Kelvin Miyahira: pro or con

[eightiron]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412082876' post='10211151']

Jeff Mann would be proud.

[/quote]

What the big issue with Jeff Mann? He's a qualified MD , knows bones , joints , muscles and their movements . I think he writes some interesting material and with his qualifications , one would think he is likely way more knowledgeable than Kelvin on these subjects .

[russc1597187869]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412086481' post='10211459']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412082876' post='10211151']
Jeff Mann would be proud.

[/quote]

What the big issue with Jeff Mann? He's a qualified MD , knows bones , joints , muscles and their movements . I think he writes some interesting material and with his qualifications , one would think he is likely way more knowledgeable than Kelvin on these subjects .
[/quote]
+1.
There is really no comparison between Jeff Mann and Kelvin( or Jeffy) on these subjects.
Heck ,Jeffy is a Wall Streeter

[Tod Johnson]

Jeff Mann is a pathological liar, it comes as naturally to him as breathing. I'm not sure he is even aware of it. Creating some goofy definition of the downswing that includes the follow-through is something he'd do instinctively to avoid being "wrong", at least in his warped world.

[petter7]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412086481' post='10211459']
What the big issue with Jeff Mann? He's a qualified MD , knows bones , joints , muscles and their movements . I think he writes some interesting material and with his qualifications , one would think he is likely way more knowledgeable than Kelvin on these subjects .
[/quote]

Obviously you haven't spent any time interacting with him over at NGI about the golf swing. If you could read the pages and pages of nonsensical crap going back and forth with that guy you'd understand.

As I said, he has methodically deleted all of it to save face. Zero sense of humor and completely defiant to everyones point of view, even when they are absolutely correct. Waste of time dealing with that man.

Hence, no one even bothers to post over there anymore despite that fact he keeps posting stuff. Although it's just strictly him criticizing Jeffy, B-Man, Richie or anyone else he kind find to call "wrong headed."

[eightiron]

So Mann is a pathological liar ? There has been some of his criticisms of the spine engine theory pasted on this thread , instead of using smear campaigns to discredit him or anyone else , how about you prove Mann wrong !

And this is just my opinion , but I think sadlowski gets his left foot out of the way to avoid injury, if anything, rather than the second dip into flexion being a slow down to avoid injury
Close up at 1min34 into this video


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tHLuSWvIjVw

[petter7]

[quote name='russc' timestamp='1412086744' post='10211475']
There is really no comparison between Jeff Mann and Kelvin
[/quote]

True that…Kelvin blows Mann away when it concerns anything to do with the game of golf or the golf swing. Half the stuff Mann professes these days he got from Kelvin.

He just lies and calls it his own. He just flat out stole Kelvin's drive/hold release, made up his own interpretation of it, then turned around and said Kelvin had no clue what he was talking about.

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
So Mann is a pathological liar ? There has been some of his criticisms of the spine engine theory pasted on this thread , instead of using smear campaigns to discredit him or anyone else ,[b] how about you prove Mann wrong ![/b]
[/quote]

It would be a waste of time…been there done that. I see he hasn't posted in about a month and half. Hopefully he's done with his mindless self delusions.

[iteachgolf]

For clarification sake since my name and clubhead speed was brought up. IMO there is a big difference in full CHS and distance and playing speed and distance. My full speed with driver is 111-113 and ball speed in 162-165 range. Full speed 7 iron is 92 mph and 176-178 carry. Now when playing the majority of my shots are more or less knockdown shots to maximize control and I play 7 iron to go about 168. On the course driver speed is all over the place depending on the hole and intent. I don't even carry a driver currently as our course is only 7,000 yards and don't feel I need it. I say my driver speed is around 105 because that's what I think it averages when playing. But the two times I did hit Heath's driver on the course I did out drive him both times. And his Clubhead speed is around 111 on the course. Of course he can crack 119-120 but doesn't really swing that hard when playing and there are consequences for errant shots.

My point is how hard someone swings or how someone swings on the range isn't the same as the course. Look at Bubba. On the range and in every fitting he is launching it at 14+ degrees and spinning it 1800 rpms. Go look at his actual radar stats they measure while playing.

[petter7]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412085332' post='10211349']
Caught that one on the heel, this one on the toe:
[/quote]

Flushed this one. What a swing...

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSFuszTqy8o[/media]

[PutterKilledTheDream]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1412085438' post='10211361']
[quote name='PutterKilledTheDream' timestamp='1412045048' post='10209887']
This is where I'm lost. How does CHS relate to playing proficiency in golf on any level? 110 CHS is more than enough to be relatively successful on any tour.
[/quote]

1. I've been talking about instructors that hit it pretty well, can shoot under par in local tournaments and courses, but do not generate more than 100 mph club head speed. I've stated this repeatedly throughout this thread. I have not talked about 110 mph club head speed.


2. Generating club head speed is important to play golf on high levels. If you look at the Tour records since 2007, the bottom of club head speeds on Tour are usually no lower than 104 mph. And those players either don't stay on Tour for very long or are spectacular putters.

Recently, Mark Sweeney (AimPoint founder) decided to give what he called 'expected birdie percentage' of each golfer on Tour. Essentially, looking at the length of each birdie putt the player had throughout the season and the Tour average in make % for that length of birdie putt.

What Sweeney found was that there was a very strong mathematical correlation between club head speed and Expected Birdie %.

I had seen this as well and wrote about it in [i]2011 Pro Golf Synopsis[/i], the clear statistical trend was that the longer you hit the ball the more it helps with your *putting*. The longer the player hits the ball, they can putt worse and still be as successful. I had seen this even with the same exact player that either lost club head speed or gained club head speed over the years and the rest of their game pretty much stayed the same.

My reasoning is the same as Mark's...the longer the hitter the more likely they will be playing the par-5's more like a par-4 and they are going to have shorter birdie putts on average.

So if an instructor is generating 100 mph of club head speed, it's hard to take any 'high level of proficiency' with more than a grain of salt because:

a) everybody's theory of a high level of proficiency is likely different.

b) the models and swings they value and teach to their students are likely ones that are far more proficient than their own and the statistical analysis proves this.





RH
[/quote]
Sorry RH, find your pivoting on this puzzling at best. It's now gone from 'playing at a high level of proficiency' to ' swing speed proficiency'. The question being raised WASNT if touring professionals benefited or gained advantage by being longer. That's a no-brainier and obvious. The question was should an instructor have at some point in time, demonstrated the ability to play golf at a high level of proficiency. Most of us are defining proficiency as being able to post scores, not swing at some arbitrary speed. If anyone understands the data around here it's me Richie. Like has already been stated, SS is irrelevant if contact is made off center or away from the COG. More often than not I found slower SS on Trackman yielded longer carry when contact location improved.

Do you know how many local teaching pros swing right around 100 mph? Most. That would be about the last thing potential students would be concerned with when vetting a coach. They look for experience, credentials( whatever that means) and knowledge. I think what Hoganfan, myself and others are referring to is the type of instructor 'guru' who never played golf at any level with any success and makes up excuses why they cant demonstrate any degree of proficiency. And for whatever reason RH, you've got a ' instructor' that fits that mold perfectly on your top50 list.

[eightiron]

[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1412088498' post='10211631']
[quote name='russc' timestamp='1412086744' post='10211475']
There is really no comparison between Jeff Mann and Kelvin
[/quote]

True that…Kelvin blows Mann away when it concerns anything to do with the game of golf or the golf swing. Half the stuff Mann professes these days he got from Kelvin.

He just lies and calls it his own. He just flat out stole Kelvin's drive/hold release, made up his own interpretation of it, then turned around and said Kelvin had no clue what he was talking about.

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
So Mann is a pathological liar ? There has been some of his criticisms of the spine engine theory pasted on this thread , instead of using smear campaigns to discredit him or anyone else ,[b] how about you prove Mann wrong ![/b]
[/quote]

It would be a waste of time…been there done that. I see he hasn't posted in about a month and half. Hopefully he's done with his mindless self delusions.
[/quote]

So Mann is a pathological liar , a thief and delusional . I'm getting the idea that his criticisms of the spine engine theory , therefore must be nonsense?

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1412088498' post='10211631']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
So Mann is a pathological liar ? There has been some of his criticisms of the spine engine theory pasted on this thread , instead of using smear campaigns to discredit him or anyone else ,[b] how about you prove Mann wrong ![/b]
[/quote]

[b]It would be a waste of time…been there done that.[/b] I see he hasn't posted in about a month and half. Hopefully he's done with his mindless self delusions.
[/quote]


This thread documents a tiny fraction of Mann's fictions:

http://jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?1214-Jeff-Mann-hides-the-evidence-whenever-he-is-caught-red-handed

[ej002]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412085332' post='10211349']

Caught that one on the heel, this one on the toe:

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVbDVcUq9lc"]https://www.youtube....h?v=vVbDVcUq9lc[/url]
[/quote]

Maybe if he didn't swing like such a goof, he would have caught that one out of the middle like a real tour pro?

So much for a "stable" face through impact... LOL.

[russc1597187869]

[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1412088498' post='10211631']
[quote name='russc' timestamp='1412086744' post='10211475']
There is really no comparison between Jeff Mann and Kelvin
[/quote]

True that…Kelvin blows Mann away when it concerns anything to do with the game of golf or the golf swing. Half the stuff Mann professes these days he got from Kelvin.

He just lies and calls it his own. He just flat out stole Kelvin's drive/hold release, made up his own interpretation of it, then turned around and said Kelvin had no clue what he was talking about.

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
So Mann is a pathological liar ? There has been some of his criticisms of the spine engine theory pasted on this thread , instead of using smear campaigns to discredit him or anyone else ,[b] how about you prove Mann wrong ![/b]
[/quote]

It would be a waste of time…been there done that. I see he hasn't posted in about a month and half. Hopefully he's done with his mindless self delusions.
[/quote]

The vast majority of Jeff Mann's comments relative to this swing involve Jeffy and not Kelvin.Jeffy is just stating his interpretation of Kelvin's ideas .When it comes to the anatomy of the body and how the bones, joints ,muscles ,ligaments and tendons work in the golf swing ,Jeffy is the equivalent to a little league player while Jeff Mann is a major league.player.They should not be on the same field..
The big problem that i see In jeffys website is not the childish attacks but the type of swing that it encourages.These swings are radically different from Kelvin's gold or silver medal winners and radically different from what Lucas has shown on his website.
I like Kelvins ideas ,but sometimes when i read Jeffy website ,I wonder what swing he is encouraging..

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412090402' post='10211797']
[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1412088498' post='10211631']
[quote name='russc' timestamp='1412086744' post='10211475']
There is really no comparison between Jeff Mann and Kelvin
[/quote]

True that…Kelvin blows Mann away when it concerns anything to do with the game of golf or the golf swing. Half the stuff Mann professes these days he got from Kelvin.

He just lies and calls it his own. He just flat out stole Kelvin's drive/hold release, made up his own interpretation of it, then turned around and said Kelvin had no clue what he was talking about.

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
So Mann is a pathological liar ? There has been some of his criticisms of the spine engine theory pasted on this thread , instead of using smear campaigns to discredit him or anyone else ,[b] how about you prove Mann wrong ![/b]
[/quote]

It would be a waste of time…been there done that. I see he hasn't posted in about a month and half. Hopefully he's done with his mindless self delusions.
[/quote]

So Mann is a pathological liar , a thief and delusional . I'm getting the idea that his criticisms of the spine engine theory , therefore must be nonsense?
[/quote]

It's funny when someone has actual creds to talk about biomechanics that they're called out. Yet if you "taught" biomechanics and have absolutely 0 actual creds, that person is fine. Mann was an ER doc and has undergrad degrees in anatomy and physiology... Yeah I'm gonna take his opinion. My god I'm in medicine and if I had to get an undergrad degree in anatomy I'd probably cry myself to sleep every night.

I really want to see an orthopod talk about this stuff. If we had a board-certified orthopod who also taught or pursued the golf swing, their knowledge of the functional anatomy would be light-years ahead of anyone else. Maybe in 10 years I can be that dude but it would be sick if there already was one to get their take.

Why are 99 % of the posts on jeffy's site from him and Grant Hooper? Like I've never seen anyone else post anything there. Also how is this Hooper dude writing 5 page explanations debating with someone that's a medical doctor about the golf swing. I thought that Grant dude started playing golf a year ago, yet he understands enough to debate someone who is certified by a state medical board in their competency.....lol

[dap]

An example of a player trying to incorporate KM's ideas. Judge for yourself if you think pro or con.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84mlmCoSecM&list=UU8a5xhOf9Wj0xCO86Dxfbiw[/media]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-O3CQYYN-U&list=UU8a5xhOf9Wj0xCO86Dxfbiw[/media]

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='dap' timestamp='1412094135' post='10212203']
An example of a player trying to incorporate KM's ideas. Judge for yourself if you think pro or con.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84mlmCoSecM&list=UU8a5xhOf9Wj0xCO86Dxfbiw[/media]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-O3CQYYN-U&list=UU8a5xhOf9Wj0xCO86Dxfbiw[/media]
[/quote]

Dude just needs to get more mobile assuming he doesn't have any physical defects. No idea why that foot movement is going on unless he's got some pins in his ankles or something like that.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
[b]So Mann is a pathological liar , a thief and delusional . I'm getting the idea that his criticisms of the spine engine theory , therefore must be nonsense?[/b]
[/quote]


Bingo. Let's look at what pick it up posted from Dr. Mann:

"[color=#282828]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. [b]Any rotational motion of the spine and mid-upper torso is [/b][/color][b][b]secondary[/b][color=#282828] to rotational motions of the pelvis that occur when walking/running and the spine is not the [/color][b]primary[/b][/b][color=#282828][b] engine of locomotion. That's the major difference![/b] 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."[/color]

[color=#282828]Right off the bat, Mann is lying. Mann states that the "spine engine" theory says the spine is the "primary engine of locomotion". That is not only false, it is such a farfetched claim, only a deeply delusional mind would make it. Of course the big muscles in the legs are the primary energy source for walking and running. The conventional wisdom at the time of Gracovetsky's research was that man evolved from creatures that used the spine as the primary motor for locomotion (i.e., fishes) to a creature that uses only the legs for locomotion, with the spine no longer playing any role (the "pedestrian theory of locomotion"). Gracovetsky believes that through coupled movements of the spine, the muscles of the upper body contribute to locomotion by rotating the pelvis and counter-rotating the shoulders. Dr. Erik Dalton has a nice one page summary of the competing theories, and makes it clear which one he endorses:[/color]

[url="http://erikdalton.com/spinal-engine-vs-the-pedestrian-theory-of-locomotion/"]http://erikdalton.co...-of-locomotion/[/url]

And Mann's lies just continue one after another. Here is the next paragraph:

[color=#282828]"For example, here is an image of a person who had total lumbar/thoracic spine fusion for severe scoliosis and [b]that person can still walk (although non-optimally)[/b]."[/color]

[color=#282828]Mann is taking one of Gracovetsky's own arguments, that an immobile spine impairs gait (providing evidence that the spine has a role in walking "optimally"), and suggests it contradicts his theory. It doesn't, it is strong evidence supporting his theory.[/color]

[color=#282828]Then Mann flat out lies one more time about Gracovetsky's beliefs:[/color]

[color=#282828]"[/color][color=#282828]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, [b]that doesn't mean that the spine is the [/b][/color][b][b]primary[/b][color=#282828] engine of locomotion. That may apply to snakes and eels, but it doesn't apply to bipedal human beings who have legs."[/color][/b]

In his book, [i]The Spinal Engine[/i], Gracovetsky devotes the first chapter to the evolutionary process and discusses how moving the primary muscles for locomotion from the torso to the legs and hips created a huge mechanical advantage, allowing such creatures to gallop and move much faster, to either catch food or avoid being eaten.

The spine engine theory hypothesizes that the spine is not simply a supporting column, but is an "engine" that rotates the pelvis, through coupled motion. The legs greatly amplify the motion of the pelvis generated by the upper body, or "spine engine".

Of course, Mann misses the biggest point of all: it doesn't really matter whether Gracovetsky's theory of locomotion is 100% right or completely half-baked. The element that applies to the golf swing is coupled motion of the spine (lateral bend plus lordosis creating axial rotation to the opposite side), whose discovery predates the spine engine theory by decades, and is a standard part of manual medical texts and sports biomechanics courses. Mann seems completely unaware of this fact, and labels coupled motion as a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky!

[b][color=#282828]"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."[/color][/b]

[color=#282828]Starting to get the picture?[/color]

[dap]

I believe that left foot movement is something KM likes to see because it mimicks sadlowski.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='russc' timestamp='1412092914' post='10212065']
[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1412088498' post='10211631']
[quote name='russc' timestamp='1412086744' post='10211475']
There is really no comparison between Jeff Mann and Kelvin
[/quote]

True that…Kelvin blows Mann away when it concerns anything to do with the game of golf or the golf swing. Half the stuff Mann professes these days he got from Kelvin.

He just lies and calls it his own. He just flat out stole Kelvin's drive/hold release, made up his own interpretation of it, then turned around and said Kelvin had no clue what he was talking about.

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
So Mann is a pathological liar ? There has been some of his criticisms of the spine engine theory pasted on this thread , instead of using smear campaigns to discredit him or anyone else ,[b] how about you prove Mann wrong ![/b]
[/quote]

It would be a waste of time…been there done that. I see he hasn't posted in about a month and half. Hopefully he's done with his mindless self delusions.
[/quote]

The vast majority of Jeff Mann's comments relative to this swing involve Jeffy and not Kelvin.Jeffy is just stating his interpretation of Kelvin's ideas .When it comes to the anatomy of the body and how the bones, joints ,muscles ,ligaments and tendons work in the golf swing ,Jeffy is the equivalent to a little league player while Jeff Mann is a major league.player.They should not be on the same field..
[b]The big problem that i see In jeffys website is not the childish attacks but the type of swing that it encourages.These swings are radically different from Kelvin's gold or silver medal winners and radically different from what Lucas has shown on his website.[/b]
I like Kelvins ideas ,but sometimes when i read Jeffy website ,I wonder what swing he is encouraging..
[/quote]


Really? I'd like to see those.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412094591' post='10212255']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
[b]So Mann is a pathological liar , a thief and delusional . I'm getting the idea that his criticisms of the spine engine theory , therefore must be nonsense?[/b]
[/quote]


Bingo. Let's look at what pick it up posted from Dr. Mann:

"[color=#282828]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. [b]Any rotational motion of the spine and mid-upper torso is [/b][/color][b][b]secondary[/b][color=#282828] to rotational motions of the pelvis that occur when walking/running and the spine is not the [/color][b]primary[/b][/b][color=#282828][b] engine of locomotion. That's the major difference![/b] 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."[/color]

[color=#282828]Right off the bat, Mann is lying. Mann states that the "spine engine" theory says the spine is the "primary engine of locomotion". That is not only false, it is such a farfetched claim, only a deeply delusional mind would make it. Of course the big muscles in the legs are the primary energy source for walking and running. The conventional wisdom at the time of Gracovetsky's research was that man evolved from creatures that used the spine as the primary motor for locomotion (i.e., fishes) to a creature that uses only the legs for locomotion, with the spine no longer playing any role (the "pedestrian theory of locomotion"). Gracovetsky believes that through coupled movements of the spine, the muscles of the upper body contribute to locomotion by rotating the pelvis and counter-rotating the shoulders. Dr. Erik Dalton has a nice one page summary of the competing theories, and makes it clear which one he endorses:[/color]

[url="http://erikdalton.com/spinal-engine-vs-the-pedestrian-theory-of-locomotion/"]http://erikdalton.co...-of-locomotion/[/url]

And Mann's lies just continue one after another. Here is the next paragraph:

[color=#282828]"For example, here is an image of a person who had total lumbar/thoracic spine fusion for severe scoliosis and [b]that person can still walk (although non-optimally)[/b]."[/color]

[color=#282828]Mann is taking one of Gracovetsky's own arguments, that an immobile spine impairs gait (providing evidence that the spine has a role in walking "optimally"), and suggests it contradicts his theory. It doesn't, it is strong evidence supporting his theory.[/color]

[color=#282828]Then Mann flat out lies one more time about Gracovetsky's beliefs:[/color]

[color=#282828]"[/color][color=#282828]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, [b]that doesn't mean that the spine is the [/b][/color][b][b]primary[/b][color=#282828] engine of locomotion. That may apply to snakes and eels, but it doesn't apply to bipedal human beings who have legs."[/color][/b]

In his book, [i]The Spinal Engine[/i], Gracovetsky devotes the first chapter to the evolutionary process and discusses how moving the primary muscles for locomotion from the torso to the legs and hips created a huge mechanical advantage, allowing such creatures to gallop and move much faster, to either catch food or avoid being eaten.

The spine engine theory hypothesizes that spine is not simply a supporting column, but is an "engine" that rotates the pelvis, through coupled motion. The legs greatly amplify the motion of the pelvis generated by the upper body, or "spine engine".

Of course, Mann misses the biggest point of all: it doesn't really matter whether Gracovetsky's theory of locomotion is 100% right or completely half-baked. The element that applies to the golf swing is coupled motion of the spine (lateral bend plus lordosis creating axial rotation to the opposite side), whose discovery predates the spine engine theory by decades, and is a standard part of manual medical texts and sports biomechanics courses. Mann seems completely unaware of this fact, and labels coupled motion as a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky!

[b][color=#282828]"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."[/color][/b]

[color=#282828]Starting to get the picture?[/color]
[/quote]

lol he didn't say anything about the spine engine theory in your first bolded, he's talking about what occurs during walking, in which case he is correct.

Do you even know what the ischial tuberosity is? I get the feeling you're in a little above your head and you're just highlighting stuff because you don't know what it means. Just because someone doesn't have legs doesn't mean they aren't using their pelvis to walk. Their pelvis is still completely intact.

The whole spine engine theory just shows me people that don't understand anatomy. It's not physically possible.

[russc1597187869]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412094591' post='10212255']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
[b]So Mann is a pathological liar , a thief and delusional . I'm getting the idea that his criticisms of the spine engine theory , therefore must be nonsense?[/b]
[/quote]


Bingo. Let's look at what pick it up posted from Dr. Mann:

"[color=#282828]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. [b]Any rotational motion of the spine and mid-upper torso is [/b][/color][b][b]secondary[/b][color=#282828] to rotational motions of the pelvis that occur when walking/running and the spine is not the [/color][b]primary[/b][/b][color=#282828][b] engine of locomotion. That's the major difference![/b] 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."[/color]

[color=#282828]Right off the bat, Mann is lying. Mann states that the "spine engine" theory says the spine is the "primary engine of locomotion". That is not only false, it is such a farfetched claim, only a deeply delusional mind would make it. Of course the big muscles in the legs are the primary energy source for walking and running. The conventional wisdom at the time of Gracovetsky's research was that man evolved from creatures that used the spine as the primary motor for locomotion (i.e., fishes) to a creature that uses only the legs for locomotion, with the spine no longer playing any role (the "pedestrian theory of locomotion"). Gracovetsky believes that through coupled movements of the spine, the muscles of the upper body contribute to locomotion by rotating the pelvis and counter-rotating the shoulders. Dr. Erik Dalton has a nice one page summary of the competing theories, and makes it clear which one he endorses:[/color]

[url="http://erikdalton.com/spinal-engine-vs-the-pedestrian-theory-of-locomotion/"]http://erikdalton.co...-of-locomotion/[/url]

And Mann's lies just continue one after another. Here is the next paragraph:

[color=#282828]"For example, here is an image of a person who had total lumbar/thoracic spine fusion for severe scoliosis and [b]that person can still walk (although non-optimally)[/b]."[/color]

[color=#282828]Mann is taking one of Gracovetsky's own arguments, that an immobile spine impairs gait (providing evidence that the spine has a role in walking "optimally"), and suggests it contradicts his theory. It doesn't, it is strong evidence supporting his theory.[/color]

[color=#282828]Then Mann flat out lies one more time about Gracovetsky's beliefs:[/color]

[color=#282828]"[/color][color=#282828]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, [b]that doesn't mean that the spine is the [/b][/color][b][b]primary[/b][color=#282828] engine of locomotion. That may apply to snakes and eels, but it doesn't apply to bipedal human beings who have legs."[/color][/b]

In his book, [i]The Spinal Engine[/i], Gracovetsky devotes the first chapter to the evolutionary process and discusses how moving the primary muscles for locomotion from the torso to the legs and hips created a huge mechanical advantage, allowing such creatures to gallop and move much faster, to either catch food or avoid being eaten.

The spine engine theory hypothesizes that the spine is not simply a supporting column, but is an "engine" that rotates the pelvis, through coupled motion. The legs greatly amplify the motion of the pelvis generated by the upper body, or "spine engine".

Of course, Mann misses the biggest point of all: it doesn't really matter whether Gracovetsky's theory of locomotion is 100% right or completely half-baked. The element that applies to the golf swing is coupled motion of the spine (lateral bend plus lordosis creating axial rotation to the opposite side), whose discovery predates the spine engine theory by decades, and is a standard part of manual medical texts and sports biomechanics courses. Mann seems completely unaware of this fact, and labels coupled motion as a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky!

[b][color=#282828]"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."[/color][/b]

[color=#282828]Starting to get the picture?[/color]
[/quote]
You show a link to Eric Dalton.I have no idea who he is and have no opinion as to his competency..But he is a certified Rolfer.I once had a rolfing session.The next day most parts of my body felt as if red ants were eating me .Any significant movements hurt like hell.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412095427' post='10212327']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412094591' post='10212255']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
[b]So Mann is a pathological liar , a thief and delusional . I'm getting the idea that his criticisms of the spine engine theory , therefore must be nonsense?[/b]
[/quote]


Bingo. Let's look at what pick it up posted from Dr. Mann:

"[color=#282828]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. [b]Any rotational motion of the spine and mid-upper torso is [/b][/color][b][b]secondary[/b][color=#282828] to rotational motions of the pelvis that occur when walking/running and the spine is not the [/color][b]primary[/b][/b][color=#282828][b] engine of locomotion. That's the major difference![/b] 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."[/color]

[color=#282828]Right off the bat, Mann is lying. Mann states that the "spine engine" theory says the spine is the "primary engine of locomotion". That is not only false, it is such a farfetched claim, only a deeply delusional mind would make it. Of course the big muscles in the legs are the primary energy source for walking and running. The conventional wisdom at the time of Gracovetsky's research was that man evolved from creatures that used the spine as the primary motor for locomotion (i.e., fishes) to a creature that uses only the legs for locomotion, with the spine no longer playing any role (the "pedestrian theory of locomotion"). Gracovetsky believes that through coupled movements of the spine, the muscles of the upper body contribute to locomotion by rotating the pelvis and counter-rotating the shoulders. Dr. Erik Dalton has a nice one page summary of the competing theories, and makes it clear which one he endorses:[/color]

[url="http://erikdalton.com/spinal-engine-vs-the-pedestrian-theory-of-locomotion/"]http://erikdalton.co...-of-locomotion/[/url]

And Mann's lies just continue one after another. Here is the next paragraph:

[color=#282828]"For example, here is an image of a person who had total lumbar/thoracic spine fusion for severe scoliosis and [b]that person can still walk (although non-optimally)[/b]."[/color]

[color=#282828]Mann is taking one of Gracovetsky's own arguments, that an immobile spine impairs gait (providing evidence that the spine has a role in walking "optimally"), and suggests it contradicts his theory. It doesn't, it is strong evidence supporting his theory.[/color]

[color=#282828]Then Mann flat out lies one more time about Gracovetsky's beliefs:[/color]

[color=#282828]"[/color][color=#282828]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, [b]that doesn't mean that the spine is the [/b][/color][b][b]primary[/b][color=#282828] engine of locomotion. That may apply to snakes and eels, but it doesn't apply to bipedal human beings who have legs."[/color][/b]

In his book, [i]The Spinal Engine[/i], Gracovetsky devotes the first chapter to the evolutionary process and discusses how moving the primary muscles for locomotion from the torso to the legs and hips created a huge mechanical advantage, allowing such creatures to gallop and move much faster, to either catch food or avoid being eaten.

The spine engine theory hypothesizes that spine is not simply a supporting column, but is an "engine" that rotates the pelvis, through coupled motion. The legs greatly amplify the motion of the pelvis generated by the upper body, or "spine engine".

Of course, Mann misses the biggest point of all: it doesn't really matter whether Gracovetsky's theory of locomotion is 100% right or completely half-baked. The element that applies to the golf swing is coupled motion of the spine (lateral bend plus lordosis creating axial rotation to the opposite side), whose discovery predates the spine engine theory by decades, and is a standard part of manual medical texts and sports biomechanics courses. Mann seems completely unaware of this fact, and labels coupled motion as a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky!

[b][color=#282828]"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."[/color][/b]

[color=#282828]Starting to get the picture?[/color]
[/quote]

lol [b]he didn't say anything about the spine engine theory in your first bolded, he's talking about what occurs during walking, in which case he is correct.[/b][/quote]


Talk about missing the point. First, the spine engine theory is a theory of walking. Second, the bold statement "[color="#282828"][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][b]the spine is not the primary engine of locomotion" [/b][/background][/size][/color]is correct and consistent with the spine engine theory; Mann claims, "wrong-headedly", that the spine engine theory disagrees with that statement. He is either profoundly ignorant or lying. Take your pick.


[quote]Do you even know what the ischial tuberosity is? I get the feeling you're in a little above your head and you're just highlighting stuff because you don't know what it means. [b]Just because someone doesn't have legs doesn't mean they aren't using their pelvis to walk. Their pelvis is still completely intact.[/b]
[/quote]


Yes, that is the crux of Gracovetsky's theory: that a person doesn't need legs to walk, you can use just the pelvis driven by coupled motion of the spine. He performed the research of the legless man, BTW. You're the one in over your head.

[scotee]

[color=#282828]"Do you even know what the ischial tuberosity is?"[/color]
[color=#282828]The best way to find out what the ischial tuberosity is: Ride a [/color][color="#282828"]bicycle 20 miles having not ridden in years. Get on the bike the next day and you will know exactly where your ischial tuberosity is.[/color]

[northgolf]

[quote name='dap' timestamp='1412094621' post='10212261']
I believe that left foot movement is something KM likes to see because it mimicks sadlowski.
[/quote]

More likely he accepts left foot movement (I've never read him saying he likes it) because it is indicative of IR of the left leg. He specifically discusses left foot movement at the end of this blog: [url="http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2012-07-how-to-shift-your-weight-without-sliding-.html"]http://www.aroundhaw...t-sliding-.html[/url]

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412095427' post='10212327']

[b]The whole spine engine theory just shows me people that don't understand anatomy. It's not physically possible.[/b]
[/quote]

What isn't physically possible?

[eightiron]

So I'm getting a clear picture in laymans terms , correct me if I'm wrong Tod , that Gracovetsky sees a half filled cup of water as half full but Mann sees it as half empty

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412096823' post='10212483']
So I'm getting a clear picture in laymans terms , correct me if I'm wrong Tod , that Gracovetsky sees a half filled cup of water as half full but Mann sees it as half empty
[/quote]


No. Mann is just blatantly misrepresenting Gracovetsky, aka "lying", because he doesn't like Kelvin. And he is completely ignorant of coupled motion of the spine (he claims it is a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky's), so he's unqualified to opine on the subject.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412096157' post='10212401']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412095427' post='10212327']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412094591' post='10212255']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412087912' post='10211579']
[b]So Mann is a pathological liar , a thief and delusional . I'm getting the idea that his criticisms of the spine engine theory , therefore must be nonsense?[/b]
[/quote]


Bingo. Let's look at what pick it up posted from Dr. Mann:

"[color=#282828]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. [b]Any rotational motion of the spine and mid-upper torso is [/b][/color][b][b]secondary[/b][color=#282828] to rotational motions of the pelvis that occur when walking/running and the spine is not the [/color][b]primary[/b][/b][color=#282828][b] engine of locomotion. That's the major difference![/b] 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."[/color]

[color=#282828]Right off the bat, Mann is lying. Mann states that the "spine engine" theory says the spine is the "primary engine of locomotion". That is not only false, it is such a farfetched claim, only a deeply delusional mind would make it. Of course the big muscles in the legs are the primary energy source for walking and running. The conventional wisdom at the time of Gracovetsky's research was that man evolved from creatures that used the spine as the primary motor for locomotion (i.e., fishes) to a creature that uses only the legs for locomotion, with the spine no longer playing any role (the "pedestrian theory of locomotion"). Gracovetsky believes that through coupled movements of the spine, the muscles of the upper body contribute to locomotion by rotating the pelvis and counter-rotating the shoulders. Dr. Erik Dalton has a nice one page summary of the competing theories, and makes it clear which one he endorses:[/color]

[url="http://erikdalton.com/spinal-engine-vs-the-pedestrian-theory-of-locomotion/"]http://erikdalton.co...-of-locomotion/[/url]

And Mann's lies just continue one after another. Here is the next paragraph:

[color=#282828]"For example, here is an image of a person who had total lumbar/thoracic spine fusion for severe scoliosis and [b]that person can still walk (although non-optimally)[/b]."[/color]

[color=#282828]Mann is taking one of Gracovetsky's own arguments, that an immobile spine impairs gait (providing evidence that the spine has a role in walking "optimally"), and suggests it contradicts his theory. It doesn't, it is strong evidence supporting his theory.[/color]

[color=#282828]Then Mann flat out lies one more time about Gracovetsky's beliefs:[/color]

[color=#282828]"[/color][color=#282828]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, [b]that doesn't mean that the spine is the [/b][/color][b][b]primary[/b][color=#282828] engine of locomotion. That may apply to snakes and eels, but it doesn't apply to bipedal human beings who have legs."[/color][/b]

In his book, [i]The Spinal Engine[/i], Gracovetsky devotes the first chapter to the evolutionary process and discusses how moving the primary muscles for locomotion from the torso to the legs and hips created a huge mechanical advantage, allowing such creatures to gallop and move much faster, to either catch food or avoid being eaten.

The spine engine theory hypothesizes that spine is not simply a supporting column, but is an "engine" that rotates the pelvis, through coupled motion. The legs greatly amplify the motion of the pelvis generated by the upper body, or "spine engine".

Of course, Mann misses the biggest point of all: it doesn't really matter whether Gracovetsky's theory of locomotion is 100% right or completely half-baked. The element that applies to the golf swing is coupled motion of the spine (lateral bend plus lordosis creating axial rotation to the opposite side), whose discovery predates the spine engine theory by decades, and is a standard part of manual medical texts and sports biomechanics courses. Mann seems completely unaware of this fact, and labels coupled motion as a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky!

[b][color=#282828]"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."[/color][/b]

[color=#282828]Starting to get the picture?[/color]
[/quote]

lol [b]he didn't say anything about the spine engine theory in your first bolded, he's talking about what occurs during walking, in which case he is correct.[/b][/quote]


Talk about missing the point. First, the spine engine theory is a theory of walking. Second, the bold statement "[color=#282828][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][b]the spine is not the primary engine of locomotion" [/b][/background][/size][/color]is correct and consistent with the spine engine theory; Mann claims, "wrong-headedly", that the spine engine theory disagrees with that statement. He is either profoundly ignorant or lying. Take your pick.


[quote]Do you even know what the ischial tuberosity is? I get the feeling you're in a little above your head and you're just highlighting stuff because you don't know what it means. [b]Just because someone doesn't have legs doesn't mean they aren't using their pelvis to walk. Their pelvis is still completely intact.[/b]
[/quote]


Yes, that is the crux of Gracovetsky's theory: that a person doesn't need legs to walk, you can use just the pelvis driven by coupled motion of the spine. He performed the research of the legless man, BTW. You're the one in over your head.
[/quote]

.... dude. It's not possible for me to be in over my head unless you're an orthopod or you've written research on this, like actually published research in a journal, not forum ramblings.

locomotion is walking... they're literally the same thing. he's saying it's not responsible for either, which would make sense, since they are the same thing.

no. I'm saying you can use your "legs" without having legs, because you're using your pelvis. not the spine, you're using your legs. You don't actually need the actual appendage to use your legs.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097143' post='10212515']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412096823' post='10212483']
So I'm getting a clear picture in laymans terms , correct me if I'm wrong Tod , that Gracovetsky sees a half filled cup of water as half full but Mann sees it as half empty
[/quote]


No. Mann is just blatantly misrepresenting Gracovetsky, aka "lying", because he doesn't like Kelvin. And he is completely ignorant of coupled motion of the spine (he claims it is a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky's), so he's unqualified to opine on the subject.
[/quote]

so because he believes it's a crazy theory, yet is a physician, he's unqualified to have an opinion? lol ok. but you, Joe Schmo who works in XYZ industry not related to the human body, yeah, totally qualified. stupid doctors

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412097192' post='10212517']

.... dude. It's not possible for me to be in over my head unless you're an orthopod or you've written research on this, like actually published research in a journal, not forum ramblings.

locomotion is walking... they're literally the same thing. he's saying it's not responsible for either, which would make sense, since they are the same thing.[/quote]

Yes, the spine is not the primary engine of locomotion, walking or running. Mann is claiming that the spine engine theory says the spine is the primary engine of locomotion, walking or running. Mann is wrong, either through ignorance (in which case his opinions should be ignored) or lying (ditto).


[quote]no. I'm saying you can use your "legs" without having legs, because you're using your pelvis. not the spine, you're using your legs. [b]You don't actually need the actual appendage to use your legs.[/b]
[/quote]

Coupled motion of the spine is what moves the pelvis of the legless man, not his legs that aren't there. Yikes!