Kelvin Miyahira: pro or con

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412316785' post='10228343']
Dap,

You wrote-: "[i]So far in this bout,TJ has come out swinging and throwing as many punches as he can muster hoping that more blows can score more points and overwhelm the opposition into confusion.

ATJ has his gloves up absorbing the blows and perhaps playing rope a dope and not really on the offensive......yet[/i]."

It is very easy for me to counter Jeffy's blows (which are mainly ad hominem insults) by simply igoring the insults. I no longer have any psychological need to counter his personal insults by generating uncivilized ad hominem insults, and I will simply concentrate my effort on providing an [b]alternative[/b] opinion to Jeffys regarding topics related to golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.

Here is an example of an [b]alternative opinion[/b] relating to the topic of the spine engine.

In post #762 Jeffy posted a u-tube video of Jamie Sadlowski hitting a 331 yard drive off his knees and then he rhetorically asked-: "[i]Here is Jamie hitting it 331 off his knees. How much do you think the spine engine contributes relative to the hips and legs in that swing?[/i]"

I don't think that Jeffy was really seeking an answer (or an alternative opinion) and he is seemingly implying that the spine engine mechanisim is primarily responsible for producing the swing power that allows JS to hit a 331 yard drive without any contribution from [b]significant[/b] pelvic motion (because his potential pelvic motion is severely limited in that kneeling position). However, that Jeffy-opinion doesn't make sense to me because the primary purpose of the spine engine is to help rotate the pelvis counterclockwise (= amplify the counterclockwise rotary motion of the pelvis which is being primarily rotated by the pelvic girdle muscles), but if the pelvis cannot significantly rotate (because it is impeded by being so close to the ground rather than free-floating on two legs) then it should not be possible for the spine engine to be contributing to the generation of swing power. The true reality is that JS generates his swing power in the kneeling position by a very active rotation of his mid-upper torso secondary to an [b]active contraction of the core muscles of his mid-upper torso[/b]. The rotation of his upper torso, and therefore his two shoulder sockets, provides the pivot-induced swing power that allows him to swing his arms at a very fast velocity into impact. Clubhead speed at impact is directly correlated with left arm speed (speed of release of PA#4 in TGM terms), and his left arm speed between P6 and impact is primarily affected by the speed of rotation of his mid-upper torso - when he is in the kneeling position. [size=5][b]There is simply no reason to posit the scientifically-unsupported concept of a "spine engine".[/b][/size][/quote]

Fact check: The "spine engine" theory is a theory of locomotion and not particularly relevant to the golf swing. The relevant theory is coupled motion of the spine, which is incorporated in the "spine engine" theory and has extensive support in the scientific literature.

[pick it up]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412397585' post='10233209']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412313770' post='10228259']
Bret: No. Let’s get into that later. So essentially, a lot of this stuff he was talking about at the time. One-by-one you would kind of pick it off. Just talk about the spinal engine real quick. I remember reading that and it just doesn’t make sense. Like you said, it’s very esoteric and elusive. I will tell you that people in our industry are drawn to this. He talked about how if you take a metal rod and you bend it and then twisted and side bend it, it will create rotational torque. That’s what drives gait. What are the problems with that?

Stu McGill: Well the problem is that it’s true for a rod made of fiberglass or graphite or something like that. [b]So let’s replicate the motions that he’s showing in his graphite rod in a real person. What you have to do is walk while swinging your hips, rolling each hip over. Well when you measure people there are some people who have totally the opposite pattern in their hips. In other words, their spinal engine is in reverse. Yet, they’re still able to walk forward.[/b][/quote]

This is a blatant straw man. The spinal engine theory does not say such a person can't walk forward. In fact, in his book, Gracovetsky describes the circumstances when a person's spine engine would be in "reverse". Of course, McGill did not describe the gait of such persons. I doubt it would be considered normal.


[quote][b]I remember being at a spine meeting one time and Gunnar Andersson, who is a very well known spine surgeon and scientist out of Chicago. He stood up and said, Yes, but this patient right over here. They’ve had a fusion from L1 down to the sacrum. Their spine is stuck in neutral and cannot move. Does that mean they can’t walk?”[/b] The fact that the room erupted in laughter the other way. The point is that you have big leg muscles for a reason and that’s how you walk.[/quote]

I think this is the low point in the interview and makes McGill look like a low-rent ****** bag. Gracovetsky never said such a person cannot walk. He said such a person would likely have an impaired gait and be susceptible to injury to the adjacent vertebrae. McGill discloses none of this, nor does he disclose whether or not the patient had a normal gait. I highly doubt that he did.



Jeff
[/quote]


You miss the point totally on that, It means the spine is not the engine if the person can still walk with a fused spine from L1 down to the sacrum, thats because the hips are the engine...you got big muscles in your hips that are the engine....duh!

[pick it up]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412398294' post='10233237']
[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412316785' post='10228343']
Dap,

You wrote-: "[i]So far in this bout,TJ has come out swinging and throwing as many punches as he can muster hoping that more blows can score more points and overwhelm the opposition into confusion.

ATJ has his gloves up absorbing the blows and perhaps playing rope a dope and not really on the offensive......yet[/i]."

It is very easy for me to counter Jeffy's blows (which are mainly ad hominem insults) by simply igoring the insults. I no longer have any psychological need to counter his personal insults by generating uncivilized ad hominem insults, and I will simply concentrate my effort on providing an [b]alternative[/b] opinion to Jeffys regarding topics related to golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.

Here is an example of an [b]alternative opinion[/b] relating to the topic of the spine engine.

In post #762 Jeffy posted a u-tube video of Jamie Sadlowski hitting a 331 yard drive off his knees and then he rhetorically asked-: "[i]Here is Jamie hitting it 331 off his knees. How much do you think the spine engine contributes relative to the hips and legs in that swing?[/i]"

I don't think that Jeffy was really seeking an answer (or an alternative opinion) and he is seemingly implying that the spine engine mechanisim is primarily responsible for producing the swing power that allows JS to hit a 331 yard drive without any contribution from [b]significant[/b] pelvic motion (because his potential pelvic motion is severely limited in that kneeling position). However, that Jeffy-opinion doesn't make sense to me because the primary purpose of the spine engine is to help rotate the pelvis counterclockwise (= amplify the counterclockwise rotary motion of the pelvis which is being primarily rotated by the pelvic girdle muscles), but if the pelvis cannot significantly rotate (because it is impeded by being so close to the ground rather than free-floating on two legs) then it should not be possible for the spine engine to be contributing to the generation of swing power. The true reality is that JS generates his swing power in the kneeling position by a very active rotation of his mid-upper torso secondary to an [b]active contraction of the core muscles of his mid-upper torso[/b]. The rotation of his upper torso, and therefore his two shoulder sockets, provides the pivot-induced swing power that allows him to swing his arms at a very fast velocity into impact. Clubhead speed at impact is directly correlated with left arm speed (speed of release of PA#4 in TGM terms), and his left arm speed between P6 and impact is primarily affected by the speed of rotation of his mid-upper torso - when he is in the kneeling position. [size=5][b]There is simply no reason to posit the scientifically-unsupported concept of a "spine engine".[/b][/size][/quote]

Fact check: The "spine engine" theory is a theory of locomotion and not particularly relevant to the golf swing. The relevant theory is coupled motion of the spine, which is incorporated in the "spine engine" theory and has extensive support in the scientific literature.
[/quote]

[AnotherTodJohnson]

Eightiron asked: "[i]How on earth can you tell if there is no roll between p7 and p7.2 and what's exactly holding . How is hogan a cp arm release action ? Where did you get that definition from?[/i]"

I can tell that there is no roll by examining slow motion videos of a golfer's hand release action through the immediate impact zone (P7 to P7.2) - see my post showing capture images from a Phantom video camera.

I originated definitions of a CP-versus-CF arm release action (in the same way that I orginated definitions of a no-roll versus a full-roll DH-hand release action) and I also defined "holding" in this review paper - [url="http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/impact.htm"]http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/impact.htm[/url] - and other review papers devoted to the topic of "hand release actions".

He (like all forum members and guests) is obviously under no obligation to accept my definitions or believe in [b]any[/b] of my personal opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics, and [b]all[/b] individual forum members/guests can obviously independently choose their own personal way of understanding/describing golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I am merely expressing a personal opinion when I write about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics - and that personal opinion can be accepted or rejected!

Jeff.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1412398707' post='10233251']
[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412397585' post='10233209']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412313770' post='10228259']
Bret: No. Let’s get into that later. So essentially, a lot of this stuff he was talking about at the time. One-by-one you would kind of pick it off. Just talk about the spinal engine real quick. I remember reading that and it just doesn’t make sense. Like you said, it’s very esoteric and elusive. I will tell you that people in our industry are drawn to this. He talked about how if you take a metal rod and you bend it and then twisted and side bend it, it will create rotational torque. That’s what drives gait. What are the problems with that?

Stu McGill: Well the problem is that it’s true for a rod made of fiberglass or graphite or something like that. [b]So let’s replicate the motions that he’s showing in his graphite rod in a real person. What you have to do is walk while swinging your hips, rolling each hip over. Well when you measure people there are some people who have totally the opposite pattern in their hips. In other words, their spinal engine is in reverse. Yet, they’re still able to walk forward.[/b][/quote]

This is a blatant straw man. The spinal engine theory does not say such a person can't walk forward. In fact, in his book, Gracovetsky describes the circumstances when a person's spine engine would be in "reverse". Of course, McGill did not describe the gait of such persons. I doubt it would be considered normal.


[quote][b]I remember being at a spine meeting one time and Gunnar Andersson, who is a very well known spine surgeon and scientist out of Chicago. He stood up and said, Yes, but this patient right over here. They’ve had a fusion from L1 down to the sacrum. Their spine is stuck in neutral and cannot move. Does that mean they can’t walk?”[/b] The fact that the room erupted in laughter the other way. The point is that you have big leg muscles for a reason and that’s how you walk.[/quote]

I think this is the low point in the interview and makes McGill look like a low-rent ****** bag. Gracovetsky never said such a person cannot walk. He said such a person would likely have an impaired gait and be susceptible to injury to the adjacent vertebrae. McGill discloses none of this, nor does he disclose whether or not the patient had a normal gait. I highly doubt that he did.



Jeff
[/quote]


You miss the point totally on that, [b]It means the spine is not the engine if the person can still walk with a fused spine from L1 down to the sacrum, thats because the hips are the engine...you got big muscles in your hips that are the engine[/b]....duh!
[/quote]

Exactly. A fused spine immobilizes the spine engine and forces the patient to walk with an abnormal gait. As was already discussed here extensively, the spine engine is secondary to the hips and legs in terms of power. "Primary", as used by Gracovetsky, means "first", not "majority".

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412397748' post='10233217']
Jeffy wrote-: "[i]Then why are you voicing an opinion on this topic? If you haven't researched this topic in sufficient detail to answer the most basic questions, you have no business authoritatively opining on it. But you couldn't care less[/i]."

[b]It is well known that we are both not golf researchers (scientists) with access to sophisticated scientific techniques. I am also not opining authoritatively, but merely expressing a personal opinion (personal interpretation of 3-D data presented by Greg Rose). [/b][/quote]

Excellent. First, speak for yourself. Second, as I have always believed, you are now admitting that you are just a layman making things up. Your purported "biomechanics" credentials don't exist. This is perhaps the one true thing you've ever admitted on a golf forum. Well done, sir.

[AnotherTodJohnson]

Jeffy wrote-: "[i]A fused spine immobilizes the spine engine and forces the patient to walk with an abnormal gait[/i]".

A partially fused spine (eg. fusion of the [b]all[/b] the lumbar vertebra) will not affect gait and cause a person to walk with an abnormal gait. I think that it would require a much more extensive fusion (involving virtually the entire thoracic spine) to affect gait.

Jeff.

[Tod Johnson]

Jeffy wrote-: "Well, the thing about Dr. Mann is he picks and chooses the facts he wants to believe. He has been shown TPI data wrist angle graphs for many tour level players, as well as Sadlowski, and he knows that none have a period of "no roll" between P7 to P7.2. It's physically impossible. But he could not care less."

 

I have had this debate with Jeffy in the past. He prefers to believe in the legitimacy of TPI's 3-D graphs taken at 200 measurements/second while I prefer to believe in the measurements obtained by a Phantom camera video system taken at 5,000 - 10,000 frames/second.

 

Here is John Oda's hand motion through the immediate impact zone taken with Kelvin's Phantom camera at 8,200 frames/second.

 

 

Addendum added later:

 

I have just produced a new capture sequence of Kelli Oride's hand motion through the immediate impact zone - taken with Kelvin's Phantom camera.

 

Here is Kelvin's you-tube video

 

 

Here is the capture sequence.

 

 

Here are the measured angles (using Photoshop)

 

 

 

ATJ.

 

First. Photoshop? You are basing scientific conclusions on PHOTOSHOP?

 

Second, correct me if I'm wrong (because I have very little confidence that I know what the hell you are trying to do here), but doesn't your "analysis" show 4 degrees of rotation from P7 to P7.2? 4 degrees of roll ain't "no roll", last I checked.

[eightiron]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412399033' post='10233261']
Eightiron asked: "[i]How on earth can you tell if there is no roll between p7 and p7.2 and what's exactly holding . How is hogan a cp arm release action ? Where did you get that definition from?[/i]"

I can tell that there is no roll by examining slow motion videos of a golfer's hand release action through the immediate impact zone (P7 to P7.2) - see my post showing capture images from a Phantom video camera.

I originated definitions of a CP-versus-CF arm release action (in the same way that I orginated definitions of a no-roll versus a full-roll DH-hand release action) and I also defined "holding" in this review paper - [url="http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/impact.htm"]http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/impact.htm[/url] - and other review papers devoted to the topic of "hand release actions".

He (like all forum members and guests) is obviously under no obligation to accept my definitions or believe in [b]any[/b] of my personal opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics, and [b]all[/b] individual forum members/guests can obviously independently choose their own personal way of understanding/describing golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I am merely expressing a personal opinion when I write about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics - and that personal opinion can be accepted or rejected!

Jeff.
[/quote]

Ok thanks , yes I can see how your definitions are completely different to Mac O Grady ( the guy that coined the cp , cf , inline )

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412399749' post='10233285']
Jeffy wrote-: "[i]A fused spine immobilizes the spine engine and forces the patient to walk with an abnormal gait[/i]".

[b]A partially fused spine (eg. fusion of the all the lumbar vertebra) will not affect gait and cause a person to walk with an abnormal gait.[/b] I think that it would require a much more extensive fusion (involving virtually the entire thoracic spine) to affect gait.

Jeff.
[/quote]

And you know this how? I assume this is just your layman, personal opinion (i.e., just making things up).

[AnotherTodJohnson]

Jeffy wrote-: "[i]Excellent. First, speak for yourself. Second, as I have always believed, you are now admitting that you are just a layman making things up. Your purported "biomechanics" credentials don't exist. This is perhaps the one true thing you've ever admitted on a golf forum. Well done, sir. [/i] "

Amazing!

The true "fact" is that I have never claimed to be a biomechanist or an expert on golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I have [b]repeatedly[/b] over the past 8 years stated that I am only expressing a personal opinion when I post in golf forums, or express my personal opinions in review papers. Jeffy knows that "fact" because he used to participate in NGI forum discussions where I repeatedly expressed this "fact".

Jeff.

[AnotherTodJohnson]

Jeffy wrote-: "[i]Second, correct me if I'm wrong (because I have very little confidence that I know what the hell you are trying to do here), but doesn't your "analysis" show 4 degrees of rotation from P7 to P7.2? 4 degrees of roll ain't "no roll", last I checked[/i],"

Unbelievable!

Considering that I am merely using a simple visual analysis based on 2-D data, that's amazingly accurate considering the problem of parallax distortion and considering the "fact" that the hands always travel in an arc, and never a straight line. Compared to 3-D data (taken at 200 frames/second), even a [b]simple[/b] visual analysis (without actual measurements) of Kelvin's Phantom camera videos (taken at 50,000 - 100,000 frames/second) is much more accuratedly reflective of reality. Also, my definition of a DH-hand release action is presently based on the [b]relationship of the clubshaft relative to the left arm[/b] through the immediate impact zone and I can readily accept errors of 5 degrees without invalidating my concept of a DH-hand release action.

Kelvin's definition of a DH-hand release action is so imprecise that it makes my definition far superior.

Kelvin cannot even differentiate between a flip verus a roll through impact - see my analysis of 4 examples from Kelvin's articles in topic number 10 of this review paper - [url="http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/2014Revision.htm"]http://perfectgolfsw...14Revision.htm[/url]

ATJ.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412400171' post='10233301']
Jeffy wrote-: "[i]Excellent. First, speak for yourself. Second, as I have always believed, you are now admitting that you are just a layman making things up. Your purported "biomechanics" credentials don't exist. This is perhaps the one true thing you've ever admitted on a golf forum. Well done, sir. [/i] "

Amazing!

[b]The true "fact" is that I have never claimed to be a biomechanist or an expert on golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. [/b]I have [b]repeatedly[/b] over the past 8 years stated that I am only expressing a personal opinion when I post in golf forums, or express my personal opinions in review papers. Jeffy knows that "fact" because he used to participate in NGI forum discussions where I repeatedly expressed this "fact".

Jeff.
[/quote]

[size=6][b]LMAO![/b][/size]

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412401029' post='10233331']
Jeffy wrote-: "[i]Second, correct me if I'm wrong (because I have very little confidence that I know what the hell you are trying to do here), but doesn't your "analysis" show 4 degrees of rotation from P7 to P7.2? 4 degrees of roll ain't "no roll", last I checked[/i],"

Unbelievable!

Considering that I am merely using a simple visual analysis based on 2-D data, that's amazingly accurate considering the problem of parallax distortion and considering the "fact" that the hands always travel in an arc, and never a straight line. Compared to 3-D data (taken at 200 frames/second), even a [b]simple[/b] visual analysis (without actual measurements) of Kelvin's Phantom camera videos (taken at 50,000 - 100,000 frames/second) is much more accuratedly reflective of reality. Also, my definition of a DH-hand release action is based on the [b]relationship of the clubshaft relative to the left arm[/b] through the immediate impact zone and I can readily accept errors of 5 degrees without invalidating my concept of a DH-hand release action.

Kelvin's definition of a DH-hand release action is so imprecise that it makes my definition far superior.

Kelvin cannot even differentiate between a flip verus a roll through impact - see my analysis of 4 examples from Kelvin's articles in topic number 10 of this review paper - [url="http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/2014Revision.htm"]http://perfectgolfsw...14Revision.htm[/url]

ATJ.
[/quote]

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that all completely besides the point? 4 degrees of roll ain't "no roll". Am I wrong?

[AnotherTodJohnson]

I stated that a person with a partially fused spine would be able to walk with a normal gait.

Jeffy then stated-: " [i]And you know this how? I assume this is just your layman, personal opinion (i.e., just making things up)[/i]".

LOL!

I practiced Emergency Medicine full-time for many decades, and I treated [b]many, many[/b] patients who had previously had partial spine fusion surgery, and I could easily determine that their gait was normal during my personal encounter with them in an ED setting.

Jeff.

[AnotherTodJohnson]

Jeffy wrote-: "[i]Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that all completely besides the point? 4 degrees of roll ain't "no roll". Am I wrong?[/i]"

He is definitely wrong. My simple visual measurement technique of Phantom videos could easily have error-rates of 4 degrees due to parallax distortion. That's far more accurate than any 3-D measurements taken at 200 frames/second where the data is extrapolated to create a 3-D graph. It's also irrelevant - because I now use my modified definition of a DH-hand release action, which evaluates the relationship of the clubshaft to the left arm (as expressed in topic number 10 of my latest review paper).

Jeff.

[eightiron]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412401099' post='10233337']
[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412400171' post='10233301']
Jeffy wrote-: "[i]Excellent. First, speak for yourself. Second, as I have always believed, you are now admitting that you are just a layman making things up. Your purported "biomechanics" credentials don't exist. This is perhaps the one true thing you've ever admitted on a golf forum. Well done, sir. [/i] "

Amazing!

[b]The true "fact" is that I have never claimed to be a biomechanist or an expert on golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. [/b]I have [b]repeatedly[/b] over the past 8 years stated that I am only expressing a personal opinion when I post in golf forums, or express my personal opinions in review papers. Jeffy knows that "fact" because he used to participate in NGI forum discussions where I repeatedly expressed this "fact".

Jeff.
[/quote]

[size=6][b]LMAO![/b][/size]
[/quote]

I recall reading the newton golf institute where Dr Mann claimed his concept of the intact LAFW or something was leading the world .

[AnotherTodJohnson]

Jeffy wrote-: "[i]I recall reading the newton golf institute where Dr Mann claimed his concept of the intact LAFW or something was leading the world[/i]."

It certainly is my [b]personal opinion[/b]!

Jeff.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412401337' post='10233351']
I stated that a person with a partially fused spine would be able to walk with a normal gait.

Jeffy then stated-: " [i]And you know this how? I assume this is just your layman, personal opinion (i.e., just making things up)[/i]".

LOL!

[b]I practiced Emergency Medicine full-time for many decades, and I treated many, many patients who had previously had partial spine fusion surgery, and I could easily determine that their gait was normal during my personal encounter with them in an ED setting.[/b]

Jeff.
[/quote]


And why would I believe a word of that without independent verification? You just suddenly decided to start telling the truth?

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412402269' post='10233373']
[b]Jeffy wrote-: "[i]I recall reading the newton golf institute where Dr Mann claimed his concept of the intact LAFW or something was leading the world[/i]."[/b]

It certainly is my [b]personal opinion[/b]!

Jeff.
[/quote]

Fact check: That was written by eightiron.

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412401779' post='10233357']
Jeffy wrote-: "[i]Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that all completely besides the point? 4 degrees of roll ain't "no roll". Am I wrong?[/i]"

[b]He is definitely wrong. My simple visual measurement technique of Phantom videos could easily have error-rates of 4 degrees due to parallax distortion.[/b] [/quote]

OK, so there could easily be 8 degrees of roll. How easily could there be 12 degrees of roll?


[quote]That's far more accurate than any 3-D measurements taken at 200 frames/second where the data is extrapolated to create a 3-D graph. [b]It's also irrelevant - because I now use my modified definition of a DH-hand release action, which evaluates the relationship of the clubshaft to the left arm (as expressed in topic number 10 of my latest review paper).[/b]

Jeff.
[/quote]


Hey! Where the heck are those goal posts??? "No roll" doesn't mean "no roll" anymore...

[eightiron]

Here it is from Newton Golf


You are free to label my swing commentary rudimentary. I personally believe otherwise! I believe that my ideas re: the virtues of playing golf with an intact LAFW/fFLW and my ideas on the biomechanics/mechanics of the DH-release action have no equal. I certainly am not aware of any contribution that you have ever made with respect to the world's global knowledge regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.

^^^^^

So you took TGM and Kelvins drive hold concepts and spun them to become ideas of " no equal "

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1412402714' post='10233393']
Here it is from Newton Golf


You are free to label my swing commentary rudimentary. I personally believe otherwise! [b]I believe that my ideas re: the virtues of playing golf with an intact LAFW/fFLW and my ideas on the biomechanics/mechanics of the DH-release action have no equal. [/b]I certainly am not aware of any contribution that you have ever made with respect to the world's global knowledge regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.

^^^^^

[b]So you took TGM and Kelvins drive hold concepts and spun them to become ideas of " no equal "[/b]
[/quote]

Fish in a barrel... LMAO

[dap]

Blows are coming fast and furious with ATJ now coming off the ropes and delivering some nice jabs to keep TJ at arms length.

Eightiron has joined as guest referee.Could there be a sensation with the guest referee delivering a double disqualification?!

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxliesfL_OQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxliesfL_OQ[/url]

[Tod Johnson]

[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412399033' post='10233261']
Eightiron asked: "[i]How on earth can you tell if there is no roll between p7 and p7.2 and what's exactly holding . How is hogan a cp arm release action ? Where did you get that definition from?[/i]"

[b]I can tell that there is no roll by examining slow motion videos of a golfer's hand release action through the immediate impact zone (P7 to P7.2) - see my post showing capture images from a Phantom video camera.[/b]

[/quote]

Yes, there is clearly 4 degrees of roll, plus, you say, "easily" another 4 degrees, in a very short period. Your analysis shows that you can't tell at all that there is "no roll".

[eightiron]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1412403491' post='10233411']
[quote name='AnotherTodJohnson' timestamp='1412399033' post='10233261']
Eightiron asked: "[i]How on earth can you tell if there is no roll between p7 and p7.2 and what's exactly holding . How is hogan a cp arm release action ? Where did you get that definition from?[/i]"

[b]I can tell that there is no roll by examining slow motion videos of a golfer's hand release action through the immediate impact zone (P7 to P7.2) - see my post showing capture images from a Phantom video camera.[/b]

[/quote]

Yes, there is clearly 4 degrees of roll, plus, you say, "easily" another 4 degrees, in a very short period. Your analysis shows that you can't tell at all that there is "no roll".
[/quote]

I just measured Hogan . I have a 10000 frames per second sequence that nobody else has seen , and there is 3.14159 degrees of roll between p7 and p7.2

[chrisgilly09]

Make mine apple 8 /\

[russc1597187869]

It certainly sounds like Kelvin teaches a very strong grip.What effect does such a grip have on supination in the lower downswing and during the rest of the swing

[JPGolf FL]

[quote name='russc' timestamp='1412430478' post='10234203']
It certainly sounds like Kelvin teaches a very strong grip.What effect does such a grip have on supination in the lower downswing and during the rest of the swing
[/quote]
A strong grip usually makes supination automatic/unnecessary.

[vinax]

[quote name='russc' timestamp='1412430478' post='10234203']
It certainly sounds like Kelvin teaches a very strong grip.What effect does such a grip have on supination in the lower downswing and during the rest of the swing
[/quote]

Look at all his articles on [url="http://www.aroundhawaii.com/speed_training.html"]http://www.aroundhaw...d_training.html[/url], its eye opening as long as you can get it.

Most people talk out of the a** BUT this guy has good explanations and takes the time to write these long articles.

He does get a little too technical, he has a lots of pictures and examples from tour players.