Brian Manzella discusses new theory with top Biomechanists at the PGA Show

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
I had two very interesting talks at the PGA Show with Phil Cheetham and Robert Neal, arguably the top two biomechanists in golf.

The discussion covered lots of ground, but both centered around a theory of mine (posted two posts below) that both men thought was way more than just valid, and Neal wants to collaborate on an article about.

There were numerous other discussions over the two indoor and one outdoor show sessions that I attended, and trust me, they were mostly great and very high level.

The PGA Show is a place you MUST be to have these kind of talks with folks like the ones I talked to at length.

And it was an ALL-STAR team, trust me.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
7:43 am, Monday, 2/01/10. The 3D Machine D-Plane Correction Theory by Brian Manzella

I have talked to Cheetham before on the phone.

I met Neal at the MIT Summit in Cambridge, Mass.

As far as the theory goes, I guess I better "publish" it right here, right now, just in case someone else claims it.

In my opinion, the orientation of the 3-D machine should be 90° to the Horizontal Swing Plane (Plane Line, Direction of Swing) and NOT 90° to the target.

For example:

If Charles Howell hits 8° down on his driver at 45°, and Paula Creamer hits up 8° at 45°, then Howell would have to rotate his Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the left to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation, and Creamer would have to rotate her Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the right to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation.

Then, if both Howell and Creamer had IDENTICAL OPEN SHOULDERS that are 35° open to their Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction, the TARGET LINE ORIENTED 3-D machine would have Howell's shoulders about 43° open and Creamers only 27°!!!

And that would NOT be what they are actually doing.

You see. :D
 
Matt 4-L

Matt 4-L

New
Brian Manzella said:
I have talked to Cheetham before on the phone.

I met Neal at the MIT Summit in Cambridge, Mass.

As far as the theory goes, I guess I better "publish" it right here, right now, just in case someone else claims it.

In my opinion, the orientation of the 3-D machine should be 90° to the Horizontal Swing Plane (Plane Line, Direction of Swing) and NOT 90° to the target.

For example:

If Charles Howell hits 8° down on his driver at 45°, and Paula Creamer hits up 8° at 45°, then Howell would have to rotate his Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the left to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation, and Creamer would have to rotate her Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the right to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation.

Then, if both Howell and Creamer had IDENTICAL OPEN SHOULDERS that are 35° open to their Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction, the TARGET LINE ORIENTED 3-D machine would have Howell's shoulders about 43° open and Creamers only 27°!!!

And that would NOT be what they are actually doing.

You see. :D
Click to expand...

Brian, can you give an example of a "TARGET LINE ORIENTED 3-D machine".

Edit: I am under the impression that Trackman only measures club data and ball data, is there a machine that also measures body positions along with club and ball data?
 
Last edited:
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
6° 3D

Six-degree-of-freedom motion capture systems that measures and analyzes the biomechanics of the golf swing.

Like measuring the Kinematic Sequence. Acceleration profiles of any part of the body.

Measuring how "open or closed" a body part is to the TARGET.

I say the Horizontal Plane Line.

Get it now?
 
HOT CHILLI

HOT CHILLI

New
Brian Manzella said:
Six-degree-of-freedom motion capture systems that measures and analyzes the biomechanics of the golf swing.

Like measuring the Kinematic Sequence. Acceleration profiles of any part of the body.

Measuring how "open or closed" a body part is to the TARGET.

I say the Horizontal Plane Line.

Get it now?
Click to expand...

Why not just measure them both?
 
Last edited:
dominicscaife

dominicscaife

New
Brian Manzella said:
I have talked to Cheetham before on the phone.

I met Neal at the MIT Summit in Cambridge, Mass.

As far as the theory goes, I guess I better "publish" it right here, right now, just in case someone else claims it.

In my opinion, the orientation of the 3-D machine should be 90° to the Horizontal Swing Plane (Plane Line, Direction of Swing) and NOT 90° to the target.

For example:

If Charles Howell hits 8° down on his driver at 45°, and Paula Creamer hits up 8° at 45°, then Howell would have to rotate his Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the left to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation, and Creamer would have to rotate her Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the right to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation.

Then, if both Howell and Creamer had IDENTICAL OPEN SHOULDERS that are 35° open to their Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction, the TARGET LINE ORIENTED 3-D machine would have Howell's shoulders about 43° open and Creamers only 27°!!!

And that would NOT be what they are actually doing.

You see. :D
Click to expand...

So it's just about the frame of reference.

How about calling it 'Manzella's theory of relativity"?
 
J

James Marshall (Hogan1953)

New member
Brian Manzella said:
I have talked to Cheetham before on the phone.

I met Neal at the MIT Summit in Cambridge, Mass.

As far as the theory goes, I guess I better "publish" it right here, right now, just in case someone else claims it.

In my opinion, the orientation of the 3-D machine should be 90° to the Horizontal Swing Plane (Plane Line, Direction of Swing) and NOT 90° to the target.

For example:

If Charles Howell hits 8° down on his driver at 45°, and Paula Creamer hits up 8° at 45°, then Howell would have to rotate his Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the left to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation, and Creamer would have to rotate her Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the right to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation.

Then, if both Howell and Creamer had IDENTICAL OPEN SHOULDERS that are 35° open to their Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction, the TARGET LINE ORIENTED 3-D machine would have Howell's shoulders about 43° open and Creamers only 27°!!!

And that would NOT be what they are actually doing.

You see. :D
Click to expand...


Does that mean then Brian that a lot of the information they've been pushing/selling in the last few years is plain wrong?
 
mjstrong

mjstrong

New
Makes sense to me. Good point.

Are there any hitting areas that include all of: a Trackman, a 3D machine, and an open bay to watch the actual ballflight? If not, it won't be too long I suppose...
 
S

savydan

New
I think it means that except for D-plane/Trackman, teaching golf is still an art and not a science.

If pseudo-science helps, then great, but don't take it too literally. At least yet.
 
birdie_man

birdie_man

New
Brian Manzella said:
I have talked to Cheetham before on the phone.

I met Neal at the MIT Summit in Cambridge, Mass.

As far as the theory goes, I guess I better "publish" it right here, right now, just in case someone else claims it.

In my opinion, the orientation of the 3-D machine should be 90° to the Horizontal Swing Plane (Plane Line, Direction of Swing) and NOT 90° to the target.

For example:

If Charles Howell hits 8° down on his driver at 45°, and Paula Creamer hits up 8° at 45°, then Howell would have to rotate his Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the left to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation, and Creamer would have to rotate her Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction of Swing 8° to the right to hit a straight ball with a square clubface at separation.

Then, if both Howell and Creamer had IDENTICAL OPEN SHOULDERS that are 35° open to their Horizontal Swing Plane-Plane Line-Direction, the TARGET LINE ORIENTED 3-D machine would have Howell's shoulders about 43° open and Creamers only 27°!!!

And that would NOT be what they are actually doing.

You see. :D
Click to expand...

Not sure I get it...?

How would you line it up?

Aim line?
 
G

goley

New
So if the 3d machine was place on the caddie view... down the line, wouldnt the same thing occur. You would have to have the machine place exaclty down the horizontal plane line for the numbers to be exact. In the Howell senario the machine would have to be a bit to the right of the target line and the Creamer example would have to be a bit to the left of the target line. I guess the only way to get accurate numbers would be to have both a 3d machine and a trackman with the understanding of what the actual horizontal swing plane is.
 
billmckinneygolf

billmckinneygolf

New
Isn't it amazing that the clock (any circle) has 360 degrees...and each tick of the second hand is 6 degrees?! And we're worried whether our driver has 9 or 9.5.
Is the devil in the details or do we worry too much about a half degree here and there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top