|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 5, 2013 11:03:01 GMT -5
Dariusz wrote-: "You've just created a new rule to match the situation -- namely, non-forum members can be abused".
That's factually incorrect because that rule has been in existence for a long time as can be attested by any long-time forum member.
Dariusz - you have decided to continue to insult me, which will result in you being banned. It will probably take a few days as Rand doesn't visit this forum often and he doesn't respond promptly to PMs.
All of Dariusz's and Natep's offensive posts will also be removed from this thread. I have a "hard skin" and I am used to personal insults, and I don't personally take them seriously. I want them removed so that this forum doesn't have the uncivilized "look" of the Gotham Golf Blog forum where there was an endless back-and-forth pattern of ad hominem insults.
This forum is still the only golf forum where one can freely post any opinion relating to golf swing mechanics/biomechanics issues - without fear of being banned.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Jan 5, 2013 11:46:01 GMT -5
Id probaby go at it from a different angle. Instead of a battle of emphasis between geometry and physics, id say youd have to emphasize both equally and its the anatomy that ties them together in harmony.
In my investigation of ogrady's mid 80's swing, ive decided to try to view it through certain reference frames. The pressures under the feet are motion detectors--lateral cg position--and the hands are the force translators.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 12:17:32 GMT -5
I believe the ROC is the rate (speed and time) the clubface closes in the downswing. (Closes to what? The shaft? Path? I don't know.) I also don't know whether it's in degrees per second or some other measurement nor do I know over what period of time or distance someone measures this rate. I think ROC is justing timing. Maybe a standard will emerge in the future, maybe not. Rate of closure is expressed in angular distance traveled (usually degrees or radians) per unit of time (typically seconds). It can be measured relative to any reference: for example, relative to the target line, or to the path (we're doing both). The period of time over which it can be measured is limited by the capture speed of the measuring device. For example, 3D systems tend to have capture rates of around 500 frames per second; we've been using 24,000 frames per second. Since the ROC can change dramatically during the impact interval, which is about 0.4 thousandths of a second, 3D systems aren't able to capture those changes in any detail: best they can be expected to do is "bracket" the impact interval. At 24,000 frames per second, the Phantom can capture ten or eleven frames during the impact interval.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 5, 2013 14:20:38 GMT -5
I think that Jeffy is correct. The Phantom camera has no peer when it comes to measuring ROC of the clubface through impact. Theoretically, the ROC of the clubface should be equal to the ROC of the functionally-flat left wrist, but that is only theoretical - because in "real life" there is the added problem of peripheral shaft deflection through the impact zone, which means the ROC of the clubface cannot be exactly equal to the ROC of the FLW. However, the concept of keeping the FLW facing the target as much as is biomechanically possible throughout the entire immediate impact zone (from P6.9-P7.2) is probably the optimal biomechanical technique for minimising unnecessary ROC of the clubface through impact - if one wants to hit the ball straight.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 14:31:20 GMT -5
This post sounds like Tapio, but if it's you D I appreciate your thoughts and humility. (I like the Polish people. Great people caught between the Germans and Russians). They have a lot of similar traits . I have never found Dariusz to act anything close to Tapio. I might not agree with him at times, but I've never found him to be disagreeable. If one truly wants a forum that seeks truth, all adjectives should be banned when personally referencing any member or non-member and no disparaging adjectives describing their theories.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 14:36:39 GMT -5
I think that Jeffy is correct. The Phantom camera has no peer when it comes to measuring ROC of the clubface through impact. Theoretically, the ROC of the clubface should be equal to the ROC of the functionally-flat left wrist, but that is only theoretical - because in "real life" there is the added problem of peripheral shaft deflection through the impact zone, which means the ROC of the clubface cannot be exactly equal to the ROC of the FLW. However, the concept of keeping the FLW facing the target as much as is biomechanically possible throughout the entire immediate impact zone (from P6.9-P7.2) is probably the optimal biomechanical technique for minimising unnecessary ROC of the clubface through impact - if one wants to hit the ball straight. Jeff. Jeff Mann - Whomever discussed ROC for anything other than the clubface? You are the first I've read when referencing a rate of closure for the FLW instead of the clubface. Are you now going to change your opinion that the ideal ROC is zero? The clubface is flying through the impact interval. I have no idea how it could be zero unless it stopped moving. A camera doesn't measure anything. It only captures images. Huge difference. You will not get any numbers from a phantom camera. You still have to do something else with the video to generate a number.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 14:41:42 GMT -5
The thing that makes me wonder about Dariusz is why he continues to post at Manzella's and put up with the widespread, knee-jerk hostility towards him and anything he posts. That he bothered to come over here to bitch about Mann's post (that only 19 people will ever see) yet stays put over there to be regularly humiliated before thousands is puzzling, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 14:55:32 GMT -5
I think that Jeffy is correct. The Phantom camera has no peer when it comes to measuring ROC of the clubface through impact. Theoretically, the ROC of the clubface should be equal to the ROC of the functionally-flat left wrist, but that is only theoretical - because in "real life" there is the added problem of peripheral shaft deflection through the impact zone, which means the ROC of the clubface cannot be exactly equal to the ROC of the FLW. However, the concept of keeping the FLW facing the target as much as is biomechanically possible throughout the entire immediate impact zone (from P6.9-P7.2) is probably the optimal biomechanical technique for minimising unnecessary ROC of the clubface through impact - if one wants to hit the ball straight. Jeff. Jeff Mann - Whomever discussed ROC for anything other than the clubface? You are the first when referencing ROC for the rate of the FLW.Are you now going to change your opinion that the ideal ROC is zero? The clubface is flying through the impact interval. A camera doesn't measure anything. It only captures images. Huge difference.What the hell do you think radar based launch monitors and 3D machines do? Have little professors inside them with tape measures "measuring" things? They capture data (oftentimes very "dirty" data), in a different form from video, but it is still data. They don't "measure" anything either. BTW, TPI calculates and reports the rate of rotation for the left wrist as well as the shaft (just below the hands). They have no clubface data because they don't put a sensor on the clubface. And the radar based launch monitors just guess at what the clubface is doing based on ballflight and path. For such a fan of radar based launch monitors and 3D systems, you seem to know virtually nothing about how they work and what they calculate and report.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 14:59:04 GMT -5
Jeffy -
My message was to Jeff Mann, not you. Jeff used the word measure in his original post if you had read it. Video only captures images and only you would try to obfuscate this fact with a bunch of bullshit about calculating vs. measuring. Video does neither.
Keep breathing in those trade winds and trying to figure out what drive/hold means. Your attempt at defining this release was pathetic.
If I get banned, so be it. You violate Jeff's rules all the time and probably have less people posting at your site than here.
Unlike yourself, I spend my time playing golf and not trying to figure out how the machines work. I keep breaking 70 while using these devices. Have your scores gone down? Didn't think so. Maybe you should spend more time playing than trying to teach.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 15:08:05 GMT -5
Jeffy - My message was to Jeff Mann, not you. Jeff used the word measure in his original post if you had read it. For a person who thinks he knows a lot about golf you aren't that good in playing it. Good luck trying to break 80 this year. If it happens it will be by luck and not a bunch of micro moves. You have no idea how to play this game or even hit a ball past 250 yards. Why you focus on tour players given your lack of talent is ridiculous. Keep breathing in those trade winds and trying to figure out what drive/hold means. If I get banned, so be it. You violate Jeff's rules all the time and probably have less people posting at your site than here. Jeff used the word measure but the context was obvious: data captured at a rate of 24,000 frames per second will tell a lot more about impact and ROC than any data gathered by any 3D system or radar based launch monitor.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 15:11:05 GMT -5
Video does't meausre or calculate anything and you keep ignoring that fact. You rail against Tman's calculation but somehow your "calculations" are fine. Can't wait for your findings. Do not put out preliminary findings to test how everyone will challenge your findings. Man up and put it all out at once so there's no backtracking.
Video gives no numbers and a look isn't that helpful unless your impact is so bad that an image is necessary. I suspect you are at the point where you need video of impact to improve. I don't. Of cousre, I spend time playing golf and not trying to figure out how these machines are made. You need numbers, not looks, for good players when referencing impact.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 15:18:59 GMT -5
Jeffy - My message was to Jeff Mann, not you. Jeff used the word measure in his original post if you had read it. Video only captures images and only you would try to obfuscate this fact with a bunch of bullshit about calculating vs. measuring. Video does neither. Keep breathing in those trade winds and trying to figure out what drive/hold means. Your attempt at defining this release was pathetic. If I get banned, so be it. You violate Jeff's rules all the time and probably have less people posting at your site than here. Unlike yourself, I spend my time playing golf and not trying to figure out how the machines work. That's an understatement!!! In that case, why don't you stop talking about them as if you know something??? And Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors without using them. Give me a break. I know just as much about how to play the game and score as you do, probably a lot more. You're just a better athlete, played more golf than I did as a teenager and play a lot more than I do now. If I moved to someplace sunny and played all the time I'd happily take your money (net, of course, doubt I'll shoot in the 60s!). And, where did you get the idea that I'm "trying to teach"? The only "teaching" I've ever done was four hours on the range last summer in Cape Cod with Lifter. It was pretty successful, btw, but I don't have the slightest interest in teaching. That instance was purely an accommodation.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 15:24:36 GMT -5
Video does't meausre or calculate anything and you keep ignoring that fact. You rail against Tman's calculation but somehow your "calculations" are fine. Can't wait for your findings. Do not put out preliminary findings to test how everyone will challenge your findings. Man up and put it all out at once so there's no backtracking. Video gives no numbers and a look isn't that helpful unless your impact is so bad that an image is necessary. I suspect you are at the point where you need video of impact to improve. I don't. Of cousre, I spend time playing golf and not trying to figure out how these machines are made. You need numbers, not looks, for good players when referencing impact. A radar doesn't measure or calculate anything, nor does a sensor-based 3D system. You keep ignoring that fact!
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 5, 2013 15:26:23 GMT -5
Jeffy -
Who ever said you need these devices to become a great golfer? Another ridiculous implication. These devices are tools that allow one to cut down on practice time and be more efficient. They only tell what and don't guarantee anything.
You have no idea who to score in competition Jeffy. You're a range player. There's more to golf than just technique. You have to understand what works for you, not someone else. You don't understand that fact. You've never broken 70 and yet you know more than I do in how to play the game? Give me a break. Typical Monday morning quarterback statement to make yourself feel good.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 5, 2013 15:31:51 GMT -5
Jeffy - Who ever said you need these devices to become a great golfer? Another ridiculous implication. These devices are tools that allow one to cut down on practice time and be more efficient. They only tell what and don't guarantee anything. You have no idea who to score in competition Jeffy. You're a range player. There's more to golf than just technique. You have to understand what works for you, not someone else. You don't understand that fact. You've never broken 70 and yet you know more than I do in how to play the game? Give me a break. Typical Monday morning quarterback statement to make yourself feel good. I have a very good record in competition and know all about how there is more than technique, blah, blah, blah. Why do guys like you think that's such a mystery? The only time I ever played as much as you probably do was the summer 1975, when I was already 20, when I had a low score of 73 with three or four three putts.
|
|