Calling Jim McLean: Read 2-F, 7-6, 10-6-0

Status
Not open for further replies.

ppt3

New
I quote from the April 9, 2004 edition of GolfWorld the following words of Jim McLean in his analysis of Tiger Woods swing changes from the year 2000 t0 2004: "Rather than spinning, it's our intention to simply, professionally compare Tiger then and now. Let the pictures speak for themselves. No doubt the topic of Tiger's swing issues is made touchy by the always high level of his performance. But our camera doesn't lie. Carl (Welty) and I have done this sort of analysis for a very long time.Together we have studied tour swings for thousands of hours, examining the all-time greats with the intent of discovering what makes them excel. We replicate exact angles in our photos and video when comparing swings. If you don't have correct camera angles your pictures have absolutely no research value. I can say the TV analysis and magazine articles that I have read or heard regarding Tiger's swing changes would receive an "F" at any American college. Weak opinions, no supporting evidence and no credit given to sources. Garbage in. Garbage out."
Strong words indeed. This is my challenge to all students of the swing. Find a copy of the magazine and using the pictures of Tiger used in the article (i.e. disregard McLean's written analysis) explain why anything McLean writes based on these pictures is by his own definition bogus.
 

ppt3

New
Perhaps it was posted before but your answer is not complete although valid. There is more to it than this.
 

ppt3

New
The point of my original post was simply to set up an intellectual exercise and get people thinking which is what Brian's forum always does. I will never give the answer to my original question but I will acknowledge a right answer if it appears. The answer is in the original post but I will give one more clue: G.O.L.F. and now I am out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top