Illustration of kinetic chain

[Brian Manzella]

Brian, if you are debating that Jake2's comments in his last two posts are misleading, you should point out which of his comments are misleading....
I'm sticking around, yet I'm getting even more confused about snapping anything except my fingers.

I just did.

Now I am winning THE HECK OUT OF the "so-called" debate.

"Don't mess with the Italian"—Ricky Jackson, #57, to a group of wanna-bees ready to lose to me in a little friendly golf wager.

 

[jaridyard]

"You can see that when a previous segment starts to slow down, next segment starts to accelerate more. What causes this to happen is the puzzling part." Jake

"Speak for yourself.

I starting figuring out this "pivot snapping" quite a long time ago.

My compatriot Mike Finney bought stock in BioVison, the 1st 3D company, back in 1990. We got all sort of goodies from them, including some 3D's of famous players.

The SNAPPING was obvious then, as it is now.

We use to video ourselves throwing clubs and trying to prove (or disprove) my theory that the PIVOT DID NOT pull the club to the finish.

It doesn't.

But, to help you understand one of the things that helps with this snap is PIVOTING EFFECTIVELY." BM

Speak for yourself as in you are not puzzled? Come on the Brian, why?

Not, you know it does so that's that...... Why? The Cause?!

Hypothesise, provide evidence, prove. You need to add credibility to win 'the heck' out of anything. Get the ego off the table and replace it with some proven fact in order to justifiably end the debate.

 

[coophitter]

Monkey Business

Why do you think I am the only person alive who has PERFECT ATTENDANCE at the PGA Teaching and Coaching Summits, the TGM Summits, The MIT Summits, and the AMF Summits???

To be ahead of the curve, and successfully debate my findings.

When I lose—and I do lose—it is usually to a PHD like Mandrin.

Brian, I have written a piece that represents 20 years of my own research into biomechanics, anatomy, physiology, motor control, and motor learning concerning effective golf swings. Let me know if you would like me to post it here as well. T

I'll debate you anywhere and anytime regarding your groundbreaking notion that you can use your pivot to snap some trendy new definition of a kinetic chain to assist anything along the D plane.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Coop.

Hey Coop,

I have no problem with you, but sometimes I get threads hijacked, and sometimes I get ambushed, and I always either swing back, or delete.

I really would like you to post your piece, and I'll be happy to take you up on your debate offer, right here and now.

Maybe we'll both learn something.

Cool?

 

[jake2]

I'm here to learn more and good debate can help.
But - sometimes these debates get too personal.

Anyway - I've noticed that some people seem to be confused with what SNAPPING means in relation with a KINETIC CHAIN.

It's irrelevant to debate over if you should snap your kinetic chain or not when there is no clear definition what that actually means.

Mandrin's illustrations seem pretty clear, but it's just an example of a chain, not a golf swing. Nmgolfer did have some valid points on how it does not really relate to a golf swing, but the way he started bashing Mandrin ... and where the debate went from there ... pretty useless from observers point of view.
Kinematic studies from other sports so provide clues, but where's the snap?

We'll have to wait and see if and when things get cleared up.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Cleared up???

I did post a link with all sorts of Kinetic Chain details, but apparently, nobody read it.

Does anyone want to tell me why I don't pivot to the finish when I throw a club??????????

 

[golfspike]

I did post a link with all sorts of Kinetic Chain details, but apparently, nobody read it.

Does anyone want to tell me why I don't pivot to the finish when I throw a club??????????

Well because the pivot is for loading and then you throw it from your shoulder socket..swivel's job to finish off the golf swing not the pivot

 

[Brian Manzella]

Well because the pivot is for loading and then you throw it from your shoulder socket..swivel's job to finish off the golf swing not the pivot

No.

When I, or someone else coordinated, throws a club, we wind up, basically, AT the swivel.

 

[puttmad]

....

I did post a link with all sorts of Kinetic Chain details, but apparently, nobody read it.

Does anyone want to tell me why I don't pivot to the finish when I throw a club??????????

Because there is no weight of the club to carry your arms up and around to the "full" finish...

 

[Brian Manzella]

The REASON that when a club is thrown, the pivot only goes to somelace between what would have been the follow through and the swivel,

is because your PIVOT HAS SLOWED to snap the chain, and release the club.

When you have a club in your hand, the CLUB pulls the body the rest of the way.

None of the "tunrn to the finish" folks have an answer to this.

 

[mjstrong]

The REASON that when a club is thrown, the pivot only goes to somelace between what would have been the follow through and the swivel,

is because your PIVOT HAS SLOWED to snap the chain, and release the club.

When you have a club in your hand, the CLUB pulls the body the rest of the way.

None of the "tunrn to the finish" folks have an answer to this.

Good, compelling point there.

 

[jaridyard]

Exercise and Sport Science: Basic ... - Google Book Search

An interesting link, provides a reason for proximal 'braking' that makes sense.

Internal torques between segments. The acceleration of the distal segment decelerating the proximal not the deceleration providing acceleration.

This brought the simplified image of jumping off a skateboard into my head, imagine riding a board at x speed then jumping/pushing off the board in the same direction of travel with the intention of running upon landing. You would maintain the momentum provided by the board, add to it by pushing off and cause the board to decelerate due to the push. The slowing/braking of the board did not add to your momentum.

I feel I managed to answer my own previous question(s) and illustrated in a crude manner that the thought of trying to control the deceleration/snapping of proximal segments is flawed.

Not proof but a sound idea.

 

[Guitar Hero]

The kinetic chain has never been a mystery in other sports and the golf swing sequence does show that the hips reach the maximum degree of rotation (open) on the down swing and brake. Does this add club head speed? Some say it does and others say it doesn’t. The easy way to add more club head speed is to increase the torque at the fulcrum of the grip during the down swing. It will not disrupt the sequence and can add 5-10 mph to the club head at impact.

 

[Brian Manzella]

The kinetic chain has never been a mystery in other sports and the golf swing sequence does show that the hips reach the maximum degree of rotation (open) on the down swing and brake. Does this add club head speed? Some say it does and others say it doesn’t. The easy way to add more club head speed is to increase the torque at the fulcrum of the grip during the down swing. It will not disrupt the sequence and can add 5-10 mph to the club head at impact.

Good Post, John!

Funny how nobody argues about the chain in baseball?

Anyhoo, you are VERY CORRECT about the torque at the fulcrum, but remember folks, you have to do it when the club is at last parallel before impact.

 

[mandrin]

Exercise and Sport Science: Basic ... - Google Book Search

An interesting link, provides a reason for proximal 'braking' that makes sense.

Internal torques between segments. The acceleration of the distal segment decelerating the proximal not the deceleration providing acceleration.

One expects from scientists, particularly when operating in their own specific field of expertise, to be using logic and rigor in their arguments. The linked article does not particle shine in this regard. First of all, using conservation of momentum to explain the operation of a kinetic chain is not appropriate. When throwing an object or in a golf swing there is no momentum to be conserved. On the contrary there is a vigorous and continuous production of momentum, whilst at the same time there is a continuous redistribution of it due to the action of the kinetic chain.

In the case of a skater however there is indeed conservation of momentum and radial motion of the arms makes the skater either have an angular acceleration or deceleration. This often used analogy of a spinning skater is completely misleading and leading jaridyard and likely others to mistakenly starting to reverse cause and effect. For a golfer action is from the inside-out and for a spinning skater it is from the outside-in. Rotational mechanics isn't easy, rather confusing, and should be treated with care.

This brought the simplified image of jumping off a skateboard into my head, imagine riding a board at x speed then jumping/pushing off the board in the same direction of travel with the intention of running upon landing. You would maintain the momentum provided by the board, add to it by pushing off and cause the board to decelerate due to the push. The slowing/braking of the board did not add to your momentum.

I feel I managed to answer my own previous question(s) and illustrated in a crude manner that the thought of trying to control the deceleration/snapping of proximal segments is flawed.

Not proof but a sound idea.

If I jump from a big ocean vessel there is an equal and opposing action and reaction force at work. However the mass of the large ship being so much larger it experiences negligible deceleration. However if I try to jump out of a small tiny rowing boat it is a complete different story. It is to be expected that this sort of mistake is not usually made more than once. It just so happens that from the ground up as in a whip a golfer goes from heavier to lighter segments. It is only for these condition that the velocity multiplication effect of a kinetic chain can be effective.

 

[jaridyard]

One expects from scientists, particularly when operating in their own specific field of expertise, to be using logic and rigor in their arguments. The linked article does not particle shine in this regard. First of all, using conservation of momentum to explain the operation of a kinetic chain is not appropriate. When throwing an object or in a golf swing there is no momentum to be conserved. On the contrary there is a vigorous and continuous production of momentum, whilst at the same time there is a continuous redistribution of it due to the action of the kinetic chain.

I understand that coam is not technically present in the golf swing as the amount of momentum is constantly increasing/decreasing, there is however energy to be conserved throughout the chain. My use of the article was really to provide a reason for the slowing of proximal segments, something nobody else on here has attempted to provide so far. Internal torque not coam.

In the case of a skater however there is indeed conservation of momentum and radial motion of the arms makes the skater either have an angular acceleration or deceleration. This often used analogy of a spinning skater is completely misleading and leading jaridyard and likely others to mistakenly starting to reverse cause and effect. For a golfer action is from the inside-out and for a spinning skater it is from the outside-in. Rotational mechanics isn't easy, rather confusing, and should be treated with care.



If I jump from a big ocean vessel there is an equal and opposing action and reaction force at work. However the mass of the large ship being so much larger it experiences negligible deceleration. However if I try to jump out of a small tiny rowing boat it is a complete different story. It is to be expected that this sort of mistake is not usually made more than once. It just so happens that from the ground up as in a whip a golfer goes from heavier to lighter segments. It is only for these condition that the velocity multiplication effect of a kinetic chain can be effective.

So are you suggesting that the internal torque created by the musculature between the trunk & hips/pelvis for example is not enough to decelerate the hips? Where the mass difference is not significant.

 

[birdie_man]

I still have to read this thread...!

Has mandrin made fun of me yet??

(I hope so! )

-mandrin_fan

 

[mandrin]

I still have to read this thread...!

Has mandrin made fun of me yet??

(I hope so! )

-mandrin_fan

birdie_man

I feel really very sorry, but to make fun of someone he has to be there.
But just give me a chance and I will do my best to rake you over hot coals.

 

[mandrin]

I understand that coam is not technically present in the golf swing as the amount of momentum is constantly increasing/decreasing, there is however energy to be conserved throughout the chain.

As for momentum exactly the same logic applies to kinetic energy. It is not conserved but steadily generated and increasing starting from zero by work done due to muscle contractions across the joints.

My use of the article was really to provide a reason for the slowing of proximal segments, something nobody else on here has attempted to provide so far.

It is not easy to pinpoint cause in a kinetic chain as everything effects everything. There is not only muscle torque to be considered but also possibly quite large inertial torques generated by the motion of the various masses of the chain. Initially muscle torques start the motion. Once however there is motion there are also linear reaction joint forces coming into play which also generate torques. There is indeed a complex interplay of external and internal forces operating throughout the chain.

However to simplify the utmost let's consider the isolated static case of just two adjacent segments. A torque acting across a joint will produce an equal but opposing torque for both segments. If the proximal element is much heavier than the distal element than the acceleration of the latter will be associated with a small deceleration for the proximal element. Equally if the proximal element is much lighter that the distal element than there is a large deceleration for the proximal element and a small acceleration of the distal element.

Your idea that

The acceleration of the distal segment decelerating the proximal not the deceleration providing acceleration.

is hence not quite correct for this simplified case. They are not cause one for the other. They happen simultaneously and the common cause for both is the torque acting across the joint.

To give some feeling for this topic I have calculated the linear reaction forces acting at both joints of segment 7, as well as the resulting torque due to these forces. The mathematical expression derived, even if appearing complicated, is still much simpler than for more proximal locations. The mathematical expression clearly shows the very complex interaction of all the segments contributing all to each individual linear joint force and ensuing torque. The results are shown visually in Fig1 and Fig2. Fig1 has a vector representation of the linear reaction joint forces whereas Fig2 shows the magnitude of the resulting torque acting on segment 7 due to these inertial reaction forces.

 

[JonWil]

Yea, what he said.