Power Accumulator – science or metaphor?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FL-John

New
Mandrin:

No doubt the post took a great amount of time and research, along with applying the Math and Science behind it. I may have fallen into the trap of stereotyping you, based on those that have come before...quick drop of info without substance[xx(]. As I said, we are all hear to learn and understand by any who offer to indulge us.

Anyway, keep the posts coming...no worries about business associates or myself there Mandrin. Most are too 'smart' to read the posts:D
 
C

corky05

New
I gotta say, coming out of nowhere and saying, "I'm not sure Homer had it right? Here's my math equation to prove it, however, if you ask me any questions, I won't answer them.
You've made a believer out of me! In fact, I've had a few Ideas about rerouting my downswing a little. What do you guys think? Especially Brian and Yoda! Well here it goes! A- B Squared 2nd power infinity times seven, divided by Pi r squared to the eighteenth power. Well? What do you think? Would you like me to post my sandshot equation?
 
B

bsbsbs

New
quote:Originally posted by corky05

I gotta say, coming out of nowhere and saying, "I'm not sure Homer had it right? Here's my math equation to prove it, however, if you ask me any questions, I won't answer them.
You've made a believer out of me! In fact, I've had a few Ideas about rerouting my downswing a little. What do you guys think? Especially Brian and Yoda! Well here it goes! A- B Squared 2nd power infinity times seven, divided by Pi r squared to the eighteenth power. Well? What do you think? Would you like me to post my sandshot equation?
Click to expand...

STUPID

Pi aren't square, Pi are round.

DUHHH!!!!

No wonder everyone talks down to us.
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
b.., c.. and d.., (just the a.. missing), it is nice to see you guys having some real fun. I am sure you are the intellectual driving force and the real stimulus behind this forum.

I am really looking forward to learn from your bright ideas, keep them coming, make sure to enlighten all of us with that bright and genial spirit.

In the mean time I will search for your pearls of wisdom, print them out and learn them by heart. That is what I probably should have done in the first place.

mandrin
 
R

Ringer

New
mandin - what you are encountering from the majority (not all) is a real contempt for any sort of challenge that even a slight verbal issue was made on Homer's part. Somehow the book has to be perfect because it has worked for so many people. The same confrontation happened hundreds of years ago with a flat earth.. and again with the earth orbiting the sun. Then later Einstein found new ways to calculate and understand space-time, overthrowing the old Newtonian theory. Newton's theory is still at work today, and rarely is Einsteins calculations used in everyday mathmatics due to their complexity. So for these folks, a NEW WAY of interpreting data is just as contentious as saying Newton was wrong. In fact, Newton WAS wrong... but still close enough for most people.

It's funny that the simple change of the word from "Power" to "Energy" would have saved this whole argument. But since these guys want to be offended at every contention to the biblical sainthood of TGM, they can only resort to the most eronious of things to say. Very little in the way of substance is presented. It's just mockery of your judgment.

For me, there IS a difference between energy and power. Energy exists in many states, power does not. And that is a very fundamental understanding when we're trying to base our learning around physics. But far be it for me to make something so simple, complex....

1-B "Demanding that golf instruction be kept simple does not make it simple -- only incomplete and ineffective."

Sounds like Homer would have adored the challenge to his accuracy, not riddiculed it.
 
C

corky05

New
What contributions have you made? You say , "Hi! I'm Mandrin. Like many, I find Homer to be a tough read, Let me take a look at one term in an entire catalog. Mind you, I don't like tough reads, but, I'm gonna explain one term, that Homer took two sentences to define and I'll abbreviate it into a two page thesis and include a foot long math equation.
So, Homer is complex and long and your explanation of power accumulators is ...........?
The definition of power accumulators is not the glue that binds TGM.
Three imperatives, pretty important!
Quite honestly, I'm not sure you have swayed anyone? I don't say that to be confrontational, I'm just suspect, because after your canned opening speech, you have not been able to address any questions spontaneously. There were a multitude of questions posed in a very civil tone with regards to your power accumulator dissertation. You went mute? Whats the deal? One contrived post clamoring, oozing with authority. Then, Crickets or you defer.
That just strikes me as strange?
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
quote:Originally posted by Ringer

mandin - what you are encountering from the majority (not all) is a real contempt for any sort of challenge that even a slight verbal issue was made on Homer's part. Somehow the book has to be perfect because it has worked for so many people. The same confrontation happened hundreds of years ago with a flat earth.. and again with the earth orbiting the sun. Then later Einstein found new ways to calculate and understand space-time, overthrowing the old Newtonian theory. Newton's theory is still at work today, and rarely is Einsteins calculations used in everyday mathmatics due to their complexity. So for these folks, a NEW WAY of interpreting data is just as contentious as saying Newton was wrong. In fact, Newton WAS wrong... but still close enough for most people.

It's funny that the simple change of the word from "Power" to "Energy" would have saved this whole argument. But since these guys want to be offended at every contention to the biblical sainthood of TGM, they can only resort to the most eronious of things to say. Very little in the way of substance is presented. It's just mockery of your judgment.

For me, there IS a difference between energy and power. Energy exists in many states, power does not. And that is a very fundamental understanding when we're trying to base our learning around physics. But far be it for me to make something so simple, complex....

1-B "Demanding that golf instruction be kept simple does not make it simple -- only incomplete and ineffective."

Sounds like Homer would have adored the challenge to his accuracy, not riddiculed it.
Click to expand...
Ringer, you made my day, meeting a like spirit, I was getting somewhat disappointed with the level of posts. But I love paradoxes and the paradoxical attitude the people have with TMG is really interesting to observe.

On one hand people are very proud to be able to say that their system is very scientific, ruled by the universal LAWS of science, it seems to makes them feel superior to those adhering to all other methods around, which are viewed as simple subsystems.

However, pointing out that not all is perfect, you get insulted or either they turn 180 deg around, suddenly arguing that one does not need math or science to swing well anyhow. Homer would have been profoundly insulted by such type of remarks.

Homer stated clearly that he wanted the LAWS to apply without any exception or human interference in his G.O.L.F. system. Hence he very very clearly indicated that he considered his efforts as being truly scientific. Science however involves being for ever being critical, scrutinizing, not taking things for granted.

mandrin
 
B

bsbsbs

New
If you really want to debate TGM and such why not go to the TGM site or to chucks site and make the same statements. If nothing else it is poor manners to walk in to someones house and say you hate the drapes. I did not initialy come to this site to learn about TGM I came here because I heard Brian Manzella was a great teacher. I have not bought the book and will not buy the book because I beleve it is of limited value without a qualified teacher. This is Brian's site and he has a gift for taking inforamtion (TGM or not) and presenting it in an understandable way. I appreciate your zest for science and accuracy, but in spite of what you and anyone else here wants to say. Golf is art.
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
bsbsbs, now you are being quite sensible and making perfect sense with your arguments. It is not that difficult to be reasonable and definitely more useful than handing out insults, doing no good to anyone.

First of all I am not in any way an obstruction for you to post and debate your ideas all day long. What is the problem? I am in no way interfering with anybody. I am not even returning insults.

You, like everyone else, seem to miss completely that I am referring to Homer’s scientific explanations and not to golf instructions. If the scientific explanations given are partially or totally wrong does not make an iota of difference as long as the practical instructions do their job of producing a sound golf swing. Can I be any clearer?

Has it ever crossed your mind that Brian Manzella and others would not be making their living with TGM if Homer had not had a lifelong passionate interest in exploring/explaining the golf swing in a scientific way.

Don’t you think that Homer would have loved to discuss golf with another scientist? Don’t you think that their could be made a tiny little place for science on this forum, being, after all, based on a system, G.O.L.F., claimed to be truly scientific?

Tell me what is it that makes you so afraid, is it science that bothers you? Homer was a scientist with a life long passion to explain golf, using science. Can’t you accept that there are other people like him equally having a passion for both golf and science?

Asking these questions is already answering them, they are being self evident.

Your remark “Golf is art’ is very interesting since Homer would have disagreed with you. He wanted you to think in terms of being as machine-like as possible. This, coupled with his passion for science in golf, leaves little place for art.

mandrin
 
6

6bee1dee

New
quote:Originally posted by mandrin

Don’t you think that Homer would have loved to discuss golf with another scientist?
Click to expand...



No, far from it.
Homer wasn't a scientist but a first class problem solver. Homer used the laws of geometry and physics to put together a book for golfers. Homer's first problem to solve was ball compression. How do you maximize ball compression. Everything stemmed from solving that initial problem. Homer didn’t live in a blackboard world but a garage with golf balls, nets and a desire to explain
the golf swing.

At work, Homer’s time was spent on the plant floor at Boeing converting engineering plans and theory into functional, airborne reality. No aircraft left the Boeing plant without his signature issuing its release. Homer was the “go to guy.” Got a problem, go see Homer to solve it.

Homer would have been more comfortable with golfers then boring scientists, more interested in equations then making a score on a golf course.
 
C

corky05

New
Who exactly are you arguing with? This whole thing seems like, much to do about nothing. You made a statement out of the blue, connected it to a link, and then got very uncomfortable when asked very straight forward and civil questions. You can post, not post, observe, you can do anything you want. I have never seen a moderator more hands off than Brian. But, If you throw it out there, people are going to want you to validate it. You were asked a few questions and you came up empty. Had you fielded the questions and not played dodge ball, you may have gained some credibility.
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
Homer said it very eloquently - “ ... it is very important that the player have an understanding of the laws of geometry, structure, force, motion, etc., to properly apply these Mechanics ...
Below I have put in a nutshell my thoughts about potential and kinetic energy, trying to follow Homer’s admonition to think and understand.

The purpose of the backswing is to generate space and time for the downswing. There is, except for a feeble amount of gravitational potential energy, no mechanical type potential energy at the top of the backswing.

Instead, at the top of the backswing, use is made of the potential energy of biomechanical substances (ATP,CP, carbohydrate, fat), as muscles develop forces to create the torques through the lever system of the skeleton.

Homer, obviously was very enticed by his concept of considering a golfer as a machine, thinking in terms of hinges, pistons, etc.. This lead him to use terminology to suit this concept and hence an ambiguous use of the concept of potential energy.

From the top of the back swing, starting from zero potential mechanical energy, muscles attached to levers, create toque, generating kinetic energy of motion. The experienced golfer looks for means doing this optimally by reducing the angular moment of inertia.

An important challenge in the downswing is indeed to keep the angular inertia small notwithstanding the centrifugal force getting very rapidly very large in the downswing. The hitter, striving to maintain a straight line approach in the downswing, is effectively trying to reduce the centrifugal force.

Keeping the angular inertia low results in maximum kinetic energy developed in the heavier proximal elements of the body. The reward is obtained, approaching impact, when the proximal kinetic energy starts flowing towards the distal elements and ultimately into the clubhead.

mandrin
 
M

MizunoJoe

New
The Hitter doesn't "reduce" CF, he preempts it. And, the Straight Line Delivery Path is available to both Swingers or Hitters, but required by neither.

Will you explain how pivot lag, and clubhead lag due to the change of direction in Swinging or the acceleration in Hitting, does not load the shaft?
 
M

mb6606

New
Mandrin if there is no accumulation in the out of line condition of the backswing then why do golfers bother to cock their left wrist??? Wht not just keep the club inline the entire swing??
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

The Hitter doesn't "reduce" CF, he preempts it. And, the Straight Line Delivery Path is available to both Swingers or Hitters, but required by neither.

Will you explain how pivot lag, and clubhead lag due to the change of direction in Swinging or the acceleration in Hitting, does not load the shaft?
Click to expand...
MizunoJoe, I can’t help coming to the conclusion that you are really having a serious reading problem. You are knocking on the wrong door. This thread is about the Homer’s concept of power accumulator and what it might possibly accumulate in the backswing.

Tell me what is your opinion about this specific subject. Have you given it any serious thought. Have you read Homer’s book? He is really encouraging a golfer to think. You do know what that means? - being critical, not taking anything for granted.

Easy challenge for. You said -

“The Hitter doesn't "reduce" CF, he preempts it. And, the Straight Line Delivery Path is available to both Swingers or Hitters, but required by neither”.

Just explain this to me in detail, without restoring to simply quoting the book in any way or form, and in normal standard English. I will then carefully dissect with pleasure, anything you might have to say. It might be really fun. Give it a try. :)

I will eventually with great pleasure discuss ‘loading the golf shaft’. But only when I have finished doing my home work, hence having gone through the arduous and time consuming task of formulating it, using the rigorous language of mathematics.

Impatient to know the conclusion? Patience my friend. Homer took 28 years to derive his ideas. :)

mandrin
 
C

corky05

New
Why would you segregate the backswing when discussing power accumulation?


quote:Originally posted by mandrin

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

The Hitter doesn't "reduce" CF, he preempts it. And, the Straight Line Delivery Path is available to both Swingers or Hitters, but required by neither.

Will you explain how pivot lag, and clubhead lag due to the change of direction in Swinging or the acceleration in Hitting, does not load the shaft?
Click to expand...
MizunoJoe, I can’t help coming to the conclusion that you are really having a serious reading problem. You are knocking on the wrong door. This thread is about the Homer’s concept of power accumulator and what it might possibly accumulate in the backswing.

Tell me what is your opinion about this specific subject. Have you given it any serious thought. Have you read Homer’s book? He is really encouraging a golfer to think. You do know what that means? - being critical, not taking anything for granted.

Easy challenge for. You said -

“The Hitter doesn't "reduce" CF, he preempts it. And, the Straight Line Delivery Path is available to both Swingers or Hitters, but required by neither”.

Just explain this to me in detail, without restoring to simply quoting the book in any way or form, and in normal standard English. I will then carefully dissect with pleasure, anything you might have to say. It might be really fun. Give it a try. :)

I will eventually with great pleasure discuss ‘loading the golf shaft’. But only when I have finished doing my home work, hence having gone through the arduous and time consuming task of formulating it, using the rigorous language of mathematics.

Impatient to know the conclusion? Patience my friend. Homer took 28 years to derive his ideas. :)

mandrin
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top