Luke Donalds

[Machinegolfer]

"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

 

Don't tell me that, thats a bummer this time next week I'll be there

[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

 

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"

 

Machine: You have to stop seeing everything as a challenge to you. I believe the story. I was only saying that if this fact demonstrates the validity of TGM, or shows the practical benefits of Kelley's sustained ruminations on the swing, then it is an equally valid question to ask what handicap he played to. So HFs question was not out of line, and did not show any of the suppositions that Birdie suggested that he held to (if you can't beat me you can't teach me). That's all I meant, dude.

[Machinegolfer]

Its not a story to tribute the validity of TGM, just Homer's work ethic and passion which he so clealy put into TGM, had it been me, I still probably would have shot 110 the second time around :)

[rankoutsider]

Its not a story to tribute the validity of TGM, just Homer's work ethic and passion which he so clealy put into TGM, had it been me, I still probably would have shot 110 the second time around :)

Gotcha. Thanks. I have NO DOUBT at all that he had a strong love of golf and a passion to explain the swing to people. That is evident in a lot of ways.

 

And I think he had a highly technical mind, and that the book helped to open up a new way of talking about golf (which probably started with Hogan). That legacy isn't going anywhere soon, and our understanding of the swing is all the better for it, I suspect.

[kblakeney35]

hoganfan, I read your example in the kinetic chain thread about the trebuchet and it made me laugh cuz we just learned about it in history class :)

 

And I do agree with you on every point, as does my physics teacher...

[Kerry_Bunker]

i

[Kerry_Bunker]

I'm with HoganFan on his explanation that discredits "braking" as being a method to add speed to the clubhead.

 

Physics.

[hoganfan924]

hoganfan, I read your example in the kinetic chain thread about the trebuchet and it made me laugh cuz we just learned about it in history class :)

 

And I do agree with you on every point, as does my physics teacher...

 

Thanks! Greatly appreciated. I know what a fine educational system Iowa has, having lived there in my youth (Waterloo).

 

There's a concept in Science & Engineering termed "first principle's" When someone decribes something to you or you are studying some physical phenomena, the first "test" is does your hypothesis pass the "first priciple's test" meaning, Does it defy the laws of physics, such as does it violate Newton's laws of motion, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, etc. Things like a perpetual motion machine.

 

The idea that Pivot braking adds to clubhead speed, IMO violates the law of conservation of momentum. It doens't pass the first principle's test.

 

Best of luck with your game!

 

HF

[Kerry_Bunker]

"Thanks! Greatly appreciated. I know what a fine educational system Iowa has, having lived there in my youth (Waterloo)".

 

Coincidently, I went to the University of Waterloo (upper side of the cellaphane border). Graduate in Mechanical Engineering (BASc). Having had to get through more than my fair share of courses, I too am conditioned to recognize when something doesn't appear to have a solid scientific foundation.

[birdie_man]

What are your reasons (why you argree with hoganfan), Mr. knob?

[birdie_man]

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

 

Not 100% sure what you're saying here sir. (honestly) I am not overly worried if you aren't though. (i.e. only if you want to explain further)

 

...

 

And to rankoutsider............

 

I don't mean playing ability DOESN'T matter. (flat-out) But the other side of the spectrum ("Can't beat me/can't teach me.") is just as ridiculous.

 

Be back later probably folks.

[WorkingOnIt]

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.

 

 

Suggestion, if you still can cancel do it and order it from www.bendoylegolf.com. The 6th edition is only about $24 or so and you will have it in a couple of days. The prices of the ones on Amazon are ridiculous. Some of the earlier versions are collectors items and can go for a lot of money. For the purpose of reading and learning just get either the 6th or 7th edition from Ben. There is some disagreement as to which one is the one to get, the 6th was the last release before Homer passed away. The 7th has a couple of changes that some disagree with.

[rankoutsider]

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

 

Not 100% sure what you're saying here sir. (honestly) I am not overly worried if you aren't though. (i.e. only if you want to explain further)

 

...

 

And to rankoutsider............

 

I don't mean playing ability DOESN'T matter. (flat-out) But the other side of the spectrum ("Can't beat me/can't teach me.") is just as ridiculous.

 

Be back later probably folks.

 

hey birdie: sorry i forgot to respond to that part of your post. i completely agree with you. playing and coaching are different animals entirely.

 

rank

[hayam]

Where MachineGolfer comes from. And the type of guy where Mr. David Orr is who MachineGolfer is working for.

 

I 100% believe that they know what they are talking and could back them up scientifically. Not according to experiences.