Kelvin Miyahira: pro or con

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412097279' post='10212529']
[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]

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


Mann is either ignorant or lying, his own statements show that.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412097279' post='10212529']

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


The "crazy theory" is his own invention, it is not Gracovetsky's. So, his opinion isn't directed at Gracovetsky's work, it's directed at something he made up. That's called creating a straw man, then knocking it down.

[eightiron]

Tod have you ever considered running for President?

[ej002]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412097279' post='10212529']

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.[b] stupid doctors[/b]
[/quote]

He must be a lawyer...

[northgolf]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412097192' post='10212517']
...no. I'm saying you can use your "legs" without having legs....
[/quote]

The English language must be giving you fits.

[spider]

So let me get this "Hatfields and McCoys" feud straight.

Gwrx bans Jeffy (martin) and Jeff Mann (tiny club, frightening skin tight suit)

Jeffy vs. jeff mann
Jeffy & Kelvin vs. Manzella (the whole team)
Jeff Mann, Jeffy & Kelvin vs. manzella
Eightiron (the enigma, keeping everyone honest) vs all

Am I correct?

[pick it up]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1412084789' post='10211313']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412042671' post='10209657']
Confusing to say the least. I guess it depends on the result of c.h.s. then. Because Lucas won with that terrible 108mph c.h.s. the win wasn't as good as it could have been....lol!
[/quote]

Not confusing at all.

If I were looking to increase club head speed and I was basing it solely on the 'demonstrating a high level of proficiency', I would then not be taking a lesson from the 108 mph Lucas Wald.






RH
[/quote]


Lucas never taught when his c.h.s. was 108mph and I'm sure some of those other teachers you went to didn't have much more than 108mph c.h.s. themselves and that doesn't mean they couldn't help someone gain distance. By your theory if a teacher can bomb it then he surely can teach you how to bomb it. Not really Richie, he might be able to if you're capable or he might not. same for a teacher that hit's shorter..it depends. Also one can gain distance in other ways just by equipment and changing other impact factors.

The truth is c.h.s. alone isn't near enough to be a tour player and the average c.h.s. on Tour is around 113 mph. So this obsession with c.h.s. is misplaced. One does not need to have 120mph c.h.s. it would be nice...but it is not a must.

[pick it up]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097728' post='10212565']
[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!
[/quote]


Yeah except his back muscles and his hips are there...Yikes!!! Stuart McGill blew up S.G spine engine theory a long time ago. There are no interlocking facets in the area that K.M. claims. Love to see K.M, Lucas and you Jeff Martin in the same room with real spine experts and debate them with this goofy theory.

You got no legs to stand on.,.ha!

[eightiron]

[quote name='spider' timestamp='1412100234' post='10212819']
So let me get this "Hatfields and McCoys" feud straight.

Gwrx bans Jeffy (martin) and Jeff Mann (tiny club, frightening skin tight suit)

Jeffy vs. jeff mann
Jeffy & Kelvin vs. Manzella (the whole team)
Jeff Mann, Jeffy & Kelvin vs. manzella
Eightiron (the enigma, keeping everyone honest) vs all

Am I correct?
[/quote]

I'm just the gasoline boy at the local gas station

[dap]

[quote name='spider' timestamp='1412100234' post='10212819']
So let me get this "Hatfields and McCoys" feud straight.

Gwrx bans Jeffy (martin) and Jeff Mann (tiny club, frightening skin tight suit)

Jeffy vs. jeff mann
Jeffy & Kelvin vs. Manzella (the whole team)
Jeff Mann, Jeffy & Kelvin vs. manzella
Eightiron (the enigma, keeping everyone honest) vs all

Am I correct?
[/quote]
Almost. Jeff "tights" Mann has been dissing Jeffy a lot more than Manzella on his forum so if it comes down to it I reckon "tights" will side with Manzella against Jeffy.

[northgolf]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412100922' post='10212875']
[quote name='spider' timestamp='1412100234' post='10212819']
So let me get this "Hatfields and McCoys" feud straight.

Gwrx bans Jeffy (martin) and Jeff Mann (tiny club, frightening skin tight suit)

Jeffy vs. jeff mann
Jeffy & Kelvin vs. Manzella (the whole team)
Jeff Mann, Jeffy & Kelvin vs. manzella
Eightiron (the enigma, keeping everyone honest) vs all

Am I correct?
[/quote]

I'm just the gasoline boy at the local gas station
[/quote]

A gasoline boy with a lighter.

[pick it up]

[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]


That disqualifies you then every time you go off on some other teacher claiming they are incompetent...because you don't like them and you have an agenda which is to promote you're guru's theories. Goose/Gander.

[pick it up]

[quote name='dap' timestamp='1412101063' post='10212891']
[quote name='spider' timestamp='1412100234' post='10212819']
So let me get this "Hatfields and McCoys" feud straight.

Gwrx bans Jeffy (martin) and Jeff Mann (tiny club, frightening skin tight suit)

Jeffy vs. jeff mann
Jeffy & Kelvin vs. Manzella (the whole team)
Jeff Mann, Jeffy & Kelvin vs. manzella
Eightiron (the enigma, keeping everyone honest) vs all

Am I correct?
[/quote]
Almost. Jeff "tights" Mann has been dissing Jeffy a lot more than Manzella on his forum so if it comes down to it I reckon "tights" will side with Manzella against Jeffy.
[/quote]


No I think it's because Manzella's forum has gone dark and there's nothing for Mann to trash at the moment.

[pick it up]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412087094' post='10211517']
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.
[/quote]


Pot/kettle.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='spider' timestamp='1412100234' post='10212819']
So let me get this "Hatfields and McCoys" feud straight.

Gwrx bans Jeffy (martin) and Jeff Mann (tiny club, frightening skin tight suit)

Jeffy vs. jeff mann
Jeffy & Kelvin vs. Manzella (the whole team)
Jeff Mann, Jeffy & Kelvin vs. manzella
Eightiron (the enigma, keeping everyone honest) vs all

Am I correct?
[/quote]

one you forgot to add (from a previous thread):

eightiron vs cmartingolf (martin chuck)

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1044921-joseph-mayo-does-owning-a-trackman-qualify-someone-as-an-instructor/page__st__120#entry9639387


did we ever hear about the results of the proposed match?

[russc1597187869]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412098257' post='10212619']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412097279' post='10212529']
[b]so because he believes it's a crazy theory, yet is a physician, he's unqualified to have an opinion?[/b] lol ok. but you, Joe Schmo who works in XYZ industry not related to the human body, yeah, totally qualified. stupid doctors
[/quote]


The "crazy theory" is his own invention, it is not Gracovetsky's. So, his opinion isn't directed at Gracovetsky's work, it's directed at something he made up. That's called creating a straw man, then knocking it down.
[/quote]
Tod
No offense meant ,but no one including you ,pinhigh27,eightiron , or I or anyone who has posted on this specific topic really understands Mr Gracoveysky's work well.Kelvin refers to it like it is acceptable medical fact ;I doubt very much whether that is the case.If you can find articles in respected medical journals it would be informative if you could post them l .I would encourage spinal surgeons or those who teach in academia to post on this subject
In regard to posting videos of individuals who are encouraged to pursue the incorrect swings on the website,i do not post the swings of private individuals without their permission,but if you go to the swing journal section,there are a number (not all swings) of them.If you want I will go into detail where many golfers might misinterpret his instruction

[dap]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412101575' post='10212955']
[quote name='dap' timestamp='1412101063' post='10212891']
[quote name='spider' timestamp='1412100234' post='10212819']
So let me get this "Hatfields and McCoys" feud straight.

Gwrx bans Jeffy (martin) and Jeff Mann (tiny club, frightening skin tight suit)

Jeffy vs. jeff mann
Jeffy & Kelvin vs. Manzella (the whole team)
Jeff Mann, Jeffy & Kelvin vs. manzella
Eightiron (the enigma, keeping everyone honest) vs all

Am I correct?
[/quote]
Almost. Jeff "tights" Mann has been dissing Jeffy a lot more than Manzella on his forum so if it comes down to it I reckon "tights" will side with Manzella against Jeffy.
[/quote]


No I think it's because Manzella's forum has gone dark and there's nothing for Mann to trash at the moment.
[/quote]
Yes but still plenty of Manzella material out there available to trash....going normal is a biggie. There is also the handle dragging saga to whoop a** on.

[Golf nerd]

This French student of Kelvin has read the articles and took online lessons. He has improved a lot...
[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5gA2gVDs5Bo"]https://www.youtube....e&v=5gA2gVDs5Bo[/url]

Older swing analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yeYn9I6kHmo

[Mcaesq]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412100889' post='10212873']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097728' post='10212565']
[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!
[/quote]


Yeah except his back muscles and his hips are there...Yikes!!! Stuart McGill blew up S.G spine engine theory a long time ago. There are no interlocking facets in the area that K.M. claims. Love to see K.M, Lucas and you Jeff Martin in the same room with real spine experts and debate them with this goofy theory.

You got no legs to stand on.,.ha!
[/quote]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t read K.M. to advocate a “spine powered” swing. Instead, I view his articles as using spine position as a proxy for optimal swing positions.

Take, for example, the idea of the sacrum moving backwards that seems to have everyone tied in knots. I don’t think he’s saying “consciously move your sacrum backwards on the downswing.” That would be absurd. In my opinion, he’s saying that one indicator of a solid hip turn on the downswing is the sacrum moving backwards.

I read this statement to endorse a glute-centric hip turn rather than a quad-based hip turn. This theory makes anatomical sense. Glutes are big movers and built for rapid acceleration (see, e.g., every sprinter ever).

All K.M.’s doing is describing conventional golf ideas in a different way. I like the way he phrases and analyzes things because his articles reference specific anatomical points on the human body and tend to be less abstract (again, it’s much easier for me to follow a line progression throughout the swing rather than implement abstract concepts like “make a deep hip turn” or “maintain secondary tilt”). His prescriptions essentially yield the same impact position as “conventional” descriptions of the golf swing (hands ahead at impact, no moving off the tush line, right elbow in front of the right hip, etc.).

I don’t really understand what all the fuss is about. Am I missing something? Pinhigh, do you follow/agree with what I’m saying?

edit: put simply, he, like everyone who analyzes the golf swing, uses inductive reasoning to suggest ideal positions. Unlike many other instructors, he tends to focus on the movement of specific anatomical points during the swing as a means to identify what cluster of traits tend to be associated with the most efficient movements. (And that, in my opinion, is a much better way to go about it than using terms that could (and regularly are) routinely misinterpreted, e.g. pivot, deep hip turn, shoulder turn perpendicular to the spine, etc.).

[Tod Johnson]

russc-

Just Google "coupled motion lumber spine" or "Fryette's laws". I'll post links to texts and papers that I found useful when I get home.

The McGill/Gracovetsky debate is a sideshow. It has little to do with the relevance of coupled motion to the golf swing. Gracovetsky presumably introduced Kelvin to the topic, and devotes a chapter of his book to discussing it, but all the real research on coupled movements of the spine has been done by others. The spine engine theory relies on coupled movements of the spine, just as it relies on the law of gravity. It doesn't matter to the validity of either one if spine engine theory is right or wrong.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097728' post='10212565']
[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!
[/quote]

I don't even know if you understand what you're arguing for anymore.

You said this , "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)."

That's literally exactly it says. Here's the pubmed abstract of it.

[url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573762"]http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/3573762[/url]

It literally says : " [size=2][color=#000000]In light of the numerous observations contradicting this view, we have proposed an alternative hypothesis in which the spine and its surrounding tissues comprise the basic engine of locomotion."[/color][/size]

[size=3][size=4][color=#000000]Therefore, Mann isn't falsely representing anyone. He's accurately representing the claim in literature. Unless you're going to claim somehow Pubmed is lying too, in which case I'd tell you that for my research on there, it's pretty accurate.....

I'm telling you that you don't need the full length of your legs to make use of your pelvis. I'm not talking about anything related to the spine, I'm saying simply that if you have a head of a femur in the acetabulum, you can use your legs to generate force and move your pelvis. [/color][/size][/size]

0/2, what claim is next?

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1412086338' post='10211443']
You should write a book about your experiences Richie.
[/quote]

Only to have people comment that my experiences are 'BS'...no thanks.





RH

[eightiron]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412105298' post='10213331']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097728' post='10212565']
[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!
[/quote]

I don't even know if you understand what you're arguing for anymore.

You said this , "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)."

That's literally exactly it says. Here's the pubmed abstract of it.

[url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573762"]http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/3573762[/url]

It literally says : " [size=2][color=#000000]In light of the numerous observations contradicting this view, we have proposed an alternative hypothesis in which the spine and its surrounding tissues comprise the basic engine of locomotion."[/color][/size]

[size=3][size=4][color=#000000]Therefore, Mann isn't falsely representing anyone. He's accurately representing the claim in literature. Unless you're going to claim somehow Pubmed is lying too, in which case I'd tell you that for my research on there, it's pretty accurate.....

I'm telling you that you don't need the full length of your legs to make use of your pelvis. I'm not talking about anything related to the spine, I'm saying simply that if you have a head of a femur in the acetabulum, you can use your legs to generate force and move your pelvis. [/color][/size][/size]

0/2, what claim is next?
[/quote]

That's better than a cigarette lighter , more like a tactical nuke

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412105298' post='10213331']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097728' post='10212565']
[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!
[/quote]

I don't even know if you understand what you're arguing for anymore.

You said this , "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)."

That's literally exactly it says. Here's the pubmed abstract of it.

[url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573762"]http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/3573762[/url]

It literally says : " [size=2][color=#000000]In light of the numerous observations contradicting this view, we have proposed an alternative hypothesis in which the spine and its surrounding tissues comprise the basic engine of locomotion."[/color][/size]

[size=3][size=4][color=#000000]Therefore, Mann isn't falsely representing anyone. He's accurately representing the claim in literature. Unless you're going to claim somehow Pubmed is lying too, in which case I'd tell you that for my research on there, it's pretty accurate.....[/quote][/color][/size][/size]

"Basic engine of locomotion" does not mean the spine (and the muscles of the upper body) is the primary source of energy for locomotion. That premise is so completely farfetched, if it is what the article claimed, the article would never have been submitted, let alone passed peer review. If you go ahead and pay for the article and read it, or even better, buy Gracovetsky's book, you'll see that what he is saying is that the spine directs the rotation of the pelvis and the legs amplify that motion, just as Dalton described in the article I linked to. Gracovetsky seems to think that driving the pelvis makes the spine the "basic engine" for locomotion. Not the best choice of words in my opinion, but English isn't his first language.


[size=3][size=4][color=#000000][quote]I'm telling you that you don't need the full length of your legs to make use of your pelvis. I'm not talking about anything related to the spine, I'm saying simply that if you have a head of a femur in the acetabulum, you can use your legs to generate force and move your pelvis. [/quote][/color][/size][/size]

[color=#000000]Are you talking about a double amputee with the "head of the femur" intact? Beats the s*** out of me whether or not the "legs" can do anything in that case. Not at all relevant to Gracovetsky's research with the man born without legs.[/color]

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='PutterKilledTheDream' timestamp='1412089380' post='10211701']
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.[/QUOTE]

My point ALL ALONG has been that looking at the ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency to judge an instructor's ability is ambiguous and often leads to hypocritical and unfounded conclusions. It leads golfers to bad instructors and avoiding good instructors all of the time.

*I* do not care about an instructor's ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency. I don't care whether it is being able to shoot under par in tournaments or if they can generate 120 mph of club head speed.

What I am pointing out is the various flaws in the logic of the 'demonstrating a high level of proficiency' theory. If an instructor can't generate more than 100 mph club head speed, then *if* you are to judge based on a proficiency standpoint...I don't think that is demonstrating a 'high level of proficiency.'

Ballstriking comes down to power (club head speed), accuracy and consistency. One can be very accurate, but if they are generating less than 100 mph club head speed then they are not HIGHLY proficient as a *ballstriker.*

Of course, my definition of being 'highly proficient' may be different from yours.

But that's why my argument comes around full circle...it's too ambiguous and there are too many flaws in using the [i]you must show a high level of proficiency[/i] argument.



[quote]Do you know how many local teaching pros swing right around 100 mph? Most. [/quote]

I agree. But 100 mph is not a high level of proficiency in my book.


[quote]And for whatever reason RH, you've got a ' instructor' that fits that mold perfectly on your top50 list.[/quote]

I've got that instructor on my top-50 list because as I write about in the beginning of my top-50 list...[i]at the end of the day you are judged based on how well you improve your students' games.[/i]

Butch Harmon and Mike Bender played on Tour (Butch won the BC Open). But, both of them will tell you that they know far more about teaching and the golf swing NOW than they did when they were on Tour. Why does hitting the ball well at a high level of proficiency matter back then when they didn't have nearly anywhere the same knowledge about teaching and the golf swing as they do now?

I think this thread indicates a clear problem with the golf instruction industry, the main goal should be finding instructors that improve golfers instead of all of the other nonsense.






RH

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412106931' post='10213519']

That's better than a cigarette lighter , more like a tactical nuke
[/quote]

That has blown up in your face. Your interpretation of the abstract is wrong, as is Mann's fantasy. Read an actual paper or book by Gracovetsky, not an abstract or Jeff Mann's delusions.

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412100645' post='10212847']
Lucas never taught when his c.h.s. was 108mph[/quote]

I don't believe this is true. You should check with Lucas. But again, you made up your mind that Kelvin couldn't break 100 and never seen him play or hit balls.


[quote]and I'm sure some of those other teachers you went to didn't have much more than 108mph c.h.s. themselves and that doesn't mean they couldn't help someone gain distance. By your theory if a teacher can bomb it then he surely can teach you how to bomb it. Not really Richie, he might be able to if you're capable or he might not. same for a teacher that hit's shorter..it depends. Also one can gain distance in other ways just by equipment and changing other impact factors.[/quote]


I guess this completely flew all over you head.

I never said this was MY THEORY.

I have *repeatedly* argued against the theory of '[i]demonstrating a high level of [/i]proficiency' because it is [u]flawed[/u], [u]hypocritical [/u]and leads to [u]unsound judgments[/u].

I am arguing *[b]against[/b]* the [i]'demonstrating the high level of proficiency' [/i]because like [u][b]YOU[/b][/u] said....just because they can't reach that much club head speed does not mean they can't teach somebody to do it.



You are so wrapped up in trying to prove me wrong that you have gotten lost in your own argument.

[quote]The truth is c.h.s. alone isn't near enough to be a tour player and the average c.h.s. on Tour is around 113 mph. So this obsession with c.h.s. is misplaced. One does not need to have 120mph c.h.s. it would be nice...but it is not a must.
[/quote]

Who is saying that '[i]you must have 120 mph club head speed?'[/i]

I've already stated the average club head speed for a Tour player.

I will spell it out 1 last time:

1. Claiming an ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency is needed to be a good teacher is false IMO. It is too ambiguous and leads to contradictory and biased judgments that have nothing to do with teaching and improving players.


2. IF one is to use the [i]'demonstrate a high level of proficiency' [/i]argument...then it counters many well respected teachers in the world and on this forum because they simply do not generate enough club head speed to be considered 'highly proficient' for *myself* and for many others.


3. Again, I do not care about an instructor's level of proficiency with a golf club.


4. But, if I were to use that argument, how is one supposed to get a high enough level of club head speed (let's say going from 100 to 110 mph) if they are going to an instructor that only generates about 100 mph club head speed themselves?


There is the flaws in your argument and that is why *I* do not worry about an instructor demonstrating a high level of proficiency. What matters to me is their ability to get their students to improve.




RH

[RichieHunt]

I thought I remembered this post:

[i][b]For a bonus a visit to Newton Golf Institute ( pretty sure it's a hospital with padded cells) where Jeff Mann posts all by himself bagging Kelvin and Jeffy[/b][/i]

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1024825-kelvin-miyahira-method/#entry9374283

[i][b]Eightiron- [/b][/i]What made you change your mind about Jeff Mann in roughly 4 months?







RH

[pick it up]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1412108120' post='10213647']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412100645' post='10212847']
Lucas never taught when his c.h.s. was 108mph[/quote]

I don't believe this is true. You should check with Lucas. But again, you made up your mind that Kelvin couldn't break 100 and never seen him play or hit balls.


[quote]and I'm sure some of those other teachers you went to didn't have much more than 108mph c.h.s. themselves and that doesn't mean they couldn't help someone gain distance. By your theory if a teacher can bomb it then he surely can teach you how to bomb it. Not really Richie, he might be able to if you're capable or he might not. same for a teacher that hit's shorter..it depends. Also one can gain distance in other ways just by equipment and changing other impact factors.[/quote]


I guess this completely flew all over you head.

I never said this was MY THEORY.

I have *repeatedly* argued against the theory of '[i]demonstrating a high level of [/i]proficiency' because it is [u]flawed[/u], [u]hypocritical [/u]and leads to [u]unsound judgments[/u].

I am arguing *[b]against[/b]* the [i]'demonstrating the high level of proficiency' [/i]because like [u][b]YOU[/b][/u] said....just because they can't reach that much club head speed does not mean they can't teach somebody to do it.



You are so wrapped up in trying to prove me wrong that you have gotten lost in your own argument.

[quote]The truth is c.h.s. alone isn't near enough to be a tour player and the average c.h.s. on Tour is around 113 mph. So this obsession with c.h.s. is misplaced. One does not need to have 120mph c.h.s. it would be nice...but it is not a must.
[/quote]

Who is saying that '[i]you must have 120 mph club head speed?'[/i]

I've already stated the average club head speed for a Tour player.

I will spell it out 1 last time:

1. Claiming an ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency is needed to be a good teacher is false IMO. It is too ambiguous and leads to contradictory and biased judgments that have nothing to do with teaching and improving players.


2. IF one is to use the [i]'demonstrate a high level of proficiency' [/i]argument...then it counters many well respected teachers in the world and on this forum because they simply do not generate enough club head speed to be considered 'highly proficient' for *myself* and for many others.


3. Again, I do not care about an instructor's level of proficiency with a golf club.


4. But, if I were to use that argument, how is one supposed to get a high enough level of club head speed (let's say going from 100 to 110 mph) if they are going to an instructor that only generates about 100 mph club head speed themselves?


There is the flaws in your argument and that is why *I* do not worry about an instructor demonstrating a high level of proficiency. What matters to me is their ability to get their students to improve.




RH
[/quote]

[pick it up]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1412108120' post='10213647']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412100645' post='10212847']
Lucas never taught when his c.h.s. was 108mph[/quote]

I don't believe this is true. You should check with Lucas. But again, you made up your mind that Kelvin couldn't break 100 and never seen him play or hit balls.


[quote]and I'm sure some of those other teachers you went to didn't have much more than 108mph c.h.s. themselves and that doesn't mean they couldn't help someone gain distance. By your theory if a teacher can bomb it then he surely can teach you how to bomb it. Not really Richie, he might be able to if you're capable or he might not. same for a teacher that hit's shorter..it depends. Also one can gain distance in other ways just by equipment and changing other impact factors.[/quote]


I guess this completely flew all over you head.

I never said this was MY THEORY.

I have *repeatedly* argued against the theory of '[i]demonstrating a high level of [/i]proficiency' because it is [u]flawed[/u], [u]hypocritical [/u]and leads to [u]unsound judgments[/u].

I am arguing *[b]against[/b]* the [i]'demonstrating the high level of proficiency' [/i]because like [u][b]YOU[/b][/u] said....just because they can't reach that much club head speed does not mean they can't teach somebody to do it.



You are so wrapped up in trying to prove me wrong that you have gotten lost in your own argument.

[quote]The truth is c.h.s. alone isn't near enough to be a tour player and the average c.h.s. on Tour is around 113 mph. So this obsession with c.h.s. is misplaced. One does not need to have 120mph c.h.s. it would be nice...but it is not a must.
[/quote]

Who is saying that '[i]you must have 120 mph club head speed?'[/i]

I've already stated the average club head speed for a Tour player.

I will spell it out 1 last time:

1. Claiming an ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency is needed to be a good teacher is false IMO. It is too ambiguous and leads to contradictory and biased judgments that have nothing to do with teaching and improving players.


2. IF one is to use the [i]'demonstrate a high level of proficiency' [/i]argument...then it counters many well respected teachers in the world and on this forum because they simply do not generate enough club head speed to be considered 'highly proficient' for *myself* and for many others.


3. Again, I do not care about an instructor's level of proficiency with a golf club.


4. But, if I were to use that argument, how is one supposed to get a high enough level of club head speed (let's say going from 100 to 110 mph) if they are going to an instructor that only generates about 100 mph club head speed themselves?


There is the flaws in your argument and that is why *I* do not worry about an instructor demonstrating a high level of proficiency. What matters to me is their ability to get their students to improve.




RH
[/quote]

What's this mean then?
'If I were looking to increase club head speed and I was basing it solely on the 'demonstrating a high level of proficiency', I would then not be taking a lesson from the 108 mph Lucas Wald.' Yet that's exactly what you did, took lessons from Lucas to increase your c.h.s because he demonstrated a proficiency to hit it long with a high c.h.s.

Show me where I said anything about Kelvin's swing speed.... never happened!


You said: "But, if I were to use that argument, how is one supposed to get a high enough level of club head speed (let's say going from 100 to 110 mph) if they are going to an instructor that only generates about 100 mph club head speed themselves?"


I already said the instructors swing speed is irrelevant, you seem to have missed that in your haste to defend your position. Must of flew over your head!