|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 16, 2014 19:14:27 GMT -5
Grant,
You wrote-: "the end all be all of whether a teaching is right or not.... Under a controlled setting, it would matter though. If you sent 100 students to kelvin and he taught the same thing to all of them, and they all had the athletic ability to perform these moves, listened to him, and followed instruction... and they all got better and more powerful"
That's an irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with KM's opinions re:the spine engine theory. You have ZERO evidence that those same students couldn't improve just as much following the swing precepts delineated in my review papers.
You have not provided a single example of where my counterarguments re: KM's spine engine theory are wrong - despite rambling needlessly and incoherently about other issues. Referring to the spine motion as "pretzel-like" is amazingly wrong-headed. It is very easy to understand what is happening to the spine at every moment of the backswing and downswing using standard anatomical descriptions of spine motion (flexion, extension and rotation).
Why should I take the time to examine Steve's swing? What exactly should I study? If you have a specific targeted question, then ask it - because I don't respond to unfocused general questions.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 17, 2014 10:20:07 GMT -5
Grant, Consider this thread that you started in the Jeffy forum. jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?1147-the-subtleties-of-the-spine-one-remaining-road-block-to-my-understandingYour many comments show that you are very uniformed about spinal biomechanics and very confused (which you overtly admit). You wrote-: " Is Lordosis sort of a reverse C of the spine towards the target to finish off the backswing? I mean isnt it a like a tilting back towards the target, that makes your left shoulder go down before you laterally bend?" Lordosis is the normal condition of the lumbar spine, but it can also involve the lower thoracic spine if one extends the upper torso a lot backwards into a "reverse C spinal position" at the finish position. However, it doesn't involve the mid-upper thoracic spine, which causes the left-leaning look of many golfers who reverse-pivot during their later backswing. You wrote-: " I got a little off track the last few range sessions and forgot this feeling I had of leaning my upper body towards the target for the last part of my backswing. I thought Lordosis was just sticking your butt out. Well thats APT. But it seems that the whole Dustin Johnson's "right shoulder keeps going after the left has finished" bit from the shoulders article by kelvin, actually originates in the spine. Does anyone agree with this? I call it the "over under." And I feel its very important in a spine driven swing. Its the "over the top feeling" we get at the end of the backswing right before we right side lateral bend." Leaning of the upper body towards the target between P3.5-P4 is due to the use of an arch-extension maneuver (upper thoracic spine extension superimposed on a rotating upper thoracic spine). It has nothing to do with right scapula retraction and further backwards motion of the right shoulder socket. It also has nothing to do with an OTT feeling. I discussed the issue of the arch-extension maneuver in Q&A number 9 of my backswing chapter. I also produced a short video on the arch-extension maneuver. Here is the image from my backswing chapter showing the arch-extension maneuver. I used Photoshop to produce two images from a KM-capture image - showing how the mid-upper thoracic spine extends towards the target while it is simultaneously undergoing rotation during the late backswing. The size of the red arrows reflects the degree of extension - and you can see that there is more extension of the upper thoracic spine compared to the mid-thoracic spine. Different golfers manifest different degrees of arch-extension during their late backswing position. Here is a composite image from the S&T book. Image 1 shows a rightwards-tilted backswing action - where there is no arch-extension of the mid-upper thoracic spine. Image 2 shows a rightwards-centralised backswing action - where there is incorporation of a slight degree of arch-extension of the mid-upper thoracic spine. Image 3 shows a leftwards-centralised backswing action (used by S&T golfers) - where there is incorporation of a moderate-large degree of arch-extension of the mid-upper thoracic spine. Image 4 shows a leftwards-tilted backswing action (reverse pivoting) - where there is incorporation of an excessively-large degree of arch-extension of the mid-upper thoracic spine. Here is a comparison of Jamie Sadlowski and Bubba Watson (image reversed to present him as a righty) at the P4 position. Note that JS has a rightwards-tilted backswing action while BW has a borderline rightwards-centralised backswing action because he uses a slight degree of arch-extension of his mid-upper thoracic spine. Both golfers protract the left scapula and retract the right scapula to a marked degree, but that is a totally separate issue that doesn't involve the spine. Here is Doug Marsh's graph. Note that he has presumably plotted the one standard deviation limits of trunk side-bending in pro golfers and the variance is between 5-15 degrees at P4 in 67% of pro golfers. Note that all pro golfers (irrespective of their degree of targetwards-tilt at P4) start to decrease their degree of targetwards-tilt during the first 35% of the downswing action (which represents the P4 to P4.5 time period). However, they do not have any rightwards-tilt (lateral bend away from the target)during this early downswing time period - so they cannot possibly be using the "spine engine" as KM wrongly claims. KM's spine engine ideas (that right lateral bend initiates the pelvic motion during the transition) have zero merit because they are not concordant with the reality of pro golfers' swings (as shown in that graph). KM is so clueless about spinal biomechanics that he even writes about left lordosis and right lordosis (which is impossible because lordosis only refers to spinal hyperextension in the sagittal plane.) KM's most ridiculously wrongheaded comment was related to this KM-image. KM wrongly claims that the red curve represents lateral bend. That's BS!!!!! Ryo Ishikawa is still at his transition P4-P4.5 position and he doesn't have any right lateral bend away from the target at the P4-P4.5 time point. KM wrote-: " From this view, we can see that his shoulder has dropped AND his right side is arching away from the ball.". That's a BS claim!!! There is no evidence of any arching of the spine in that image, and the concave-appearance of the right side of his upper torso (red curve) is due to activation of the right shoulder girdle muscles and right lattisimus dorsi muscle that move the right scapula/right shoulder socket downwards-and-outwards (towards the ball-target line) and that simultaneously adduct the right humerus, and also due to bulging of the right shoulder girdle muscles in the right armpit area. You are obviously somewhat aware of this phenomenon involving the shoulder girdle muscles because you wrote-: " This isn't just the right shoulder is it? It's the upper spine bending towards the target, while LPT occurs in transition, and I believe, just a hair before the right shoulder will crunch towards the right hip. Well, correct me... I think you can get away with laterally bending right AFTER this move, and I think Kurt does this. I think that doing it at the same time would essentially feel like doing a "twirl" that pulls your left scapula out and your left arm against your chest and your right shoulder more out towards the right hip WHILE almost moving forward with the upper body, originating in the spine though --" You are right about the "right shoulder crunching towards the right hip" in the early downswing, but you are wrong to claim that it involves right-lateral bend of the spine, which doesn't happen in the early downswing between P4 and P5. You also wrote-: " My point being is that I think without this tilting of the upper spine towards the target, your gonna end up leaning back and coming from the inside. In fact, without even looking at it, I would guess that Graham Mcdowell has some of this. The tell tale signs in my mind would be a short backswing, like Graham, because the final tilt of the spine towards the target lengthens the swing and causes a look of "still-completing-the-backswing-while moving forward." So 1)short backswing..... 2) if you leaning back more and the hips seem to be ahead of the shoulders or the shoulders behind the hips....either or.... even if the hips have not slid. and 3) this would naturally make your arms swing more in to out, and could make your balance appear to be more on the toes.I think that your biomechanical reasoning is totally wrongheaded and there is no rational validity for your bold-highlighted statements. Robert Rock has a short backswing action and a distinctly rightwards-tilted spine posture at P4, but he doesn't come from the inside (with arms swinging more in-to-out) or appear to be more on his toes during his downswing action. Here is a golfer who really has a short backswing action and he can hit 300+ yard drives without coming excessively in-to-out. He also doesn't have to "lean back" to hit the ball that far. If you really understood spinal biomechanics (as described in this post) then you would hopefully never again write so confusingly as you wrote in your Jeffy-forum thread-: " I just though it meant planting the left side of your butt, sticking your butt out, and crunching the right shoulder into the right side. But your shoulder cannot also pull into the left glute, without stretching backwards and tilting towards the target.... a feeling of "coming over" with your upper spine, right before you "go under." Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 19, 2014 0:21:14 GMT -5
I have interspersed my opinions in response to many of Grant's comments (which are in italics) that he made in his Jeffy-forum thread. Set-up: SOME LORDOSIS- not in PPT, not in max APT..... pretty neutral, natural posture with SOME LORDOSIS.
Why does he relate the degree of lordosis to the degree of APT/PPT? I think that they are not necessarily casually related. I think that one can vary the degree of pelvic tilt by varying the degree of spinal bend inclination angle based solely on motion occurring at the level of the hip joints. A more erect posture creates more tilt of the pelvis in a posterior direction, while greater flexion at the level of the hip joints (causing a more bent-over posture) tilts the pelvis in an anterior direction. There is no reason that the degree of lordosis of the lumbar spine should vary with address postural changes involving the degree of spinal bend inclination angle if all motion occurs at the level of the hip joints. It is obvious that one could also get the spine to be more vertical (thereby decreasing the spinal bend inclination angle when viewed from DTL) by hyperextending the lumbar spine and increasing the degree of lumbar lordosis, but this is a biomechanically unnatural action for a golfer. I also think that it is biomechanically wrong to increase the spinal bend inclination angle by flexing the lumbar spine at address. I think that a golfer should adopt a natural amount of lumbar lordosis and choose his spinal bend inclination angle at address by only using motion at the level of the hip joints. takeway: RETAIN LORDOSIS - extend knees, and upper spine (head goes up, weight goes right, and back ) while retaining lower back curvature / lordosis (it probably helps to keep the hips fairly dormant here and especially keep the left side of the butt planted, so as to use the left hip as a door hinge in the backswing, not the right)I believe that there is no reason to change the head height during the backswing action - even if one straightens the right leg. I think that the idea that one can use the left leg/left hip joint as a door hinge during the backswing action is totally wrongheaded. I believe that a golfer should pivot over the right leg during the backswing action while increasingly pressure-weighting the right leg and increasing the COP-measurement under the right foot from ~45-50% at address to 70-80% by P4, and that the left pelvis should be more free-floating over an increasingly pressure-unweighted left leg/foot. In other words, the right leg is the "firm post" (door hinge) around which a golfer should pivot during the backswing action. The left pelvis is equivalent to the far/free end of the door that is at the opposite side of the door hinge, and it should freely swing clockwise during the P1 to P4 time period. Backswing: RETAIN LORDOSIS / lower back curvature from set-up... at some point, the Right leg straightens and allows the right hip to go back, with the left side of the butt still firmly planted to retain lordosis..... this causes the sacrum to go towards the target and keeps the hips near the tush line, rather than moving into the ballI disagree 100%. I think that pivoting over the straightening right leg (which is increasingly pressure-weighted) during the backswing action drives the right hip joint backwards (towards the tush line) and also towards the target. I think that it is wrong to think of keeping the left buttocks in place during this time period and the I believe that the left hip joint/left buttocks should be moving closer to the ball-target line as the left leg becomes increasingly unweighted and as the left knee bends +/- left heel raises. I cannot understand why Grant believes that lumbar lordosis should be affected by this natural rotary pelvic motion. Transition: LORDOSIS INCREASED - The last part of the back-swing is completed by using the left hip, and by letting the left foot unweight.... As the shoulder turn is on its last leg, transition occurs. Lordosis increased when the Left hip and foot plant, and right side lateral bend occurs while the right hip is held back. This causes the "duel stretch" in the right shoulder towards both glutes, looking from rear view and leads into the "Squat."These sentences are totally wrong-headed!!! How can replanting weight on the left foot at the start of the downswing affect the degree of lordosis of the lumbar spine? There is ZERO evidence that pro golfers develop right lateral bend during the transition - and I have provided a lot of evidence to demonstrate that it doesn't happen (by providing back view capture images of many pro golfers and by ii) showing the Marsh graphs that show that left-lateral bend decreases during the transition and becomes zero at the ~35% downswing time point [which is roughly at P4.7]). Grant has zero evidence that there is a "duel stretch" phenomenon of the right shoulder towards both glutes. Also, the "squat" is simply due to the hip-squaring action that happens between P4 and P5 if the pelvis remains centralised between the feet, and the pelvic motion that happens between P4 and P5 is secondary to activation of the pelvic girdle muscles (and not due to spine motion creating a downward force that moves the pelvis). Here is a back view of Gary Woodland. Image 2 is at P4 and image 3 is at P5. Note that there is no increase in his degree of lumbar lordosis (in the sagittal plane) during this time period, and note that he has no right lateral bend. Here is back view of Dustin Johnson. Image 2 shows DJ during his transition period. Note that he is losing his left-lateral bend of his mid-upper thoracic spine, but he has not yet acquired any right lateral bend, which only happens near/after P5 (and it is first becoming evident in image 3). Note that there is no evidence of increased lordosis of his lumbar spine (in the sagittal plane). Downswing (hands at sternum) LORDOSIS MAINTAINED At this point, the left arm is parallel to the ground roughly from face on, the right elbow should appear below it, the left foot has planted, pelvis has moved down and the hips are square, with the knees pulling in opposite directions in ER......I don't believe that the knees are pulling in opposite directions. I think that it is crazy to think that the right knee is moving away from the target while the left knee moves towards the target during the P4 to P5 time period. I think that the left knee moves a lot towards the target creating a condition of ER of the left hip joint. However, the right hip joint becomes externally rotated primarily due to a counterclockwise rotary motion of the pelvis and not due to a clockwise motion of the right knee during the P4 to P5 time period. Downswing (hands at hip) through impact -PPT INCREASED - I think the important thing on the timing here is that the hips have come full circle. Sacrum moved towards target in backswing, then settled back as the left foot planted in downswing, with the hips inside the left foot to cause an appearance of pushing back from face on. If the sacrum has moved backwards, you are free to PPT during the last part of the swing, without thrusting towards the target or stalling out. The left foot should move. This is the second fire.There is no biomechanical imperative for the left hindfoot to move (float-rotate) in front-foot golfers and I believe that it should only be expected to happen in reverse-group golfers. Grant doesn't doesn't clearly define what he means by "2nd fire" and I know of no evidence to support a 2nd pelvic firing phenomenon. I think that Grant is just foolishly parroting/regurgitating KM's/Jeffy's wrongheaded ideas! Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 19, 2014 10:10:44 GMT -5
I am going to supplement my previous post to show that I am correct regarding the early downswing motions of the pelvis and spine. Consider a back view video of Dustin Johnson's driver swing. Here are back view capture images of Dustin Johnson between P4 and P5.5. Image 1 is at P4. I have drawn a red line to delineate the top of his right shoulder location and a blue line to indicate the top of the right pelvis location. Note that DJ is using an arch-extension maneuver that causes targetwards tilt of his mid-upper thoracic spine, which gives the right side of his right mid-upper torso a convex-appearance. His right scapula is so retracted that it obscures any view of his upper spine. Note that he has a natural degree of lumbar lordosis. Image 2 is at P4.5. Note that his right shoulder has dropped and that is partly due to his loss of the arch-extension maneuver that causes targetwards-tilt of his mid-upper thoracic spine and it is partly due to depression of his right shoulder secondary to progressive lessening of the retraction of his right scapula. Note that there is no evidence of right lateral bend of the spine. Image 3 is at P4.8, image 4 is at P5 and image 5 is at P5.5. Note that the right shoulder continues to move downwards due to the loss of his arch-extension maneuver and due to the elimination of any right scapula retraction. Note that the outer border of his right scapula has moved outwards (rightwards) across his back and it causes a bulge under his right armpit area - giving the right side of his mid-upper torso a concave appearance (as if he is scrunching his right shoulder down towards his right hip). How can I prove that the "scrunching down of the right shoulder" is not due to right lateral bend of the spine? Here is the proof. This image shows DJ at address. Note that he has a white-colored square area on the back of his shirt at neck collar level, and that represents the top end of his thoracic spine. The bottom end of his lumbar spine is located just above his belt line - between the two central loops. I have drawn a faint green line to show that his spine is straight and tilted slightly to the right. This image shows DJ at P5.5. You can clearly see his spine in this image because it is no longer obscured by the retracted right scapula. I have traced his spine with a faint green line and one can clearly see that he has minimal rightwards bend of his spine at this mid-downswing time point. According to Doug Marsh, the "average" pro will have about 10 degrees of rightwards spinal bend at this time point, which fits in with this image. Most importantly, note that any concave curvature of the spine doesn't happen below the short yellow line (which delineates the upper end of the lumbar spine) so any minimal side-compression of the spine happens at the level of the lower thoracic spine. Note that there is no increase in the degree of his lumbar lordosis (in the sagittal plane) compared to his address position, and it demonstrates that it is a fallacy to believe that skilled pro golfers alter their natural degree of lumbar lordosis during their backswing and early downswing action. Interestingly, what actually causes the small degree of rightwards lateral bend of his spine in the above image is the fact that the pelvis, and therefore the lumbar spine, is rotating away from the target between P4 and P5.5 while there is very little rightwards side-movement of the upper end of his thoracic spine (and head) during this time period. In other words, the acquisition of right lateral bend during the earlier downswing is causally due to a pelvic motion and not primarily due to an upper torso motion. It is only during the mid-later downswing that right lateral bend is primarily due to an active rightwards arching of the thoracic spine. These facts disprove KM's spine engine theory that right lateral bend happens during the transition and that it causes the pelvic motion. It is obvious that DJ is squaring his pelvis in his early downswing due to an independent pelvic motion that doesn't depend on his spine, and it is due to an independent muscular contraction of his pelvic girdle muscles. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 19, 2014 19:40:58 GMT -5
I suspected that Jeffy would try and rewrite "reality". See his latest post in the "Jeff Mann" thread - jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?1089-Jeff-Mann/page2In post #19, Jeffy states-: " Uh, Dr. Mann, where exactly does Kelvin state that, during the transition, right side lateral bend causes the pelvic motion initiating the downswing?" Jeffy is now implying that KM didn't state that lateral bend must start during the transition in order to initiate the pelvic motion. Jeffy is now implying that KM only claimed that lateral bend helps to rotate the pelvis after the pelvic girdle muscles start the pelvic rotation. However, this is just another attempt by Jeffy to rewrite the "facts" when the "facts" show that a KM-theory is incorrect. KM posted this image in his spine engine article. KM stated with respect to this image-: " Lateral bend, although it seems simple, is really quite complicated. Simplistically, it is just a side bending like the picture above. But add in that this must be done at a while you're at the top of your backswing with shoulders turned, while in the absence of downswing shoulder rotation (if for a brief moment), while your spine is being bent to the right, your shoulder is pulled down behind you while increasing lumbar lordosis (explained later) and while the rotator cuff muscles are externally rotating the arm. Now this seems very complicated. So when does lateral bending occur? It should start during transition." The bold-highlighted statements do not happen!!! There is no evidence that there is any right lateral bend at the "top of your backswing with shoulders turned". Even Jeffy claimed that lateral bend must happen during the transition to power the pelvic motion via the spine engine. See this thread - jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?769-Scientific-Bias/page3In post #31, Jeffy states-: " The first fire is by the spine engine and initiates the downswing". Jeffy has unequivocally stated that the spine engine initiates the downswing action by being the " first fire", but that is not possible if there is no right lateral bend during the transition (between P4 and P4.5). If Jeffy now wants to rewrite "reality" and claim that right lateral bend doesn't initiate the downswing, but that it only assists in rotating the pelvis during the mid-late downswing, then he still needs to explain how that is biomechanically possible if the compressed concave-bend only involves the lower thoracic spine (where the flat interfacet joints are incapable of "locking") and where the it doesn't involve the lumbar spine (where the interfacet joints are cup-shaped and always "locked" when the lumbar spine is in its natural state of lordosis). Jeffy then tries to divert attention from the central argument by posting this image showing excerpted KM-comments from one of his articles. Jeffy seemingly tries to argue that the iliopsoas muscle, which can flex the hip joints and increase the degree of spinal inclination bend at the level of the hip joints, is responsible for powering the pelvic motion. However, he is wrong because they do not cause the pelvic rotation between P4 and P4.5 that is the first downswing action (Hogan's left hip clearing action as demonstrated by Hogan in this next image). Jeffy even seemingly tries to argue that this next explanation powers the "Hogan left hip clearing action" by posting this excerpt from a KM article. KM states that the left hip joint must move down and the left femur must abduct to initiate the downswing so that the left pelvis can become elevated in the later downswing - via the mechanism of a stretch-shorten phenomenon. That's another bizarre/nonsensical KM-claim. That ridiculous claim also doesn't explain which pelvic girdle muscles actually start to rotate the pelvis between P4 and P4.5, and KM never discusses this issue in his articles. Jeffy is being ridiculously diversionary by introducing these irrelevant KM-micromoves (LPT move) that are not specifically related to the downswing's initiating action - Hogan's left hip clearing action, which is a rotary pelvic motion where the left pelvis gets pulled back towards the tush line thereby rotating the left pelvis/left hip joint counterclockwise. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 19, 2014 23:46:50 GMT -5
I went back to KM's article on the spine engine and I found this image of Ben Hogan at P4. KM wrote regarding this image-: " Here’s Ben Hogan with a very good lateral bend and lordosis. Notice that it creates a concave appearance in his back. The concave appearance, or what we called the “anaconda position,” shows that lateral bend and lordosis is present." KM is obviously wrong because there cannot be any right lateral bend present at the P4 position - before Hogan has even started the downswing action. That "anaconda position" visual appearance is due to an element of left lateral bend (being secondary to the use of an arch-extension maneuver) that is superimposed on a rotating upper torso that is more rotated than the pelvis, and it is not due to right lateral bend. Here is further evidence - consider capture images of Tiger Woods from a back view. Image 1 shows Tiger Woods at the end-backswing with that same visual appearance - what KM calls an "anaconda position" appearance. However, that is due to his use of an arch-extension maneuver that causes leftwards bend of the mid-upper thoracic spine - combined with the biomechanical "fact" that his upper torso is rotated more than his pelvis. One cannot see TW's spine in his early downswing (images 2 and 3) because it is obscured by the fact that he still has i) some left lateral bend of his mid-upper spine and ii) due to his retracted right scapula. Note that the first clear view of TW's spine becomes apparent in image 4 (P5 position). I have drawn a faint green line to show that his spine is nearly straight with only minimal right lateral bend. Image 5 shows TW at the P5.5 position - he has more pronounced right lateral bend. However, the concave-curve of the lateral bend is above the yellow line (which delineates the upper end of the lumbar spine) so it doesn't involve the lumbar spine. One can clearly see that TW's natural degree of lumbar lordosis (in the sagittal plane) has not increased between P4 and P5.5. KM wrongly claims that TW has marked lordosis in this image. However, that red curve is drawn along the left side of TW's mid-torso, and it is not related to the lumbar spine. Note that TW has the same concave curve on the left side of his torso in images 1 and 2 of the back view series, and that concave curve is due to the differential degree of rotation of the upper torso (which is compounded by the presence of left-lateral bend) relative to the degree of rotation of the pelvis. Note that the concave curve disappears as the early downswing evolves (images 3 and 4) and the left side of his mid-torso actually has a convex appearance by P5 (image 4)- as the pelvis becomes more square to the ball-target line. That concave-curve appearance of the left side of his mid-torso (which only exists between P4 and P4.5) has nothing to with the degree of lumbar lordosis. That's another huge KM-error!!! Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 20, 2014 23:39:04 GMT -5
See this Jeffy-forum thread - jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?1089-Jeff-Mann/page2Warning - this ProBoard forum automatically changes certain words, so it will not produce the word that is the antonym of the word "honest" where that word is preceded by "dis". So, I will deliberately use this word in exchange "not honest". Grant wrote the following-: " i almost cant resist to comment, because of what you highlighted above. he is on a witch hunt, evidenced by the fact that i'll see him state kelvins teaching for kelvin, not in kels words....but in his words....and then dismantle it. THE PROBLEM IS THIS: ill read him say "kelvin miyahara believes __________" and ill say .... "wait, a second.... thats nothing ive heard kelvin say before....that doesnt sound right." its absolute maddening to watch someone debate so "not honestly". Grant claims that I misinterpret or misrepresent KM's opinions/ideas by not using KM's words, and that I replace his words with my words. That is a reasonable claim, but does misinterpretation/misrepresentation represent being "not honest"? Not according to my personal understanding of the term "not honest". I only use the word "not honest" when I perceive that a person knows in advance that something is not true, but then states that it is true. That's why I never assert that KM is being "not honest" because I really believe that he sincerely believes in his opinions - even though I think that his opinions are often i) ridiculously wrongheaded, ii) logically nonsensical, iii) biomechanically incoherent, or iv) a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of reality. Now, I don't at all mind if Grant thinks that my opinions are i) ridiculously wrongheaded, ii) logically nonsensical, iii) biomechanically incoherent, or iv) a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of reality. However, to use the term "not honest" means that he thinks that I believe that KM is actually correct, but I simply want to represent him as being incorrect. I find that derogatory 'ad hominem' claim psychologically bizarre!!! How can he (and Jeffy) use the terms "not honest" (and the term "liar") if they do not simultaneously present any evidence that I knowingly criticise KM while consciously knowing in advance that my expressed opinions are actually untrue. I think that it is boorishly uncivilized to make that claim about another human being without presenting very concrete (unassailable) evidence that the other human being knows in advance of commenting that his expressed opinions are actually untrue. It is well known that Jeffy routinely makes that outrageously flagrant claim with respect to people who harbor contrary opinions relative to his personal opinions (eg. people like BM, JM, Mike Finney and Mike Duffey) and now it would seem that Grant is mimicking Jeffy's uncivilized behavior, and becoming a Jeffy-clone. Grant also wrote the following in reply to Jeffy (who stated " Jeff Mann is a deliberate and systematic liar")-: " your exactly right. ill give you one of many many many examples. he argues why kel is wrong that lateral bend must happen right at transition. well, kel never says that. kel prefers that, and teaches that. but like you said its not absolute. kel says that it is easiest to do it that way, but kel speaks highly of carl petterson and his late lateral bend". Grant implies that there are "many,many examples" of me being "not honest" and he chooses the above example to make his point that I am a liar. His example means that I consciously know in advance that KM doesn't really state i) that right lateral bend must happen in transition; or ii) that KM really believes that it is only his personal preference and not an absolute requirement. Where is Grant's evidence that I am knowingly lying? I will now choose to ignore Grant's psycho-pathological claim about my conscious behavior, and simply consider the contents of his chosen example. Grant states that KM actually believes that right lateral bend during the transition is only his personal preference and not mandatory. Where is the "evidence" supporting Grant's claim? Where did KM state that right lateral bend at the transition is only preferable, and not mandatory? Can it be derived from studying this unedited KM-quote from his spine engine article-: " Lateral bend, although it seems simple, is really quite complicated. Simplistically, it is just a side bending like the picture above. But add in that this must be done at a while you're at the top of your backswing with shoulders turned, while in the absence of downswing shoulder rotation (if for a brief moment), while your spine is being bent to the right, your shoulder is pulled down behind you while increasing lumbar lordosis (explained later) and while the rotator cuff muscles are externally rotating the arm. Now this seems very complicated. So when does lateral bending occur? It should start during transition. Do you believe that the bold-highlighted statements simply reflect a preference? If you do, does that mean that the spine engine method of inducing pelvic rotation during the transition only applies to a select number of pro golfers? Which pro golfers? Which pro golfer develops right lateral bend to a sufficient degree during the transition that it can induce pelvic rotation between P4 and P4.5 - even though Doug Marsh's graphs show that it doesn't happen in any of the pro golfers in his study reference? Grant may decide to claim that Ben Hogan is a perfect example of a golfer who has right lateral bend between P4 and P4.5 - based on this "anaconda position" image presented by KM in his article. Do you really believe that image shows right lateral bend? What about Ryo Ishikawa? Do you really believe that the concave red curve unequivocally proves that RI has right lateral bend during his transition? Am I a "liar" if I assert that I believe that neither Ben Hogan or Ryo Ishikawa is manifesting right lateral bend in those images? Grant also asserts that KM states that acquiring right lateral bend during the transition is the "easiest way". Where did KM make that claim about it being the "easiest way"? Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 21, 2014 8:52:55 GMT -5
I previously posted this claim by Grant-: " he argues why kel is wrong that lateral bend must happen right at transition. well, kel never says that. kel prefers that, and teaches that. but like you said its not absolute. kel says that it is easiest to do it that way, but kel speaks highly of carl petterson and his late lateral bend". Grant claims that KM never stated that right lateral bend must happen at the transition. I have already shown that Grant is wrong by posting an unedited quote from KM's spine engine article. Here is another unedited KM-quote from that article-: " So when does lateral bending occur? It should start during transition. If you try to do it later, it just won't have the time to bend as it should and over the top shoulder moves will result." So who is being "not honest" - me or Grant? Here is more evidence that KM recommends right lateral bending in the early downswing between P4 and P4.5 - before the shoulders start turning.. KM posted this animated gif of Rory McIlroy. KM then stated-: " Here's an animation of Rory's right shoulder moving down in transition. This was shot at 300 frames per second and but I'm showing it as 150 frames per second so as to cut down on the amount of stills needed.
Approximately 24 frames of 300 fps video or .08 seconds worth of lateral bending occurs without any shoulder rotation at this point.
This gives the spine facets some time to connect before any rotation begins. If you jump the gun and begin rotating too early, it's harder to get the lateral bend. " The bold-highlighted statement indicates that KM routinely recommends very early right lateral bending - before the shoulder rotation even starts at the start of the downswing. Amazingly, KM even claims that it "gives the spine facets some time to connect before any rotation begins". In other words, he believes that a sufficient degree of lordosis must be present to ensure interfacet joint "locking" before the shoulders start to rotate. Of course, that doesn't happen!!! He has never produced an image of a golfer who has increased lordosis during the transition - unless you are deluded enough to believe that the red concave curved line in this Tiger Woods image represents lordosis. This back view series of images clearly show that Tiger Woods doesn't increase his natural degree of lordosis during the transition. Note how much Tiger's shoulders have rotated between image 1 (P4) and image 4 (P5). However, note that Tiger doesn't even have any right lateral bend at P5 and he doesn't have any increase in his degree of lordosis (in the sagittal plane). Note that there is also no side-bending of the lumbar spine. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 21, 2014 23:10:21 GMT -5
Jeffy posted the following comment in the Jeffy-forum-: " On this one, Jeff Mann is just playing a stupid game. The spine is typically in left side lateral bend at the top. What Kel is advising, and the graphs produced by TPI and Doug Marsh clearly show good players doing, is to have the spine start moving towards right side lateral bend at the top. In the case of Mr. Elite and Arron Oberholser (Pro3), that reversal begins before the top of the backswing. Mann's strawman is that Kel wants a player to somehow instantaneously jump from being in left lateral bend to being in right lateral bend. Right. All those posts of Mann's attacking this strawman are a ridiculous waste of time, and shows his level of desperation for attention." Jeffy may think it is stupid game, but the "facts" derived from those 3-D graphs and from capture images demonstrate that the spine engine theory is invalid. Jeffy posted TPI graphs showing the same "facts" as Doug Marsh's graphs - that a golfer moves from left lateral bend at P4 towards right lateral bend and that a significant amount of right lateral bend only develops after P5 (which defines the end of the early downswing). That means that there is no significant amount of right lateral bend present during the entire early downswing time period between P4 and P5, which means that the spine engine cannot possibly be operant during that P4-P5 time period - during which time period the pelvis rotates about 40 degrees to become square by P5. That proves that all the pelvic rotation between P4 and P5 is due to the active muscular contraction of pelvic girdle muscles and that there is no spine engine driving the rotation of the pelvis. Jeffy is also avoiding dealing with the other component of the spine theory, and that is the component of lordosis. The "facts" show that there is no lateral bend involving the lumbar spine, and that any side-compression of verbrae on the concave-side of the right lateral bend (which only develops in the mid-downswing) only involves the lower thoracic spine, and the thoracic vertebral facet processes are flat and incapable of "locking" (like intermeshing gears). If anybody is being stupid, it is KM for claiming that right lateral bend is present in the following two images Ben Hogan Ryo Ishikawa KM was being even more wrongheaded when he wrote about there being left lordosis and right lordosis, and when he refers to the concave curve of the left side of Tiger Woods' torso (in the next image) as representing lordosis. That red curve doesn't imply lumbar lordosis. KM also posted this animated gif involving Tiger Woods. KM wrongly wrote the following regarding that animated gif-: " From the front view, you can see that Tiger’s lumbar lordosis or arching increases as he finishes the backswing. See the curve in his spine? ” What curve in his spine? One cannot see the lumbar spine from that face-on viewing perspective and KM is wrongly equating an arched/concave appearance of the side of the mid-torso as being equivalent to lumbar lordosis. Here are the back view images of Tiger Woods. One can clearly see that Tiger Woods only has the natural degree of lumbar lordosis (in the sagittal plane) during his early-mid downswing (images 1 - 5), and that there is no increased lumbar lordosis happening during that time period. Image 5 is at P5.5 and one clearly see that there is i) no increased lumbar lordosis of TW's lumbar spine (below the yellow line) and ii) that the lumbar spine is also straight and not involved in the very small degree of right lateral bend that only involves the thoracic spine (above the yellow line). One can also see that the concave-curvacture of the left side of TW's mid-torso in images 1 and 2 is due to the differential degree of rotation of the upper torso (relative to the pelvis) and that it doesn't reflect the degree of lordosis of the lumbar spine. Jeffy is using the same desperate diversionary tactics he has frequently used in the past when his opinions have been shown to be incorrect eg. Example 1 - stating that the left wrist is moving towards extension after impact when presented with concrete evidence that overt left wrist extension doesn't happen post-impact in DHers; Example 2 - stating that the 2nd pelvic firing phenomenon should be perceived to be the biomechanical phenomenon of left pelvis elevation in the vertical plane when 3-D evidence proved that that pelvic rotation didn't accelerate in the late downswing between P6.5 and P7 (which was his original claim regarding the 2nd pelvic firing phenomenon). Jeffy will never change his behavior and he will continue to defend his "belief" in the spine engine theory even if the real life "facts" don't support the theory's applicability to the full golf swing. Addendum added later: I discover more idiotic comments every time I re-read KM's spine engine articles. KM wrote the following-: " In the impact zone, when the powerful leg and hip extensors are firing, the PLS is the “primary force transmission mechanism” according to Gracovetsky. The PLS connection from the hip bone to the spinous processes (facets) allow the direct flow of force to pulse the spine engine to rotate faster via an elastic recoil that is more powerful than just muscular force" This Gracovetsky-derived idea is wrong-headed from multiple points of view. First of all, there is no scientific evidence showing that there is an elastic recoil phenomenon involving the PLS fascia. Even more importantly, he claims that the spine engine will then rotate the pelvis faster during the impact time period, but there is no evidence that the pelvis rotates faster through impact. Even if the pelvis was theoretically capable of rotating a little faster through impact - how would that benefit a golfer in terms of swing power? It couldn't possibly increase CH speed if it is happening at impact. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 23, 2014 9:34:34 GMT -5
Consider yet again this comment made by Jeffy in his forum-: " On this one, Jeff Mann is just playing a stupid game. The spine is typically in left side lateral bend at the top. What Kel is advising, and the graphs produced by TPI and Doug Marsh clearly show good players doing, is to have the spine start moving towards right side lateral bend at the top. In the case of Mr. Elite and Arron Oberholser (Pro3), that reversal begins before the top of the backswing. Mann's strawman is that Kel wants a player to somehow instantaneously jump from being in left lateral bend to being in right lateral bend." Consider those two bold-highlighted statements which are not compatible. Jeffy claims that KM is advising a golfer to move towards right lateral bend during the transitional phase of the early downswing, but that KM is not claiming that right lateral bend must be acquired during the transitional phase of the early downswing between P4 and P4.5 - and he claims that I am creating a strawman argument to misrepresent KM's viewpoint. However - I am not! Consider what KM actually stated regarding this Rory McIlroy animated gif. KM stated-: " Here's an animation of Rory's right shoulder moving down in transition. This was shot at 300 frames per second and but I'm showing it as 150 frames per second so as to cut down on the amount of stills needed.
Approximately 24 frames of 300 fps video or .08 seconds worth of lateral bending occurs without any shoulder rotation at this point.
This gives the spine facets some time to connect before any rotation begins." It is KM who is claiming that the interfacet joints must be connecting during the transition - and that it must happen before the shoulders start to turn. According to the spine engine theory, the interfacet joints can only connect after the golfer has acquired the requisite amount of right lateral bend. That means that KM is claiming that the requisite amount of right lateral bend should be happening before the shoulders start turning during the transitional phase of the downswing. Jeffy should stop foolishly making wild claims about me creating strawman arguments when the "facts" clearly show that KM personally claims that right lateral bend must occur very early in the downswing. Jeffy also continues to conveniently/self-servingly ignore the personal statement that he made in his forum - " The first fire is by the spine engine and initiates the downswing" - and then he falsely accuses me of being ridiculously wrongheaded about KM's claim about the timing of the right lateral bend move! The idea that the spine engine initiates the downswing's rotary pelvic motion is incompatible with the "real life" reality of the full golf swings of professional golfers. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jun 23, 2014 22:56:53 GMT -5
Here is yet more evidence that KM misinterprets and misrepresents reality in order to justify his "belief" in the spine engine theory. KM posted this image of Jamie Sadlowski at P5. KM drew a green dotted line on the image that he thinks represents the right lateral bend of JS's spine. I think that he is totally wrong. In particular, the upper-mid section of his spine cannot be seen in that image because it is still obscured by JS's retracted right scapula and bulging peri-scapular muscles. There is no way that JS's spine could have such an exaggerated degree of bend at the P5 time point. Here is JS at the P5.5 position when one can more clearly see his entire spine - without it being obscured by the overlying right scapula and periscapular musculature. The yellow curve represents the likely course of his spine at the P5.5 position. Note that he has more right lateral bend than Tiger Woods when TW is at his P5.5 position (image 5 of the back view TW series). The green curve represents the concave (compressed) side of the right lateral bend. Note that it only involves the lower thoracic spine, and not the lumbar spine, and the thoracic spine's interfacet joints are flat and incapable of "interlocking". Note that KM is pointing his finger at the lumbar spine in this capture image from his swing video, but that lumbar spine area is not involved in the concave/compressed area of the right lateral bend. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 21, 2014 19:54:55 GMT -5
See this Jeffy-forum thread started by KM - jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?1187-Tiger-s-lateral-bend-changes-on-backswingKM posted this comparison photo of the P4 position of two swings of Tiger Woods. The swing on the left is from 2014 (post-back surgery) and the swing on the right is from 2013. KM then made this outrageously wrongheaded claim -: " In 2013 Tiger's thoracic spine is tilted down (left lateral bend). 2014 shows thoracic spine tilted up and away from the ball (right lateral bend).". That's a very foolish claim - because one cannot assess whether a golfer has left-or-right lateral bend when viewing a capture image taken from that camera angle. Also, any tilting up-or-down of the top of the thoracic spine has no necessary biomechanical connection with any left-or-right lateral bend. I actually believe that the two P4 capture images are identical when it comes to showing TW's backswing motion of his thoracic spine at the P4 position. Why should TW-backswing's thoracic spine motion have changed as result of having a mini-discectomy of a lower lumbar vertebral disc? Only a KM groupie like Grant could find that explanation logical/meritorious! Grant has a lot in common with Dooku when its comes to a profound lack of knowledge of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. In one Jeffy-forum thread, Dooku even stated that he thought that BM's term "going normal" was a synonym for the "release". Wow! No wonder that Grant/Dooku find KM's wrongheaded comments re: golf swing biomechanics logically credible. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 4, 2014 0:24:50 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote the following in his forum today. " Jeff Mann is hilarious. He has been stating for weeks that pelvic rotation in the downswing is powered by the "pelvic girdle muscles", but, guess what? None of the "pelvic girdle muscles" are positioned in a way that allows them to rotate the pelvis in the horizontal plane! The good Doctor needs to go back to medical school.
Also, Dr. Mann seems to be unaware that it was observed over a 100 years ago that lateral bending of the spine will induce rotation of the pelvis in the opposite direction. It is one of "Fryette's Laws". Dr. Gracovetsky devotes an entire chapter to the subject in his treatise "The Spinal Engine". Even though it is obvious that Dr. Mann has not read Dr. Gracovetsky's work (he no doubt can't afford it at $100 per copy), he feels entitled to criticize it. Pathetic." Jeffy believes that none of the pelvic girdle muscles are positioned in a way that allows them to rotate the pelvis in a horizontal plane. So, what does he think is rotating the pelvis between P4 and P5 in Bubba Watson's early downswing - when his pelvis motion is horizontal and when he doesn't have any lateral bend? Secondly, I have never disputed the fact that lateral bending of the spine can induce rotation of the pelvis in the opposite direction. Any rational individual who stands erect and then lateral bends his upper torso to one side will immediately note that it induces a rotation of the pelvis in the opposite direction. I have only disputed the claim that it occurs via the mechanism of "interlocking gears" (interlocking lumbar interfacet joints). The incontrovertible "fact" remains that any lateral bending of the thoracic spine only causes side-compression of the lower thoracic spine, and the thoracic spinal interfacet joints are flat and incapable of "locking". The concave side-bend (which KM wrongly labels "lordosis" in his articles) doesn't involve the lumbar spine. Also, any rational golfer, who adopts a golfer's standard P4 posture (without even holding a golf club), and who then simply drives his right shoulder downplane will note that it induces a counterclockwise rotation of the pelvis. So, it is clearly obvious that any right lateral bend that occurs in the mid-downswing, and which happens simultaneously with the active downplane motion of the right shoulder, can make it biomechanically easier to continue to rotate the pelvis counterclockwise between P5.5 and P7. However, that doesn't mean that any "force" transmitted via the spine (and paraspinal soft tissue) secondary to the downplane motion of the right shoulder is the primary force that rotates the pelvis in the mid-late downswing, and it certainly doesn't account for the "fact" that Tiger Woods had a much more open pelvis at P7 when he was 16 years old compared to when he was 24 years old - see next image. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 4, 2014 9:35:53 GMT -5
Grant posted the following comments in the Jeffy forum in response to Jeffy's claim that lateral bend rotates the pelvis in the opposite direction.
"I have a question though.
that doesnt seem right..... if i just stand up and side bend left right around my ribcage....then side bend right..... it doesnt feel like my pelvis needs to move???
i dont understand. or is my spine actually not bending when im doing that? does it have to occur during an athletic motion? like when i twist my upper and lower in opposite directions at the top?
so when i right side bend in my swing and if my pelvis doesnt rotate (that appearence of leaning back and lateral bend without lordosis)...... im not actually bending the spine? aren't i still bending the upper part of it?"
I cannot fathom how Grant can be stupid enough to question his "belief" that his spine is actually bending when he deliberately bends his upper spine sideways in a lateral bending manner - simply because the pelvis doesn't rotate in response to the "pure" lateral bending action. The reason why the pelvis doesn't rotate in response to a "pure" right lateral bending is that the "force" produced by the right lateral bending is acting directly downwards towards the right foot - and there is no rotary torque being applied to the pelvis. However, if the right lateral bends occurs in a direction that is slightly forwards (in the direction of the ball-target line) then it will cause the pelvis to rotate counterclockwise - even in the absence of anterior pelvic tilt.
Jeffy foolishly responded to Grant with this ridiculously wrongheaded reply-: "You need to have lordosis of the lumbar spine, or anterior pelvic tilt, to induce rotation"
Wow! Jeffy's idiocy knows no bounds. First of all, it is wrong to equate lordosis of the lumbar spine with anterior pelvic tilt when it comes to a golfer's swing action. A golfer can simply tilt his pelvis anteriorly by varying the degree of bend at hip joint level. That will change the degree of spinal bend inclination and make the golfer less erect - without necessarily affecting the degree of lumbar lordosis. Now, it is theoretically possible to keep the overall spine bend inclination angle relatively constant when tilting the pelvis anteriorly, and that will increase the degree of lumbar lordosis (in the sagittal plane). However, that biomechanical phenomenon doesn't usually happen in a pro golfer's downswing action. Most pro golfers maintain roughly the same degree of lumbar lordosis (in the sagittal plane) during their downswing action - presuming that they don't have a "standing-up" swing fault.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 4, 2014 10:37:40 GMT -5
Jeffy wrongheadedly claims that none of the pelvic girdle muscles are positioned in a way to induce a pelvic rotation in the horizontal plane. Here are the true "facts". Read this pdf file - www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/misc/kinesiology/chapter7.pdfOn page 115, he describes the 6 lateral rotator muscles that are used to rotate the pelvis externally from a position of internal rotation (eg. baseball player performing a hitting or pitching action) - piriformis, gemellus superior. gemullus inferior, obturator externus, obturator internus and quadrator femoris. How can Jeffy justifiably claim that those pelvic girdle muscles are not positioned correctly to rotate the pelvis in the horizontal plane as the left hip joint becomes externally rotated? Also, read the section on gluteus medius on page 117. It states that the posterior fibres externally rotate the pelvis when the ipsilateral femur abducts. How can Jeffy justifiably claim that the gluteus medius muscle is not positioned in a way that it can cause the pelvis to externally rotate in a horizontal plane? Also, the author claims that the gluteus maximums muscle assists in external rotation of the pelvis as the left leg straightens and the left femur becomes more extended at the level of the hip joint. Look at Bubba Watson's lead hip joint motion at the start of his downswing action - and note the prominent external rotation of his lead femur at the level of the hip joint. Do you believe that the 6 lateral pelvic rotator muscles are not involved? Note how his lead femur becomes progressively more abducted during his early downswing action. Do you think that his lead gluteus medius muscle is not actively involved in rotating his lead femur during this time period? Jeff.
|
|