Jamie S. 6 dof-3d

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
There has been quite the debate over whether "elite" power swingers in golf have the same pelvis (hips) deceleration (negative acceleration, if you will) as regular good players and other golfers at the highest level.

We were right again (see below). Mostly because we know who to ask.

The folks who think they have found a shape that rolls better than a wheel, have gotten rebuked again (sort of getting old, actually).

At Project 1.68, we look to synthesize the findings of the published golf research scientists and confirm them with the best measurement devices on the planet. And we do.

If you attempt to try to make "everyone wrong" you will be wrong almost 100% of the time.


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/32QdC1dWTvE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>





 
C

cwdlaw223

New
The trade winds just stopped blowing in Hawaii. The new argument is that the old MATT data didn't show this information. I think their "science" and "calculcations" were screwed up, not the data. Regardless, the continuous acceleration theory for a "gold medal winner" just took a fatal blow.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
We tracked down the exact MAT-T system that captured Jamie.

It does not—repeat DOES NOT—have any rotational velocities of any of the segments.

ZERO.

What exists is a screenshot of a camera shot from an off angle from a TV spot on him.

WIRED SYSTEMS ARE THE FINAL WORD IN ACCURACY.

This is the real deal and there is no other way for me to say this:

This is it. End of story, This is what the guy actually does.


But really, who in the world that knows what they are really talked about, thought this 3D would look any different?

Nobody.
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
There's one guy in Findland, but he admitted his device isn't "stabile" and it isn't available for purchase. But if you ask him, he'll tell you he has special 3D knoweldge that nobodfy else does in this world.

I thought Pearl Harbor was on December 7??????
 
natep

natep

New
3048401933_ac817eaf8a_o.gif
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
Can't wait for the manufactured data from the research a thon. You can get everything from video. Just ask them. One mann now wants to meet the scientists because he would show them how flat his wrist is and therefore their science is wrong. Geniuses in their own minds. Nothing to show. They sure don't question their own theories enough. Just put it out there and hope the lemmings buy some chains to speed up their pelvis.
 
ZAP

ZAP

New
cwdlaw223 said:
Can't wait for the manufactured data from the research a thon. You can get everything from video. Just ask them. One mann now wants to meet the scientists because he would show them how flat his wrist is and therefore their science is wrong. Geniuses in their own minds. Nothing to show. They sure don't question their own theories enough. Just put it out there and hope the lemmings buy some chains to speed up their pelvis.
Click to expand...

There are times when I am really glad that I first started learning about the golf seeing here. This is one of those.
 
lia41985

lia41985

New member
So why does pelvis rotation increase to and through impact?
1zfpm4o.png

These are derived values and not calculated, correct? How was the data "smoothed" to eliminate "noise"? What reprecussions does that have for sequential deceleration theory? Didn't Ian from Taylor Made dismiss any of the confoundingness to the MATT data, specifically with the thorax numbers, by stating that was just "noise"? See this post here:
DJ's torso numbers:

Hello Mike.

That is odd. My first thought it that it is not real. There can be some funky movement of the shoulders and torso when the Matt system tracks a swing. Also, when the movement data is differentiated to get velocity, this can make any noise in the data worse. The reality of things would be that the angular velocity would rise and drop smoothly. The angular velocity would likely peak mid to late downswing.

I hope this helps.

Enjoy your thanksgiving!

Ian
Click to expand...
From: http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...ng-include-no-deceleration-24.html#post238769
...
On another note...
...it is very important to realize that at no time did the bottom disk “put the brakes on” intentionally, in fact the pelvis spring kept turning as hard as it could the whole time. The reason the pelvis slowed down is because the acceleration of the thorax disk pulled back on the pelvis.
Click to expand...
That was written by Cheatham. So why does it seem that intentional deceleration is being taught? Accelerating the hips in another direction is different than teaching a hip stall, no? Please explain the science of trying to create more acceleration in the previous segment by more quickly decelerating the previous segment. Isn't what actually happens is that the next segment is being accelerated so hard in a particular direction that the prior segment accelerates in a different direction.

Just trying to clarify before someone unnecessarily claims they've won something...
 
Last edited:
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
"I think Kelvin either made the mistake or gave the wrong impression that empirically the hip actually accelerates through the impact."

Dave Playa Petterson
 
R

Robbierob99

New
Just great, this 6dof stuff is incredible...

Even with the goof troop lurking around trying to ruin it for everyone else (i.e. throwing around insults at the majority of the rational people here for "drinking the "koolaid," and insults at Brian and the rest of the Academy guys about pushing ill "agendas"), This is still the best place on the Internet to spend time when the courses & driving ranges are under water... I mean I can only putt on the carpet & check my alignment down the hall so much.
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
As expected, now data is lost from digitization to the point where the data can't be trusted. (But their numbers extrapolated from video are just fine). AMM3D's data filters "smooth" the information improperly.

Next Brian had Jamie come in and swing differently.

One of Kelvin's fearsome pillars is that the pelvis accelerates down and through impact. This isn't about effort, but actual accelration. How did he come up with this gem? Looking at video. How does he know the earth is flat? He looks at the horizon!

If your vision is limited so will your analysis.

Going from 600* per second prior to impact to 250* per second at impact isn't really deceleration in their world!!!! :mad:
 
Last edited:
mgranato

mgranato

New
If I'm understanding all this correctly, it's saying you cannot place a line on the belt loop of JS to get the same information? Hmmmmm
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
There's no data loss from their video and their analysis is smooth! It's called grasping at straws. The data loss rate and data smoothing concepts certainly didn't come from them. Beyond their level of intelligence.

They are golfing progressives folks. If you tell them the sky is blue they'll tell you that your eyes are colorblind. No matter what information you present to them it's wrong. Whatever they present to you is gospel. Happens all the time in the political world. Nancy Pelosi like if you ask me and I think we all know who's Nancy!
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
It is hard to believe that there are folks out there who jump up and down and think you are crazy for saying something—in this case that even "elite" ball strikers like Jamie and Dustin have massive pelvis deceleration to and through impact—even after you produce precise data taken on the industry standard device for doing so that says precisely that.


1zfpm4o.png


The slope is getting less steep near impact. Very complex interactions going on.


And btw, some really talented teachers can TEACH folks to decel at a point, and some players CAN do it.
 
natep

natep

New
cwdlaw223 said:
There's no data loss from their video and their analysis is smooth! It's called grasping at straws. The data loss rate and data smoothing concepts certainly didn't come from them. Beyond their level of intelligence.

They are golfing progressives folks. If you tell them the sky is blue they'll tell you that your eyes are colorblind. No matter what information you present to them it's wrong. Whatever they present to you is gospel. Happens all the time in the political world. Nancy Pelosi like if you ask me and I think we all know who's Nancy!
Click to expand...

They're like the 9/11 truthers of internet golf land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top