McLeans' X factor

[dlygrisse]

The only thing I have ever tried to read in my life that is more confusing than this thread, is the Golfing Machine. If there is anyone out there that can interpret either one of them let me know, I would like to know how they both turned out.

Seriously, you guys are waaaaaay over my head, but I have enjoyed trying to follow along.

[jeffy]

The only thing I have ever tried to read in my life that is more confusing than this thread, is the Golfing Machine. If there is anyone out there that can interpret either one of them let me know, I would like to know how they both turned out.

 

Seriously, you guys are waaaaaay over my head, but I have enjoyed trying to follow along.

 

I think it is much ado ahout nothing. Here is a link to the article by Jim Mclean:

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/instruction/swin.../mclean_xfactor

 

Here are the opening paragraphs of the article:

 

 

JeffMann, who is by nature contrary, posts the following to start the thread:

 

I have changed my thinking in the past year. I now think that the idea of a X-factor is junk science. I don't believe that the human body can coil and uncoil - like McLean suggests. If anybody believes otherwise, please explain in anatomical terms what body part is coiling and uncoiling.

 

However, JeffMann immediately sets up the phony "straw-man" presumption that Jim McLean believes the human body can coil and uncoil like a spring, and that this spring-like elasticity is the power producing force behind the X-factor. However, even though JeffMann claims that McLean "suggests" this in his article, MCLEAN DOES NOT SAY IT!

 

What McLean says is this (in the first sentence of the third paragraph above):

 

Like the original X, the Triple-X focuses on TWO of the swing's FOUR power sources: WEIGHT SHIFT and ROTATION (the other two are the arms and wrists).

 

McLean does not say that the body's "coiling and uncoiling" is a "power source": he doesn't even suggest it.

 

Here are the first two paragraphs of McLean discussing the x-factor "stretch":

 

 

Read the first two sentences of the second paragraph:

 

Here's how it works: When you coil into your right side during the backswing (above left), energy is transferred and stored into that side. You release it properly through the correct sequence of body motion at the transition, starting with a substantial lateral move of the hips toward the target. Your shoulders and arms follow.

 

Creating speed is a result of the correct SEQUENCE of body motions in the transition and downswing: weight shift and rotation. Nothing is said about "releasing a coiled spring" or even "uncoiling". McLean clearly uses the term "coil" to represent the X-factor or "separation" of the hips and shoulders at the end of the backswing; the "stretch" is a measurement of the increase in the X-factor during the transition. To the player, creating the backswing and transition may feel like a "coil" and a "stretch", but McLean does not say these moves create elastic, rebounding energy that powers the swing. That is just JeffMann's bogus interpretation.

 

Jim McLean conducted a study to verify that the best players, who have the best sequencing of weight shift and rotation, have substantially more X-factor stretch:

 

THE RESEARCH

How much 75 tour pros increased their X-Factor at transition compared to 150 amateurs (average handicap of 17.2):

 

TOUR PROS

17.4 DEGREES

 

AMATEURS

5.9 DEGREES

 

Obviously, the pros have more flexibility and stronger muscles, that are contracting at higher speeds than the amateurs, in a more efficient sequence. What is "junk science" about these intuitively obvious conclusions? Apparently, JeffMann couldn't find legitimate reasons to call McLean's work "junk science", so he made one up. I'm surprised he was able to suck so many into a largely irrelevant discussion of how much, if any, the slightly elastic property of the muscles contribute to their contraction speed, but that's their business. It certainly isn't a basis of McLean's beliefs.

[Baconator]

This is a little bit OT, but . . . .

I'm really impressed by rdbivyleagun's explanations of the statistics used in the article he discussed. Although JeffMann is correct that a p-value is not tied to a specific point value but the probability of obtaining a value of that magnitude or greater, this certainly doesn't change the effect of the conclusions. It's far too often that people with no real knowledge of statistics use them improperly as a foundation for weak and/or invalid assumptions. Or, as a friend of mine loves to say, 'statistics can be used to prove anything - 65% of people know THAT.'

One last thing which is probably of no interest to anyone here:

JeffMann seems to want to disprove the assertion that 0.54 is not a strong correlation by calculating the coefficient of correlation (squaring the term) and then saying that the resultant value of 0.25 is not evidence of a strong correlation. The coefficient of correlation is generally used to determine the proportion of variation explained by a regressor on a dependant variable in a linear regession equation. If you accept that 25% of the variance in ball speed is explained solely by torso-pelvic separation than I would say you should accept that it is, indeed, an important contributor. I have yet to see anyone claim that it is the sole determinant of ball speed.

I do think it's a little much to call out McLean's article as being "junk science" based on what I've seen presented. Certainly not based on the supposedly 'weak' correlation of 0.54. Although it is possible that a correlation of 0.54 may indeed be weak if it is based on a small number of observations, the quoted p-value of 0.001 certainly suggests this is not the case.

If you want to get technical about this statement, the significance of correlation ([i]r[/i]) is determined by calculating its inverse hyperbolic tangent. This distribution of this value essentially follows the normal distribution with a mean value of 1/2 log(1+[i]r[/i]/1-[i]r[/i]) and a variance of 1/n-3.

Of course this is based on the assumption that the relationship between the two variables is linear so all you need do now is say that the relationship must be non-linear to discount this evidence.

Man, it's been over a decade since I got my MSc in statistics so this took a bit of thinking.

[ryanandrew_golf]

wow! entertainment at its finest hehe

[Golfchicago]

Jeffy,

I have the same perception of this issue. I thought the direction of the debate was much to do about nothing as well. I've never been able to wind and unwind like a spring coil in any sport . When I read the article, I came to the same conclusion that it has to do with sequencing, strength and speed. I can relate to that with my swing. I thought the article written by Jim cleared up the misconception of the coil and uncoil. He even said he was part to blame for the confusion. I think it is easy to take the analogy of a spring coiling too literally and get confused. What do the rocket scientists here think?

[slicefixer]

[quote name='Golfchicago' post='829886' date='Dec 19 2007, 02:54 AM']Jeffy,

I have the same perception of this issue. I thought the direction of the debate was much to do about nothing as well. I've never been able to wind and unwind like a spring coil in any sport . When I read the article, I came to the same conclusion that it has to do with sequencing, strength and speed. I can relate to that with my swing. I thought the article written by Jim cleared up the misconception of the coil and uncoil. He even said he was part to blame for the confusion. I think it is easy to take the analogy of a spring coiling too literally and get confused. What do the rocket scientists here think?[/quote]


NOT a "spring" IMOP.......but for some, it DOES feel like Mr. Hogan's "piece of elastic".......that I CAN GUARANTEE you!

[Golfchicago]

[quote name='slicefixer' post='829894' date='Dec 19 2007, 03:00 AM'][quote name='Golfchicago' post='829886' date='Dec 19 2007, 02:54 AM']Jeffy,

I have the same perception of this issue. I thought the direction of the debate was much to do about nothing as well. I've never been able to wind and unwind like a spring coil in any sport . When I read the article, I came to the same conclusion that it has to do with sequencing, strength and speed. I can relate to that with my swing. I thought the article written by Jim cleared up the misconception of the coil and uncoil. He even said he was part to blame for the confusion. I think it is easy to take the analogy of a spring coiling too literally and get confused. What do the rocket scientists here think?[/quote]


NOT a "spring" IMOP.......but for some, it DOES feel like Mr. Hogan's "piece of elastic".......that I CAN GUARANTEE you!
[/quote]

Geoff, I can relate more to that concept. I don't know. I'm going to leave this stuff to you experts. I'll just listen.

[JeffMann]

I note that SESOB is back and misrepresenting my position again.

He states-: "However, JeffMann immediately sets up the phony "straw-man" presumption that Jim McLean believes the human body can coil and uncoil like a spring, and that this spring-like elasticity is the power producing force behind the X-factor. However, even though JeffMann claims that McLean "suggests" this in his article, MCLEAN DOES NOT SAY IT!"

Wrong. I never stated that Jim McLean suggests this point in his article. I stated that I had changed my thinking about Jim McLean's X-factor in the[b] past year[/b] - well before that article was written, and I never once referred to that article in [b]any[/b] of my posts. When I was talking about changing my thinking about the X-factor, I was referring to the static X-factor and I was referring to my second-hand knowledge of the X-factor (second-hand knowledge in the sense that I have never read Jim McLean's original article in Golf Magazine and I have never read his book on the X-factor).

My second-hand perception of the static X-factor idea is that it implied that a golfer should maximize torso-pelvic separation in order to stretch/coil the upper body against the resistance of the lower body. Now, SESOB states that Jim McLean didn't imply any stretch/coiling of the upper body against the resistance of the lower body when he wrote his [b]original [/b]article and when he wrote his book on the X-factor. If that is true, then many people (including me) have misunderstood Jim McLean's [b]original[/b] idea of a static X-factor. Even the author of that research paper, published in the Journal of Sports Sciences in September 2007, must be misunderstanding what is implied by the idea of a static X-factor. In that research paper, the authors stated in the first sentence of their paper-" The current teaching philosophy of the golf swing emphasizes an increase in torso coiling during the backswing, which theoretically results in increased impulse during the downswing, and subsequent increased ball velocity and ball flight distance." Noted that the authors write about an [b]increased impulse[/b] due to increased torso coiling. A little later in their introduction, the authors wrote-: "Often, teaching professionals seek to maximize upper torso rotation during the backswing while minimizing pelvic rotation in their students, creating torso – pelvic separation. Potentially, this creates resistance between the upper torso and pelvis during the backswing, increasing the stored energy, which is released during the downswing. The [b]release of stored energy results in more impulse [/b]and increased club head speed, ball velocity, and therefore driving distance". Note that the authors are implying that that the upper torso coils against the resistance of the lower torso, and that this phenomenon increases stored energy, which is released during the downswing. In what sense is the energy storage phenomenon happening? The authors later state in their explanatory introduction -: "The increased force production is a result of utilization of elastic energy within the muscle–tendon unit during the eccentric loading of the active muscle that is released during the concentric phase of the movement. (Finni, Ikegawa, Lepola, &Komi, 2003; Komi, 2000)/ " In other words, the research paper authors are referring to the utilisation of elastic energy that is stored in the torso muscle/tendons due to their eccentric loading.

If SESOB is correct that Jim McLean didn't imply that energy is stored elastically during the backswing and released during the downswing, then the research paper authors and us (forum members who thought that the static X-factor idea implied elastically-stored energy) are wrong. The easiest way to clear up this issue is to look back at the original article [b]and [/b]Jim McLean's book on the X-factor to see if there is any statement that[b] tangentially implies[/b] a storing up of elastic energy during the backswing coiling action. I don't have access to the original article or the book, so I cannot provide direct quotes.

If SESOB is correct that the research paper authors and many of us have misunderstood Jim McLeans' [b]original [/b]concept of the static X-factor, then that may be a [b]supreme example[/b] of folly.

Jeff.

[jeffy]

[quote name='JeffMann' post='830329' date='Dec 19 2007, 01:09 PM']I note that SESOB is back and misrepresenting my position again.

He states-: "However, JeffMann immediately sets up the phony "straw-man" presumption that Jim McLean believes the human body can coil and uncoil like a spring, and that this spring-like elasticity is the power producing force behind the X-factor. However, even though JeffMann claims that McLean "suggests" this in his article, MCLEAN DOES NOT SAY IT!"

Wrong. I never stated that Jim McLean suggests this point in his article. I stated that I had changed my thinking about Jim McLean's X-factor in the[b] past year[/b] - well before that article was written, and I never once referred to that article in [b]any[/b] of my posts. When I was talking about changing my thinking about the X-factor, I was referring to the static X-factor and I was referring to my second-hand knowledge of the X-factor (second-hand knowledge in the sense that I have never read Jim McLean's original article in Golf Magazine and I have never read his book on the X-factor).[/quote]

Uncle Jeff-

First, what does SESOB stand for?

Second, nice try on backtracking.

You stated above:

[i]I never once referred to that article in [b]any[/b] of my posts.[/i]

Yet, your initial post starts thusly:

[i]I read that McLean article about the triple X-factor in the GD.[/i]

You go on:

[i]I don't think that there is much new - its only the idea of a dynamic X-factor rather than a static X-factor.

I have changed my thinking in the past year. I now think that the idea of a X-factor is junk science. I don't believe that the human body can coil and uncoil - like McLean suggests. If anybody believes otherwise, please explain in anatomical terms what body part is coiling and uncoiling.[/i]

Having been called out, you do not dispute that the article [b]YOU ACTUALLY READ[/b] does [b]NOT[/b] make the "coiling/uncoiling" claim. Of course, if the current article does not make that claim, and you believed such a claim was made originally, why didn't you mention [b]THAT[/b] anywhere in your posts? Wouldn't that suggest a possible [b]CHANGE[/b] in McLean's thinking worthy of mention and consideration? Instead, you ignore it: more fun to just bash him, apparently.

Further, you now reveal that you arrived at your "junk science" conclusion "during the past year" even though you [b]NEVER READ ANYTHING[/b] on the topic by McLean. If you [b]NEVER READ[/b] McLean's work, how could you be sure you [b]UNDERSTOOD IT[/b] well enough to have any sort of informed opinion? During your career in medicine, did you "evaluate" scientific papers (your alleged "specialty") [b]WITHOUT READING THEM?[/b]

BTW, I did not say that elastic properties contributed nothing to speed in the golf swing: to the contrary, I acknowledge it in my first post in this thread. From post #16:

[i]I don't recall the names of the specific muscles that stretch and recoil in the golf swing, but they have been pointed out to me a few times by my physical trainer and I could easily show them to you. However, before heading down that path, let's step back a minute. McLean identifies three areas where it can be observed that the best golfers are in dramatically different positions than "average" golfers (x-factor, hip rise and head swivel). These observed differences are obviously the consequence of the pros DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT in the downswing. McLean then explains what these different moves are, and how they can contribute to more power.[/i]

My point is that the elastic properties of muscles and tendons are not crucial to McLean's theories, at least as they currently stand, because he [b]DOESN'T MENTION THEM[/b] in his most recent article.

BTW, this statement of yours is false:

[i]Now, SESOB states that Jim McLean didn't imply any stretch/coiling of the upper body against the resistance of the lower body when he wrote his original article and when he wrote his book on the X-factor.[/i]

I only referred to the most recent article. I actually don't remember much from the original article and didn't read the book.

Regards,

SESOB (whatever that means)

[rankoutsider]

jeffman:

i'm never really sure what you are talking about anymore, but i will offer a quick thought that might help you formulate posts that are somewhat more readable and germane to the point at hand, which is the golfswing in all of its wonder, not simply its bio-mechanical, muscular, electrical, elastic (or non-elastic) specificity...

when people like maclean write on the golfswing they are doing so with two clear and sometimes divergent mandates: the first is to help people understand the golfswing as a byproduct of some athletic/muscular motion-- this material is usually introductory, contextual, or offered sparringly to help illustrate a point on the way to the obvious goal of the article: to help people develop good feel cues and athletic movements for this motion.

you keep approaching the X factor from the standpoint of its bio-mechanical/muscular viability, but what you don't seem to understand is that the golfswing is more than a series of muscular movements, and does not boil down to a few or many physiological facts (or factoids). you can, coming after the fact, read and interpret the biophysics of what just happened, but that is obviously less important than understanding positions that are beneficial to hitting good golf shots. the biomechanical data gives a rough sense of what you could and should try to feel. you are putting the cart before the a** in your posts, and you do it all the time.

so, were we talking about a very crude athletic movement, say a dumbell fly to build the pecs and lats, your continued interest in whether muscles can augment their power by stretching, etc. might be interesting, but what you don't seem to understand is that in the golfswing certain desirable physical positions need to be maintained to facilitate the more vexacious but enjoyable phenomenon of making good contact with the golf ball. the X factor article tries to help people make good contact with the golf ball, but you are subjecting it, in preposterous ways if i may say so, to a rigorous reading of its biomechanical truth-claims that so completely misses the point of what it means to swing a golfclub and hit a golf ball as to make your intervention in these debates completely without value. i don't mean this as an insult; i mean it help you get your debate priorites in order. what in maclean's article can be construed as counter-productive (or junk) in terms of his implicit and explicit goal of helping people play better golf.

[golfer.61]

sesob=swing expert son of ben

[jeffy]

[quote name='golfer.61' post='830485' date='Dec 19 2007, 03:18 PM']sesob=swing expert son of ben[/quote]

Really? That's kind of lame...

[JeffMann]

Rankoutsider

You write-: "what you don't seem to understand is that in the golfswing certain desirable physical positions need to be maintained to facilitate the more vexacious but enjoyable phenomenon of making good contact with the golf ball. the X factor article tries to help people make good contact with the golf ball, but you are subjecting it, in preposterous ways if i may say so, to a rigorous reading of its biomechanical truth-claims that so completely misses the point of what it means to swing a golfclub and hit a golf ball as to make your intervention in these debates completely without value."

You are entitled to find my intervention in these debates without value. However, you are wrong to state that I don't realize that certain desirable physical positions need to be maintained - that was my actual position when I answered Robby's post, in which I posted a photo of Ben Hogan adopting the reverse K position. I am not against thinking of the golf swing in terms of biomechanically-useful body positions/alignments - in fact, that's my primary reason for preferring a 40-50 degree hip turn and a 90 degree shoulder turn (equivalent to a X-factor of 40-50) - because i think that it is optimum from a biomechanical perspective.

SESOB argues that I could have commented on McLean's latest article. I haven't done that yet - I still plan to post threads relating to the dynamic X-factor and the hip X-factor.

Jeffy

It is true that I changed my opinions regarding the concept of a static X-factor in the past year, without ever reading McLean's original article or his book. I am entitled to change my opinion about a conceptual idea without reading the original source material. I wasn't writing a paper for publication in a journal where it is essential to have read the original papers of other researchers that one quotes in the paper. It is interesting that you are not sure whether McLean ever made tangential comments in his original article/book that that would cause other people to infer that he was talking about stretch-coil of torso muscles and subsequent passive elastic recoil. It is also interesting that you are not decrying the research paper authors for talking about these issues in depth in their research paper, and you seem to show no interest in determining the original source of the "idea" that sparked their interest in the elastic stretch-coil of torso muscles.

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Jeffy

SESOB is simply a term I coined that describes the [b]supreme example[/b] of a habitually uncivil person who perniciously uses derogatory terms to describe another forum member (see post #120 in this thread) and who perniciously attempts to beliitle another forum member by posting belittling photos of that other forum member, and who then compounds the belittlement with further insulting barbs in a subsequent post (re: how's your arm).

I think that type of pernicious behaviour would be deemed to be unacceptable in an adoloscent boy, and definitely beyond "acceptability" in an adult male in his 50s.

Jeff.

p.s. I wish that the moderator of this forum, GolfChicago, would set up strict rules regarding our interaction. The set rule should state that if any of us [b]next[/b] makes an inciting remark that is grossly insulting, then that person should be barred from participating in this forum. I am certain that it will affect you (and not me), because you would either have to uncover an ability to be mentally and psychologically disciplined, or you would be barred from this forum. Under those set rules, I would have no problem, because I don't incite the situation by initiating insulting remarks - I only react in a purely defensive mode (with considerable decorum considering the gravity of the insults).

[hoganfan924]

Jeff,

I'd venture to say [b]starting a thread [/b]calling a man's life work "Junk Science" when you haven't even read his articles, books or research reports is a far more egregious affront to "decorem" and civility than a little name calling, although I certainly don't care for that either.

[Golfchicago]

Jeffman, I am going to pm both you and Jeffy

[JeffMann]

HF

You may not like my stating that I changed my thinking about the static X-factor idea because I perceived it to be junk science - without ever reading McLean's original article/book. However, I am entitled to change my opinions - even if you think that it is unwarranted. If you look back at my original post, I was obviously looking for an alternative perspective from other forum members - by posing two examples. Other forum members are free to post more informed opinions - based on their reading of Jim McLean's original material. It is interesting to see that you and others have expressed strong opinions - without quoting Jim McLeans' original article/book. You didn't rebuke Robby, or other forum members, for talking about passive stretch of torso muscles - even though they haven't apparently read McLean's original article/book. Your selective targeting of me merely reflects a personal bias.

Jeff.

[jeffy]

[quote name='JeffMann' post='830653' date='Dec 19 2007, 05:52 PM']Jeffy

It is true that I changed my opinions regarding the concept of a static X-factor in the past year, without ever reading McLean's original article or his book. I am entitled to change my opinion about a conceptual idea without reading the original source material. I wasn't writing a paper for publication in a journal where it is essential to have read the original papers of other researchers that one quotes in the paper. It is interesting that you are not sure whether McLean ever made tangential comments in his original article/book that that would cause other people to infer that he was talking about stretch-coil of torso muscles and subsequent passive elastic recoil. It is also interesting that you are not decrying the research paper authors for talking about these issues in depth in their research paper, and you seem to show no interest in determining the original source of the "idea" that sparked their interest in the elastic stretch-coil of torso muscles.

Jeff.[/quote]

Yet another "straw man". When did I ever suggest you couldn't "change" your opinion? The issue is you formed and posted a very harsh and disrespectful opinion of a premier instruction without doing the bare minimum research, nor disclosing at the time that you had never read his work.

Your other comments are typical smokescreen's: I addressed the "elastic" issue in post #16, which I repeated above in post #129. As far as what was in the original article, why get into a debate about that now? Obviously, his current beliefs are what is relevant.

[jeffy]

[quote name='JeffMann' post='830683' date='Dec 19 2007, 06:19 PM']Jeffy

SESOB is simply a term I coined that describes the [b]supreme example[/b] of a habitually uncivil person who perniciously uses derogatory terms to describe another forum member (see post #120 in this thread) and who perniciously attempts to beliitle another forum member by posting belittling photos of that other forum member, and who then compounds the belittlement with further insulting barbs in a subsequent post (re: how's your arm).

I think that type of pernicious behaviour would be deemed to be unacceptable in an adoloscent boy, and definitely beyond "acceptability" in an adult male in his 50s.

Jeff.

p.s. I wish that the moderator of this forum, GolfChicago, would set up strict rules regarding our interaction. The set rule should state that if any of us [b]next[/b] makes an inciting remark that is grossly insulting, then that person should be barred from participating in this forum. I am certain that it will affect you (and not me), because you would either have to uncover an ability to be mentally and psychologically disciplined, or you would be barred from this forum. Under those set rules, I would have no problem, because I don't incite the situation by initiating insulting remarks - I only react in a purely defensive mode (with considerable decorum considering the gravity of the insults).[/quote]

You are too much. You habitually create phony pretexts to criticize Hardy, B&P, Dana & Mike, McLean, and others, which is very insulting and disrespectful to them, as well as disrespectful to the forums, yet you want immunity from those offended by it. Then you go crying to the teacher when you are called out for your misbehavior. I've got news for you: nobody likes whiners and crybabies.

BTW, you posted your video to show others how to swing: how is posting what you put up as [b]INSTRUCTION[/b] belittling to you? And, if you are so thin-skinned about your left arm, why did you put it on a public video?

[Subsonic]

Lock it up.

[hoganfan924]

Bring on the Jeffmann vs. Jeffy winner take all match, with the loser banned from this site for 6 months!

[rankoutsider]

i agree with jeffy: you posted the thing and people are allowed to vid capture and discuss it. otherwise, you are simply indulging in narcissism (look how good i am, but don't criticize me).

to the moderator: you know how far you want people to go, and i respect that. we all use these boards knowing they are moderated. however, if we can have a bit of a vote in how far is too far, i for one would say that we are nowhere near too far. let the good times roll...

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='rankoutsider' post='830757' date='Dec 19 2007, 07:31 PM']i agree with jeffy: you posted the thing and people are allowed to vid capture and discuss it. otherwise, you are simply indulging in narcissism (look how good i am, but don't criticize me).

to the moderator: you know how far you want people to go, and i respect that. we all use these boards knowing they are moderated. however, if we can have a bit of a vote in how far is too far, i for one would say that we are nowhere near too far. let the good times roll...[/quote]

Yeh, pretty funny,

Jeffmann downloads a swing video of Dana D without his permission and starts a thread being critical of his swing. He downloads video of Slicefixer's student and starts a thread using that, without Slicefixer's permission and includes that information on his website, again without Slicefixer's permission. Then this same guy who has a website called "[b]perfect[/b]golfswingreview" gets offended when someone else vid captures the [b]instruction[/b] he has posted on youtube and uses that in a thread. Unbelievable.

I strongly favor not banning either one for the comedic value alone.

[caryk]

[quote name='hoganfan924' post='830772' date='Dec 19 2007, 07:53 PM']I strongly favor not banning either one for the comedic value alone.[/quote]

I'd sure agree, those two are like the reincarnation of the Hatfields and McCoys. No matter which golf forums you go to on the net, they're constantly feuding, always trying to one-up each other. It really is pretty comical. Never seen anything like it.

[aviator]

Man, this has been an entertaining thread! I actually find it very amusing that someone has the arrogance to think they know a lot more about the golf swing than a guy who has been successfully teaching it for many, many years. I wonder how many golfers McLean has helped with his "junk science"? IMO, I think it should be taken as "fact" until you can scientifically disprove it yourself instead of the other way around. Nothing wrong with asking a question, discussing, or stating an opinion, but when someone always takes the attitude of, "I know more than anybody else" it sure gets annoying. I guess we can label that kind of person a [b]KIA[/b](Know it All). Just a thought.

[JeffMann]

Rankoutsider

You wrote-: "i agree with jeffy: you posted the thing and people are allowed to vid capture and discuss it. otherwise, you are simply indulging in narcissism (look how good i am, but don't criticize me)."

I don't mind it if people criticise my personal swing. It is there in public view for people to criticise. I am very open to criticism. However, SESOB didn't analyse and criticise my personal swing and/or my swing ideas. His posting of a selective view of my body position (which wasn't even part of a real swing, but a posed position) was a frank attempt at belittlement - because he didn't post any analytical commentary. He simply demonstrated that I have a physical incapacity to straighten my left arm without attempting to provide a personal, even if biased, analysis. By contrast, I have posted a number of swing videos capture images of other golfers (eg. Dana and Mike McNary), but I have at least attempted to state my reasons for posting the capture images in terms of a biomechanical argument. You may reject the legitimacy of my biomechanical reasoning, but at least I focus on swing biomechanics in my posts. I also have never outright called a person, who has different opinions to me, a SOB in a public forum. I might think that another forum member is a SOB, but I don't express my personal opinions in such an uncivil manner, which degrades a forum's tone of civility. SESOB complains that I attack the theories of B/P and Hardy in an unfair manner. However, I[b] never[/b] insult the person (golf instructor/theorist) who originated the swing methodology - only their swing methodological principles. SESOB goes well beyond attacking my biomechanical reasoning - he overtly insults me in public and private. If you and HF cannot differentiate between these two types of behaviour, then it says something about your hierarchy of values.

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Aviator - I think that it is very fair to label me a KIA and I think that it is very fair to ignore any/all of my opinions. It is also very appropriate to think poorly of my personal opinions relative to your favorite swing guru's opinions. You can even label all my biomechanical reasoning "junk science" or even "plain junk". That's acceptable in a forum where spirited discussion/criticism is encouraged. That's what I do with respect to other people's biomechanical reasoning. The big difference is that I don't ever gratuitously insult the person who holds contrary opinions to mine, and/or state that they should be deprived of the right to express their contrary opinions - as long as they attack the "reasoning" and not the "person" who expresses a contrary point of view.

Jeff.

[slicefixer]

[quote name='Golfchicago' post='829984' date='Dec 19 2007, 08:20 AM'][quote name='slicefixer' post='829894' date='Dec 19 2007, 03:00 AM'][quote name='Golfchicago' post='829886' date='Dec 19 2007, 02:54 AM']Jeffy,

I have the same perception of this issue. I thought the direction of the debate was much to do about nothing as well. I've never been able to wind and unwind like a spring coil in any sport . When I read the article, I came to the same conclusion that it has to do with sequencing, strength and speed. I can relate to that with my swing. I thought the article written by Jim cleared up the misconception of the coil and uncoil. He even said he was part to blame for the confusion. I think it is easy to take the analogy of a spring coiling too literally and get confused. What do the rocket scientists here think?[/quote]


NOT a "spring" IMOP.......but for some, it DOES feel like Mr. Hogan's "piece of elastic".......that I CAN GUARANTEE you!
[/quote]

Geoff, I can relate more to that concept. I don't know. I'm going to leave this stuff to you experts. I'll just listen.
[/quote]


Hell, I ain't in this un' either........chose to ride the pine and simply enjoy the "action".......hehehehe

[JeffMann]

HF - you wrote-: "Jeffmann downloads a swing video of Dana D without his permission and starts a thread being critical of his swing. He downloads video of Slicefixer's student and starts a thread using that, without Slicefixer's permission and includes that information on his website, again without Slicefixer's permission. Then this same guy who has a website called "perfectgolfswingreview" gets offended when someone else vid captures the instruction he has posted on youtube and uses that in a thread. Unbelievable."

HF - I think that your reasoning is highly flawed. I believe that it is ethically acceptable to use photos/videos/written material that is posted in a public space (online) - without permission. It would not disturb me in the least if someone ridiculed [b]any[/b] of my opinions expressed on my website. They could quote [b]anything[/b] I state in my website and criticise it in[b] any[/b] public forum. They can also post my website's photos without permission if they want to demonstrate flaws in my golf instructional ideas. However, SESOB didn't post a photo of me to demonstrate any intructional flaw in my swing ideology. It was a deliberate attempt at belittlement. If you cannot tell the difference - then I think that you have a distorted perspective of this moral dilemma.

SESOB states that I am a whiner, a cry-baby. He has the ethical problem of not being able to differentiate between personal attacks and attacks on a person's golf instructional beliefs. A golf forum, like this one, should encourage attacks on a person's golf instructional beliefs. However, it shouldn't allow one to attack the person holding those beliefs. I have never personally said anything derogatory about Dana/Mike, Hardy, B/P, McLean or any other golf instructor in this forum. I have only criticised their golf instructional beliefs.

Jeff.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='JeffMann' post='830870' date='Dec 19 2007, 09:24 PM']HF - I think that your reasoning is highly flawed. I believe that it is ethically acceptable to use photos/videos/written material that is posted in a public space (online) - without permission.[/quote]

Ethically acceptable? Maybe. Rude, arrogant, disrespectful? Most certainly in my moral world.