This is my first post, and , sorry, but I am sure it will be a long one. This is addressed to you, Brian, as I have a lot of respect for your opinion and I understand from reading other posts that you have spent a good deal of time with Ben Doyle. You undoubtedly know the book as well as just about anyone. I am a very humble GSEB, and will be the first to say that my knowledge of TGM has a LONG way to go. But, I have the rest of my life to work on it and I am not on any specific timetable. But, I digress...
A few years ago, before I had the pleasure of studying TGM, I met a fellow at a driving range in Cleveland who was an accomplished ball striker. Also, this fellow happened to have 3 PHD's in engineering, metallurgy and aeronautics. He also was fluent in 5 or 6 languages. He made his living by studying tecnical papers and journals from other countries, translating the findings into English, then advising companies here in the states how these findings might have applications to their production. Impressive? I'd say so... a VERY bright guy. Anyway, I had 'the book', but did not understand it, but he had never heard of it. I asked him if he would like to read it, and he took it back to his apartment that evening (he lived across the road from the DR). He returned it to me THE NEXT DAY, having read it completely the night before. He also left me a short note, which I will quote..."Kelly's book is a sham. If it seems that it contains great, realizable truths about the golf swing, that is because the reader lacks a background in mechanical physics, kinematics, and elements of physical- system modeling and subsequently is easily impressed by Kelly's efforts to clasify discrete (itty-bity) phenomena. If you limit yourself to Kelly's own conceptual framework, you can show the gaps and mistakes in his delineation. Further, when you bring to bear in analysis, understanding of the golf swing milieu beyond Kelly's, his discussion is vapid. If you want insight, save this note and ask me about the following points: (the following are within Kelly's conceptual framework)1) power accumulators: vertebra and ring and middle fingers of right hand (also equal and opposite reactions) 2) Acceleration: m x v = momentum, a = ^v over t 3) gravitational field framework, 4) Radius: scapular articulation 5)Periodicity: time period T of rotational oscillation. 6) Gyroscopic action: continuous, steady state momentum vs. inertia.
The following are beyond Kelly's framework: 1)Swinging vs hitting: arbitrary distinction discounting synergy (leading edge in tension, trailing edge in compression): 2)Big picture: trying to express the spatial nonverbal, analytically. 3) Statics vs dynamics: sensory phenomena associated with low and high angular velocities (weight vs momentum).
Unfortunately, I never had the chance to discuss this with him, as I moved away from Cleveland (thank God!)
Again, this is directed at Brian, but anyone with a scientific background that could decipher some of this, if you would, I would be very grateful.
A few years ago, before I had the pleasure of studying TGM, I met a fellow at a driving range in Cleveland who was an accomplished ball striker. Also, this fellow happened to have 3 PHD's in engineering, metallurgy and aeronautics. He also was fluent in 5 or 6 languages. He made his living by studying tecnical papers and journals from other countries, translating the findings into English, then advising companies here in the states how these findings might have applications to their production. Impressive? I'd say so... a VERY bright guy. Anyway, I had 'the book', but did not understand it, but he had never heard of it. I asked him if he would like to read it, and he took it back to his apartment that evening (he lived across the road from the DR). He returned it to me THE NEXT DAY, having read it completely the night before. He also left me a short note, which I will quote..."Kelly's book is a sham. If it seems that it contains great, realizable truths about the golf swing, that is because the reader lacks a background in mechanical physics, kinematics, and elements of physical- system modeling and subsequently is easily impressed by Kelly's efforts to clasify discrete (itty-bity) phenomena. If you limit yourself to Kelly's own conceptual framework, you can show the gaps and mistakes in his delineation. Further, when you bring to bear in analysis, understanding of the golf swing milieu beyond Kelly's, his discussion is vapid. If you want insight, save this note and ask me about the following points: (the following are within Kelly's conceptual framework)1) power accumulators: vertebra and ring and middle fingers of right hand (also equal and opposite reactions) 2) Acceleration: m x v = momentum, a = ^v over t 3) gravitational field framework, 4) Radius: scapular articulation 5)Periodicity: time period T of rotational oscillation. 6) Gyroscopic action: continuous, steady state momentum vs. inertia.
The following are beyond Kelly's framework: 1)Swinging vs hitting: arbitrary distinction discounting synergy (leading edge in tension, trailing edge in compression): 2)Big picture: trying to express the spatial nonverbal, analytically. 3) Statics vs dynamics: sensory phenomena associated with low and high angular velocities (weight vs momentum).
Unfortunately, I never had the chance to discuss this with him, as I moved away from Cleveland (thank God!)
Again, this is directed at Brian, but anyone with a scientific background that could decipher some of this, if you would, I would be very grateful.
