jeffgladchun
New
If this concept helps me as much as the D-Plane stuff has... I can't wait.
Can you imagine?
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
If this concept helps me as much as the D-Plane stuff has... I can't wait.
Even better, we could have thrown in some Lakatos and shared it all with Brian as partial compensation for our lesson. So did you want to cover the evolution since Homer Kelley, or since THE Homer?
For the record, my money here is on Kuhn all the way. It's precisely the paradigm shift of the D plane that makes all the book literalists so angry. Before Trackman came along they could dismiss Brian and others as outside the normal paradigm, but then Trackman showed that their own theories of ball flight were totally wrong. Now all they can do is name-call.
Even better, we could have thrown in some Lakatos and shared it all with Brian as partial compensation for our lesson. So did you want to cover the evolution since Homer Kelley, or since THE Homer?
For the record, my money here is on Kuhn all the way. It's precisely the paradigm shift of the D plane that makes all the book literalists so angry. Before Trackman came along they could dismiss Brian and others as outside the normal paradigm, but then Trackman showed that their own theories of ball flight were totally wrong. Now all they can do is name-call.
Homer Kelley. And I agree; Kuhn has this process nailed.
I figured you had something up your sleeve - I have been fooling around with a 2 by 4 aiming
left and vertical hinging. I read where Putlab tested Loren Roberts and he was aiming 1 degree left 98% of the time and Faxon 1 degree right 100% of the time. I am trying to put 2 and 2 together.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Just like a rabbit's foot.
It has changed what I do EVERY TIME I try to alter ball-flight.
That's pretty much every lesson.
An important point must be made here:
I always taught something MUCH CLOSER TO THE D-PLANE than the book literalist.
I NEVER EVER bought into that 11° inside-out, cross-line, "swinging left is avoidance," total and complete BULL turds.
I told those guys they were DEAD WRONG, and they held a book up in front of me.
Now that technology and real physicists have proven ME correct, I want someone to tell me they were wrong.
You see folks, people LOVE TO criticize me when I "knock" other teachers, but it is a total BS argument.
I am HONEST about my appraisals, and that includes my appraisals of what I teach.
I have taught a lot of junk over the years, but I upgrade everyday, and admit when I was wrong.
When I say someone is wrong, and I get criticized for doing it, and THEN I get proven dead-on correct, I need TWO apologies.
One for them being wrong about the "technical" argument, and one for me being critical in general.
Like I always say, if it works for you, do it.
But, the point is the folks holding these things up as 100% gospel need to eat some crow.
On second thought, they just need to keep what they are doing, because it works for some people to BELIEVE what they are doing is science-based.
And like I always say, if it works for you, do it.
It has changed what I do EVERY TIME I try to alter ball-flight.
That's pretty much every lesson.
An important point must be made here:
I always taught something MUCH CLOSER TO THE D-PLANE than the book literalist.
I NEVER EVER bought into that 11° inside-out, cross-line, "swinging left is avoidance," total and complete BULL turds.
I told those guys they were DEAD WRONG, and they held a book up in front of me.
Now that technology and real physicists have proven ME correct, I want someone to tell me they were wrong.
You see folks, people LOVE TO criticize me when I "knock" other teachers, but it is a total BS argument.
I am HONEST about my appraisals, and that includes my appraisals of what I teach.
I have taught a lot of junk over the years, but I upgrade everyday, and admit when I was wrong.
When I say someone is wrong, and I get criticized for doing it, and THEN I get proven dead-on correct, I need TWO apologies.
One for them being wrong about the "technical" argument, and one for me being critical in general.
Like I always say, if it works for you, do it.
But, the point is the folks holding these things up as 100% gospel need to eat some crow.
On second thought, they just need to keep what they are doing, because it works for some people to BELIEVE what they are doing is science-based.
And like I always say, if it works for you, do it.
ggsjpc
New
It has changed what I do EVERY TIME I try to alter ball-flight.
That's pretty much every lesson.
An important point must be made here:
I always taught something MUCH CLOSER TO THE D-PLANE than the book literalist.
I NEVER EVER bought into that 11° inside-out, cross-line, "swinging left is avoidance," total and complete BULL turds.
I told those guys they were DEAD WRONG, and they held a book up in front of me.
Now that technology and real physicists have proven ME correct, I want someone to tell me they were wrong.
You see folks, people LOVE TO criticize me when I "knock" other teachers, but it is a total BS argument.
I am HONEST about my appraisals, and that includes my appraisals of what I teach.
I have taught a lot of junk over the years, but I upgrade everyday, and admit when I was wrong.
When I say someone is wrong, and I get criticized for doing it, and THEN I get proven dead-on correct, I need TWO apologies.
One for them being wrong about the "technical" argument, and one for me being critical in general.
Like I always say, if it works for you, do it.
But, the point is the folks holding these things up as 100% gospel need to eat some crow.
On second thought, they just need to keep what they are doing, because it works for some people to BELIEVE what they are doing is science-based.
And like I always say, if it works for you, do it.
If I may say something to Brian's point in the above post. I have been a member of this forum for about 8 months. It was the first place I could find where people were talking about things I thought only I was talking about. Namely D-Plane info. After doing some searches and finding that it was being talked on here way before I purchased the book, I was really impressed.
Like Brian, I stalk out new information that I can use to better my game and the games of others. There is simply no other place that has the array of intelligent conversation about golf than this forum.
For me, Brian came across as a little strong. I thought to myself that here's a guy who thinks he knows everything and isn't afraid to bash anyone that diagreed with him. It turned out that after a while, I saw that Brian was like myself. It seems to me that Brian is more concerned about actually being correct than thinking he's correct. On top of that, he only bashes wrong information not the people that have it, especially when they tell him or us that we are wrong when we are actually correct. Brian has always been willing to help and craves better information so he can make his students better.
I don't believe he does this for himself. I believe he does this for all of us. For someone to give that much over and over without a 'thank you' starts to wear on a person. Especially, when you get attacked for trying to inform others about information that can actually help them teach golf better.
Brian, let me be one to say Thank You for all your hard work and for being smart enough to know that there's always better and newer information to be retrieved. Never stop trying to acquire it. I know I won't.
Hopefully. I get a chance to introduce myself when we are at Medinah in September.
Steve Khatib
Super Moderator
It is a difficult issue as if you are a book literalist and you see the ball hooking of the planet via an inside out swing what do you do?
You can only tell someone that is paying good money for a lesson that it will start to work for him soon ''just hit another ball!'' Or you can say to him: I am teaching you whats in this little yellow book over here so dont worry about it its in the book, so its ok.
You can only tell someone that is paying good money for a lesson that it will start to work for him soon ''just hit another ball!'' Or you can say to him: I am teaching you whats in this little yellow book over here so dont worry about it its in the book, so its ok.
- Status