Here's what Brian actually said:
1st audio: "In frame 5...Hogans right knee is ABSOLUTELY STRAIGHTENED.
2nd audio: "Contrary to what anybody says beause they are stuck in their little world, Ben Hogan straightened his rt. leg on the backswing".
Now, his error in audio one is clear. Audio 2 could be intrepreted in various ways, but almost every student would infer the right leg is to be straightened to ....straight.
Something is straight or it's not. If it's not straight, it's flexed. Why call something "straight" if you don't mean it? And "absolutely straightened" leaves no ambiguity as to the error of the analysis.
Only subsequently to my posts has Brian backed off. He couldn't say, "ya' got me, David". Instead he has to switch tactics and change the story.
I said "trust me". I know what I'm talking about when it comes to Hogan, and what you'll get from me is dead accuracy, because these partially accurate analyses aren't very helpful. Something is either done correctly, or it's not.
Let me illustrate. Let's say you want to log into this forum. Try typing in "www.manzellagolffourm, com". You won't get anywhere.
What's the problem? A comma instead of a dot before "com".
Things have to be accurate. That is the basis for understanding. That is the basis for implementation. A lot of people, literally millions, have tried to figure out Hogan's swing. There is a crystal perfect formula, like E=mc2. Not E=mc3 or E=mc1. It has to be exact, or the whole thing fails.
I'm sorry if I seem so stern. Trust me, I'm hardest on myself because I probably don't have the talent to hit the ball correctly with less than a fully accurate model basis.
There are other flaws in Brian's analsysis, but I'm sure not going to go into them give the response here. Overall, it was a fairly well done positional analysis. Is that good enough? Not for me. I guess it depends on one's standards. If I seem to get screwed out of joint, it's because details are EVERYTHING to me.