Jump to content

BatManOneTwo

Banned
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. bph7, You wrote-: "As to your first point, it is a fact, Your only line of argument against it is to access the system and data and show us why it's wrong. Thus far your arguments to the contrary have been entirely unpersuasive. The data says what it says, and it disagrees strongly with your conclusions." You are free to believe that you have established incontrovertible "facts" and you are free to treat me as a second-class individual, who you deem a fool, and who you want to be banned from this forum. I personally will choose to decide whether your 3-D system has any validity if you fir
  2. Fort Worth Pro, You wrote-: "You can disagree all you want but that would just be you choosing to be wrong. At p6 the angle between the club and left forearm is almost 100% dictated by ulnar/radial deviation." I agree with you that the angle between the club and the left forearm is almost 100% dictated by radial/ulnar deviation, which happens within the plane of an intact LAFW if the golfer uses the intact LAFW/GFLW technique. However, if the intact LAFW is disrupted by a significant amount of left wrist extension, then another angle is established between the left forearm and the clubshaf
  3. bph7, You wrote-: "On the merits, the current state of the art data proves you profoundly wrong." That's an opinion, and not a proven fact, and you are entitled to harbor that personal opinion. You also wrote-: "You have no interest in open discussion, if you did you'd listen to actual teachers who have access to better data/measurements than you and actually know what is going on." I disagree with your assertion - because I am very interested in open discussion and I very carefully and very thoughtfully evaluate the posts of actual teachers (like Dan Carraher). However, I disagree wit
  4. Mann...you are all over the map with your arguments. So much idiocy in one post. First. You can not see left wrist flexion extension at p6 in a 2d face on. Second. You say that the left wrist remains unchanged from 7 to 7.2, that the sample rate on an AMM can't account for the speed through impact and yet say the left wrist isn't extending prior to impact when the AMM clearly shows it is. Third, the left wrist is clearly changing flexion/extension through the entire downswing as shown by AMM. It is not "unchanged" and the sample rate is plenty fast enough to measure throughout the downswing.
  5. Dan, Thank you for posting that 3-D graph of Jordan Spieth's golf swing. I noted that it showed a linear degree of increasing left wrist extension happening between impact and P8 of ~17 degrees, which means that there is only ~8 degrees of change happening between impact and P7.5. If his left wrist was 6 degrees flexed at impact, and there is an additional 8 degrees of extension added between impact and P7.5, then that means that the left wrist is only 2 degrees extended beyond a GFLW at P7.5. That is very compatible with my claim that there can only be an insignificant amount (which I arbit
  6. Dan, You wrote-: "I'm not misrepresenting anything. You're holding the stills of Grant Wait as more accurate than 3D by saying that the video isn't matching the 3D data. So yes you're saying the video captured is more accurate than the 3D data even though it's not captured at a faster speed when you use the stills as evidence. You can't claim the 3D data is too slow and then use grainy stills from video that's not shot at a faster speed as evidence. It's not only illogical but the definition of hypocrisy". When did I ever state that those Grant Waite still images are more accurate than
  7. Already did. The photos are clear and 3D is clear. Left wrist is 26* flexed at p6.5, flexed 6* at impact and extended 11* at p8. You're just as dillusional as Jeff Mann, Mr Martin. And my comment about 3D vs camera is the fact you are using video shot at less than 250hz saying it's more accurate than the 3D. The video of Grant isn't shot at a faster speed than the 3D capture Dan, You wrote-: "And my comment about 3D vs camera is the fact you are using video shot at less than 250hz saying it's more accurate than the 3D. The video of Grant isn't shot at a faster speed than the 3D captu
  8. Dan, You wrote-: "250hz would be faster than what a 240fps camera would show. So your suggestion that 3D can't capture fast enough yet a camera can is obviously ridiculous". Your first statement is true - because 250Hz is faster than 240Hz. However, your 2nd statement is not true because a Phantom camera can operate at much faster frame capture rates eg. 5,000 - 100,000 frames/second. Here is a swing video of John Oda's swing taken at 8,200 frames/second [media=] [/media] Here are capture images of his hand motion through impact. The images are not grainy and the parallax disto
  9. It might be hard on the wrist to not be extending at impact. (ie. easily injured). I would think the hand would at least have the extensor muscles solidly engaged. You wrote-: "It might be hard on the wrist to not be extending at impact. (ie. easily injured)." I respect your "right" to harbor that opinion, but I harbor a very different opinion. I believe that it is very easy to avoid having left wrist extension through impact (between impact and P7.2) if one maintains the angular targetward/forward motion of the left arm so that it perfectly matches the angular velocity of the clubsha
  10. Mann...you are all over the map with your arguments. So much idiocy in one post. First. You can not see left wrist flexion extension at p6 in a 2d face on. Second. You say that the left wrist remains unchanged from 7 to 7.2, that the sample rate on an AMM can't account for the speed through impact and yet say the left wrist isn't extending prior to impact when the AMM clearly shows it is. Third, the left wrist is clearly changing flexion/extension through the entire downswing as shown by AMM. It is not "unchanged" and the sample rate is plenty fast enough to measure throughout the downswing.
  11. Dan, I posted this image. You then wrote the following-: "Of course I'm using those dots. They are showing his wrist angles. Again not my problem you can't see what I can. I see exactly what the 3D shows." You state that you can clearly see what the 3D shows in that particular Grant Waite swing. So, can I - and I can see that the 3-D graph shows a marked amount (~20-40 degrees) of left forearm clockwise rolling happening between impact and ~P7.1. Visual evidence of that amount of clockwise rolling of the lower left forearm is also clearly evident by looking at the relative motion o
  12. Mann...you are all over the map with your arguments. So much idiocy in one post. First. You can not see left wrist flexion extension at p6 in a 2d face on. Second. You say that the left wrist remains unchanged from 7 to 7.2, that the sample rate on an AMM can't account for the speed through impact and yet say the left wrist isn't extending prior to impact when the AMM clearly shows it is. Third, the left wrist is clearly changing flexion/extension through the entire downswing as shown by AMM. It is not "unchanged" and the sample rate is plenty fast enough to measure throughout the downswing.
  13. Fort Worth Pro, You wrote-: "Those markers show the bottom marker moving from behind the top marker to inline and then in front. Those markers show the wrist extending." I fully agree with your first observational sentence-statement. However, I disagree with your 2nd sentence-statement (which is seemingly based on inductive reasoning). I think that there is a more plausible biomechanical explanation that can more readily explain why the bottom marker is bypassing the upper marker - and it has nothing to do with any additional left wrist extension.
  14. Fort Worth Pro, You wrote the following in post #49 -: " If you think a player can begin extending the wrist before impact, magically stop extending from 7-7.2, and then begin extending again to 8 then I now understand why you can't play. That might be one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard floated in a golf forum and that is saying something." I agree with you that it would be an extremely dumb idea for a golfer to believe that he can start extending the left wrist before impact, then "magically" stop extending the left wrist from P7 => P7.2, and then start extending the left wrist
  15. Flipping. It autocorrected I'm looking at his wrist, not my problem you have no clue what you're looking at. Sampling rate and capture rate is a non issue. It's capturing as fast or faster than the video stills you're using. I posted two photos both from perpendicular to the forearm showing Spieth extended at p6.5 and flat at p7.1 and could some at p8 showing him extended. You know the exact same thing 3D shows. The graph shows smooth and constant extension through impact. Like I said you'll never admit your wrong even though all the proof and evidence is staring you right in the f
×
×
  • Create New...