Luke Donalds

[KevCarter]

Yes, he can play a bit.......around scratch.......probably anywhere from a 3 or 4 playing poorly or after a long lay off to a + 1 when he's been practicing...........

 

HoganFan can also explain the golf swing to ANYBODY in a manner they can understand and use.

 

Kevin

[slicefixer]

Yes, he can play a bit.......around scratch.......probably anywhere from a 3 or 4 playing poorly or after a long lay off to a + 1 when he's been practicing...........

 

HoganFan can also explain the golf swing to ANYBODY in a manner they can understand and use.

 

Kevin

 

 

That's because he is a fine player........ :)

[KevCarter]

Yes, he can play a bit.......around scratch.......probably anywhere from a 3 or 4 playing poorly or after a long lay off to a + 1 when he's been practicing...........

 

HoganFan can also explain the golf swing to ANYBODY in a manner they can understand and use.

 

Kevin

 

 

That's because he is a fine player........ :)

 

And he has a great teacher!

[birdie_man]

The science guys are not really teachers. (in the "golf teacher" sense)

 

...

 

Do you have to be a great techer/player to be a great scientist/biomechanics guy and study WHAT goes on in golf swings?

 

I wish I had more ammo/information so I could go on with this thread better.

 

I still stand by my initial comments/questions. (posted earlier)

 

Good topic folks.

[KevCarter]

The science guys are not really teachers. (in the "golf teacher" sense)

 

...

 

Do you have to be a great techer/player to be a great scientist/biomechanics guy and study WHAT goes on in golf swings?

 

I wish I had more ammo/information so I could go on with this thread better.

 

I still stand by my initial comments/questions. (posted earlier)

 

Good topic folks.

 

Some great questions. My opinions...

 

If the scientists are not teachers, what do they want to accomplish with the information they gather?

 

Being a good player adds trust to the student - teacher relationship.

 

I think a great teacher needs to have great visualization skills, and most importantly, understand how to pass his knowledge along in a manner his student can understand, visualize, and feel. Just the tip of the iceberg, but what came to mind first.

 

Kevin

[hoganfan924]

... not poking at anyone but alot of people seem to take hoganfan at his word...

 

Why Thanks, Machine! Didn't realize so many people took me at my word, :) but if they do, I'd like to think it''s because:

 

1. I've done my due diligence. Studied a lot. Started learning the game as a young adult & know how difficult it can be without the right guidance and remember what it's like to be a 20 hdcp.

2. I'm willing to explain things in a detailed way that most folks can understand, even when I bring science into the mix

3. I'm consistent in my beliefs, I don't contradict myself day to day or week to week

4. I've posted several of my swings for all to see on youtube (flaws and all)

 

One thing about me Machine, is that I'm especially talented in being able to spot BS'rs from people that are the real deal. When I first joined this site over a year ago (on a search for information on Tom Bertrand's book) I read a few of Slicefixer's posts and was very intrigued. Spent a few hours reading a couple hundred of his posts and said to myself "This guy hasn't made one single technical point about the golfswing that I disagree with." (and he still hasn't, and I've read every single one of them). He validated many of the "theories" that I had about the golfswing (that other instructors had informed me I was wrong about). When I went to visit him, it was plain as day that he was implementing everday in his students the things that I believe in and having tremendous success doing so. We essentially arrived at many of the same conclusions, coming from completely opposite directions and arriving at them from our own studies, not by swallowing whole what somebody else had told us.

[Machinegolfer]

Are you saying im full of BS?

[Machinegolfer]

... not poking at anyone but alot of people seem to take hoganfan at his word...

 

Why Thanks, Machine! Didn't realize so many people took me at my word, :) but if they do, I'd like to think it''s because:

 

1. I've done my due diligence. Studied a lot. Started learning the game as a young adult & know how difficult it can be without the right guidance and remember what it's like to be a 20 hdcp.

2. I'm willing to explain things in a detailed way that most folks can understand, even when I bring science into the mix

3. I'm consistent in my beliefs, I don't contradict myself day to day or week to week

4. I've posted several of my swings for all to see on youtube (flaws and all)

 

One thing about me Machine, is that I'm especially talented in being able to spot BS'rs from people that are the real deal. When I first joined this site over a year ago (on a search for information on Tom Bertrand's book) I read a few of Slicefixer's posts and was very intrigued. Spent a few hours reading a couple hundred of his posts and said to myself "This guy hasn't made one single technical point about the golfswing that I disagree with." (and he still hasn't, and I've read every single one of them). He validated many of the "theories" that I had about the golfswing (that other instructors had informed me I was wrong about). When I went to visit him, it was plain as day that he was implementing everday in his students the things that I believe in and having tremendous success doing so. We essentially arrived at many of the same conclusions, coming from completely opposite directions and arriving at them from our own studies, not by swallowing whole what somebody else had told us.

 

TGM is based on years and years of research, many Instructors of TGM have performed their own research in the majority of the subjects in tgm, same with MORAD, on the other hand, I do conduct research in golf and don't appreciate your ill adivsed choice of words. So your belief of how a golf club should be swung is shared with another instructor..must be the right way to do it. With all do respect to Slice, and in fact i'm sure he'd agree, he doesn't have all the answers...let's see; due diligence, yea, wait I was a 20 handicap too, studied, yep everyday explain things in an easy way to understand, ok, consisentcy...sure... crappy swings on youtube, yep...guess our checklists match up... what else do I need to do? please share im tired of Bs'ing everyone

[Points]

Machine, please explain what research Homer did in writing the Golfing Machine?

[rankoutsider]

hey machine: not to get in the middle where I'm not needed, but you are reading something into HFs post that he didn't intend, i suspect. he was just saying that when he says something, he's thought it through, and was in no way saying that you hadn't. The stuff about BS that you are misinterpreting has to do with HFs view of Slicefixer: to wit, that he, HF, could tell early on that he, Slicefixer, was not BSing anyone. Again, no inference that you are. At least none that I could see.

 

Keep up the good theorizing fellas, but remember, part of why a muscle stops or slows is that it is reaching the end of its range of motion, and that it does not need to be intentionally stopped to get to a point where it has to stop. A tight pivoting swing will never need to break to add power, IMO, since doing so would have you bottom out well before the ball (and you'd flip at it to boot), while a swing with a CG shift forward, or one that was very steep, or one with a very long armswing, would have little choice but to brake at the hips to avoid bottoming out well well past the ball.

 

My own view is that you would never want to intentionally develop a swing that had this timing mechanism built into it, but Luke Donald swings it a fair bit better than I do, that's for sure.

 

Rank

[Machinegolfer]

Machine, please explain what research Homer did in writing the Golfing Machine?

 

What the hell do you think TGM is? some notes he came up with in one night? Thought it sounded nice? wheres your research?

[Points]

In a way yes. Homer wrote manuals for Boeing and applied the same format when writing the Golfing Machine. As best I can tell, the golfing machine sites no other sources or other research projects. That is why I asked the question. What research is the Golfing Machine based on?

 

If this is a sensitive subject for you I can understand. I do not know why my research is brought into question. Having a bad day Machine?

[rankoutsider]

tone does not come through very well in these posts that's for sure. machine, you are getting a bit overly worried that people are dissing you and TGM where we are just trying to learn.

 

the question was simply, to those of us not familiar with the book, what kinds of research did Kelley do? biomechanical, mechanical, all of the above, work with golfers? is the book mostly theory? does it contain a kind of practical application of the theory? the question was about methodology, not merit.

 

i haven't read the book myself, but have ordered a copy from amazon. i really want to be in the know....

 

Points, I'll be able to answer your question in about 8 months, including transit time for the book.

[Machinegolfer]

No just bored, Homer set out to catalogue the basic components of the golf swing and set forth to help golf instructors teach...what works what doesnt...Homer was a problem solver for boeing, the only person that could sign off on the ok for the company was Homer, very bright...started playing golf and decided that it shoudn't be as difficult as it was for him...shot around 110 I believe his first time out, didn't play for 6 months and instead sought out to figure out how to do it more efficiently...quit his job in '60 set up shop in his garage...studied swings and applied physics and geometry to the golf swing...I'm not saying the golfing machine is the word of god, nor is Mac...but the underlying principles and catalogued variations of components should be understood...btw Homer shot 76 the second time he played...rather than be a skeptic why don't you contribute your thoughts on pivot braking to the subject, after all I'm more than interested in hearing your thoughts on ANY subject since you never seem to add anything of meaning to these threads.... :) nice to chat again

[Machinegolfer]

tone does not come through very well in these posts that's for sure. machine, you are getting a bit overly worried that people are dissing you and TGM where we are just trying to learn.

 

the question was simply, to those of us not familiar with the book, what kinds of research did Kelley do? biomechanical, mechanical, all of the above, work with golfers? is the book mostly theory? does it contain a kind of practical application of the theory? the question was about methodology, not merit.

 

i haven't read the book myself, but have ordered a copy from amazon. i really want to be in the know....

 

Points, I'll be able to answer your question in about 8 months, including transit time for the book.

 

Its not theory, its not a method, its a system, a catologue, A way to do something, not THE way....why dont you check it out for yourself?

[tongzilla]

Hello everyone!

 

Next time you view swing sequences face on, take a look at this:

 

What do the shoulders look like when the player's right arm is parallel to the ground at follow through?

Does it look more like | or \ ?

 

If the shoulders look more like \ then it is very likely that the player is rotating his core (but still snapping the chain)!

[rankoutsider]

tone does not come through very well in these posts that's for sure. machine, you are getting a bit overly worried that people are dissing you and TGM where we are just trying to learn.

 

the question was simply, to those of us not familiar with the book, what kinds of research did Kelley do? biomechanical, mechanical, all of the above, work with golfers? is the book mostly theory? does it contain a kind of practical application of the theory? the question was about methodology, not merit.

 

i haven't read the book myself, but have ordered a copy from amazon. i really want to be in the know....

 

Points, I'll be able to answer your question in about 8 months, including transit time for the book.

 

Its not theory, its not a method, its a system, a catologue, A way to do something, not THE way....why dont you check it out for yourself?

 

as i said in my note, it is on order.

[Points]

Machine,

 

I have stated on about ten different occasions my thoughts on this subject. I do appreciate the positive comments in regards to my posts on this forum.

 

As I have stated before, different parts of the body reach their max speeds at different points in the swing. The hips reach max speed, followed by the shoulders, followed by the hands, finally the clubhead at impact. There is about one tenth of a second where all of this occurs. After a part reaches its speed their is a very slight drop off in speed. In no way would I describe this as braking. At best, it is letting your foot off the gas but again this happens in a very small period of time.

 

Hope this meets your requirement for contributing to the subject.

[rankoutsider]

Machine,

 

I have stated on about ten different occasions my thoughts on this subject. I do appreciate the positive comments in regards to my posts on this forum.

 

As I have stated before, different parts of the body reach their max speeds at different points in the swing. The hips reach max speed, followed by the shoulders, followed by the hands, finally the clubhead at impact. There is about one tenth of a second where all of this occurs. After a part reaches its speed their is a very slight drop off in speed. In no way would I describe this as braking. At best, it is letting your foot off the gas but again this happens in a very small period of time.

 

Hope this meets your requirement for contributing to the subject.

 

I think you are right on about this one. My own, view, though, is that it is also a case of the muscles knowing that, as the body stands in a certain posture, its specific parts have to slow as they are reaching the end of their range of motion. You cannot understand what is happening on a muscular level if you think the hips can spin around the body an infinite number of times, but they are just choosing to brake at such and such a point in the chain in order to facilitate the golf swing. They have to slow before they can stop, and they have to stop, for most golfers, after they have cleared a certain, idiosyncratic range of motion. This isn't braking the chain, it is preventing yourself from breaking your bones.

 

I think that was a good post, Points. I don't know why everyone is getting so cantankerous on the board. We're all just trying to figure this thing out....

[hoganfan924]

hey machine: not to get in the middle where I'm not needed, but you are reading something into HFs post that he didn't intend, i suspect. he was just saying that when he says something, he's thought it through, and was in no way saying that you hadn't. The stuff about BS that you are misinterpreting has to do with HFs view of Slicefixer: to wit, that he, HF, could tell early on that he, Slicefixer, was not BSing anyone. Again, no inference that you are. At least none that I could see.

 

Rank

 

Yes, Rank got it right. Sorry you took it the wrong way Machine. My comments weren't about you. Simply that I arrived at my conclusions based on my own observations and a lot of study of different methods, books and instructors. I found all of these different sources had considerable flaws and ideas that did not reconcile with my own based on my observations. Then I ran into Slice, observed the success he's having with lot's of junior players (who've known nothing else) and felt that provided some level of validtion for some of my ideas. So Slice and I see eye to eye on most things golf swing and he helped fill in some of the gaps in my own knowledge. That's all.

 

I am familiar with Jorgensen's book. I'd suggest you reread his Section 9 on Newtonian Dynamics.

 

BTW, while Homer Kelley was obviously a very bright man, he was not a Scientist, Physicist or Engineer. He wrote training manuals and conducted training classes for Boeing. It's very clear that he was not a scientist when reading TGM because some of the definitions and language he uses would not be used by people with that level of education. And what was Homer Kelley's handicap? And please point out to me in TGM where Homer extolls the virtues of pivot braking (or even describes it) 'cause I can't find it.

[Machinegolfer]

He didn't dude, I'm not a hardcore TGM follower like some and you have lead on to believe...I keep saying its not all in the book....but the book should be very important to those who teach...

[xiaoxiong]

I am familiar with Jorgensen's book. I'd suggest you reread his Section 9 on Newtonian Dynamics.

 

BTW, while Homer Kelley was obviously a very bright man, he was not a Scientist, Physicist or Engineer. He wrote training manuals and conducted training classes for Boeing. It's very clear that he was not a scientist when reading TGM because some of the definitions and language he uses would not be used by people with that level of education. And what was Homer Kelley's handicap? And please point out to me in TGM where Homer extolls the virtues of pivot braking (or even describes it) 'cause I can't find it.

 

 

I was trained as a physicist (got my advanced degree in Physics after 5 years of graduate school), and I did read The Golfing Machine multiple times. As said before, TGM is a catalog, and a manual. I also know that there are quite some dubious applications of physics laws in the book ... Nonetheless, it is a book worthy reading for any golf fanatics, no question about that.

 

 

Cheers,

[birdie_man]

hoganfan clearly handicap isn't the most important thing here.

 

Are you a "Can't beat me/can't teach me" guy?

 

BTW personally I don't really care at all if Homer's right or Bob's right or Bill or slicefixer or Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo or Larry. Or Fred.

 

I want to find out if THIS is right.

 

Maybe we can. Maybe we can't.

 

BTW again folks..........some of these golf science guys are pretty smart people......................

 

And going back to 'handicaps'...............it's gotta help to have a good one- but do you have to have a good handicap to be a smart scientist.........to be a physics expert........to be a biomechanics expert..............to collect data (perhaps using some very sophisticated technology)..............to figure out SCIENTIFICALLY "what is going on." I am not so sure. But you would have to ask some of these guys and the teachers who listen to what they have to say.

 

I think being a good player is is of course is a good sign and has to be an overall PLUS...........but I think this is an overused measure of knowledge and at times even teaching competence. And especially when we are talking about guys who are mostly just in it studying and gathering data.........and being math/physics/biomechanical experts. (not so much Golf TEACHERS, I mean)

 

I mean......for example- there is even a guy on Brian Manzella's golf forum who goes by the name of "mandrin".....

 

He is a very smart guy and studies the golf swing. I do not know how good of a golfer he is. But he is very math and physics knowledgeable and comes up with theories, equations, graphs, and diagrams to prove/disprove certain theories on the golf swing. He has pretty convincingly proved several theories in TGM wrong. (and I am sure there is more to come) He has even convinced a guy like Brian Manzella (a very big TGM supporter and a guy on the forefront of golf instruction) of some of these inaccuracies. Brian has soaked up a bunch of this new information, integrated it into his everyday teaching, and by his own account- improved his ability (as a teacher of very practical, useful golf instruction) greatly.

 

Now........mandrin mostly is not gonna tell anyone how to TEACH golf but he does attempt to tell us what is actually happening with golf swings in this real world of LAW and physics we live in. I do not expect that we gulp down everything he has to say (and he would not want it that way).............but I am not discounting what this mandrin guy has to say. No way in hell.

 

To me, if we did not have guys like this who break new path............and teachers who listen to them (and find ways to USE their findings in a practical sense.....to lower scores)...............

 

................we would be stuck with a lot of conclusions based on feel/"seems as ifs" and flawed "conventional wisdom."

 

I don't see how all this golf science could be bad........even if I don't fully understand what these guys are talking about half the time. :) I think there is stuff to be learned here...........I personally welcome and listen to it all.

 

(and I still think critically......of course...)

 

That's my 3 cents.

 

Brian is a guy I wish we could get in on this. (to help move this debate along and get to the bottom of it, one way or another)

 

I hope we can get past this little sub-debate so we can get back to talking about "snapping the chain."

 

My mind is open BTW folks. :rolleyes:

[birdie_man]

And BTW "mandrin" is not the only notable golf scientist looking at TGM and saying it's not all it's made out to be. (science-wise)

 

To Homer Kelly's credit, he did not have fancy technology and was still researching and revising up until his death.

 

But he was WAYYY ahead of his time anyway. (so we really can't take away much from him)

[rankoutsider]

hoganfan clearly handicap isn't the most important thing here.

 

Are you a "Can't beat me/can't teach me" guy?

 

BTW personally I don't really care at all if Homer's right or Bob's right or Bill or slicefixer or Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo or Larry. Or Fred.

 

I want to find out if THIS is right.

 

Maybe we can. Maybe we can't.

 

BTW again..........some of these golf science guys are pretty smart people folks......................

 

And going back to 'handicaps'...............it's gotta help to have a good one- but do you have to have a good handicap to be a smart scientist.........to be a physics expert........to be a biomechanics expert..............to collect data (perhaps using some very sophisticated technology)..............to figure out SCIENTIFICALLY "what is going on." I am not so sure. But you would have to ask some of these guys and the teachers who listen to what they have to say.

 

I think being a good player is is of course is a good signand an overall PLUS...........but I think this is an overused measure of knowlege/teaching competence at times. Especially when we are talking about guys who are mostly just in it studying and gathering data.........and being math/physics/biomechanical experts.

 

I mean......for example- there is even a guy on Brian Manzella's golf forum who goes by the name of "mandrin".....

 

He is a very smart guy and studies the golf swing. I do not know how good of a golfer he is. But he is very math and physics knowledgeable and comes up with theories, equations, graphs, and diagrams. He has pretty convincinly proved several theories in TGM wrong. (and I am sure there is more to come) He has even convinced a guy like Brian Manzella (a very big TGM supporter and a guy on the forefront of golf instruction) of some of these inaccuracies. Brian has soaked up a bunch of this new information, integrated it into his everyday teaching, and by his account, improved his ability (as a teacher of very practical, useful golf instruction) greatly.

 

I do not expect that we gulp down everything he has to say (and he would not want it that way).............but I am not discounting what this mandrin guy has to say. No way in hell.

 

To me, if we did not have guys like this who break new path............and teachers who listen to them (and find ways to USE their findings in a practical sense.....to lower scores)...............

 

................we would be stuck with a lot of conclusions based on feel/"seems as ifs" and flawed "conventional wisdom."

 

I don't see how all this golf science could be bad........even if I don't fully understand what these guys are talking about half the time. :) I think there is stuff to be learned here...........I personally welcome and listen to it all. (I still think critically however......of course...)

 

That's my 3 cents.

 

I wish we could get Brian in on this. (so we can get to the bottom of it, one way or another)

 

My mind is open BTW folks. :rolleyes:

 

hey sure, birdie, but part of the mythology, as machine has it anyway, was that he shot a 70 something in his second round of golf. you can't have it both ways: he shot such and such at this stage AND playing ability doesn't matter. reread machine's post where that seems to be invoked as some kind of proof of something. you gotto pick your poison...

 

rank

[birdie_man]

Hey..........well that's good man..........I'd hope you could shoot a score if what you are "into" is any good at all. But talking about the "golf science guys" (which we have been) all I am saying is that I think it becomes less relevant.

[hoganfan924]

hoganfan clearly handicap isn't the most important thing here.

 

Are you a "Can't beat me/can't teach me" guy?

 

BTW personally I don't really care at all if Homer's right or Bob's right or Bill or slicefixer or Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo or Larry. Or Fred.

 

I want to find out if THIS is right.

 

Maybe we can. Maybe we can't.

 

BTW again folks..........some of these golf science guys are pretty smart people......................

 

And going back to 'handicaps'...............it's gotta help to have a good one- but do you have to have a good handicap to be a smart scientist.........to be a physics expert........to be a biomechanics expert..............to collect data (perhaps using some very sophisticated technology)..............to figure out SCIENTIFICALLY "what is going on." I am not so sure. But you would have to ask some of these guys and the teachers who listen to what they have to say.

 

I think being a good player is is of course is a good sign and has to be an overall PLUS...........but I think this is an overused measure of knowlege and even teaching competence at times. And especially when we are talking about guys who are mostly just in it studying and gathering data.........and being math/physics/biomechanical experts. (not so much Golf TEACHERS, I mean)

 

I mean......for example- there is even a guy on Brian Manzella's golf forum who goes by the name of "mandrin".....

 

He is a very smart guy and studies the golf swing. I do not know how good of a golfer he is. But he is very math and physics knowledgeable and comes up with theories, equations, graphs, and diagrams to prove/disprove certain theories on the golf swing. He has pretty convincinly proved several theories in TGM wrong. (and I am sure there is more to come) He has even convinced a guy like Brian Manzella (a very big TGM supporter and a guy on the forefront of golf instruction) of some of these inaccuracies. Brian has soaked up a bunch of this new information, integrated it into his everyday teaching, and by his own account- improved his ability (as a teacher of very practical, useful golf instruction) greatly.

 

Now........mandrin mostly is not gonna tell anyone how to TEACH golf but he does attempt to tell us what is actually happening with golf swings in this real world of LAW and physics we live in. I do not expect that we gulp down everything he has to say (and he would not want it that way).............but I am not discounting what this mandrin guy has to say. No way in hell.

 

To me, if we did not have guys like this who break new path............and teachers who listen to them (and find ways to USE their findings in a practical sense.....to lower scores)...............

 

................we would be stuck with a lot of conclusions based on feel/"seems as ifs" and flawed "conventional wisdom."

 

I don't see how all this golf science could be bad........even if I don't fully understand what these guys are talking about half the time. :) I think there is stuff to be learned here...........I personally welcome and listen to it all.

 

(and I still think critically......of course...)

 

That's my 3 cents.

 

I wish we could get Brian in on this. (so we can get to the bottom of it, one way or another)

 

I hope we can get past this little sub-debate so we can get back to talking about "snapping the chain."

 

My mind is open BTW folks. :rolleyes:

 

Actually, Bird.. You're making my point for me. Guess my intent wasn't clear enough, just a response to Machine's challenge.

[Machinegolfer]

hoganfan clearly handicap isn't the most important thing here.

 

Are you a "Can't beat me/can't teach me" guy?

 

BTW personally I don't really care at all if Homer's right or Bob's right or Bill or slicefixer or Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo or Larry. Or Fred.

 

I want to find out if THIS is right.

 

Maybe we can. Maybe we can't.

 

BTW again..........some of these golf science guys are pretty smart people folks......................

 

And going back to 'handicaps'...............it's gotta help to have a good one- but do you have to have a good handicap to be a smart scientist.........to be a physics expert........to be a biomechanics expert..............to collect data (perhaps using some very sophisticated technology)..............to figure out SCIENTIFICALLY "what is going on." I am not so sure. But you would have to ask some of these guys and the teachers who listen to what they have to say.

 

I think being a good player is is of course is a good signand an overall PLUS...........but I think this is an overused measure of knowlege/teaching competence at times. Especially when we are talking about guys who are mostly just in it studying and gathering data.........and being math/physics/biomechanical experts.

 

I mean......for example- there is even a guy on Brian Manzella's golf forum who goes by the name of "mandrin".....

 

He is a very smart guy and studies the golf swing. I do not know how good of a golfer he is. But he is very math and physics knowledgeable and comes up with theories, equations, graphs, and diagrams. He has pretty convincinly proved several theories in TGM wrong. (and I am sure there is more to come) He has even convinced a guy like Brian Manzella (a very big TGM supporter and a guy on the forefront of golf instruction) of some of these inaccuracies. Brian has soaked up a bunch of this new information, integrated it into his everyday teaching, and by his account, improved his ability (as a teacher of very practical, useful golf instruction) greatly.

 

I do not expect that we gulp down everything he has to say (and he would not want it that way).............but I am not discounting what this mandrin guy has to say. No way in hell.

 

To me, if we did not have guys like this who break new path............and teachers who listen to them (and find ways to USE their findings in a practical sense.....to lower scores)...............

 

................we would be stuck with a lot of conclusions based on feel/"seems as ifs" and flawed "conventional wisdom."

 

I don't see how all this golf science could be bad........even if I don't fully understand what these guys are talking about half the time. :) I think there is stuff to be learned here...........I personally welcome and listen to it all. (I still think critically however......of course...)

 

That's my 3 cents.

 

I wish we could get Brian in on this. (so we can get to the bottom of it, one way or another)

 

My mind is open BTW folks. :rolleyes:

 

hey sure, birdie, but part of the mythology, as machine has it anyway, was that he shot a 70 something in his second round of golf. you can't have it both ways: he shot such and such at this stage AND playing ability doesn't matter. reread machine's post where that seems to be invoked as some kind of proof of something. you gotto pick your poison...

 

rank

 

Yea dude, 6 months later he played a round again and shot 76...I didn't say he didnt work on his own swing during this time...It wasn't a "hey I know a ton of stuff now, today ill pickup a golf club an apply it all at once"

[Machinegolfer]

hoganfan clearly handicap isn't the most important thing here.

 

Are you a "Can't beat me/can't teach me" guy?

 

BTW personally I don't really care at all if Homer's right or Bob's right or Bill or slicefixer or Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo or Larry. Or Fred.

 

I want to find out if THIS is right.

 

Maybe we can. Maybe we can't.

 

BTW again folks..........some of these golf science guys are pretty smart people......................

 

And going back to 'handicaps'...............it's gotta help to have a good one- but do you have to have a good handicap to be a smart scientist.........to be a physics expert........to be a biomechanics expert..............to collect data (perhaps using some very sophisticated technology)..............to figure out SCIENTIFICALLY "what is going on." I am not so sure. But you would have to ask some of these guys and the teachers who listen to what they have to say.

 

I think being a good player is is of course is a good sign and has to be an overall PLUS...........but I think this is an overused measure of knowlege and even teaching competence at times. And especially when we are talking about guys who are mostly just in it studying and gathering data.........and being math/physics/biomechanical experts. (not so much Golf TEACHERS, I mean)

 

I mean......for example- there is even a guy on Brian Manzella's golf forum who goes by the name of "mandrin".....

 

He is a very smart guy and studies the golf swing. I do not know how good of a golfer he is. But he is very math and physics knowledgeable and comes up with theories, equations, graphs, and diagrams to prove/disprove certain theories on the golf swing. He has pretty convincinly proved several theories in TGM wrong. (and I am sure there is more to come) He has even convinced a guy like Brian Manzella (a very big TGM supporter and a guy on the forefront of golf instruction) of some of these inaccuracies. Brian has soaked up a bunch of this new information, integrated it into his everyday teaching, and by his own account- improved his ability (as a teacher of very practical, useful golf instruction) greatly.

 

Now........mandrin mostly is not gonna tell anyone how to TEACH golf but he does attempt to tell us what is actually happening with golf swings in this real world of LAW and physics we live in. I do not expect that we gulp down everything he has to say (and he would not want it that way).............but I am not discounting what this mandrin guy has to say. No way in hell.

 

To me, if we did not have guys like this who break new path............and teachers who listen to them (and find ways to USE their findings in a practical sense.....to lower scores)...............

 

................we would be stuck with a lot of conclusions based on feel/"seems as ifs" and flawed "conventional wisdom."

 

I don't see how all this golf science could be bad........even if I don't fully understand what these guys are talking about half the time. :) I think there is stuff to be learned here...........I personally welcome and listen to it all.

 

(and I still think critically......of course...)

 

That's my 3 cents.

 

I wish we could get Brian in on this. (so we can get to the bottom of it, one way or another)

 

I hope we can get past this little sub-debate so we can get back to talking about "snapping the chain."

 

My mind is open BTW folks. :cheesy:

 

 

3 cents...is that the current exchange rate thats equal to 2 cents U.S.? :rolleyes: .... well said anyway

[Kerry_Bunker]

"3 cents...is that the current exchange rate thats equal to 2 cents U.S.? :) .... well said anyway"

 

 

Au contraire - Canada has Scoreboard on our good Amercian friends right now ! :rolleyes:

 

 

Here is that Currency Scoreboard:

 

USD GBP CAD EUR AUD 1 1.99389 1.0104 1.52819 0.931896 0.50153 1 0.506749 0.766437 0.467374 0.9897 1.97336 1 1.51245 0.922298 0.654365 1.30473 0.661175 1 0.6098 1.07308 2.13961 1.08424 1.63987 1 Wednesday, March 5, 2008