Dark Ages
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
rogerdodger
New
Funny thing is, Kelley seems like the type that would adapt based on new discoveries in science. He wrote six editions to the book. In what profession, does anyone say they have all answers available. None. If you are not learning every day, you are losing the edge. I have been in my profession twenty years and I learn something new every day. It does not mean I didn't know what I was doing before, just that my mind is open. Interesting, I have never heard anyone criticize Mandarin for being wrong.
ggsjpc
New
If you go back and read the threads, you'll find plenty of people that thought he was wrong. They never proved it but they used to criticize him like crazy.
rogerdodger
New
Big difference between citicizing facts and opinions. I have seen the criticisms, they typically critique his "audacity" of challenging a forty year old book. The pure facts he outlines are left alone.
When you want to try to prove the impossible, you better stay away from science.
When you want to try to prove the impossible, you better stay away from science.
mandrin
New
rogerdodger,
Often Newton and Einstein are mentioned as the two prominent figures in the history of science.
Newton's genius and universal recognition became however after his death, for quite some time, a hindrance to science. For any new idea/concept to be considered scientific the anglo-saxon scientific community demanded that one should be able to equivalently model it with springs and masses. Quite difficult to do when considering non mechanical concepts or ideas.
This, on a much smaller scale is what happened with Homer Kelley. Those who followed put him on a throne, are teaching his concepts very literally and all golf is very rigidly compared and filtered through his ideas to be found acceptable, hence as a consequence stagnating and hindering progress.
One sees this happen frequently. There are very few people with original ideas and many who are intelligent but without any trace of originality. The latter group when taking possession of ideas only know how to use ideas but not how to generate and further cultivate them. They are afraid of criticism not knowing how to properly handle ideas as a beginning, not an end.
One sees this happen frequently. There are very few people with original ideas and many who are intelligent but without any trace of originality. The latter group when taking possession of ideas only know how to use ideas but not how to generate and further cultivate them. They are afraid of criticism not knowing how to properly handle ideas as a beginning, not an end.
Ahhh, mind candy.......classic Mandrin!
Mandarin,
The yellow book has flaws no doubt but what other book/published source of information that is readily available to golfers and teachers comes anywhere near it in regards to detailed and accurate info on physics and science. Even the geometry used in the book has not been attempted let alone explained in any other golf instruction book or manaul.
Give it some credit. It's some of the people promoting it for there own agendas who stick their head in the sand that give it a bad reputation. It's like saying all bankers are crooks!! Don't forget most AI's become authorized because they were seeking the truths of the swing and weren't put off by the complexity of the text - Most of them are thus open minded by natue and are open to learning new things
The yellow book has flaws no doubt but what other book/published source of information that is readily available to golfers and teachers comes anywhere near it in regards to detailed and accurate info on physics and science. Even the geometry used in the book has not been attempted let alone explained in any other golf instruction book or manaul.
Give it some credit. It's some of the people promoting it for there own agendas who stick their head in the sand that give it a bad reputation. It's like saying all bankers are crooks!! Don't forget most AI's become authorized because they were seeking the truths of the swing and weren't put off by the complexity of the text - Most of them are thus open minded by natue and are open to learning new things
mandrin
New
twitch127,
I know many tend to take things way too serious when it comes to golf. So a first step would be perhaps to carefully read what is written before getting upset.
To start with it is not Mandarin but mandrin.
Next look at my post above to rogerdodger. Don't you se that I compare the genius Newton with Homer Kelley. What more do you need as a compliment?
However I dislike very much dogmatic arrogant people who think they do know it all. Some of those just happens to be self proclaimed gurus of various TGM web sites.
What most non-scientists do not know, and some scientists forget, is that a theory is never proven absolutely correct. It is merely supported by a lot of evidence. This is because new evidence and new ways of gaining evidence is always being developed or discovered that may disprove the theory. Before Watson and Crick identified DNA as genetic material in the 1950's, the theory was that protein was the genetic material.
Then there is a scientific or mathematical law that may be considered fact--to an extent. Like Newton's Laws of motion or the principle of addition. As long as the law or principle is observed over and over and over and over and over..., then it stands as law.
The scientific thinking process is set up in an effort to leave the "dark ages" behind in the quest for knowledge(Science means "to know").
Then there is a scientific or mathematical law that may be considered fact--to an extent. Like Newton's Laws of motion or the principle of addition. As long as the law or principle is observed over and over and over and over and over..., then it stands as law.
The scientific thinking process is set up in an effort to leave the "dark ages" behind in the quest for knowledge(Science means "to know").
Brian Manzella
Administrator
House Cleaning...
Long standing rule around brianmanzella.com:
No religion, No politics...
So we did some editing.
Long standing rule around brianmanzella.com:
No religion, No politics...
So we did some editing.
Dariusz J.
New member
Mandrin,
I wonder what parts of the Yellow Book "science" would you classify as acceptable, i.e. that does not hurt the real science and may be left as a good guidance. Or better said, in your opinion, would you dismiss the book completely in the scientific aspects or rather you would enhance avid TGMers to work on adopting what Homer Kelley wrote to the real science. I may be wrong but I would bet that the very Mr.Kelley would try to do it himself in case it appeared his work needs updates.
Cheers
I wonder what parts of the Yellow Book "science" would you classify as acceptable, i.e. that does not hurt the real science and may be left as a good guidance. Or better said, in your opinion, would you dismiss the book completely in the scientific aspects or rather you would enhance avid TGMers to work on adopting what Homer Kelley wrote to the real science. I may be wrong but I would bet that the very Mr.Kelley would try to do it himself in case it appeared his work needs updates.
Cheers
mandrin
New
Dariusz,
Frankly whenever I tried to read a few pages it gives me a head ache. Referencing is not bad per se but massive referencing is irritating and this funny forward referencing is really weird.
If the science aspect could be simply separated from the rest it would not be so bad but it is all intricately mixed together and better leave it as it is.
While it is indeed easy to poke fun at HK it is nevertheless, in the context of his time, a truly remarkable effort, giving a coherent structure to the golf swing, defining its elements and creating a vocabulary.
The paradox is that golf instruction based on erroneous science can still be very good. It then just simply serves to impress people.
But the role of science should also not be overplayed. If really important there should have been massive improvements since Kelley, which simply are not there.
The simple fact that humans are not machines but highly complex entities, especially having a mind and emotions, will make it very difficult to make them behave like a golfing machine.
Dariusz J.
New member
Dariusz,
Frankly whenever I tried to read a few pages it gives me a head ache. Referencing is not bad per se but massive referencing is irritating and this funny forward referencing is really weird.
If the science aspect could be simply separated from the rest it would not be so bad but it is all intricately mixed together and better leave it as it is.
While it is indeed easy to poke fun at HK it is nevertheless, in the context of his time, a truly remarkable effort, giving a coherent structure to the golf swing, defining its elements and creating a vocabulary.
The paradox is that golf instruction based on erroneous science can still be very good. It then just simply serves to impress people.
But the role of science should also not be overplayed. If really important there should have been massive improvements since Kelley, which simply are not there.
The simple fact that humans are not machines but highly complex entities, especially having a mind and emotions, will make it very difficult to make them behave like a golfing machine.
I think it is a great answer. Not only for me, who agrees to you 100%, but a very universal one that should be a food for thoughts of TGM literalists.
Just a side note, some astroscientists found proofs that the Einstein was wrong when formulating his famous GRT. No matter if it is true or not now, assuming it is proved 100%, would you think Albert would have defended his theory over dead bodies with his seek&research nature ?
Cheers
mandrin
New
Dariusz,I think it is a great answer. Not only for me, who agrees to you 100%, but a very universal one that should be a food for thoughts of TGM literalists.
Just a side note, some astroscientists found proofs that the Einstein was wrong when formulating his famous GRT. No matter if it is true or not now, assuming it is proved 100%, would you think Albert would have defended his theory over dead bodies with his seek&research nature ?
Cheers
An interesting question. I am not so sure. Perhaps.
History indicates that scientists can be inventive and progressive but also exactly the opposite, clinging tooth and nail to their ideas and opposing vigorously new ideas, defeating theirs.
If you have spent a life time developing ideas, concepts, theories, etc., it is extremely difficult indeed to let go and accept that you had it all or partially wrong.
Michael Finney
New
Dariusz J.
New member
Mandrin,
Sadly, it prolly happens when a scientist feels he/she has no time enough left to be en vogue with new discoveries. I wish all of us can be 18 years old when being 81 - but it's prolly damn hard.
Cheers
Michael Finney
New
(Bio)Mechanical engineer and golf instructor are mutually exclusive. (Bio)Mechanical engineer and Tour Player are mutually exclusive.
All three of these gentlemen need to get together and figure something out for golfers at large.
In my humble and biased opinion, Brian is the closest thing we have in 2009.
All three of these gentlemen need to get together and figure something out for golfers at large.
In my humble and biased opinion, Brian is the closest thing we have in 2009.
Dariusz J.
New member
Michael,
While it is true, IMO, that all three gentlemen need to get together and figure something out for golfers at large do you have any valid arguments to support the first statement, namely:" (Bio)Mechanical engineer and golf instructor are mutually exclusive" ?
IMHO, biomech know-how is what even a good instructor lacks nowadays. TGM lacks it, this site lacks it, too, I am afraid.
Cheers
The biomechanical know-how is what instructors need to understand and convey to the myriad of students that have a myriad of already ingrained swing patterns into their neuromuscular "memory". It seems that you are suggesting there is only one sequence of events required by the human body to hit a golf ball correctly. If this is the case, I think you are discounting the differences between people's DNA that results in different physiological makeups between people that would lead to the necessity of teaching different patterns to different people. The person seeking the instruction also needs to convey what their intentions are in learning to hit a golf ball.
I am curious to know what do you think is the correct biomechanics involved in the ideal golf swing?
Dariusz J.
New member
Good questions - seems you know my theories more than I have suspected, since my previous attempts here were deleted and your suspicions are quite correct...LOL.
I have never presented myself as a biomechanics expert in any case (because it MUST refer to levels that are beyond my research possibilities as e.g. neurokinetics), I sacrificed a lot of my free time to biokinetics (dealing with hard structure of human organism - mainly joints and their motions).
And my answer to your question is yes, there is a one best model of human activity in all motions in a big picture. We all are equipped with head, main body, two arms and two legs and, (again, in the big picture), all is a matter of proportions and natural limitations. Those who believe that there are zillion possible ways that let achieve the goal are right, however, the key is that only one of those ways the best one from a biomechanical point of view. The rest is in the frame of the unknown in our 3-d reality, i.e. subconscious mind, timing, etc. It happens often that a motion that is biomechanically not ideal is being performed with a guy with a great ability to deal with timming isues - and his succes is erroneously directed to his "great (bio)mechanics.
Cheers
- Status