Kelvin Miyahira: pro or con

[eightiron]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1412108376' post='10213679']
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
[/quote]

He's still there but lost his internet privileges . But it doesn't make him wrong about the spine engine theory . I think Mann is right about the trail side not going into lateral bend immediately from the top of the swing

[Mitchell]

Why must so many threads in the instructional forum degenerate into bickering?

[eagle1997]

[quote name='dap' timestamp='1412132075' post='10215829']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1412131293' post='10215767']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412130478' post='10215695']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412126729' post='10215305']
As far as I'm aware, all mammals that have ever been alive feature limbs.[/quote]

Whales?
[/quote]

so perfect. lol.


[/quote]
The front flippers would be considered limbs. Also many people don't know that whales did once have useable legs and they still have leg bones concealed just under the skin.
[/quote]

Thanks. I was ROTFL because whales - I repeat - WHALES!!! - were being brought up in the golf instruction forum. I guess I'm the only one who found that hilarious.

But now I know that whales once had useable legs. That pretty cool.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412139581' post='10216271']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097728' post='10212565']
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]

This is the published work by the spine engine guy

Locomotion is generally perceived as being the function of the legs. The trunk is considered to be carried along in a more or less passive way. This popular hypothesis appears to have been accepted with little substantiation. 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. This theory is consistent with available experimental data which suggest that the motion of the spine precedes that of the legs. Indeed, the variations in the power delivered to the pelvis by the spine are strikingly similar to, but slightly ahead of, the variation in power at the hip





^^^ isn't Mann saying the same thing
[/quote]

No, this is what Mann said:

"[color=#282828]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 [/color][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][color=#282828] engine of locomotion."[/color]


Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Jeff Mann is saying what everyone knows to be true, including Gracovetsky: man walks around on their legs, with the large leg and hip muscles providing most of the power. Gracovetsky is saying that normal human gait is only possible with a normally functioning spine (a point Mann makes as if it contradicts Gracovetsky), and the spine movements "precede that of the legs" by rotating the pelvis. Gracovetsky is using the term "primary engine" to mean it is the first "engine" to fire, initiating locomotion, then the legs follow, amplifying the movement of the pelvis. "Primary engine" does not mean the "largest engine", which is what Mann is claiming Gracovetsky means. That idea is so ridiculous, no one would ever submit it to a journal, no journal editor would ever send it to reviewers, no reviewers would ever recommend publication, and no one in the scientific community would ever pay the slightest attention to it. Yet, Mann seems to believe that the opposite is exactly what happened. Is that what you believe?

[Cicero]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412168439' post='10217063'][quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412139581' post='10216271']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097728' post='10212565']
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]

This is the published work by the spine engine guy

Locomotion is generally perceived as being the function of the legs. The trunk is considered to be carried along in a more or less passive way. This popular hypothesis appears to have been accepted with little substantiation. 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. This theory is consistent with available experimental data which suggest that the motion of the spine precedes that of the legs. Indeed, the variations in the power delivered to the pelvis by the spine are strikingly similar to, but slightly ahead of, the variation in power at the hip





^^^ isn't Mann saying the same thing
[/quote]

No, this is what Mann said:

"[color=#282828]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 [/color][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][color=#282828] engine of locomotion."[/color]


Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Jeff Mann is saying what everyone knows to be true, including Gracovetsky: man walks around on their legs, with the large leg and hip muscles providing most of the power. Gracovetsky is saying that normal human gait is only possible with a normally functioning spine (a point Mann makes as if it contradicts Gracovetsky), and the spine movements "precede that of the legs" by rotating the pelvis. Gracovetsky is using the term "primary engine" to mean it is the first "engine" to fire, initiating locomotion, then the legs follow, amplifying the movement of the pelvis. "Primary engine" does not mean the "largest engine", which is what Mann is claiming Gracovetsky means. That idea is so ridiculous, no one would ever submit it to a journal, no journal editor would ever send it to reviewers, no reviewers would ever recommend publication, and no one in the scientific community would ever pay the slightest attention to it. Yet, Mann seems to believe that the opposite is exactly what happened. Is that what you believe?[/quote]

The above text quoted by 8i calls the spine and the surrounding tissues the basic engine of locomotion, not the primary engine.

[tembolo1284]

So how do I increase my average swing speed 5 mph without losing any accuracy?

[eightiron]

^^^^ yes I agree , the spine engine guy seems to be saying it's the basic engine , I don't read that as the first or primary engine . He also seems to imply he had a contradictory view to the legs being the main part of locomotion .
So if Mann used this as his source of material , there is no way he is telling lies . This is classic lawyer twisting bull chit going on

[Cicero]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1412169134' post='10217109']So how do I increase my average swing speed 5 mph without losing any accuracy?[/quote]

When you find out, let me know.

Won't be here though. This thread's toast for practical info.

[ej002]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412169713' post='10217145']
^^^^ yes I agree , the spine engine guy seems to be saying it's the basic engine , I don't read that as the first or primary engine . He also seems to imply he had a contradictory view to the legs being the main part of locomotion .
So if Mann used this as his source of material , there is no way he is telling lies . This is classic lawyer twisting bull chit going on
[/quote]

Total lawyer tactics at their best. Thankfully we a have a few geniuses around here able to sniff that chit out.

For 22 pages I don't think any one understood "primary" to mean the initial movement, but rather primary in the sense that it is the "most important" movement or "doing the majority of the work". Isn't Kelvin's theory that the spine is the main force (as in doing most of the work) in the golfswing? Hence the reason for all those videos about the spine elasticity snapping all over the place?

[size=4]So, to complete the thought and to follow what Jeffy/Tod is saying. Apparently, Gracovetsky is only saying the spine tissue moves first, but agrees that the spine is not doing the majority of the work. Okay big deal (this could be true). But if that is truly what he is saying, then where does Kelvin's spine powering the golfswing theory derive its basis? A: Nowhere.[/size]

Thank you for playing you now just proved Kelvin's spine engine golfswing to be total rubbish and completely unsupported by even the kookiest of doctors.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNvi1kdo4Wg

[ej002]

If the spine powered anything in the swing like that video claims, you could go to p4.... jump off a diving board, and your body would snap straight and you would be able to hit a golf ball. That would happen under Kelvin's theory b/c t[size=4]here would be no ground forces preventing the spine from straightening like the measuring tape. [/size]

[size=4]Obviously that is not what happens in the real world... the whole idea is a total farce. [/size]

[tembolo1284]

i'm so lost.

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='PutterKilledTheDream' timestamp='1412111509' post='10213949']
RH lets go a slightly different direction with this. What do you think it takes to become a good instructor? I don't think your Harmon and Bender examples are good one because both those were players before becoming teachers. Do you think a teacher can be truly effective at passing on something they have little first hand experience with themselves? And how and where do they learn how to do this without that experience? Forget about swing speed and the ability to create tour caliber mechanics, I'm talking about simply teaching someone how to become a good all-around player tee to green.
[/quote]

I think that all instruction, whether it is on the golf course, classroom or in other sports...is really a people business. I believe this first and foremost.

When I think of all of the instructors I have seen, from the very good to the very bad and in-between...I have seen all of them have a wide array of mechanical knowledge. Some very good instructors who consistently improve their students despite having a lot of inaccuracies in their knowledge of the swing. Others that are what I feel poor instructors (students improvement is minimal, takes too long for improvement, etc) that are up-to-date on the latest gizmos and all of the scientific mechanics.

But what I typically see from instructors is that they will get their students mostly to become more consistent at making good contact and getting the ball airborne while reducing the curvature of the ball flight. Improving distance is usually rare unless the player is such a complete hacker that just a minor repair of outstandingly awful mechanics will increase anybody's distance.

The common thread between the good instructors to the poor instructors to the somewhere in between instructors is their feel for people. The best instructors tend to get a good read on their students right away. They understand what the players' goals and motivations are. They know exactly when the student is not grasping the concept and go to a different direction to help the student grasp the concept. They don't treat every student the same or even try to paint the student into a template of instruction (i.e. this student hits a hook, so I will try to fix him like I fix all of my students with a hook). They are experts at the learning and skill acquisition process. They don't over-teach and they don't under-teach. And they have an unbridled passion for their students' game and are chomping at the bit to see their improve.

I do believe that a teacher that does not have first hand experience can pass on their knowledge to get their student to do that. I see it all of the time. I see it when I go to Tour events. Teachers that have never come anywhere close to striking it as well as a PGA Tour player improve their Tour players. I've seen it in football where Bill Parcells is known for teaching punt returns and played Offensive Line in college and never returned a punt in a game. Or Tony LaRussa working on the swing mechanics with one of his hitters. Or Jim Boeheim teaching his players how to play the 2-3 zone properly when he played primarily man-to-man in college.

But if you're looking for a 'high level of proficiency' you would just bristle at the notion of being taught by Parcells on how to return punts, LaRussa on baseball swing mechanics and Boeheim at teaching the 2-3 zone. To me, that's your loss.






RH

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412114377' post='10214221']
So why pick Lucas...what's the matter with George? Morad can't come up with the goods? There's a reason you picked Lucas and it ain't for his briliant ball striking, you said you wanted more c.h.s. so.... why Lucas? Simple answer you said he went from 108 to 120 and that impressed you. My point is proven by your own words. Lucas demonstrated the ability to be a proficient long hitter and thus you picked him because of it. It's the c.h.s. that you were after first and not the ball striking.
[/quote]

I don't get lessons from Lucas, I get them from Kelvin.






RH

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412140064' post='10216287']
He's still there but lost his internet privileges.[/quote]

What's that have to do with anything?

[quote]But it doesn't make him wrong about the spine engine theory . I think Mann is right about the trail side not going into lateral bend immediately from the top of the swing.[/quote]

I would just be careful about implying somebody is a nutjob and then using them as a credible reference to support your argument.





RH

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412135680' post='10216065']
from Richies mouth about Kelvin's results as a teacher... Post #193... For me, watching Lucas and Grant improve by leaps and bounds, [color=#FF0000]especially with their club head speed[/color] answers the question of [i]can he take his knowledge and theories, apply it to a wide array of students' golf swings and will that show up in some sort of legitimate measurement?[/i]


Nuff said. Point proven. Thanks for playing.
[/quote]

One of the reasons I started to see Kelvin (and I've mentioned this before) is that I got tired of stalling the pelvis in the downswing, particularly in tournament situations where it would rear its ugly head. I played the Florida Mid-Am and shot 78-73, finishing 31st out of 135 players and that was the worst ballstriking I have performed all year long. And it happens right at the time I played in a tournament.

None of the teachers I have worked with before taught a hip stall. But, I struggled with it. My right hip would dip in the downswing and the hips would slide providing an upward hip slant at around p5. That would cause the stall and flip-roll. That would cost me power, but also accuracy and consistency and it usually showed up at tournament time or on a tough shot that didn't really fit my eye.

I had worked with instructors that worked to try and fix that and trying to feel like you're keeping the right hip up higher and the left hip low in the downswing. I just couldn't get it to work.

From reading Kelvin's articles and videos where he has discussed Left Pelvic tilt and Anterior Pelvic Tilt along with the Lateral Bend helping promote the pelvis rotation and watching his students being able to improve it, it was a large reason why I decided to take lessons from Kelvin.


As far as hitting it further and being as accurate it depends on what you view as 'accuracy.' I think the common thread is fairway percentage, but if you increase your club head speed by say, 8 mph, you're going to gain roughly 25 yards. Fairways are usually designed to bottleneck to a degree, so you're going to miss more fairways. Also, the geometry of the ball flight will alter your room for error (Erik Barzeski wrote a great article on this once).

I would be more concerned about the how well one keeps it in play with regards to added distance rather than hoping to hit the same amount of fairways. Jerry Kelly hits far more fairways than Rory McIlroy, but Rory is far more effective off the tee because he is so much longer than Kelly and hits it accurately enough to where Kelly finding the fairway more often doesn't offset Rory's distance off the tee.








RH

[northgolf]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412129048' post='10215551']

What r u talking about? I never said Richie was taking lessons from Lucas! I was implying Richie saw what Lucas accomplished with his swing speed change and that prompted him to use Lucas and Grant Hooper as the motivation to increase his club head speed first and not his ball striking, as he claimed his c.h.s was lacking. It wasn't Lucas's ball striking that Richie commented on and was so impressed with it was his gain in c.h.s.



I think i'm too deep for u too understand me...lol!
[/quote]

No, you just pose a false dichotomy; that is you argue that using an increase in club head speed as a factor in choosing an instructor precludes better ball striking as a goal. Usually, an increase in club head speed is accomplished through better swing mechanics and better swing mechanics result in better ball striking. This can be seen in the correlation of c.h.s. and skill level - as a group low handicap players have higher c.h.s. than high handicap players and as a group Tour pro's have higher c.h.s than top Am's.

[Mcaesq]

[quote name='ej002' timestamp='1412170669' post='10217213']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412169713' post='10217145']
^^^^ yes I agree , the spine engine guy seems to be saying it's the basic engine , I don't read that as the first or primary engine . He also seems to imply he had a contradictory view to the legs being the main part of locomotion .
So if Mann used this as his source of material , there is no way he is telling lies . This is classic lawyer twisting bull chit going on
[/quote]

Total lawyer tactics at their best. Thankfully we a have a few geniuses around here able to sniff that chit out.

For 22 pages I don't think any one understood "primary" to mean the initial movement, but rather primary in the sense that it is the "most important" movement or "doing the majority of the work". Isn't Kelvin's theory that the spine is the main force (as in doing most of the work) in the golfswing? Hence the reason for all those videos about the spine elasticity snapping all over the place?

[size=4]So, to complete the thought and to follow what Jeffy/Tod is saying. Apparently, Gracovetsky is only saying the spine tissue moves first, but agrees that the spine is not doing the majority of the work. Okay big deal (this could be true). But if that is truly what he is saying, then where does Kelvin's spine powering the golfswing theory derive its basis? A: Nowhere.[/size]

Thank you for playing you now just proved Kelvin's spine engine golfswing to be total rubbish and completely unsupported by even the kookiest of doctors.
[/quote]
Nobody here is a genius, and this thread reads like logical fallacy bingo.

What you're saying doesn't jive at all with how I read Kelvin's stuff. Please address the following:
[quote name='Mcaesq' timestamp='1412103942' post='10213183']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412100889' post='10212873']




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.).

edit #2: the spine "powers" the golf swing in the same way that hinging the hips "powers" a person's ability to jump. It's not that the spine or hips actually generates power (they're not muscles...) but instead that certain spine/hip positions create optimal position for force generation.
[/quote]

And, for the record, I don't care what Jeff 1 or Jeff 2 say. All I want to know is whether you agree with my interpretation of Kelvin's articles. If you don't, please tell me why.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='Cicero' timestamp='1412168870' post='10217085']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412168439' post='10217063'][quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412139581' post='10216271']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412097728' post='10212565']
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]

This is the published work by the spine engine guy

Locomotion is generally perceived as being the function of the legs. The trunk is considered to be carried along in a more or less passive way. This popular hypothesis appears to have been accepted with little substantiation. 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. This theory is consistent with available experimental data which suggest that the motion of the spine precedes that of the legs. Indeed, the variations in the power delivered to the pelvis by the spine are strikingly similar to, but slightly ahead of, the variation in power at the hip





^^^ isn't Mann saying the same thing
[/quote]

No, this is what Mann said:

"[color=#282828]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 [/color][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][color=#282828] engine of locomotion."[/color]


Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Jeff Mann is saying what everyone knows to be true, including Gracovetsky: man walks around on their legs, with the large leg and hip muscles providing most of the power. Gracovetsky is saying that normal human gait is only possible with a normally functioning spine (a point Mann makes as if it contradicts Gracovetsky), and the spine movements "precede that of the legs" by rotating the pelvis. Gracovetsky is using the term "primary engine" to mean it is the first "engine" to fire, initiating locomotion, then the legs follow, amplifying the movement of the pelvis. "Primary engine" does not mean the "largest engine", which is what Mann is claiming Gracovetsky means. That idea is so ridiculous, no one would ever submit it to a journal, no journal editor would ever send it to reviewers, no reviewers would ever recommend publication, and no one in the scientific community would ever pay the slightest attention to it. Yet, Mann seems to believe that the opposite is exactly what happened. Is that what you believe?[/quote]

[b]The above text quoted by 8i calls the spine and the surrounding tissues the basic engine of locomotion, not the primary engine.[/b]
[/quote]


Gracovetsky called it the "basic engine" in that article. Later on he started calling it the "primary engine". In some ways "basic" is better than "primary" because "primary" suggests the spine does the most work or is the primary means of locomotion, which is preposterous, unless you don't have any legs. Since you can locomote without legs, by just using the spine engine, Gracovetsky calls it the "basic" or "primary" engine that the hips and legs amplify so man can move around much easier and faster.

[ej002]

[quote name='Mcaesq' timestamp='1412176207' post='10217647']
And, for the record, I don't care what Jeff 1 or Jeff 2 say. All I want to know is whether you agree with my interpretation of Kelvin's articles. If you don't, please tell me why.
[/quote]

Look at the video, it is not how the spine reacts at all. The spine is bone. It doesn't straighten if its bent and twisted like a measuring tape. [size=3]I already explained what I don't agree with in this case. So initial right side lateral bend and lordosis stuff to load the spine = crap. What are you loading? A bone.[/size]

[Ezgolfer]

http://www.hss.edu/golfportal/the-spine-anatomy-and-normal-range-of-motion.htm
Spine is not a rigid bone...

[eightiron]

So the theory is now really separate for leg less locomotion where the spine engine is the primary or only engine

But

for a normal able bodied person the spine engine is relegated to minor engine or even not in use engine if someone were to walk in a straight line while keeping shoulders square and arms still

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='ej002' timestamp='1412170669' post='10217213']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412169713' post='10217145']
^^^^ yes I agree , the spine engine guy seems to be saying it's the basic engine , I don't read that as the first or primary engine . He also seems to imply he had a contradictory view to the legs being the main part of locomotion .
So if Mann used this as his source of material , there is no way he is telling lies . This is classic lawyer twisting bull chit going on
[/quote]

Total lawyer tactics at their best. [b]Thankfully we a have a few geniuses around here able to sniff that chit out.[/b] [/quote]

Geniuses don't argue about stuff they haven't read and don't fully understand.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='ej002' timestamp='1412170669' post='10217213'][b]For 22 pages I don't think any one understood "primary" to mean the initial movement, but rather primary in the sense that it is the "most important" movement or "doing the majority of the work". [/b][/quote]

Exactly. And that understanding, which Jeff Mann promotes, is completely wrong.


[quote] [b] Isn't Kelvin's theory that the spine is the main force (as in doing most of the work) in the golfswing?[/b] Hence the reason for all those videos about the spine elasticity snapping all over the place? [/quote]

No. The "main force" is the "fearsome foursome", extension of the hips and knees in the second half of the downswing, what Kelvin calls the "power phase of the downswing" or the "second fire". Just as in walking or running, the powerful leg and hip muscles amplify the work done by the spine engine.


[quote]So, to complete the thought and to follow what Jeffy/Tod is saying. [b]Apparently, Gracovetsky is only saying the spine tissue moves first, but agrees that the spine is not doing the majority of the work. Okay big deal (this could be true).[/b] [b] But if that is truly what he is saying, then where does Kelvin's spine powering the golfswing theory derive its basis? [/b] A: Nowhere. [/quote]

From Fryette's laws, developed in 1918, which describe the coupled movements of the spine.


[quote][b]Thank you for playing you now just proved Kelvin's spine engine golfswing to be total rubbish and completely unsupported by even the kookiest of doctors.[/b][/quote]

Thank you for being blissfully ignorant of the coupled movements of the spine, discovered over 100 years ago, and a staple of biomechanics literature. You and Jeff Mann, who thinks coupled motion is a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky's, are a perfect couple.

[Mcaesq]

[quote name='ej002' timestamp='1412178589' post='10217881']
[quote name='Mcaesq' timestamp='1412176207' post='10217647']
And, for the record, I don't care what Jeff 1 or Jeff 2 say. All I want to know is whether you agree with my interpretation of Kelvin's articles. If you don't, please tell me why.
[/quote]

Look at the video, it is not how the spine reacts at all. The spine is bone. It doesn't straighten if its bent and twisted like a measuring tape. [size=3]I already explained what I don't agree with in this case. So initial right side lateral bend and lordosis stuff to load the spine = crap. What are you loading? A bone.[/size]
[/quote]

Sorry, but I don't quite get how that answers my question. Nobody is suggesting that you should "load the spine." As I said in my previous post: "edit #2: the spine "powers" the golf swing in the same way that hinging the hips "powers" a person's ability to jump. It's not that the spine or hips actually generates power (they're not muscles...) but instead that certain spine/hip positions create optimal position for force generation." What that video is trying to explain (poorly, IMO) is that having the spine in that position allows for an optimal turn through the ball (seems very similar to how other instructors describe "coiling" the upper body or w/e).

I think that you and a few other people are being too literal and focused on one component (spinal position) to mean that the sole focus and prime mover in the golf swing is the spine. I don't think that's what Kelvin's advocating. Further, what you wrote doesn't explain how what I wrote is wrong (e.g., tracking certain anatomical points to form inductive opinions about optimal positions--most notably the spine).

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412179726' post='10217993']
So the theory is now really separate for leg less locomotion where the spine engine is the primary or only engine

But

[b]for a normal able bodied person the spine engine is relegated to minor engine or even not in use engine if someone were to walk in a straight line while keeping shoulders square and arms still[/b]
[/quote]


That person would walk with difficulty and not have a normal gait. As I already mentioned, the legless man was not able to "walk" at all when his shoulders were immobilized.

[eightiron]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412180024' post='10218027']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412179726' post='10217993']
So the theory is now really separate for leg less locomotion where the spine engine is the primary or only engine

But

[b]for a normal able bodied person the spine engine is relegated to minor engine or even not in use engine if someone were to walk in a straight line while keeping shoulders square and arms still[/b]
[/quote]


That person would walk with difficulty and not have a normal gait. As I already mentioned, the legless man was not able to "walk" at all when his shoulders were immobilized.
[/quote]

Yes right , so the spine engine is a minor section ?

[Tod Johnson]

This article was the first discussion of coupled motion of the spine, published in 1905.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM190509281531301

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412180279' post='10218047']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412180024' post='10218027']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412179726' post='10217993']
So the theory is now really separate for leg less locomotion where the spine engine is the primary or only engine

But

[b]for a normal able bodied person the spine engine is relegated to minor engine or even not in use engine if someone were to walk in a straight line while keeping shoulders square and arms still[/b]
[/quote]


That person would walk with difficulty and not have a normal gait. As I already mentioned, the legless man was not able to "walk" at all when his shoulders were immobilized.
[/quote]

[b]Yes right , so the spine engine is a minor section ?[/b]
[/quote]


A "minor section" in what sense? Of minor importance, trivial? A person can drag himself around uncomfortably without a normal functioning spine, but I doubt he'd consider that a "minor" disability. Can something that is essential for normal function be considered of "minor importance"?

[TheWoat]

Ignoring whether a whale has limbs or if the spine engine theory is pseudo science... Does KM improve golfers? Isn't that the most important question?

[eightiron]

Ok let's not use minor , how about power source or main engine vs secondary engine . Spine engine is secondary , correct ?