Kelvin Miyahira: pro or con

1212224262737

Comments

  • HsteadHstead Members Posts: 6,326 ✭✭
    edited Oct 1, 2014 #692
    Where the heck is Schoen when you need him? And them maybe some Jim V and DJ Watts? This could be the epic to end all epics. And then SVS could start badgering everyone about how the spine engine relates to PA3.
    TaylorMade M3 9.5 Graphite Design BB 70X
    Callaway Epic Subzero 15* Diamana D+
    Titleist 818 H1
    Mizuno 919 Tour 6-P, 5 Forged, 4 Hot Metal KBS Tour X
    Titleist TVD 56* and 60* V Grind S400
    Directed Force
    Snell
  • ej002ej002 Guests Posts: 5,129 ✭✭
    edited Oct 1, 2014 #693
    Throw SVS in the mix



    Who is Tod and who is Toddy? Lmao
  • dapdap Members Posts: 2,553 ✭✭
    Sciencemania on wrx!!



    We won't improve our golf but we'll get a heck of a science lesson.
  • Tod JohnsonTod Johnson Banned Posts: 240


    Jeffy (Tod) made the following comments-: "Jeff Mann is saying what everyone knows to be true, including Gracovetsky: man walks around on their legs, with the large leg and hip muscles providing most of the power. Gracovetsky is saying that normal human gait is only possible with a normally functioning spine (a point Mann makes as if it contradicts Gracovetsky), and the spine movements "precede that of the legs" by rotating the pelvis. Gracovetsky is using the term "primary engine" to mean it is the first "engine" to fire, initiating locomotion, then the legs follow, amplifying the movement of the pelvis. "Primary engine" does not mean the "largest engine", which is what Mann is claiming Gracovetsky means."



    Jeff Mann does not claim that Gracovetsky means that the primary engine is the "largest engine". See post #2 in this NGI forum thread for the "true facts" regarding Jeff Mann's beliefs on the topic of the "primary engine" versus the "largest engine" - http://newtongolfins...riticising-jeff




    Jeff, you posted that just 14 hours ago after you were called out by me for your absurd lies. Your original posts were clear as to their meaning. Everyone here knows that.


    Jeffy (Tod) claims that Gracovetsky asserts that the spine movements must "precede that of the legs" by first rotating the pelvis. However, why should we believe that the spine must first rotate the pelvis before the legs start to move during the natural biomechanical action of bipedal human locomotion? I believe that an able-bodied human being can easily ambulate normally by first using his legs as the primary biomechanical agent-of-action while secondarily rotating his pelvis/spine in a naturally synchronous (coordinated) motional manner.



    ATJ.




    No reason at all that anyone should believe Gracovetsky is correct without doing their own analysis. But that is his theory, which you blatantly misrepresented.
  • eightironeightiron Banned Posts: 3,136
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #696
    dairic wrote:


    Oh boy, this thread just got awesomer.



    All the Jeff's are here now, so quick, someone get Manzella before the banning begins!




    Let's hope nobody whines to the mods , it's gold



    Edit I found him
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • dapdap Members Posts: 2,553 ✭✭
    A three way bout on ScienceMania!



    Can someone call Hawking to umpire the contest?
  • Tod JohnsonTod Johnson Banned Posts: 240
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #698


    ej002 made the following comment-: "So, to complete the thought and to follow what Jeffy/Tod is saying. Apparently, Gracovetsky is only saying the spine tissue moves first, but agrees that the spine is not doing the majority of the work. Okay big deal (this could be true). But if that is truly what he is saying, then where does Kelvin's spine powering the golfswing theory derive its basis? A: Nowhere".



    Jeffy (Tod) then replied as follows-: "From Fryette's laws, developed in 1918, which describe the coupled movements of the spine."



    Jeffy is seemingly implying that Fryettes' laws are the biomechanical basis for Kelvin's belief that the spine powers the golf swing. Is that Jeffy-claim reasonable?



    What are Fryette's laws?



    Here is the Wikipedia explanation - http://en.wikipedia....ette's_laws



    I presume that Kelvin/Jeffy is referring to the first Fryette principle that states that side-bending of the spine (when it is in the neutral position) will cause the involved vertebra to rotate to the opposite side. So, for example, if one side-bends to the right that will cause the spine to rotate to the left (which is a counterclockwise rotation).



    Fryette's laws (which originated in 1918) are mainly used by osteopaths/chiropractors and not biomechanists (as Jeffy implies). Are they widely accepted today? Not according to this author - see http://koushikphysio...ettes-laws.html




    Fryette's laws are still considered valid by biomechanists. Here is a current course outline from a biomechanics professor at Ohio University. Fryette's laws are presented on page 27:



    http://www.ohio.edu/...plement4670.pdf




    Nor are they apparently widely acceptable to the wider osteopathic community according to this author - see http://www.somatics....tioning-fryette



    Note that the author states that Harrison performed a systematic review of the literature and came to the following conclusion-: "A systematic review of the scientific literature by Harrison DE et al. concludes "Full three-dimensional investigations of spinal coupling patterns have shown that the vertebrae rotate and translate in all three axes and that previous theories of spinal coupling based upon two-dimensional studies are inaccurate and invalid." (Harrison DE et al. 1998 Three-dimensional spinal coupling mechanics: Part I. A review of the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 21: 101-13)"



    It would seem that Fryette's laws are no longer accepted as being scientifically valid - especially with reference to the thoracic spine.



    ]However, I'll play devil's advocate, and accept that they are true with respect to the golfer's spine during the downswing. What would Fryette's principle 1 predict? It would simply predict that if a golfer develops right lateral bend of the thoracic spine during the downswing (and that biomechanical phenomenon usually happens to a significant degree between P5.5 and P7 in many pro golfers) that it will cause the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise. That's all that principle 1 claims! However, we already know that a golfer is actively rotating his upper torso (shoulders) counterclockwise during the mid-late downswing, so the addition of any significant degree of right lateral bend will only cause the thoracic spine to rotate in the same counterclockwise direction. Note that there is nothing in Fryette's law that talks about the need for any lumbar lordosis and interlocking lumbar interfacet joints (which is part of Gracovetskys' spine engine ideology).




    You are just out of date and/or lying. Much research has been done since the days of Fryette. More recent research states that lordosis is a prerequisite for contralateral rotation from lateral bending of the lumbar spine, and that flexion of the lumbar spine and lateral bend will cause rotation in the same direction (ipsilateral rotation). For example, Pearcy MJ, Tibrewal SB. Axial rotation and lateral bending in the normal lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional radiography. Spine 1984:9:582-587. and Panjabi M, Yamamoto I, Oxland T, Crisco J. How does posture affect coupling in the lumbar spine? Spine 1989; 14:1002-1011.



    Current medical texts also reflect this research. For example, Musculoskeletal Manual Medicine: Diagnosis and Treatment, 2011, by Dvorak et al, starting on page 66:



    http://books.google....r spine&f=false


    Jeffy wrongly claims that Jefff Mann is ignorant about Fryette's laws, but Jeff Mann has never disagreed that the acquisition of right lateral bend in the mid-late downswing can produce a rotary torque force that causes the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise. In fact, Jeff Mann has stated that he believes that the thoracic spine naturally rotates counterclockwise during the mid-late downswing when the upper torso (shoulders) actively rotate counterclockwise and he has also stated that he believes that any active counterclockwise rotation of the thoracic spine will produce a passive rotary torque force that will synergistically assist in helping the lumbar spine/pelvis to continue to rotate counterclockwise between P5.5 and P7 - see this NGI forum thread http://newtongolfins...riticising-jeff




    Jeff, you are simply lying here, again. You have repeatedly stated that coupled motion of the spine (lateral bend combined with lordosis causing axial rotation in the opposite direction) is a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky. You are just trying to rewrite history after being shown that you have been wrong time and again.


    Jeff Mann doesn't disagree with any claim that right lateral bend (that only happens to a significant degree between P5.5 and P7) will cause the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise and he only disagrees with the claim that the "spine engine" powers the pelvic rotation via the biomechanical combination of "right lateral bend combined with interlocking interfacet joints on the concave/compressed side of the right lateral bend" and any claim that this combined-biomechanical phenomenon happens between P4 and P5.5. Jeffy is now seemingly claiming that Kelvin is not basing his spine theory on Gracovetsky's spine engine theory, but only on Fryette's laws. However, is Jeffy's claim rational and supported by the evidence from Kelvin's writings (articles)?



    Here is a link to Kelvin's first article on the spine engine.



    http://www.aroundhaw...teral-bend.html



    I don't see any mention of Fryette's laws in that article? However, I do see a lot written about Gracovetsky's spine-engine ideas.



    Kelvin wrote as follows-: "According to Dr. Gracovetsky and the research on spine movements, lateral bending plus lumbar lordosis will produce axial rotation. This is due to the fact that our vertebrae have facets that are like geared teeth. See pictures below from Gracovetsky's book --- And when these facets connect to each other, they act like gears and produce rotation. But they can only do that when the two moves; lateral bend and lumbar lordosis are paired together. Thus, these two major moves are of utmost importance if we are to use our spine engine. If not, you're only left with muscular effort to overcome the lack of assistance from the powerful spine engine. In the end, the ultimate goal is to use both spine engine and muscular effort to produce the most powerful and repeatable swing."



    Do you not agree that Kelvin is referring to the spine engine theory (and not Fryette's laws) when he writes about the role of the spine in the downswing?



    ATJ.




    Gracovetsky is relying on the extensive research done on coupled movement of the spine that predated his research, beginning in 1905 with Lovett. He devotes a chapter to the topic, chapter 8 of The Spinal Engine, which Mann would know if he had actually read Gracovetsky's research. Gracovetsky obviously introduced the coupled motion phenomena to Kelvin, but he did not originate it, as Mann absurdly claims. Coupled movement of the spine is the only element of the spine engine theory relevant to golf and is what Kelvin incorporates in his teaching. If, Jeff, you disagree, please explain what the other elements are and identify where Kelvin includes them in his instruction.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • AnotherTodJohnsonAnotherTodJohnson Members Posts: 32
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #699
    Petter7,



    You wrote the following in a previous post regarding Jeff Mann-: "Kelvin blows Mann away when it concerns anything to do with the game of golf or the golf swing. Half the stuff Mann professes these days he got from Kelvin.



    He just lies and calls it his own. He just flat out stole Kelvin's drive/hold release, made up his own interpretation of it, then turned around and said Kelvin had no clue what he was talking about
    ."



    You claim that half of the stuff that Jeff Mann professes these days (regarding topics related to golf swing biomechanics/mechanics) is derived from Kelvin. Could you please present the "evidence" to support your allegation? You have even asserted that he lies, and that he "calls it his own". Could you also please present "evidence" to support that allegation?



    You have given only one example - where you seemingly allege that Jeff Mann stole Kelvin's drive-hold release term/ideas. Where is the "evidence" to support your allegation?



    Here is link to Jeff Mann's chapter on impact - http://perfectgolfsw....net/impact.htm



    In Q&A number 5 of that chapter, Jeff Mann explains how he got to use the term "drive-hold". Here is the direct (unedited) quote from that chapter.



    "Question number 5:



    You use the term "drive-holding" to describe a golfer's hand release action through the immediate impact zone. Where did you first learn of this term, and does it apply to golfers who use a full-roll hand release action and also equally apply to golfers who use a no-roll hand release action?



    Answer:



    I first came across the term "drive-holding" when I studied Homer Kelley's TGM concepts [3], and I noted that the term was only used to describe a TGM hitter's swing action through impact - where the TGM hitter uses a PA#1 release action (active right arm straghtening action) to drive a "frozen" ("fixedly" bent) right wrist through impact by applying push-pressure against both PP#1 and PP#3 through impact with the right hand. The left wrist remains flat through impact because the right wrist remains "fixedly" bent through impact, and that represents a "holding" action with respect to the FLW. TGMers never applied the term drive-holding to a TGM swinger's action. However, I noted that Kevin Miyahira also used the term "drive-holding" in his article on PGA tour golfers' release styles [6]. I noted that he didn't describe the biomechanics that produce a drive-holding release action in his article, and I noted that he also used the term with respect to golfers who maintain ("hold") a FLW through impact - irrespective of whether they are swingers, or hitters. I now also prefer to use the term "drive-holding" with respect to a swinger's hand release action - as long as he continuously "holds" (maintains) a FLW/intact LAFW throughout the immediate impact zone. To explain the "drive" component and the "hold" component as it applies to swingers (or swing-hitters), who continuously maintain a FLW/intact LAFW throughout the entire immediate impact zone (and sometimes even to the P7.2-7.3 position, or even beyond that position), I have produced my own biomechanical explanations to explain the "drive" and "hold" components of a swinger's drive-hold hand release action through the impact zone."



    Note that Jeff Mann has fully acknowledged that he heard of the term "drive-hold" from Kelvin, and that he personally decided to also use the term "drive-hold" to describe a golfer who continuously holds (maintains) a FLW/intact LAFW throughout the time period that the hands move through the immediate impact zone between P7 and P7.2. How can Jeff Mann be fairly accused of stealing the term "drive-hold" when he truthfully acknowledges the source of the term? Also, if he uses the term "drive-hold" in a different way to Kelvin, and if he clearly explains the difference, what is wrong with that type of behaviour?



    You are partly correct when you imply that Jeff Mann asserted that Kelvin was wrong - but that relates to the underlying biomechanical factors that supposedly produce a drive-hold hand release action.



    Kelvin has listed a large number of biomechanical elements that he believes produces a drive-hold hand release action. Jeff Mann thinks that Kelvin is totally wrong and he carefully dissected Kelvin's reasoning in topics number 9, 10 and 11 of his latest review paper - http://perfectgolfsw...014Revision.htm



    In his very detailed discussion, Jeff Mann clearly explains why he thinks that Kelvin is wrong, and he simultaneously provides his own personal explanations of the biomechanical/mechanical factors that he believes allows a golfer to efficiently use a drive-hold hand release action through impact. You may have no sympathy for Jeff Mann's explanations re: the underlying biomechanics/mechanics of a drive-hold hand release action, and you may prefer Kelvin's explanations - but why should he be condemed for offering interested golfers an alternative opinion regarding the topic of the "biomechanics/mechanics underlying a drive-hold hand release action"?



    ATD.
  • Tod JohnsonTod Johnson Banned Posts: 240
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #700
    Jeff Mann posted this sheer idiocy 8 hours ago:



    Jeffy is increasingly claiming that coupled motion of the spine is the biomechanical basis for the spine engine's functioning, but he has never produced any "evidence" to support his "belief".



    Chapter 8 of The Spinal Engine is the "evidence" in support of jeffy's "belief", which he would know if he had read it. Jeff Mann is that special kind of idiot who argues authoritatively about things he knows nothing about.



    Mann continues:



    I believe that if a golfer rotates the upper torso (and therefore the thoracic spine) faster than the pelvis and lumbar spine, then a passive force will be transmitted down the spine and paraspinal tissues that will induce the pelvis/lumbar spine to rotate faster - and it doesn't require the presence of any right lateral bend for this phenomenon to happen. What I am describing is the coupling phenomenon.





    Classic Jeff Mann inventing his own "coupling phenomenon" that doesn't exist anywhere else. The coupling movements of the spine have been analyzed in the literature since 1905 and nothing like Mann's "coupling phenomenon" exists.
  • petter7petter7 Members Posts: 1,620
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #701


    Petter7,

    You claim that half of the stuff that Jeff Mann professes these days (regarding topics related to golf swing biomechanics/mechanics) is derived from Kelvin. You have even asserted that he lies, and that he "calls it his own".

    Could you please present "evidence" to support that allegation?

    ATD.




    Gee, I don't know if I want to spend time doing that for a complete stranger ATD (or is it ATJ??). You seem to be well informed on what Jeff Mann is thinking and what he has written.



    Are you a close friend of his? It's almost like you're actually inside his mind! Spooky. You know…kinda "spine-chilling."
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • HoganstrikerHoganstriker Unregistered Posts: 1,290
    Well I skimmed the article in about Hawaii linked above where Kelvin discusses this 'spine engine' theory. One aspect was he showed some photos of an out of position golfer and labeled him a leg drive swinger not a spine twister. This was painted in a negative light.

    My answer is tell it to Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Knudson, Palmer. Tell them leg drive swings are bad. At any rate I digress. He seems to be saying spine vertebra act like gears. Gears are for transmissions motors make power. How can gears be an engine? How could spine gearing do anything if the legs and hips and angular momentum and inertia wait lets just say...Some force is required to turn a gear. It's just sitting there. All it can do is transmit a force created elsewhere. So why call a gear a motor?

    Maybe I have stated this poorly but I don't care.

    I have learned nothing by reading this thread.

    I do know a bit about spine and lifting safety though and twisting and bending the spine under load repeatedly is an injury waiting to happen.

    I will definitely steer clear of information like this in the future.

    CON.

    CON again for injury risk.

    This CON is for wasted time reading a feud apparently brought here from elsewhere in particular when the whole feud is about a subject that has nothing to do with executing golf shots.

    Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.
    See ball hit ball
    KISS
  • Tod JohnsonTod Johnson Banned Posts: 240
    BTW, what the **** is a "passive force" like the one Mann claims is "transmitted down the spine and paraspinal tissues"? How is it different from an "active force"? What's the frequency, Kenneth?
  • eightironeightiron Banned Posts: 3,136
    Tod I'm still looking for Hogan writing about macdonald smith in 5 lessons . Which chapter and what does he say?
  • Tod JohnsonTod Johnson Banned Posts: 240
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #705


    Well I skimmed the article in about Hawaii linked above where Kelvin discusses this 'spine engine' theory. One aspect was he showed some photos of an out of position golfer and labeled him a leg drive swinger not a spine twister. This was painted in a negative light.

    My answer is tell it to Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Knudson, Palmer. Tell them leg drive swings are bad. At any rate I digress. He seems to be saying spine vertebra act like gears. Gears are for transmissions motors make power. How can gears be an engine? How could spine gearing do anything if the legs and hips and angular momentum and inertia wait lets just say...Some force is required to turn a gear. It's just sitting there. All it can do is transmit a force created elsewhere. So why call a gear a motor?

    Maybe I have stated this poorly but I don't care.

    I have learned nothing by reading this thread.

    I do know a bit about spine and lifting safety though and twisting and bending the spine under load repeatedly is an injury waiting to happen.

    I will definitely steer clear of information like this in the future.

    CON.

    CON again for injury risk.

    This CON is for wasted time reading a feud apparently brought here from elsewhere in particular when the whole feud is about a subject that has nothing to do with executing golf shots.

    Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.




    Hogan, Snead and Palmer have been used by Kelvin as models in his articles. Nelson's "endless knee slide", like Furyk's, is inefficient and not recommended. Knudson was not a "leg driver". Yes, the spine vertabrae can act as gears, and the muscles of the upper body drive those gears. The bones, muscles, ligaments and fascia of the upper body comprise the spine engine, not just the spine itself.



    Thanks for not taking the time to understand what Kelvin wrote and coming here to share your ignorance with us. You can skip the second half next time.
  • Tod JohnsonTod Johnson Banned Posts: 240
    eightiron wrote:


    Tod I'm still looking for Hogan writing about macdonald smith in 5 lessons . Which chapter and what does he say?




    Geez, just do a search here on GolfWRX or Google. I found it a couple places the other day. "Mac Smith Five Lessons" will do it. I recall that it was on page 60, at the end of the chapter on address.
  • HoganstrikerHoganstriker Unregistered Posts: 1,290
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #707



    Well I skimmed the article in about Hawaii linked above where Kelvin discusses this 'spine engine' theory. One aspect was he showed some photos of an out of position golfer and labeled him a leg drive swinger not a spine twister. This was painted in a negative light.

    My answer is tell it to Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Knudson, Palmer. Tell them leg drive swings are bad. At any rate I digress. He seems to be saying spine vertebra act like gears. Gears are for transmissions motors make power. How can gears be an engine? How could spine gearing do anything if the legs and hips and angular momentum and inertia wait lets just say...Some force is required to turn a gear. It's just sitting there. All it can do is transmit a force created elsewhere. So why call a gear a motor?

    Maybe I have stated this poorly but I don't care.

    I have learned nothing by reading this thread.

    I do know a bit about spine and lifting safety though and twisting and bending the spine under load repeatedly is an injury waiting to happen.

    I will definitely steer clear of information like this in the future.

    CON.

    CON again for injury risk.

    This CON is for wasted time reading a feud apparently brought here from elsewhere in particular when the whole feud is about a subject that has nothing to do with executing golf shots.

    Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.




    Hogan, Snead and Palmer have been used by Kelvin as models in his articles. Nelson's "endless knee slide", like Furyk's, is inefficient and not recommended. Knudson was not a "leg driver". Yes, the spine vertabrae can act as gears, and the muscles of the upper body drive those gears. The bones, muscles, ligaments and fascia of the upper body coumprise the spine engine, not just the spine itself.



    Thanks for not taking the time to understand what Kelvin wrote and coming here to share your ignorance with us. You can skip the second half next time.




    Edit: why bother ?
    See ball hit ball
    KISS
  • dapdap Members Posts: 2,553 ✭✭
    Let's keep personal attacks out pls we don't want this thread locked. It could be educational as well as entertaining.
  • eightironeightiron Banned Posts: 3,136
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #709


    eightiron wrote:


    Tod I'm still looking for Hogan writing about macdonald smith in 5 lessons . Which chapter and what does he say?




    Geez, just do a search here on GolfWRX or Google. I found it a couple places the other day. "Mac Smith Five Lessons" will do it. I recall that it was on page 60, at the end of the chapter on address.




    Thanks I found it , hardly inspiring stuff that Hogan used him as a swing model . It's all assumptions , even the pronation secret stuff , hogan mentions old Scottish pros





  • QEightQEight Members Posts: 3,398 ✭✭
    I hope someone will make an executive summary of this at some point.
    Ping G15 Titleist 950R Titleist 910D2
    Titleist 910f 3W
    Callaway XHot hybrid
    Titleist 735cm
    Vokey wedges
    Odyssey Works Versa #1 Tank Tri-Ball SRT
  • tembolo1284tembolo1284 Boom Boom Banned Posts: 20,715
    Pin seeing you type 'lolzy' was a boner killer.
    Wishon 919 THI 11* 0.5* Open
    Wishon 929 HS 14.5*, 19* 0.5 Open
    Wishon 775HS 22*, 25*
    Wishon 5, 6 560 MC 7-PW MMC MB
    Wishon 54, 59 Micro-Groove HM
    All shafts are S2S Stepless Steel Wishon
  • ej002ej002 Guests Posts: 5,129 ✭✭
    Tod(y)



    Again second Fire is Ogrady rip off. Except Kelvin farks up the tilts and wants too much lateral bend too early. Hence the model for spinny guys like Sadlowski and Kim. Btw - how much money did those two guys make on tour?



    The red shirt guy at the Sony - http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2010-04-spine-engine-swing-lateral-bend.html - has a very similar pivot to Snead. Last time I checked, snead has the most professional wins EVER.



    That Kelvin article states at the beginning: let's not argue about the merits of spine engine... Let's just assume it exists. It MAY only exist in the beat swings in the world. (Paraphrasing). Come on this is a joke. Sadlowski and Kim are NOT the greatest swings in the world.



    So my response to this **** is that spine engine theory may not exist at all or only in mediocre golf swings. I will post my opinion as fact on a website called around Chi-Town in a few hours. Lmao



    CON
  • ej002ej002 Guests Posts: 5,129 ✭✭
    Btw I just bent over to touch the outside of my right knee and my hips did not rotate left.
  • tembolo1284tembolo1284 Boom Boom Banned Posts: 20,715
    ej002 wrote:


    Btw I just bent over to touch the outside of my right knee and my hips did not rotate left.




    Don't tell us what they did please!



    I sense a hot dog joke in there somewhere.
    Wishon 919 THI 11* 0.5* Open
    Wishon 929 HS 14.5*, 19* 0.5 Open
    Wishon 775HS 22*, 25*
    Wishon 5, 6 560 MC 7-PW MMC MB
    Wishon 54, 59 Micro-Groove HM
    All shafts are S2S Stepless Steel Wishon
  • eightironeightiron Banned Posts: 3,136






    Mann based much of his critique on this interview with Gracovetsky:



    [url="http://www.somatics.de/Gracevetsky_Interview.pdf"]http://www.somatics....y_Interview.pdf[/url]





    This is how Gracovetsky describes the role of the spine in locomotion:



    ASN: What, then,is the role of the

    spine in the locomotion?



    SG: I consider the spine to be the

    "primary" engine, in the etymological

    sense of the word.
    This primary engine,

    so obvious in our ancestors the fish, has

    not travelled towards the lower limbs

    over time, although its role has become

    more obscure and may appear to be

    secondary to the role of the lower limbs.

    However, this logic is faulty, as we are

    able to "walk" on our knees with

    relatively little adaptation, which

    demonstrates that our legs are not truly

    essential to human locomotion. A

    wooden leg is just as effective. It would

    be conceivable to cut the femur one

    centimeter above the knee without

    significantly affecting walking. This

    therefore raises the question: how far

    can we cut the femur before affecting

    human locomotion. The answer is that

    the lower extremity can be completely

    removed without interfering with the

    primary movement of the pelvis. This

    statement may appear somewhat

    excessive, but it is supported by the

    facts.





    Note that in the first sentence Gracovetsky says he uses "primary" in the "eytmological sense of the word", i.e., the meaning it had at its origin. Here is the eytomology of "primary":



    "early 15c., 'of the first order,' from Latin primarius 'of the first rank, chief, principal, excellent,' from primus 'first' (see [url="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prime&allowed_in_frame=0"]prime[/url] (adj.)). Meaning 'first in order' is from 1802."



    [url="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=primary&searchmode=none"]http://www.etymonlin...searchmode=none[/url]



    So, either Mann was ignorant of how Gracovetsky was using "primary", or he




    Getting back to SG theory . From this information it seems like he is basing the theory on the idea that the spine engine was the " first " engine available for locomotion and subsequent engines became available to man due to evolution .

    Surely he would have to prove the theory of evolution to even use it as a platform for the spine engine theory and locomotion
  • tembolo1284tembolo1284 Boom Boom Banned Posts: 20,715
    8i man you are killin' it!
    Wishon 919 THI 11* 0.5* Open
    Wishon 929 HS 14.5*, 19* 0.5 Open
    Wishon 775HS 22*, 25*
    Wishon 5, 6 560 MC 7-PW MMC MB
    Wishon 54, 59 Micro-Groove HM
    All shafts are S2S Stepless Steel Wishon
  • RichieHuntRichieHunt Members Posts: 3,610 ✭✭
    ej002 wrote:


    Again second Fire is Ogrady rip off.




    The big picture is that it doesn't matter to me in the end because teachers and researchers often come up with the same conclusions or take it and go with it.



    But, I've never been taught anything close to the 'second fire' in MORAD. So I wonder where you get the idea that the second fire theory was ripped off from MORAD?











    RH
  • eightironeightiron Banned Posts: 3,136
    RichieHunt wrote:

    ej002 wrote:


    Again second Fire is Ogrady rip off.




    The big picture is that it doesn't matter to me in the end because teachers and researchers often come up with the same conclusions or take it and go with it.



    But, I've never been taught anything close to the 'second fire' in MORAD. So I wonder where you get the idea that the second fire theory was ripped off from MORAD?











    RH




    Mac does it , calls it ramping up the pivot , but only shows it to a select few
  • russcrussc Members Posts: 6,050
    edited Oct 2, 2014 #719
    I am a fan of Kelvin as I mentioned when I started this topic.

    But there are number of questions which all but those completely mesmerized by Kelvin will have

    Below are are 2 accomplished Students of Kelvin's

    First John Oda ,Hawaiian State high school champion and then Kelvin' penultimate example of his teaching ,Lucas Wald(new swing on the right).I am going to highlight only three points of difference,that is obvious to any observer.Go to their positions at the top.Lucas Wald has a longer backswing,so lets stop his video when he is parallel to the ground(1:41).Look at the angle of their right legs at the top .While both have their their right hip in ER at the top ,Lucas has his right leg much more angled,much closer to Kelvin's model ,Sam Snead.Such an angle means more weight into the inside of the right foot at the top.Second look at the left knee.Lucas's is much more bent indicative of more hip turn .Third Lucas Wald's left heel is already coming off of the ground.

    Now i understand that Lucas Wald's swing is much more of a finished product and that individual golfers will vary,but a number of golfers who try to follow Kelvin;s instructions.**** up their backswing position.in trying to have get their right hip in ER and their left heel off of the ground.If you watch some of Jeffy's online lessons ,he is clearly having problems getting the right hip in the proper position..

    [media=]

    [media=]
  • McaesqMcaesq Posts: 304
    Please lock this abortion of a thread.
    Taylormade SLDR 10.5, AD DI 6x
    Tour Edge CB4 3 wood, AD DI 8x
    Callaway x2hot pro 5 wood, AD DI 8x
    Adams Tight Lies, Matrix Altus Black
    Adams xtd pros 5-pw, steelfiber 110x
    Vokeys 52/56/60
    Bettinardi C series putter
  • ej002ej002 Guests Posts: 5,129 ✭✭
    Mcaesq wrote:


    Please lock this abortion of a thread.




    You can stop reading it instead - it is very interesting and entertaining. Best thread in a long time if you can follow it.











Sign In or Register to comment.