Jacobs 3D

royourboatroyourboat Members Posts: 462 ✭✭
Has the Jacobs, Manzella and Nesbitt team actually produced anything new yet?
I like to tee the ball up.. using man sized clubs.


mothman65 wrote:

Is Melbourne getting any closer to happening Momte?


Still need some more, but it's pretty likely I'll come. Just don't know when yet.
«13456

Comments

  • royourboatroyourboat Members Posts: 462 ✭✭
    iteach, FWP?
    I like to tee the ball up.. using man sized clubs.


    mothman65 wrote:

    Is Melbourne getting any closer to happening Momte?


    Still need some more, but it's pretty likely I'll come. Just don't know when yet.
  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Members Posts: 2,774 ✭✭
    I haven't seen the latest edition of their stuff. I am not a fan of them personally and do not want to give them any money. What I have seen is that there is nothing really new. It's understanding better and being able to explain "why" to much of what we already saw in great swings.
  • zztopzztop Banned Posts: 23


    I haven't seen the latest edition of their stuff. I am not a fan of them personally and do not want to give them any money. What I have seen is that there is nothing really new. It's understanding better and being able to explain "why" to much of what we already saw in great swings.






    You have to give them credit for pushing the science to the forefront Sasho and Kwon were among the first scientists who helped them and it was Manzella who started the whole lets see what the science shows of top players swings. I remember on his old forum he started it and all the TGM zealots went bananas, they still do.



    Then they all went to face book groups and split up and now you have Sasho and Kwon in one corner and Nesbit and Jacobs and Manzella in the other corner.



    Personally I think competing groups are better to find out more. And Mac O' didn't know what these guys know now contrary to what some may think!
  • RichieHuntRichieHunt Members Posts: 3,645 ✭✭

    @zztop said:
    Fort Worth Pro wrote:

    I haven't seen the latest edition of their stuff. I am not a fan of them personally and do not want to give them any money. What I have seen is that there is nothing really new. It's understanding better and being able to explain "why" to much of what we already saw in great swings.

    You have to give them credit for pushing the science to the forefront Sasho and Kwon were among the first scientists who helped them and it was Manzella who started the whole lets see what the science shows of top players swings. I remember on his old forum he started it and all the TGM zealots went bananas, they still do.

    Then they all went to face book groups and split up and now you have Sasho and Kwon in one corner and Nesbit and Jacobs and Manzella in the other corner.

    Personally I think competing groups are better to find out more. And Mac O' didn't know what these guys know now contrary to what some may think!

    Mac discovered a lot of things that the researchers are ‘discovering’ today. That’s how the feud between myself and Finney/Manzella started…Mike Jacobs created a video on all of these discoveries they made while researching in the swing and when I mentioned that Mac had researched that years prior (and was backed up by John Dochety and Dana Dahlquist), they were apoplectic about it and started pulling all of these shenanigans.

    Mac has paid researchers to research the golf swing. I know as I have corresponded with a few of them. His focus is on the neurobiology of the golf swing. Mackenzie, Kwon, Nesbit, etc. are focused on the biomechanics of the swing. Different means to an end and thus, different conclusions about the swing. What the neurobiology people discover and conclude may not jive with what the biomechanics people discover and conclude and vice versa.

    But, there is plenty of crossover here. What the neurobiological research shows in areas of the swing does jive with the biomechanical approach and vice versa. The same with the anatomical approach that Kelvin Miyahira had.

    I think what often happens is that the stuff that doesn’t jive with the biomechanics, the biomechanics people discredit Mac for it. And then they think there is no possible way that Mac could have found something years ago that they just recently discovered. But like I said, it’s two different means to an end and there is some crossover and since Mac’s research has been going on since the 80’s, he had a headstart in being able to discover some of those things.

    As far as Manzella goes, I would give him credit for bringing Trackman to the forefront as far as a teaching tool. I think it’s much more limited in scope as far as a teaching tool than he would claim. And Brian was a proponent of ‘zeroing out’ for a while.

    For me personally, he was the first teacher that I came across that went into detail how much trouble an open clubface can cause and how it’s so prevalent in higher handicaps. I’m certain other teachers felt the same way, but Brian was the first I came across that went into detail about it. And most teachers were okay with the face being a little open.

    As far as bringing scientists out to the forefront…the PGA has always tried to get into contact with scientific researchers about the swing. I don’t think they were as eager as Brian was, but they have done so for decades. The big difference is that today there are more researchers available. I’m guessing this has to do with the internet where any researcher that does legitimately good research on the swing can be found. Without the internet, people like Sasho probably wouldn’t even care to get into golf research because it would be too difficult to get the message out there.

    In the end, there’s probably a miniscule amount of the golf swing that has not been ‘discovered’ by somebody else. Or at least a teacher that was a proponent of that and just had different verbiage and reasoning in explaining it.

    RH

  • cav5cav5 Members Posts: 332 ✭✭

    @Frozen Divots said:
    From the Lassiegohome post-

    ‘Their values will deviate from actual values, resulting in errors in net joint torques.’

    Exactly!!!!

    Everything wants to run parallel in force, but the problem is it kind of looks backwards to the human eye especially if you are only considering the structured look of the swing. It is up to the golfer to align it all in the end.

    M5 9.0 Tensei Pro White 70TX
    M5 19 KK XTS 80
    MP69 PX 6.5
    ROTEX2.0 50,54,60* PX 6.0
    NC Portofino

  • glkglk send it in jerome Members Posts: 3,317 ✭✭
    edited Apr 2, 2019 10:13am #7

    @ALPHA MAN said:
    Ryke effect has flaws it doesn't account for different grip strengths.

    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1493528/is-golf-science-based-on-fake-dynamics/p3

    It's main flaw is that is entirely bogus. We've had this discussion years ago. Ryan Kevin has no clue what is happening in a golf swing - he tinkered together a neat little device and claims that the golfer can close the club head without any torque applied via the elbow/wrist etc. Even has stated Stricker has no wrist cock so and uses the so called effect. Of course, maybe he's on to something and all the science guys are just full of it, lol. Lassie is that you WILDTHING?

  • glkglk send it in jerome Members Posts: 3,317 ✭✭
    edited Apr 2, 2019 12:47pm #8

    That’s a velocity graph not movement. Get one of cheethams showing movement
    https://www.philcheetham.com/media/Phillip-Cheetham-Doctoral-Dissertation-2014.pdf

    Look at figure 14 on page 31

  • glkglk send it in jerome Members Posts: 3,317 ✭✭

    I’ve said all a long that the ryke effect is ud/ supination. Naming something after yourself that has been know for A decade before he created the so-called ryke effect is s hoot. But Kevin claims otherwise. He is retired guy with time on his hands. Never taught golf. No access to 3D. He looks at YouTube video.

  • glkglk send it in jerome Members Posts: 3,317 ✭✭

    His work is bogus. Believe what you will.

  • glkglk send it in jerome Members Posts: 3,317 ✭✭
    edited Apr 2, 2019 10:03pm #11

    @LASSIEGOHOME said:
    But good enough to be included in the 'World Scientific Congress of Golf VII' (as was Phil Cheethams's research too).
    https://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/pdf/10.1123/ijgs.2015-0007
    See S10 , S14 and Ryke effect on S81 .
    But interestingly enough, you have still not criticised the physics of the Ryke effect, which looks okay to me for the explanation of how the DP motion is negated and transforms to a conical pendulum . Whether or not the ' Ryke angle' is somehow connected to more clubhead speed is still dubious but there is no doubt in my mind that the phenomenon can be made to happen (and help assist squaring of the clubface in the late downswing by a passive pitching of the lead arm).

    So let me addresss the items on RYKE and motorcyle, etc.
    Here is RK's own definition of the RYKE effect - he has never supplied any information on how he determined this, how he measured this, etc. The physics are unknown since he has never supplied any. Kevin's own defintion of the Ryke effect:


    The present inventor has made the surprising discovery that closing of the club head face during the downswing is not caused by a torque generated within the player's elbow joint in their leading arm, or by a torque generated in the player's wrists. Rather, this action is generated by the leading hand moving downwardly during the downswing as the club is rotated from behind the golf ball generally towards the ball. This allows the club head to rotate as a result of relative positions and velocities of the club head and player's hands.

    Club head rotation that is achieved in this manner—which is absent any torque generated either within the player's elbow or forearm joint in their leading arm, or within the player's wrists—is an action that is defined by the inventor as the “RYKE Effect”.


    So he says you can close the face with zero torque supplied by the elbow, forearm, wrist - how do you do that when they
    are actively supply torques throughout the swing - and every swing has supination during the release - the wrist are flexing/extending and going along for the supination ride. What are these joints doing and where is his evidence to support this - this is physically impossible to do - do you stop your elbow/forearm/wrist from supinating during the release to perform this so called Ryke effect? Where is his work to show the physics? What were his methods? How did he measure body movements - what 3D system did he use - what level players were involved in his work? - did he model this beyond the modified double pendulum and where is it?

    Second, the motorcycle is seen in all good swings - I've emailed Tyler Ferrell on this and he has seen 1000s of 3D graphs (he actually was one of the first person's involved in analysis of 3D swing graphs) and he has seen this move in all of these "tour" swings (be they tour or good ams). Cheetham's graphs show the move - the graph you posted has it but since it is a velocity graph as noted in Cheetham's dissertation flex/extend is opposite the movement graph) - so that velocity graph shows the flexion happening (it's negative) and then going to extension (going positive) right before impact.

    Concerning generating a "passive" torque that aids in club squaring try shallowing the club, ie getting the path of the club's COM below the hand path during the downswing - these two guys (and Sasho modeled this ) discuss this here

    I also find the lack of interest of the golf science crowd in the Ryle effect pretty telling. If this is some big insight into the swing, why no interest? Why no other research?

    Post edited by glk on
  • AMGolfProAMGolfPro Members Posts: 63 ✭✭

    Alpha

    I have to admit, you had me fooled over the past week, or so.

    At first, I thought you were assigned to WRX as part of the Jacobs/Nesbit book promotion tour.

    I now realize there is no way in h*ll either of them would admit association with you, and that you are simply here to make mockery of them. . . and yourself.

    Please proceed. . . at our amusement.

  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Members Posts: 2,774 ✭✭

    @AMGolfPro said:
    Alpha

    I have to admit, you had me fooled over the past week, or so.

    At first, I thought you were assigned to WRX as part of the Jacobs/Nesbit book promotion tour.

    I now realize there is no way in h*ll either of them would admit association with you, and that you are simply here to make mockery of them. . . and yourself.

    Please proceed. . . at our amusement.

    Disagree. This is exactly the tone they have been proceeding with ever since the book came out.

  • AMGolfProAMGolfPro Members Posts: 63 ✭✭

    I do not think you disagree. . . my comments were not intended to be any form of endorsement or praise for anyone in that ‘camp,’ or their book.

  • AMGolfProAMGolfPro Members Posts: 63 ✭✭

    Alpha

    Nothing you have posted makes you or Jacobs or Nesbit ‘right.’ In fact, the model used, measurements collected and conclusions drawn are NOT ‘right.’

    There is no perfect science or scientific method. Again, all models are wrong, but some can be useful.

    As example, and as Frozen Divots previously explained, Newton proved his theory with math, but his theory was wrong. . . still, useful toward advancing further understanding.

    The entire basis of scientific advancement is critical thinking. You, Jacobs and Nesbit are present yourselves as being beyond approach, and are simply critical. The Jacobs 3D model MIGHT prove useful, but you are wrong in your thinking and presentation of thoughts.

    You reap what you sow Alpha.

  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Members Posts: 2,774 ✭✭

    @AMGolfPro said:
    I do not think you disagree. . . my comments were not intended to be any form of endorsement or praise for anyone in that ‘camp,’ or their book.

    I disagree that they would not associate with him. The tone he has set here is right in line with the tone they have set since the release of the book. It is one of 3 people. Feltman, silva, or dandy. Finney's been asked repeatedly by guys in the other camp to tone it down. He and Brian have their own deal and finney is passionate about this stuff.

  • AMGolfProAMGolfPro Members Posts: 63 ✭✭

    @Fort Worth Pro said:

    @AMGolfPro said:
    I do not think you disagree. . . my comments were not intended to be any form of endorsement or praise for anyone in that ‘camp,’ or their book.

    I disagree that they would not associate with him. The tone he has set here is right in line with the tone they have set since the release of the book. It is one of 3 people. Feltman, silva, or dandy. Finney's been asked repeatedly by guys in the other camp to tone it down. He and Brian have their own deal and finney is passionate about this stuff.

    Gotcha, and agree. . . it was ‘tongue in cheek’ statement that did not come across as intended. Of course they associate with him.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file