Kelvin Miyahira: pro or con

[dap]

[quote name='TheWoat' timestamp='1412180838' post='10218117']
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?
[/quote]
I'm sure he does as just about every instructor out there as well as in this forum. The problem is the sample size we get here is way too small to know how good instructors are at long term improvement and their batting average. Every instructor that are feuding over the technicalities of the swing has their fair share of success stories. But you very rarely hear on forums disaster stories because people who have success are far more likely to post about it.

I see instruction a bit like playing golf itself. It's not your best shots that influence your score,it's your worst shots and how many you make.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412180887' post='10218129']
Ok let's not use minor , how about power source or main engine vs secondary engine . Spine engine is secondary , correct ?
[/quote]

Obviously, secondary power source, just look at the relative musculature. The classic pedestrian theory says it is not a power source of any kind, it's dead weight, so the mass of powerful upper body muscles would only hinder, not help sprinters. So why do they have well developed upper bodies?

[eightiron]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412181713' post='10218223']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412180887' post='10218129']
Ok let's not use minor , how about power source or main engine vs secondary engine . Spine engine is secondary , correct ?
[/quote]

Obviously, secondary power source, just look at the relative musculature. The classic pedestrian theory says it is not a power source of any kind, it's dead weight, so the mass of powerful upper body muscles would only hinder, not help sprinters. So why do they have well developed upper bodies?
[/quote]

Sounds basic enough to me . I can see how Mann would have interpreted the SG publication differently , on how it was written . I think I read an interview with Stu McGill , spine expert , who seemed to have interpreted it the same way as Mann

Or maybe the guy interviewing McGill , here it it

http://bretcontreras.com/transcribed-interview-with-stu-mcgill/

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412182435' post='10218271']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412181713' post='10218223']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412180887' post='10218129']
Ok let's not use minor , how about power source or main engine vs secondary engine . Spine engine is secondary , correct ?
[/quote]

Obviously, secondary power source, just look at the relative musculature. The classic pedestrian theory says it is not a power source of any kind, it's dead weight, so the mass of powerful upper body muscles would only hinder, not help sprinters. So why do they have well developed upper bodies?
[/quote]

Sounds basic enough to me .[b] I can see how Mann would have interpreted the SG publication differently [/b], on how it was written . I think I read an interview with Stu McGill , spine expert , who seemed to have interpreted it the same way as Mann [/quote]

Mann based much of his critique on this interview with Gracovetsky:

[url="http://www.somatics.de/Gracevetsky_Interview.pdf"]http://www.somatics....y_Interview.pdf[/url]


This is how Gracovetsky describes the role of the spine in locomotion:

ASN: What, then,is the role of the
spine in the locomotion?

SG:[b] I consider the spine to be the
"primary" engine, in the etymological
sense of the word.[/b] This primary engine,
so obvious in our ancestors the fish, has
not travelled towards the lower limbs
over time, although its role has become
more obscure and may appear to be
secondary to the role of the lower limbs.
However, this logic is faulty, as we are
able to "walk" on our knees with
relatively little adaptation, which
demonstrates that our legs are not truly
essential to human locomotion. A
wooden leg is just as effective. It would
be conceivable to cut the femur one
centimeter above the knee without
significantly affecting walking. This
therefore raises the question: how far
can we cut the femur before affecting
human locomotion. The answer is that
the lower extremity can be completely
removed without interfering with the
primary movement of the pelvis. This
statement may appear somewhat
excessive, but it is supported by the
facts.


Note that in the first sentence Gracovetsky says he uses "primary" in the "eytmological sense of the word", i.e., the meaning it had at its origin. Here is the eytomology of "primary":

"[color=#000000]early 15c., 'of the first order,' from Latin [/color][color=#000000][i]primarius '[/i][/color][color=#000000]of the first rank, chief, principal, excellent,' from [/color][color=#000000][i]primus[/i][/color][color=#000000] 'first' (see [/color][url="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prime&allowed_in_frame=0"]prime[/url][color=#000000] (adj.)). Meaning 'first in order' is from 1802."[/color]

[url="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=primary&searchmode=none"]http://www.etymonlin...searchmode=none[/url]

So, either Mann was ignorant of how Gracovetsky was using "primary", or he was lying.



[quote]
Or maybe the guy interviewing McGill , here it it

[url="http://bretcontreras.com/transcribed-interview-with-stu-mcgill/"]http://bretcontreras...ith-stu-mcgill/[/url]
[/quote]


Yeah, The Glute Guy botched it.

[pick it up]

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).

 

 

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

 

No, this is what Mann said:

 

"However, over the millions of evolutionary years that human beings have being bipedal, they have primarily used their legs to move about in space. Any rotational motion of the spine and mid-upper torso is secondary to rotational motions of the pelvis that occur when walking/running and the spine is not the primary engine of locomotion."

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

imperfectgolfer

Global Moderator

 

 

 

 

Posts: 3,033

 

4 hours ago

Quote

 

 

Post by imperfectgolfer on 4 hours ago

 

Jeffy wrote the following on page 22 of that GolfWRX.com forum thread-: "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.

 

I disagree 100% with the idea that the spine has to first rotate the pelvis in order to initiate locomotion using the lower limbs. It is very easy for any forum member (or guest) to disprove Jeffy's claim. Simply stand erect with the shoulders and pelvis facing a target destination. Then start walking towards the target while keeping the shoulders square relative to the target - thereby avoiding any superadded spinal motion. As one walks towards the target destination, the pelvis will rotate due to the biomechanical effect of the sequential back-and-forth motions of the two femoral heads as the legs move targetwards. Allowing the spine to secondarily rotate simply allows the upper torso/shoulders/arms to swing in a natural/comfortable manner that is in synchrony with the motion of the lower body (pelvis) and legs.

 

I also am not implying the primary engine is the "largest engine" when it comes to the role of the spine engine in a full golf swing. I don't think that motions of the spine (via SG's biomechanical phenomenon of lateral bend and lordosis producing interlocking interfacet joints) plays any role in the downswing's pelvic motion. As I have endlessly demonstrated, there is no significant amount of right lateral bend happening between P4 and P5.5., and the lower thoracic vertebra (which consitute the compressed-concave portion of the right lateral bend) are biomechanically incapable of interlocking. Between P5.5 and P7, the actively rotating upper torso (shoulders) obviously produces a rotary torque force that is passively transmitted down the spine and paraspinal soft tissues and that rotary torque force can synergistically promote a continued counterclockwise pelvic rotation (and which is not biomechanically due to SG's idea of "lateral bend combined with interlocking lumbar interfacet joints").

 

Jeff.

Last Edit: 4 hours ago by imperfectgolfer

Reply

 

 

Related Topics & Stories

 

 

Read more: http://newtongolfinstitute.proboards.com/thread/551/golf-forum-thread-criticising-jeff?page=1#ixzz3EutVZlHN

[pick it up]

[quote name='northgolf' timestamp='1412176117' post='10217637']
[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.
[/quote]



Nah! higher club head speed in itself doesn't mean you will get better mechanics, that's ridiculous! It's club head speed properly applied that matters, just club head speed means nothing if the impact conditions are not optimal for that person. There's tons of hackers with higher club head speeds than tour pro's.

You're argument is lacking. In other words you can have a high speed register on a radar device and hit it short compared to someone with a far less speed who blows it by you. Get it.

[Tod Johnson]

 

 

Post by imperfectgolfer on 4 hours ago

 

Jeffy wrote the following on page 22 of that GolfWRX.com forum thread-: "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.

 

I disagree 100% with the idea that the spine has to first rotate the pelvis in order to initiate locomotion using the lower limbs. It is very easy for any forum member (or guest) to disprove Jeffy's claim. Simply stand erect with the shoulders and pelvis facing a target destination. Then start walking towards the target while keeping the shoulders square relative to the target - thereby avoiding any superadded spinal motion. As one walks towards the target destination, the pelvis will rotate due to the biomechanical effect of the sequential back-and-forth motions of the two femoral heads as the legs move targetwards. Allowing the spine to secondarily rotate simply allows the upper torso/shoulders/arms to swing in a natural/comfortable manner that is in synchrony with the motion of the lower body (pelvis) and legs.

 

I also am not implying the primary engine is the "largest engine" when it comes to the role of the spine engine in a full golf swing. I don't think that motions of the spine (via SG's biomechanical phenomenon of lateral bend and lordosis producing interlocking interfacet joints) plays any role in the downswing's pelvic motion. As I have endlessly demonstrated, there is no significant amount of right lateral bend happening between P4 and P5.5., and the lower thoracic vertebra (which consitute the compressed-concave portion of the right lateral bend) are biomechanically incapable of interlocking. Between P5.5 and P7, the actively rotating upper torso (shoulders) obviously produces a rotary torque force that is passively transmitted down the spine and paraspinal soft tissues and that rotary torque force can synergistically promote a continued counterclockwise pelvic rotation (and which is not biomechanically due to SG's idea of "lateral bend combined with interlocking lumbar interfacet joints").

 

Jeff.

 

 

Read more: http://newtongolfins...1#ixzz3EutVZlHN

 

So, just more lies and gibberish to cover up his past lies and gibberish. And, he still claims that coupled motion of the spine is something Gracovetsky cooked up. Some things never change.

[pick it up]

 

 

Post by imperfectgolfer on 4 hours ago

 

Jeffy wrote the following on page 22 of that GolfWRX.com forum thread-: "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.

 

I disagree 100% with the idea that the spine has to first rotate the pelvis in order to initiate locomotion using the lower limbs. It is very easy for any forum member (or guest) to disprove Jeffy's claim. Simply stand erect with the shoulders and pelvis facing a target destination. Then start walking towards the target while keeping the shoulders square relative to the target - thereby avoiding any superadded spinal motion. As one walks towards the target destination, the pelvis will rotate due to the biomechanical effect of the sequential back-and-forth motions of the two femoral heads as the legs move targetwards. Allowing the spine to secondarily rotate simply allows the upper torso/shoulders/arms to swing in a natural/comfortable manner that is in synchrony with the motion of the lower body (pelvis) and legs.

 

I also am not implying the primary engine is the "largest engine" when it comes to the role of the spine engine in a full golf swing. I don't think that motions of the spine (via SG's biomechanical phenomenon of lateral bend and lordosis producing interlocking interfacet joints) plays any role in the downswing's pelvic motion. As I have endlessly demonstrated, there is no significant amount of right lateral bend happening between P4 and P5.5., and the lower thoracic vertebra (which consitute the compressed-concave portion of the right lateral bend) are biomechanically incapable of interlocking. Between P5.5 and P7, the actively rotating upper torso (shoulders) obviously produces a rotary torque force that is passively transmitted down the spine and paraspinal soft tissues and that rotary torque force can synergistically promote a continued counterclockwise pelvic rotation (and which is not biomechanically due to SG's idea of "lateral bend combined with interlocking lumbar interfacet joints").

 

Jeff.

 

 

Read more: http://newtongolfins...1#ixzz3EutVZlHN

 

So, just more lies and gibberish to cover up his past lies and gibberish. And, he still claims that coupled motion of the spine is something Gracovetsky cooked up. Some things never change.

 

 

 

Pot/Kettle!

[pick it up]

Grant Hooper 120mph club head speed ....206yds of carry distance...wtf? Club head speed misapplied =



[url="http://youtu.be/F_hrz4PbdrY"]http://youtu.be/F_hrz4PbdrY[/url]

[northgolf]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412186424' post='10218645']
[quote name='northgolf' timestamp='1412176117' post='10217637']
[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.
[/quote]



Nah! higher club head speed in itself doesn't mean you will get better mechanics, that's ridiculous! It's club head speed properly applied that matters, just club head speed means nothing if the impact conditions are not optimal for that person.[b] T[b]here's [/b]tons of hackers with higher club head speeds than tour pro's.[/b]

You're argument is lacking. In other words you can have a high speed register on a radar device and hit it short compared to someone with a far less speed who blows it by you. Get it.
[/quote]


As a group, the tour pros (who have better mechanics) have higher club head speed than amateurs and that follows all the way down the handicap range - higher the handicap the lower the club head speed:
[url="http://mytrackman.com/explore/trackman-data/trackman-club-data/club-speed"]http://mytrackman.co...data/club-speed[/url]

I have supplied evidence supporting my claim that better swing mechanics evidences not only better ball striking, but higher c.h.s as well.

How about you documenting just how many "hackers" have higher club head speed than better players? Better yet, why don't you document that slower club head speed means better ball striking or that better ball striking requires lower club head speed?

[eightiron]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412184348' post='10218453']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412182435' post='10218271']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412181713' post='10218223']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412180887' post='10218129']
Ok let's not use minor , how about power source or main engine vs secondary engine . Spine engine is secondary , correct ?
[/quote]

Obviously, secondary power source, just look at the relative musculature. The classic pedestrian theory says it is not a power source of any kind, it's dead weight, so the mass of powerful upper body muscles would only hinder, not help sprinters. So why do they have well developed upper bodies?
[/quote]

Sounds basic enough to me .[b] I can see how Mann would have interpreted the SG publication differently [/b], on how it was written . I think I read an interview with Stu McGill , spine expert , who seemed to have interpreted it the same way as Mann [/quote]

Mann based much of his critique on this interview with Gracovetsky:

[url="http://www.somatics.de/Gracevetsky_Interview.pdf"]http://www.somatics....y_Interview.pdf[/url]


This is how Gracovetsky describes the role of the spine in locomotion:

ASN: What, then,is the role of the
spine in the locomotion?

SG:[b] I consider the spine to be the
"primary" engine, in the etymological
sense of the word.[/b] This primary engine,
so obvious in our ancestors the fish, has
not travelled towards the lower limbs
over time, although its role has become
more obscure and may appear to be
secondary to the role of the lower limbs.
However, this logic is faulty, as we are
able to "walk" on our knees with
relatively little adaptation, which
demonstrates that our legs are not truly
essential to human locomotion. A
wooden leg is just as effective. It would
be conceivable to cut the femur one
centimeter above the knee without
significantly affecting walking. This
therefore raises the question: how far
can we cut the femur before affecting
human locomotion. The answer is that
the lower extremity can be completely
removed without interfering with the
primary movement of the pelvis. This
statement may appear somewhat
excessive, but it is supported by the
facts.


Note that in the first sentence Gracovetsky says he uses "primary" in the "eytmological sense of the word", i.e., the meaning it had at its origin. Here is the eytomology of "primary":

"[color=#000000]early 15c., 'of the first order,' from Latin [/color][color=#000000][i]primarius '[/i][/color][color=#000000]of the first rank, chief, principal, excellent,' from [/color][color=#000000][i]primus[/i][/color][color=#000000] 'first' (see [/color][url="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prime&allowed_in_frame=0"]prime[/url][color=#000000] (adj.)). Meaning 'first in order' is from 1802."[/color]

[url="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=primary&searchmode=none"]http://www.etymonlin...searchmode=none[/url]

So, either Mann was ignorant of how Gracovetsky was using "primary", or he was lying.



[quote]
Or maybe the guy interviewing McGill , here it it

[url="http://bretcontreras.com/transcribed-interview-with-stu-mcgill/"]http://bretcontreras...ith-stu-mcgill/[/url]
[/quote]


Yeah, The Glute Guy botched it.
[/quote]

If Mann indeed got his opinion from this interview , than obviously he is completely wrong . I think SG published med article needs to be written again

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412140064' post='10216287']
[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]

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1024825-kelvin-miyahira-method/#entry9374283"]http://www.golfwrx.c...d/#entry9374283[/url]

[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 .[b] I think Mann is right about the trail side not going into lateral bend immediately from the top of the swing[/b]
[/quote]


The trail side doesn't "go into lateral bend" immediately at the top of the swing because there is typically lead side lateral bend created in the backswing that needs to be reversed. Based on TPI data for four players, the players who initiate the move to right side lateral bend before the top of the swing have the hips more open at impact, have higher pelvis angular velocity at impact, have simultaneous peaks in angular velocity for the pelvis and thorax rotation, have lower handle axial rotation (i.e., lower rate of closure), and have more left wrist palmar flexion/right wrist extension at impact, all consistent with Kelvin's hypotheses. See the analysis in the linked thread in post 15 (you'll need to reference the pelvis rotation graphs that appear at the bottom of post 13):

http://jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?775-What-s-wrong-with-this-picture

[eightiron]

Tod

Can you give us the real timeline for the second fire theory . This is Dr Mann version of events


Jeffy is now trying to argue that the degree of i) left leg extension, ii) left pelvic lift and iii) left-sided upper torso extension is a reflection of the 2nd pelvic firing phenomenon, and he claims that elite golfers (like Gary Woodland) achieve a greater degree of those three biomechanical phenomena, which means that they are second-firing their pelvis.

Jeffy initially tried to argue in previous years that 2nd-pelvic firing was a pelvic rotational phenomenon and he tried to prove that elite golfers achieve their peak pelvic rotational speed at impact, but 3-D graphs have disproved his theory.

Note that GW's pelvic rotational speed peaks well before impact, and his thorax rotational peak speed occurs marginally later in the downswing. They both reach their peak rotational velocity well before impact.

Jeffy's original "2nd pelvic firing" theory was disproved and he now seems to have adopted a new definition of "2nd pelvic firing" which he has adopted from Phil Cheetham. Jeffy now claims that the degree of pelvic and thorax lift better represent the phenomenon of a 2nd pelvic firing.


Mike Duffey wrote the following in the Jeffy-forum thread-: "You have posted a lot of updated information, which is great for furthering this conversation. A good portion of this thread refers to some conversations from a year ago, I think it would be good to review what the original conversation was. Since I was part of that conversation, I'll point out that the original discussion was whether pelvis rotational/angular velocity could or would stay high (or could speed back up) going into impact. Dr. Kwon's earliest comments that have been reposted here address that concept. There is still not evidence that pattern exists, though we would all be interested in seeing it. What then happened was the definition seemed to change, and Kel began talking about the knee and hip extension, referring to that as the second fire. That portion of the discussion went quite well (I felt) with at least possible support on both the instruction and science sides. So it would be inappropriate to take some of the older comments out of context their original context and apply them to the current discussion of hip and knee extension.

Mike is correct to point out the "true" facts - bold-highlighted above.

KM/Jeffy's original position was that the 2nd pelvic firing was perceived to be a pelvic rotational concept where the peak rotational speed would reach its maximum value at impact. Jeffy has been unable to confirm that wild "belief" despite some desperate attempts. More importantly, if the pelvic rotational speed actually did peak near impact, or at impact, in an elite golfer - why would that be perceived to be a 2nd firing event, rather than a manifestation of the initial pelvic motion that starts at the transition and continues non-stop to impact, or beyond? KM/Jeffy have never explained why they talked about a 2nd firing event!

Jeffy's "new" claim (derived from Phil Cheetham) that one should consider a translational motion of the pelvis in a vertical plane ( = pelvic lift) as being critically important has zero merit. It is patently obvious that a good pelvic pivot motion involves a straightening of the left leg in the later downswing and a consequent elevation of the left pelvis (Robert Baker's positive O factor concept). However, there is zero evidence that "jumping up" through impact and becoming airborne will increase swing power (CH speed at impact).

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412189148' post='10218921']
[b]If Mann indeed got his opinion from this interview , than obviously he is completely wrong [/b]. I think SG published med article needs to be written again
[/quote]

It's right there in what pick it up copied from Mann's site:

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411877881' post='10197825']
[url="http://bretcontreras.com/transcribed-interview-with-stu-mcgill/"]http://bretcontreras...ith-stu-mcgill/[/url]



also from Dr. Mann's review.
See this Jeffy forum thread - [url="http://jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?1087-Manzella-strikes-back"]jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?1087-Manzella-strikes-back[/url]

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

[b]Jeffy posted this link to a Gracovetsky interview.[/b]

[url="http://www.somatics.de/Gracevetsky_Interview.pdf"]www.somatics.de/Gracevetsky_Interview.pdf[/url]

.
.
.

[color=#282828]What amazes me about Gracovetsky is his vague/imprecise assertions about human biomechanics.[/color]

[b][color=#282828]Consider this statement from his interview article.[/color][/b]

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

[/quote]

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412190094' post='10218995']
Tod

Can you give us the real timeline for the second fire theory . This is Dr Mann version of events


Jeffy is now trying to argue that the degree of i) left leg extension, ii) left pelvic lift and iii) left-sided upper torso extension is a reflection of the 2nd pelvic firing phenomenon, and he claims that elite golfers (like Gary Woodland) achieve a greater degree of those three biomechanical phenomena, which means that they are second-firing their pelvis.

Jeffy initially tried to argue in previous years that 2nd-pelvic firing was a pelvic rotational phenomenon and he tried to prove that elite golfers achieve their peak pelvic rotational speed at impact, but 3-D graphs have disproved his theory.

Note that GW's pelvic rotational speed peaks well before impact, and his thorax rotational peak speed occurs marginally later in the downswing. They both reach their peak rotational velocity well before impact.

Jeffy's original "2nd pelvic firing" theory was disproved and he now seems to have adopted a new definition of "2nd pelvic firing" which he has adopted from Phil Cheetham. Jeffy now claims that the degree of pelvic and thorax lift better represent the phenomenon of a 2nd pelvic firing.


Mike Duffey wrote the following in the Jeffy-forum thread-: "You have posted a lot of updated information, which is great for furthering this conversation. A good portion of this thread refers to some conversations from a year ago, I think it would be good to review what the original conversation was. Since I was part of that conversation, I'll point out that the original discussion was whether pelvis rotational/angular velocity could or would stay high (or could speed back up) going into impact. Dr. Kwon's earliest comments that have been reposted here address that concept. There is still not evidence that pattern exists, though we would all be interested in seeing it. What then happened was the definition seemed to change, and Kel began talking about the knee and hip extension, referring to that as the second fire. That portion of the discussion went quite well (I felt) with at least possible support on both the instruction and science sides. So it would be inappropriate to take some of the older comments out of context their original context and apply them to the current discussion of hip and knee extension.

Mike is correct to point out the "true" facts - bold-highlighted above.

KM/Jeffy's original position was that the 2nd pelvic firing was perceived to be a pelvic rotational concept where the peak rotational speed would reach its maximum value at impact. Jeffy has been unable to confirm that wild "belief" despite some desperate attempts. More importantly, if the pelvic rotational speed actually did peak near impact, or at impact, in an elite golfer - why would that be perceived to be a 2nd firing event, rather than a manifestation of the initial pelvic motion that starts at the transition and continues non-stop to impact, or beyond? KM/Jeffy have never explained why they talked about a 2nd firing event!

[b]Jeffy's "new" claim (derived from Phil Cheetham) that one should consider a translational motion of the pelvis in a vertical plane ( = pelvic lift) as being critically important has zero merit.[/b] It is patently obvious that a good pelvic pivot motion involves a straightening of the left leg in the later downswing and a consequent elevation of the left pelvis (Robert Baker's positive O factor concept). However, there is zero evidence that "jumping up" through impact and becoming airborne will increase swing power (CH speed at impact).
[/quote]

You didn't include the date of Mann's post, but it was probably in response to post #9 in the linked thread, from May 8th, 2014. In posts #9 and #13, the second fire is analyzed using TPI data:

[url="http://jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?775-What-s-wrong-with-this-picture"]http://jeffygolf.com...th-this-picture[/url]

The "second fire" was described in detail by Kelvin in this article, published three years earlier in May 2011, in the section titled [b]Power Phase of the Downswing: The Fearsome Foursome; [/b]that section was included in post #11 of the above thread.

[url="http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2011-04-whats-a-hip-turn-part-2.html"]http://www.aroundhaw...urn-part-2.html[/url]

Sometime after May 2011, Kel started to call it simply the "second fire".

[Tod Johnson]

In fact, the first mention of the concept of a "second" or multiple fires was included in this article from December 2008:

http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2008-12-tiger-and-sadlowski-swing-emergence-of-a-new-more-powerful-swing.html

[eightiron]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412191825' post='10219129']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412190094' post='10218995']
Tod

Can you give us the real timeline for the second fire theory . This is Dr Mann version of events


Jeffy is now trying to argue that the degree of i) left leg extension, ii) left pelvic lift and iii) left-sided upper torso extension is a reflection of the 2nd pelvic firing phenomenon, and he claims that elite golfers (like Gary Woodland) achieve a greater degree of those three biomechanical phenomena, which means that they are second-firing their pelvis.

Jeffy initially tried to argue in previous years that 2nd-pelvic firing was a pelvic rotational phenomenon and he tried to prove that elite golfers achieve their peak pelvic rotational speed at impact, but 3-D graphs have disproved his theory.

Note that GW's pelvic rotational speed peaks well before impact, and his thorax rotational peak speed occurs marginally later in the downswing. They both reach their peak rotational velocity well before impact.

Jeffy's original "2nd pelvic firing" theory was disproved and he now seems to have adopted a new definition of "2nd pelvic firing" which he has adopted from Phil Cheetham. Jeffy now claims that the degree of pelvic and thorax lift better represent the phenomenon of a 2nd pelvic firing.


Mike Duffey wrote the following in the Jeffy-forum thread-: "You have posted a lot of updated information, which is great for furthering this conversation. A good portion of this thread refers to some conversations from a year ago, I think it would be good to review what the original conversation was. Since I was part of that conversation, I'll point out that the original discussion was whether pelvis rotational/angular velocity could or would stay high (or could speed back up) going into impact. Dr. Kwon's earliest comments that have been reposted here address that concept. There is still not evidence that pattern exists, though we would all be interested in seeing it. What then happened was the definition seemed to change, and Kel began talking about the knee and hip extension, referring to that as the second fire. That portion of the discussion went quite well (I felt) with at least possible support on both the instruction and science sides. So it would be inappropriate to take some of the older comments out of context their original context and apply them to the current discussion of hip and knee extension.

Mike is correct to point out the "true" facts - bold-highlighted above.

KM/Jeffy's original position was that the 2nd pelvic firing was perceived to be a pelvic rotational concept where the peak rotational speed would reach its maximum value at impact. Jeffy has been unable to confirm that wild "belief" despite some desperate attempts. More importantly, if the pelvic rotational speed actually did peak near impact, or at impact, in an elite golfer - why would that be perceived to be a 2nd firing event, rather than a manifestation of the initial pelvic motion that starts at the transition and continues non-stop to impact, or beyond? KM/Jeffy have never explained why they talked about a 2nd firing event!

[b]Jeffy's "new" claim (derived from Phil Cheetham) that one should consider a translational motion of the pelvis in a vertical plane ( = pelvic lift) as being critically important has zero merit.[/b] It is patently obvious that a good pelvic pivot motion involves a straightening of the left leg in the later downswing and a consequent elevation of the left pelvis (Robert Baker's positive O factor concept). However, there is zero evidence that "jumping up" through impact and becoming airborne will increase swing power (CH speed at impact).
[/quote]

You didn't include the date of Mann's post, but it was probably in response to post #9 in the linked thread, from May 8th, 2013. In posts #9 and #13, the second fire is analyzed using TPI data:

[url="http://jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?775-What-s-wrong-with-this-picture"]http://jeffygolf.com...th-this-picture[/url]

The "second fire" was described in detail by Kelvin in this article, published two years earlier in May 2011, in the section titled [b]Power Phase of the Downswing: The Fearsome Foursome; [/b]that section was included in post #11 of the above thread.

[url="http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2011-04-whats-a-hip-turn-part-2.html"]http://www.aroundhaw...urn-part-2.html[/url]

Sometime after May 2011, Kel started to call it simply the "second fire".
[/quote]

Well that establishes Mann as a bull chit artist or possibly a pathological liar as you have previously suggested . What about the Duffey bloke is he just making up bull chit or was Kelvin clear on exactly what the second fire was . Since the second fire was from 2011 , I find it illogical that it was represented as purely a rotational segment .

[Mcaesq]

[quote name='TheWoat' timestamp='1412180838' post='10218117']
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?
[/quote]

I would say yes. I've just read his stuff, but I've found it tremendously helpful. Almost all of the discussion for the past 5-10 pages have been three arguments happening at the same time: (1) a semantic fight about whether the spine engine "powers" the swing; (2) a stupid fight about how "proficient" an instructor needs to be in order to be taken seriously (3) me asking whether anyone disagrees with tracking certain anatomical movements during the swing as a proxy for optimal swing movements and being met with silence.

I'd recommend reading his stuff, particularly if you have a difficult time implementing certain abstract swing concepts. For example, I've been told ad nauseam that I need to make a deeper hip turn, but that doesn't really tell me how to make one or what I'm doing that inhibits me from naturally making a deep hip turn. KM's articles gave me novel ways to figure out whether I was making a deep hip turn and certain things to track when I reviewed videos of my swing. I'd be happy to post or pm you "before" and "after" screenshots if you're interested.

In short, you don't need to buy into his underlying theory to find his articles helpful. Just check out the reams of stills he has of PGA pros in approximately similar positions in the swing and see where your swing deviates from theirs.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412192461' post='10219165']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412191825' post='10219129']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412190094' post='10218995']
Tod

Can you give us the real timeline for the second fire theory . This is Dr Mann version of events


Jeffy is now trying to argue that the degree of i) left leg extension, ii) left pelvic lift and iii) left-sided upper torso extension is a reflection of the 2nd pelvic firing phenomenon, and he claims that elite golfers (like Gary Woodland) achieve a greater degree of those three biomechanical phenomena, which means that they are second-firing their pelvis.

Jeffy initially tried to argue in previous years that 2nd-pelvic firing was a pelvic rotational phenomenon and he tried to prove that elite golfers achieve their peak pelvic rotational speed at impact, but 3-D graphs have disproved his theory.

Note that GW's pelvic rotational speed peaks well before impact, and his thorax rotational peak speed occurs marginally later in the downswing. They both reach their peak rotational velocity well before impact.

Jeffy's original "2nd pelvic firing" theory was disproved and he now seems to have adopted a new definition of "2nd pelvic firing" which he has adopted from Phil Cheetham. Jeffy now claims that the degree of pelvic and thorax lift better represent the phenomenon of a 2nd pelvic firing.


Mike Duffey wrote the following in the Jeffy-forum thread-: "You have posted a lot of updated information, which is great for furthering this conversation. A good portion of this thread refers to some conversations from a year ago, I think it would be good to review what the original conversation was. Since I was part of that conversation, I'll point out that the original discussion was whether pelvis rotational/angular velocity could or would stay high (or could speed back up) going into impact. Dr. Kwon's earliest comments that have been reposted here address that concept. There is still not evidence that pattern exists, though we would all be interested in seeing it. What then happened was the definition seemed to change, and Kel began talking about the knee and hip extension, referring to that as the second fire. That portion of the discussion went quite well (I felt) with at least possible support on both the instruction and science sides. So it would be inappropriate to take some of the older comments out of context their original context and apply them to the current discussion of hip and knee extension.

Mike is correct to point out the "true" facts - bold-highlighted above.

KM/Jeffy's original position was that the 2nd pelvic firing was perceived to be a pelvic rotational concept where the peak rotational speed would reach its maximum value at impact. Jeffy has been unable to confirm that wild "belief" despite some desperate attempts. More importantly, if the pelvic rotational speed actually did peak near impact, or at impact, in an elite golfer - why would that be perceived to be a 2nd firing event, rather than a manifestation of the initial pelvic motion that starts at the transition and continues non-stop to impact, or beyond? KM/Jeffy have never explained why they talked about a 2nd firing event!

[b]Jeffy's "new" claim (derived from Phil Cheetham) that one should consider a translational motion of the pelvis in a vertical plane ( = pelvic lift) as being critically important has zero merit.[/b] It is patently obvious that a good pelvic pivot motion involves a straightening of the left leg in the later downswing and a consequent elevation of the left pelvis (Robert Baker's positive O factor concept). However, there is zero evidence that "jumping up" through impact and becoming airborne will increase swing power (CH speed at impact).
[/quote]

You didn't include the date of Mann's post, but it was probably in response to post #9 in the linked thread, from May 8th, 2013. In posts #9 and #13, the second fire is analyzed using TPI data:

[url="http://jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?775-What-s-wrong-with-this-picture"]http://jeffygolf.com...th-this-picture[/url]

The "second fire" was described in detail by Kelvin in this article, published two years earlier in May 2011, in the section titled [b]Power Phase of the Downswing: The Fearsome Foursome; [/b]that section was included in post #11 of the above thread.

[url="http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2011-04-whats-a-hip-turn-part-2.html"]http://www.aroundhaw...urn-part-2.html[/url]

Sometime after May 2011, Kel started to call it simply the "second fire".
[/quote]

Well that establishes Mann as a bull chit artist or possibly a pathological liar as you have previously suggested . [b]What about the Duffey bloke is he just making up bull chit or was Kelvin clear on exactly what the second fire was .[/b] Since the second fire was from 2011 , I find it illogical that it was represented as purely a rotational segment .
[/quote]

Duffey didn't understand Kelvin. In fact, none of the PhDs did. It was Phil Cheetham (who just got his PhD a week or so ago) who knew right away what Kel was talking about, but his posts were pretty much ignored by the group. In fact, Cheetham got a little testy the second or third time he explained what Kel was talking about. But, by then Nick Chertock had banned Kel to appease Manzella, so the conversation just fizzled out.

[scotee]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1412170959' post='10217243']
i'm so lost.
[/quote]

Holy Lordosis! How can you not be?

[pick it up]

[quote name='northgolf' timestamp='1412189102' post='10218917']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412186424' post='10218645']
[quote name='northgolf' timestamp='1412176117' post='10217637']
[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.
[/quote]



Nah! higher club head speed in itself doesn't mean you will get better mechanics, that's ridiculous! It's club head speed properly applied that matters, just club head speed means nothing if the impact conditions are not optimal for that person.[b] T[b]here's [/b]tons of hackers with higher club head speeds than tour pro's.[/b]

You're argument is lacking. In other words you can have a high speed register on a radar device and hit it short compared to someone with a far less speed who blows it by you. Get it.
[/quote]


As a group, the tour pros (who have better mechanics) have higher club head speed than amateurs and that follows all the way down the handicap range - higher the handicap the lower the club head speed:
[url="http://mytrackman.com/explore/trackman-data/trackman-club-data/club-speed"]http://mytrackman.co...data/club-speed[/url]

I have supplied evidence supporting my claim that better swing mechanics evidences not only better ball striking, but higher c.h.s as well.

How about you documenting just how many "hackers" have higher club head speed than better players? Better yet, why don't you document that slower club head speed means better ball striking or that better ball striking requires lower club head speed?
[/quote]


LOL! You're reaching! It's no secret that many golfers who are not on tour have faster swing speeds than tour players. On tour or pro doesn't mean you have more club head speed than some amateur. I just posted a video of a hacker that swings at 120mph. There's my proof. Your argument is lame. Better mechanics doesn't mean higher club head speed than some hacker. There's plenty of golfers with great mechanics that are not longer than golfers with less than great mechanics.


You don't even know where the speed is generated from do you? Try reading work and power in the golf swing by S. Nesbit.

[pick it up]

Northgolf, If your argument held water... explain why LPGA Players who for sure have better mechanics than your average amateur and even some PGA tour players can't generate the higher club head speeds than them?

[ej002]

The "second fire" sounds like an O'Grady rip off (like everything else in current golf instruction).

What is Kelvin's preferred right side lateral bend sequence? If it goes down to fast you get in to out and explains the compensation of the spin out and left foot drag.

[Cicero]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412196228' post='10219475']Northgolf, If your argument held water... explain why LPGA Players who for sure have better mechanics than your average amateur and even some PGA tour players can't generate the higher club head speeds than them?[/quote]

The fact is, there are different ways to generate speed. Better mechanics, better genetics (size, muscle type, leverages), athletic background.

Better mechanics can lead to more speed, but so can the other factors I mentioned, independent of better mechanics. Like any athletic movement, it can be complex.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412196228' post='10219475']
Northgolf, If your argument held water... explain why LPGA Players who for sure have better mechanics than your average amateur and even some PGA tour players can't generate the higher club head speeds than them?
[/quote]

because they're physically inferior? why is that a surprise? high school male athletes dominate female professional athletes athletically, that's just how it goes. It's way easier to hit 120 mph with the strength and coordination of a male and a crappy swing than it is to swing 120 with a perfect swing and the strength and coordination of a female.

I have no idea what's going on with the spine stuff so I'm just gonna exit that aspect of the convo. Sounds like it's a debate between the words basic and primary, which are essential the exact same in this context. It's pretty lolzy to me that most of the information behind this is from the early 1900s. So before we understood DNA, had microwaves, had cars that were mass produced, or figured or that you could transfuse blood. Yes I'm sure nothing about our knowledge in relation to the spine has changed since then. Lol so when leeches were state of the art medicine, homeboy was pioneering how the spine works.

Dolphins and other mammals that are water-based move in a completely different plane than we do and in a completely different medium so I have no idea how that relates at all to us.

[pick it up]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412202557' post='10220019']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412196228' post='10219475']
Northgolf, If your argument held water... explain why LPGA Players who for sure have better mechanics than your average amateur and even some PGA tour players can't generate the higher club head speeds than them?
[/quote]

because they're physically inferior? why is that a surprise? high school male athletes dominate female professional athletes athletically, that's just how it goes. It's way easier to hit 120 mph with the strength and coordination of a male and a crappy swing than it is to swing 120 with a perfect swing and the strength and coordination of a female.

I have no idea what's going on with the spine stuff so I'm just gonna exit that aspect of the convo. Sounds like it's a debate between the words basic and primary, which are essential the exact same in this context. It's pretty lolzy to me that most of the information behind this is from the early 1900s. So before we understood DNA, had microwaves, had cars that were mass produced, or figured or that you could transfuse blood. Yes I'm sure nothing about our knowledge in relation to the spine has changed since then. Lol so when leeches were state of the art medicine, homeboy was pioneering how the spine works.

Dolphins and other mammals that are water-based move in a completely different plane than we do and in a completely different medium so I have no idea how that relates at all to us.
[/quote]


[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1412202557' post='10220019']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412196228' post='10219475']
Northgolf, If your argument held water... explain why LPGA Players who for sure have better mechanics than your average amateur and even some PGA tour players can't generate the higher club head speeds than them?
[/quote]

because they're physically inferior? why is that a surprise? high school male athletes dominate female professional athletes athletically, that's just how it goes. [color=#ff0000] It's way easier to hit 120 mph with the strength and coordination of a male and a crappy swing [/color]than it is to swing 120 with a perfect swing and the strength and coordination of a female.

I have no idea what's going on with the spine stuff so I'm just gonna exit that aspect of the convo. Sounds like it's a debate between the words basic and primary, which are essential the exact same in this context. It's pretty lolzy to me that most of the information behind this is from the early 1900s. So before we understood DNA, had microwaves, had cars that were mass produced, or figured or that you could transfuse blood. Yes I'm sure nothing about our knowledge in relation to the spine has changed since then. Lol so when leeches were state of the art medicine, homeboy was pioneering how the spine works.

Dolphins and other mammals that are water-based move in a completely different plane than we do and in a completely different medium so I have no idea how that relates at all to us.
[/quote]


Thanks! that's my point, just add in against another male with good mechanics but not the same power output.
.

[AnotherTodJohnson]

ej002 made the following comment-: "[i]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[/b][b],[/b][b] then where does Kelvin's spine powering the golfswing theory derive its basis? [/b] A: Nowhere[/i]".

Jeffy (Tod) then replied as follows-: "[i]From Fryette's laws, developed in 1918, which describe the coupled movements of the spine.[/i]"

Jeffy is seemingly implying that Fryettes' laws are the biomechanical basis for Kelvin's belief that the spine powers the golf swing. Is that Jeffy-claim reasonable?

What are Fryette's laws?

Here is the Wikipedia explanation - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fryette%27s_laws"]http://en.wikipedia....ette's_laws[/url]

I presume that Kelvin/Jeffy is referring to the first Fryette principle that states that side-bending of the spine (when it is in the neutral position) will cause the involved vertebra to rotate to the opposite side. So, for example, if one side-bends to the right that will cause the spine to rotate to the left (which is a counterclockwise rotation).

Fryette's laws (which originated in 1918) are mainly used by osteopaths/chiropractors and not biomechanists (as Jeffy implies). Are they widely accepted today? Not according to this author - see [url="http://koushikphysio.blogspot.com/2011/11/fryettes-laws.html"]http://koushikphysio...ettes-laws.html[/url]

Nor are they apparently widely acceptable to the wider osteopathic community according to this author - see [url="http://www.somatics.de/artikel/for-professionals/2-article/23-questioning-fryette"]http://www.somatics....tioning-fryette[/url]

Note that the author states that Harrison performed a systematic review of the literature and came to the following conclusion-: "[i]A systematic review of the scientific literature by Harrison DE et al. concludes "Full three-dimensional investigations of spinal coupling patterns have shown that the vertebrae rotate and translate in all three axes and that previous theories of spinal coupling based upon two-dimensional studies are inaccurate and invalid." ([url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9502066&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum"]Harrison DE et al. 1998 Three-dimensional spinal coupling mechanics: Part I. A review of the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 21: 101-13[/url])[/i]"

It would seem that Fryette's laws are no longer accepted as being scientifically valid - especially with reference to the thoracic spine.

However, I'll play devil's advocate, and accept that they are true with respect to the golfer's spine during the downswing. What would Fryette's principle 1 predict? It would simply predict that if a golfer develops right lateral bend of the thoracic spine during the downswing (and that biomechanical phenomenon usually happens to a significant degree between P5.5 and P7 in many pro golfers) that it will cause the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise. That's all that principle 1 claims! However, we already know that a golfer is [b]actively[/b] rotating his upper torso (shoulders) counterclockwise during the mid-late downswing, so the addition of any significant degree of right lateral bend will only cause the thoracic spine to rotate in the [b]same[/b] counterclockwise direction. Note that there is nothing in Fryette's law that talks about the need for any lumbar lordosis and interlocking lumbar interfacet joints (which is part of Gracovetskys' spine engine ideology).

Jeffy wrongly claims that Jefff Mann is ignorant about Fryette's laws, but Jeff Mann has never disagreed that the acquisition of right lateral bend in the mid-late downswing can produce a rotary torque force that causes the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise. In fact, Jeff Mann has stated that he believes that the thoracic spine naturally rotates counterclockwise during the mid-late downswing when the upper torso (shoulders) actively rotate counterclockwise and he has also stated that he believes that any active counterclockwise rotation of the thoracic spine will produce a [b]passive[/b] rotary torque force that will synergistically assist in helping the lumbar spine/pelvis to continue to rotate counterclockwise between P5.5 and P7 - see this NGI forum thread [url="http://newtongolfinstitute.proboards.com/thread/551/golf-forum-thread-criticising-jeff"]http://newtongolfins...riticising-jeff[/url]

Jeff Mann doesn't disagree with any claim that right lateral bend (that only happens to a significant degree between P5.5 and P7) will cause the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise and he only disagrees with the claim that the "spine engine" powers the pelvic rotation via the biomechanical combination of "right lateral bend combined with interlocking interfacet joints on the concave/compressed side of the right lateral bend" and any claim that this combined-biomechanical phenomenon happens between P4 and P5.5. Jeffy is now seemingly claiming that Kelvin is not basing his spine theory on Gracovetsky's spine engine theory, but only on Fryette's laws. However, is Jeffy's claim rational and supported by the evidence from Kelvin's writings (articles)?

Here is a link to Kelvin's first article on the spine engine.

[url="http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2010-04-spine-engine-swing-lateral-bend.html"]http://www.aroundhaw...teral-bend.html[/url]

I don't see any mention of Fryette's laws in that article? However, I do see a lot written about Gracovetsky's spine-engine ideas.

Kelvin wrote as follows-: "[i]According to Dr. Gracovetsky and the research on spine movements, lateral bending plus lumbar lordosis will produce axial rotation. This is due to the fact that our vertebrae have facets that are like geared teeth. See pictures below from Gracovetsky's book --- And when these facets connect to each other, they act like gears and produce rotation. But they can only do that when the two moves; lateral bend and lumbar lordosis are paired together. Thus, these two major moves are of utmost importance if we are to use our spine engine. If not, you're only left with muscular effort to overcome the lack of assistance from the powerful spine engine. In the end, the ultimate goal is to use both spine engine and muscular effort to produce the most powerful and repeatable swing." [/i]

Do you not agree that Kelvin is referring to the spine engine theory (and not Fryette's laws) when he writes about the role of the spine in the downswing?

ATJ.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412214212' post='10221035']
ej002 made the following comment-: "[i]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[/b][b],[/b][b] then where does Kelvin's spine powering the golfswing theory derive its basis? [/b] A: Nowhere[/i]".

Jeffy (Tod) then replied as follows-: "[i]From Fryette's laws, developed in 1918, which describe the coupled movements of the spine.[/i]"

Jeffy is seemingly implying that Fryettes' laws are the biomechanical basis for Kelvin's belief that the spine powers the golf swing. Is that Jeffy-claim reasonable?

What are Fryette's laws?

Here is the Wikipedia explanation - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fryette%27s_laws"]http://en.wikipedia....ette's_laws[/url]

I presume that Kelvin/Jeffy is referring to the first Fryette principle that states that side-bending of the spine (when it is in the neutral position) will cause the involved vertebra to rotate to the opposite side. So, for example, if one side-bends to the right that will cause the spine to rotate to the left (which is a counterclockwise rotation).

Fryette's laws (which originated in 1918) are mainly used by osteopaths/chiropractors and not biomechanists (as Jeffy implies). Are they widely accepted today? Not according to this author - see [url="http://koushikphysio.blogspot.com/2011/11/fryettes-laws.html"]http://koushikphysio...ettes-laws.html[/url]

Nor are they apparently widely acceptable to the wider osteopathic community according to this author - see [url="http://www.somatics.de/artikel/for-professionals/2-article/23-questioning-fryette"]http://www.somatics....tioning-fryette[/url]

Note that the author states that Harrison performed a systematic review of the literature and came to the following conclusion-: "[i]A systematic review of the scientific literature by Harrison DE et al. concludes "Full three-dimensional investigations of spinal coupling patterns have shown that the vertebrae rotate and translate in all three axes and that previous theories of spinal coupling based upon two-dimensional studies are inaccurate and invalid." ([url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9502066&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum"]Harrison DE et al. 1998 Three-dimensional spinal coupling mechanics: Part I. A review of the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 21: 101-13[/url])[/i]"

It would seem that Fryette's laws are no longer accepted as being scientifically valid - especially with reference to the thoracic spine.

However, I'll play devil's advocate, and accept that they are true with respect to the golfer's spine during the downswing. What would Fryette's principle 1 predict? It would simply predict that if a golfer develops right lateral bend of the thoracic spine during the downswing (and that biomechanical phenomenon usually happens to a significant degree between P5.5 and P7 in many pro golfers) that it will cause the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise. That's all that principle 1 claims! However, we already know that a golfer is [b]actively[/b] rotating his upper torso (shoulders) counterclockwise during the mid-late downswing, so the addition of any significant degree of right lateral bend will only cause the thoracic spine to rotate in the [b]same[/b] counterclockwise direction. Note that there is nothing in Fryette's law that talks about the need for any lumbar lordosis and interlocking lumbar interfacet joints (which is part of Gracovetskys' spine engine ideology).

Jeffy wrongly claims that Jefff Mann is ignorant about Fryette's laws, but Jeff Mann has never disagreed that the acquisition of right lateral bend in the mid-late downswing can produce a rotary torque force that causes the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise. In fact, Jeff Mann has stated that he believes that the thoracic spine naturally rotates counterclockwise during the mid-late downswing when the upper torso (shoulders) actively rotate counterclockwise and he has also stated that he believes that any active counterclockwise rotation of the thoracic spine will produce a [b]passive[/b] rotary torque force that will synergistically assist in helping the lumbar spine/pelvis to continue to rotate counterclockwise between P5.5 and P7 - see this NGI forum thread [url="http://newtongolfinstitute.proboards.com/thread/551/golf-forum-thread-criticising-jeff"]http://newtongolfins...riticising-jeff[/url]

Jeff Mann doesn't disagree with any claim that right lateral bend (that only happens to a significant degree between P5.5 and P7) will cause the thoracic spine to rotate counterclockwise and he only disagrees with the claim that the "spine engine" powers the pelvic rotation via the biomechanical combination of "right lateral bend combined with interlocking interfacet joints on the concave/compressed side of the right lateral bend" and any claim that this combined-biomechanical phenomenon happens between P4 and P5.5. Jeffy is now seemingly claiming that Kelvin is not basing his spine theory on Gracovetsky's spine engine theory, but only on Fryette's laws. However, is Jeffy's claim rational and supported by the evidence from Kelvin's writings (articles)?

Here is a link to Kelvin's first article on the spine engine.

[url="http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2010-04-spine-engine-swing-lateral-bend.html"]http://www.aroundhaw...teral-bend.html[/url]

I don't see any mention of Fryette's laws in that article? However, I do see a lot written about Gracovetskys spine-engine ideas.

Kelvin wrote as follows-: "[i]According to Dr. Gracovetsky and the research on spine movements, lateral bending plus lumbar lordosis will produce axial rotation. This is due to the fact that our vertebrae have facets that are like geared teeth. See pictures below from Gracovetsky's book --- And when these facets connect to each other, they act like gears and produce rotation. But they can only do that when the two moves; lateral bend and lumbar lordosis are paired together. Thus, these two major moves are of utmost importance if we are to use our spine engine. If not, you're only left with muscular effort to overcome the lack of assistance from the powerful spine engine. In the end, the ultimate goal is to use both spine engine and muscular effort to produce the most powerful and repeatable swing." [/i]

Do you not agree that Kelvin is referring to the spine engine theory (and not Fryette's laws) when he writes about the role of the spine in the downswing?

ATJ.
[/quote]

lol you made an account mirroring another poster? why is it that all the people who follow these relatively up and coming instructors always are so "interesting" in their pursuits for defending their instructor/ attacking challengers?

[AnotherTodJohnson]

Jeffy (Tod) made the following comments-: "[i]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[/i]."

Jeff Mann does not claim that Gracovetsky means that the primary engine is the "largest engine". See post #2 in this NGI forum thread for the "true facts" regarding Jeff Mann's beliefs on the topic of the "primary engine" versus the "largest engine" - [url="http://newtongolfinstitute.proboards.com/thread/551/golf-forum-thread-criticising-jeff"]http://newtongolfins...riticising-jeff[/url]

Jeffy (Tod) claims that Gracovetsky asserts that the spine movements must "[b]precede that of the legs[/b]" by [b]first[/b] rotating the pelvis. However, why should we believe that the spine must [b]first[/b] rotate the pelvis [b]before the legs start to move[/b] during the natural biomechanical action of bipedal human locomotion? I believe that an able-bodied human being can easily ambulate normally by [b]first[/b] using his legs as the primary biomechanical agent-of-action while [b]secondarily[/b] rotating his pelvis/spine in a naturally synchronous (coordinated) motional manner.

ATJ.

[dairic]

Oh boy, this thread just got awesomer.

All the Jeff's are here now, so quick, someone get Manzella before the banning begins!