|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 11:56:02 GMT -5
Tru to understand this CW: That data is piece of shit and it's very visible. Wonderful comeback. Ignore the issue and just claim it's wrong. This is your one chance to shine Tapio. Don't blow it by not backing up your claims. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 13, 2013 11:57:14 GMT -5
Wrong Jeffy. This one is going to hurt. Your 500* per second and 600* per second calculations are way off. JAMIE DOES NOT ACCELERATE HIS PELVIS THROUGH THE DOWNSWING. You can apologize directly to Brian. Or, better get another research a thon or criticize how the data was collected. You are so far behind. I'm sure you'll claim you obtained the data really carefully from MATT and that your data was double checked so it can't be wrong. God this one is going to sting for awhile. I already have that data, I just couldn't post it because the source wouldn't let me. Maybe Brian can explain why the two sources he published disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 12:00:19 GMT -5
Maybe you can now admit that Kelvin's claims from video that Jamie's hips continuously accelerate are WRONG.
So you knew that Jamie's hips don't accelerate and you don't bring this up. Shame Shame Shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jan 13, 2013 12:01:10 GMT -5
Tru to understand this CW: That data is piece of shit and it's very visible. Wonderful comeback. Ignore the issue and just claim it's wrong. This is your one chance to shine Tapio. Don't blow it by not backing up your claims. So you didn't understand again? Not a surprise. If you don't understand how it's wrong by the first view, it's totally your problem. Its clear and really visible what they got wrong there. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 13, 2013 12:04:39 GMT -5
Maybe you can now admit that Kelvin's claims from video that Jamie's hips continuously accelerate are WRONG. So you knew that Jamie's hips don't accelerate and you don't bring this up. Shame Shame Shame. But they do accelerate, even those graphs show acceleration. Again, how do you know which set of data is right? |
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 12:06:03 GMT -5
Tapio -
Keep that knowledge to yourself and then post like you know a problem and are the only one with an answer. Never contemplate that you're wrong. It's beneath you. Maybe one day the world will beat down your door for all of your knowledge.
Go help Jeffy understand. Kelvin's continuous acceleration concept with Jamie took a serious blow. Maybe people should pay more attention to Jeff Mann when he blows up Kelvin's theories if they don't like Brian.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 12:08:20 GMT -5
Maybe you can now admit that Kelvin's claims from video that Jamie's hips continuously accelerate are WRONG. So you knew that Jamie's hips don't accelerate and you don't bring this up. Shame Shame Shame. But they do accelerate, even those graphs show acceleration. Again, how do you know which set of data is right? Kelvin used the word continuos acceleration just like you did in your post. You claimed the hips (almost) NEVER slowed down. Then you post Tapio's graph of someone who's pelvis never slowed down to prove your point. Your gold medal golfer doesn't continuously accelerate his pelvis in the downswing. Time to start changing your prior argument on this one. Nobody said they didn't accelerate. The graphs shows the hips decelerating dramatically. Not some thousandth of a second like you posted. You better call Findland. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 13, 2013 12:09:57 GMT -5
Oh, I understand. There are two systems that say the AMM data is wrong. How do you know which of them is right?
|
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 12:11:27 GMT -5
Jeffy's own words: "Depth of field and parallax issues don't factor at all into these simple facts: at the top of the backswing, Sadlowski's hips are at least 50 degrees shut. 17 frames later, the hips are square. That is a rate of rotation of about 530 degrees per second. At impact, 18 frames later, the hips are at least 60 degrees open, a rate of rotation of 600 degrees per second, 13% higher. Is that consistent with a theory that states rotation peaks at hips square and decelerates rapidly after that? No. Falsified." Post number 25: jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?518-Jamie-Sadlowski-s-hip-rotation-into-impact/page2Of course, Jeffy just got bad data from MATT! |
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 12:12:16 GMT -5
Oh, I understand. There are two systems that say the AMM data is wrong. How do you know which of them is right? How does Kelvin account for the AMM3D data?  Bigger question since that's a pillar of his thoughts. Nobody uses Tapio's system so how you count that as one is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 13, 2013 12:12:32 GMT -5
Jeffy's own words: "Depth of field and parallax issues don't factor at all into these simple facts: at the top of the backswing, Sadlowski's hips are at least 50 degrees shut. 17 frames later, the hips are square. That is a rate of rotation of about 530 degrees per second. At impact, 18 frames later, the hips are at least 60 degrees open, a rate of rotation of 600 degrees per second, 13% higher. Is that consistent with a theory that states rotation peaks at hips square and decelerates rapidly after that? No. Falsified." Post number 25: jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?518-Jamie-Sadlowski-s-hip-rotation-into-impact/page2Of course, Jeffy just got bad data from MATT! Why did Manzella post bad data from MATT? |
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 12:13:21 GMT -5
Jeffy's own words: "Depth of field and parallax issues don't factor at all into these simple facts: at the top of the backswing, Sadlowski's hips are at least 50 degrees shut. 17 frames later, the hips are square. That is a rate of rotation of about 530 degrees per second. At impact, 18 frames later, the hips are at least 60 degrees open, a rate of rotation of 600 degrees per second, 13% higher. Is that consistent with a theory that states rotation peaks at hips square and decelerates rapidly after that? No. Falsified." Post number 25: jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?518-Jamie-Sadlowski-s-hip-rotation-into-impact/page2Of course, Jeffy just got bad data from MATT! Why did Manzella post bad data from MATT? Why did you screw up interpreting the data? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Jan 13, 2013 12:14:19 GMT -5
Why did Manzella post bad data from MATT? Why did you screw up interpreting the data? I didn't. Go do it yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 12:14:25 GMT -5
Why don't you admit that Jamie's hips decelerate before impact and therefore, Kelvin's claims they continuously accelerate through impct are wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Jan 13, 2013 12:15:05 GMT -5
Why did you screw up interpreting the data? I didn't. Go do it yourself. Looks like you did. Just as Tapio can see the AMM3D graphs are wrong! That simple. ;D |
|
Bigger question since that's a pillar of his thoughts.