Question about tour players' kinematic sequence......

Status
Not open for further replies.
duckjr78

duckjr78

New
I'll guess 30%.

My reasoning is that there are relatively small guys who generate massive club head speed, and therefore, I would guess they are properly sequenced. Everyone who is taller or has more muscle mass (and would theoretically have more potential club head speed), but doesn't generate max speed, must not be properly sequenced.

A very amateur effort.

"That's not what your mother said last night, Trebec!"
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
The answer from Phil Cheetham was 50%.... mjordan and Art take home the prize - a laurel and hardy handshake (blazing saddles)

LOTS O WAYS to get it done - now we can start the decel debate all over again - since we kicked ass on that one already - we can start the purposeful decel versus the "laws of physics" decel versus the "get over it, they're slowing - that's all that matters" debate....

by the way, comb - you were way off
 
mgranato

mgranato

New
Okay... 50% are/were P to D (stretching). Of the other 50%, I wonder how many were riding and fanning.

Stretching: Proximal segment precedes the distal segment, stretching the muscles, putting them in eccentric contraction hence providing more force for later in the downswing. The most efficient.

Riding: Proximal and distal segment turn at the same speed in the downswing, the muscles are in isometric contraction to stabilize the distal segment. Large force is built up between the segments also providing large initial force for later in the downswing. Still efficient, but not quite as efficient as stretching.

Fanning: Distal segment immediately precedes the proximal segment in the downswing with the muscles immediately going into concentric contraction not allowing as much force to build; not as effective at the other two methods. Not efficient.
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
comb,

you went 100% yourself......who are you to call anyone out?

the real answer is "no one cares enough to ask the really simple questions, while TPI is a for profit enterprise"....except of course, me

no one ever said you had to be P-D, but you better have some decel or you'll throw the javelin into your foot
 
S

spktho

New
mgranato said:
Okay... 50% are/were P to D (stretching). Of the other 50%, I wonder how many were riding and fanning.

Stretching: Proximal segment precedes the distal segment, stretching the muscles, putting them in eccentric contraction hence providing more force for later in the downswing. The most efficient.

Riding: Proximal and distal segment turn at the same speed in the downswing, the muscles are in isometric contraction to stabilize the distal segment. Large force is built up between the segments also providing large initial force for later in the downswing. Still efficient, but not quite as efficient as stretching.

Fanning: Distal segment immediately precedes the proximal segment in the downswing with the muscles immediately going into concentric contraction not allowing as much force to build; not as effective at the other two methods. Not efficient.
Click to expand...

Interesting classification. Where'd you find it?
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
Your boy, Lloyd Higley (coach) guesses 100% and then takes it down from the golf teaching professionals page after he finds out the answer is 50%.....then he posts brilliance on comb's site - he says "who cares" about how many touring pros actually follow P-D sequencing....quality stuff there, lloyd ....you should be proud of yourself
 
coach

coach

New
No I didn't take it down from Facebook, once again Mike jumping the gun before you check the facts. I said who cares because I don't get into this silly name calling, forum pissing contest.
 
Last edited:
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
It's nice to NOT have models, unlike the guys in the white room think. But why let hat get in the way of trying to strengthen your arguments?
 
J

Jared Willerson

Super Moderator
Kevin Shields said:
Unless its on Jeffy's site
Click to expand...

Brilliant.

The official "Do not trust anything these people say here, because they will misconstrue it and call you names elsewhere" Poster List:
-Coach
-Lifter
-gmbtempe

I am always enamored about how they are "just trying to learn" yet bash away elsewhere. A more duplicitous, insincere lot could not be created. It's getting to the point of being humorous.

Feel free to add to the list.
 
Michael Finney

Michael Finney

New
Jared Willerson said:
Brilliant.

The official "Do not trust anything these people say here, because they will misconstrue it and call you names elsewhere" Poster List:
-Coach
-Lifter
-gmbtempe

I am always enamored about how they are "just trying to learn" yet bash away elsewhere. A more duplicitous, insincere lot could not be created. It's getting to the point of being humorous.

Feel free to add to the list.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jared....this is exactly what pisses me off. Act one way here and the polar opposite on another. If I don't like you, you will know it on every site. Don't come on here and act like you're here to learn when you know all you want to do is bash.

Lloyd, the 100% is there - I stand corrected. It was not on my phone last night.
 
mjstrong

mjstrong

New
I can't believe I won. If this was a golf tournament I probably would have played a marginal final round and finished top 5...

I had an interesting discussion with my buddy (former long driver) and he was telling me that his sequence isn't even close. I'll see if I can get more details from him; he's a large guy, with a short-ish backswing.
 
W

wulsy

New
wulsy said:
But 0% have distal to proximal, right?'
Click to expand...

To me this is an important question because it could signify that P-D sequencing is indeed being used by the "non-users" but in a different way than in the overly simplistic TPI inane models.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top