Kinematic Sequence vs Pelvis Angles

[Michael Jacobs]

There has been a lot of chatter about if the Kinematic Sequence graph shows decel, then why does the Pelvis Angles graph show a fairly constant sloped line of rotation?

The answer is as simple as this -

The Pelvis Angles {rotation~bend~side bend} are being measured on a different reference frame than the Kinematic Sequence.

Kinematic Sequence is on a Global Reference Frame and the Pelvis Angles is on a local reference frame. Trying to compare the 2 and draw conclusions on rotational rates is a waste of everyone's time.

Sorry loons

 

[gmbtempe]

There has been a lot of chatter about if the Kinematic Sequence graph shows decel, then why does the Pelvis Angles graph show a fairly constant sloped line of rotation?

The answer is as simple as this -

The Pelvis Angles {rotation~bend~side bend} are being measured on a different reference frame than the Kinematic Sequence.

Kinematic Sequence is on a Global Reference Frame and the Pelvis Angles is on a local reference frame. Trying to compare the 2 and draw conclusions on rotational rates is a waste of everyone's time.

Sorry loons

Then why put up the graph in the other thread?

 

[Michael Finney]

Pelvis positional data - degrees
Pelvis angular velocity data - degrees/second
Pelvis angular acceleration data - degrees/second/second

Reference frames for the above can be local or global or use an ISA.....

be careful of amateur hour when interpreting this data - it could be harmful

Also, the person who is staking his claim on MATT system POSITIONAL data - by drawing lines on an avatar - is a straight up lunatic.

 

[Michael Finney]

Then why put up the graph in the other thread?

Phil Cheetham didn't put the graph up on his monitor so some amateur could misinterpret it, that's for sure. The moral to the story is, don't get out of your pay grade when you don't really know what you're talking about.

 

[gmbtempe]

Phil Cheetham didn't put the graph up on his monitor so some amateur could misinterpret it, that's for sure. The moral to the story is, don't get out of your pay grade when you don't really know what you're talking about.

The problem seems to be, and maybe in general regarding the golf swing, is everyone (and not just the usual combantants on these boards either) says the other person does not know what they are talking about.

Its not very fun for the player just trying to learn.

 

[Michael Jacobs]

The problem seems to be, and maybe in general regarding the golf swing, is everyone (and not just the usual combantants on these boards either) says the other person does not know what they are talking about.

Its not very fun for the player just trying to learn.

Probably why you should only follow boards of people who actually do this stuff for a living and are at the top of their field.

 

[Erik_K]

The problem seems to be, and maybe in general regarding the golf swing, is everyone (and not just the usual combantants on these boards either) says the other person does not know what they are talking about.

Its not very fun for the player just trying to learn.

One has to wonder, at some level, why advanced scientific data is being presented on a public internet forum where everyone claims to be an expert. It's akin to someone at Time magazine posting an article on advanced astrophysics on one of their forums (not sure they do have discussion boards, or not) and everyone chimes in with all sorts of questions...but the experts quoted in the story are nowhere to be found.

If it were up to me, I'd love it if Brian, Mike, John, etc would develop videos or articles for the laymen that are perhaps based on their studies, but do not necessarily go into the gory details. Their job as golf professionals is to take this wonderful information and package it in such a way that helps your weekend hacker hit the ball better. Instead we see tons of threads where the data could be grossly misinterpreted. Is this a website dedicated to golf instruction, or golf physics?

I think it's absolutely wonderful that Brian is conducting this research and continues to refine his teachings using the best information possible. But I sometimes wonder what good it does to bring up the nasty scientific details if/when the information is hotly debated by people who lack much education (in an engineering or applied physics sense) or any real world golf teaching experience.

 

[Michael Finney]

One has to wonder, at some level, why advanced scientific data is being presented on a public internet forum where everyone claims to be an expert. It's akin to someone at Time magazine posting an article on advanced astrophysics on one of their forums (not sure they do have discussion boards, or not) and everyone chimes in with all sorts of questions...but the experts quoted in the story are nowhere to be found.

If it were up to me, I'd love it if Brian, Mike, John, etc would develop videos or articles for the laymen that are perhaps based on their studies, but do not necessarily go into the gory details. Their job as golf professionals is to take this wonderful information and package it in such a way that helps your weekend hacker hit the ball better. Instead we see tons of threads where the data could be grossly misinterpreted. Is this a website dedicated to golf instruction, or golf physics?

I think it's absolutely wonderful that Brian is conducting this research and continues to refine his teachings using the best information possible. But I sometimes wonder what good it does to bring up the nasty scientific details if/when the information is hotly debated by people who lack much education (in an engineering or applied physics sense) or any real world golf teaching experience.

Erik,

I understand your sentiment, but this is part of the process - we're trying to learn as we go - just like you......soon the website will change and these types of threads will disappear.....however, as we learn and discuss some issues, the value to the regular forum goer (student) might not be readily apparent.....sorta like keeping 300 members at a country club happy with any one particular thing - impossible

 

[Erik_K]

Mike -

Well I look forward to the new forum layout. There's absolutely nothing wrong with learning and also presenting your findings. I thought that's why we have a scientific community and journals/literature associated with these rather esoteric topics. It seems that you can't get away from the "swing experts" on the range on any given weekend, nor can you do the same on an internet golf forum. I'd be wary of this "blend" of advanced scientific study/practical golf tips...clearly it can get messy.

Erik

 

[ryant91]

Probably why you should only follow boards of people who actually do this stuff for a living and are at the top of their field.

No doubt about this.

 

[spktho]

One has to wonder, at some level, why advanced scientific data is being presented on a public internet forum where everyone claims to be an expert. It's akin to someone at Time magazine posting an article on advanced astrophysics on one of their forums (not sure they do have discussion boards, or not) and everyone chimes in with all sorts of questions...but the experts quoted in the story are nowhere to be found.

If it were up to me, I'd love it if Brian, Mike, John, etc would develop videos or articles for the laymen that are perhaps based on their studies, but do not necessarily go into the gory details. Their job as golf professionals is to take this wonderful information and package it in such a way that helps your weekend hacker hit the ball better. Instead we see tons of threads where the data could be grossly misinterpreted. Is this a website dedicated to golf instruction, or golf physics?

I think it's absolutely wonderful that Brian is conducting this research and continues to refine his teachings using the best information possible. But I sometimes wonder what good it does to bring up the nasty scientific details if/when the information is hotly debated by people who lack much education (in an engineering or applied physics sense) or any real world golf teaching experience.

I actually like seeing the raw data and attempting to figure out what it shows. It would be nice to have the complete picture of graphs like that, but with the correct axes labeled with units, lines labeled and titles available which would limit the amount of absurd "analyzes".

 

[cwdlaw223]

All a man needs is a camera and the Internet!

Just ask the new golfing scholastics.

Their intellectual pride is their downfall.

 

[Michael Jacobs]

I actually like seeing the raw data and attempting to figure out what it shows. It would be nice to have the complete picture of graphs like that, but with the correct axes labeled with units, lines labeled and titles available which would limit the amount of absurd "analyzes".

Each swing in the software has all the raw data and graphs you would ever want to see. You should come do a 12 sensor session this year on Long Island, we have it open every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday.