Brian Manzella
Administrator
We have this little project we are working on. It is called....
Project 1.68
There are 5 areas we are looking into and are reporting on, and teaching with, on our way to a publication.
They are:
1. What happens on a ideal ball-clubhead collision.
The Classification system now has a basic form. I did a decent amount of work on it last year and will fill in the blanks at the conclusion of our findings in the other areas.
We collected and reviewed a significant amount of data and research—along with conversations with multiple scientists—on the subject of impact. We have not finished this part of the project by any means, but feel we have enough information for now to put our time to use on the other areas.
In short, we found that the clubface does not rotate a significant amount during the impact interval and several other interest points of interest.
We have learned even more about the clubhead's path through the release phase of the swing, and its 3D path and 3D "point" of the clubface. Many of you have read our extensive reports on the "resultant path" (a term Mike Finney coined) and the D-Plane, along with viewing the most watched D-Plane video of all time, something I did off the cuff more than a year ago.
We now know how to adjust golf swings to hit straight shots, and what happens if you don't adjust and "swing straight."
We now know that compression is created by spin loft, which is simply the difference between the two vectors of the D-Plane.
I have traveled the country talking at conferences explaining these facts to pros who can then use the information to help golfers play their best.
We have learned about, and studied diligently, the angle of attack of the clubhead, especially at the PGA Tour level.
We apply this optimum angle of attack and resultant path in every lesson we give with the help of Doppler radar devices like TrackMan.
TrackMan measures: Clubhead Speed, Ball Speed, Smash Factor, Attack Angle, Launch Angle, Shot Height, Landing Angle, Club Path, Launch Direction, Carry, Hang Time, Swing Plane Angle, Spin Axis, Direction of Swing (plane base line) and Spin Rate.
TrackMan calculates the clubface orientation by measuring these parameters and applying the law of physics. This provides the orientation of the clubface at the point of impact on the clubface. This orientation of the clubface is 3 dimensional and are reflected in the data parameters “face angle” and “dynamic loft”. Even though that “face angle” and “dynamic loft” are derived numbers from direct measurements and a collision model, numerous robotic test has proven that this is indeed a very accurate calculation of “face angle” and “dynamic loft”.
So, in our teaching, the most important changes, the very things that we teach from our impact study—resultant path and angle of attack are directly measured by TrackMan.
And, when the day comes that there is a better machine, whether made by Trackman or another company, the facts of the resultant path, angle of attack, and smash factor will not change and neither will our teaching of it.
That means the folks that are talking about what TrackMan doesn't do apparently don't realize that the science that Project 1.68 has gleaned from the work of Theodore Jorgensen and Fredrik Tuxen is solid as a rock, and the swing that was taken at it was a big ole whiff....
Strike 1.
3D capture machines like the AMM, the MATT-T system, and the system designed by Rob Neal, produce basically two kinds of data: 1) The positional relationships of parts of the body as they move through space in the swing, and 2) The rates of accelerations and other movements as a function of time.
I once thought that a major reason the best swings were as good as they were because of my perceived quality of the work of the body—The Pivot, and the power that was produced from this movement. The 3D machines of today measure these rates of accelerations and other movements as a function of time in a way that produces—in the best golf swing—a kinematic sequence that has rapid acceleration and rapid decelerations. I used to refer to "dynamic pivots" as those who "snapped the chain" the best.
Since Mike Jacobs and I did some work on the release, I now believe that the intent and action on the club by the golfer can significantly influence the body's dynamics to and through impact - and I do not refer to "snapping the chain" in my teaching or writing at all.
More detailed study into this area of biomechanics has been done by Mike Finney and Jon Hardesty, along with Chris Como. They have found that the planes of motion of the body segments, along with other concepts like the instantaneous screw-axis, have called the basic accel/decel graph into serious question. Obviously, much more research and study will be done in this area before we make any assumptions or conclusions.
I have repeatedly said that our research in this area is still ongoing, and the most time we have spent in this area is with Mr. Art Maffei, a scientist who is an expert in the area of strength-to-weight ratios and very detailed acceleration calculations. He has never recommended to us that we should try to accel/decel in the manner portrayed in basic kinematic sequence graphs that proliferate the internet and have been suddenly, incorrectly, mis-representatively been applied to Project 1.68 when we have never used them for one second of our progress writings or our teaching since the beginning of the project.
Our primary use of 3D has been in the positional relationships of parts of the body as they move through space in the swing. Like how the right wrist works on the release phase of the swing and on toward the finish for example.
In this respect the 3D systems are far more accurate and reliable than rolling-shutter photography like the kind utilized in the Casio exilim line of high-speed cameras.
That means the folks that are talking about our supposed blessing of the "kinematic sequence" theory and accel/decel instruction, are mistakingly lumping us into a group we are not currently in, and has never been a part of our project. In fact our research into its feasibility came up very short and nowhere near conclusive. It was a just a poor guess by a critic and yet another—giant whiff....
Strike 2.
Additionally, even this positional 3D data has been used at this point in the project only to qualify how the body moves when it is putting force on the club.
This "force on the club" part of the project has been our primary focus for the last year, and it is mostly math and physics obtained from our study with Dr. Steven Nesbit, and his calculations and research funded by and done in cooperation with the USGA. Although very high end 3D capture was used in Dr. Nesbit's research, all of the "hub path" study has been verified in mathematic models, and is very consistent with the work of several other researchers over the years, like Dr. David Williams, K. Muira, and our great friend Aaron Zick.
The feeble attempt to discredit our work, along with the years of research and application by the world renowned scientists that have been so kind to assist us with our project, has been shown to be another short-sighted attempt by folks who have no idea the level of dedication, attention to detail, and desire to be the best that is exhibited by our group and the people that are assisting us.
Strike 3.
Project 1.68 is just one of a number of things that have been goals of mine and my pals for a long time. I have been very fortunate to make friends with a group of professionals who want nothing but to uncover the truths about the golf swing and the best ways to get people to accomplish them.
We get closer every day.
Project 1.68
There are 5 areas we are looking into and are reporting on, and teaching with, on our way to a publication.
They are:
1. What happens on a ideal ball-clubhead collision.
2. The path & orientation of the clubhead to and through impact.
3. The Geometry of the Club and the ideal forces on it from the golfer.
4. How the body helps the golfer create these ideal force.
5. A real-world Classification System.
4. How the body helps the golfer create these ideal force.
5. A real-world Classification System.
The Classification system now has a basic form. I did a decent amount of work on it last year and will fill in the blanks at the conclusion of our findings in the other areas.
We collected and reviewed a significant amount of data and research—along with conversations with multiple scientists—on the subject of impact. We have not finished this part of the project by any means, but feel we have enough information for now to put our time to use on the other areas.
In short, we found that the clubface does not rotate a significant amount during the impact interval and several other interest points of interest.
We have learned even more about the clubhead's path through the release phase of the swing, and its 3D path and 3D "point" of the clubface. Many of you have read our extensive reports on the "resultant path" (a term Mike Finney coined) and the D-Plane, along with viewing the most watched D-Plane video of all time, something I did off the cuff more than a year ago.
We now know how to adjust golf swings to hit straight shots, and what happens if you don't adjust and "swing straight."
We now know that compression is created by spin loft, which is simply the difference between the two vectors of the D-Plane.
I have traveled the country talking at conferences explaining these facts to pros who can then use the information to help golfers play their best.
We have learned about, and studied diligently, the angle of attack of the clubhead, especially at the PGA Tour level.
We apply this optimum angle of attack and resultant path in every lesson we give with the help of Doppler radar devices like TrackMan.
TrackMan measures: Clubhead Speed, Ball Speed, Smash Factor, Attack Angle, Launch Angle, Shot Height, Landing Angle, Club Path, Launch Direction, Carry, Hang Time, Swing Plane Angle, Spin Axis, Direction of Swing (plane base line) and Spin Rate.
TrackMan calculates the clubface orientation by measuring these parameters and applying the law of physics. This provides the orientation of the clubface at the point of impact on the clubface. This orientation of the clubface is 3 dimensional and are reflected in the data parameters “face angle” and “dynamic loft”. Even though that “face angle” and “dynamic loft” are derived numbers from direct measurements and a collision model, numerous robotic test has proven that this is indeed a very accurate calculation of “face angle” and “dynamic loft”.
And, when the day comes that there is a better machine, whether made by Trackman or another company, the facts of the resultant path, angle of attack, and smash factor will not change and neither will our teaching of it.
That means the folks that are talking about what TrackMan doesn't do apparently don't realize that the science that Project 1.68 has gleaned from the work of Theodore Jorgensen and Fredrik Tuxen is solid as a rock, and the swing that was taken at it was a big ole whiff....
Strike 1.
3D capture machines like the AMM, the MATT-T system, and the system designed by Rob Neal, produce basically two kinds of data: 1) The positional relationships of parts of the body as they move through space in the swing, and 2) The rates of accelerations and other movements as a function of time.
I once thought that a major reason the best swings were as good as they were because of my perceived quality of the work of the body—The Pivot, and the power that was produced from this movement. The 3D machines of today measure these rates of accelerations and other movements as a function of time in a way that produces—in the best golf swing—a kinematic sequence that has rapid acceleration and rapid decelerations. I used to refer to "dynamic pivots" as those who "snapped the chain" the best.
Since Mike Jacobs and I did some work on the release, I now believe that the intent and action on the club by the golfer can significantly influence the body's dynamics to and through impact - and I do not refer to "snapping the chain" in my teaching or writing at all.
More detailed study into this area of biomechanics has been done by Mike Finney and Jon Hardesty, along with Chris Como. They have found that the planes of motion of the body segments, along with other concepts like the instantaneous screw-axis, have called the basic accel/decel graph into serious question. Obviously, much more research and study will be done in this area before we make any assumptions or conclusions.
I have repeatedly said that our research in this area is still ongoing, and the most time we have spent in this area is with Mr. Art Maffei, a scientist who is an expert in the area of strength-to-weight ratios and very detailed acceleration calculations. He has never recommended to us that we should try to accel/decel in the manner portrayed in basic kinematic sequence graphs that proliferate the internet and have been suddenly, incorrectly, mis-representatively been applied to Project 1.68 when we have never used them for one second of our progress writings or our teaching since the beginning of the project.
Our primary use of 3D has been in the positional relationships of parts of the body as they move through space in the swing. Like how the right wrist works on the release phase of the swing and on toward the finish for example.
In this respect the 3D systems are far more accurate and reliable than rolling-shutter photography like the kind utilized in the Casio exilim line of high-speed cameras.
That means the folks that are talking about our supposed blessing of the "kinematic sequence" theory and accel/decel instruction, are mistakingly lumping us into a group we are not currently in, and has never been a part of our project. In fact our research into its feasibility came up very short and nowhere near conclusive. It was a just a poor guess by a critic and yet another—giant whiff....
Strike 2.
Additionally, even this positional 3D data has been used at this point in the project only to qualify how the body moves when it is putting force on the club.
This "force on the club" part of the project has been our primary focus for the last year, and it is mostly math and physics obtained from our study with Dr. Steven Nesbit, and his calculations and research funded by and done in cooperation with the USGA. Although very high end 3D capture was used in Dr. Nesbit's research, all of the "hub path" study has been verified in mathematic models, and is very consistent with the work of several other researchers over the years, like Dr. David Williams, K. Muira, and our great friend Aaron Zick.
The feeble attempt to discredit our work, along with the years of research and application by the world renowned scientists that have been so kind to assist us with our project, has been shown to be another short-sighted attempt by folks who have no idea the level of dedication, attention to detail, and desire to be the best that is exhibited by our group and the people that are assisting us.
Strike 3.
We get closer every day.
