Jacobs 3D

[Fort Worth Pro]

> @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> > @"Fort Worth Pro" said:

> > Your copy and paste ability from facebook is truly impressive.

>

> So is yours!

> You can torque a club with your teeth if you wanted so this stuff about the wrists is so 2d it's a non starter for 3d dynamics, 1d is better then 2d! You and Sasho should get together and publish your 3d dynamic results of the golf swing from that study of yours. Should be a small book with a lot of 2d pics and diagrams...lol!

>

>

>

>

 

I didn't copy and paste from facebook. The pictures I posted were straight from Nesbit's paper "A Three Dimensional Kinematic and Kinetic Study of the Golf Swing".

 

[Fort Worth Pro]

> @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> > @"Fort Worth Pro" said:

> > > @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> > > > @"Fort Worth Pro" said:

> > > > Your copy and paste ability from facebook is truly impressive.

> > >

> > > So is yours!

> > > You can torque a club with your teeth if you wanted so this stuff about the wrists is so 2d it's a non starter for 3d dynamics, 1d is better then 2d! You and Sasho should get together and publish your 3d dynamic results of the golf swing from that study of yours. Should be a small book with a lot of 2d pics and diagrams...lol!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I didn't copy and paste from facebook. The pictures I posted were straight from Nesbit's paper "A Three Dimensional Kinematic and Kinetic Study of the Golf Swing".

> >

>

> Like who cares, you know a different way to get the info from a closed group on facebook please enlighten me. Like you never cut and paste. Call the cut and paste police!

 

Just saying It's nice when someone can discuss something with their own thoughts on the topic versus parroting what they've been told

 

 

[Fort Worth Pro]

> @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> FW here's my thoughts on the topic

>

> Sasho got it wrong, Nesbit got it right, besides that Jacobs 3d is a really good tool to help people and that's the most important part. I believe they are correct in their assertions but I wouldn't say Sasho doesn't help people and I know for a fact he's a good guy unlike Finney who is a loon! I know you're in their camp so to speak but at the end of the day it's just golf. Some here think it's war. I don't but I will stand up for myself.

>

> There you go My thoughts.

 

You and I are not way far apart on this in our feelings about the situation even if we have come to different conclusions about where the truth lies.I don't think sasho got it wrong. Like I said the changing frame of reference isn't enough to explain the difference in the two different conclusions. I think where I have big problems is in the public attacks and sasho, Kwon, and tutleman along with the 100% correct statements.There is no reason for Jt and it's pointless. Science never claims it has it 100%.

 

Finney is no more a loon than Jacobs or manzella. They are all passionate about this stuff. They are all flawed human beings who have made mistakes just like you and me. Brian is the one who labeled the whole thing a war and continues to do so. It's nonsense, like you said, end of the day it's just golf swing.

 

As for the cut and paste. I am going to participate in the highest of ironies and quote Walt Whitman "You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the specters in books, You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me, You shall listen to all sides and filter them from yourself." we all learn from other people but I do not regurgitate that. I try and take from all those people and figure out what I believe to be true and useful. That is different than parroting what I was told.

[AMGolfPro]

TS

 

You raise an important point, which I think has been lost to some extent in the course of this ‘debate’ between the various ‘torque camps.’

 

What Frozen Divots has long said is that most golfers, including most at the highest level, are not making MOST EFFICIENT golf swings.

 

Most efficient is angular momentum chasing torque (L chasing T), where club head gathers or ‘gains’ on itself. It’s the ‘free ride,’ or what Frozen Divots also commonly refers to as ‘flipping the pole.’

 

Most efficient is NOT torquing, or ‘throwing’ the club head into angular momentum. Tutelman, Como/Sasho and Jacobs/Nesbit are all describing their views, findings and interpretations of this common approach. Golf can, and most often is played this way - even at the highest level. Simply not the most efficient, e.g., prone to torque error.

 

Since this is the Jacobs 3D thread, best to just leave things at that for now. For those interested, I am certain Frozen Divots would be happy to expand upon L chasing T and related concepts in a separate thread.

[AMGolfPro]

‘_Magical free ride through impact_’ . . . Your words, not mine.

 

Angular momentum CHASING torque (L chasing T). Most efficient.

 

What part of L chasing T suggests to you that there is no force or torque in golf swing?

 

Where does the club head angular momentum come from in the most efficient golf swings? Of course the hands ARE connected to the golf club. . . you just do not know the most efficient way to use them.

 

Like most, you want to torque into angular momentum. . . then chase the club head with more torque. It works, better for some than others, but is not most efficient.

[AMGolfPro]

Lassie

 

Yes, Professor Lewin does a nice job. As you know, FD started his classic L chasing T thread on SITD with that video years ago.

 

One point of importance not specifically addressed in the video is torque error. Nonetheless, the concept can be easily appreciated.

 

In the video, the wheel’s hub is secured by hanging wire. This negates or, at least, minimizes torque error. Imagine the wire were ‘moving around’ in space. The fluid and efficient nature of the motion would become hectic and unpredictable. . . it would become inefficient.

 

Perhaps best to continue this discussion in the torque error thread. . . topic is way beyond this dead horse known as Jacobs 3D

[Fade]

The complete lecture is here, and it is entirely unclear to me how this applies to the golf-swing, unless you are talking about 'beta-torque'.

 

 

[Fade]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> The video relates and puts the golf swing fully into context.

Please explain this further.

 

[AMGolfPro]

Lassie

 

For purposes of furthering discussion, how could you envision getting club head from top of backswing to, say, the start of your ‘functional swing plane?’ I’m asking in terms of L chasing T versus ‘torque and chase.’

 

The ‘free ride’ and ‘flipping the pole’ are descriptors that do NOT suggest a more efficient golf swing is devoid of effort, force, torque . . . instead, more related to how club head angular momentum is ‘gained,’ and how torque develops.

 

Alpha and his masters believe most efficient is torque and chase. It’s not most efficient, even if it’s what most golfers execute. They are trying ‘model’ torque and chase, and aren’t even getting that right.

 

Getting back to L chasing T, the torques are not limited to the hand connection to the club - the so-called ‘hub.’ Nonetheless, this hub represents Alpha Man and his masters obsession.

 

Does torque develop? Absolutely! As indicated before, there is a difference between force applied by the hands, and that applied to the hands. As Frozen Divots has described, a difference between distributing and inheriting.

 

How one gets to the ‘functional swing plane’ - and forces/torques at play - is useful in differentiating L chasing T from torque and chase.

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

How is the angular momentum GAINED that you ‘sum’ and ‘factor in?’

 

Professor Lewin used a buffer wheel to get torque about the hub.

 

Frozen Divots gave you a clue how Professor Lewin could go about it differently. . . more efficiently AND related to golf swing. Of course, you ‘seriously doubted that.’

 

The problem you are having stems from your comments in another thread, in which you failed to understand and accept the important role gravity has in an efficient golf swing.

 

L chasing T versus torque and chase.

[dap]

This is the problem with using "science" in golf instruction. Who the heck is correct? Always going to be some clever dick who eventually comes along with a different theory or model.

[dap]

The vast majority of great players past and present were not taught with "science". They were taught with basics fundamentals gleaned from good players and through empirical observation. It is not "dark age" teaching.

 

I would say Tiger went the "science" route through Como and that didn't work out too good.

[oikos1]

Does all of this heady physics also apply to 3/4 swings, half swings, pitching, chipping and putting or is this just full swing business?

[PingEye2]

> @dap said:

> The vast majority of great players past and present were not taught with "science". They were taught with basics fundamentals gleaned from good players and through empirical observation. It is not "dark age" teaching.

>

> I would say Tiger went the "science" route through Como and that didn't work out too good.

 

> @dap said:

> The vast majority of great players past and present were not taught with "science". They were taught with basics fundamentals gleaned from good players and through empirical observation. It is not "dark age" teaching.

>

> I would say Tiger went the "science" route through Como and that didn't work out too good.

That’s very unfair to Chris Como. He inherited a very broken Tiger and, I would argue, helped him tremendously but the last surgeon helped the most. I think he is still using the information he gleaned from Como.

 

[AMGolfPro]

http://media3.giphy.com/media/1eEAmgbstqli42aAA8/giphy.gif?cid=790b76115cae79f44a77716e5936a351

 

[AMGolfPro]

Do not know Lassie, however, he did present some thoughtful posts.

 

Appears his posts touched a few of Jacobs/Nesbit nerve endings, e.g., impinged upon book sale campaign. . . and, of course, are now all deleted from thread.

 

Something stinks here!

 

http://media1.tenor.com/images/60aa50000fb3a9fc8b456343cc9a06cb/tenor.gif?itemid=3568844

 

[RichieHunt]

> @dap said:

> The vast majority of great players past and present were not taught with "science". They were taught with basics fundamentals gleaned from good players and through empirical observation. It is not "dark age" teaching.

>

> I would say Tiger went the "science" route through Como and that didn't work out too good.

 

I disagree.

 

Tiger's swing now is almost all of what he and Chris worked together on.

 

I think one can debate how much of an impact that had. My belief is that given Tiger's health issues when they started working together...having not played much competitive golf, not being able to practice, getting over the chipping yips, etc....I think Chris did a fine job with him.

 

'Science' is not really a problem with the golf swing. What I do see as a major potential problem in the golf instruction industry is now you're seeing a lot of scientists pop up and a lot of golf instructors that study all of this scientific research. Then they go on social media, make videos and write books about what principles they adhere to....all the while they are not giving many actual in-person lessons.

 

They don't understand how to apply the science, where the pitfalls are, what Joe Golfer tends to struggle with and actually have the knowledge to be critical of scientific research.

 

And now you're getting golfers that are trying to apply principles at home by either reading a book or whatever some golf instructor wrote on Facebook or they go for a lesson from a guy doing 40 lessons a year. Then when it doesn't work out...the golfer blames 'science.'

 

 

 

 

RH

[Fade]

> @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> Just read the process in the papers. THE RULES OF THE GAME ARE DERIVED FROM IT, ....

Exaggerate much?

[Fort Worth Pro]

This is actually quite hilarious. A discussion in Jacobs facebook forum has now been copy and pasted here. So Jacobs thinks he figured out a big secret by calling me Fort Worth Pro like it's ever been a secret on here who I am. Super sleuthing at its best.

[Fort Worth Pro]

Double post

[Neal Ilysme]

> @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> The Adams model - multi body dynamics software equipped with Fortran and C++ numerical solvers

> Basic description of the process:

> Reviewing Results Against Physical Test Data

> ■ Iterating Your Design

> ■ Optimizing Your Design

> ■ Automating the Design Process

>

In Computer science lingo: An iterative and incremental development methodology for an application that references external librairies.

Hardy a selling point. Succinctly describes any applications written in the last 30 years.

 

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

1. There is no physics unique to the golf swing. It’s physics. The physics differs between efficient and inefficient, but is not novel in either instance. There is nothing to prove or disprove.

2. You understanding of physics is wrong, e.g., starting with your inability to comprehend gravity and it’s important role in an efficient golf swing. Jacobs/Nesbit entire premise is based on how much work the golfer does to the golf club. Entirely inefficient, even if it’s the approach most golfers take, and modern instruction preaches.

3. BECAUSE Frozen Divots understands physics, he understands the golf swing, both efficient and inefficient. BECAUSE Jacobs/Nesbit have limited understanding, they are stuck trying to figure out the golf swing. Their model is wrong. Their measurements are wrong, and irrelevant nonetheless.

4. Jacobs/Nesbit have modeled around their theory, and their model is wrong. No worries, do not need theories or models to understand, as their is no new physics going on in the golf swing. They have wasted their time, and lots of suckers have wasted their money buying their books of false measurements. . . irrelevant measurements.

5. You disparage a ‘hobbyist’ because his every day focus and physics application is not the golf swing. Why in the world would any physicist attempt to define the physics of the golf swing? There is no unique physics to be discovered. So, it’s understandable why you, Jacobs and Nesbit are so threatened by a ‘hobbyist.’ Jacobs/Nesbit life’s work is one of an obvious motion that they have mascaraed with unnecessary complexity and through a model that is wrong.

6. Frozen Divots does not need to publish anything on the golf swing to understand the golf swing, or physics behind it. Nobody does. Incredible waste of time. Physics is physics. Jacobs/Nesbit have tried to measure and assign values to what is already known, and their measurements are wrong. Again, no big deal. Nobody needs ‘measurements’ to confirm what’s going on. In other words, if Jacobs/Nesbit understood the physics, they wouldn’t be wasting their time trying to figure out the physics of the golf swing. Their work represents bookshelf and internet clutter.

7. Nobody is going to try and prove Jacobs/Nesbit wrong. Their model is wrong. That aside, no model is even required. Their work and measurements are irrelevant.

 

[AMGolfPro]

Ok Alpha Man, let’s try this.

 

You want someone to PROVE that Jacobs/Nesbit model is wrong.

 

Not required. Why? Because ALL models are wrong, including Jacobs/Nesbit.

 

Some models are useful. Jacobs/Nesbit model is not. Their measurements are wrong and meaningless.

[AMGolfPro]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> You don’t have to manually torque, pull back, pull up, etc if you don’t allow things to align in rotation. Use the true couple.

> You can’t have a true resultant force if you allow what rotation naturally does.

> Rotation seeks alignments and those alignments aren’t good.

 

Amen FD!

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

Go to your masters and tell them to watch the video below. Not personally acquainted with Mr. Martin, but he is light years ahead of anything your masters are peddling with ‘torque and chase’ approach to the golf swing.

 

Your masters are trying to model a class B swing. It’s irrelevant that their measurements are wrong, as what they are trying to measure is completely useless. Nothing more than bookshelf and internet clutter.

 

[AMGolfPro]

 

 

Alpha Man wrote: “_Fortunately for this guy he puts forces and torques on all the clubs that he uses. He can't escape the fact that he will put torques on the clubs in his golf swing and if he was tested it would show that he does that_.”

 

You are wrong. Your masters have led you astray.

 

They chose a class B swing to model because it’s what most golfers execute - even at the highest levels of the game. Torque and compensate. Again, irrelevant that their measurements are wrong because - right or wrong - the measurements are COMPLETELY useless.

 

Tell your masters to watch the video by Mr. Martin until they understand the physics behind an efficient, class A swing. Then ask them how their lab’s magic elixir differentiates what the golfer does to the club from what the club does to the golfer?

 

Alpha Man wrote: “_What's interesting is you show up every time Frozen does... a True Couple!_”

 

You got it mange!

[Ghost of Snead]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> Geez, I compliment you on a funny joke and you can’t even handle that...

> I’ll do a book, or video something. But what will you do when you have to go to Jacobs and say ‘**I’m using FD’s swing, hitting it too far too easily**’

> Can you live with that?

There's a guy in Sweden that promises the same thing.

 

 

[Ghost of Snead]

> @"Tremendous Slouch" said:

> > @"Ghost of Snead" said:

> > > @"Frozen Divots" said:

> > > Geez, I compliment you on a funny joke and you can’t even handle that...

> > > I’ll do a book, or video something. But what will you do when you have to go to Jacobs and say ‘**I’m using FD’s swing, hitting it too far too easily**’

> > > Can you live with that?

> > There's a guy in Sweden that promises the same thing.

> >

> >

>

>

>

Proof is in the pudding slouch.

Let's see proof that FD's swing is superior. The guy in Sweden makes bold claims as well, but alas ... no evidence.

 

[AMGolfPro]

FD ain’t selling his knowledge in the form of books, videos, or otherwise. He ain’t paying - I mean ‘sponsoring’ - WRX to promote his views and business. He’s just a golf ‘hobbyist’ sharing his insight . . . . and calling out B.S. for what it is on an internet golf forum.

 

Don’t like it, or believe what FD has to say, then tune out. . . also free to give your credit card number to Jacobs or anyone else selling their magic elixir on the internet or range. That’s cool.

[Ghost of Snead]

> @AMGolfPro said:

> FD ain’t selling his knowledge in the form of books, videos, or otherwise. He ain’t paying - I mean ‘sponsoring’ - WRX to promote his views and business. He’s just a golf ‘hobbyist’ sharing his insight . . . . and calling out B.S. for what it is on an internet golf forum.

>

> **Don’t like it, or believe what FD has to say**, then tune out. . . also free to give your credit card number to Jacobs or anyone else selling their magic elixir on the internet or range. That’s cool.

Don't know enough about the physics of the golf swing to believe or disbelieve FD's or Jacobs' statements. But since the purpose of golf swing science is the eventual translation of the complicated to the simple to be employed by the masses, it would be nice for FD to present his ideas in a manner most of us can understand. I believe he said either in this thread or another that most PGA Tour pros are inefficient in their swings. Give us a swing analysis of a top pro explaining where they go wrong.