Hogan had a baseball swing

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350311041' post='5795609']
Tapio, just because the club head does not speed up with every added movement, doesn't therefore mean it is a closed system and energy/work cannot be added through the downstroke. For example, if you are pushing a car on flat ground, you may be able to push it 2 MPH, if you hit a slight upslope, the speed of the car may de-accelerate despite the fact that you are still adding energy/work to push the car, the speed drops because of other forces that make the work required to achieve the same speed greater, but work can be addded, so the system is not closed. As the club head swings out (during release) it requires more work to accelerate it because there is a greater MOI of the club and there is a force pushing back on the handle opposite the direction the hands are moving... but work can still be added.

Was Hogan sometimes a flipper in your book?

[attachment=1384011:controlled-power.jpg]

[attachment=1384013:Fairway-wood.jpg]

[attachment=1384015:baltusrol54.jpg]
[/quote]

It seems that you just don't want to understand what I said, so lets leave it like that. And using that kind of photos way too late got nothing to do with the case.

If you want to understand that closed system, read again my posts and think a while. Nothing to add there.

[drewspin]

LOL - I understand exactly what you are saying, I just happen to think you are wrong.

You are saying this:
"Between hands and club head... nothing after certain hand speed is achieved and that's easy to understand just by counting how much energy would be needed to accelerate the club head while keeping hands moving as fast as possible."

You are saying that after a certain handspeed is achieved, the system is "closed" in your vernacular, because the clubhead cannot be accelerated more because adding arm thrust decreases shoulder speed and does not increase CHS.

In the basic example of the car, you are saying there is no way to push the car faster up the hill. I am saying you can still add work, therefore the system is not "closed". You are simply making a false conclusion based on the outcome. If you measured total work in the system, you'd see that it increases through the stroke, like Nesbit shows.

[MizunoJoe]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350311041' post='5795609']

Was Hogan sometimes a flipper in your book?

[/quote]

He wasn't a flipper in my book, but I believe he was a slapper/sidearm thrower through impact just like he said in 5L.

[drewspin]

Kelvin explained the supination inherent in your earlier video, very visible except to the willfully blind.

 

 

 

Do you see what happens to the face here? You think it opens uo, Tapio?

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350312427' post='5795695']
LOL - I understand exactly what you are saying, I just happen to think you are wrong.

You are saying this:
"Between hands and club head... nothing after certain hand speed is achieved and that's easy to understand just by counting how much energy would be needed to accelerate the club head while keeping hands moving as fast as possible."

You are saying that after a certain handspeed is achieved, the system is "closed" in your vernacular, because the clubhead cannot be accelerated more because adding arm thrust decreases shoulder speed and does not increase CHS.

In the basic example of the car, you are saying there is no way to push the car faster up the hill. I am saying you can still add work, therefore the system is not "closed". You are simply making a false conclusion based on the outcome. If you measured total work in the system, you'd see that it increases through the stroke, like Nesbit shows.
[/quote]

NO Drew, there is no way to push that car more if there is no counterforce to the ground. In that case it's also closed system and straightening the arm doesn't add any force relative to the case you keep them bent and push more with your legs. So you really don't understand the closed system if you claim something else.

[doram101]

Uh oh drew I'm surprised your swing video hasn't been asked for , at least not for a couple of pages

[TeeAce]

Kelvin explained the supination inherent in your earlier video, very visible except to the willfully blind.

 

Do you see what happens to the face here? You think it opens uo, Tapio?

 

Do you see what happens to the left wrist there. Instead of arm rotation (more than it rotates by left shoulder movement) that wrist goes from cupped to bowed = from DF to PF and that closes the face as that move is rotating the shaft with that angle. With supination that left thumb would turn toward the camera and now it doesn't.

[drewspin]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350313291' post='5795765']
[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350312427' post='5795695']
LOL - I understand exactly what you are saying, I just happen to think you are wrong.

You are saying this:
"Between hands and club head... nothing after certain hand speed is achieved and that's easy to understand just by counting how much energy would be needed to accelerate the club head while keeping hands moving as fast as possible."

You are saying that after a certain handspeed is achieved, the system is "closed" in your vernacular, because the clubhead cannot be accelerated more because adding arm thrust decreases shoulder speed and does not increase CHS.

In the basic example of the car, you are saying there is no way to push the car faster up the hill. I am saying you can still add work, therefore the system is not "closed". You are simply making a false conclusion based on the outcome. If you measured total work in the system, you'd see that it increases through the stroke, like Nesbit shows.
[/quote]

NO Drew, there is no way to push that car more if there is no counterforce to the ground. In that case it's also closed system and straightening the arm doesn't add any force relative to the case you keep them bent and push more with your legs. So you really don't understand the closed system if you claim something else.
[/quote]

LOL - you are so far off base. The connection with the ground is maintained, you are not a figure skater spinning an axle in a low friction environment. The right hip has not fully cleared through yet, has it... at whatever point in the swing you determine that "a certain hand speed is achieved" total work is still INCREASING... through impact with good players. You are not describing a measurement of total work, you are measuring an ouput of that work, clubhead speed. Of course, there are other forces involved after release that slow things down (MOI increases, and the clubhead is generating a counterforce back against the handle, resisting the continuation of acceleration.)

If you move the center of rotation laterally, as Jorgenson found, you'll add a significant percentage to CHS... how do you suppose the center of rotation moves laterally, if the system is closed?

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350313758' post='5795823']


If you move the center of rotation laterally, as Jorgenson found, you'll add a significant percentage to CHS... how do you suppose the center of rotation moves laterally, if the system is closed?
[/quote]

Are you really serious???

So you haven't understood a word about that closed system.

I got lot of PM's to answer, not time for this kind of stupid argue.

[TeeAce]

Kelvin explained the supination inherent in your earlier video, very visible except to the willfully blind.

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Do you see what happens to the face here? You think it opens uo, Tapio?

 

And listen from beginning hoe totally lost Kelvin was in that video. I DIDN'T SAY A WORD ABOUT UD IN MY VIDEO AND HE TALKS ABOUT UD ALL THE TIME.

 

ALSO HE PICKED UP THAT PART WHERE I SHOWED SUPINATION, NOT THE PART WHERE I SHOWED THAT PF.

 

IT'S TOTAL TRIPLE BOGEY FROM KELVIN TO TALK ABOUT UD AT ALL THERE.

[drewspin]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350313505' post='5795791']
With supination that left thumb would turn toward the camera and now it doesn't.
[/quote]

The left thumb is not moving ON THE SHAFT. Look again at the club face. At a downward angle there are a combination of moves, and supination is one of them... because the wrist has a good ROM, the ;eft forearm can supinate even with the thumb held relatively stationary.

Anyone can try this. Put your left arm down across your body toward your right thigh... grab your left thumb firmly with your right hand, and you can supinate your forearm. with the thumb held still.

[doram101]

I can see the thumb turning towards the camera , but I have very good eyesight
On hogan thing above
Don't see a lot of rotation of the shoulder , some but the axis tilt would counteract that as well . Agree with most that ud pf wont close the face and there is rotation in the joint , of course some think the wrist joint can only do the basic moves of pf ud etc , guess those folks never heard of circumduction

[TeeAce]

[quote name='Zipper' timestamp='1350314405' post='5795863']
I can see the thumb turning towards the camera , but I have very good eyesight
On hogan thing above
Don't see a lot of rotation of the shoulder , some but the axis tilt would counteract that as well . Agree with most that ud pf wont close the face and there is rotation in the joint , of course some think the wrist joint can only do the basic moves of pf ud etc , guess those folks never heard of circumduction
[/quote]B

But not more than left deltoid moves. That's the point. Whole arm rotates with left elbow, forearm doesn't rotate around it's own axis.

And Drew... are you really claiming that supination doesn't rotate hand with forearm. Fine, you got right for your opinion...

[drewspin]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350314100' post='5795847']
[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350313758' post='5795823']
If you move the center of rotation laterally, as Jorgenson found, you'll add a significant percentage to CHS... how do you suppose the center of rotation moves laterally, if the system is closed?
[/quote]

Are you really serious???
[/quote]

Yep, Dave Tutelman estimates "The forward shift provides almost 9% of the clubhead speed" and [size=4]Jorgensen found that about 16% of the the total kinetic energy of the system at impact comes from the work done on the system by the [/size][size=4]shift of the hub towards the target.[/size]

[size=4]So lateral shift of the axis of rotation is another way the system is not "closed."[/size]

[doram101]

How anyone can accurately measure the movements of hogan with a sweater on covering up joints on a face on picture frames without any reference points is simply dumb , utter stupidity for trying to claim the forearm didn't move a mm at all or the thumb didn't move a mm at all etc . Just nonsense

[drewspin]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350315043' post='5795919']
And Drew... are you really claiming that supination doesn't rotate hand with forearm. Fine, you got right for your opinion...
[/quote]

When the left arm is down at that angle I described, I am saying that you can supinate the left forearm (as defined by me earlier) while the left thumb is held relatively still, Yes.. the forearm cannot supinate through the entire ROM without the thumb, but it can supinate. If you come to the bottom of the downstroke with the wrist still cupped and the left forearm still slightly pronated, then palmar flex at that downward angle to bow the left wrist, the left forearm does supinate because of the ROM in the wrist. Yes. it's true.

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350315095' post='5795921']


Yep, Dave Tutelman estimates "The forward shift provides almost 9% of the clubhead speed" and Jorgensen found that about 16% of the the total kinetic energy of the system at impact comes from the work done on the system by the shift of the hub towards the target.

So lateral shift of the axis of rotation is another way the system is not "closed."
[/quote]

That movement happens against the ground. Go out and try to push your car at slippery surface by straightening your arm. Good luck.

[drewspin]

Has winter come early to the ranges in Finland? We're NOT swinging on ice, and we wear spikes for a reason.

Perhaps if we were on a slippery surface your "closed system" idea would have more merit.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350315095' post='5795921']
[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350314100' post='5795847']
[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350313758' post='5795823']
If you move the center of rotation laterally, as Jorgenson found, you'll add a significant percentage to CHS... how do you suppose the center of rotation moves laterally, if the system is closed?
[/quote]

Are you really serious???
[/quote]

Yep, Dave Tutelman estimates "The forward shift provides almost 9% of the clubhead speed" and [size=4]Jorgensen found that about 16% of the the total kinetic energy of the system at impact comes from the work done on the system by the [/size][size=4]shift of the hub towards the target.[/size]

[size=4]So lateral shift of the axis of rotation is another way the system is not "closed."[/size]
[/quote]

You just have to realize that "the hub" was as defined by comparing a double pendulum model to real golfers, whose "hub" in relation to the pendulum model is closer to the left shoulder. That's why Jorgensen's numbers would always come out too low when he didn't account for that linear element. I don't think Jorgensen fully understood where this "linear move" was coming from and golfers/instructors reading his book may get the mistaken impression that the upper body needs a big lateral move toward the target to generate extra speed.

Stated differently, a real golfer is not a double pendulum because we have two arms holding the club, not one arm attached to our center of rotation. You can have a relatively fixed center of rotation (such as C7 vertebrae) but the left shoulder joint (or close to it) would still be the end of the 2nd arm in the double pendulum model. So we are closer to a triple pendulum, where the "3rd arm" is really the distance from your fixed center to the left shoulder. This is why in 2D face-on studies of real golfers (such as Jorgensen's) the axle of the first arm moves targetward. In reality, and 3 dimensionally, that 3rd arm/lever rotates up plane (close to the Hogan pane of glass for most). This is what accounts for Miura's "parametric acceleration" in his study the left shoulder having a leftward movement component - away from the target line.

Researchers like Jorgensen, when they looked at triple pendulum models, looked in the wrong place, and made the left elbow joint a fulcrum and the left arm 2 different pieces so that the 3 arms of the triple pendulum would be the club, lower left arm and upper left arm. It's why, IMO they could never quite get it right.

[drewspin]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1350315896' post='5795975']


You just have to realize that "the hub" was as defined by comparing a double pendulum model to real golfers, whose "hub" in relation to the pendulum model is closer to the left shoulder. That's why Jorgensen's numbers would always come out too low when he didn't account for that linear element. I don't think Jorgensen fully understood where this "linear move" was coming from and golfers/instructors reading his book may get the mistaken impression that the upper body needs a big lateral move toward the target to generate extra speed.
[/quote]

No, it;s not because the hub is "closer to the left shoulder," because that's what they are assuming in the first instance when they model the left arm as the double pendulum..

The physicists had to introduce a parameter that left shoulder hub center would move laterally to get a better fit on the model with good golfers, because they were about 10% off on clubhead speed.

My basic point was, that this "adjustment" is of course rendering the closed system double pendulum model no longer "closed." because there is some force that needs to come from "outside" the model to move the hub center.

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350314300' post='5795859']
[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350313505' post='5795791']
With supination that left thumb would turn toward the camera and now it doesn't.
[/quote]

The left thumb is not moving ON THE SHAFT. Look again at the club face. At a downward angle there are a combination of moves, and supination is one of them... because the wrist has a good ROM, the ;eft forearm can supinate even with the thumb held relatively stationary.

Anyone can try this. Put your left arm down across your body toward your right thigh... grab your left thumb firmly with your right hand, and you can supinate your forearm. with the thumb held still.
[/quote]

Here is your test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGTfApzn6Ic

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350315863' post='5795973']
Has winter come early to the ranges in Finland? We're NOT swinging on ice, and we wear spikes for a reason.

Perhaps if we were on a slippery surface your "closed system" idea would have more merit.
[/quote]

So you still don't understand what that closed system means? Ok.

But I give you a hint. The friction of the ground got big meaning for that. And yes, we are wearing spikes to make that closed system move. Then inside of it nothing can be added without adding the force against that fixed point called ground.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350316400' post='5796007']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1350315896' post='5795975']
You just have to realize that "the hub" was as defined by comparing a double pendulum model to real golfers, whose "hub" in relation to the pendulum model is closer to the left shoulder. That's why Jorgensen's numbers would always come out too low when he didn't account for that linear element. I don't think Jorgensen fully understood where this "linear move" was coming from and golfers/instructors reading his book may get the mistaken impression that the upper body needs a big lateral move toward the target to generate extra speed.
[/quote]

No, it;s not because the hub is "closer to the left shoulder," because that's what they are assuming in the first instance when they model the left arm as the double pendulum..

The physicists had to introduce a parameter that left shoulder hub center would move laterally to get a better fit on the model with good golfers, because they were about 10% off on clubhead speed.

My basic point was, that this "adjustment" is of course rendering the closed system double pendulum model no longer "closed." because there is some force that needs to come from "outside" the model to move the hub center.
[/quote]

We're saying the same thing except that it doesn't have anything to do with "closed or open" system. Just that a double pendulum model isn't a great fit because the origin of the left arm (shoulder joint) which they simulate as one arm of the 2 pendulum model does not have a fixed base. It moves around in 3D space. So a triple pendulum with the base being somewhere around C7 would have been a better fit. Even then, some golfers have considerable movement of C7 and therefore don't ever have a fixed center of rotation. The mistake would be in golfers believing that they need to move their whole body linearly to get 10% more clubhead speed. I know of a couple of very highly touted instructors that believe this BTW.

[drewspin]

LOL - roll up your sleeves... must be cold there already ... how can we see your forearm bones rotate CCW around their axis as you PF at a downward angle WITHOUT moving the thumb with your long sleeve shirt.

You are showing nothing to rebut my point in that wacky video.

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350316400' post='5796007']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1350315896' post='5795975']
You just have to realize that "the hub" was as defined by comparing a double pendulum model to real golfers, whose "hub" in relation to the pendulum model is closer to the left shoulder. That's why Jorgensen's numbers would always come out too low when he didn't account for that linear element. I don't think Jorgensen fully understood where this "linear move" was coming from and golfers/instructors reading his book may get the mistaken impression that the upper body needs a big lateral move toward the target to generate extra speed.
[/quote]

No, it;s not because the hub is "closer to the left shoulder," because that's what they are assuming in the first instance when they model the left arm as the double pendulum..

The physicists had to introduce a parameter that left shoulder hub center would move laterally to get a better fit on the model with good golfers, because they were about 10% off on clubhead speed.

My basic point was, that this "adjustment" is of course rendering the closed system double pendulum model no longer "closed." because there is some force that needs to come from "outside" the model to move the hub center.
[/quote]

That lateral movement doesn't give any extra power. Hoganfan was just on money in his post. Lateral movement of neck, nothing gained.

Drew, you should understand that what they researched back then was with devices they could get at that time and to find one thing they used days, as we can now see those things in few minutes. Those things you say can be so easily checked in few minutes now and make one table to see if something changes. We are bit in different position as you read those things and I produce those, piece by piece and can tell we got bit better device to use than Jorgensen had in his time. And few more shots in the database

[drewspin]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350316630' post='5796023']
[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350315863' post='5795973']
Has winter come early to the ranges in Finland? We're NOT swinging on ice, and we wear spikes for a reason.

Perhaps if we were on a slippery surface your "closed system" idea would have more merit.
[/quote]

So you still don't understand what that closed system means? Ok.

But I give you a hint. The friction of the ground got big meaning for that. And yes, we are wearing spikes to make that closed system move. Then inside of it nothing can be added without adding the force against that fixed point called ground.
[/quote]

What is the Tapio definition of an "inside" that marks the boundary of the system in your view - what is on the the "inside of it" and what is "outside" ?

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350317078' post='5796055']
LOL - roll up your sleeves... must be cold there already ... how can we see your forearm bones rotate CCW around their axis as you PF at a downward angle WITHOUT moving the thumb with your long sleeve shirt.

You are showing nothing to rebut my point in that wacky video.
[/quote]

You only need to see the thumb and those two totally different actions. One is real supination, the other is PF. You just should learn to understand those.

[drewspin]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350317216' post='5796067']
[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350316400' post='5796007']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1350315896' post='5795975']
You just have to realize that "the hub" was as defined by comparing a double pendulum model to real golfers, whose "hub" in relation to the pendulum model is closer to the left shoulder. That's why Jorgensen's numbers would always come out too low when he didn't account for that linear element. I don't think Jorgensen fully understood where this "linear move" was coming from and golfers/instructors reading his book may get the mistaken impression that the upper body needs a big lateral move toward the target to generate extra speed.
[/quote]

No, it;s not because the hub is "closer to the left shoulder," because that's what they are assuming in the first instance when they model the left arm as the double pendulum..

The physicists had to introduce a parameter that left shoulder hub center would move laterally to get a better fit on the model with good golfers, because they were about 10% off on clubhead speed.

My basic point was, that this "adjustment" is of course rendering the closed system double pendulum model no longer "closed." because there is some force that needs to come from "outside" the model to move the hub center.
[/quote]

That lateral movement doesn't give any extra power. Hoganfan was just on money in his post. Lateral movement of neck, nothing gained.

Drew, you should understand that what they researched back then was with devices they could get at that time and to find one thing they used days, as we can now see those things in few minutes. Those things you say can be so easily checked in few minutes now and make one table to see if something changes. We are bit in different position as you read those things and I produce those, piece by piece and can tell we got bit better device to use than Jorgensen had in his time. And few more shots in the database
[/quote]

The lateral move is an input of power/work that shows the system isn't closed. It is an exception to the closed system double pendulum model and illustrates the point that the system in real life is NOT closed. The closed system model didn't fit well to model results from real golfers without that crucial addition, which only serves to illustrate my point. That lateral movement comes from a force external to the closed model, which makes the model not actually a closed system.

How does total work increase through the downstroke through impact continue to increase if work can't be added? It's a oxymoron. The very definition of a closed system means work cannot be added... not the Tapio definition.

You have your own lexicon, which is quite confusing.

[TeeAce]

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350317285' post='5796077']
[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1350316630' post='5796023']
[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1350315863' post='5795973']
Has winter come early to the ranges in Finland? We're NOT swinging on ice, and we wear spikes for a reason.

Perhaps if we were on a slippery surface your "closed system" idea would have more merit.
[/quote]

So you still don't understand what that closed system means? Ok.

But I give you a hint. The friction of the ground got big meaning for that. And yes, we are wearing spikes to make that closed system move. Then inside of it nothing can be added without adding the force against that fixed point called ground.
[/quote]

What is the Tapio definition of an "inside" that marks the boundary of the system in your view - what is on the the "inside of it" and what is "outside" ?
[/quote]

I really cant believe this has to be explained still.... maybe better give up and let those understand it who has already done. You can go out and push that car without adding force against the ground... just straighten your arm and see if it moves. Or you can start to understand that everything happens against the fixed point and there isn't one in teh human body.

[doram101]

What a great video , I mean dude that really explained it all to me . Guys it's just wonderful how we are blessed to have a great great intellect with superior skills than us to pass on this abundance of knowledge . Tapio is simply the greatest and we should all thank him for spending his to educating us on all things science , medical , biomechanics and to boot h has a super golf swing that looks just like hogan would have if he had a scapula issue . It's clear as day guys , he solved the hogan mystery