GROUND BREAKING RESEARCH -2D myths!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Brian Manzella and Mikestloc have teamed with the biomechanics department of a major university in their quest to show how-to and how NOT-to look at 2-D golf strokes in respect to plane, both of the club and the golfer.

The premise:

There are a number of teaching professionals in the world who think that the plane of the club during the swing STAYS parallel to the shaft plane (HANDS ONLY or ELBOW version, no difference noted) at all times during the swing.

There are others, like those schooled in The Golfing Machine, that believe the plane line stays the same and the palne steepens and flatens while the 'bottom' stays in the same place.

There are still others (like me) who think it may be neither (although I am much more in the Homer Kelley camp on this one, for sure).

What we now know for sure:!!!!!!

There is NO WAY to draw lines on a 2-d image and determine where the club is pointing on the ground UNLESS!!! the following is the case>>>>>>
1. The camera is PERFECTLY on the angle of the shaft at the EXACT moment of the picture.......really hard to do...almost pure luck and good for a couple of frames MAYBE, and MAYBE just one.

2. There is a grid on the ground (or something to substitute for one) where the golfer is standing AND.....AND....AND!!!...there is a another picture or frame of video that is taken at EXACTLY THE SAME time from a different angle, like one from the front view and one from the target view.

Then you can plot the exact 'spot' on the ground where the club is pointing.

FOR EXAMPLE: In this month's Golf Digest there is a picture of David Toms with a dotted line showing the 'angle' of the shaft at that point in his swing. It is said to "point" outside the ball.

This is almost surely NOT the case. It is much more likely that the shaft MAY BE POINTING to or almost to, the plane line or target line at that point, and the only way to know for sure is to have the same picture from the belly view and plot the EXACT spot.

(If you look at that picture, you can see that one of the last few dots IS on the target line, in FRONT of the ball, which may be where the club is ACTUALLY POINTING).

More importantly, all the teachers that draw lines on the screen are GUESSING at best and the Hank Haney school of 'the-shaft-is-always-on-a-plane-that-is-parallel
-to-the-original-shaft-plane-at-address' may have come up with this theory because they were trying to figure out a way----reverse enginneering at best----to make the lines make sence because they could plainly see that the other school of thoughts 'lines' weren't right (in 2-D) either!!!!

When in reality the TGM school of thought may be PERFECTLT correct.

We are doing some 3-D reseacrh soon to get to the bottom of this and we will 'spring it' on the golf world.

of course someone will probably read this a steal our idea...mark this date down boys and girls ;)!
 
Cool Beans. Brian, in my work, I learned to do first then announce to save from being trumped and ripped off. Project sounds great.
 
Wow!...I was waiting for someone to bring up the GD article. I thought for sure you would have been all over it. Maybe I missed it.

I had a series of email with a poster on one of the forums trying to explain that on a picture it is difficult to place lines that will in fact be accurate in 3D. I don't know if I was successful or not. So much depends on the camera angle and height to start with.

I think the concept of using a laser or some other light device and monitoring it's path to several reference points (target line, clubshaft plane angle at address, etc) is needed to define what the golfer is actually doing.

Somewhere along the line an assumption must be made:

a. There is one universal definition for the swing plane and definition of On Plane (aka Mr. Kelley's TGM def)

or

b. There is no one universal definition and it can vary from golfer to golfer and still be on plane.

For me before Mr. Kelley's TGM, my definition has always been that the golf club defines the plane angle. Either fit the swing to the club, of fit the club to the swing or better IMO fit the club to the body and swing to the body. Still at the end of the day, at IMPACT/SEPARATION the plane angle defined by the golf club (lie) is where it is at, no matter if stock clubs or custom fitted clubs. To maximize the tool use, you must meet the design criteria, assuming clubs have been designed correctly.

Looking forward to your results.

That article was....well lets say it does look good in the floor of the bird cage.
 
If two shafts are set on the selected plane angle(shaft plane for a particular club), and both are about 3 feet or more apart, and exactly on the same plane line , and exactly on the same angle, then the camera sees only one shaft... the camera lens should be on plane. The lens should be on PLANE, and 2-D should work.

To be consistent with this, one would probably need a fixed camera poistion, and hit off mats, with the same ball position each time. Of course, if the golfer aims slightly left or right, the plane will appear different to the camera.

Brian... what do you think of this procedure?

I realize camera angles for plane is a tricky thing! That's why I inquired as to other's knowledge of this area.
 
quote:Originally posted by brianman

Brian Manzella and Mikestloc have teamed with the biomechanics department of a major university in their quest to show how-to and how NOT-to look at 2-D golf strokes in respect to plane, both of the club and the golfer.

Which University?
 
Brian,

Video is a teaching TOOL, nothing else. It helps the student see similarities and differences. When used consistently and correctly it can have huge positives.

I don't recall anyone saying it is perfect. However, in my opinion it is much better for the student to have it available.

Redgoat
 
redgoat...there are facts and illusions......all we're trying to do is to identify another illusion that, if misunderstood, could be detrimental to someone's improvement....brian was using video with his instruction in 1985.....he was 23
 
Mikestloc,

quote:More importantly, all the teachers that draw lines on the screen are GUESSING at best and the Hank Haney school of 'the-shaft-is-always-on-a-plane-that-is-parallel
-to-the-original-shaft-plane-at-address' may have come up with this theory because they were trying to figure out a way----reverse enginneering at best----to make the lines make sence because they could plainly see that the other school of thoughts 'lines' weren't right (in 2-D) either!!!!

You guys are just doing this for the good of the game right.

C'mon, I was a Kinesiology major in school and spent my share of time in the biomechanics lab. Proving anyone or anything right or wrong can be easily skewed by how you set up an experiment.

I hope I am wrong and this isn't another crack at a prominent instructor, althogh it sure sounds like Haney is getting one across the back of his knees.

The camera, drawing tools, and split screen are what the vast majority of professionals have access to. It is the "cutting edge" right now.

I have been on the 3-D simulator at Taylor Made. It is terrific, and only about 500K to buy. The technology available now is easily good enough to provide feedback.

Redgoat
 
where is this coming from?......for the good of the game?...OF COURSE THAT IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.....i have an eight month old baby boy at home and took three hours on my off day to go meet a biomechanics professor so i could understand 2D versus 3D analysis.....hank haney, david leadbetter, etc...etc...etc...they can publish all they want...but if they offer up articles that describe lines and planes that are skewed because of this 2D versus 3D illusion, i'll call them out...and so will brian....you don't have to be an apologist for these guys.....concentrate on making your knowledge superior, your teaching ability superior.....if you see brian manzella offer up something that is dead wrong....call him out....

i use video with every lesson...i will continue to use video....but i want to use it correctly, don't you? .....
 
Mikestloc,

I commend you for furthering your knowledge.

It has been my philosophy to share information. In fact, this is what I feel is the most important thing I learned from Ben. It is why I set up my website and have worked many nights trying to make it better.

I don't feel it to be necessary to "call out" those who are more sucessful than me to elevate my situation. I won't call their information junk, say that their players are weak and technique inferior to mine. I will say I don't agree and state my position and let others decide.

As far as working on making my teaching superior, that is a major philosophical difference. I am not trying to be BETTER than anyone else, I just want to help the people that pay me by doing the best job I can. I stopped worrying about being better than other people when I quit playing competitively.

Finally, of course I want to use video correctly. I ALWAYS film from the same position at the same height, day in and day out. Teaching is my passion, just as it is Brian's and yours Mike. If your research shows some way to do it better I will be the first to applaud your efforts and utilize the findings.

Redgoat
 
Brian,

So if the camera is set up as I explained, and the club being swung is exactly the same angle as the shafts are set up... then this would work? For example, the shafts are set up on a 7 iron plane for that golfer, and he swings a 7 iron for filming.
The camera would have to be adjusted, of course, each time the golfer changes clubs, because each club's plane is different... driver vs. wedge, big difference.
 
quote:Originally posted by Redgoat


I don't feel it to be necessary to "call out" those who are more sucessful than me to elevate my situation. I won't call their information junk, say that their players are weak and technique inferior to mine. I will say I don't agree and state my position and let others decide.
Redgoat

I "call them out" because they're wrong....not because I want to elevate myself.....

and as far as making your knowledge of the golf swing "superior", i think you misunderstood me......superior as in the best available....not superior as in better than someone else's..
 
OK... what about my last post on camera positions?

I have seen and heard about many various procedures and opinions concerning where the camera should be positioned... #1) Low, on the Plane Line...#2) High, because that's the angle we stand to look at swings...#3) Hand height, in line with the hands...#4) Doesn't matter, as long as it's always positioned in the same place, therefore, one is always looking at swings the same way...#5) ON PLANE, per the procedure I mentioned earlier.

I'm sure there are others...

Video can be a very useful TOOL. However, if the same golfer, for example, viewed the same swing from these various positions, he would probably SEE 5 different versions of his PLANE, or down-the-line view.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
1. Get as far away from the subject as possible.
2. After watching the swing, see how many basic shifts there are to the top and on the way down and get in 'the middle' of them.
3. Don't use lines, I don't, and I can teach without them.
 
quote:Originally posted by brianman


:
Then you can plot the exact 'spot' on the ground where the club is pointing.
:
If that's all you're after, and if cameras and gridlines are the tools, you need stereo photography followed by a very serious ortorectification process. Sounds like a very complex way of achieving what lasers mounted to the shaft already does.

Hey, did I miss something?
 
My brother is an engineering professor at the University of Louisville in the Mechanical Engineering department. His area of expertise is vibration though he is an exceptional researcher. If you need some help locally maybe I could help hook you up. You can email me at trcpcrec@apk.net

Terry aka OHgolfer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top