Manzella's terrible new thread on Jim Mclean

[playa]

Manzella should really stick with golf lesson teaching one on one where reportedly he was of some use. A guy who probably barely graduated high school really should not get into anything related to science. Case in point is that thread on Jim's 3 D swing with a before and after. Manzella noted that simply by reviewing the first graph Jim was able to do better with "sequencing".

But that is not what the second graph showed. There is absolutely nothing a person can say with reasonable reliability that the 2nd graph is anything different in terms of sequencing. Even if that is indeed the case, such a low sampling is a joke at best, wishful thinking at best, agenda driven and looking for things at best.

The only difference, not related to sequencing at all, is that there is suggestive evidence that Jim on the second try actually flipped his wrists faster, leading to a tiny increase in hand and club speed, which we all know is possible but with potential grave consequences.

Manzella misinterprets science and misleads his followers like there is no tomorrow.

Notice also Manzella frequently threw a graph or a picture in a thread and just left it as such with no connotation or explanation. Why? First of all, he does not know how to make of it and second, even if he knew something from copying others, he cannot articulate very well in print. The guy needs his grimaces and body language to convey a point, albeit poorly. Too funny.

In fact, I will go as far as saying that , in addition to the possible wrist flip, the second try hip rotation is much worse. The peak rotation speed is lower. The bracing or slowing down is earlier. Hip impact speed is lower.

If we believe the current rhetoric that hip speed optimally is at half of the shoulder speed, then the second graph try should associate the lower hip speed with lower shoulder speed. When a player's shoulder speed decreases, what is the natural tendency distally?

Of course, flip the wrists!

In summary, the graphs showed that with bracing of hip rotation and increased wrist flip, club speed increased a little between the 2 graphs. But this a little increased club speed is what keeps golf instructor in business fixing mishits. Open the windows folks because something is smelling really stale!

[virtuoso]

Hey playa,

As a disclaimer, im a huge fan of manzella but i don't have a dog in this particular fight. Let me ask you this. Is it your opinion that flipping the wrists will indeed give you more clubhead speed or are you just saying that is all the graphs show?

Also, how do you know he flipped? I mean, how do you personally define a flip and what tells you he did it there?

[teeace]

Dec 22, 2012 7:37:59 GMT -5 playa said:

Manzella should really stick with golf lesson teaching one on one where reportedly he was of some use. A guy who probably barely graduated high school really should not get into anything related to science. Case in point is that thread on Jim's 3 D swing with a before and after. Manzella noted that simply by reviewing the first graph Jim was able to do better with "sequencing".

!

Everyone who has even a bit worked with those systems can say couple of things right away:

1. The filtering of the graphs is so strong that there is no more evidence of anything. I don't know if many here knows how that kind of filtering is made but feel free to ask if you are interesting. Just compare that club analyze to this image and you can understand a lot

2. Second graph tells us that there has been an error in measuring as there can'v be that kind of dec/acc change at club before impact

3. The guy who presents that in his forum as a proof of something must be out of his mind. I really understand why BMan wants guys like me to keep away from his busine.. sorry... forum


There is only one thing that makes me wonder even more than that what I told: How the hell there can be so much people following him and unable to see those mentioned things.

When we were talking about hip speed, I kind of said the same about his way to take one shot and use it as a proof. Now we start to see what happens when we put couple of graphs together and compare them. We will find that there is no two shot of a kind and there will never be. At least in our device there is two measurement of a kind or if it fails it can be seen.

[playa]

virtuoso, even as a fan of Manzella, I am pretty sure you don't spin around for him even when he is spinning around you guys!

Here is how I look at things. I think great teachers are essentially artists and artists have to answer to no one. They have a deep understanding of their study and to "fans", they have magical touches. They go, I do this way because it is the best. Boastful perhaps but totally acceptable to me. Artists are entitled to live up and show off. Manzella is capable of functioning in that arena. He has learned from his experiences what works when he gives his "business" treatment. Is he not satisfied with that? Nope, he wants to get into science and now makes science his business as well and that is when shit hits the fan!

As I have pointed out earlier, also echoed by teeace, one cannot just pick up 2 consecutive tries of anything and make conclusions from whatever findings there are. That is not science but insanity. Flip a coin 2 times, both heads, therefore, he pronounces that the chance of 2 heads in a row is 100%. Flip a coin 2 times, second time tail, make a different conclusion. No cheating at all in the flipping, findings are clear to see, conclusions made accurately based on the findings, but statistical inferences drawn are absolutely maddening. But that is how Manzella functions, like a kid in a science candy store. What is more insulting and confusing to fans like you guys is that he simply put up the "findings" and drew no conclusions at all. Right or wrong, he did not even hand in his homework! Even his fellow instructors were up in arms, totally confused. You know why he leaves out the conclusions? Because he is not sure and he did what was "safe" to do. He let people on the thread to fight it out and later he will pop his head and lock the thread by concluding: folks, told ya so from day one! One for the Manzella team. Game over. Are you really a fan for that???

teeace has a lot more personal experiences with doing similar studies. If I find a few questionable items, he probably can find 1000. This is not a matter of difference in opinions or belief in golf theories. This is total insult to science to which M does not seem to have any respect. He frequently refers to guys he "consults" with as HIS scientists. That is cute but also reflects his ego-maniac way of using science to win internet bitching wars. It is a total shame.

teeace commented that there could be errors in those 2 graphs making them invalid to interpret. Still, to answer your question on why I stated there has been wrist flip, I was looking at the comparison between the 2 graphs right before the impact YELLOW line. Trace those 2 reddish lines, near the top of the graphs, one for club head speed and the other hand speed. Compare those 2 lines near the Yellow line in both graphs. The 2nd graph showed both reddish lines had a small SUDDEN peak in velocity right before impact which were absent in the first graph. If teeace is adamant that those 2 peaks are errors, I retract my interpretation but still maintain that M is a bozo more often than not. Otherwise, those 2 peaks, present in the 2nd graph and absent in the first, indicate to me there has been a sudden acceleration of wrist velocity into impact on the 2nd try. I attribute that to a wrist flip, or one that is much more pronounced on the second try. Do I attribute that toward a higher club head speed? Yes, at least it is one factor (but remember this, if you swing 100 times, chances are the next swing is either higher or lower). Is it a good idea to do so--flip just to get a higher read on a graph? Absolutely no. As I said earlier, it is this type of teaching that keeps instructors in business because it is timing dependent and most folks do not have the talent to time impact consistently well.

[teeace]

There is no reason to make any conclusions of those two graphs. Measurement results are invalid and can't be used for any reason.

[cwdlaw223]

Tapio -

Are measurements from your system invalid? Or just AMM3D is invalid? Or K-Vest?

[playa]

Must be an ARDENT fan of M to spew from that angle. Don't argue here with me for the sake of argument while the vast deficiencies of Manzella's science attempts are plain to see. Even if there are absolutely no error in those graphs, one cannot just leave a slide on the projector and walk out of the room. It is highly irresponsible. A person of his self proclaimed statue should be held accountable to a corresponding standard. If he talks the talk then he should at least show up pretending he is going to walk the walk.

The issue here is far from debating about sequencing. It is about how he uses the facade of science insincerely to mislead and misrepresent.

[virtuoso]

Ok playa, thanks for explaining your reasoning.

As a side note, all the graphs and measurements use impact as a reference point, and while i understand why, it tends to frame the argument a certain way, and can get people debating at cross purposes.

That is one of the reasons i haven't participated in this debate.

[playa]

V, academic debate is healthy and should be encouraged at all cost, noble intention or not, to borrow a kinky phrase from M's thread of late. It is OK to state one's case with conviction and defend it strongly. Very often on M's forum, that is not allowed because people tend to gang up on the "troublemakers". That is OK if a turf seems to be threatened, but when we talk SCIENCE, debates and arguments are what progress make! One sided argument is not science; it is misuse and abuse of science.

It doesn't even matter what the reference point is. When we talk about science, the talk has to be presented in a scientific way. M picked and chose 2 graphs and left it like that. Wait, are we saying the whole thing consists of just 2 swings???

Who doesn't have problem with that? I would be more receptive, although suspicious, if M said they did a bunch of swings and those 2 are representative of each group. He did not say so.

If Mclean is a solid teacher, how come he is at disposal for M's work? That he needs a machine to correct his swings flaws? WASSSSUP.

[teeace]

Dec 23, 2012 10:10:08 GMT -5 cwdlaw223 said:

Tapio -

Are measurements from your system invalid? Or just AMM3D is invalid? Or K-Vest?

Just look at those graphs and think a while, as should BMan do before he published those. Everyone can directly see few clear marks about everything I said in my first message. And no need to put any devices against some others, I don't even know what they used here but can see it doesn't work like it should

[cwdlaw223]

Tapio -

You've basically said nothing in your first post except that the numbers must be wrong. No real detail how the graph is wrong.

[teeace]

Dec 23, 2012 15:51:46 GMT -5 cwdlaw223 said:

Tapio -

You've basically said nothing in your first post except that the numbers must be wrong. No real detail how the graph is wrong.

I said a lot there. Just look at the graph and think if they can anyway be right. Look at details. Look at the club head behavior. Think about it.

Of course I've been working with systems so much I can see it in one second, but I want you to find and say it yourself so we don't start to argue about that.

I still tell you some basics of filtering to get a better background:

Every device and every measurement is filtered, some stronger some less but they all are filtered because raw material is just impossible to read.

Now in filterig there is two main things to adjust. Strength (how much) and the other one is how many real measurement points it uses when recounting that period. The most complicated way to do it is to use progressive filtering in different speed areas. It's hardest to adjust but gives much much better results if just enough time is spend around that.

So take this hint with you and start to look those graphs again. Tell me what you see then.. and don't compare those, just look them

[playa]

"Interesting" discussion on that M thread where several posters talked about hip rotation.

Couple have indicated, sheepishly I will add, that by being more conscious of incorporating hip rotation into their swings, they actually found that they hit better. One quickly added he also previously worked with his hand path just to show he is not one to rock the boat.

Then a die hard M follower shared a personal story. Apparently for years he learned golf from magazines (nothing wrong with that) and used to rotate hip a great deal and later when he restricted his hip rotation he started to swing better. So he came up with the conclusion that excessive hip rotation is bad. His shortened hip rotation is good for him.

This "interesting" revelation is interesting not because whether more or less hip rotation is optimal, but that people believe what they want to believe.

You see, as a person improves with golf mechanics and understanding, with time, with practice, with feedbacks from experiences, the person consciously as well as subconsciously incorporates better moves into their swings. In other words, just by sleeping and thinking about swing mechanics, people are often rewarded with aha moments.

When a player swings a wide and excessive hip turn, chances are there are also other accompanying faults in the swing, related to that or independent factors. When the player becomes more aware and IMPROVES the QUALITY of his turn--shortened, lengthened or staying the same length for that matter --other parts of the golf swing also improve as a whole.

As a player with no reliable and high- quality, on- going feedback (like a reality TV camera 24/7) specifically focused on him, there is little chance that he himself can reliably and accurately recollect all the details. So he does the best he can do: pick and choose and try to make sense of it the only way he knows and come up with his own version of the components and sequences of events. A subjective recollection and reconstruction. This phenom is quite prevalent in golf learning by adults. Most folks tend to learn on their own in the range instead of booking lessons from time zero. Therefore, looking back, most will acknowledge that they knew very little and did not know a great deal. What they knew then and what they know now cannot equate because perspectives have changed.

When 200 things are quietly undergoing changes, we humans pick and choose couple things that are most obvious to us and rationalize a tale with them.

When a player self admits his hip rotation is "excessive", stop right there. Excessive hip rotation does not equate to full hip rotation that is optimal to a particular player's physique and condition.

Restricting hip rotation is akin to the infamous X factor swing which is extremely dangerous to people with predisposition to spinal disc injuries. A big no no for most folks.

[teeace]

Has anyone asked from BM how he explains that deceleration of the club head before impact and also why it drops slowly as the result of impact opposite than for example this blue line here?

[playa]

Are you suggesting that those 2 swings were done without actually hitting a golf ball?