4/10,000 of a second
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
rundmc,
"Mr. Kelley thought that through educating the hands the player could do more than just "hope" that the left wrist could be flat."
Actually, Mr. Kelley thought that look, look, looking at a Flat Left Wrist at Impact Fix would give the golfer more that just a 'hope' of replicating it at Impact. The recommended technique, for a Hitter, is to start at Impact Fix and maintain the wrist alignment throughout the stroke. Swingers are allowed to bend it at Address, but should get back to the correct alignment during Takeaway. Educating the hands teaches them to "feel" the correct alignment.
"Based on the science of the clubhead 'free wheeling' can the golfer control the clubface?"
The left wrist controls the clubface throughout the stroke since, with the proper grip, it (and the back of the left hand) mirrors the clubface alignment. Roll your wrist clockwise and the clubface closes; roll it counterclockwise and the clubface lays back. Educate your hands to make those motions with a Flat Left Wrist and you can make the clubface - and the ball - do anything you want it to.
"Mr. Kelley thought that through educating the hands the player could do more than just "hope" that the left wrist could be flat."
Actually, Mr. Kelley thought that look, look, looking at a Flat Left Wrist at Impact Fix would give the golfer more that just a 'hope' of replicating it at Impact. The recommended technique, for a Hitter, is to start at Impact Fix and maintain the wrist alignment throughout the stroke. Swingers are allowed to bend it at Address, but should get back to the correct alignment during Takeaway. Educating the hands teaches them to "feel" the correct alignment.
"Based on the science of the clubhead 'free wheeling' can the golfer control the clubface?"
The left wrist controls the clubface throughout the stroke since, with the proper grip, it (and the back of the left hand) mirrors the clubface alignment. Roll your wrist clockwise and the clubface closes; roll it counterclockwise and the clubface lays back. Educate your hands to make those motions with a Flat Left Wrist and you can make the clubface - and the ball - do anything you want it to.
Oh I got it man! Seen it in action! I was just trying to figure out how Horton's analysis of "shat the bed science" and what would be his solution. He said that Mr. Kelley had crappy scientific assumptions. From these assumptions Mr. Kelley derived the 3 Imperatives. I was just interested to see what Horton's analysis of the imperatives would be.
I believe in the 3 imperatives. Thanks for the input though.
rundmc,
I wouldn't trust Horton's "scientific" opinion of the First Imperative until he shows that he knows what a Flat Left Wrist is. At first he thought it should be flat to "prevent uncocking". Now he says "that the left wrist extends and takes on a straightened position", but that still seems to be talking more about uncocking than flattening. Maybe he'll eventually figure it out if we keep encouraging him.
I wouldn't trust Horton's "scientific" opinion of the First Imperative until he shows that he knows what a Flat Left Wrist is. At first he thought it should be flat to "prevent uncocking". Now he says "that the left wrist extends and takes on a straightened position", but that still seems to be talking more about uncocking than flattening. Maybe he'll eventually figure it out if we keep encouraging him.
I have no problem with TGM methodology, but I take great umbrance at Homer's proclamation that Science validates his analysis of the golfswing.
After reading Chapter 2 and discovering all the scientific gaffs, that shook my confidence in the veracity and legitimacy in the rest of the book. Can you blame me for thinking so? The fact that it was atrociously organized and badly written also does no credit for Homer's state of mind. If he produced that kind of instruction manual for aircraft at Boeing ... crasho ... !!!
Science simplifies .... bullsh!t confuses .... there is a lot of pseudo-scientific bs in TGM .... glad you could shovel through it all and realize improvement in your golfswing .... You are a better man than I ....
After reading Chapter 2 and discovering all the scientific gaffs, that shook my confidence in the veracity and legitimacy in the rest of the book. Can you blame me for thinking so? The fact that it was atrociously organized and badly written also does no credit for Homer's state of mind. If he produced that kind of instruction manual for aircraft at Boeing ... crasho ... !!!
Science simplifies .... bullsh!t confuses .... there is a lot of pseudo-scientific bs in TGM .... glad you could shovel through it all and realize improvement in your golfswing .... You are a better man than I ....
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Hey buddy...If you ever make a good point on here, you will win some respect.
Right now, though..........
Right now, though..........
Brian Manzella
Administrator
I deleted only to repost them.
It IS my forum. I TRY SO HARD to make some sense out of guys like you.
It IS my forum. I TRY SO HARD to make some sense out of guys like you.
quote:Originally posted by horton
I have no problem with TGM methodology, but I take great umbrance at Homer's proclamation that Science validates his analysis of the golfswing.
After reading Chapter 2 and discovering all the scientific gaffs, that shook my confidence in the veracity and legitimacy in the rest of the book. Can you blame me for thinking so? The fact that it was atrociously organized and badly written also does no credit for Homer's state of mind. If he produced that kind of instruction manual for aircraft at Boeing ... crasho ... !!!
Science simplifies .... bullsh!t confuses .... there is a lot of pseudo-scientific bs in TGM .... glad you could shovel through it all and realize improvement in your golfswing .... You are a better man than I ....
Horton,
How about this. Let's say that you have the opportunity to take a lesson from Tiger Woods. You would jump at the opportunity would you not? If during the lesson Tiger said something that was in your opinion inaccurate science, would you say "OK Eldrick, I'm out of here. Can't get anything good from you because you just shat the bed on science. Later dude!" Or would you give Tiger a listen?
Thanks!
R
quote:Originally posted by rundmc
quote:Originally posted by horton
I have no problem with TGM methodology, but I take great umbrance at Homer's proclamation that Science validates his analysis of the golfswing.
After reading Chapter 2 and discovering all the scientific gaffs, that shook my confidence in the veracity and legitimacy in the rest of the book. Can you blame me for thinking so? The fact that it was atrociously organized and badly written also does no credit for Homer's state of mind. If he produced that kind of instruction manual for aircraft at Boeing ... crasho ... !!!
Science simplifies .... bullsh!t confuses .... there is a lot of pseudo-scientific bs in TGM .... glad you could shovel through it all and realize improvement in your golfswing .... You are a better man than I ....
Horton,
How about this. Let's say that you have the opportunity to take a lesson from Tiger Woods. You would jump at the opportunity would you not? If during the lesson Tiger said something that was in your opinion inaccurate science, would you say "OK Eldrick, I'm out of here. Can't get anything good from you because you just shat the bed on science. Later dude!" Or would you give Tiger a listen?
Thanks!
R
I don't think that's how Horton see's what he's saying. All along he's said the application may be right, but the science behind it inaccurate.
To date, we still use Newtonian physics to describe many things in our world.... despite the fact that Einstein proved some of them wrong. But the calculations are so much more complex through Einsteins equations that it's must easier to just use the old stuff.
In effect, Einstein is more accurate, but Newton had the right application.
quote:Originally posted by Ringer
quote:Originally posted by rundmc
quote:Originally posted by horton
I have no problem with TGM methodology, but I take great umbrance at Homer's proclamation that Science validates his analysis of the golfswing.
After reading Chapter 2 and discovering all the scientific gaffs, that shook my confidence in the veracity and legitimacy in the rest of the book. Can you blame me for thinking so? The fact that it was atrociously organized and badly written also does no credit for Homer's state of mind. If he produced that kind of instruction manual for aircraft at Boeing ... crasho ... !!!
Science simplifies .... bullsh!t confuses .... there is a lot of pseudo-scientific bs in TGM .... glad you could shovel through it all and realize improvement in your golfswing .... You are a better man than I ....
Horton,
How about this. Let's say that you have the opportunity to take a lesson from Tiger Woods. You would jump at the opportunity would you not? If during the lesson Tiger said something that was in your opinion inaccurate science, would you say "OK Eldrick, I'm out of here. Can't get anything good from you because you just shat the bed on science. Later dude!" Or would you give Tiger a listen?
Thanks!
R
I don't think that's how Horton see's what he's saying. All along he's said the application may be right, but the science behind it inaccurate.
To date, we still use Newtonian physics to describe many things in our world.... despite the fact that Einstein proved some of them wrong. But the calculations are so much more complex through Einsteins equations that it's must easier to just use the old stuff.
In effect, Einstein is more accurate, but Newton had the right application.
My submission was based on this statement by Horton in another thread:
I have challenged the so-called scientific basis claimed for TGM by Homer, and that makes me doubtful of the methodology derived from that faulty science. Surely any reasonable thinking person would come to that same conclusion.
So I'm not really sure what he thinks about the "method." Peter, who some say is Horton (Peter says this isn't so), and Yoda are having a debate about very specific techniques on the SA forum. So I think he does have a problem with the "method."
Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations which is filled with inaccuracies. But nobody debates the influence of his concepts in basically laying the foundation for the importance of free markets and modern economics. Of course, we're talking golf here, but I would say that Mr. Kelley's work was most ambitious and the most significant to this point, IMO. Would Horton be here if it wasn't perceived that way?
- Status