GEARS Top of Swing Numbers for Greg Norman and Long Drive Champion

[nevets88]

Spine, shoulder, hips, knee and toe angles measured by GG:

 

[SavvySwede]

That Greg Norman pic looks so awkward to me. Guess that's why I'm not a pro.

[mchepp]

7 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

That Greg Norman pic looks so awkward to me. Guess that's why I'm not a pro.

I think that is because of the computer rendering of his body. Probably not exactly what he looks like, but it is how a computer thinks he looks.

[mvmac]

4 hours ago, mchepp said:

Probably not exactly what he looks like, but it is how a computer thinks he looks.

Yeah the Gears image does look pretty weird, numbers don't seem right to me either. Not something I would post to promote how great Gears is.

 

[nevets88]

Looks like Gears has Norman tilting more forwards  than he actually is,

 

[iacas]

I haven't heard the best things about using GEARS for "body" numbers. Some people we respect said they don't use it for the body numbers at all. Primarily something to do with the "snap alignment" (i.e. how the GEARS interpreted where joints are based on the marker balls, etc.), but otherwise not trustworthy all around, they felt.

[mchepp]

I saw one of Jamie Sadlowski that looked half decent, but the more I see the less realistic it starts to look.

[natureboy]

Was this an actual capture of Norman's recent swing or an interpolation from pics and video?

Thinking the R shoulder / scapula / deltoid and the left lat extending at the top may make the back look flatter than the spine actually is for a face on view. IMO his swing in 1986 shows pretty good tilt away from the target.

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by natureboy

[mvmac]

10 hours ago, natureboy said:

Was this an actual capture of Norman's recent swing or an interpolation from pics and video?

I would assume he had the sensors/marker balls on him like this.

[natureboy]

9 hours ago, mvmac said:

I would assume he had the sensors/marker balls on him like this.

Looks like 3 running down the spine so it should be fairly accurate maybe the algorithm in producing the body image does something stupid like averaging between the shoulder blades and the spine for the upper back alignment instead of allowing for the natural range of motion of the shoulders to go behind the spine when arms are overhead.

Biggest difference to me would be that a recent Greg Norman swing is not Norman at his peak. Here's a pic just before his forward bump:

Even more 'apparent' angle halfway back (probably due to rounding of L lat / shoulder:

Edited December 23, 2015 by natureboy

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Even more 'apparent' angle halfway back (probably due to rounding of L lat / shoulder:

The spine is not the red line, though. It's the green line (roughly):

Eh, I could have moved the bottom of the spine a little bit more to the right, but not much more.

[natureboy]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

The spine is not the red line, though. It's the green line (roughly):

Eh, I could have moved the bottom of the spine a little bit more to the right, but not much more.

Yup, opposite the belt buckle / zipper in 3D, which has turned away from target with the hips. I'd say closer to in line with just inside the middle of the lead thigh.

[colin007]

I would say that's not a good example, the shot is from too far ahead. Look at where the ball is, that'll exaggerate the perceived tilt.

[natureboy]

On 12/25/2015 at 5:53 PM, colin007 said:

I would say that's not a good example, the shot is from too far ahead. Look at where the ball is, that'll exaggerate the perceived tilt.

Yes camera is ahead of Norman. Only one I could find from his peak year. I'll look more. The recent pic might not be perfectly FO either.

It could influence the perception of tilt, but I think the effect would be greater earlier in the swing (halfway back pic tells less). Because of the turn in 3D, I think the more we see of his back / right side the more the head position relative to the base of his spine is indicative of his tilt. IMO, if he had the kind of tilt indicated in the Gears model then his head would appear more over instead of behind his lead thigh even from the forward camera position. Not positive, though.

The Gears model of Norman shows his head in front of his lower spine from FO, which doesn't seem right to me given the recent (per Nevets image overlay) or the old pic. But the recent pic (which is at least closer to FO) does show a pretty upright spine angle at the top (before transition / change of direction).

As far as my point about muscle mass bunching distorting perception of spine angle in pics (and maybe Gears?), here's one of Snead from about directly behind that looks like he is leaning toward the target with his upper body. The perception of the spine angle is distorted by the bunching of the right side (esp. shoulder / lat). If you look at the position of the base of his spine relative to where the base of his neck must be, there's clearly a bit of (but not a lot of) overall spine tilt away from target- more so in the upper back (lower looks closer to vertical).

Here's a better near prime of Norman from directly FO. To me there's still a bit of tilt (from base of neck to where his lower spine would be opposite his belt buckle) even before his change of direction bump / lead foot plant which will increase the angle if he keeps his head position relatively centered / still.

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Yes camera is ahead of Norman.
…
It could influence the perception of tilt, but I think the effect would be greater earlier in the swing (halfway back pic tells less). Because of the turn in 3D, I think the more we see of his back / right side the more the head position relative to the base of his spine is indicative of his tilt. IMO, if he had the kind of tilt indicated in the Gears model then his head would appear more over instead of behind his lead thigh even from the forward camera position. Not positive, though.

To nobody in particular, but in response to that (if you know what I mean) (for a right-handed player):

• A camera view "behind" the ball (i.e. the ball appears farther forward than it is) tends to exaggerate the left tilt and extension of the spine in the backswing. The head appears more forward than it is.
• A camera from right of perpendicular to the target line (or "in front of" the ball) tends to exaggerate the flexion in the right hip, and the turn, and tends to make the head appear farther over the right foot.

At the end of the day, relying on images is folly, though, unless you're matching an image that's very closely related to the 3D view. If someone has a video of Norman's swing right now from a good angle (similar to the one the GEARS shows), then it's at least worth a little.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

As far as my point about muscle mass bunching distorting perception of spine angle in pics (and maybe Gears?), here's one of Snead from about directly behind that looks like he is leaning toward the target with his upper body. The perception of the spine angle is distorted by the bunching of the right side (esp. shoulder / lat). If you look at the position of the base of his spine relative to where the base of his neck must be, there's clearly a bit of (but not a lot of) overall spine tilt away from target- more so in the upper back (lower looks closer to vertical).

Yet another reason why pictures offer little in this regard.

Plus, GEARS is essentially a re-constituted image, and in many ways LESS likely to represent reality than a photo or video. After all, it guesses at the shape of the player based on a few points, which may or may not be exactly in the right place, in any of the three dimensions. And since they're on clothing, sometimes, they can often be shifted because of how a fabric stretches or twists.

[natureboy]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

To nobody in particular, but in response to that (if you know what I mean) (for a right-handed player):

• A camera view "behind" the ball (i.e. the ball appears farther forward than it is) tends to exaggerate the left tilt and extension of the spine in the backswing. The head appears more forward than it is.
• A camera from right of perpendicular to the target line (or "in front of" the ball) tends to exaggerate the flexion in the right hip, and the turn, and tends to make the head appear farther over the right foot.

At the end of the day, relying on images is folly, though, unless you're matching an image that's very closely related to the 3D view. If someone has a video of Norman's swing right now from a good angle (similar to the one the GEARS shows), then it's at least worth a little.

Yet another reason why pictures offer little in this regard.

Plus, GEARS is essentially a re-constituted image, and in many ways LESS likely to represent reality than a photo or video. After all, it guesses at the shape of the player based on a few points, which may or may not be exactly in the right place, in any of the three dimensions. And since they're on clothing, sometimes, they can often be shifted because of how a fabric stretches or twists.

Those are all good and accurate points.

I wasn't discounting the recent Norman pic, but just offering contrast from his peak because a change could be related to loss of flexibility. Could also represent an adaptation to the modern driver. Maybe some of both. I don't discount GEARS either, but IMO the Norman model is clearly a bit off. I don't think his overall spine angle is tilted toward the target in a static FO view or real 3D.

Wondering now if that GEARS view is slewed off FO (more 'behind the ball')? I don't know how the system works, but interpreted the "Sp: 80.6*" as being toward the target, or would they have added a sign to that number to indicate direction of deviation from 90* vertical?

IMO, while there always a potential issues with images relative to real 3D, they can still be informative if you make an effort to take the limitations into account. I think that a reasonable interpretation of a face on image would estimate spine tilt away from target from the base of the neck against an interpolated (inherently imprecise but still informative) position for the base of the spine.