Until you have all four (at least), you have something, but not IT.

[Brian Manzella]

In today's technology world, you have High-Speed Video from Down-the-line, face-on, and overhead view, TrackMan, Force Plates, and 6 degree of freedom 3D.

Unless you "post up" a swing that has all four, and the four you have on from THAT PARTICULAR EXACT SWING, you have some—and maybe a lot of—guessing.

There are exactly ZERO SWINGS on the internet, and maybe anywhere, with all the technologies running at the same time.

Video without TrackMan is basically useless.

I want to applaud the S&Ters who are using all the technologies on their new video. Not sure if they have two cameras running at once, or all of the technologies are actually running on a given shot, and of course, it is just one type of golf swing methodology, but they deserve credit anyway.



The best I can do is two camera high-speed with TrackMan, so I will try to capture a few from time to time and post them up. I think it will help all the teachers, players, and swing theorists on this site a bunch.


I've got some work to do.

 

[SteveT]

Beam me up, Brian ..!!!!

 

[OLIVER1]

Brian,
If you could choose a technology that would be an absolute slam-dunk in the comprehensive understanding any golf swing, what would it be?
Just any technology that may be a pipe-dream right now, or barely onto a drawing board, or even just the product of your wildest dreams, what would it be?

 

[SteveT]

Brains??? (...like in 'smarts')

 

[OLIVER1]

Brains??? (...not Brian)

Not sure I follow...

 

[SteveT]

Seriously, though, what interests me most of all are the <b>Force Plates</b> and the data they provide from swing to swing. If the dynamic distribution of ground reaction forces under each foot are not nearly similar from swing to swing, then no matter what happens to the body and club, the swing cannot be consistent. Without consistent results underfoot, all other measurements are in doubt.

Brian... agree? disagree?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Force plates show a lot.

So does 6°of freedom 3D.

My fantasy machine would spit out the forces like Dr. Nesbit can compute.

 

[SteveT]

Force plates show a lot.

Have you ever used force plates? Nesbit and Mackenzie must use force plates to confirm their kinetic results. If you install force plates in you new swing testing lab, you will be more advanced than most. I would think force plates are indispensable for the truly scientific.

So does 6°of freedom 3D.

What does this do that makes it so good???

My fantasy machine would spit out the forces like Dr. Nesbit can compute.

It's not a machine, it's called "brains"...!!!

 

[Mike Thomas (sunmart)]

What is the Grip Pressure throughout the swing have anything to do with anything?

 

[mgranato]

I've got a 4 camera setup (DTL, front, top, and FO but they aren't high speed) and FS. Maybe this explains why I'm only 1/2 decent half the time.

 

[SteveT]

I've got a 4 camera setup (DTL, front, top, and FO but they aren't high speed) and FS. Maybe this explains why I'm only 1/2 decent half the time.

If I were in the business, I would have force plates to determine ground reaction force patterns and kinetic consistency... before I would look at any pictures or FS data. Without force plates, you're only guessing... unscientifically.

You've got to bracket the swing ... between the feet on the ground and the clubhead striking the ball. If you start bass ackward from the ball flight inward, you are cribbing. I wouldn't let you analyze my swing without force plate data.

However, I can appreciate why starting from ball flight patterns and working backwards from there is the pragmatic approach for duffers who want an instant fix... even though it's not permanent.

 

[OLIVER1]

If I were in the business, I would have force plates to determine ground reaction force patterns and kinetic consistency... before I would look at any pictures or FS data. Without force plates, you're only guessing... unscientifically.

You've got to bracket the swing ... between the feet on the ground and the clubhead striking the ball. If you start bass ackward from the ball flight inward, you are cribbing. I wouldn't let you analyze my swing without force plate data.

However, I can appreciate why starting from ball flight patterns and working backwards from there is the pragmatic approach for duffers who want an instant fix... even though it's not permanent.

Steve,
I hope I've interpreted what you said correctly.
So if the force plate data indicates kinetic consistency you'd be happy? What if that consistency - and here I'm positing that we can be incorrectly consistent - was only leading to miserable shots? And how would you know without looking at the ball flight? And therefore you're back teaching from the ball flight.
(Apologies, as I've said, if I misunderstood your post)

 

[SteveT]

Steve,
I hope I've interpreted what you said correctly.
So if the force plate data indicates kinetic consistency you'd be happy? What if that consistency - and here I'm positing that we can be incorrectly consistent - was only leading to miserable shots? And how would you know without looking at the ball flight? And therefore you're back teaching from the ball flight.

If the force plate GRFs (Ground Reaction Forces) are consistently correct the basic golfswing is good, except for some trimming up to achieve proper ball flight results. The GRFs reveal what you are doing with your legs and torso and to a lesser extent your arms and club.

If you start with the ball flight only and back-calculate the problem into the swinging of the arms, you may upset the GRFs, or you may have to dig back into the golfswing because of body inconsistencies. Also you may get a weird set of GRFs on a consistent basis that may be indicative of a deficient golfswing action. IOW, consistently wrong. You may have a consistent reverse pivot and consistent GRFs, but that's not correct.

If the GRF distribution patterns underfoot are inconsistent, that means the entire swing is inconsistent and there's nothing much you can do with that duffer except patch him up as best you can and take his money.

It's interesting that the topic of body kinetics has not yet been dealt with on this forum. Of course it's easier to tinker with the arms hands and club rather than dig into a body that may be deficient and requiring major overhaul.

 

[OLIVER1]

If the force plate GRFs (Ground Reaction Forces) are consistent the basic golfswing is good, except for some trimming up to achieve proper ball flight results. The GRFs reveal what you are doing with your legs and torso and to a lesser extent your arms and club.

If you start with the ball flight only and back-calculate the problem into the swinging of the arms, you may upset the GRFs, or you may have to dig back into the golfswing because of body inconsistencies. Also you may get a weird set of GRFs on a consistent basis that may be indicative of a deficient golfswing action. IOW, consistently wrong. You may have a consistent reverse pivot and consistent GRFs, but that's not correct.

If the GRF distribution patterns underfoot are inconsistent, that means the entire swing is inconsistent and there's nothing much you can do with that duffer except patch him up as best you can and take his money.

It's interesting that the topic of body kinetics has not yet been dealt with on this forum. Of course it's easier to tinker with the arms hands and club rather than dig into a body that may be deficient and requiring major overhaul.

I'm getting a little lost here Steve. You said in your first sentence that if the the GRF are consistent, then the basis of the golf swing is good.
But in the second paragraph you say that you can also have consistent GRFs that are wrong (reverse pivot and the like.)
I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but doesn't (b) cancel out (a). The bit about backtracking from ballflight does nothing, as far as I can see, to correct that illogic. (I'm keen to point out that I could be missing out in understanding you.)
Like you, I also feel that correct hip and leg work and the resultant forces are critical. You can do a lot of things above the waist correctly, but if you don't have the below the waist machinery working, it's a tough old road.
It's a fascinating subject and I'd be interested to know your views further.

O.K Steve, I see you edited it and it makes a bit more sense. Yes, where that is concerned I heartily agree...

 

[SteveT]

I'm getting a little lost here Steve. You said in your first sentence that if the the GRF are consistent, then the basis golf swing is good.
But in the second paragraph you say that you can also have consistent GRFs that are wrong (reverse pivot and the like.)
Not trying to be a contrarian, but doesn't (b) cancel out (a). Like you, I also feel that correct hip and leg work and the resultant forces are critical.
It's a fascinating subject and I'd be interested to know your views further.

Okay... I've corrected myself by changing "consistent" to "consistently correct", because there are consistently bad GRF patterns. It's all another subject that can only be discussed if the foot force patterns are displayed. It's a bummer scientific subject that is best left in the swing lab.

I gather you are unfamiliar with GRFs and the golfswing. If so, there have been several good golf magazine articles on the subject, but they may be over 10 years ago. I probably have them in my stack of golf mags and maybe something may show up on google. If you can find something that more fully explains GRF patterns, you will understand it and the golfswing puzzle may fit together better.

If you want to learn the science of the golfswing, you can't just isolate one segment of the swing, like the arm and club patterns; you must understand and appreciate the entire system... from the ground up to the head and out to the clubhead. It's a lot to learn.

 

[OLIVER1]

Okay... I've corrected myself by changing "consistent" to "consistently correct", because there are consistently bad GRF patterns. It's all another subject that can only be discussed if the foot force patterns are displayed. It's a bummer scientific subject that is best left in the swing lab.

I gather you are unfamiliar with GRFs and the golfswing. If so, there have been several good golf magazine articles on the subject, but they may be over 10 years ago. I probably have them in my stack of golf mags and maybe something may show up on google. If you can find something that more fully explains GRF patterns, you will understand it and the golfswing puzzle may fit together better.

If you want to learn the science of the golfswing, you can't just isolate one segment of the swing, like the arm and club patterns; you must understand and appreciate the entire system... from the ground up to the head and out to the clubhead. It's a lot to learn.

We were like ships in the night there. I see you edited the post and I get where you're coming from, and I tend to agree with you.
I don't completely understand the science behind the ground forces, but I do understand that isolationism is fraught with danger.
Waist-to-ground in good order gives one a fighting chance, irregardless (always wanted to use that "word!") of the quality of the other mechanics.
Always a pleasure, Steven.

 

[SteveT]

We were like ships in the night there. I see you edited the post and I get where you're coming from, and I tend to agree with you.
I don't completely understand the science behind the ground forces, but I do understand that isolationism is fraught with danger.
Waist-to-ground in good order gives one a fighting chance, irregardless (always wanted to use that "word!") of the quality of the other mechanics.
Always a pleasure, Steven.

No problemo, O1... and your thoughtful, nitpicking questions are beneficial. Also, from ground to shoulders is where the Power comes from, not flapping the arms in desperation. The arms and hands are whipped around the shoulders and they align the club for impact. The shoulders rotate because the legs and hips start the surge of Power upwards and onwards while the GRFs reflect all the forces generated on a temporal basis.


BTW, there is no such word as "irregardless" in proper Queen's English grammar ... only "regardless"... but the vernacular is variable.

USAGE:-- Irregardless, with its illogical negative prefix, is widely heard, perhaps arising under the influence of such perfectly correct forms as: irrespective. Irregardless is avoided by careful users of English. Use regardless to mean 'without regard or consideration for' or 'nevertheless'.

My pleasure....

 

[OLIVER1]

No problemo, O1... and your thoughtful, nitpicking questions are beneficial. Also, from ground to shoulders is where the Power comes from, not flapping the arms in desperation. The arms and hands are whipped around the shoulders and they align the club for impact. The shoulders rotate because the legs and hips start the surge of Power upwards and onwards while the GRFs reflect all the forces generated on a temporal basis.


BTW, there is no such word as "irregardless" in proper Queen's English grammar ... only "regardless"... but the vernacular is variable.



My pleasure....

I was hoping my question carried a little more gravitas than to be labelled nitpicky: Surely it wasn't entirely inconsequential? But, nevertheless, I do appreciate your sarcasm

 

[jay2010]

I agree Brian
S & T DVD trailer "Stack & Tilt® 2.0 Understanding the Numbers" is impressive!

 

[Dariusz J.]

There are exactly ZERO SWINGS on the internet, and maybe anywhere, with all the technologies running at the same time.

This would be great to watch. Especially, ten or twenty hits one after another, to see how repeatable is the swing. Zeroing numbers in one swing means nothing much.

Cheers