Manzella Video: COP jumps to the Right (aka Kaboom!!!)

[david]

KONRAD

[teeace]

So Brian has finally understood what all teachers who understand biomechanics and physics has understood years years ago.

And on the other hand he is still totally lost. It's not deceleration, it's change of direction that shows deceleration when measured relative around one fixed axis.

Sad.

[david]

What's sad is a system that claims to know something for years and years yet there's no record of that to be found. Also your system is totally different than the one used in the Sadlowski one, they used force plates and markers etc. while you use a camera based system that can't provide the GRF data. So you don't have the capability and thus can't provide the same data as Kwon, also your system has it's own problems which are documented by Mike Duffey and Kwon on Facebook.


Here's a sample of what Mike Duffy said about your system.



There are two very important questions here:
1. What is shown in that graph as compared to traditional graphs?
2. What evidence is there that the pattern shown is good?

Regarding question 1: Given all of the currently published data on the topic thus far, markerless video-based 3D capture is not accurate and reliable. I believe some day it will be, and maybe Tapio has a found the right methods, but he has not published validation data. He mentions that it is accurate for wood and metal products, but those are not deformable objects, so achieving accuracy in those settings is much easier than in the golf swing where we have overlapping segments that are deformable. It is appropriate to provide evidence of accuracy with new technology. Let's assume, however, that Tapios data collection is good. The next question then is, does his data presentation match what we typically see? Just because it does not match doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean we shouldn't directly compare the two (at least not without understanding the differences) Tapio has avoided thorough explanation of his system, but he has confirmed that his pelvis rotation is relative to the room, not to the pelvis. As such, that data should probably not be used to compare because any side or forward tilt of the pelvis (which are virtually guaranteed) will alter the speed shown on his graph event thought the pelvis is has not slowed or sped up.

Regarding question 2: Looking at the graph, at the time that the pelvis is seen speeding up into impact, the shoulders are slowing and the hand speed is either flat or slowing slightly. So it does not seem that the increase in pelvis speed is contributing to increased velocity as you get closer to the club. My opinion is that club head speed at impact is more important than pelvis speed.



Konrad

[david]

What's also sad is Jeffy trying to save face on his forum, the truth is he and Kelvin have a theory that the pelvis accelerated to impact and even past impact and that their model Sadlowski had a second fire which is of course nonsense since his unweighted front foot makes that impossible as the COP goes to the rear foot , it makes the pelvis decel not accelerate.


That's a big mistake to overcome in the first fire second fire /spine engine theories.


Konrad

[teeace]

Jun 2, 2014 4:15:56 GMT -5 david said:

What's sad is a system that claims to know something for years and years yet there's no record of that to be found. Also your system is totally different than the one used in the Sadlowski one, they used force plates and markers etc. while you use a camera based system that can't provide the GRF data. So you don't have the capability and thus can't provide the same data as Kwon, also your system has it's own problems which are documented by Mike Duffey and Kwon on Facebook.


Here's a sample of what Mike Duffy said about your system.



There are two very important questions here:
1. What is shown in that graph as compared to traditional graphs?
2. What evidence is there that the pattern shown is good?

Regarding question 1: Given all of the currently published data on the topic thus far, markerless video-based 3D capture is not accurate and reliable. I believe some day it will be, and maybe Tapio has a found the right methods, but he has not published validation data. He mentions that it is accurate for wood and metal products, but those are not deformable objects, so achieving accuracy in those settings is much easier than in the golf swing where we have overlapping segments that are deformable. It is appropriate to provide evidence of accuracy with new technology. Let's assume, however, that Tapios data collection is good. The next question then is, does his data presentation match what we typically see? Just because it does not match doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean we shouldn't directly compare the two (at least not without understanding the differences) Tapio has avoided thorough explanation of his system, but he has confirmed that his pelvis rotation is relative to the room, not to the pelvis. As such, that data should probably not be used to compare because any side or forward tilt of the pelvis (which are virtually guaranteed) will alter the speed shown on his graph event thought the pelvis is has not slowed or sped up.

Regarding question 2: Looking at the graph, at the time that the pelvis is seen speeding up into impact, the shoulders are slowing and the hand speed is either flat or slowing slightly. So it does not seem that the increase in pelvis speed is contributing to increased velocity as you get closer to the club. My opinion is that club head speed at impact is more important than pelvis speed.



Konrad

Those posts proves onlöy one thing clearly: Mike Duffey hasn't understood a bit of our system and measurement. He should ask, so I could tell.

I ask one question: How systems that show 30 degrees open shoulders at impact can be trusted, when top down image proves 100% that they are not even close to that.

I give also an answer: They are not measuring shoulders but upper back instead. They are also measuring lower back instead of hips. That has been known for years and that's why they get results they get.

[david]

The problem is your system not theirs, no top researchers use your system to collect data, there's a reason.... it's because of what Duffy said. "Given all of the currently published data on the topic thus far, markerless video-based 3D capture is not accurate and reliable. I believe some day it will be, and maybe Tapio has a found the right methods, but he has not published validation data. He mentions that it is accurate for wood and metal products, but those are not deformable objects, so achieving accuracy in those settings is much easier than in the golf swing where we have overlapping segments that are deformable"




If 4dswing was so great how come it's buried in obscurity.... no one can verify anything you do for the reason/s Duffy eluded to.



Konrad

[teeace]

Jun 2, 2014 5:15:33 GMT -5 david said:

The problem is your system not theirs, no top researchers use your system to collect data, there's a reason.... it's because of what Duffy said. "Given all of the currently published data on the topic thus far, markerless video-based 3D capture is not accurate and reliable. I believe some day it will be, and maybe Tapio has a found the right methods, but he has not published validation data. He mentions that it is accurate for wood and metal products, but those are not deformable objects, so achieving accuracy in those settings is much easier than in the golf swing where we have overlapping segments that are deformable"




If 4dswing was so great how come it's buried in obscurity.... no one can verify anything you do for the reason/s Duffy eluded to.



Konrad

And again... Mike Duffy is totally lost with that as he has never seen how it's used. And some guy from Winnipeg just believes what he wants.

I ask again: why they get 30 degrees open shoulders with those other systems when we can see 100% sure they are not. How those systems can be valid? SO why we get right result and they get wrong if their system is valid and ours is not?

[cwdlaw223]

Tapio -

What system shows a "shoulder" reading?

I'm unaware of any system that measures shoulder movement and would like to know.

AMM doesn't measure the shoulders. Complete different joint.

[teeace]

Jun 2, 2014 6:37:27 GMT -5 cwdlaw223 said:

Tapio -

What system shows a "shoulder" reading?

I'm unaware of any system that measures shoulder movement and would like to know.

AMM doesn't measure the shoulders. Complete different joint.

You are right but only as they changed that term after critic. All systems before that talked about shoulders and hips, even they didn't measure none of them.

And measuring thorax and lower back doesn't give needed information, not even when digitalized as there is flexible parts between measured point and marked point.

The most funny thing is this war, where people like Manzella who got no slightest idea what he really is talking about uses those strong words against others. He just makes clown of himself like that. If wanted, I can prove both sides being 100% depending of definitions and way of measuring. Then comes Mike Duffey who also talks out loud without ever seeing the system or even data that it produces. And those guys call themselves scientists?

[Richie3Jack]

Please let's be smart about what is posted here. I really don't like having to edit nonsensical and childish postings. And given that many (not all) of the Finzella crew and their followers like to post under multiple names, I have been forced to ban people even if I get the hint that is being done here.

You can critique and question whomever you want to here. The board's rule has been clear from day 1...you need to use facts and somewhat reasonable logic in your arguments.

But when people start using all CAPS and super large fonts along with childish insults towards others on this forum; that's when I start giving people the 'golden boot.'







3JACK

[cwdlaw223]

Who is teaching that one can't get on their left leg and push down to go up? Section 5:21-5:30.

[jeffy]

Jun 2, 2014 4:30:53 GMT -5 david said:

What's also sad is Jeffy trying to save face on his forum, the truth is he and Kelvin have a theory that the pelvis accelerated to impact and even past impact and that their model Sadlowski had a second fire which is of course nonsense since his unweighted front foot makes that impossible as the COP goes to the rear foot , it makes the pelvis decel not accelerate.


That's a big mistake to overcome in the first fire second fire /spine engine theories.


Konrad

Ray-

It may be in your mind a "big mistake", but the results speak for themselves. And the second fire is well documented in the TPI graphs: accelerating the pelvis vertically, which, according to Dr. Kwon, creates that rotation around the horizontal or x-axis that Brian is illustrating with the rotating can of shaving cream.




Jeff

[jeffy]

Kaboom.





Jeff

[teeace]

Jun 4, 2014 12:04:04 GMT -5 jeffy said:

Kaboom.





Jeff

Again one thing is proved clearly. In golf industry you can say whatever you want without any responsibility of that. Some "scientist" says something that he believes and others follows. No matter if there is any sense or not in what has been said. These guys should take at least short lesson about force and counterforce so they could understand the basics. Shoulders accelerating by players intention to slow down the club? Can't stop laughing for that...

Second fire is real thing and in every good players swing. Not in hips but in shoulders. Period. Some got that in hips also and it depends totally of the style of that players swing. Some open hips more early and can't fire them later, some do it opposite as showed here many times by graphs. But with shoulders... no exceptions. They all got their max shoulder speed about like this

[cwdlaw223]

Tapio -

So your system has found a way to properly collect 3D data involving ball and socket joints?