Science Validates Erickson


1 Like

My feeling is that you are simply just trying to jerk everyone’s chain, and be argumentative for it’s own sake.

This isn’t in a good spirit of seeking to share or learn from respectful conversation or debate.

Jeff Mann has come here with questions etc… and I have shown him … for example… that shaft flex can be held… and also be held with a backswing moving the left arm past 9:00 as was requested also. Jeff has been a respectful poster.

However, I don’t see this happening here…

Everything you have posted here recently has been refuted and at this point, it’s just ad nauseam.

I really don’t see any point in continuing this thread. It’s serving no purpose at this point and just ending up in circular arguments that go nowhere.

I asked a simple yes or no question and you have refused to answer it. So clearly you are just trying to poke at people’s patience etc. It’s a common thing that happens on internet forums. We will discuss this with the ABS Board and make a decision shortly whether to lock this thread or not.

1 Like

No disrespect intended. Just putting the truth out there. I have spent my life and untold thousands of dollars traveling, becoming educated in the physics and biomechanics of the golf swing, learning how to teach, learning how to get players to swing better, and buying my own tech at my own expense. I’ve gone down roads (TGM) and realized it wasn’t all there or that some of the stuff was flat out wrong and I’ve tried to seek out the best for myself any anyone I’ve taught. And I’m on here, for free, trying to discuss what happens in the golf swing. I have no agenda. I’m not selling anything, much less a $1500 drill system, and I’m not trying to promote anything or drive traffic to my website, training aid, or gimmick. I’m sharing information, with evidence to back it up, for free. Take from that what you will.

And your yes or no question was nonsensical. Yes, I understand optical illusion and parallax. That’s why I understand the limitations of 2D and seek out 3D, 6 degrees of freedom, and direct measurement when possible.

I don’t know what your intentions are… only you know… but what I am seeing is that you simply enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. It’s like the flat earthers… they really believe the earth is flat and use “science” to support their claims.

I’ve spent the time to show that shaft flex can be held to the golf ball … with some high fidelity slow motion camera. You can debate that all you want, but it’s clear as can be.

I could do the same thing with the right elbow, and show that a golf ball can be struck with the right elbow remaining flexed from P3 to P4. I actually show this in the ABS Module Course.

I have tried to acknowledge your posts respectfully, and show you that there are other ways of doing things outside of a swinger’s view of the golf swing.

We will have this thread reviewed my our staff and make a decision whether to lock it up or not.

1 Like

Again, you are just being argumentative…
questioning a 2D image and proclaiming the 2D image is showing the truth, then saying that 2D images are illusions and can’t be used as scientific proof…

I see what you are doing…

I never said 2D was the truth. I’ve said from the beginning that it has significant limitations and you can’t measure with it.

I would suggest you start a thread here about GEARS… and you can educate everyone about it’s possibilities… and maybe we can get an expert on here to answer questions etc… I would be more than happy to ask a few questions about it… how it could be helpful… or not… how it could improve a player or not. How is the data interpreted and by whom… and does that then venture into a world of subjectivity etc.

1 Like

I like that idea Lag, but I really I don’t see 4-30 providing anything useful on the board. He doesn’t even know mass can route inside or outside the hands.

1 Like

My thoughts exactly.

1 Like

Why not grab ur balls tell us who u are if ur so fantastic? Seems behind ur keyboard u are a legend in ur own mind. That kind of post to J E is not going to be tolerated without backlash.

What an asshole u have become here.

Yes you have. Why don’t you spam the thread with 400 more links to hockey videos. :clown_face:

I just created a GEARS thread for these discussions.

1 Like

I ask again. You are intent on educating us. What are your qualifications that will have us respect your opinions on the golf swing?

1 Like

JE has no measure to prove he is doing what he feels. Those videos are not very convincing and I know that some were contrived because he deleted my posts showing suspicious frame images as evidence - fact!

Biomechanics sometimes shows up differences between ‘feel and real’ but ABS followers always seem to come down on the side of feel every time. They are deeply entrenched in their beliefs and cannot accept any alternative explanations while having the audacity to call others ‘flat earthers’.

The forum is full of ABS posters who resort to immature name calling with condescending and sarcastic remarks, especially when their deep-seated beliefs are threatened.

I asked a golf scientist for his personal opinion on the physics of shaft flex claimed by JE and he simply said the following:

“I really doubt he has instrumented his swing to the point that he knows he’s getting backward bend coming into impact. But let’s assume, probably contrary to fact, that he is. How much backward bend? Two inches? (That would be quite a bit.) So that is adding perhaps 4 pounds of force to the clubhead striking the ball. That’s 4 pounds out of about 2000 (the typical average force applied by a well-struck driver over the 0.4msec of impact). So even if he could, the effect would be minuscule.”

Isn’t JE a member of TROG ?

An organization whose function is to preserve golf as it once was with short courses and persimmon clubheads. Although I have no issue with TROG, it does seem to be very anti-science in golf culture which may explain the reticence for JE and ABS followers to test their shaft flex beliefs.

That seems to be a very broad opinion of people you have probably never met. This is stereotyping and shows bias in your opinion.

Do you hold the same bias with hickory golfers? They too represent an organization whos goals are to preserve a style of play.

Who is this “golf scientist”? Has he ever tried to swing a club in a way that would hold shaft flex? Where are the studies that show how much force is being applied to a golf ball (both with and without the intent of holding shaft flex)?

JE has no measure to prove he is doing what he feels

… except for using very high tech high speed shutter camera to show it is possible.

Proven… beyond a doubt… shaft flex can be held through the strike.

Further showing shaft flex can be maintained beyond an abbreviated backswing…
Here connecting Module 1 to Module 3 via Module 2