact zone. He agreed with me that maintaining a FLW through impact would likely improve accuracy and avoid the likelihood of flipping, and that it would only be associated with a small decrease in clubhead speed compared to a swing action that flips the clubhead immediately after impact. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Jan 12, 2012 14:45:08 GMT -5
What kind of deceleration are we talking about, say it does occur at P6.9 rather than P7.0, and it measures 100mph at P6.9 AND 99mph AT P7.0.....
but at P6 it was 70mph................does it really matter if it slows just a shade before impact, a very small % of the clubhead increase.
You might very well be right mathematically but not its not a more correct statement that its accelerating into impact.
Where do you think, using the P system, the club has maxed out for Geoff?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 12, 2012 14:49:11 GMT -5
I believe that clubhead speed is maximal when the clubshaft catches up to the left arm, and in Geoff's swing it is probably maximal between P6.5-P6.7.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by bullet on Jan 13, 2012 23:11:46 GMT -5
manzella called this a Hall of Fame post
Yesterday 10:05 PM #1 mandrin Senior Member Join Date Oct 2003 Location . Posts 1,436 Paying the price.... There is some subtle pleasure seeing those two weird characters, nmgolfer and jeffmann, having a real go at each other for a change. They posted having lost respect for each other. How sad. I do sympathize. Normally they work in tandem dishing out generously criticism but often smearing and specializing in ad hominem attacks, surprisingly not being moderated much by any administrator.
We have a jeffmann, apparently a medical doctor, desperately wanting to appear as a real scientist and a nmgolfer also pretending to be one, but seemingly using a spreadsheet as his most sophisticated scientific tool..... indeed a rather hilarious and funny combo. They just need to generate a tad more humour and they could act in some funny golf show and be a great success.
Jeffmann has now declared that Nesbit produces “junk science”. Reason invoked? Nesbit is allowing his scientific work to be manipulated by Brian Manzella into a biased presentation and therefore qualifing it as being “junk science”. Is Brian now accused of hypnotizing Nesbit? All this however badly hurts poor nmgolfer with Nesbit being his unique hero, and anyone else, scientist or layman, considered to be not really worthy of any serious consideration.
Moreover Brian, since quite some while, has been getting rather close to Nesbit, having regularly meetings, discussions and especially having Nesbit actively participating in his Anti-Summit II. All this definitely must chagrin this poor nmgolfer chap. Imagine, his hero, becoming a 'traitor', collaborating now rather closely with this Brian fellow, who he enjoys to continuously ridicule viciously on every possible occasion.
So what is left for nmgolfer? He clinged to Nesbit, seemingly the most advanced golf scientist and producing rather complicated papers for the average layman to understand. He reckoned that he could pontificate hoping that people would take ages to recognize and understand Nesbit's work. Nesbit and Manzella now working together, he can't use Nesbit anymore to ridicule Brian and his ideas and nmgolfer finds himself stark naked out in the cold. It would be interesting to see if now finally he could produce also something just only a bit positive.
For years now, on several forums, nmgolfer has been bullying around. Always finding a few weaklings liking to be lead by a bully. Slowly but surely after being ejected from these forums he is now mainly pontificating on a very minor golf forum, not surprisingly, specifically created to get rid of jeffmann, another reject from several forums. Hopefully the last spasms before disappearing in some internet black hole.
|
|
|
Post by bullet on Jan 13, 2012 23:14:50 GMT -5
what's better was his new Max Trigger Delay thread just being wiped off the forum after a few pics got posted of tour players in the same "max trigger delay" pic he posted himself . kinda obvious he learnt tgm from doyle who didn't understand fark all about Homer Kelley's work
|
|
|
Post by nmgolfer on Jan 14, 2012 10:54:12 GMT -5
Hey Bullet
LOL...
Funny that like a pet dog Madrino de la mancha crawls out from under his rock at regular interval for a good ego stroking by the cesspool apparatchiks. That post also shows what a vivid imagination he has. I'm supposed to be jealous of the BM because he's finally listening to what SN has to say? I'm supposed to be "upset" that some people understand what Nesbit is saying? What a friggin joke; Mandrino is delusional. I'm happy for SN and I'm vindicated too. The only thing that I find upsetting is when other people take credit for work that they did not do....
Mandrin tried to take credit by using my argument dispelling the CF myth. Mandrin tried to take credit for the swing set parametric acceleration analogy by stealing the published work of others and the BM apparatchiks will try to take credit for the golf science work of others that they've recently discovered. Count on it!
Fact is the BM realm is an authoritarian one. See defn. 1 ___________
au·thor·i·tar·i·an [uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] Show IPA adjective 1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes. 2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people. 3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent. __________
Some people thrive in an authoritarian environment because they need someone to lead them; to tell them what to think and what to do. Mandrino de la Mancha thrives in an authoritarian environment where dissension from the group think paradigm is not tolerated. Mandrin grovels at the feet of the authoritarian petty tyrant regularly to maintain his stead as the collective's psuedo-science high priest. I on the other hand am an individualist; one who is repulsed by the authoritarian and the sycophants he surrounds himself with. What pathetic creatures they are.
One day the petty tyrant at the BM realm ordered me and a fella called BroncoBilly to phone him up within a set time period or face excommunication and banishment. For me the choice was easy.... F U BM.
What's also interest is that its apparent Mandrin is monitoring this "lesser" golf forum... undoubtedly looking for more ideas he can steal and call his own. Thats what those who "can't" (on their own) do...they STEAL oh yeah.. and they "TEACH".
|
|
|
Post by bullet on Jan 14, 2012 19:45:38 GMT -5
Not a single decent swing on that forum ever, nm maybe mandarin or orange boy is turtle man
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Jan 15, 2012 20:17:44 GMT -5
Real hypocritical of Brian to take me to task with regards to my forum about those who criticize his work which was only perpetuated by his underlings acting unprofessionally, deceitful, childish and basically having nothing meaningful to contribute. Then allow Mandrin, who IMO was exposed here and on my forum and in my world is a fraud, only to attack nmgolfer and jeff on his forum. Even worse, label it a 'Hall of Fame' post.
Glass house meets a sledgehammer. What else is new in the Manzella vortex?
3JACK
|
|