Jacobs 3D

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

Don’t try to sweet talk me. I’m not buying any books, videos, website prescriptions or anything else related of the false and useless ‘3D’ measurements your masters are selling.

 

I do, however, enjoy calling out the B.S. you are promoting, so I’ll stick around a while and call out your B.S. on this free and public forum.

[AMGolfPro]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> Top pros go wrong by seeking alignments that happen when one rotates their body and and extend their arms.

> Attract = ^^

> Repel= ^v

> Torque= ^>

>

> So torque aligns if allowed, which is why the wheel stays UP on the wheel video. In golf that natural phenomenon in torque is bad, between two separate bodies (wheel/rope- human/golf club).

>

> It requires more torque elsewhere, spine angles needed (side bend, etc), smaller window for ‘timing’ , flexibility and strength requirements.

> It’s no different than making a wrong turn and needing several more turns to get back on track. One wrong turn means several extra turns. One wrong intention in golf leads to many corrective turns.

>

 

AMEN AGAIN FD!

 

Torque and compensate. . . in 3D, of course!!

[Ghost of Snead]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> Top pros go wrong by seeking alignments that happen when one rotates their body and and extend their arms.

> Attract = ^^

> Repel= ^v

> Torque= ^>

>

> So torque aligns if allowed, which is why the wheel stays UP on the wheel video. In golf that natural phenomenon in torque is bad, between two separate bodies (wheel/rope- human/golf club).

>

> It requires more torque elsewhere, spine angles needed (side bend, etc), smaller window for ‘timing’ , flexibility and strength requirements.

> It’s no different than making a wrong turn and needing several more turns to get back on track. One wrong turn means several extra turns. One wrong intention in golf leads to many corrective turns.

>

Too nebulous for most physics ams ... pick a top pro (DJ, Tiger, anyone) and explain what they're doing inefficiently and how you would right their "wrongs".

 

[Millbrook]

> @AMGolfPro said:

> Alpha Man

>

> Go to your masters and tell them to watch the video below. Not personally acquainted with Mr. Martin, but he is light years ahead of anything your masters are peddling with ‘torque and chase’ approach to the golf swing.

>

> Your masters are trying to model a class B swing. It’s irrelevant that their measurements are wrong, as what they are trying to measure is completely useless. Nothing more than bookshelf and internet clutter.

>

>

 

It took me 4 attempts to pass physics O level (UK test at 16) so the mechanics are beyond me but I have benefited from FDs 2 videos and would like to understand more in terms I can translate into practical benefit.

However I had an experience on Sunday which this video made me reflect on. I'm mid 60s high hadicapper waiting for a partial knee replacement and a 200 yd drive is a good one. On Sunday I knocked one out 225 yds but the sensation was quite different to normal. The description may be lacking but it felt as though the shaft loaded very early and I just continued to rotate and went along for the ride. It felt effortless and I commented to my buddy when we got to the ball that I thought it would have gone further and it was him who measured it and told me how far it had gone.

I've been working on a better rotational move and the thumb pad of my right hand is quite sore. It feels as though I'm applying force through rotation and the hands are having to 'contain' it hence the soreness.

I'll check out some more of this guys videos - any comments appreciated.

[Golfjack]

Is somebody going to build a golf swing robot out of all this science? Cuz I think that would be pretty cool.

[Millbrook]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> If you load into the ground like my video, which you may have done, you use as much GRF as a jump. Except you don’t need the timing. Any inwards tension sends it and you can’t stop it. It’s like drawing a rubber band back and letting go.

> That pivot drives more force into a force plate over a longer time than any jump or thrust.

> Not sure on your hand, sounds like the club isn’t getting enough freedom.

>

 

Thanks I think that was the case, I was certainly using the pivot more than I had been able to previously . I think the hand part was a result of being a flipper previously whereas this move created a force back to the hands that I wasn't used to. Using your analogy when the rubber band is pulled back something at the other end resists and I think that resistance was what did not occur when I was flipping and casting. There was certainly enough freedom in the downswing and release but I'll monitor that. Thanks again, value your insights.

[dcfas]

> @"Fort Worth Pro" said:

>

>

>

>

I noticed on the tournament broadcast just last week Faldo and Finch were talking about how maximum swing speed has recently been found to happen before impact, rather than at impact. Didn’t catch their source.

 

[AMGolfPro]

> @"Tremendous Slouch" said:

> You're wasting your time FD, AM is a clueless bot. He avoids and transfers. You ask a question in post #334, he counters with a question of his own in post #335 to avoid your question. You answer his question in post #336 and in the same post redirect AM back to the original question in post #334. In post #337 AM is now the dog with his tail between his legs, has no where to run, no where to hide. He can't, and doesn't, answer and his run and hide in prevalent in the thread. Silly.....everyone can see his game.

>

Amen Slouch!

 

This dodge and dart sh*t show on the part of Alpha Man and his masters is a testament to the snake venom they are peddling.

 

[Millbrook]

> @"Tremendous Slouch" said:

> You're wasting your time FD, AM is a clueless bot. He avoids and transfers. You ask a question in post #334, he counters with a question of his own in post #335 to avoid your question. You answer his question in post #336 and in the same post redirect AM back to the original question in post #334. In post #337 AM is now the dog with his tail between his legs, has no where to run, no where to hide. He can't, and doesn't, answer and that run and hide dance is prevalent in the thread. Silly.....everyone can see his game.

>

 

In defence of AM at least with a parrot you know what it's going to say. That is until it expires;

 

 

[moehogan]

Timothy Leary was a Cal Berkeley PhD and also a published researcher. LOL.

 

[AMGolfPro]

http://media.giphy.com/media/yjGdFWMM8AItQwxngc/giphy.gif

[royourboat]

I started this thread to discuss outcomes of Nesbit and Jacobs 3D work. It should be clear to anyone that the Elements of the Swing video was very much an introduction for those that know what golf is but less-so physics and to introduce some terms that would become necessary to converse about the two. It didn't actually release new idea's of how the swing is performed.

 

This isn't a bad thing, it's very much necessary preamble. You literally can't have a conversation about technical data conclusions until you agree on principles and describe methodology almost completely (otherwise it isn't reproducible results and can be reduced from data to opinion). This is how research papers and theses are written. Although truthfully you have to infer or email the researcher to understand the finer points of the methodology used because it simply takes too long to describe 'how many left and right turns you took to drive to a destination'.

 

I haven't had the time to go through the latest Jacobs release, has anyone else?

[royourboat]

FrozenDivots, can you please link to the extinguishing point concept or describe it for us?

[Deadaimz]

I would actually like to hear more about the new book as well. Is it supposed to help at all with the swing?

[AMGolfPro]

By ‘animation,’ FD means Jacobs 3D has potential to produce a decent virtual golf game. . . but little more than that in terms of usefulness.

[AMGolfPro]

 

 

Deadaimz wrote: _I would actually like to hear more about the new book as well. Is it supposed to help at all with the swing?_

 

Alpha Man wrote: _There are 2 books. I posted the link above where you can find out more about Jacobs books and all Jacobs 3d has to offer golfers of any level._

 

Deadaimz, or you can wait for Jacobs to come out with the only true value of Jacobs 3D, a virtual golf game that might best be titled:

 

‘**Alpha Man’s Torque and Compensate Golf: The Culmination of False Measurements of Class B Motion**.’

[AMGolfPro]

**Alpha Man’s Torque and Compensate Golf: The Culmination of False Measurements of Class B Motion**

[AMGolfPro]

**Alpha Man’s Torque and Compensate Golf: The Culmination of False Measurements of Class B Motion**

[jut111]

> @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> Let's see so far we have in Frozen's theory ...Photon torque, decoupling, extinguish point, Ryke effect, Coriolis Effect, Bleeding Mass, L chasing a nutty professor, (The L is for Lassie), Torque error, and a partridge in a pear tree...did I miss anything?

Dude. I have no dog in this fight, frankly don't really understand this fight. Only thing I know is your an awful debater.

 

[AMGolfPro]

One moral of this story is that mechanical engineers should leave physics to physicists.

 

As FD said, engineers are built to impose, and physicists to derive. If you want to build a bridge, hire an engineer. If you want to understand physics - of the golf swing or other motion - seek a physicist.

 

Thus, back to the beginning. There is no new physics to discover with the golf swing motion. Physics is physics. Jacobs and Nesbit are trying to study the golf swing to learn the physics. There model is wrong. As before, no problem, as all models are wrong. Some models are useful, but theirs is not.

 

The fact that their measurements are inaccurate is irrelevant, because nobody needs to measure what ‘they’ (Jacobs and his lab rats) are doing. They are torquing and compensating, torquing and compensating, torquing and compensating . . . class B motion.

 

Most every golfer torques and compensates. Some have simply learned to repeat their compensations more effectively and consistently than others. Absolutely no problem playing golf that way, if you can, but most struggle trying to do so. The shot-to-shot, hole-to-hole and day-to-day variance is immense. . . incase not already obvious by the very existence of this forum, forums like it, and masses of frustrated golfers world wide. Even at the tour level, the compensations need to be rigorously attended on the range in order to be relatively maintained. Characteristic of a Class B motion.

 

Would FD recommend any of the world’s great ‘torque and compensators’ on tour change their swing motion? Hell no!! They have learned to play and compete at golf’s highest level using their swing compensations engrained over many years. Still, largely Class B motions are employed and promoted.

[AMGolfPro]

Yeah Slouch, cough up the dough and you will get . . .

 

**Alpha Man’s Torque and Compensate Golf: The Culmination of False Measurements of Class B Motion**

 

Alpha Man, nobody 'hates' Jacobs or Nesbit or Manzella; pretty strong word to impose on your part. This is about the snake venom they are bottling and trying to sell.

[Ghost of Snead]

> @AMGolfPro said:

> Would FD recommend any of the world’s great ‘torque and compensators’ on tour change their swing motion? **** no!! They have learned to play and compete at golf’s highest level using their swing compensations engrained over many years. **Still, largely Class B motions are employed and promoted.**

I'd still like to know who FD thinks on Tour doesn't have a "Class B" motion and see proof that a given Tour player with the supposed "Class B" motion could be swinging more efficiently with FD's concepts and why.

 

 

 

 

[mudge]

> @"Ghost of Snead" said:

> > @AMGolfPro said:

> > Would FD recommend any of the world’s great ‘torque and compensators’ on tour change their swing motion? **** no!! They have learned to play and compete at golf’s highest level using their swing compensations engrained over many years. **Still, largely Class B motions are employed and promoted.**

> I'd still like to know who FD thinks on Tour doesn't have a "Class B" motion and see proof that a given Tour player with the supposed "Class B" motion could be swinging more efficiently with FD's concepts and why.

>

>

>

>

 

+1. This is beyond ridiculous. All these fancy sounding physics terms being tossed around by FD, and I have no clue what he's talking about. And I've taken three college level physics courses. A "Class B" motion? WTF is that? So what do typical ams have, a "Class F" motion? There's no framework or structure to any of this.

 

FD, to start, could you please define the term "extinguishing point" in a rigorous manner, using commonly known physics concepts? You can't be trashing other people's research while at the same time, stating things as true that very few people could follow or understand.

[AMGolfPro]

_**All these fancy sounding physics terms being tossed around by FD, and I have no clue what he's talking about**_.

 

And that’s FD fault? It’s the language of the field. Do you want him to make up new physics terms for you? If you want to approach the golf swing from a physics perspective, then best to familiarize yourself with physics. Based on your self-stated lack of understanding, I would not recommend such approach.

 

_**"Class B" motion? WTF is that?**_

 

As in ‘second rate’ or less efficient motion.

 

_**There's no framework or structure to any of this.**_

 

FD has described the physics extensively here and elsewhere over the years. If you want to learn, it’s all out there in multiple forums/threads in which he has started and/or participated.

 

_**You can't be trashing other people's research**_ . . .

 

It did not start out that way, nor ever his/my intent. I think if you do an honest appraisal of Alpha Man’s demeanor, you will find he is reaping what he sews.

 

This thread is Jacobs 3D. Some very straightforward and reasonable questions were asked about Jacobs 3D - critical thinking and discussion are not trashing. Alpha Man and his masters have been unable and unwilling to address the questions. Instead, belligerent avoidance/redirection ensued, and has landed us where we currently sit.

 

Again, they are trying to sell books, videos, website membership, lessons . . . and, eventually, a 3D swing animation system. They are at the mercy of their conviction, and sales based on that conviction. Conversely, neither FD or myself are selling or forcing anything upon anyone.

 

. . . _**while at the same time, stating things as true that very few people could follow or understand**_.

 

FD did not make up physics. There is no novel physics going on in the golf swing. Physics is physics. Because you cannot follow or understand them does not change the physics. That said, FD has done a tremendous job describing the physics over the years on this and other forums.

[Ghost of Snead]

> @AMGolfPro said:

>

> _**"Class B" motion? WTF is that?**_

>

>** As in ‘second rate’ or less efficient motion.**

>

> . . . _**while at the same time, stating things as true that very few people could follow or understand**_.

>

> That said, FD has done a tremendous job describing the physics over the years on this and other forums.

 

Until FD or you or another anonymous forum member can demonstrate why Tour Pros have a "Class B" motion and what they could do to improve it, the term "Class B" is just another nebulous vaguery that without proof means nothing. And if FD has it all over the established names in the field, why is he anonymous ?

 

Seems like he could make a name for himself if he feels he can discredit some of the top golf physicists / biomechanists / etc. Maybe you can ask him since you feel obligated to speak for him.

 

As for other forums, you well know that SITD has been dead for years ... lead us to some other sources where we can learn the method behind his madness.

 

 

[Fade]

An example of a well-known golfer with a "class A" motion might be helpful as well.

[AMGolfPro]

FD has some excellent content in the below thread.

 

http://advancedballstriking.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=211&t=20

[Fade]

> @AMGolfPro said:

> _**All these fancy sounding physics terms being tossed around by FD, and I have no clue what he's talking about**_.

>

> And that’s FD fault? It’s the language of the field. Do you want him to make up new physics terms for you? If you want to approach the golf swing from a physics perspective, then best to familiarize yourself with physics. Based on your self-stated lack of understanding, I would not recommend such approach.

Which branch of physics (to treat the golf swing with) is "the field"?

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man wrote: “_no 1 scientific researcher in the world_”

 

Wow!!!! And how, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?!

 

[mudge]

> @AMGolfPro said:

> _**All these fancy sounding physics terms being tossed around by FD, and I have no clue what he's talking about**_.

>

> And that’s FD fault? It’s the language of the field. Do you want him to make up new physics terms for you? If you want to approach the golf swing from a physics perspective, then best to familiarize yourself with physics. Based on your self-stated lack of understanding, I would not recommend such approach.

>

> _**"Class B" motion? WTF is that?**_

>

> As in ‘second rate’ or less efficient motion.

>

> _**There's no framework or structure to any of this.**_

>

> FD has described the physics extensively here and elsewhere over the years. If you want to learn, it’s all out there in multiple forums/threads in which he has started and/or participated.

>

> _**You can't be trashing other people's research**_ . . .

>

> It did not start out that way, nor ever his/my intent. I think if you do an honest appraisal of Alpha Man’s demeanor, you will find he is reaping what he sews.

>

> This thread is Jacobs 3D. Some very straightforward and reasonable questions were asked about Jacobs 3D - critical thinking and discussion are not trashing. Alpha Man and his masters have been unable and unwilling to address the questions. Instead, belligerent avoidance/redirection ensued, and has landed us where we currently sit.

>

> Again, they are trying to sell books, videos, website membership, lessons . . . and, eventually, a 3D swing animation system. They are at the mercy of their conviction, and sales based on that conviction. Conversely, neither FD or myself are selling or forcing anything upon anyone.

>

> . . . _**while at the same time, stating things as true that very few people could follow or understand**_.

>

> FD did not make up physics. There is no novel physics going on in the golf swing. Physics is physics. Because you cannot follow or understand them does not change the physics. That said, FD has done a tremendous job describing the physics over the years on this and other forums.

 

That's the language of what field? I did an internet search for "extinguishing point" plus "physics" and came back with results for fire extinguishers and chemistry. Nothing remotely applicable to what's being discussed here.

 

And what makes a golf swing "second rate"? And why would you critique a golf swing model instead of an actual golf swing? Wouldn't that be more productive to those who don't understand all this fluff?

 

FD hasn't described or defined anything with the sort of rigor where someone reasonably informed in general physics (such as myself) could make head or tails of what he's talking about (some heretofore obscure field of physics). It's just nonsense so far.

 

For whatever Alpha Man's demeanor is, Jacobs 3D is at least described and defined in a language and terms that I can understand and follow, and thus I can agree or disagree on various points of the Jacobs/Nesbit model. With FD, I have literally no idea what he's talking about so there's no way to either agree or disagree with any of his points. That does not make for an enlightening discussion.