Pistol - you wrote-: "The problem i see here is it depends on the definition of when a backswing has finished and a downstroke has started ..Kinetic Link may have a different view on this opposed to TPI..and which player is tested."
Your belief about different definitions of the end-backswing may be true, and that's why I believe in standardised definitions. Cheetham, of TPI, has recently accepted what I regard as the only scientifically-supportable definition for the end of the backswing - when the club changes direction. All the latest TPI graphs now use that strict definition for the top/end of the backswing - rather than vague criteria eg. when the shoulders stop turning or when the pelvis reverses direction and starts to move forward (a phenomenon which actually may occur during the backswing in many good golfers).
Rhythm - I think that your questions are partly meaningless, and I don't know what's your real agenda.
When you ask "how do I come to my conclusions" it is like asking a person how he thinks with respect to "cause-and-effect" relationships. I have a certain way of personally solving the issue of "cause-and-effect" relationships by using a multiplicity of scientific principles eg. Humean logic relating to contiguous events in the absence of confounding variables, Popperian experimental testing procedures that rigorously test a theory for its falsifiability quotient, Haackian criteria relating to concordance between different theories in a particular field of science (web of belief ideology).
This is a worthwhile discussion, but it is not housed appropriately in the forum TGM Advanced. Please hasten all posts and participants to an identically-titled forum in The Lab.
Rythm,
Jeff has no qualifications, he claims himself to be interpreter, he pulls stuff off the net and adds his twist, the reason he doesn't understand what chris does is he hasn't no understand or education in biomechanics.
Now Every one I left T.P.I cause their data was wrong and I destroyed golf swings in the process, there data doesn't measure up to be right.
the human body doesn't function the way they are claiming.
They can't measure hitting and swinging, the kinematic graph doesn't replicate what a student is truly doing in their swing,, not at all no comparision.
SO I LEFT , THEY ARE THE WORST BIOMECHANICS RESEARCHERS GOING.
There K-vest is a joke the data is so far out it's beyond a joke.
when you have students over the top the vest is lighting up green
you can't measure the so called T.P.I kinematic sequence.
all you can measure is hips and shoulders.
I have first on experience and worked for K-vest T.P.I ,
I have full understanding inside out of the technology used and was highly trained.
From a hands on experience and screening students the results told the story,
the metrics were terrible. I had to change my metrics on my vest to the original metrics K-vest first use, it was that bad.
T.P.I can't comment on what we do they have not the technology to measure be able to compare.
And this is why jeff can't understand how we do it.
And we aren't going to put it out for the public either, so people can steal the technology
MikeO is right you can measure coam if you have the technology to do so.
T.P.I can't cause they have not the technology, they have a cheap 6 dof system which can't measure antomical time (in space) they are surmating their metrics , guessing another words. using maths
They also measure from vertical position, not as a player stands in golf swing position, this leads to data being further out.
Our difference is we can measure anatomical time we don't use sumating
T.P.I can't measure anatomical time (in space) and they do sumating. (guessing)
of coarse you will get different out comes they are guessing we aren't.
If you ever want to get further from the truth in how a swing works in biomechanics follow T.P.I
Hybrid Mode
