ANNOUNCEMENT:
Please have patience. We understand that this sucks and it will get MUCH better.

Link to full post HERE
Please add any bugs (problems) with new software in the Website Help Forum. There is a dedicated thread HERE.

Fighting Gravity and THE Club Weight

1356

Comments

  • ZitlowZitlow Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    If you've ever used an ax to cut down a tree you know it's more efficient and uses less energy to make a downward blow versus an upward blow.



    Take a golf club and make a motion like you're swinging an ax downward into the base of a tree. Now make a motion like you're swinging an ax upward into the base of a tree. Which motion feels smoother? Which motion would create less wear and tear on your body?
  • iteachgolfiteachgolf Advanced Members Posts: 16,480 ✭✭
    Zitlow wrote:


    If you've ever used an ax to cut down a tree you know it's more efficient and uses less energy to make a downward blow versus an upward blow.



    Take a golf club and make a motion like you're swinging an ax downward into the base of a tree. Now make a motion like you're swinging an ax upward into the base of a tree. Which motion feels smoother? Which motion would create less wear and tear on your body?




    You can’t swing an ax upward at the base of a tree. And the golfswing is nothing like swinging an ax, not only is it exponentially lighter but the AOA isn’t 45* in a golf swing.
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭

    dj* wrote:


    Krt22 wrote:


    Who says the physics isn't settled? You?




    Physics is settled. The argument about the forces and torques in the golf swing are not. Michael Jacobs released his long awaited book last week. Conversation and discussion is ongoing.




    Although physics is not one of my areas of expertise these sentences seem to be in some degree of conflict. If physics is settled, and if torque and forces are properties within physics, why would there be disagreements. Clarify?




    The laws of physics are settled. The disagreement on forces and torques is because we aren't measuring them but calculating them. How the best way to do that is the debate. The main thing come down to the frame of reference to do the calculation.




    Michael Jacobs



    March 9 at 8:36 AM





    When you are looking at how much the golfer has changed the angles of the club there needs to be a selected frame to start you off at “Zero”.

    Once you have your Zero, you figure out how much the angles changed.

    Those are the alpha beta gamma swing angles.



    That is as far as the elements book took you.

    Once you know how all those angles changed you can analyze relative to the time of the swing. That gives you the changes of angle position relative to time. Just like in a 3D dynamics textbook those are done from that zero frame (which we call the space frame)

    Next ...

    The frame that you used for zero then rotates around during the swing at the same angle change velocity as the club itself. Because of the club properties, the instantaneous stuff created by the force and torque must be done in the user frame.

    The engineer must choose which method he or she will use to marry all that together. There are common methods in any 3D dynamics textbook. The method Dr Steve uses is called numerical differentiation. He is really good at numerical differentiation, he is well published on that subject as well.

    That is the world of 3D Dynamics, it is complex for sure.

    These variables reduce in 2D which makes it so much easier to compute.











    53316613_2368669246484753_815961636400529408_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fykz1-1.fna&oh=520d0da619b1ef486a9ec7e04db58b98&oe=5D08E352
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited March 14
    Michael Jacobs



    March 7 at 1:07 PM



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.

    The Space Frame and the User Frame BOTH MUST EXIST to be able to do a 3D analysis.















    Michael Jacobs



    March 7 at 1:07 PM



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.











    53410264_2366016023416742_7669165643224055808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fykz1-1.fna&oh=0f757b2d90b46a48ecde1661148cdbe6&oe=5D206812
  • crapulacrapula Golf! Advanced Members Posts: 1,740 ✭✭
    Zitlow wrote:


    If you've ever used an ax to cut down a tree you know it's more efficient and uses less energy to make a downward blow versus an upward blow.



    Take a golf club and make a motion like you're swinging an ax downward into the base of a tree. Now make a motion like you're swinging an ax upward into the base of a tree. Which motion feels smoother? Which motion would create less wear and tear on your body?




    I swing up and down to cut down a tree to make a V.
    Srixon Z 785 9.5 Project X HC HZRDUS Yellow 6.0
    Srixon Z F85 13.5 Project X HC HZRDUS Yellow 6.0
    Srixon Z 785 3-PW KBS Tour 120 S
    Cleveland RTX-3 50, 54, 58 KBS Tour 120 S
    Cleveland Elevado
    Srixon Yellow ZStar
  • baudibaudi Advanced Members Posts: 634 ✭✭
    edited March 14
    Krt22 wrote:


    Does either camp factor in gravity helping/hurting the motion of the club relative to the forces applied by the golfer?




    Forget about the club for one moment.



    To understand and feel more principles take notice of contemporary dance. A style which developed mid 20th century in reaction to ballet.

    It is basically the opposite. Contemporary dance shows what gravity in motion is all about.

    As a taught art form the lingo for the basics are stronger and better pronounced compared to golf.

    Learning to 'stack' the body in motion and feel the balance in off balance positions is stuff very common for this art form.



    If a player wonders how to go from flexion to extension back into flexion and extension sure a player can do so without the awareness of gravity and momentum.

    Yet the instant the player feels gravity as a force the mechanics will be super fluid. Or natural.
  • Krt22Krt22 Advanced Members Posts: 6,031 ✭✭
    None of that has much to do with with what is asked in the OP nor really what is being discussed.



    Either way, gravity is a constant, it can't be changed, it acts in a single direction. The golf swing is hard enough, thinking about gravity and ballet is something I have no desire to think about
  • dapdap Advanced Members Posts: 2,548 ✭✭
    The feel of club and arms dropping can be useful for a lot of players. Martin Hall reckons about 95% of them in his experience as a teacher. Definitely not dropping by gravity alone but a useful feel.
  • ZitlowZitlow Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    It's more about momentum and economy of motion, you can go downhill faster and smoother than you can go uphill.



    [media=]
  • oikos1oikos1 Advanced Members Posts: 2,222 ✭✭
    I thought the comparison of golf swing and axe swing faded away long ago with the STD site.
  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Advanced Members Posts: 2,755
    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [url="https://www.facebook.com/XGolfSchool?fref=gs&__tn__=,dC-R-R&eid=ARB_kYNPMaSNFIJf3ggurw9hkZqIJBwxzeSFwa2fPmIdRTZQhS7Xb3jrP93XvOOleAfGu1TOdQMFue_m&hc_ref=ARTRqk74emSpTvXjSL1tnKnFeg_ku1eUvNorpAy7_sn4nlROgURoCLedAw6inQmVhxI&dti=1491913404436131&hc_location=group"]Michael Jacobs[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1491913404436131/permalink/2012463645714435/"]March 7 at 1:07 PM[/url]



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.

    The Space Frame and the User Frame BOTH MUST EXIST to be able to do a 3D analysis.















    [url="https://www.facebook.com/XGolfSchool?fref=gs&__tn__=,dC-R-R&eid=ARB_kYNPMaSNFIJf3ggurw9hkZqIJBwxzeSFwa2fPmIdRTZQhS7Xb3jrP93XvOOleAfGu1TOdQMFue_m&hc_ref=ARTRqk74emSpTvXjSL1tnKnFeg_ku1eUvNorpAy7_sn4nlROgURoCLedAw6inQmVhxI&dti=1491913404436131&hc_location=group"]Michael Jacobs[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1491913404436131/permalink/2012463645714435/"]March 7 at 1:07 PM[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2366016016750076&set=gm.2012463645714435&type=3&eid=ARCaEnT7eCLeEcZl_dU98c3OqfuvWGluEbMaeq1HZAFGSpZdigdLJc45YPasmo3OQXRNPGPmtZpdI68c&ifg=1"]I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.[/url]











    [url="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2366016016750076&set=gm.2012463645714435&type=3&eid=ARCaEnT7eCLeEcZl_dU98c3OqfuvWGluEbMaeq1HZAFGSpZdigdLJc45YPasmo3OQXRNPGPmtZpdI68c&ifg=1"]53410264_2366016023416742_7669165643224055808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fykz1-1.fna&oh=0f757b2d90b46a48ecde1661148cdbe6&oe=5D206812[/url]




    Completely disingenuous. When brian and sasho were discussing at one point years ago, sasho suggested the reference frames being used might be different and brian insisted they were the same. I think it's an interesting idea but am really not sure it is necessary or useful. That isn't said to dismiss it. Still processing.
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭

    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    Michael Jacobs



    March 7 at 1:07 PM



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.

    The Space Frame and the User Frame BOTH MUST EXIST to be able to do a 3D analysis.















    Michael Jacobs



    March 7 at 1:07 PM



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.











    53410264_2366016023416742_7669165643224055808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fykz1-1.fna&oh=0f757b2d90b46a48ecde1661148cdbe6&oe=5D206812




    Completely disingenuous. When brian and sasho were discussing at one point years ago, sasho suggested the reference frames being used might be different and brian insisted they were the same. I think it's an interesting idea but am really not sure it is necessary or useful. That isn't said to dismiss it. Still processing.




    Manzella isn't the one who wrote the book or developed the 3d system for Jacobs 3d...so there's that. Plus Sasho hasn't written/published one single paper on this. Just social media campaigning. If Sasho knew about the reference frames why couldn't he figure it out, the truth is the book is without error and Finney and Sasho can't handle that fact. Nesbit is in a different league when it comes to 3d.
  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Advanced Members Posts: 2,755
    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [url="https://www.facebook.com/XGolfSchool?fref=gs&__tn__=,dC-R-R&eid=ARB_kYNPMaSNFIJf3ggurw9hkZqIJBwxzeSFwa2fPmIdRTZQhS7Xb3jrP93XvOOleAfGu1TOdQMFue_m&hc_ref=ARTRqk74emSpTvXjSL1tnKnFeg_ku1eUvNorpAy7_sn4nlROgURoCLedAw6inQmVhxI&dti=1491913404436131&hc_location=group"]Michael Jacobs[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1491913404436131/permalink/2012463645714435/"]March 7 at 1:07 PM[/url]



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.

    The Space Frame and the User Frame BOTH MUST EXIST to be able to do a 3D analysis.















    [url="https://www.facebook.com/XGolfSchool?fref=gs&__tn__=,dC-R-R&eid=ARB_kYNPMaSNFIJf3ggurw9hkZqIJBwxzeSFwa2fPmIdRTZQhS7Xb3jrP93XvOOleAfGu1TOdQMFue_m&hc_ref=ARTRqk74emSpTvXjSL1tnKnFeg_ku1eUvNorpAy7_sn4nlROgURoCLedAw6inQmVhxI&dti=1491913404436131&hc_location=group"]Michael Jacobs[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1491913404436131/permalink/2012463645714435/"]March 7 at 1:07 PM[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2366016016750076&set=gm.2012463645714435&type=3&eid=ARCaEnT7eCLeEcZl_dU98c3OqfuvWGluEbMaeq1HZAFGSpZdigdLJc45YPasmo3OQXRNPGPmtZpdI68c&ifg=1"]I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.[/url]











    [url="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2366016016750076&set=gm.2012463645714435&type=3&eid=ARCaEnT7eCLeEcZl_dU98c3OqfuvWGluEbMaeq1HZAFGSpZdigdLJc45YPasmo3OQXRNPGPmtZpdI68c&ifg=1"]53410264_2366016023416742_7669165643224055808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fykz1-1.fna&oh=0f757b2d90b46a48ecde1661148cdbe6&oe=5D206812[/url]




    Completely disingenuous. When brian and sasho were discussing at one point years ago, sasho suggested the reference frames being used might be different and brian insisted they were the same. I think it's an interesting idea but am really not sure it is necessary or useful. That isn't said to dismiss it. Still processing.




    Manzella isn't the one who wrote the book or developed the 3d system for Jacobs 3d...so there's that. Plus Sasho hasn't written/published one single paper on this. Just social media campaigning. If Sasho knew about the reference frames why couldn't he figure it out, the truth is the book is without error and Finney and Sasho can't handle that fact. Nesbit is in a different league when it comes to 3d.




    Someone should remind brian he didn't write the book. Have seen him say WE wrote this and WE published.



    Fact is sasho suspected the moving reference frames and BRIAN told him he was wrong. The book is different than how it was described for years. Book is right about how they are doing the math. I am going to quote a well known teacher when I asked him his thoughts on the changing frames of reference "Not that interesting. If that’s what it’s all been about then this is ridiculous"
  • leegee38leegee38 Advanced Members Posts: 80 ✭✭
    BB28403 wrote:


    Some trivia for anyone following. Who is the guy talking in the video I posted?

    Thanks everyone for chiming in, and the heavy weight teachers. Always nice to hear from the pros in the trenches.

    Keep posting! Comment down below... kidding




    I may have missed it reading thru the thread, but I didn't see where anyone answered your question. It is Pete Cowen.
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited March 15

    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    Michael Jacobs



    March 7 at 1:07 PM



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.

    The Space Frame and the User Frame BOTH MUST EXIST to be able to do a 3D analysis.















    Michael Jacobs



    March 7 at 1:07 PM



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.











    53410264_2366016023416742_7669165643224055808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fykz1-1.fna&oh=0f757b2d90b46a48ecde1661148cdbe6&oe=5D206812




    Completely disingenuous. When brian and sasho were discussing at one point years ago, sasho suggested the reference frames being used might be different and brian insisted they were the same. I think it's an interesting idea but am really not sure it is necessary or useful. That isn't said to dismiss it. Still processing.




    Manzella isn't the one who wrote the book or developed the 3d system for Jacobs 3d...so there's that. Plus Sasho hasn't written/published one single paper on this. Just social media campaigning. If Sasho knew about the reference frames why couldn't he figure it out, the truth is the book is without error and Finney and Sasho can't handle that fact. Nesbit is in a different league when it comes to 3d.




    Someone should remind brian he didn't write the book. Have seen him say WE wrote this and WE published.



    Fact is sasho suspected the moving reference frames and BRIAN told him he was wrong. The book is different than how it was described for years. Book is right about how they are doing the math. I am going to quote a well known teacher when I asked him his thoughts on the changing frames of reference "Not that interesting. If that's what it's all been about then this is ridiculous"






    Someone should remind SASHO he got it wrong! It's not just about frames of reference and if it's not that interesting why the Alpha War for 5 years and continuing to this day. It's funny that they couldn't figure it out but now it's like" it's how they are doing the math" You quoted a well known teacher? Nesbit is the premier phd on this he wrote and published many scientific papers and you get a well known teacher saying it's not that interesting .... That's a joke!



    The math is the math it's either correct or not, Nesbit doesn't own it, Sasho had 5 years and couldn't get it right, he wrote nothing and published nothing , and why would Manzella tell them and give away Jacobs 3d it's a I.Property. Sasho is a competitor and he wanted the keys to the vault.... too bad they are wrong and now Sasho is stuck with the fact he went around saying the right hand slows the club down and there is only basically a check swing at the bottom.....now that's ridiculous!!



    The did their analysis in 2d and that's the reason they couldn't figure it out, that's the reason for the user frame and space frame it's 3d analysis and you must have both frames... end of story...oh and there is no putting in early torque and coasting not happening!
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited March 15
  • MPStratMPStrat Advanced Members Posts: 942 ✭✭
    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [media=]




    This was interesting. Seems that another one of the big differences is that many from the Sasho camp say that the COM moves up immediately in transition, where Jacobs is saying that the COM moves down before positive alpha is applied.
  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Advanced Members Posts: 2,755
    edited March 15
    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [url="https://www.facebook.com/XGolfSchool?fref=gs&__tn__=,dC-R-R&eid=ARB_kYNPMaSNFIJf3ggurw9hkZqIJBwxzeSFwa2fPmIdRTZQhS7Xb3jrP93XvOOleAfGu1TOdQMFue_m&hc_ref=ARTRqk74emSpTvXjSL1tnKnFeg_ku1eUvNorpAy7_sn4nlROgURoCLedAw6inQmVhxI&dti=1491913404436131&hc_location=group"]Michael Jacobs[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1491913404436131/permalink/2012463645714435/"]March 7 at 1:07 PM[/url]



    I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.

    The Space Frame and the User Frame BOTH MUST EXIST to be able to do a 3D analysis.















    [url="https://www.facebook.com/XGolfSchool?fref=gs&__tn__=,dC-R-R&eid=ARB_kYNPMaSNFIJf3ggurw9hkZqIJBwxzeSFwa2fPmIdRTZQhS7Xb3jrP93XvOOleAfGu1TOdQMFue_m&hc_ref=ARTRqk74emSpTvXjSL1tnKnFeg_ku1eUvNorpAy7_sn4nlROgURoCLedAw6inQmVhxI&dti=1491913404436131&hc_location=group"]Michael Jacobs[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1491913404436131/permalink/2012463645714435/"]March 7 at 1:07 PM[/url]



    [url="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2366016016750076&set=gm.2012463645714435&type=3&eid=ARCaEnT7eCLeEcZl_dU98c3OqfuvWGluEbMaeq1HZAFGSpZdigdLJc45YPasmo3OQXRNPGPmtZpdI68c&ifg=1"]I would have hoped that they could have figured this out by now, but they need a lot of help apparently.[/url]











    [url="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2366016016750076&set=gm.2012463645714435&type=3&eid=ARCaEnT7eCLeEcZl_dU98c3OqfuvWGluEbMaeq1HZAFGSpZdigdLJc45YPasmo3OQXRNPGPmtZpdI68c&ifg=1"]53410264_2366016023416742_7669165643224055808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fykz1-1.fna&oh=0f757b2d90b46a48ecde1661148cdbe6&oe=5D206812[/url]




    Completely disingenuous. When brian and sasho were discussing at one point years ago, sasho suggested the reference frames being used might be different and brian insisted they were the same. I think it's an interesting idea but am really not sure it is necessary or useful. That isn't said to dismiss it. Still processing.




    Manzella isn't the one who wrote the book or developed the 3d system for Jacobs 3d...so there's that. Plus Sasho hasn't written/published one single paper on this. Just social media campaigning. If Sasho knew about the reference frames why couldn't he figure it out, the truth is the book is without error and Finney and Sasho can't handle that fact. Nesbit is in a different league when it comes to 3d.




    Someone should remind brian he didn't write the book. Have seen him say WE wrote this and WE published.



    Fact is sasho suspected the moving reference frames and BRIAN told him he was wrong. The book is different than how it was described for years. Book is right about how they are doing the math. I am going to quote a well known teacher when I asked him his thoughts on the changing frames of reference "Not that interesting. If that's what it's all been about then this is ridiculous"






    Someone should remind SASHO he got it wrong! It's not just about frames of reference and if it's not that interesting why the Alpha War for 5 years and continuing to this day. It's funny that they couldn't figure it out but now it's like" it's how they are doing the math" You quoted a well known teacher? Nesbit is the premier phd on this he wrote and published many scientific papers and you get a well known teacher saying it's not that interesting .... That's a joke!



    The math is the math it's either correct or not, Nesbit doesn't own it, Sasho had 5 years and couldn't get it right, he wrote nothing and published nothing , and why would Manzella tell them and give away Jacobs 3d it's a I.Property. Sasho is a competitor and he wanted the keys to the vault.... too bad they are wrong and now Sasho is stuck with the fact he went around saying the right hand slows the club down and there is only basically a check swing at the bottom.....now that's ridiculous!!



    The did their analysis in 2d and that's the reason they couldn't figure it out, that's the reason for the user frame and space frame it's 3d analysis and you must have both frames... end of story...oh and there is no putting in early torque and coasting not happening!




    You guys never go off script. You're one of 3 people Silva, feltman, or Jacobs himself. My money is on feltman. Not many sweaters to sell right now. What's funny is how you think the other guys view you versus how they actually view you. Nobody was trying to "steal" anything ,and it isn't a "war" just because 2 guys on one side keep calling it that. End of the day...it's a different way to measure. Like I said, I think it's interesting to think about but end of the day I just don't know if it's really of any value or really all that helpful. We will see
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited March 15
    A different way to measure, that's priceless! The truth is it's the correct 3d analysis, that's the reason Sasho couldn't figure it out, if it was simply a different way to measure you would think a PHD could do the analysis and come up with the answer. And that different way to measure shows that Sasho got it wrong so there's that! If you go around teaching something that is wrong it matters Sasho got it wrong and went around the world telling people the incorrect information... that's a big deal!



    No one mentioned stealing anything, how could they steal it? They just wanted Jacobs or Manzella to give it to them. Sasho called Nesbit at the start of this and asked Nesbit for help and Nesbit declined... that's a fact.





    You're a teacher so if you get the wrong info and teach it you might want to have the correct version when it's available... but hey maybe you don't. Personally I like info that is correct but that's just me.



    Oh and I'm fairly confident the " other side" views this side exactly the way they say they do on the golf Biomechanist facebook group.
  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Advanced Members Posts: 2,755
    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [url="




    At 16:15 he says that in every swing there is a negative beta force requiring a positive alpha torque into impact. Did he misspeak??
  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Advanced Members Posts: 2,755
    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    A different way to measure, that's priceless! The truth is it's the correct 3d analysis, that's the reason Sasho couldn't figure it out, if it was simply a different way to measure you would think a PHD could do the analysis and come up with the answer. And that different way to measure shows that Sasho got it wrong so there's that! If you go around teaching something that is wrong it matters Sasho got it wrong and went around the world telling people the incorrect information... that's a big deal!



    No one mentioned stealing anything, how could they steal it? They just wanted Jacobs or Manzella to give it to them. Sasho called Nesbit at the start of this and asked Nesbit for help and Nesbit declined... that's a fact.





    You're a teacher so if you get the wrong info and teach it you might want to have the correct version when it's available... but hey maybe you don't. Personally I like info that is correct but that's just me.



    Oh and I'm fairly confident the " other side" views this side exactly the way they say they do on the golf Biomechanist facebook group.




    Who did Jacobs try and hire at one point early in all of this to help him and who turned him down?
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited March 15
    Jacobs studied under S. Nesbit for 9 years that's all the help he needed.
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited March 15

    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [media=]




    At 16:15 he says that in every swing there is a negative beta force requiring a positive alpha torque into impact. Did he misspeak??






    You're a member of their facebook group, ask him. I personally did not hear him say that "in every swing" at 16:15
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭

    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    A different way to measure, that's priceless! The truth is it's the correct 3d analysis, that's the reason Sasho couldn't figure it out, if it was simply a different way to measure you would think a PHD could do the analysis and come up with the answer. And that different way to measure shows that Sasho got it wrong so there's that! If you go around teaching something that is wrong it matters Sasho got it wrong and went around the world telling people the incorrect information... that's a big deal!



    No one mentioned stealing anything, how could they steal it? They just wanted Jacobs or Manzella to give it to them. Sasho called Nesbit at the start of this and asked Nesbit for help and Nesbit declined... that's a fact.





    You're a teacher so if you get the wrong info and teach it you might want to have the correct version when it's available... but hey maybe you don't. Personally I like info that is correct but that's just me.



    Oh and I'm fairly confident the " other side" views this side exactly the way they say they do on the golf Biomechanist facebook group.




    Who did Jacobs try and hire at one point early in all of this to help him and who turned him down?




    To bad for that person if there was one.
  • chigolfer1chigolfer1 Advanced Members Posts: 755 ✭✭
    What is happening here? lol
  • Fort Worth ProFort Worth Pro Advanced Members Posts: 2,755
    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [media=]




    At 16:15 he says that in every swing there is a negative beta force requiring a positive alpha torque into impact. Did he misspeak??






    You're a member of their facebook group, ask him. I personally did not hear him say that "in every swing" at 16:15




    He said "you're ALWAYS gonna get a negative beta force"
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭

    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [media=]




    At 16:15 he says that in every swing there is a negative beta force requiring a positive alpha torque into impact. Did he misspeak??






    You're a member of their facebook group, ask him. I personally did not hear him say that "in every swing" at 16:15




    He said "you're ALWAYS gonna get a negative beta force"




    Just like Sasho's you're always gonna get a negative alpha torque/check swing, did Sasho misspeak , hey like I said ask him you're a member on the facebook group, the math doesn't lie and Sasho couldn't do the 3d dynamic analysis because he didn't understand that you need the 2 frames... user and space, there's just no getting around that fact Sasho got it wrong!



    There is no right hand slowing the club down and early torquing and then coasting to impact... not happening, the 3d analysis proves this when you know how to actually do the math!
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited March 15
    3D dynamics are non negotiable, there is only one way to derive the equations of motion. There are several methods to branch the kinematics with the kinetic but the equations are it. They are explained in Science of the Golf Swing





    Gravity is not even an after thought in the golf swing it's significance is minimal at best!
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭

    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    ALPHA MAN wrote:


    [media=]




    At 16:15 he says that in every swing there is a negative beta force requiring a positive alpha torque into impact. Did he misspeak??






    You're a member of their facebook group, ask him. I personally did not hear him say that "in every swing" at 16:15




    He said "you're ALWAYS gonna get a negative beta force"






    Jacobs answered he said this ...."For an iron definitely.Only few players I have seen have reversed the beta force all the way were a few driver swings" If you need more clarification on anything you should talk to him directly.
  • Frozen DivotsFrozen Divots Advanced Members Posts: 115
    edited March 15
    We need to get Newtonian PULL Gravity out of our minds.



    Gravity has a massive effect on a golf swing.



    If you think Gravity is an effortless drop then you are ignoring the full effect of what Gravity is.



    Gravity is all about Mass and relationships in motion. The storing of energy into mass on Earth is what Gravity is all about.
  • SilkySilky Advanced Members Posts: 726 ✭✭


    We need to get Newtonian PULL Gravity out of our minds.



    Gravity has a massive effect on a golf swing.



    If you think Gravity is an effortless drop then you are ignoring the full effect of what Gravity is.



    Gravity is all about Mass and relationships in motion. The storing of energy into mass on Earth is what Gravity is all about.




    FD,



    Please allow me to make some revisions to your statements.



    In the realm of Newtonian mechanics, gravity is a force - the kind that accelerates an apple to the ground, that keeps the earth in orbit around the sun. Momentum is that quantity "stored" in a mass and it is exactly mass x velocity in motion, not gravity. A force applied to a mass adds momentum to that mass - it is like a flow of momentum into and out of a mass. A torque is like a force but rather a flow of angular momentum that causes mass to rotate.



    Twirling a mass at the end of a string and that mass seems to defy earth gravity and "flies" horizontally. Same phenomenon when a girl twirls a hoola hoop around her waist. What gives? Do we need this sort of "flying" in a good golf swing?



    Alpha, beta, gamma torques effect rotations of the club around the hands in 3D in the frame of reference of the hands. The frame of reference of the hands is not an inertial frame for the hands do not move in 3D space with constant velocity. My concept is that alpha and beta torques are induced torques from the motion of the hands not from the direct actions of the hands themselves. The motion of the hands is the result of the motions of the lead shoulder and the trail elbow. So it is much more beneficial to study the motions of the lead shoulder and the trail elbow and to study the actions of the pivot that drive those motions.
  • wmblake2000wmblake2000 Advanced Members Posts: 5,417 ✭✭
    chigolfer1 wrote:
    What is happening here? lol




    That is the right question! No clue!
    Ping GMax 400 10.5
    Callawy Epic 5W
    Callaway Epic Hybrid 2h
    TM P790 4-AW
    Fourteen mt28v3 54, 58
    Cameron Futura 5W

    If you see any more new irons in my bag before 2020, call the paramedics because my wife will have seriously injured me
  • glkglk send it in jerome Advanced Members Posts: 3,225 ✭✭
    edited March 16

    chigolfer1 wrote:
    What is happening here? lol




    That is the right question! No clue!




    2 camps of golf scientists have divergent viewpoints on forces/torques in the golf swing. Unfortunately since direct measurement of these force/torques aren't being done (except by some guy in Japan with a so called million dollar grip), inverse dynamics are being used to figure out what these forces/torques are. One camp believes that the only forces/torques are being applied at the handle via the golfer, the other side believes that the motion of the COM can also induce some of these forces/torques in addition to what the golfer applies - thus the disagreement in pretty simplistic terms - anyone can freely jump in an correct this simplistic view, please.



    https://player.fm/series/the-golf-guru-show/ep-43-michael-finney-alpha-wars-live



    [url="https://player.fm/series/the-golf-guru-show/ep-42-brian-manzella-alpha-wars-live"]https://player.fm/series/the-golf-guru-show/ep-42-brian-manzella-alpha-wars-live[/url]
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • Frozen DivotsFrozen Divots Advanced Members Posts: 115
    Silky

    You are explaining a part of Newtonian Gravity. Newtonian Gravity is hickory shaft stuff. Einstein’s PUSH is that as well.

    Gravity is a result that changes based on masses, etc.

    The flying part you mention has no ‘defying’, that’s where most of science goes crooked. The opposite would be to say the falling apple defies other properties of Gravity. That’s just as easy to say.



    There is way more to it than the observable dropping of an apple. That’s just an elemental phenomenon that gets the mind going.



    Motions of masses create laws, it’s not that others are defied. Things change and those changes aren’t defying.



    We don’t do things in spite of Gravity....we don’t defy it and we don’t fight it. We are part of it. Take these effects away and we aren’t existing here, let alone playing golf.



    In the golf swing the goal is to get the clubhead doing things we cannot. You have to look at it in two systems, the person and the club.



    What’s going on is a complete ‘disagreement’ and massive deformation and change. If only for a split second. And that’s all Gravity.



    But I do get why people think Gravity is negligible because of the 9.81 (m/s^2) definition.

    Most think ‘relax and let fall’ when thinking of Gravity. That’s not it.

  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    A dime-size magnet has enough electromagnetic force to overcome all of Earth’s gravity and stick to the fridge.



    Gravity is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces.



    "We overcome gravity that binds us to the ground by flying in aircraft. We even, in a sense, defy gravity when we pick up and hold an object. We apply enough force through muscle power to prevent the object from falling back to Earth. We even 'overcome gravity' by standing or walking without falling over. In all of these cases we apply sufficient force to oppose the natural tendency of any object to fall back to the ground."



    Gravity is easily overcome by the forces and torques we apply in a golf swing rendering gravity in that respect to an after thought and not that relevant in a golf swing. Our muscles every day overcome gravity otherwise we would all still be pinned to the ground unable to move.
  • Frozen DivotsFrozen Divots Advanced Members Posts: 115
    Magnetic force is a charge and makes my point even more.
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    not when it comes to the golf swing!
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    If gravity was such a big deal in a golf swing you wouldn't even get the club off the ground and neither would you get in a position to even try to. It's not that relevant in swinging a club or as a matter of fact in doing a lot of other things in daily life we overcome it constantly and with very little effort!
  • Frozen DivotsFrozen Divots Advanced Members Posts: 115
    You’re using prehistoric understandings of Gravity. You’re defining Gravity as a downward attraction and that ignores everything else it does. There are other ‘directions’ to it.

  • GautamaGautama Advanced Members Posts: 743 ✭✭
    There's a weird, insecure defensiveness that tends to infect these threads for some reason. See the same thing with blade/CB debates. Makes them very uncomfortable to read, doesn't it?
    "I see the distorted swings, the hurried rounds, and now the electric carts tae ruin the course and rob us of our exercise...we have gone off the mark, gone after the wrong things, forgotten what it's all about"

    -Dr. Julian Sands, Golf in the Kingdom
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    it's not whether gravity is there or not there in a golf swing it's can we over come it.... yes we can.... easily! the universe has spoken we thank goodness are able to defy gravity.
  • Frozen DivotsFrozen Divots Advanced Members Posts: 115
    Einstein defines Gravity as a push. Did you know that? Apply this theory to golf for me. I’d like the people who say Gravity has little effect to define the Newtonian PULL as negligible and the Einstein PUSH as negbligle. Can you have it both ways? Show me how.
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭


    You're using prehistoric understandings of Gravity. You're defining Gravity as a downward attraction and that ignores everything else it does. There are other 'directions' to it.






    Yeah ok. I certainly ignore it while swinging a golf club and I'm very good at ignoring it all day long in every time I take a step! Sometimes ignoring is a good thing!
  • Frozen DivotsFrozen Divots Advanced Members Posts: 115
    How are you ignoring it? Are you defying a pull or push?
  • FadeFade Advanced Members Posts: 1,105 ✭✭
    You're using prehistoric understandings of Gravity. You're defining Gravity as a downward attraction and that ignores everything else it does. There are other 'directions' to it.




    Can we have a link to a site that describes the modern understandings of Gravity?
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭


    Einstein defines Gravity as a push. Did you know that? Apply this theory to golf for me. I'd like the people who say Gravity has little effect to define the Newtonian PULL as negligible and the Einstein PUSH as negbligle. Can you have it both ways? Show me how.




    Show me how it's such an important force in a golf swing and we can't over come it, plus there's this









    Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass. The most extreme example of this curvature of spacetime is a black hole, from which nothing—not even light—can escape once past the black hole's event horizon.[3] However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes gravity as a force which causes any two bodies to be attracted to each other, with the force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭


    How are you ignoring it? Are you defying a pull or push?






    I can pull or push or jump or do cartwheels i'm versatile when it comes to defying!
  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭
    Fade wrote:

    You're using prehistoric understandings of Gravity. You're defining Gravity as a downward attraction and that ignores everything else it does. There are other 'directions' to it.




    Can we have a link to a site that describes the modern understandings of Gravity?






    It's buried at St. Andrews in a pot bunker.
  • Frozen DivotsFrozen Divots Advanced Members Posts: 115
    I can describe anything about Einstein’s theory if you’d like. You need to understand that what he says doesn’t jive with what most people think Gravity is.

    The ‘efforts’ you say you use to ‘overcome’ aren’t fighting anything.



    It’s not like a swimmer fighting to overcome the water.



    That’s what you’re making this. It’s not that.





  • ALPHA MANALPHA MAN Advanced Members Posts: 104 ✭✭


    How are you ignoring it? Are you defying a pull or push?




    How do you manage to feed yourself are you pushing the food into or pulling it up to? ...lol!
Sign In or Register to comment.