|
Post by teeace on Aug 3, 2013 23:59:03 GMT -5
No, it's not. It's forearm rotation and got nothing to do with elbow or wrist. Of course wrist turns also when forearm rotates, but it's not a word to use for wrist movement. Shaft flattening is real mark of left forearm proaction, shaft steepening is clear mark of left forearm supination. That's why I can't understand that Kelvin's early supination part. Maybe he still means early bowing or we see definition of early differently, but as far left forearm is parallel to the target line, supination will throw the club head outside of the hands and steepens the shaft Tapio - Nothing to to with the elbow? That's incorrect. The human elbow is the summation of 3 articulations. The first 2 are the ones traditionally thought of as constituting the elbow: the humeroulnar articulation (the synovial hinge joint with articulation between the trochlea of the humeral condyle and the trochlear notch of the ulna) and the humeroradial articulation (the articulation between the capitulum of the humeral condyle and the concavity on the superior aspect of the head of the radius). The third is a pivot-type synovial joint with articulation between the head of the radius and the radial notch of the ulna.[1] These 3 articulations, forming 2 different aspects, allow flexion and extension of the elbow, as well as supination and pronation of the forearm and wrist at the elbow. The joint allows our muscles to supinate or pronate the bones. You are right and it also got lot to do with neck and head. I mean if you loose your head you can't supinate your forearm.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Aug 4, 2013 0:05:12 GMT -5
RJ -
I highly doubt Jeffy has put his putrid swing on AMM3D. The results for that flip roller would be horrendous. Of course, since he doesn't have any numbers, if he has enough camera distortion he can make parts of his swing have a "low rate." That's what he does best. Use words that indicate a numerical value but then not give a numerical value. Don't forget, he only ever had one lesson with Brian and that was a group lesson. But woe to Brian for never giving him the chance to show how wrong the scientists are that he wants to cozy up to know. The irony!!!!
Did you check out his latest claim regarding trail forearm rotation rate differences? He knows that there is absolutely no low rate of trail wrist Flexion. Just ignore that glaring error in Kelvin's classification system. But wait, it looks slow on video compared to flip rollers! Maybe someone will allow Jeffy access to a TPI analyzer and he can look at the many graphs (unlimited custom) AMM3D puts out per swing. It has Flexion/extension amounts and velocity.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 4, 2013 0:08:07 GMT -5
Sasho will smarten him up. Somebody has to.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Aug 4, 2013 0:09:48 GMT -5
Start screaming! By increasing speed there are increased loads on the shaft that is eventually transmitted to the head which wants to close to line up with the shaft. So? How exactly is your camp determining ROC? They aren't. I talked to Sasho Mackenzie yesterday and he told me no one has done it with two Phantoms. And don't tell me about ENSO. Those numbers are useless because their frame capture rate is just 2000fps. Impact is 1/2000th of a second. Foresight gets a bit closer at 6000fps, but they don't calculate closure rate. You really need a Phantom, two actually. Mackenzie thinks 10000fps is ok, Mike Duffey thinks maybe something higher. We have bought a second one, subject to "passing a physical". BTW, if you haven't heard, the HMT Foresight camera-based system is the current industry standard in launch monitors. Mackenzie told me that too. I sometimes really wonder is there any real scientist who understands the relevant part of that case? ROC can be captured well with something like 200fps and with one camera. It got nothing to do with impact time, as the only relevant part for player and coach is to know how much it rotates around that 2-3 feet area around the impact. It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Aug 4, 2013 0:13:05 GMT -5
RJ -
Why do you presume he'll listen to anyone but himself? He knows it all and at one point was going to show these scientists how they're wrong! He needs time to put the finishing touches on the research a thon. Seven months wasn't enough. Peer review is coming.
There's a reason that one camera and some line drawing doesn't hold up on the Facebook site. Like trying to qualify for a PGA event with Patty Berg clubs and real wood clubs!
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 4, 2013 0:15:53 GMT -5
So? How exactly is your camp determining ROC? They aren't. I talked to Sasho Mackenzie yesterday and he told me no one has done it with two Phantoms. And don't tell me about ENSO. Those numbers are useless because their frame capture rate is just 2000fps. Impact is 1/2000th of a second. Foresight gets a bit closer at 6000fps, but they don't calculate closure rate. You really need a Phantom, two actually. Mackenzie thinks 10000fps is ok, Mike Duffey thinks maybe something higher. We have bought a second one, subject to "passing a physical". BTW, if you haven't heard, the HMT Foresight camera-based system is the current industry standard in launch monitors. Mackenzie told me that too. I sometimes really wonder is there any real scientist who understands the relevant part of that case? ROC can be captured well with something like 200fps and with one camera. It got nothing to do with impact time, as the only relevant part for player and coach is to know how much it rotates around that 2-3 feet area around the impact. It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information. It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information.
I agree with Teeace, there's nothing anyone can do in 1/2000TH of a second to change anything. At a certain point you're commited and what comes after you can't change. It all starts waaay before impact. Chasing this stuff is like trying to fill a bucket full of holes with water...good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Aug 4, 2013 0:16:55 GMT -5
So? How exactly is your camp determining ROC? They aren't. I talked to Sasho Mackenzie yesterday and he told me no one has done it with two Phantoms. And don't tell me about ENSO. Those numbers are useless because their frame capture rate is just 2000fps. Impact is 1/2000th of a second. Foresight gets a bit closer at 6000fps, but they don't calculate closure rate. You really need a Phantom, two actually. Mackenzie thinks 10000fps is ok, Mike Duffey thinks maybe something higher. We have bought a second one, subject to "passing a physical". BTW, if you haven't heard, the HMT Foresight camera-based system is the current industry standard in launch monitors. Mackenzie told me that too. I sometimes really wonder is there any real scientist who understands the relevant part of that case? ROC can be captured well with something like 200fps and with one camera. It got nothing to do with impact time, as the only relevant part for player and coach is to know how much it rotates around that 2-3 feet area around the impact. It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information. Tapio - If it's so easy go do it and give us some numbers. You're full of it again in fantasy land regarding one camera. Quit sucking up and put up or shut up. Only you would view ROC as something other than a face/path relationship. Goofy and backwards. One camera! Please. I agree with you that the number really isn't that useful in the end. Just timing.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Aug 4, 2013 0:18:46 GMT -5
I sometimes really wonder is there any real scientist who understands the relevant part of that case? ROC can be captured well with something like 200fps and with one camera. It got nothing to do with impact time, as the only relevant part for player and coach is to know how much it rotates around that 2-3 feet area around the impact. It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information. It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information.
I agree with Teeace, there's nothing anyone can do in 1/2000TH of a second to change anything. At a certain point you're commited and what comes after you can't change. It all starts waaay before impact. Chasing this stuff is like trying to fill a bucket full of holes with water...good luck with that. RJ - Haven't you ever heard of closed to open? Come on! Drive holders are supinating in the downswing with very little pronation in the trail forearm.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 4, 2013 0:25:41 GMT -5
It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information.
I agree with Teeace, there's nothing anyone can do in 1/2000TH of a second to change anything. At a certain point you're commited and what comes after you can't change. It all starts waaay before impact. Chasing this stuff is like trying to fill a bucket full of holes with water...good luck with that. RJ - Haven't you ever heard of closed to open? Come on! Drive holders are supinating in the downswing with very little pronation in the trail forearm. Damn you're right I forgot about that!
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Aug 4, 2013 0:34:20 GMT -5
Here are a few of the classics:
1). Closed to open
2). Continuous hip acceleration through impact
3). Low trail wrist flexion
4). We don't know the rate, but low rate (fill in whatever you want)
5). Drive/ hold (built off the look of the wrists (trail wrist driving, lead wrist holding), but the wrists aren't driving or holding)
If you just stick with one form of technology that's the type of incorrect conclusions you'll get while being laughed at by the biomechanists who look at this stuff for a living.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 4, 2013 0:46:39 GMT -5
but,...but, but what about that video and still and the accompanying graph, you know the one that shows Sadlowski's white belt.
Man that belt sure was moving.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Aug 4, 2013 11:36:24 GMT -5
I sometimes really wonder is there any real scientist who understands the relevant part of that case? ROC can be captured well with something like 200fps and with one camera. It got nothing to do with impact time, as the only relevant part for player and coach is to know how much it rotates around that 2-3 feet area around the impact. It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information. Tapio - If it's so easy go do it and give us some numbers. You're full of it again in fantasy land regarding one camera. Quit sucking up and put up or shut up. Only you would view ROC as something other than a face/path relationship. Goofy and backwards. One camera! Please. I agree with you that the number really isn't that useful in the end. Just timing. Maybe it's about language, but I can't understand what you say. It's very easy to get decent estimation of ROC with one camera. If you want to make real science, you might need two or three, but who the hell will be helped by that. I have to read ROC from hand/club head position and relation and can do it well enough to see if it's high or low. I learned to recognize that from graphs after watching videos at the same time. That's enough to know what should move which way and see if it has changed. Don't ask me to explain it, because it's too complicated, but it's very visible. So my message is that it's not question about few degrees way or another. It's a question to reach decent level and take an other task. It's a question about to understand how acceleration-deceleration ratio affects to that and then tell players what they have to do differently and send them to practice. More I recearch and learn from this game, more I understand how most of the good players spend much too much energy to scientific thinking and details when this game is really something else. Janne played in Challenge tour this week 71-68-71-71 ... so shit scoring and for example today 16 GIR and the worst round was 14. That got nothing to do with few degrees on lab or even at the driving range. It's perfect there. But if player hit his wedges to 3-5 yds from pin all the time it kills the game of scoring. Should be closer to make more putts.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Aug 4, 2013 11:45:32 GMT -5
It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information.
I agree with Teeace, there's nothing anyone can do in 1/2000TH of a second to change anything. At a certain point you're commited and what comes after you can't change. It all starts waaay before impact. Chasing this stuff is like trying to fill a bucket full of holes with water...good luck with that. RJ - Haven't you ever heard of closed to open? Come on! Drive holders are supinating in the downswing with very little pronation in the trail forearm.Check out Keller's graphs again, genius. All five players were supinating the trail forearm before impact (and it was just before impact Ray, not "waaayyy" before). You just say anything with zero thought and get things backwards as often as not. But I guess you don't care how stupid you look. You just want to score points, even if its on your own goal.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Aug 4, 2013 11:52:58 GMT -5
I sometimes really wonder is there any real scientist who understands the relevant part of that case? ROC can be captured well with something like 200fps and with one camera. It got nothing to do with impact time, as the only relevant part for player and coach is to know how much it rotates around that 2-3 feet area around the impact. It's funny to make science around this game, but 99% of that is nonsense because players can't progress with that information. Tapio - If it's so easy go do it and give us some numbers. You're full of it again in fantasy land regarding one camera. Quit sucking up and put up or shut up. Only you would view ROC as something other than a face/path relationship. Goofy and backwards. One camera! Please. I agree with you that the number really isn't that useful in the end. Just timing. Once again, you have no idea what you are saying or what you've said in the past. Looking at just the face/path relationship for ROC is what I am advocating and you said I was "ignorant", that clubhead speed had to be included in determining ROC. As should be obvious, if the face/path is the basis for ROC and the face/path stays at zero through impact, the ROC is zero with an 8-iron or a driver: clubhead speed makes no difference. But why do I bother? Your head is a sieve. You can't even remember your own thoughts let alone what others tell you.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Aug 4, 2013 11:58:51 GMT -5
Closed-to-open? Isn't that what Manzella is saying players that fight an early closing face are doing? Using body rotation to delay the closure? If the face is closing early and you are doing things to keep it open, sounds closed-to-open to me. Even Brian likes Kel's ideas! vimeo.com/71467749
|
|