Mandrin,
Who said the golf swing is driven by conservation of angular momentum…
The golf swing in human motion is driven by conservation of momentum and muscular loading creating speed for each body segment…
The relationship between the club and arms there is angular momentum…
Sure conservation of angular momentum doesn’t drive the swing who said it did…
Also is a component and an add on to conservation momentum… angular momentum which occurs with the arm and club relationship…
Mandrin,
Sorry it felt that way, I wasn’t trying to discount your ideas. I like to understand these things and if I see or sense something that doesn’t add up then I’ll wonder about the validity of the claim. In this instance, I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, I just don’t get it yet and I tend to grasp concepts a lot better through spoken or written word than I do with numbers and graphs. Hence I ask the questions. You seem to have put a lot of effort into your ideas so I’m sure you’ve looked at a lot of the variables involved. Since golf has more of them than I can comprehend, when I see concepts like this presented I wonder how those variables play in the mix. Thanks for the info…
Cheers,
B
biomechanic,
Do you still maintain above? Any remorse making such childish remarks?
Whilst you ponder about it, you might have a look at an interesting review article of your science.
‘Sports biomechanics in the year 2000: some observations on the trajectory.’ by J. L. Hudson, California State University.
To be found in the official peer-reviewed proceedings of ISBS , (International Society of Biomechanics in Sports), XVIII Symposium: 2000 - Hong Kong, China.
Below a paragraph from this review article. Something to ponder about. 
'To what extend is applied sports biomechanics an immature or ineffective science? We seem to primarily use the fact producing channel of research to generate ever more complex, quantitative data even though we lack a foundation of common sense, quantitative relationships. When we do not specify our paradigms, our information appears to be randomly acquired and equally relevant or irrelevant. Similarly there is no means for us to accumulate, interpret, and evaluate our information in the meaningful ways that are necessary for progress. Years ago it was common to acknowledge our methodological pitfalls as we sought to minimize them; could we renew our commitment to this critical area? To what extend is sports biomechanics akin to a folk science? There are people who believe that our primary paradigm is Newtonian mechanics even though that field is not advancing. And there are people who see our high technology and believe we can produce magical scholarship. To what extend are we these people? On the one hand, we may benefit from having a cadre of believers. But on the other hand, we may be losing people who become disenchanted.’
mandrin
BomGolf,
I did not perceive it as you being negative. It is actually not all that common that pertinent questions like yours are aired. It is just that conservation of angular momentum by itself is such a big chunk to bite on. It is being universally misunderstood and misused. A basic understanding, a solid true foundation can only be beneficial to the advancement of golf.
It is not only common sense to simplify complex issues, it is also the preferred scientific approach. Once the basic issues are understood in a simple environment than progressively one can put other variables into the mix. Basically patient serial processing versus quick intuitive parallel processing. The latter approach not leading easily to viable conclusions or results.
I hope you keep asking pointed questions. But when they are targeted they are more effective to keep me alert. 
Some very different golf swings here, but a clubshaft moving basically 90 degrees to the torso. This came up on another thread, but I think there is some very good logic at work here. Mehlhorn believed golf should basically be played from a 45 degree angle.
I spoke with Don Ingram (Formerly from the Hogan Company) today briefly, and he said the move to more upright clubs have been a marketing move to “aspirin” bad golf swings. Flatter lies are a disaster to OTT hackers. But more upright gear nails the players swing into a vertical coffin.
Magic stuff!! This is one of my strong beliefs regarding free and powerful rotation through the ball. Ultimately we rotate on the spine angle from an energy direction perspective, and it’s the club we’re moving. Sergio is phenomenal at this. They say he’s handsy but he’s as far from it as it gets! And I reckon getting the club coming out of the spine at this angle is the key to eliminating hand compensations. The lower down you can get the club coming through the spine the freer you can go through the ball. It’s action reaction stuff. I was talking a little about it on ISG recently in regard to trying to make the body do what it doesn’t want to do. The closer you get the club to perpendicular to the spine as it attacks the ball, the more you will feel free to just let fly at it, and the more you can fully utilize body rotation. Great post Lag, thanks for those photos… It speaks to the free ride down you talk about, and is exhibit A in the case against accelerating from the top. Exciting stuff!!
Cheers,
B
Here’s a clip of Sergio… the slow mo says it all
biomechanic,
Do you still maintain above? Any remorse making such childish remarks?
Whilst you ponder about it, you might have a look at an interesting review article of your science.
‘Sports biomechanics in the year 2000: some observations on the trajectory.’ by J. L. Hudson, California State University.
To be found in the official peer-reviewed proceedings of ISBS , (International Society of Biomechanics in Sports), XVIII Symposium: 2000 - Hong Kong, China.
Below a paragraph from this review article. Something to ponder about.
'To what extend is applied sports biomechanics an immature or ineffective science? We seem to primarily use the fact producing channel of research to generate ever more complex, quantitative data even though we lack a foundation of common sense, quantitative relationships. When we do not specify our paradigms, our information appears to be randomly acquired and equally relevant or irrelevant. Similarly there is no means for us to accumulate, interpret, and evaluate our information in the meaningful ways that are necessary for progress. Years ago it was common to acknowledge our methodological pitfalls as we sought to minimize them; could we renew our commitment to this critical area? To what extend is sports biomechanics akin to a folk science? There are people who believe that our primary paradigm is Newtonian mechanics even though that field is not advancing. And there are people who see our high technology and believe we can produce magical scholarship. To what extend are we these people? On the one hand, we may benefit from having a cadre of believers. But on the other hand, we may be losing people who become disenchanted.’
Mandrin,
Yes thank you thank you thank you… I love how you twisted Jackie Hudson words … Lets be totally honest here Mandrin is this exacty quoted word for word what Jackie said…
Sitting here looking at the official article Jackie Hudson presented in her talk in 2000 appears to be totally different…
Can you please post the article so we can all compare her version to yours so we can establish the truth of what Jackie said and she was talking about…
Jackie was talk was about the bastardisation of the biomechanics industry… Out lining the issue of how can we solve the issues of the bastardisation…
The pure researchers and biomechanist verse the practitioners (Chrio’s , pyhsio etc) and coaches and most important these people creating new technology…
The issue is the paradgim. What do I mean by this simple…
there are human motion laws and we all stick with in these paradgims, we are use the same measuring systems and technology…
along comes people like TPI and create these own laws like the kinematic sequence for example… They create this due to one the technology they use can’t accurately measure anatomically in space (Polhymus)… Two … they are practioners and never study biomechaincs they don’t understand the laws of human motion… Three they aren’t biomedical engineers majoring in biomechanics to create 3-D motion analysis technology…
then we have an coach x factor etc using 3-D technology and adding his spin to biomechanics and having no background and using in accurate technology like Polhymus and you have K-vest as well computer programs writing metrics for orientation sensors… They fudge everything to bullshit consumers to buy their product.
These people then like tpi, practionioers, x factors publish books and research papers, put articles in glossy magazines and there a no paradgims bastardising pure research of biomechanics… FOLK SCIENCE
Then we have the Mnadrins in the world
Jackie’s fully story was how do we solve these issue and create a pardigm for laws of motion to stop the bastardisation.
Here some part of the talk Jackie said word for word
May I add here Jackie is referring to how to solve the problem of bastardisation from the practioners
In sum, there are many
demographic effects that are working against our becoming a cohesive community.
The unifying theme in our community seems to be that we all have some interest in sports
and some interest in biomechanics. But it might also be said that many of us are not
particularly interested in all sports or all facets of biomechanics. As another point of
intersection we presumably share the value of bridging the gap between the researcher and
practitioner. But the ways in which we manifest this are sometimes difficult to discern. In
fact, the early ambition of having practitioners attend and interact with us at our research
presentations has largely been abandoned.
In the early years most of us were concentrated in the area of applied sports biomechanics,
but we have broadened our scope considerably in recent years. Now we have many
presentations where actual humans or sports are only tangentially involved, if at all. We are
so diverse in our interests that it is unlikely that our various sub-specialties will all be able to
use the same paradigms. So the people in each of our sub-areas may wish to consider their
own particular paradigmatic issues. In the following paragraphs I will be primarily focusing
on the sub-area of applied sports biomechanics.
Do the researchers in applied sports biomechanics have a paradigm? Do we share
textbooks, illustrative applications, methods, or exemplars? In general, the applied group
seems to exhibit many of the characteristics of a pre-paradigmatic period with different
schools. We learned sports biomechanics from several different texts (if in fact we learned
from texts at all). ]Many of our texts included sections on Newtonian mechanics and gross
anatomy which, though useful, are essentially dormant areas of research now. The
remaining content of our texts varies considerably from book to book; this lack of
standardization is indicative of an absence of an accepted paradigm.[/b] In many cases we also
learned other scientific paradigms. Our division into schools may be based in part on which
other paradigms and applications we have learned. For example, some people may
embrace the metaphor of “man as machine” while it causes other people to bristle. There is
no question that our field has been aided by technology. Our methods of data collection
range from electromyography, to videography, to force transduction. Our concept of space
varies from the somatic level (e.g., the center of gravity) to the segmental or smaller level.
Similarly our concept of time varies from intervals of one second to much smaller instants.
What rules do we follow when we decide how to observe space and time? As for exemplars,
do we as a community recognize any examples of well done studies? How do we organize
our material – by sport, by methodology, by concept, by caliber of athlete? Could we use the
practitioners’ ideas and literature to direct our inquiries?
To what extent is applied sports biomechanics an immature or ineffective science? We
seem to primarily use the fact production channel of research to generate ever more
complex and quantitative data. When we do not specify our paradigms, our information
appears to be randomly acquired and equally relevant or irrelevant. Similarly there is no
means for us to accumulate and interpret our information in meaningful ways. In particular, it
would be appealing to know how specific sport activities may be indicative of broader
categories of movement. Have you ever wondered when our field will start to move forward?
To what extent is sports biomechanics akin to a folk science? There are people who believe
that our primary paradigm is Newtonian mechanics even though that field is not advancing.
And there are people who see our high technology and believe that we can produce magical
scholarship. To what extent are we these people? On the one hand, we may benefit from
having a cadre of believers. But on the other hand, we may be losing people who become
disenchanted.
How do we handle our mission of bridging the gap with practitioners in view of the difficulties
of doing applied research? We seem to be ambitious in the scope of our studies, but we
may be undertaking more than we can accomplish in single studies. And we may be
deluding ourselves if we think we can provide practical answers in a hurry. Meanwhile we
are surrounded by colleagues from more mature disciplines, and that puts pressure on us to
measure up. That often means doing data-based work when we would be better off
developing theory. Or it may mean writing one more article with little benefit to the reader.
Years ago it was common to acknowledge our pitfalls as we sought to minimize them; could
we renew our commitment to this critical area? Could we return to a common-sensical
approach and a reexamination of our fundamental questions of “how do humans move?”
how do better humans move?” and “how do humans move better?”
Mandrin what Jackie said was in simple terms practioners in their publication are using newton in their publications… WHY? they never been to university to study biomedical engineering or biomechanics… they work off buzz words…
Jackie’s exact words " Many of our texts included sections on Newtonian mechanics and gross anatomy "
Mandrin present the true facts and the full story… how about presenting the entire four page paper so we can all compare your quotes to Jackie’s and see if they are put in context or not… Also how much added bullshit you throw in…
You know honestly who gives a rats arse anyway…
All that matters is finding better ways to help athletes increase their performance and reduce injuries…
Results speak louder than words… do you think athletes give a rats arse if our theories were flawed or not
In practice it helped them win majors and many LPGA and US tour player have wins… Or any of the other athletes in other sports wining world championships and gold medals…
All that matter the athletes are happy and achieving …
Good luck to you Mandrin not sure what your purpose is or what your trying to achieve … keep on using your mechanical models to explain human motion I’m enjoying laughing at them…
biomechanic.
I realize it hurts, when from the inside, an expert gives a rather negative image of the biomechanics community. Too many sophisticated gadgets to play with and not enough basic thinking.
As far as the accusation of ‘twisting’ is concerned I invite you to calm down a bit and compare the paragraph I posted and an almost identical paragraph appearing in your own post. Yet another accusation which does not hold water. Keep trying. 
Let me just remind you that scientists are morally obliged to seek the objective scientific truth and not just indulge in your type of mud slinging, an activity in which you seem to excel. You keep telling that it is all so complicated but strangely enough you don’t understand even the very basics of the behavior of angular momentum in a golfer.
This post generally directed towards a theme. It’s not directed towards any individual.
There are three principle approaches to any investigation, one can view any thought, concept, theory (whatever) in three ways;
1)…to search for anything that can, or may, support the view held by the investigator.
2)…to search for anything, nor matter how remotely connected it may be, or appear to be, that can cause doubt in, or totally dismiss, the held concept.
This is generally referred to as The Process of Elimination.
3)…is a combination of the above two. (a)The originator or supporter of the concept searches most vigorously to find anything that might offer support to the validity of their held views and (b) they search, with equal vigor, for anything that can cast any form of doubt on the views held by all others. What they never do is to recognize or accept anything that can c) cast doubt on their views or (d) accept that some aspect of evidence may offer support to the view of others and may be in some sort of conflict with theirs.
All too often this leads to the shaping of the evidence, where evidence that doesn’t fit, either way, gets whittled down so that it CAN BE SEEN to fit.
My days (and nights) on the streets as a cop taught me well. Under the Australian system of Law, everyone is innocent until PROVEN, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be otherwise. We even have the further safeguards of the Appeal Systems.
When an investigator first arrives at the scene of a crime there are literally inestimable possibilities. A few observations, a few questions and the possibilities have (usually) narrowed, by extraordinary proportions. It’s here that the investigator, who has formed certain opinions, can go in any of the above directions.
My own choice was The Process of Elimination. It served me exceedingly well then, it became entrenched in my thinking as a self imposed discipline that has remained with me, ever since. I have searched initially with far greater vigor to DISPROVE my own theories/ concepts than I ever have done to prove them. It’s my contention that, if they cannot be DISPROVEN by anything that is known, it’s then the time to search, with equal determination, for all other available evidence that might support the concepts involved.
Much of what is being bandied about in this forum, at the moment, would be disqualified as irrelevant and therefore inadmissible in any advanced Jurisprudence in the democratic world.
If an event happens within a given sequence of events, a link within the chain of reaction, in any system such as the human swinging a golf club, it is quite beyond the bounds of probability to isolate, alter, improve that singular event, in isolation. The only way to alter a singular event, within that chain of events, is to alter the primary trigger that initiated the entire sequence of events.
The subconscious brain PRE-PROGRAMS the sequence of events.
Before anyone jumps on their bandwagons and starts to holler from the pulpit of their specialized field(s) they must satisfy the demands, every single demand, of that entity, PRE-PROGRAMMING. It doesn’t matter worth a spit in hell what your respective sciences may say or suggest, whatever values they may seem to be capable of offering are void until they can fit the human system of locomotion.
Until you can establish, beyond all possible doubt, that you can alter, in isolation, any singular event within the sequence of events that is (say) the downswing, I personally will ignore your offerings. I will not even recognize that I have read them! If you can do so I will become your most ardent listener and supporter.
Gerry
Gerry
Reminds me of a helicopter engine (jet turbine) that just kept overheating. I knew that down the road it was going to quit in flight, and bite some crew pretty bad. Everybody, including me, had exhausted anything that could support a way to cure the engine’s ills. It was still deemed serviceable, and at 50,000 a copy late 1960’s dollars was not bad enough to be replaced.
I then went in the search mode for anything that would remotely put any doubt on its ability to function properly. When you shut it down it had a habit of shooting a bit of flame out the tail pipe. I asked, the powers that be, how much flame was too much flame? Nobody had an exact answer, so I went back out started it up, shut it down, and went to the tail pipe with a very cold CO2 (it’s how we iced down the beer) fire extinguisher and waited. The non specific flame appeared, I specified it as too much and emptied the extinguisher up its butt. It both extinguished the flame, and provided us with a totally ruined engine that now had to be replaced. Sometimes KISS is the best solution to a very complex problem.
Belittling and negating questions, ideas, and the free flow of thoughts really is the sign of a great teacher
Mandrin,
Say what ever you like who really cares to be perfectly honest…
I never said angular of momentum drives the human motion in the golf swing as I said conservation momentum and the firing of loading of muscles groups is what motors human motion to produce motion and segment speeds… conservation momentum 1 = conservation momentum 2 as I said angular momentum is an add and only applies to the arm and club relationship…
Although how would you know… you ever used biomechanics NO… are you in the field NO…
In future Mandrin just ignore my post like I’m going to ignore yours…
Whats your goal in life is more to the point… So what do you expect achieve anything of importance…
Are you going to help contribute to try and help athletes in prove in golf or continue to try sabotage people attempts who are trying to help golfers…
You attack Gerry, you attack me and tons of others on other forums… with what evidence supporting your beliefs and opinions…
Maybe you should go back to school and learn about newtons law… Maybe learn about conservation of momentum…
In 3D geometry have you ever heard of improper rotation… Angular momentum is a pseudovector quantity because it gains an additional sign flip under an improper rotation.The angular momentum can be expressed as the product of the body’s moment of inertia (a measure of an object’s resistance to changes in its rotation rate) and its angular velocity (\mathbf{L} = I \boldsymbol{\omega}). In this way, angular momentum is sometimes described as the rotational analog of linear momentum.
As I have also said they are two components of club head speed Linear speed and Angular speed in the golf swing… linear speed along the swing plane and angular is the speed produce when the club snaps away from the wrist…
Anyway why waste my time with you… say what you like and think … you have no significant importance of information which will help athletes so why bother wasting our time for…
Gerry,
Can’t blame you for feeling this way… the other day a coach called me saying he was confused who to believe about human motion TPI etc… As I said to him
research their back ground and look at their technology determine are they a researcher or practitioner… Researchers all use the same technology called Vicon and stick to human motion laws and paradgims.
They use Motion/ Force and EMG data or technology to measure human motion… you then get the answer you seek…
Several groups of researchers from universities also American Medical institute… we all did a study on Three dimensional Kinetic Analysis of Sumo and conventional style dead lifts… everyone uses Vicon, Which are strength athletes and rehabilitation patients often employ… This research was conducted to establish what application for training and rehabilitation each style can be used most effective…
All researchers test 5 people each our results all came to the same conclusions and findings…
The hard part in our industry is the bastardisation out there from practitioners and using very questionable technology to measure human motion. They destroy good quality research getting to the masses to help athletes…
On our part we decided the only way is to lead by example work with athletes and get results… results speak louder and words…
There is good quality research out there which is useful and accurate to assist athletes if you know where to look…
Researchers look for ways to improve athletes and don’t get caught up in the politics of theories…
When you test hundreds of athletes world class and average you can develop a data base and begin tho understand how the human body moves and produce speed most effectively to enhance performance and power out put… We found that all the world class athletes of golfer had in common is a kinetic link…average athletes had a poor kinetic link… Ok so how do these world class athletes achieve this ?.. research found conservation of momentum … Ok so what power this ? loading and firing of the muscles… You find an answer and conclusion… Ok so how do we prove this? lets look at training the muscles and how to train muscles and what muscles cycle athletes use… You then get an average athlete and starting working with them and test results… These average athletes through training are starting to create kinetic links… Over 20 years you keep achieving the same results with other athletes… You can start to get an answer or understanding of human motion with measured results to back the theory indicating how the human body moves and how the human body creates speed…
Gerry it does start from the pre programming of the brain I totally agree with you… When we speak about training the muscles we are re training the pre programing to tell the muscles and body what to do, so it becomes second nature… Our attempt is to find more techniques and ways of how to train human motion… all our data does is gives us a road map of movement pattern issues and which areas need training to improve movement patterns to enhance performance and power out put… Most importantly reducing potential injury…
In my eyes honestly not concerned about politics or peoples belief or views … if people think what we do is bullshit thats ok… we are all entitled to an opinion…
As long as we are helping athletes and doing the right thing by them thats all that counts in my eyes… All we want to see is athletes succeed and get better… if we achieve this… we have done our job …
I haven’t read your book although there was mention of angular momentum on here… Can you explain to me what do you mean and your take…
Correct me if I was wrong you mention angular conservation can be lost at the start of the downswing … Can you explain your theory on this…
why this occurs… I can understand from a human motion point of view if the arms fire out of sequence first and they decelerate too early the clubs snaps away from the wrist and speed peaks before impact and this speed is lost and not transfered through to the ball…
I’m interested on your view… To be honest your the first person to mention mention above, which music to my ears to hear…
One of the most used and most respected tools in the history of human thinking is actually the Process of Elimination. In any field of research, inquiry or the like, proving what cannot be is usually the fastest and most provable methodology of eventually proving what can be. It allows all available resources to become more and more focused on the true intent.
If one or more immutable facts tears apart the fabric of a thousand erroneous theories then the world is proportionally a better place for it having done so.
A useful example comes to mind in the work of Sir Alexander Fleming, Scottish Biologist. In 1928, while working with an influenza virus, he noticed that mould had accidentally developed on a staphylococcus culture plate and had created a bacteria-free circle around itself by gobbling up all the bacteria. He named the active substance penicillin. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945. His observations proved forever that all previous quack theories and remedies, relating to infections, were worthless.
However the world didn't just suddenly jump up, applaud and welcome his findings. It took the advent of the Second World War, with millions dying from infected wounds, to usher in the era of penicillin/ antibiotics, as we know them today. Had his work not eliminated all other possibilities, we could be still living with witchcraft, incantations and strangle people throwing bones and 'reading' them.
He did indeed become a great teacher even though he crushed, for all times, thousands of years of unsupportable misunderstandings. He was elected Professor of the School in 1928 and Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology, University of London in 1948. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1943 and knighted in 1944. (see Nobelprize.org)
In fact, I would suggest that the measure of greatness in any teacher can be summed up in their ability to deliver their message with the greatest clarity, ease, comfort and longevity, coupled with the elimination of all conflicting possibilities.
Gerry
It’s a little more than ironic that an undirected post could have been received with such venom and certainty of it’s intent. I wonder why only one person out of a thousand would have taken issue with it. It may just have been a mere observation, or a belief of one of the irrelevant contributors to this forum.
Without something to eliminate there is no process of elimination. Alexander Fleming was part of a great history of study and inquisition. I’ve got no doubt that a scientist of his calibre would claim no greater status than the ones that paved his path through their mere floundering and quack hope. It is indeed the measure of a great teacher who brings clarity, ease, comfort, and understanding to those who look to live in the world. It’s a bitter and tormented soul that would contemplate the crushing of his predecessors in the name of his own scientific victory.
We live in hope, and quack hope…
by BomGolf222 » Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:22 pm
Sir, you do yourself no favours with your response. Kindly allow me to re-present what you posted previously;
by BomGolf222 » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:46 pm
Later post
It’s a little more than ironic that an undirected post could have been received with such venom and certainty of it’s intent. I wonder why only one person out of a thousand would have taken issue with it.
How do you know that only one person in a thousand did take issue with it?
It may just have been a mere observation, or a belief of one of the irrelevant contributors to this forum.
Why are you now trying to back away from the obvious fact that you posted this? Where is the uncertainty of it’s intent? While it’s interpretation is rather obscure, it’s intent is sarcasm. It failed in that and it amused far more than it offended. Why didn’t you direct it to the intended recipient?
Why try to pass it off as an offering “of one of the irrelevant contributors to this forum”.
My initial post was made at 3.27pm Thur Nov 26, your post, the one in question, was at 6.46pm, same date. And you still want to say that you didn’t direct that post to me?
Without something to eliminate there is no process of elimination.
I regret to have to tell you this but I read and re-read that several times as I couldn’t come to terms with what I was seeing. Seriously, what the hell does that mean? (Actually, it’s also quite incorrect. Even if there was nothing to eliminate, the principle itself of the Process still exists, even if never activated.)
Alexander Fleming was part of a great history of study and inquisition.
No Alexander Fleming was never a member of, nor did he ever play any role what-so-ever in, any Inquisition. Perhaps you meant Inquiry? All religious ‘Inquisitions’ ended long before he was born.
It’s a bitter and tormented soul that would contemplate the crushing of his predecessors in the name of his own scientific victory.
This statement may have a little poetic ring to it but it completely lacks substance.
That was never mentioned in anything that I wrote, nor was it implied or intended that Fleming ever crushed anyone, he crushed unsupportable misunderstandings. What he discovered did indeed lay to rest, for all time, thousands of years of misconceptions and quackery.
A quack is merely one who practices quackery. And quackery is a term used to describe unproven or fraudulent medical practices. Nothing more, nothing less! I believe that, prior to Alexander Fleming, penicillin and then antibiotics, all attempts to provide reliable treatment for infections and an array of infectious diseases where most certainly unproven and a great many were fraudulent.
Gerry
Gerry,
I don’t want to get into a slanging match with you, I value your input into the forum as do many others, and I wasn’t turning my back on what I said or where it was directed. It was a suggestion of the possibility that it was a mere thought in the wind, yet you knew that it was about you because it could have been about nobody else. Alexander Fleming was a part of the process whether he was a member of this organization of that one, just like you and me and everyone here are part of the process. Whether we jump in with a bright spark idea or spend every waking hour searching for it, or if everyone thinks we’re a genius or everyone thinks we’re dumb, it’s all the same thing. I could spend my time picking your post apart for discrepancies but that would be futile and off the point. Not everything in life that’s valuable can be proven in a court of law, and even if it can be, that isn’t the final call on it. It’s still just opinion. I’m fully and completely aware of the fallibility of fact and you don’t seem to be. We come from different worlds, Gerry, and it’s as simple as that. I could go on and on about how and why I think you’re wrong, but most of what you say is great and extremely valuable, and I’m not trying to smooth over my post by saying that. I don’t feel any ill will towards you Gerry, it’s just that you can’t write ideas or people off, even the worst of the criminals you’ve put away using your method of evaluation had stories, and some of them may have been very sad stories. In a lot of ways life is like the golf swing, if you start out on the wrong track it’s awfully difficult to realign things while you’re moving. That’s one of the basic premises of your swing theory, and it holds true in life too. But while it is awfully difficult to realign things or alter the path once you get going, it is possible. I can’t prove that to you in a court of law or in a scientific court, but I know it’s true.
Cheers,
B
Let’s cut out the bullshit and maybe review this guy’s scientific theory on the golf swing?
That would indicate Moe Norman supposedly?
but Moe had a very different protocol than most…
Ben Hogan’s conclusion would be very different.
Since I have never seen anyone else ever swing like Moe, I don’t know how useful that is, unless you are going to go down that road… which is a very good one…
But the confusing thing for many, and I know for TGM followers is whether or not the right arm is actively participating or being pulled straight passively by CF…
It’s a huge issue, and very easy to misunderstand.
I am no expert in maths or physics but in my opinion the article has two shortfalls:
- The power percentages are derived from the velocities of the different body parts. Velocity does not tell you weather that right arm is thrusting or is being thrust which brings us to the second shortfall.
- The equation does not take into account the lever between the body and the arms that Lag has repeatedly explained.