|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 18, 2012 20:15:37 GMT -5
See this Jeffy-forum thread. jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?459-Segmental-Sequencing-of-Kinetic-Energy-in-the-Golf-SwingKM is quoting from a research paper - which you can obtain freely from this link (as a pdf file). ulir.ul.ie/handle/10344/2211KM wrote-: "It is interesting how TPI and KVest have not yet changed their tune to reflect most recent findings." What a nonsensical claim! He is mistaking kinetic sequencing (reflected by measuring the angular velocity of the pelvis/torso/arms) with kinetic energy sequencing (which is arbitrarily measured as the amount of energy needed to move the pelvis/torso/arms). This is the kinetic energy graph from that article. Note that the kinetic energy (that is arbitrarily calculated) to move the arms is much greater than that required to move the pelvis and torso in the early downswing (between P4 and P6). That is not the same type of kinetic sequence measurements performed by a K-vest. KM and Jeffy and the Jeffy-groupies demonstrate their ignorance with this type of thread posting. I would like to see KM (or Jeffy) describe how he teaches a golf swing - based on that above graph. Does he recommend a different kinetic sequence than standard practice (as taught by TPI)? Does he suggest that a golfer move the arms more actively (faster) than the torso between P4 and P5? Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 19, 2012 18:44:01 GMT -5
That's not the correct paper.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 19, 2012 23:36:41 GMT -5
That's correct. I cannot obtain a free online copy of that particular paper.
Have you and KM personally read the entire paper?
If so, does that "particular" paper invalidate any of my points about kinetic energy versus kinetic sequencing?
Also, are the kinetic energy calculations different from the different researchers?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 20, 2012 9:22:47 GMT -5
The paper is published in a text Kelvin purchased and he has read it. Go ahead and buy it yourself if you want to know more.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 20, 2012 13:44:09 GMT -5
Jeffy - If Kelvin has read the paper, and thinks that it provides important information, then why hasn't he supplemented his post in your forum with a detailed explanation of its value. If you also think that it is important and that it invalidates the kinetic sequence information derived from the K-vest and TPI research studies, then you should be able to produce a comprehensive post delineating your opinion. If you don't provide that explanation, then I can only assume that you do not think that it is important or that you cannot understand the issue enough to provide useful commentary.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 20, 2012 21:59:51 GMT -5
Assume whatever you want.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 21, 2012 23:37:52 GMT -5
I obtained a copy of that paper. Here is the graph showing that the calculated kinetic energy for the three different body segments (hips, torso and arms) peaked at the same time - at ~80% of the downswing motion time. They define the contents of the different golf segments as follows-: Hips = pelvis, legs and feet; Torso = seven sections of the thorax, two sections of the neck and the head; Arms = Shoulders, arms, hands and fingers. They do not explain why they arbitrarily group the neck and head into the torso segment or why they include the shoulders in the arms segment. They also do not explain how they make their kinetic energy calculations. I will happily donate $100 to any forum member who can explain how the results of this type of research paper can be useful in better understanding golf swing mechanics/biomechanics and how it can help a golfer swing better. Note that these kinetic energy measurements have no necessary causal connection with the angular velocity measurements obtained from a K-vest or TPI angular velocity graphs (for obvious reasons). Jeff.
|
|