Take a look at the educational bios and you make the call....

[Michael Finney]

Jeff Martin's Experts

Erik Dalton's educational background....for those interested...
PhD….earned his philosophy and clinical psychology degrees from the University of Oklahoma

Tom House's educational background.....for those interested....
House graduated from USC in 1971 with a bachelor's degree in management. He earned his first master's degree in marketing in 1974 and his second master's degree in performance psychology in 1981 before earning his doctorate based in psychology in 1984.

Max Prokopy's educational background....for those interested....
Max received a B.S. in biochemistry from Florida State, graduating cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. His master’s in exercise physiology was completed at UVA. Since graduating UVA, Max has completed course-work for a PhD in nutrition.

Doug Marsh's educational background....for those interested.....
As of March 15, 2015, the Clubmakers Calculator is discontinued and no longer available. Thank you for your patronage in supporting our hobby software program over the years. He took his advanced line drawing software and went home.

Atanu Mukherjee's educational background....for those interested....
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Master of Science (MS), Engineering and Management. Research Fellow MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA 1996 – 1998 (2 years) Core research in the area of networking, distributed systems and the markets for information.

Actual Experts

Young Hoo Kwon's educational background...for those interested....
1993, Ph.D. in Exercise & Sport Science with specialization in Biomechanics and minor in Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1986, M.Ed. in Physical Education with specialization in Biomechanics, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
1984, BS in Astronomy, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

Sasho Mackenzie's educational background.....for those interested....
2005 Ph.D. in Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan
2000 B.Sc. in Kinesiology, Honours, Dalhousie University

Mike Duffey's educational background....for those interested....
Ph.D., 2009, Kinesiology, Penn State University
M.S., 1996, Health & Exercise Science, Wake Forest University

Rob Neal's educational background....for those interested....
The University of Queensland
PhD, Biomechanics

Phil Cheetham's educational background....for those interested....
Phil received a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (Honors) degree from the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia in 1977 and a Master of Science degree in Physical Education (Biomechanics) from Arizona State University in 1981 and his PhD in 2014 also from ASU, in Exercise Science, also specializing in biomechanics. His dissertation is “The Relationship of Club Handle Twist Velocity to Selected Biomechanical Characteristics of the Golf Drive”. Phil received his PhD in Exercise Science (Biomechanics) in 2014, also at ASU.

Steven Nesbit's educational background....for those interested....
PhD., is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania.
Associate Professor and Head.Ph.D., West Virginia University; P.E., Pennsylvania.Teaching areas: mechanical design, mechanism analysis and design, robotics.Research interests: biomechanics, kinematics, robotics, manufacturing processes, automation.

I won't bother hitting you with the bios of Paul Wood, Alan Hocknell, Alex Dee, Bill Morgan, and countless other engineers in the golf business. It's been a mismatch from day 1 and it won't change anytime soon.

 

[Michael Finney]

Jeffy, the first four are your "experts" - I'll take Tom House down, if he doesn't meet your "high standards"....

And I meant "macro" to make sure we weren't talking about your fantasy world, micro moves...

 

[Michael Finney]

Pelvis deceleration

The only reason you got this totally wrong is because of your obsession with video. Not high speed, multi angle, calibrated, lab setting video - but 30 frame per second, blurry ass video. You insisted through the use of "belt loop technology" that elite strikers of the ball somehow "superpositioned" their various body segments' angular speeds to peak at impact. You SWORE this was the case - over and over, post after post, line drawing after line drawing, word dump after word dump. But you were wrong. You have tacitly admitted your error, but have never said the words "I was wrong" because of your Fonzi complex - which is one of your many mental issues.

Club face stability post impact

Again, your hope that video (even casio video) can be used to prove that a series of micro moves can somehow stabilize the club face before, during, and after impact was highlighted by your repeated posting of a still of Alvaro Quiors "showing" how stable and square his driver club face was after impact. But what you seemed to disregard (as you always seem to do) is the fact that the club had just recently experienced a very violent collision with the golf ball which would call into question any "face stabilization" fantasies you may have had. The golfer has no control of the face twisting post impact as the collision's magnitude and the distance to the hands is unmanageable by even the best "micro move" producer. Your insistence that the Quiros picture showed anything about your beloved "micro moves" once again showed your inability to reason critically - a trait that has been your undoing so many times.

Spinal Engine terms and definitions

You spent about three years on this beauty. I will paraphrase, which you hate: "The Spinal Engine is the primary factor in ensuring a fully realized pelvis and torso angular speed during the swing. Without it, you are not reaching your potential like the elite strikers of the ball". You and Kelvin would draw crooked lines on video stills showing where the spine was located and its orientation during the swing. These lines, mind you were drawn on 30 frame per second video (sometimes casio) right on top the clothes the golfer was wearing. These lines, in your mind, surely showed how "lordosis combined with side bend" produced a counter rotation to supercharge the golfers rotational speed - and that it was the "primary" factor - as in MAIN factor for the golfer's power generation. Well, two years went by and you came to the realization that Serge Gracovetsky didn't mean "primary" in the MAIN sense, but "primary" in the IT COMES FIRST sense. You have quietly mentioned this incongruity in the last several months hoping that no one would notice your huge misinterpretation of a major theory you and Kelvin were pushing for years. Well, guess what, because of the human waste product that your are, I paid attention because you never seem to let things go and admit your mistakes. You just ask for more ridicule - so I am giving it.

Jeff Martin's Experts

Here's another thing you've gotten wrong - over and over again. You seem to pick your "experts" based on the fact that they are NOT EXPERTS in the area which they post about. I really don't understand the rationale, but it's uncanny that you have yet to talk in any detail with a PhD in Biomechanics about......wait for it.......BIOMECHANICS. Everyone you buy into is a one off or two off or five off expert on the material. Names like Doug Marsh, Atanau Muhjerkee, Max Prokopy, and (for a short time) Tapio Santala come to mind as people you have lauded as "experts" who have backed up your uncanny qualitative observations. When one of your "theories' is challenged by an actual PhD in Biomechanics - you do something very predictable - you trash the entire field of BIOMECHANICS - and even post pictures of these real experts with their young daughters and make disparaging comments. All because they aren't buying into to your "line of reasoning".You're a despicable person for doing that, Jeff Martin.

These are just four things off the top of my head. There's really so much more, but I try to forget everything they observe because I can't get the image of the screen protractor that Kelvin uses out of my mind. If there is one symbol for why there is so much bad, "seems as if" information in the golf world, it would be that frigging protractor. Please put it away for good - in honor of Doug Marsh.

Just want to pass some "hello's" on to the golf swing observational mafia - Rich Hunt, Lloyd Higley, Lucas Wald, Clayton Davidson and all their aliases. I know you read every word I write because you can't resist responding.Keep associating with that lunatic, Jeff Martin of Cypress Associates in Mahnhattan - your careers should be taking off in 3-2-1....

 

[Ray J]

Well said. Totally agree 100%. The protractor "event" was just too much!

 

[Michael Finney]

Thanks for reading, Rich and Lloyd - it's good to know that you care. I have enjoyed linking you guys to Jeff Martin the Manhattan lunatic. You both seem to revel in your relationship with him because in your mind he marginalizes Brian and the general effort to move toward an actual scientific understanding of the mechanics of the golf swing.

I understand it's hard to realize that what you have studied in the past - The Golfing Machine, MORAD, Stack and Tilt, Kelvin Miyahara Articles, etc has no scientific basis - just a glob of jargon riddled, "seems as if" observations that LOOK like they may have some actual value. When pressed on this exact subject, you recruit "experts" to back up your observations who end up not being experts at all (see above). When that is challenged you move to case studies - your most proud case study is taking a fringe mini tour player and transforming him into a fringe mini tour player WHO DOESN'T PLAY. Hmmm....that's some accomplishment.

Lloyd, in your discussions with the real experts in biomechanics, did you ever once lay out an entire Kelivn article and ask them for their in depth opinion? If so, what were their thoughts? I understand that Jeff and Kelvin think they have run into a like minded "expert" in Max Prokopy - he admits that biomechanics is not his field, and he admits that AMM marker placement can bungle the data - does this reassure you about the accuracy of the line drawing that Kelvin uses throughout his articles? Think critically about how you have arrived at your conclusions about the swing - if you really did so, you would know that there is a lot more work to do - on everyone's end.

 

[Michael Finney]

Jeff Martin on hip decel:

Jeff Martin said:

"First off, I admitted that was wrong"

Congratulations - you finally did it.

Jeff Martin on Club Face Stability

Jeff Martin said:

"Dr. Phil Cheetham's PhD dissertation showed that Kelvin was right from day one on this: right side lateral bend and open hips at impact are positively correlated with lower handle twist velocity and, consequently, club face rate of closure. Also, your own time members acknowledge long ago that early supination also reduces ROC. Fail."

There are so many things inaccurate, misleading, and false in this statement, I don't know where to begin.

Phil Cheetham said:

"We divided our databases of golfers into two groups of 32. One group with high handle twist velocities, the Hi-HTV group, and the other with low handle twist velocities, the Lo-HTV group. For both accuracy and clubhead speed at impact we found that there was no significant difference between the group means between the Hi-HTV and Lo-HTV groups"

And when you say "lower handle twist velocirty, consequently, (lower) club face rate of closure"....you make the Jeffy leap that gets you and Kelvin in trouble time and time again - how do you know that these two vastly diffferent parameters correspond 1 to 1. The answer is you don't know - you just make assumptions and move on assuming everyone is on your page.

What does Quiros's club face after impact have to do with "proving" a low rate of closure? Can you explain that? No, you can't - because it's indefensible.

Spinal Engine and Primary

Jeff Martin said:

"Your free to interpret what Kelvin wrote any way you want. I don't remember ever saying the spine engine was the main source of power in the swing. I do know that Kel and I have been saying since at least May 2011 that the second half of the downswing, or the "second fire", is the "power phase of the downswing", when the "fearsome foursome" is unleashed"

You say you don't remember.....well I do - over and over again, this counter rotation was trumpeted as the true source of supecharged power for the golf swing. If you don't want to admit to pushing that agenda, then we don't have anything to discuss because of your predisposition to be disingenuous.It's tiresome to argue with a liar.

And of course he doesn't touch the "expert issue" - again because it's indefensible. His experts are in psychology, marketing, computer engineering, and nutrition. The guys we listen to are experts in - BIOMECHANICS.



.

 

[Michael Finney]

Hey, Rich - kissing ass is something you probably know very well. Does this qualify with regard to me and Atnu Muhjerkee?


Michael Finney
Atanu, I read your observations on the current state of the models used to describe the golf swing from a biomechanics perspective.
I have two comments of my own:
1. Your posts seem to make a very compelling argument for attempting to "model", "describe", and "explain" the kinetics of the golf swing rather than the kinematics. You used the phrase "across the dots" several times which would lead me to believe that MUCH is going on behind the scenes of the visible positions. Thoughts?
2. Your worries about the inadequacies of the current models make me ask this question: If today's models fall woefully short, then how can reverting back to a "draw a line on a screen" analysis be considered a better option? It seems that your condemnation of the current modelling limitations only further convict the efforts of "the seems as if" lines drawn by the golf professionals at the forum you posted your observations. Thoughts?
Thank you very much for taking the time to post and to possibly answer my questions.
Mike Finney

Atanu Mukherjee
Hi Mike -
I think conversations on these kind of topics gets a little noisy and distorted on messenger. Perhaps, you can put your comments in the blog and I could reply. Or you can send me email atanu@alum.mit.edu. I must say though, I may not be able to provide you complete information though due to lack of completeness and/or confidentiality.
Thanks,
Atanu

Michael Finney
1/23, 12:23pm
Michael Finney
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to post at that site because of prior disagreements with Jeff Martin - or I would post my thoughts there.
I guess what I'm saying is that in a hundred years, won't your posts still be valid but with a new set of criteria that will compare the 2115 state of biomechanics with the hoped for 2130 state of biomechanics?
The researchers are using the current available technology and money at their disposal. The set of facts you laid out will NEVER cease to exist in the pursuit of understanding the golf swing.
Michael Finney
1/23, 12:24pm
Michael Finney
Thanks so much for getting back to me.

Atanu Mukherjee
1/23, 12:39pm
Atanu Mukherjee
I am not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say. There are different approaches to solving a problem. Based on my body of knowledge and experience as a computer scientist, researcher, engineer, economist, mathematician and a reasonably good golfer at 2.4 index - and based on the available data and facts , I believe that the current approach to modeling is inadequate to understand the dynamics of a golf swing.

Michael Finney
1/23, 12:59pm
Michael Finney
Is "line drawing" on a video still of a golf swing a better model than what is currently being done by Nesbit, MacKenzie, Neal, Cheetham, and Kwon?
and model should be in quotes above....

Atanu Mukherjee
1/23, 1:06pm
Atanu Mukherjee
I am not sure we are talking of line drawings in video as models. When , I am referring to representation of a golfer I mean a geometric model - which has a mathematical representation. I am talking of constructing the geometric model of the golfer from video and camera using techniques from computer vision.

Michael Finney
1/23, 1:30pm
Michael Finney
Ok, I should back up....
The web forum where you posted your views is populated by golf professional swing theorists who use "drawing lines on a screen" as their bedrock. They observe, measure, and describe the golf swing in this way.
They have also, in the past, dedicated sections of their forum highlighting in much less detail than you, the shortcoming of the current biomechanical models.
I find it disingenuous of them to belittle the current modelling efforts of degreed researchers while they offer their strong opinions on the golf swing using techniques that would obviously fall short in every way if you were to use your same scrutiny toward their process.
I don't disagree that the simplifications and assumptions have slowed the understanding. But each researcher I know is just merely attempting to build upon the prior research (good and bad) and add something to the discussion. I just don't see how a group of teachers using primitive methods (such as line drawing and their keen observational skills) can criticize those best positioned to conduct a real study, however limited it might be.

Atanu Mukherjee
1/23, 1:41pm
Atanu Mukherjee
Well , that is there perspective based on their understanding of the facts - right or wrong they have a right to their opinion. Also, I find the distinction between degreed and non-degreed as a proxy to knowledge and understanding pretty amusing. Anyways, I have an amateur qualifier coming up in the morning, so got to get some sleep. Thanks for reaching out and Good Night.

Michael Finney
1/23, 1:49pm
Michael Finney
I agree they have a right to their opinion as do I. If the "degreed" comment offends you, than I withdraw it. But the separation between the two (degreed and no degreed) is a baseline that sometime helps. Sasho Mackenzie is peer reviewed - Kelvin Miyahara is not. That frees him up to criticize the researchers and keep his opinion intact.
That usually leads to these exact discussions while unsuspecting students fall prey to advice - "if you learn to fire some key muscles in the forearm just before impact, you can reverse the closing of the club face and hit straighter shots with a more stable club head through the impact interval.
Do they have a right to that opinion when there has never been a golf club measured that hasn't had a "closure rate" ramping up into impact?
I'm trying to fight bad instruction - instruction purported to be scientific - instruction pushed by people who get their self worth from poor mouthing the researchers and their models.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[Michael Finney]

Some great quotes from Kelvin's article:

Just look at his shirt creases

What about the kinetic chain? Did the hips decelerate to transfer energy and speed to the shoulders? Did the shoulders fire, as they should somewhere in the middle of the downswing as the “model” kinetic chain graphs depict? Did the shoulders decelerate to transfer energy and speed to the arms? Am I missing something here? I don’t know about you, but I don’t see this happening.

Or is it more likely that the spine engine truly drives the swing and the hips and shoulders merely represent the easiest markers or indicators of the human body

For four frames during transition, his legs do not really move while he is completing his backswing. Yet his spine has compressed down and this lowers his belt line besides moving him laterally. There is a noticeable tilt of his hips as well. The similarity to Jamie Sadlowski’s transition is pretty amazing in this regard.

Thinking of the spine engine and how it creates motion, I thought back to the illusion of the closed hip bump. I used to think it was due to the legs. After viewing this, NO WAY!!!

Even my own terms like closed hip bump and jump/twist may need to be renamed to emphasize the spine engine’s influence in driving the swing.

 

[Michael Finney]

And he never answered the question, John Thomas - did he?

Same Atanu Mujerkee scrutiny placed on Kelvin's line drawing conclusions would be interesting to see.

 

[Michael Finney]

Moderate correlation...and this is handle to face - not wrist to face or lead forearm to face

A golfer with ENSO handle twist of 1000*/second had a range of 1300* - 2300* in club face closure

The ratio of handle twist velocity to clubhead closing velocity at impact was 0.62

Categorization Method for Strength of Correlation Levels
Correlation Coefficient Value
Strength of Correlation
1 Perfect
.7 - .9 Strong
..4 - .6 Moderate
.1 - .3 Weak
0 Zero

 

[Michael Finney]

All he did was play, Jeffy - he feigned hurt feelings when he tried to make it about my distinction between degreed and non-degreed observers....that way he didn't have to answer the question....the only defense of line drawing was this beauty - which I don't think holds much weight in this debate:

"Well , that is there perspective based on their understanding of the facts - right or wrong they have a right to their opinion".

"there" was his spelling

He went from condemning every biomechanical model of the golf swing being too simplistic to saying "they have a right to their opinion".

Can't make this stuff up.

 

[Michael Finney]

Ok, now is the time I play like Lloyd Higley and Rich Hunt. They like to use the "I got 1000 private messages that you are not well liked, Mike Finney" card.

Brian and I - unfortunately - have had the distinct pleasure in introducing Kelvin and Jeffy's arguments about golf swing mechanics to the honest to goodness researchers who are moving golf swing knowledge forward. They have seen how Jeff Martin argues his points. They have seen him personally attack researchers in their professional and personal lives. They have seen Jeff Martin attempt to endanger other golf professionals' jobs.

And after some thought, you know what they say - "it's not worth arguing with whackos - all you do is get dragged down to their level and you get nowhere."

I should have listened to their advice all along - but I'm having too much fun exposing this little group as the a** clowns they are. Still haven't heard Jeffy respond to the "experts" educational backgrounds - I doubt we will. Predictably he is passing along blame on the spinal engine to Gracovetsky - even though he was interpreting "primary" incorrectly. We haven't even discussed "closed to open" faces, yet - I'm saving that one for later. And he still hasn't responded to Phil Cheetham's first conclusion:

"We divided our databases of golfers into two groups of 32. One group with high handle twist velocities, the Hi-HTV group, and the other with low handle twist velocities, the Lo-HTV group. For both accuracy and clubhead speed at impact we found that there was no significant difference between the group means between the Hi-HTV and Lo-HTV groups"

Maybe someday....

 

[Michael Finney]

Let me get back to my favorite quote of the day by Kelvin Miyahara.....

"Look at his shirt creases."

And I'm trying to have substantive debates with these guys. Are you kidding me???

 

[Michael Finney]

You got me - misread and misunderstood the chart - see how easy that is to admit when you have something wrong. There's still the issue of what the back of the lead hand is doing or the lead forearm with respect to the face. Not quite so cut and dry.

Care to address the rest of the questions or do you want to cherry pick? Stupid question - but I'll summarize for you.....

Jeff Martin:
I don't remember ever saying the spine engine was the main source of power in the swing.

Kelvin Miyahara:
Or is it more likely that the spine engine truly drives the swing

Spin away...

What about your experts and their individual areas of expertise?

Spin away...

And what about Phil's conclusion:

"We divided our databases of golfers into two groups of 32. One group with high handle twist velocities, the Hi-HTV group, and the other with low handle twist velocities, the Lo-HTV group. For both accuracy and clubhead speed at impact we found that there was no significant difference between the group means between the Hi-HTV and Lo-HTV groups"

Spin away....

And we'll talk about "closed to open" club faces soon enough...

Spin away....

 

[Michael Finney]

Jeff Martin

"In an email exchange, I have made Broadie aware of the shortcomings of his methodology, but he seemed indifferent".

So you're relying on Rich Hunt's numbers???? - imagine that.

Cheetham's conclusions - when they fit your agenda - are definitive....when they don't fit your agenda - are premature. Can't make this stuff up.

I'll add Mark Broadie to the list of bona fide experts who run for the hills when you come calling - and not because they fear your intellect and nonathletic golf swing - but because you're a known psychopath....

 

[Michael Finney]

Talking with Jeff Martin is like talking to the insurance company when you want to get reimbursed for something you have insured. The insurance company wants to bury you with an avalanche of bullshit to make you give up on the process - just like Jeff Martin.

Kelvin said this:
Or is it more likely that the spine engine truly drives the swing

You ran with that sentiment for over two years and now, presented with other information and definitions - you completely reverse course. Admit you way overplayed it's importance and we can move on to the third major malfunction in your doctrine. Come on - I know you can do it - the first one was the hardest and you have it in your past. You can do it....

 

[Michael Finney]

Jeff said on Kelvin's behalf:

Is it not ok for him to change his mind?

Of course it is, you might want to let everyone know about it so some poor sap doesn't blow out his spine trying to power his swing with his locked facets....

 

[Michael Finney]

You never actually answer direct questions....

Both of you pushed the idea that the spinal engine powered the golf swing - "truly drives the swing"

Now you are saying it is "first in line" to start the swing.

Big f*****g difference, wouldn't you say. Stop deflecting from the debate. Admit you had it wrong and we can move on....

 

[Ray J]

Mike, you should know by now that the self appointed knows it all guru of golf would never admit to anything of the sort. It's the Jeff Mann syndrome. Kind of ironic that Jeff Martin acts the same way as Jeff Mann . The protractor and white belt loops are still the all time best goofy attempts at science ever seen on any golf forum let alone his own forum....hilariously stupid! Well except for the attempt-a-thon at science in the desert they are.

 

[Michael Finney]

Jeff Martin said:
Dude, give up. Neither of us ever said that the spine engine contributed more than the glutes in powering the swing, except when the glutes were included in the spine engine in that 2009 article! Two years later, and four years ago, the glutes were classified as part of the "fearsome foursome" that drove the "power phase" of the downswing. Those are the facts. Anything different is just a fantasy of yours.


My response:
So you included the glutes in the spine engine - which was incorrect as Gracovetsky's model was limited to the lumbar spine and immediate surroundings - the size of a hotdog according to Stu McGill.. So when you incorrectly had the glutes involved, you assigned too much power credit to the spinal engine. You then took the glutes out and had to figure out how to reconfigure your story as to where the power came from.

You then revised your understanding of Gracovetsky's meaning of the word "primary" which again completely reset your explanation of how the spine engine operated in the golf swing.

So by my count, you were wrong 3 different times and you are admitting to none of it. That's pretty convenient - especially considering it's a "theory" that you have attempted to popularize and differentiate yourself.....get your act together, dude.