300 fps on a Cassio seems plenty fast to my eye. I never use the higher f rates, though the camera has them.
Remember though that if the camera doesnt have a shutter it isnt frames per second, but rather fields per second. Apples and oranges. Some of the new industrial high speed video cameras like the Vipor actually have a shutter. This whole frame rate thing is really changing quickly .............what used to be a US Army or manufacturing technology is now available to the public in the form of a point and shoot camera. Heck there is even a high speed golf specific camera on a cell phone.
OB
With the rapid grow grow of technology it's so hard to keep up.
The other day in cycling everyone was raving about this new biomechanics system. I checked the technology out. It was a cheap 20,000 dollar system using infrared receiver and senors with a wired system. All this system did is measure bike set up. People we paying same rate as we do and wasn't measuring movement patterns, all they were getting was a bike fit. It cheap technology and where they placed the sensors weren't positioned in the right place on the person. In comparison to a $250000 Vicon system.
In biomechanics consumers are up to speed between the differences in technology. The consumer loses out and you can't say nothing or you come across as bagging your competitors.
Like Polhemus $38000 dollar system and comparing their data to Vicon $250000 system. Worlds apart with accuracy and information.
Cameras are getting better all the time.
They have their application for golf coaches.
They irrelevant to my field they can't measure body segment speeds and accel and decel etc or muscle groups
Im interested in your measurements, makes good sense to me. But the visual from swing film cant be totally irrelevant in a broader sense. I would think that all information is relevant.
I appreciate that the video you get sent from students is missing information between the frames. My point was that, the frame rates are so high now that it isnt necessarily so.
If you were to look solely at your data would you be able to describe a golfers motion in a manner that someone could visualize? Could you look at Lee Trevinos swing data and describe his lag loading or thrusting? His figure eight path? If not then your data is also only "part of the picture".
Not trying to be confrontational, I dont work for a swing video company or anything. But "irrelevant to your field" is a big statement. Id prefer to see your data and an accompanying swing video, personally.
300 fps on a Cassio seems plenty fast to my eye. I never use the higher f rates, though the camera has them.
Remember though that if the camera doesnt have a shutter it isnt frames per second, but rather fields per second. Apples and oranges. Some of the new industrial high speed video cameras like the Vipor actually have a shutter. This whole frame rate thing is really changing quickly .............what used to be a US Army or manufacturing technology is now available to the public in the form of a point and shoot camera. Heck there is even a high speed golf specific camera on a cell phone.
I did some checking on a high def., 1500 fps, but it's still a pretty penny. You can spend as much as you'd like. But, it will always be about results for the student. We can wow them with science in the short term. But, learning compression will wow them for a lifetime.
Cameras are getting better all the time.
They have their application for golf coaches.
They irrelevant to my field they can't measure body segment speeds and accel and decel etc or muscle groups
Bioengine,
In my lessons, I often use video. Most people learn well visually, especially when the subject is themselves!
As you have implied, video is a limited presentation of (1) alignments (geometry); (2) stroke component variations, action and sequencing (physics); and (3) any recommended improvement (objective and subjective analysis).
I am intrigued by your work, and without bias or an attitude of confrontation, ask the following questions:
1. At what point -- 100-shooter, 80-shooter, 70-shooter or TOUR pro -- do your quantitative 'physical' measurements (segment speeds, acceleration/deceleration, muscle groups and their 'firing', etc.) add value to the more limited video procedure?
2. Assuming the data indicate inefficiencies and the potential for improvement, how do the procedures you recommend differ from that of more conventional instruction?
3. Finally, how do you help your student translate that quantified data/information into its athletic equivalent, i.e., a more efficient golf stroke?
I am intrigued by your work, and without bias or an attitude of confrontation, ask the following questions:
1. At what point -- 100-shooter, 80-shooter, 70-shooter or TOUR pro -- do your quantitative 'physical' measurements (segment speeds, acceleration/deceleration, muscle groups and their 'firing', etc.) add value to the more limited video procedure?
I am a 90 shooter. I think that what Bio trains has value at all levels because he is training the underlying movement patterns that the geometry of the golf swing sits upon. If those patterns are improved we will need less manipulation of the geometry to correct the errors in the physics.
How I think about it is that before Hogan didn't try and create clubhead lag consciously. Rather because he built his downswing from the group up with good movement patterns this created lag. Bio teaches your body how to create force from the ground up and conserve it until you release it into the ball.
Originally Posted by Yoda
2. Assuming the data indicate inefficiencies and the potential for improvement, how do the procedures you recommend differ from that of more conventional instruction?
The exercises I am doing are specifically not intended to be training me in "How to hit the ball". In fact bioengine has reminded me regularly to not try and "do" any of the exercises when I play golf. If I compare these exercises with some of the TGM advice I've received ... let me give you an example. You might say to your student to make a move like skipping a stone. Now the student might be really good at skipping stones or not. The exercise will help, but it is inherently limited by the persons natural ability - or I suppose to be precise I should say natural biomechanics. Bioengine measures and provides a training program that will literally make you a better stone skipper. As you get better at that, and as you allow this improving ability to guide your physics in the golf swing, you will develop a better golf swing.
Originally Posted by Yoda
3. Finally, how do you help your student translate that quantified data/information into its athletic equivalent, i.e., a more efficient golf stroke?
What bioengine provides, or at least the part I have dealt with him, is a personalised training program of Progressing Skills Training that specifically improve your biomechanical weaknesses. In my case some of the exercises look related to golf, but some bear almost no resemblance to a golf action.
I am no expert but the analysis bioengine showed me was understandable (although some of the graphs are pretty intense). And I can see why what I am doing helps. It seems almost too simple sometimes, but I am seeing the results in my ballstriking. So I'm a fan at the moment for sure!
I'm sure bioengine will add a more ocmplete answer, but this is a students perspective.
I think that what Bio trains has value at all levels because he is training the underlying movement patterns that the geometry of the golf swing sits upon.
Thanks Weetbix
Those graphs sound interesting.
Glad to hear that there is some consideration for the Geometry , I wasnt sure whether that was considered "irrelevant" to this course of study or not.
The ball's response reflects the degree to which the golfer complies with the Geometry necessary for the shot at hand, after all. Its not a golf law or TGM law, its just a The Law. Its a round object struck by a lofted implement that is traveling a somewhat circular orbit on an inclined plane, etc etc. There is a lot of Geometry down there in the impact zone that demands precise compliance. As Ben Doyle would say "either its lawful or its awful".
In my lessons, I often use video. Most people learn well visually, especially when the subject is themselves!
As you have implied, video is a limited presentation of (1) alignments (geometry); (2) stroke component variations, action and sequencing (physics); and (3) any recommended improvement (objective and subjective analysis).
I am intrigued by your work, and without bias or an attitude of confrontation, ask the following questions:
1. At what point -- 100-shooter, 80-shooter, 70-shooter or TOUR pro -- do your quantitative 'physical' measurements (segment speeds, acceleration/deceleration, muscle groups and their 'firing', etc.) add value to the more limited video procedure?
2. Assuming the data indicate inefficiencies and the potential for improvement, how do the procedures you recommend differ from that of more conventional instruction?
3. Finally, how do you help your student translate that quantified data/information into its athletic equivalent, i.e., a more efficient golf stroke?
Yoda,
Biomechanic companies also use video to capture data, They place the sensors on the person and then use video to capture data. Although they capture data at full speed. To capture human motion you only need 11 hertz. A stock standard camera has a capacity of 30 hertz.When you lose data is when you slow the video down or break into frames. We don't lose data cause we don't slow the data down.
An example was the other day we tested a guy on video when we slowed down his swing it appeared the guy was engaging his lower body first. The coach and I swore he did. When we process the data and we look at his 3D data he was starting his downswing arms first. This was due to this transition was between frames.
We test and provide evaluations for many sports. In golf, Tennis and baseball, testing thousands athletes in all three sports they all had something in common. The kinetic link. They all create speed from the ground up. All three sports had similar movement patterns.
There is a natural way the body wants to natural move to create speed from the ground up. This is from conservation of momentum (starting from the ground up) and muscular loading, The muscular loading is what drives conservation of momentum.
In the golf swing we look at movement patterns and how a golfer creates speed or power. Also identify if there is a power leakage and can tell you why.
An example a golfer always hit the ball fat, what causes this. Arm deceleration to early in the downswing. What is causing arm deceleration to early in the downswing. A power leakage some where. We pin point when this occurring and why. This could be even to do with ground forces. Or muscular loading a ton of reasons. By measuring hip accel/decel,upper body accel/decel,arms accel/decel and club accel/decel, the kinetic link and muscular loading, with tell us what the human body is doing and if this is effecting your geometry. There's tons of other stuff we measure as well like ground forces, lower body stability and club dynamics.
Any level of golfer should get tested, even a beginner should get test to work out if you have a geometry problem of physics problem. Movement pattern issue.
We use our 3D data to develop a training program, which is designed for each individual, the exercises and training programs are designed to train the body to create better movement patterns or kinetic link. They are also designed to train the body how to load and fire muscle in each body segment in the right timing and sequence. You can't train your body to achieve this on the practice fairway. We are training movement patterns not geometry.
Ever exercise, drill and training program has been tested to see if they improve a certain movement patterns and body speeds. There not made up on belief systems, every thing we do is tested.
We teach people how to create better movement patterns not geometry, once we get someones movement patterns right they go back to their coach to apply geometry.
We teach people how to create better movement patterns not geometry, once we get someones movement patterns right they go back to their coach to apply geometry.
Come-on Bioengine.
If I use my Right Triceps Muscle, that's Work: Physics.
If I Push Up, Down, Out, etc, that's Alignment: Geometry.
Alignment and Work = Mechanics.
When you tell someone what muscles to use...don't you tell them which direction to use them. "Here's where you start..Here's where you end"?
Quote by bioengine:
We teach people how to create better movement patterns not geometry, once we get someones movement patterns right they go back to their coach to apply geometry.
Come-on Bioengine.
If I use my Right Triceps Muscle, that's Work: Physics.
If I Push Up, Down, Out, etc, that's Alignment: Geometry.
Alignment and Work = Mechanics.
When you tell someone what muscles to use...don't you tell them which direction to use them. "Here's where you start..Here's where you end"?
I think what this demonstrates is that there can be wide differences between what different people mean by the same phrase. I think that your application of the terminology is a little simplistic Daryl, which is surprising because your intimate knowledge of TGM indicates that you recognise that we use shorthand to condense complex concepts.
The movement patterns bioengine trains are much more intricate than simple muscle movements like tricep extension. They involve timing, transition of force across body parts, multiple joints and muscle groups being syncronised and working together and opposing each other in an appropriate manner, etc. But you know that already.
Nothing in bioengines training program for me involves him directing me consciously to use certain muscles in a specific direction. It involves me executing a movement - I leave it up to my body how to do that. It learns from doing those movements. And it applies those improved movement patterns when I try and hit a golf ball. The exercises do not involve me hitting a ball, many do not involve a golf club. Many do not mimic golf movements at all, at least not in an obvious way.
Put it this way, if I took a PST exercise to the course and tried to hit the ball that way it would get VERY ugly!
I think what this demonstrates is that there can be wide differences between what different people mean by the same phrase. I think that your application of the terminology is a little simplistic Daryl, which is surprising because your intimate knowledge of TGM indicates that you recognise that we use shorthand to condense complex concepts.
The movement patterns bioengine trains are much more intricate than simple muscle movements like tricep extension. They involve timing, transition of force across body parts, multiple joints and muscle groups being syncronised and working together and opposing each other in an appropriate manner, etc. But you know that already.
Nothing in bioengines training program for me involves him directing me consciously to use certain muscles in a specific direction. It involves me executing a movement - I leave it up to my body how to do that. It learns from doing those movements. And it applies those improved movement patterns when I try and hit a golf ball. The exercises do not involve me hitting a ball, many do not involve a golf club. Many do not mimic golf movements at all, at least not in an obvious way.
Put it this way, if I took a PST exercise to the course and tried to hit the ball that way it would get VERY ugly!
It seems I'm not going to understand Biomechanics training without analysis and lessons.
Linear Mode
