Kelvin Miyahira: pro or con

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1411745461' post='10188585']
Yep , that's it Hogan gets what maybe 6 to 8 inches more forward or is it 12 inches yet his tailbone goes backwards the whole way down
[/quote]


6 or 8 inches? That's a stretch.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1411745252' post='10188561']
Do you have pictures of Hogan and Snead hitting an iron shot?


[/quote]

I do, but gotta head out to the range. Here is a link to the only iron swing of Jamie's I know of; there are a few of Hogan and Snead out there if you look for them:

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH9Ay7b9-cI"]https://www.youtube....h?v=EH9Ay7b9-cI[/url]

[Mcaesq]

It's pretty hilarious to see people decry this dude for being too "micro" in his discussion of the golf swing then turn around and go full autism mode about Hogan's swing. If what Kelvin's saying is too micro to change or make a difference, why bother contesting it?

The dude has some interesting points, and his articles on strength training to improve the golf swing are light years better than most of the fare out there. I like how he subcategorizes things and uses tons and tons of pictures to get the point across. At least for me, you can tell me to "make a deeper hip turn" all day, but that's about as effective as saying "hit the ball in the center of the clubface." Sure, the advice is technically correct in that it would lead to an improvement, but there's not much in the way of actual instruction or explanation of the way to get there. A few of his articles are very good at explaining exactly "what" and "how" some fairly ambiguous golf terms play out in practice and why one way may be better than another.

Plus nobody in their right mind is thinking about this stuff during the swing, nor is anyone (Kelvin included) advocating that you should.

I actually hope that the guy doesn't play golf. Sometimes it takes an outsider who isn't drenched in conventional wisdom to explain or reveal things that members in whatever group may not notice or take for granted.

If it's not your cup of tea, then that's cool. Very simple or condensed explanations aren't mine because I find myself unable to really understand the logic behind doing something; I'd rather see it spelled out in detail, but I can understand how what I prefer could be information overload for others.

[tsdean1980]

[quote name='Mcaesq' timestamp='1411753377' post='10189345']
It's pretty hilarious to see people decry this dude for being too "micro" in his discussion of the golf swing then turn around and go full autism mode about Hogan's swing. If what Kelvin's saying is too micro to change or make a difference, why bother contesting it?

[/quote]

Very good point indeed.

[eightiron]

Aloha wrx . I just thought I'd swing by and clear up the misconceptions about the crack ,where the sun should never shine from , and it's movement in the swing .

Now just be oatient as I fill in all the missing blanks for the students of the game and while I'm at it I'll help out those poor slicefixer kids with this vital piece of scientific groundbreaking discovery !

In the backswing you will observe the crack moving towards the target and I emphasis this on the picture below showing in 3 dimensions exactly what the crack is looking at . You see , I know this is new science , but the crack has vision and "looks" at a point in space further than reality

Conversely in the downswing you can note how the crack is now looking backwards behind the player , just follow the blue line and the arrow , subsequently , it has moved well to the rear of the golfer , as in moved backwards several yards . I hope this helps some of you , especially that 8 iron guy understand how you need to perceive 3 dimensions in play

[Ghost of Snead]

I would think the folks who enjoy KM's work are the same who dissect Hogan's swing. I'm in the information overload camp ... really don't need to know if transverse adduction of my left
shoulder is flattening my downswing plane enough. Look at my swing, tell/show me what's wrong and what I need to do to fix it. Anymore than that and I would tend to think too much ...

[eightiron]

Now don't get confused by the one dimensional line drawing , even though , with a rough estimate , the crack actually moved forwards at stages in the downswing . This sort of line drawing baffles me and clearly should not be allowed in golf instruction .besides it kind of puts a wrench in the spine engine theory


Later on with the topic of trail side lateral bend , performed immediately from the top of the swing , I will fill in all the missing blanks for you guys out there that already swing inside out 10 degrees , just think of the bonus. 10 degrees as a free giveaway and help you get to 20 in minutes

[tembolo1284]

8i my god what was that? haha.

[dannyuk32]

Reply to titlepost.
I've read it all, been to all the different forums, and trust me, Kelvin's work and Jeffys golf forum are the real deal. FFS read Kelvin's articles - which are amazingly free. They shame and put in perspective the majority of popular golf instruction out there.

[northgolf]

[quote name='dannyuk32' timestamp='1411762927' post='10190339']
Reply to titlepost.
I've read it all, been to all the different forums, and trust me, Kelvin's work and Jeffys golf forum are the real deal. FFS read Kelvin's articles - which are amazingly free. They shame and put in perspective the majority of popular golf instruction out there.
[/quote]

Hi newb,

Why should we trust you? You haven't posted enough here to have established any credibility.

[pick it up]

[quote name='dannyuk32' timestamp='1411762927' post='10190339']
Reply to titlepost.
I've read it all, been to all the different forums, and trust me, Kelvin's work and Jeffys golf forum are the real deal. FFS read Kelvin's articles - which are amazingly free. They shame and put in perspective the majority of popular golf instruction out there.
[/quote]


Sometimes you get what you pay for and sometimes not. Free doesn't mean anything when it comes to real value! They shame the majority of popular golf instruction? How would you know that? Is that your opinion or a fact?

[petter7]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1411743251' post='10188393']
It's Jeff Martin trolling time , Jeff Mann said it's junk science , and that's good enough for me . Jeff Mann is an expert doctor with 5 dimensional eyes! Plus PHD in human biomechanics etc
[/quote]

Robust laugh of the day…thanks 8!

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411768718' post='10190815']
[quote name='dannyuk32' timestamp='1411762927' post='10190339']
Reply to titlepost.
I've read it all, been to all the different forums, and trust me, Kelvin's work and Jeffys golf forum are the real deal. FFS read Kelvin's articles - which are amazingly free. They shame and put in perspective the majority of popular golf instruction out there.
[/quote]


Sometimes you get what you pay for and sometimes not. Free doesn't mean anything when it comes to real value! They shame the majority of popular golf instruction? How would you know that? Is that your opinion or a fact?
[/quote]

it's publicly viewable..

[petter7]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1411743478' post='10188413']
I think I figured out the main problem . When hogan gets to his top end backswing , maybe I'm stretching this a bit , but perhaps you think his tailbone has got a set of eyes looking further forward on an angle
Actually , yeah , that has to be it , it's got eyes and angled projection to a fictional point
[/quote]

You nailed it.

[attachment=2434837:Screen Shot 2014-09-26 at 10.15.41 PM.png]

[northgolf]

Here is something counter intuitive that I learned from KM.

I have a nasty habit of collapsing my left leg on the backswing, not toward the ball but laterally towards my left side. I've had two instructors tell me to put something between my knees and practice swinging that way (one said an empty medium bucket, another said a 3$ plastic kids ball).

So, I am reading KM's blog and he's talking about training muscle behavior by opposing force. He makes the point that when you put something in place that forces a muscle to press against it during your practice then it will strengthen the muscles pressing against it. This means having something between my legs while I am swinging strengthens the muscles that cause my left side to collapse laterally.

In the past 6 weeks, I've hit ~25 balls at the start of each range session with either a range bucket or the kid's ball between my leg. The rest of the practice session my primary intent has been to keep my knees equidistant during the swing. Every full swing shot I've take on the course has included that intent. I took a video on Monday and when I do my swing, my left knee still comes way to close to my right knee in the backswing. I was thinking: "OK, six weeks just isn't enough time, I'll just have to keep at it for the next six months and then it will be ingrained.

Thought more about it and used KM's thinking. The result was me taking a fairly light exercise band with it's ends tied together so it is a loop and putting that around my knees while I address the ball. To take a swing, I have to use my muscles to keep my knees apart. Guess what - shot after shot without my left knee collapsing in towards my right knee because the exercise band actively engages the muscles that prevent that collapse.

I'm not saying KM is the be all / end all of coaches, just that he brings up interesting ideas that sometimes work better than you would expect.

[Tod Johnson]

OMG! Those horrendous long drive mechanics...

[attachment=2434899:Screen Shot 2014-09-26 at 11.27.41 PM.png]

[goobers80]

[quote name='Mcaesq' timestamp='1411753377' post='10189345']
It's pretty hilarious to see people decry this dude for being too "micro" in his discussion of the golf swing then turn around and go full autism mode about Hogan's swing. If what Kelvin's saying is too micro to change or make a difference, why bother contesting it?

The dude has some interesting points, and his articles on strength training to improve the golf swing are light years better than most of the fare out there. I like how he subcategorizes things and uses tons and tons of pictures to get the point across. At least for me, you can tell me to "make a deeper hip turn" all day, but that's about as effective as saying "hit the ball in the center of the clubface." Sure, the advice is technically correct in that it would lead to an improvement, but there's not much in the way of actual instruction or explanation of the way to get there. A few of his articles are very good at explaining exactly "what" and "how" some fairly ambiguous golf terms play out in practice and why one way may be better than another.

Plus nobody in their right mind is thinking about this stuff during the swing, nor is anyone (Kelvin included) advocating that you should.

I actually hope that the guy doesn't play golf. Sometimes it takes an outsider who isn't drenched in conventional wisdom to explain or reveal things that members in whatever group may not notice or take for granted.

If it's not your cup of tea, then that's cool. Very simple or condensed explanations aren't mine because I find myself unable to really understand the logic behind doing something; I'd rather see it spelled out in detail, but I can understand how what I prefer could be information overload for others.
[/quote]

[color=#800080]You really shoulds nots use the word autism in such a way. It coulds offend some peoples on here. Plus i am nots sure what *autism mode* even is.[/color]

[petter7]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411768718' post='10190815']
Sometimes you get what you pay for and sometimes not. Free doesn't mean anything when it comes to real value!
[/quote]

[color=#232323]So you read Kelvin's free articles and you think they are a rip off at that price? lol[/color]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1411788747' post='10192339']
OMG! Those horrendous long drive mechanics...
[/quote]

[color=#232323]Aw, shucks Tod, just slide that 5 dimensional "seeing eye sacrum" forward, post up on the left leg, jump stall and hit that ball a country foot.[/color]

[pick it up]

[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1411822938' post='10193853']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411768718' post='10190815']
Sometimes you get what you pay for and sometimes not. Free doesn't mean anything when it comes to real value!
[/quote]

[color=#232323]So you read Kelvin's free articles and you think they are a rip off at that price? lol[/color]




[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1411788747' post='10192339']
OMG! Those horrendous long drive mechanics...
[/quote]

[color=#232323]Aw, shucks Tod, just slide that 5 dimensional "seeing eye sacrum" forward, post up on the left leg, jump stall and hit that ball a country foot.[/color]
[/quote]

[pick it up]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411842797' post='10195437']
[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1411822938' post='10193853']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411768718' post='10190815']
Sometimes you get what you pay for and sometimes not. Free doesn't mean anything when it comes to real value!
[/quote]

[color=#232323]So you read Kelvin's free articles and you think they are a rip off at that price? lol[/color]




[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1411788747' post='10192339']
OMG! Those horrendous long drive mechanics...
[/quote]

[color=#232323]Aw, shucks Tod, just slide that 5 dimensional "seeing eye sacrum" forward, post up on the left leg, jump stall and hit that ball a country foot.[/color]
[/quote]
[/quote]
























What are you talking about, who said anything about a rip off except you? Just because it's free means nothing about it's real value...do you get that now.

[russc1597187869]

[quote name='tsdean1980' timestamp='1411754169' post='10189437']
[quote name='Mcaesq' timestamp='1411753377' post='10189345']
It's pretty hilarious to see people decry this dude for being too "micro" in his discussion of the golf swing then turn around and go full autism mode about Hogan's swing. If what Kelvin's saying is too micro to change or make a difference, why bother contesting it?

[/quote]

Very good point indeed.
[/quote]
You have to understand that Eightiron is very knowledgeable on Mr Hogan's swing,but he seems to be frustrated after the moderators intervened into the Hogan forum.Since he likes to show off his grasp of golf swing minutiae,he needs a venue and this topic appears to it for now.

[petter7]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411842946' post='10195449']
What are you talking about, who said anything about a rip off except you? Just because it's free means nothing about it's real value...do you get that now.
[/quote]

Let me rephrase my post. This a thread about Kelvin Miyahira and you cast some doubt that since his articles are free, that they could be of no real value.

So…simple question...did you read the articles and do you think they are of no real value? Do you get that now? Personally, I think they have a lot of value
and the fact that he takes the time and effort to post them on the internet for free says a lot about his sincere desire to educate golfers about the golf swing.
I don't see any other golf pro on the internet presenting that kind of detail information and all you have to do is go to Around Hawaii and read them.

Pretty good deal in my book pick.

[pick it up]

[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1411854488' post='10196227']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411842946' post='10195449']
What are you talking about, who said anything about a rip off except you? Just because it's free means nothing about it's real value...do you get that now.
[/quote]

Let me rephrase my post. This a thread about Kelvin Miyahira and you cast some doubt that since his articles are free, that they could be of no real value.

So…simple question...did you read the articles and do you think they are of no real value? Do you get that now? Personally, I think they have a lot of value
and the fact that he takes the time and effort to post them on the internet for free says a lot about his sincere desire to educate golfers about the golf swing.
I don't see any other golf pro on the internet presenting that kind of detail information and all you have to do is go to Around Hawaii and read them.

Pretty good deal in my book pick.
[/quote]


No you still don't get the meaning of what I posted. What's free got to do with anything? It adds nothing to the perceived value, just because it's free does not make it any more or less valuable...get it now?

Sometimes you just got to step back and quit acting so defensively and quit assuming all posts are slamming your guru...lol!

[petter7]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411860794' post='10196765']
No you still don't get the meaning of what I posted. What's free got to do with anything? It adds nothing to the perceived value, just because it's free does not make it any more or less valuable...get it now?

Sometimes you just got to step back and quit acting so defensively and quit assuming all posts are slamming your guru...lol!
[/quote]

Oh I don't have to assume that you're a detractor of KM and JM, it's decidely obvious from your numerous posts in this thread that you are.

What's valueless is your generalization that something being free doesn't add to it's perceived value. So what. Either the articles are beneficial or they're not. Either Kelvin's teachings have value or not.

Since they are incredibly informative and useful, the fact they are easily accessible by anyone makes it all the better. What makes you unmindful is thinking I'm being defensive and Kelvin is my guru.

[verderraul]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1411485798' post='10169029']
Seriously I'd kill for 5 mph more swing speed.
[/quote]

What's your swing speed now ? You look like porking it far in your videos

[pick it up]

[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1411870974' post='10197487']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411860794' post='10196765']
No you still don't get the meaning of what I posted. What's free got to do with anything? It adds nothing to the perceived value, just because it's free does not make it any more or less valuable...get it now?

Sometimes you just got to step back and quit acting so defensively and quit assuming all posts are slamming your guru...lol!
[/quote]

Oh I don't have to assume that you're a detractor of KM and JM, it's painfully obvious from your numerous posts in this thread that you are.

What's valueless is your generalization that something being free doesn't add to it's perceived value. So what. Either the articles are beneficial or they're not. Either Kelvin's teachings have value or not.

Since they are incredibly informative and useful, the fact they are easily accessible by anyone makes it all the better. What makes you unmindful is thinking I'm being defensive and Kelvin is my guru.
[/quote]



It's obvious you're defensive! your post proves it. Beneficial or not has nothing to do with price...are you that thick? There is a lot of things in those articles that are pure junk science, starting with the spine engine theory which is total garbage. All one has to do is read a real spine experts peer review on that subject, Dr.Stuart McGill. So the benefits of that are not only zero but of no use other than to be used as a hook by K.M.

Many of his observations are totally without merit. He was proven wrong by real scientists on Facebook and couldn't handle their questioning and got super defensive and belligerent to the point of banishment. His 3d experience is with a K-vest...lol!...really? Mostly 2d pictures and vids with all kinds of issues that accompany those types of observations. I won't even bother with the goofy trip to the desert The Research-a-thon they called it, with no results ever posted that proved anything except there are real scientists and then there are pseudo scientists like KM and JM.

keeping it real!

[pick it up]

http://bretcontreras...ith-stu-mcgill/

 

 

 

also from Dr. Mann's review.

 

See this Jeffy forum thread - jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?1087-Manzella-strikes-back

 

Jeffy is trying to defend the Gracovetsky spine engine theory of locomotion.

 

Jeffy posted this link to a Gracovetsky interview.

 

www.somatics.de/Gracevetsky_Interview.pdf

 

Jeffy then made this statement-: "I have looked through McGill's research and the most substantive disagreement seems to be on the contribution of the lumbodorsal fascia in lifting heavy loads: Gracovetsky thinks it has a major role, McGill disagrees. The other aspect McGill criticizes is the notion of the spine acting like a rod when twisted. Neither of those criticisms falsify the fundamental premise of the spinal engine theory: that man evolved from creatures that used the spine as the "engine" of locomotion and the human spine supports that function, as opposed to being dead weight carried around by the legs.

 

Jeffy is misinterpreting the critics of the spine engine theory. No rational critic is stating that human beings didn't evolve from creatures (eg. fish or snakes) that primarily use twisting motions of the spine to move about in space. However, over the millions of evolutionary years that human beings have being bipedal, they have primarily used their legs to move about in space. Any rotational motion of the spine and mid-upper torso is secondary to rotational motions of the pelvis that occur when walking/running and the spine is not the primary engine of locomotion. That's the major difference! One can still walk even if the spine and mid-upper torso cannot rotate in an unimpeded manner due to surgical or pathological spinal fusions procedures.

 

For example, here is an image of a person who had total lumbar/thoracic spine fusion for severe scoliosis and that person can still walk (although non-optimally).

 

 

Here is an image of a "bamboo spine" due to ankylosing spondylitis that produces total spinal rigidity.

 

 

A person with severe ankylosing spondylitis can still walk - albeit without the necessary mid-upper torso rotary motions that allow for a well-balanced gait.

 

No rational critic will dispute Gracovetsky's assertion that a person without legs can still rotate the pelvis and walk on his ischial tuberosities. However, that doesn't mean that the spine is the primary engine of locomotion. That may apply to snakes and eels, but it doesn't apply to bipedal human beings who have legs.

 

What amazes me about Gracovetsky is his vague/imprecise assertions about human biomechanics.

 

Consider this statement from his interview article.

 

"The first role of the legs is to support the energy sources, which enable us to move at high speeds. However, rotation of the pelvis (as the pelvis rotates around a vertical axis when we walk) with muscles which draw the pelvis downwards leads to a problem of efficacy. This problem is resolved by using the earth's gravitational field as the site of intermediate storage, in which the muscle energy released by the legs with each step is temporarily stored and then recovered during the monopodal stance phase. This energy impulse then ascends up the leg and is filtered by the leg, so that it reaches the vertebral column with the appropriate phase and amplitude. The spine can therefore use this energy to mobilize each intervertebral joint, and to rotate each vertebra and the pelvis in an appropriate fashion."

 

Talking about "using the earth's gravitational field as the site of energy storage" and talking about "energy impulses going up the leg and being filtered by the leg" is not a scientifically acceptable explanation in my intellectual world of human biomechanics. I can certainly understand how walking causes the pelvis to rotate (because of the motion of the femoral heads being transmitted to the acetabulum/pelvis) and how that pelvic motion causes the spine and mid-upper torso to also rotate "with the appropriate phase and amplitude", but that doesn't mean that the spine is producing the energy to "rotate the pelvis in an appropriate fashion" as Gracovetsky implies.

 

Gracovetsky also implies that lordosis and lateral bend allows for an axial torque that allows a person without legs to ambulate on his ischial tuberosities. However, that doesn't mean his explanation is "anatomically correct" and I think that his wild theory about "interlocking gears" has no apparent scientific justification in terms of human anatomy.

Read more: http://newtongolfinstitute.proboards.com/thread/531/groupies-love-spine-engine-theory?page=1#ixzz3Ea6tsXH0

[dap]

KM should forget about "science" in his instructions and just focus on teaching technique based on his opinionated idea of gold medal ball strikers with the use of high speed cameras. Nothing wrong with that. Why try to fit your theories into scientific fact if you are not qualified. I find it strange that most instructors are not humble enough to write a simple JMOH.

[pick it up]

[quote name='dap' timestamp='1411879652' post='10197879']
KM should forget about "science" in his instructions and just focus on teaching technique based on his opinionated idea of gold medal ball strikers with the use of high speed cameras. Nothing wrong with that. Why try to fit your theories into scientific fact if you are not qualified. I find it strange that most instructors are not humble enough to write a simple JMOH.
[/quote]


The reason is simple they think it adds to their credibility and authority on the subject matter, that's a way to get people to believe your theories have merit. If you say a lot of things that sound technical and scientific lots of people tend to just accept it as gospel and view that person as an authority on the subject. How else could someone get 900 people to drink the kool-aid? People want to believe.

[eightiron]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411880808' post='10197923']
[quote name='dap' timestamp='1411879652' post='10197879']
KM should forget about "science" in his instructions and just focus on teaching technique based on his opinionated idea of gold medal ball strikers with the use of high speed cameras. Nothing wrong with that. Why try to fit your theories into scientific fact if you are not qualified. I find it strange that most instructors are not humble enough to write a simple JMOH.
[/quote]


The reason is simple they think it adds to their credibility and authority on the subject matter, that's a way to get people to believe your theories have merit. If you say a lot of things that sound technical and scientific lots of people tend to just accept it as gospel and view that person as an authority on the subject. How else could someone get 900 people to drink the kool-aid? People want to believe.
[/quote]

Yeah but if you get Jeff Mann to " fill in the missing blanks " it's all good . Couple of key points would be , get the arms high , add rear side lateral bend starting down and get steep inside out . Back out with the crack and upper body and get a bent left arm to stop the face turning fast