Lag, Release, Clubhead Speed, Swing Direction, Angle of Attack, Clubface, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Lag, Release, Clubhead Speed, Swing Direction, Angle of Attack, Clubface, etc.

They are ALL created with a FORCE that gets to the club through a DIRECTION of force, with a certain AMOUNT of force, at a certain TIME.


How a given golfer is doing all of this can ONLY BE DETERMINED by "doing the math."


You CAN NOT figure this out looking at MOVEMENT PATTERNS.


Can not.


What you are looking at from video, stills, and even 3D, is the RESULT of the body's "way" of creating THAT force, at that time, in that direction.


THE MISSING LINK OF GOLF INSTRUCTION.


All of these recent threads & posts about the BODY POSITIONS AND MOVEMENTS that are being OBSERVED (not measured) in given swings are NOT DOING THE MATH.


At the Manzella Academy, and the Project 1.68 team welcome ALL THEORIES.


But we are trying to focus on KINETICS—not kinematics.


I will argue the golf swing with anyone. I will defend our work with anybody.


But, when our team of scientists talk, we listen.


WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS who can't—or won't—or aren't—doing the math, fight us every step of the way.

But the math will win.

The math will win.

Just win baby.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
OK. Taking that as read, how do you teach or apply the knowledge? Is there a way that you can "do the maths" on the practice tee?
 
R

rogerdodger

New
birly-shirly said:
OK. Taking that as read, how do you teach or apply the knowledge? Is there a way that you can "do the maths" on the practice tee?
Click to expand...
Individually, doing whatever is required to optimize the application of force, which will vary depending on the person. I have over two hundred golf instruction books, hundreds of swing sequence photos in notebooks from magazines, countless videos including the sybervision Geiberger thing. The biggest obstacle to golf scores in the last seventy five years is the camera. We look at positions in photos and believe they somehow hold a secret to copy. It is interesting that Project 1.68 and the Manzella academy are looking at objective measurement as opposed to interpretation of camera images. Impressive progress.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
I don't disagree with anything in your post. My question is still - can you, and how do you, apply it in a practical environment if you don't have the means to objectively measure the timed application of force. Are we waiting for technology to catch up with the science?
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
birly-shirly said:
I don't disagree with anything in your post. My question is still - can you, and how do you, apply it in a practical environment if you don't have the means to objectively measure the timed application of force. Are we waiting for technology to catch up with the science?
Click to expand...

All you have to know is what you are trying to do with the club.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
so, can you measure what you want the club to be doing? e.g. can you validate progress from TM data? and if you do, to what extent are you measuring a root cause, or an effect?
 
S

spktho

New
It seems to me when teaching athletic motions, you have to be able to describe the intent of the motion with the feels during the motion and maybe an overall feel to whole motion. I think the correct math will help with feels, just like Michael and Brian have shown with the release.
 
A

ausfreddy

New
The champions of yesteryear managed to find what worked without any scientific input. Presumably, what the ball did told them everything they needed to know.
 
T

TeeAce

New member
ausfreddy said:
The champions of yesteryear managed to find what worked without any scientific input. Presumably, what the ball did told them everything they needed to know.
Click to expand...

They did... and if there were 10.000 trying that, there was 50 who found it by accident and they were really not able to tell it to the next generation. Now when we know what really happens we can compare players and guide them better to reach the better level. Facts and feelings are so far from each other and even you take two players and they describe the same feeling in same movement, you can get two totally different kind of statements.

When I started my research of body movements nearly 7 years ago, after two years I felt I knew a lot. Now I know I didn't, because many so obvious things turned around when I went further. Every day I still find new things that overtake some earlier results and opens more options to make puzzle ready.

Science can be even bad for players, but for us as instructors, it has to be the basement.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
welshdentist said:
To find out what works? Prove what doesn't?

Golfers, Specifically those who want to hit it better :p
Click to expand...

OK. Constructive engagement with the issue. If the issue is the creation and application of force - for how many people on this forum is that the limiting factor to the quality of golf that they play?

I swing my driver at around 100mph. Nothing special - but it's enough to play golf way better than I do. Clubface control is a bigger issue for me and, credit where credit's due, Brian's stuff has been helpful to me. But with the best will in the world, I can't honestly say that it's clear to me where this maths is going to help me.

If you need extra clubhead speed, then I can certainly see the point. So long as you recognise the difference between "need" and "want".

If you need a shallower angle of attack, then I can see the point too. It's just that I need the opposite.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
TeeAce said:
They did... and if there were 10.000 trying that, there was 50 who found it by accident and they were really not able to tell it to the next generation. Now when we know what really happens we can compare players and guide them better to reach the better level. Facts and feelings are so far from each other and even you take two players and they describe the same feeling in same movement, you can get two totally different kind of statements.

When I started my research of body movements nearly 7 years ago, after two years I felt I knew a lot. Now I know I didn't, because many so obvious things turned around when I went further. Every day I still find new things that overtake some earlier results and opens more options to make puzzle ready.

Science can be even bad for players, but for us as instructors, it has to be the basement.
Click to expand...

TeeAce - you're clearly a pretty rigorous thinker, but I'm thinking that you're just throwing numbers around in your first sentence, no?

I would argue that within living memory golf instruction has been more or less obsessed with freeze-frame and slow-motion sequences - and that learning from ballflight has been very much a minority interest.
 
D

dbl

New
Imagine if there were a Building Blocks style video based on the best of the science/3D/Trackman/Dplane info - that would be a fantastic way for a new golfer to get started. And yet it would sound something like this: You, golfer, need to control your clubface and angle of attack. You must paradoxically achieve lag by trying to throw it away. To do this.....(might list 2 or 3 alternatives and say "focus on this one if you prefer a stronger grip and this one if you prefer a weaker grip" etc - or whatever factor causes TPTB to be able to divide up the "recommended" swing styles).
 
B

birly-shirly

New
TeeAce said:
For sure I did, but I think you get the point.
Click to expand...

well, if your point was that learning from ballflight doesn't work and that the future of learning golf is 3D motion capture and maths simulations, then no, I don't think I do.

I'm all for curiosity-driven research - but I'm an interested sceptic when it comes to the teaching application of that knowledge.
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
What are you skeptical about when it comes to teaching new scientific ideas? The good teachers will always find a way to explain it in the simplest terms.
 
W

welshdentist

New
Kevin Shields said:
What are you skeptical about when it comes to teaching new scientific ideas? The good teachers will always find a way to explain it in the simplest terms.
Click to expand...

And that is where the difficulty lies for the average golfer, or the best in the world.

Given the time to learn and implement new material as Brain has said about the general standard of teaching, it's tough to find a good teacher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top