I am interested in your opinion as to which of these two graphs represent the "correct" body sequencing in a body swinger.
Graph 1
Graph 2
The first graph is the result of research by the TPI researchers and they claim that the arms/shoulders/pelvis rotate at roughly the same angular speed in the early downswing (before the end of the early downswing = lead arm parallel to the ground) in an excellent golfer. By contrast, the second graph implies that the hips rotate well before the shoulders and that the shoulders only start to rotate when the pelvis has reached about 50% of its maximum angular velocity. This graph also claims that the shoulders have roughly equal speed to the pelvis when the pelvis reaches its maximum angular speed. A third implication of the second graph is that the degree of torso-pelvis separation increases in the early downswing - because the pelvis is rotating while the shoulders are not rotating. This is in contrast to the TPI researchers result. Here is another graph from the TPI researchers - who have used high resolution (6-degrees of freedom) motion sensors (at 200 frames/second) to resolve exactly what happens in the early downswing.
This graph shows that the shoulders are actually moving at a faster rotational speed than the pelvis in the early downswing, which means that the degree of torso-pelvic separation must be progressively decreasing in the early downswing.
So - which graph depicts "true" reality for an excellent body swinger?
Now isn't this funny, on iseek here you are prononcing yourself an exbert and here your showing you clearly don't know what your talking about asking for advice.
Isn't it funny another company backs and produce the same graph as we do, but then T.P.I argue different, but then again T.P.I six dof system is inacurate.
If two companies are producing the same chain wouldn't that indicate maybe T.P.I are wrong, if two research companies who have been in the game for years provide graph maybe T.P.I are wrong.
Your misinterpreting the graphs, they aren't saying the shoulders aren't moving all it's saying is the hip start first,then shoulders follow.
but this what happen unless your trained in how to correctly understand and read the graphs you develop the wrong perception of what they mean like you do, in order to understand these graphs, you need to have studied biomechanics and been trained
Last edited by biomechanic : 10-26-2008 at 01:27 AM.
Now isn't this funny, on iseek here you are prononcing yourself an exbert and here your showing you clearly don't know what your talking about asking for advice.
Isn't it funny another company backs and produce the same graph as we do, but then T.P.I argue different, but then again T.P.I six dof system is inacurate.
If two companies are producing the same chain wouldn't that indicate maybe T.P.I are wrong, if two research companies who have been in the game for years provide graph maybe T.P.I are wrong.
Your misinterpreting the graphs, they aren't saying the shoulders aren't moving all it's saying is the hip start first,then shoulders follow.
but this what happen unless your trained in how to correctly understand and read the graphs you develop the wrong perception of what they mean like you do, in order to understand these graphs, you need to have studied biomechanics and been trained
Well well well ...this is going to be good..front row seats anyone
I'm not a biomechanic,but I can read a graph.
All I see is that all the components are moving all the time in the -hips shoulders- arms- club- sequence.
Or am I missing something?
I am not asking for advice. I have my own evidence-supported opinions on which graph is likely to be more accurate. I am merely asking for alternative opinions.
If someone, like you, has an opinion that the TPI graph is inaccurate and that it doesn't represent reality in a body swinger, then that person is free to provide an explanation as to why the TPI graph is inaccurate. I personally have substantial reasons to believe that the TPI graph more closely represents "true" reality.
I am not asking for advice. I have my own evidence-supported opinions on which graph is likely to be more accurate. I am merely asking for alternative opinions.
If someone, like you, has an opinion that the TPI graph is inaccurate and that it doesn't represent reality in a body swinger, then that person is free to provide an explanation as to why the TPI graph is inaccurate. I personally have substantial reasons to believe that the TPI graph more closely represents "true" reality.
Jeff.
Jeff the first graph is TPI and you have evidence its accurate. What and where does this evidence come from?
The second graph is Kinetic Link..umm where did you get that graph from and how old is that graph?
now isn't this interesting, your not trained , you have no qualifications in biomechanics is this going to be a ,Jeff say so,
that T.P.I are right,
They can't determine hitting and swinging with their graphs cause they haven't the technology or knowledge to do it.
There using a cheap $40,000 6 dof machine and can't measure in space, they also measure from vertical position.
What golfer stands vertical ?
Do you want a list of golfers of swings they have destroyed and cause injuries to.
Funny , you can tell your not educated in the world of biomechanics. You would know their data is in accurate.
Last edited by biomechanic : 10-26-2008 at 10:39 AM.
drewitgolf,
Was an older version of kinetic linking not that it has change, this came from the god father of biomechanics, A biomedic engineer who help create the software for force data, motion data and EMG data, which T.P.I are using EMG data software , according to the creator , that their software is very debatable to how accurate their software is. To be put nicely, more was said : )
This guy founded golf biomechanics and put it the map.
But Sir Jeff still wants to debate this. Unqualified VS God Father?
Linear Mode
