|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 12, 2012 20:38:55 GMT -5
nmg wrote-: "You fail to mention the SCIENTIFIC OPTIMIZATION (its a numerical experiment they performed) achieved increased CHS and used SIGNIFICANTLY less power to do so. That's impressive, I dare say a breakthrough."
I think that nmg only demonstrates his foolishness by making that type of claim. Nesbit did not specify all the parameters used in their computer program and it's totally unscientific to "believe" that their computer modelling is "scientifically optimized" if one doesn't even know any of the details re: their computer modelling program, Sasho MacKenzie also has a computer modelling program, which is also "optimized", but he gets totally different results - because the input parameters are very different. Sasho MacKenzie, at least, separates the release of PA#2 from the release of PA#3 in his computer modelling program.
I don't believe that any computer modelling program of a golf swing can be perfectly accurate - because they are very simplistic and they make crude assumptions without taking into account many confounding biomechanical variables eg. human flexibility, human athleticism, different human biomechanics because of the conscious/deliberate use of different swing techniques.
Talk about an idiotic capacity for believing in "wishy washy" beliefs - nmg is a perfect example!
nmg also wrote-: "We're discussing optimal HAND PATH... Were discussing THE BEST KINEMATICS to achieve a desired result and there is ONLY ONE ANSWER."
Nonsense! Hub path is only one factor in the kinematics equation that determines maximum clubhead speed. One also has to control for all the many other biomechanical factors that can influence maximum clubhead speed.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 12, 2012 21:02:04 GMT -5
nmg,
You wrote-: "Tell me jeff ... were you forced into retirement? Because I'm suspecting you were."
Are you getting frantically desperate that you need to make that type of allegation? I am not at all surprised that you would use that type of diversionary tactic to direct attention away from a true consideration of who is really adopting a "scientific approach" to this "hub path" issue.
Jeff.
p.s. I never stated/implied that SMK's computer modelling program was optimized to determine the optimum hand arc path - it was only optimized to maximise clubhead speed at impact and simultaneously square the clubface by impact (which is related to the release of PA#3 - and that is not included in SN's computer modelling program).
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 12, 2012 21:12:03 GMT -5
nmg,
You wrote-: "You haven't a clue how club head speed can be determined by way of calculation do you? Shall I show you why I know this to be true with absolute certainty?"
Sure - go ahead!
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 13, 2012 1:14:54 GMT -5
nmg is just making himself look foolish by imposing the golden spiral diagrammatic hub path on Aaron Baddeley's hand arc path. The only part of the hub path that is relevant relates to the downswing - between the P4 position and the P7 position - and if the golden spiral's hub path section in that downswing zone is identical to the rounded hub path of a golfer (like Badds or Robert Rock or David Toms), then there is no relevance to bringing up the mental concept of a golden spiral. Who cares whether the golden spiral continues to spiral to a smaller radius after impact? Most importantly, there is no significant shortening of the hub radius between P6.5 and P7 in Aaron Baddeley's (or Robert Rock's or David Toms) swing - as occurs in a golfer who uses parametric acceleration (eg. as seen in Lexi Thompson's swing). Lexi Thompson's hand arc path. perfectgolfswingreview.net/LexiImpact.jpg [/img] Aaron Baddeley's (or Robert Rock's or David Toms) hub path is determined by their individual pattern of human golf biomechanics, and it has nothing to do with trying to mimic the hub path of a golden spiral. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 13, 2012 10:24:54 GMT -5
nmg wrote-: "Jeff is still in denial about the relevance of golden spiral handpath geometry in developing maximum CHS with minimum effort thereby allowing one to achieve his or her possibilities." Crazy logic! Let's presume, for argument sake, that golfers are generating a hand arc path that fits in perfectly with the golden spiral hand path arc - as nmg shows in that example with Aaron Baddeley. Does it mean that they generate that type of hand arc path because i) it has been demonstrated to represent a golden spiral (which nmg believes is most compatible with maximum CHS and minimal effort), or do they ii) simply perform a golf swing that has a hand arc path that just happens to fit in perfectly with the hand arc path predicted by the golden spiral hand arc path model? Considering the fact that all professional golfers are intellectually unaware of the existence of the golden spiral hand arc path model, then the correct answer has to be ii). I believe that the hand arc path of professional golfers is determined by their choice of golf swing biomechanics, and if they have optimised golf swing mechanics then they will likely have a biomechanically-optimised hand arc path. If their hand arc path happens to fit in with the parameters of any theoretical model, then it is incidental and not intentional. nmg also wrote-: "And now he's off on another tangent he doesn't understand... so called parametric acceleration, a means of damping vibrations (and confusing would be golf science empiricists)." nmg thinks that parametric acceleration is a means of "damping vibrations". He is as crazy as Mandrin, who believes that he has correctly described the difference between a CP-arm release action and a CF-arm release action in this paper ( www.angelfire.com/realm/moetown/mandrin/golf/CP-CF-release.html ). Mandrin's explanation has no applicability to the way that golfer's think about a CP-arm release action and a CF-arm release action. nmg's idea of parametric acceleration has no applicability to the way that Miura described parametric acceleration in his paper - and which I described in my review paper. Both nmg and mandrin live in a mental universe that is very different to the mental universe of most golfers. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 13, 2012 10:37:50 GMT -5
It is interesting that no forum member has even addressed the validity, or lack of validity, of my primary criticisms of BM's release ideas - relating to i) the use of an "out-toss" maneuver, ii) the use of positive wrist torque via a right arm push-force below the coupling point, iii) the idea of "jumping-up" and "pulling up on the grip with all one's might" during phase 3 of the downswing in order to decrease the hub radius, and iv) the effect of left wrist bending soon after impact on the likelihood of a golfer being able to maintain a stable clubface through the immediate impact zone (versus the alternative idea of maintaining an intact LAFW/FLW until P7.5).
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 13, 2012 13:15:08 GMT -5
nmg wrote-: "Here's another prediction: In time, when 3D becomes ubiquitous, we will "discover" Aaron Baddely is no exception, that nearly all great golfers are "on the spiral" as it were. Through trial and error they've discovered for themselves the secret to great golf. We'll also see most hackers are not (on the spiral)."
That's hilarious!
Any golfer, who has plotted the hand arc path of many great professional golfers, already knows that nmg's prediction is untrue.
nmg also wrote that he was leaving this thread because "I'm tired of the disrespect and the insults."
Interesting comment from a person who made the repugnantly uncivilized assertion that I was likely forced into retirement - when he posted-: ""Tell me jeff ... were you forced into retirement? Because I'm suspecting you were." and he reiterated that same point again when he stated "Unless.... again as I suspect retirement wasn't his choice."
An uncivilized forum member, like nmg, will not be missed by me.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 21, 2012 21:12:28 GMT -5
I criticised BM's "out-toss" maneuver in my review paper. He incorrectly believes that the hands must move away from the chest (and away from the target) as a result of an "out-toss" maneuver. I believe that there should be no release of PA#4 in the early downswing, and that any movement of the hands away from the target is simply the result of upper torso rotation. Here is another BM video-fiasco - a new video that contributes nothing useful to the topic. www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/16885-path-hands-transition-brian-manzella.htmlI don't think that Rickie Fowler is thinking of moving his hands away from the target - away from his chest - in his early downswing (between P4 and P5). I think that RF is simply starting his downswing's kinetic sequence with a lower body rotation-action followed by a rotation of the upper torso - while keeping PA#4 loaded. There is no separation of RF's left arm away from his chest in his early downswing - the power package is rotating because the upper torso is rotating. What causes a golfer's (like RF's) club to jack-knife and increase the degree of lag in the early downswing? The answer is obvious - it is due to the downward movement of the RFFM and right elbow as one adducts the right arm. If the RFFW moves groundwards, then the right palm will also move groundwards, and that will cause the clubshaft to move closer to the left arm, thereby temporarily increasing lag. It only happens in golfers who manifest this jack-knifing phenomenon - where the rate of right arm adduction is slightly faster than the downward motion of the entire power package. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 6, 2012 9:55:20 GMT -5
See this BM-forum thread. www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/16924-week-remember.htmlBR wrote-: "Day 2 - 5am wake up on The Island and a couple hour drive to Easton, Pennsylvania to spend the better part of the day with Dr. Steven Nesbit at Lafayette College. I'm not going to give away everything we learned, but I will say this—a key find is in my new signature below." It is interesting that BM/MJ had to visit Steve Nesbit again to learn "something". I suspect that they were consulting SN in order to counter my criticism of BM/MJ's thinking re: normal forces. It will be interesting to see how BM (spinmeister) spins his "new" ideas. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by natep on Mar 6, 2012 13:48:44 GMT -5
lol. You are delusional. No one cares about your criticisms re: normal force. You are hopelessly clueless about physics, it took you 10 pages to wrap your head around something as simple as the centripetal force requirement not long ago, when you had the audacity to call out Nesbit for his supposed "junk" science. Now you think people are taking research trips because they're concerned about your utterly clueless criticisms?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 6, 2012 17:01:57 GMT -5
Natep,
If you have found any flaws in my review paper, then I would like to see you attempt to explain them. Otherwise, you are merely manifesting your usual mindless partisan bluster!
I had ~3 hours of Skype video communication with Sasho MacKenzie prior to writing my review paper - in order to improve my knowledge of the relevant physics. I also had Sasho MacKenzie review my completed review paper, and I incorporated a number of error-correction suggestions that he offered. If there are still errors, I would like to see Natep (or any forum member) attempt to uncover them.
Jeff.
|
|