Jim McLean's 6 degree-of-freedom 3D report and other pevis/hips commentary

[Brian Manzella]

Answer the question....

I have no problem with my answer...

 

[Brian Manzella]

Don't answer anyone else...just me....YOU have to GO ON RECORD.....so YOU can be picked to pieces one way or the other....

 

[Brian Manzella]

Now you're relating negative alpha with pelvis acceleration. Before we used alpha, beta, and gamma to talk about "on the club" torques, usually with the forces being related back primarily to the hands, arms, and shoulders. Now you're talking about how negative acceleration of the pelvis plays into negative alpha force being put onto the club. Nice. Giving the business, certainly

Maybe the other way around, bra.

 

[lia41985]

The golfer should not feel the need to decelerate his pelvis in the golf swing to and through impact.

Doing so, including via early extension/goat humping, is a move that is occurring to create some sort of compatibility with another, possibly faulty, component.

Turn and release.

Maybe the other way around, bra.

Absolutely. We're probably not dealing with a closed system, sir.

Lia, you have issues with the rotational velocity of the pelvis slowing down, but you're on board with actually trying to reverse direction of the pelvis turn through the ball?

I'm confused.

Yes, you are. So much so I don't understand what you're trying to convey. Please let me know when you feel more comfortable discussing.

 

[Brian Manzella]

#1. Using a term—on a golf instruction website—that is used not only by leading practitioners of both golf teachers and biomechanics teaching golf, as well as certification programs for golf teachers———DECELERATION———and then getting noodle whipped by "Lia" for using it, is well, the story of my life.

#2. Knowing that one segment is pushing against another segment is a pretty old thought.

#3. I'm pretty sure that I am among the first teachers to claim that trying to create negative torque on the top of the coupling point through impact will cause the golfer to negatively accelerate (ok...I wasn't using that term before tonight, but teaching it that way ) not only the hand, but the lead arm and pelvis.

Turn and Release?

So that's what you're saying?

No.

That's too imprecise.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Lia,

All wrapped up in nice little bow...

 

[lia41985]

It is too imprecise, Brian. But it was written as "teaching jargon" after I explained my agreement with the concept of negative acceleration.

John Jacobs sure knew a lot. If I were you, I'd work more towards what he achieved than try to present yourself as some sort of student of science.

 

[lia41985]

Brian,
The fact that other "experts" and "certification programs" use imprecise terms in the guise of scientific education isn't a testimonial for your misinformation. It's a bad assessment for an industry that is doing its darndest to present a fresher face. One that's into being modern! Machines! Technology! Apps! Lol, marketing.

 

[Brian Manzella]

"Student of Science"....hmmmm....

You need to go to some golf teaching seminars, and maybe teach golf for a few years and then see how you feel about that comment.

 

[lia41985]

No, I don't need to do that in order to see how you've presented yourself the last year or so, sir.

I've been following your stuff since 2006.

You talk about marketing strategies a lot.

All of this stuff with TrackMan and Project 1.68?

It was part of a shift.

BManz, the science guy.

Not the TGM variety.

Lol

 

[Brian Manzella]

Brian,
The fact that other "experts" and "certification programs" use imprecise terms in the guise of scientific education isn't a testimonial for your misinformation. It's a bad assessment for an industry that is doing its darndest to present a fresher face. One that's into being modern! Machines! Technology! Apps! Lol, marketing.

It has been an accepted term.

I swim pretty hard against the current. Calling me a "marketer" is an insult to marketing experts.

At the end of the day, I teach golf. And Project 1.68 is a great advance in the thinking of how WHAT TO TEACH can be ascertained.

Unlike some golf teachers, I know I am not a scientist. Thinking you are when you clearly are not, is a colossal waste of time.

 

[lia41985]

Thinking, questioning, doubting, and persevering--concurrently, is never a waste of time. It's a colossal character builder.

 

[Brian Manzella]

No, I don't need to do that in order to see how you've presented yourself the last year or so, sir.

I've been following your stuff since 2006.

You talk about marketing strategies a lot.

All of this stuff with TrackMan and Project 1.68?

It was part of a shift.

BManz, the science guy.

Not the TGM variety.

Lol

All this stuff with TrackMan....???

TrackMan is a just a REALLY GOOD teaching tool. Lots of TrackMan proponents teaching VASTLY different stuff than me and the boys.

Now the uncovering by Fredrik Tuxen of the Resultant Path and the explanation of the D-Plane was a huge SCIENTIFIC advancement. Fredrik has played a large role in that part of Project 1.68, but I repeat, lots of folks that he has influenced teach different stuff than I do by miles.

The shift away from The Golfing Machine had NOTHING to do with marketing. It had to do with me and the guys starting the project and TGM not being close to what we had found and were finding. December 2006, in a long hallway in Howey-in-the-Hills, Florida: "Either we have to call what we are doing something else, or they have to call what they are doing something else"—Michael Jacobs.

The "REAL SCIENCE" aspect came from Michael Jacobs and Jon Hardesty. Hardesty bugged us for a while before we started pouring through the published scientific golf papers and Mike Finney calling everyone of them still alive that spoke English.

Like I have said before, we have a crew that is second to none, and we welcome the challenge from all fronts.

Even you, Lia.

Lol

 

[lia41985]

We'll see. It's a never-ending journey, this learning

Just like you'll revise your biomechanical understanding, continually...

you'll revise you're ball flight understanding, continually...

including...

the D-plane.

Theories, made to be broken.

Life, made to be lived. Lessons, to be learned.

And I sincerely hope it helps all of our golf games.

 

[lia41985]

So what's the deal with these McLean reports?

 

[art]

So what's the deal with these McLean reports?

Dear Lia,

Thanks for returning to the original theme and what I hope to show, the real value of "these McLean reports", which I hope you mean the kinematic sequence plots of 2 of his swings.

As background regarding the possible differences of the kinematics of the same golfer with the same club doing multiple swings, I want to inject some actual personal experience that truly launched me into this passion for seeking 'golf truth' thru science.

A few years ago I made plans to have lunch with Phil Cheetham in Carlsbad where he was certifying the teaching staff at a major golf academy on the AMM/TPI 3D 6DOF System the academy had recently purchased. As is my habit, I arrived a few hours early to prepare for the luncheon meeting with Phil where I would present my findings as to the destructive aspects of inadequate dynamic balance during the explosive downswing.

Unexpectedly, when I poked my head into the 'classroom', Phil asked me to provide the scientific background, and answer a question of one of the academies instructors, and then invited me to stay for the next few hours as he 'tested' and explained the results of each of their swings recorded previously.

The thrust of my story, and the connection with the Jim McLean data that started this thread was the demonstration and recording of the 'Director of Instruction' performing various swing styles in repetitive swings. After 5, he asked if there were any other suggestions, and I requested he perform one with BETTER DYNAMIC BALANCE, at that time I called it a BODIGolf swing for "Body Optimized and Dynamics Integrated", later to be known on this site and implemented as BBKIB.

The comparative results of all 6 swings were then placed on the 55 inch, large screen monitor by Phil, to collectively view the differences in the shape of the kinematic sequences of the 6 different swing styles. It was to me a revelation in understanding as how the same body could produce such varying appearances from the same elite PGA golfer 'apparently' hitting the ball about the same way. NOT SO !!!

And that is ALMOST the end of this story, and I believe the 2 GREAT lessons to be learned from the data Brian supplied at the beginning of this thread, from Dr. Rob Neal's system testing two of Jim McLean's swings. (1) In a very short time, a golfer can adapt to a 'corrective' small change in set-up, or early down swing path or position and GREATLY affect the kinematic sequence and results of the shot for the better, and (2), the ultimate punch line, with all of us working together, seeking, finding and cooperatively sharing golf truth, IMO, ALL golfers will have the opportunity to improve.

Finally, and admittedly self serving, as judged by ALL the academies instructors, the BODIGolf swing (AKA BBKIB) noted above had the best kinematic sequence and highest club head speed by 7 %%, including 2 of the other swings which were defined to be 'long drive' attempts. IMO, because of the quality of this golfer, the BBKIB instruction and practice swings took less than a minute, but produced considerably more dynamic balance and stability margin as measured and displayed in the TPI data regarding Trunk Dynamic Stability for each swing.

However, and in conclusion, I truly believe with proper understanding and quality instruction, this magnitude of improvement can be made available for golfers of ALL capabilities, fulfilling their dream of FINALLY being able to improve.

Hope and pray this focuses the remaining posts regarding this thread.

Sincerely,
art

 

[tongzilla]

what is dynamic balance and how do you measure it?

 

[art]

what is dynamic balance and how do you measure it?

Dear tongzilla,

IMO, these both are very important/crucial areas that the research and golf instruction communities need to address in much greater depth, as they have a significant impact on the ability of a golfer to improve. As a starter, take a look at some early work regarding systems called "Dynamic Balance System (DBS)", and "Weight Right", that's how I got started in 2007.


However, to understand the 'sciences' involved with so many asymmetric elements rotating, and the instantaneous spin axes also moving, it has become a VERY complicated issue. Fortunately, research done for the robotic industry has provided insights into how the motions of the robot/human body, affect the movements of ground reaction forces and a generalized term called the instantaneous Center of Pressure (COP). Simply put, (but very complicated to understand and calculate), the relationship of these ground reaction forces AND the center of mass/gravity COG of the golfer, determines the 'wobble' of the body during the explosive downswing. And of course, less wobble, better quality shot, and BBKIB is just a start in minimizing these dynamic imbalances.

Sincerely,
art

 

[Matt Bryda]

From my personal experience dynamic balance opens the door to isolate
your sense of club movement.

 

[lia41985]

And not tugging, Matt.