pivot question

[Bigwill]

Big Will,

I really don't think you understand what Nesbit has done or its ramifications. Nesbit did not create a "model based on a bunch of amateur golfers" at all. Its a model of a human golfer ... ANY GOLFER. Inputs to the model (kinematics i.e. 3D measurements of actual human golfers) yield forces and torques (kinetics). From the 3D measurements, the model gives forces and torques... work and power... efficiency!

Mathematics is the only universal language. Only when a phenomena can be described mathematically can it begin to be fully understood and then, say a design (or golf swing) ultimately be optimized.

Boeing designs planes (airframe structure and wing aerodynamics) on the computer using mathematical models long before model testing takes place. Testing validates the model, but its not used to design... to optimize.

Testing (3D measurements) is a very inefficient way to optimize anything. Again, I seriously doubt the optimal golf swing can be found by testing. Testing tells you what someone did thats all...

“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.” - Nickola Tesla (inventor of AC motor and many other things)

Slowing hands has absolutely nothing to do with releasing the club. NOTHING! The club releases because a torque is generated about its center of gravity. That torque depends on the direction the force being applied by the golfer's hands is pointing which in turn depends on HAND PATH. Kinematics is key. If you slow your hands you generate a negative torque which decreases angular momentum (it decreases club head speed... not increases it!) I would bet good money Austin's hands accelerated right of to impact but we'll never know.

Nesbits' work is "golf swing gold" but it appears most of people are incapable of understanding it. Nobody has ever done a better job of modeling the golf swing. Nobody! I didn't think he could spell out the study conclusions (suggest you READ THEM ... TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEM) any clearer, any simpler than he did yet people cling to their delusions ... their myths... like it never happened. No wonder golf progress is slow as molasses in the winter or even non-existent.

Frankly I don't care if any of you get it. I really don't. So to your suggestions (you're not the only one who has made one) as to what I "should" do I say thank you... I suggest: you be you and I'll be me... OK?

There you have it. That's all I will say until such time the Mandrin once again needs to be corrected (lest I'm branded a heretic purged from Manzella rev 3 for golf blasphemy). Until then... I'll be Lurking and laughing (in silence). I think that best to maintain peace in the family.

I understand what Nesbit has done. I didn't mean to offend. I didn't realize you had such strong feelings toward Nesbit. My apologies. But isn't the information gathered in this study based on measurements of 84 male amateur golfers, and 1 female golfer, of various handicaps, which in turn were used to make a model?

Before you go off to lurk and laugh, would you mind explaining two of the findings in this paper? One speaks of maximum alpha torque values occuring well before impact, and generally coming close to zero near impact, with the scratch golfer displaying a negative torque .01 seconds prior to impact. Another passage speaks of the grip velocity levelling off or decreasing prior to impact.

I would guess that these passages could easily lead someone to the wrong conclusion, were they not properly explained. Would you mind?

As a person of science, I hope that you'll just stick to the facts, and leave the insults and other extracurriculars. It distracts from the facts of the discussion, and leads to excessively long threads that don't accomplish a thing, for either side.

 

[Bigwill]

Biigwill,

I am not siding with anyone here...... , but, if you do "the throw" correctly, the clubHEAD accelerates so fast, you MUST keep the hands going in order to stay ahead of it...

You must understand...the leverage accelerates the club HEAD, it is all you can do from then to hang on to it..
The feeling is more one of hanging on, and trying to stay ahead of it.....

Now if it is true that the hands slow down at impact, then that is probably a subconcious timing issue..

The funny thing is, I never said that you INTENTIONALLY slow the hands. I think that, because of the nature of the golf swing, if you intentionally try to slow the hands, bad things will happen. In that regard, I agree with NM. But that's been the problem with golf instruction all these years. It's always been based largely on feel, or ideas, or intent. There are a ton of ways to hit a golf ball. And, unfortunately, you could find a scientific paper that supports any point of view, or interpret the info in one paper several different ways (ever notice how every kind of nutritional theory has a paper that backs it up? BTW I'm not accusing you of this, NM, so be cool). And you could find a golf swing that supports your way of thinking. If allowed to, this thread could go on forever with no real resolution, because everyone believes that they're right. What I can say is that if you look at someone who generates a lot of power ( super long pro's and especially long-drive competitors), with a driver, in high-speed slow motion like swingvision, I believe that you will see the left hand and arm slowing around the time the club is impacting the ball. I've seen it with Tiger, Bubba, Fister, Sadlowski, you name it. What is it that I am seeing?

Ah, what does it matter anyway? Man, I've become a part of one of THOSE threads! That sucks. I'm going to hit some balls. I think that will help me a lot more that this thread

 

[Bronco Billy]

Mathematical Models......

I understand what Nesbit has done. I didn't mean to offend. I didn't realize you had such strong feelings toward Nesbit. My apologies. But isn't the mathematic information gathered in this study based on measurements of 84 male amateur golfers, and 1 female golfer, of various handicaps?
Before you go off to lurk and laugh, would you mind explaining two of the findings in this paper? One speaks of maximum alpha torque values occuring well before impact, and generally coming close to zero near impact, with the scratch golfer displaying a negative torque .01 seconds prior to impact. Another passage speaks of the grip velocity levelling off or decreasing prior to impact.

I would guess that these passages could easily lead someone to the wrong conclusion, were they not properly explained. Would you mind?

As a person of science, I hope that you'll just stick to the facts, and leave the insults and other extracurriculars. It distracts from the facts of the discussion, and leads to excessively long threads that don't accomplish a thing, for either side.

Big Will.... It Seems to Me You are Confusing Mathematical Models with Data..... The Mathematical Function F(d) = PI * d is a Mathematical Model which Predicts the Circumference of a Circle Without Physically Measuring It.... Notice Many Different Values of d will Predict Many different Circumferences.... Again the Math Model is F(d) = PI * d and the Data is the Many different Values of d....

All of Nesbitts Math Functions(Models) were defined before the Golfers were Tested...... The Test Yielded the Data for the Predefined Math Model.... One could Equally Have Tested 10 Touring Pros to Gather the Data..... Have a Great Day with Your New Found Knowledge.....

 

[Bigwill]

Thanks for pointing that out, but I had already taken the word "mathematic" out of the post. I can't say that I saw your post coming, but I had a feeling that it was misplaced.

 

[matt kluck]

nmgolfer and Big Will,
Please show me the equations that you derive your information and then a worthwhile debate/argument can commence. Until you show me the goods I hesitate to participate. Good luck!
MK

 

[Bigwill]

Don't worry about it, Matt. I think that this is my last post on this thread. I think it's dead, anyway. Kinda hope it stays that way.

Besides, I don't have any equations

 

[Bronco Billy]

http://www.jssm.org/vol4/n4/17/v4n4-17pdf.pdf

nmgolfer and Big Will,
Please show me the equations that you derive your information and then a worthwhile debate/argument can commence. Until you show me the goods I hesitate to participate. Good luck!
MK

http://www.jssm.org/vol4/n4/17/v4n4-17pdf.pdf

 

[mandrin]

Has Nesbit ever used a modern 3D machine?

You two guys (mn and billy) keep promoting something you can't prove. You are both somehow, thinking you really are correct, even though, I can't imagine how much the folks at the USA Olympic training center would laugh at you.

I know how you feel. I too have been trapped in old beliefs.

I will show you guys the truth as soon as I can get to a 3D machine and film a segment.

Until now, lets just agree that we disagree, and after I present, you can comment all you want.

OK?

Brian,

Better take nmgolfer's assertions with a grain of salt. Notwithstanding his cocky self-assurance, he is not up to par on the subject.

He is seemingly unaware of multi body dynamics and most likely still stuck with simple Newtonian single particle mechanics.

His alter ego BB is only making noise hoping that it will result in a brawl, this being his main interest for participating in golf forum discussions.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Nuthin Like a Good Fight........

Brian,

Better take nmgolfer's assertions with a grain of salt. Notwithstanding his cocky self-assurance, he is not up to par on the subject.

He is seemingly unaware of multi body dynamics and most likely still stuck with simple Newtonian single particle mechanics.

His alter ego BB is only making noise hoping that it will result in a brawl, this being his main interest for participating in golf forum discussions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oido07Vjki0

 

[Brian Manzella]

Silliness.

Lets make some sense out of this thread before it goes to the freezer...

You have two choices if you are a golfer or teacher:

1. Try to make a swing where your hips and/or shoulders are actively maintaining something close to their top speed or RPMs, and the hands as well as going through the ball with no slowdown.

or

2. Try to make a swing where the pivot, arms and hand components are moved to a location where they can reach their top speed/rpms, but not be able to continue and because of this slow rapidly and act as a launching pad for the NEXT component to "push off of," giving that next component more speed while simultaneously adding to the slow down of their launching pad component.

The 3D machines I mention in my posts on this subject have sensors that measure the speed of the hands, arms, shoulders, hips, and many other points during the swing in real time.

Every single machine, cheap and expensive, has measured every single golfer with a powerful swing (that includes me) to have some form of the exact scenario that I described in example #2.

The folks who believe otherwise are welcome to their opinions, but at the end of the day folks, the only chance they have for being even partially correct is:

A. The teacher TELLS his student to do #1 and it works for the student, even though the student would 3D measure to do #2.

B. The science project/test/math model does not take into account the way that BIOmechanics work.

Period.

End of story.

As for the folks who have some wacky idea that a guy that once hit a ball really far, did anything different than all of the long drive guys that abound today, that I am sorry to report, would blow it by this man regularly.

They are wacky.

This forum is not the place for wacky, or for folks selling products here because their site is Alexa ranked #9,217,458, and this site is ranked #944,501.

Thank you very much.

Bmanz

 

[mandrin]

Lets make some sense out of this thread before it goes to the freezer...

You have two choices if you are a golfer or teacher:

1. Try to make a swing where your hips and/or shoulders are actively maintaining something close to their top speed or RPMs, and the hands as well as going through the ball with no slowdown.

or

2. Try to make a swing where the pivot, arms and hand components are moved to a location where they can reach their top speed/rpms, but not be able to continue and because of this slow rapidly and act as a launching pad for the NEXT component to "push off of," giving that next component more speed while simultaneously adding to the slow down of their launching pad component.

The 3D machines I mention in my posts on this subject have sensors that measure the speed of the hands, arms, shoulders, hips, and many other points during the swing in real time.

Every single machine, cheap and expensive, has measured every single golfer with a powerful swing (that includes me) to have some form of the exact scenario that I described in example #2.

The folks who believe otherwise are welcome to their opinions, but at the end of the day folks, the only chance they have for being even partially correct is:

A. The teacher TELLS his student to do #1 and it works for the student, even though the student would 3D measure to do #2.

B. The science project/test/math model does not take into account the way that BIOmechanics work.

Period.

End of story.

As for the folks who have some wacky idea that a guy that once hit a ball really far, did anything different than all of the long drive guys that abound today, that I am sorry to report, would blow it by this man regularly.

They are wacky.

This forum is not the place for wacky, or for folks selling products here because their site is Alexa ranked #9,217,458, and this site is ranked #944,501.

Thank you very much.

Bmanz

Brian,

One really does not need any math, models or 3D machines. Any front view Swing Vision sequence shows clearly that hands do slow down.

It is really intriguing that anyone could seriously doubt what each and every person can observe comfortably seated in front of his TV.

 

[nmgolfer]

What logical fallacies say about the man(drin)

... As Dorothy pulled back the curtain exposing the little man(drin) lurking behind, a sadder sight was never seen as he cowered in desperation knowing his glory and his reputation was slipping irrevocably into ill-repute...

You know a "man(drin) of science" is full of it (caca) when he doesn't even attempt to apply his pseudo-scientific illogical quackery in the defense of his false conclusions. You know you're dealing with a swindler, a fake, a phony when the man(drin) fails to present one iota of verifiable evidence in support of his defenseless conclusions. Such a scoundrel, such a con-man, such charlatan immediately resorts to using the logical falacy his meek pathetic little self finds most comforting.

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial.

Brian,

Better take nmgolfer's assertions with a grain of salt. Notwithstanding his cocky self-assurance, he is not up to par on the subject.

He is seemingly unaware of multi body dynamics and most likely still stuck with simple Newtonian single particle mechanics.

His alter ego BB is only making noise hoping that it will result in a brawl, this being his main interest for participating in golf forum discussions.

 

[nmgolfer]

Straw Man

Nobody has said that (slowing hands) is in not true.. for a percentage of golfers... GIRLY-MAN golfers. Are you a girly-man golfer mandrin? Fess-up mandrin... You play from the lady's tee don't you... Nesbit proved NOT ALL golfer's hands slow down.

Shame on you little man(drin). By attempting to misrepresent my position and the topic of this thread, your conclusion is a fine example of the straw man logical fallacy.

STRAW MAN

Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that is represented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.

Brian,

One really does not need any math, models or 3D machines. Any front view Swing Vision sequence shows clearly that hands do slow down.

It is really intriguing that anyone could seriously doubt what each and every person can observe comfortably seated in front of his TV.

 

[kevinmz]

I've lurked this forum and website for a long time and have gained a wealth of golf knowledge from Brian and everyone here. I love reading about golf, the golf swing, etc. and a lot of people obviously have different opinions on the golf swing. Fine. Personally, I love reading and learning about all of them. Maybe even trying a few of them out... But this thread is just low. Brian: I would suggest either removing this thread or just closing/locking it. Initially I enjoyed the debate in this thread, but now I think it's just a bunch of mud-slinging and don't think it really adds anything positive to your website.

-Kevin

 

[birdie_man]

Girly-man golfers?? NM...what the deu...

 

[nmgolfer]

This is basic "multi-body" dynamics

Vcubhead = Vhands + Vrel

Vrel is the velocity of the club head relative to the hands

Vrel = w*R where:

w is omega or rotational velocity and

R is the distance from the hands to the club head

so..

Vclubhead = Vhands + w*R

Now you tell me... what do you think happens to Vclubhead when

Vhands = 0 or is decreasing?

That's right... Vclubhead decreases

There's the formula (find it in any dynamics text)... Now what is the practical application of this newfound knowledge?

A golfer wants to maximize w (angular velocity) and Vhands therefore clubhead speed. But there is a catch... I golfer tries to build angular velocity too fast, he/she loses the limited wrist cock. Some golfers do this (casting) and they train themselves (subconsciously no doubt) to slow their hands to compensate. The trick is to delay the "release" so that w (angular velocity) can be maximized ALONG with Vhands. Nesbit's scratch golfer knows how to do this. The secret lies in the kinematics... the hand PATH.

nmgolfer and Big Will,
Please show me the equations that you derive your information and then a worthwhile debate/argument can commence. Until you show me the goods I hesitate to participate. Good luck!
MK

 

[nmgolfer]

Hi birdie

Girly-man golfer

Its a term, relative newcomer to our vernacular... recently popularized by the govenator (Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Synonym: short-hitter, the mandrin
Antonym: Mike Austin or Bubba Watson

Girly-man golfers?? NM...what the deu...

 

[curtisj76]

I've lurked this forum and website for a long time and have gained a wealth of golf knowledge from Brian and everyone here. I love reading about golf, the golf swing, etc. and a lot of people obviously have different opinions on the golf swing. Fine. Personally, I love reading and learning about all of them. Maybe even trying a few of them out... But this thread is just low. Brian: I would suggest either removing this thread or just closing/locking it. Initially I enjoyed the debate in this thread, but now I think it's just a bunch of mud-slinging and don't think it really adds anything positive to your website.

-Kevin

Was thinking the same thing. To 99% of the members here this thread is baloney. Who cares?

 

[davel]

The true Kinetic Chain. Watch this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuxxxZPOs9s.


Dave

 

[jenhaoyen]

Girly-man golfers?? NM...what the deu...

No Gym For Home

No gym for home, work out floor with 30, but is it for 20 like 30 lb when you no lift it to be for men, for 30 lbs instead? or half is 10 for 20 pounds?

UMM HOW i word this... ok u take 20 lbs no lifting for 30lb if guy, so divide 2 u dont sit, u get 10 but for guy it no 30, so 20 would be for guy if u werent a girl ?