birly-shirly
New
Yes. Or you could be dumb and lazy like me, and say "That's basically an S-curve, in which case the steepest gradient (highest velocity) is going to be around the middle of the curve..."
Jamie S. 6 dof-3d
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Or you could be dumb and lazy like me, and say "That's basically an S-curve, in which case the steepest gradient (highest velocity) is going to be around the middle of the curve..."
Micheal Jacobs stated that the pelvis angle graph was measured on a "local" position frame of reference as opposed to the global frame of reference. What are the baselines for each frame of reference?
Is the local frame of reference measured from a baseline through the midline of the body?
Just trying to understand why the kinematic sequencing graph is different compared to the pelvis angles graph. Could the scales of the axes be part of the difference too?
Is the local frame of reference measured from a baseline through the midline of the body?
Just trying to understand why the kinematic sequencing graph is different compared to the pelvis angles graph. Could the scales of the axes be part of the difference too?
Michael Finney
New
This is what AMM is doing - local reference frames for both the positional data and the angular velocity data for the pelvis.
So the markers create a "local to the pelvis" 3D picture of its movement and position...
There will be a more "authoritative" discussion of this issue very shortly.
Michael Jacobs
Super Moderator
Spktho,
The reference frames I shared came from a source I have and from educational courses that I attended. Apparently Phil Cheetham is saying that the reference frames are not in 2 different places and they are in the same frame. Its news to a lot of folks including myself.
Phil designed the systems so I guess we will go with what he says on the subject, so if he comes out and states that it is on the same reference frame than I will retract what I have always been told to be the case.
Cool. Thanks Michaels
Obviously, the differences between the kinematic sequence graph and the individual body parts angles graphs are confusing and must be measured or graphed in a somewhat a different way?
Is the kinematic sequence graph produced from the body positions graphs?
Obviously, the differences between the kinematic sequence graph and the individual body parts angles graphs are confusing and must be measured or graphed in a somewhat a different way?
Is the kinematic sequence graph produced from the body positions graphs?
Last edited:
Brian Manzella
Administrator
We have talked to Phil, and he is going to post on the exact subject of the reference frames and some other details.
But we have 100% confirmed that the POSITIONAL Pelvis Graph and the ROTATIONAL Pelvis Graph are the exact same reference frame.
Period.
But we have 100% confirmed that the POSITIONAL Pelvis Graph and the ROTATIONAL Pelvis Graph are the exact same reference frame.
Period.
But they look so much different! I can hear their abacus working right now. You must be able to deduce rotational velocity from any graph because they want it that way and they're never wrong. You must! You must! You must!
Life needs to conform to their worldivew and they demand an encyclopedia explaining the technology before they accept any technology (except the technology they use of course - nothing wrong with what they think is correct).
I can hear their abacus working right now. You must be able to deduce rotational velocity from any graph because they want it that way and they're never wrong. You must! You must! You must! Life needs to conform to their worldivew and they demand an encyclopedia explaining the technology before they accept any technology (except the technology they use of course - nothing wrong with what they think is correct).
Last edited:
natep
New
Nice.
gmbtempe
New
Thanks, I think we are all just trying to understand via the best possible information.
It appears that questioning the results has validated some statements, falsified others, and now clarified the graphs/systems between two well known teachers(MF and MJ)!
Thats the way a healthy debate works IMHO.
Dear Brian,
A VERY related post, and my response after reviewing the details on another site.
Dear ----,
WOW !!!!, 'Golf truth' sought and found after MUCH effort on your part, and all of us in the golf communities (science, teaching and playing) are, and will continue to be the benefactors.
Thanks also for your efforts in setting the record straight, especially with regard to the initial disagreement of JS producing SOME pelvic deceleration before impact. IMO, but from YOUR curves it looks like 600-peak down to 300-impact degrees per second, about half, BUT VERY subject to the real issue of WHY there are such significant variations swing to swing AND certainly player to player.
Hope you are now interested and able to include a 6DOF system AND force plates into your research efforts and when integrated with Kelvins knowledge of anatomy and kinesiology, IMO, there will be at least two groups INDEPENDENTLY seeking 'integrated' golf truth with the best available measurement systems, ie AMM/TPI 3D 6DOF, Trackman, Kistler etc.
The scientific method of 'replication' you noted at the very beginning of this 'priceless' post.
Very sincerely,
Art
mgranato
New
Funny and telling what piece of equipment is missing from that list.
Art, I'm afraid it's just one group interested in combining all those measurement systems, and one group interested in trying to discount all those measurement systems.
Just one group actively spending a sizeable expense to find golf truths regardless of theory or method, and one group planting a flag defending a theory against whatever golf truths are discovered.
Grouping these two "groups" together under the same mission statement and motivation would be kin to saying BBKIB is the same as spinning open the hips right from the start. It’s cruel to even suggest it.
All they need is a camera and the internet. History repeats itself and their worldviews are the logical outworking of scholasticism.
I'm sure they're going to say that rotational velocity can be deduced from the pelvic angle graph to show constant velocity no matter what anyone else says.
The King of All Graphs (he''s Finnish) couldn't even take the time to look at the heading on one of the graphs and claimed that AMM3D indicated closed shoulders/thorax of 20* at impact. (The graph was of the spine). These guys rail at Brian for "jumping the gun" and yet that's all they do when they work off of half truths or don't fully investigate the data.
I'm sure they're going to say that rotational velocity can be deduced from the pelvic angle graph to show constant velocity no matter what anyone else says.
The King of All Graphs (he''s Finnish) couldn't even take the time to look at the heading on one of the graphs and claimed that AMM3D indicated closed shoulders/thorax of 20* at impact. (The graph was of the spine). These guys rail at Brian for "jumping the gun" and yet that's all they do when they work off of half truths or don't fully investigate the data.
Last edited:
Brian Manzella
Administrator
For the record, when we've looked at the positional data vs. rotational velocity data, we just accepted the numbers and went with it.
Only after someone who was too lazy (or worse) to look at the positional graph of Jamie and railed against how it couldn't possibly match the rotational velocity one, did any of us even think to find out of this was the case, and in the process, were told something inaccurate (this info did not come from one of our scientists).
Mike Finney and I were on Skype together and I was looking closer at the positional graph and saw that it matched the rotational one we saw in the manual for the correct definition Mike posted.
I then did the rough math in Photoshop and, well, folks started doing the crab.
Michael Jacobs and I did a 30 minute video explaining our teaching of the 3D info and I'll have it up tonight.
Only after someone who was too lazy (or worse) to look at the positional graph of Jamie and railed against how it couldn't possibly match the rotational velocity one, did any of us even think to find out of this was the case, and in the process, were told something inaccurate (this info did not come from one of our scientists).
Mike Finney and I were on Skype together and I was looking closer at the positional graph and saw that it matched the rotational one we saw in the manual for the correct definition Mike posted.
I then did the rough math in Photoshop and, well, folks started doing the crab.
Michael Jacobs and I did a 30 minute video explaining our teaching of the 3D info and I'll have it up tonight.
Funny and telling what piece of equipment is missing from that list.
Art, I'm afraid it's just one group interested in combining all those measurement systems, and one group interested in trying to discount all those measurement systems.
Just one group actively spending a sizeable expense to find golf truths regardless of theory or method, and one group planting a flag defending a theory against whatever golf truths are discovered.
Grouping these two "groups" together under the same mission statement and motivation would be kin to saying BBKIB is the same as spinning open the hips right from the start. It’s cruel to even suggest it.
Dear mgranato,
First, I had/have NO subtle motives, the list should have contained launch monitors and high speed cameras, but I thought "etc." would be good enough on this site
Regarding your comment about a 'mission statement', looks like I have not been clear, or you are significantly misunderstanding and misinterpreting what I wrote above, so let me try again.
For almost 6 years now, I have been working hard to get MULTIPLE people/organizations to better 'integrate' the sensors, study and document a better understanding of the various technical and scientific characteristics of the golf swing.
I admit that with regard to MULTIPLE research groups, I am very influenced by my years in industry where I saw the role and importance of "Independent Validation and Verification" grow and get deployed especially with regard to software, but equally important for all the aspects of research and development of mechanical systems too.
So, my comments above certainly were meant to emphasize the need for INDEPENDENCE, and additional groups to be studying this very complex area so we all can benefit.
If it remains only 'one group', IMO progress and especially ACCEPTANCE will be slower. However, I am very pleased with the progress of all participants over the last few months, but not comfortable with the politics and apparent motives of some.
At any rate my frequent telephone and internet communication with the folks on this site has been very beneficial to my own personal passion to find 'golf truth'.
Sincerely,
art
Michael Finney
New
This hasn't been healthy debate - it has been one thing after another and we are busy "exonerating" PHDs and PHD candidates who have made biomechanics their life - against an angry, bitter wall street hatchet man.....it's gotten old for me and it's been old for most of the better posters.....
but, i will not stand idly by while someone gives out bad information that we know not to be true....
Michael Finney
New
47not74 now says:
"What is so often lost in these discussions is that whatever slowdown exists in Jamie's swing is almost certainly caused by braking forces that Jamie is trying to overcome".
No shite,sherlock - who has ever said anything different - I certainly haven't
"What is so often lost in these discussions is that whatever slowdown exists in Jamie's swing is almost certainly caused by braking forces that Jamie is trying to overcome".
No shite,sherlock - who has ever said anything different - I certainly haven't
drewyallop
New
Oh yeah! I just visited the "other" site to see what all the noise was about. Art did some clever stuff with the pelvis displacement graph that allowed him to differentiate the data and get an angular velocity curve. That curve was very similar to the pelvis curve on the rotational (kinematic sequence) graph. He did this also for the torso data with the same result. With this analysis there was basically no place to hide. Deceleration was obvious (unless Art made an error in the calculus or simply made the data up).
What you see in the above quote is micro-man's feeble response to Art's work. Cornered, at last.
BTW Art: I know it is difficult but could you differentiate the velocity to derive an acceleration curve? And, probably even more difficult, find the exact time that acceleration in the downswing is zero (or send me your data I can give it a shot)?
Thanks,
Drew
Michael Finney
New
47not74.....
With your new reality settling in, where does this leave the Kelvin and Ricky "pelvis accel" show? .....I would imagine they are pissed that you have cried uncle.
Is it time for you to latch on to another teacher and painstakingly kill their career? Keep us posted.
With your new reality settling in, where does this leave the Kelvin and Ricky "pelvis accel" show? .....I would imagine they are pissed that you have cried uncle.
Is it time for you to latch on to another teacher and painstakingly kill their career? Keep us posted.
I predicted the argument would change from fact to intention! Nominalism at work. They were "screaming" no deceleration as fact derived from video and said NOTHING about trying to overcome deceleration.
Like one guy who claims one pronates when they are actually supinating without telling anyone pronation was intention while supination was the direction. Word games all the time (my world!).
- Status