Doyle v. MORAD

[David Alford]

Mathew, here is the point. Advanced courses can be completed with relative ease by "even a 16 yr. old", as you have testified. So, what is the justification for writing a treatise on a subject like the golf swing so that it is basically unintelligble for people who have been able to complete other advanced courses with relative ease?

I'll tell you. There is no justification and there should be no praise for this type of writing style. Now, that is different from content, which may or may not be good. These are two different subjects, but in the "rush to defend" are too often combined.

Let's do this thought experiment. If TGM had been written in a crystal clear fashion, does anyone here believe there would be a lot of people getting all worked up and complaining "ya, it's great content, but HK explained everything too clearly"?

 

[Brian Manzella]

There are only so many lifetimes, ya know.

 

[David Alford]

Huh? TGM is unrelated to Doyle vs. MORAD? I thought it was their basis.

 

[Mathew]

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

Mathew, it is not a free discussion as Brian deletes posts he doesn't want you to see. This post, while entirely civil, may be deleted or maybe it will be left in to give the impression posts aren't being deleted. I've had posts that were on subject and civil and they were deleted, while posts criticizing me, even those where Brian calls me a "yahoo" are retained.

So what - Brian just deleted a few posts because he thought he was keeping the conversation pertanent and you put the spin on it that he did it in bad form. There was nothing remarkable that you said!

There was nothing but some arrogant comments on how you can do 'any' swing. You did nothing but be a sitting duck for s*it to be thrown at you ! Your replies were generic, dull and completely unimaginative. There is nothing you have talked about that is intreguing or helpful to anyones games. Infact you have not even demonstrated that you know anything other than 'I think the shoulder turn is over rated'. Your replies are pathetic and usually off topic or on an tangent!

Just my view....

 

[rwh]

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

Mathew, here is the point. Advanced courses can be completed with relative ease by "even a 16 yr. old", as you have testified. So, what is the justification for writing a treatise on a subject like the golf swing so that it is basically unintelligble for people who have been able to complete other advanced courses with relative ease?

I'll tell you. There is no justification and there should be no praise for this type of writing style. Now, that is different from content, which may or may not be good. These are two different subjects, but in the "rush to defend" are too often combined.

Let's do this thought experiment. If TGM had been written in a crystal clear fashion, does anyone here believe there would be a lot of people getting all worked up and complaining "ya, it's great content, but HK explained everything too clearly"?

Okay, so you don't think the book is clear. Fine.

Is there a particular part of the text which you think is scientifically erroneous? The reason I ask is that text was reviewed by the MIT engineering department for scientific flaws and they found the book to be flawless in that regard. It appears that you, however, don't think the concepts presented in the book are flawless. Can you be specific?

 

[David Alford]

Matthew, Brian did more than delete a few posts. He deleted entire threads and his deletions in continuing threads were selectively done to basically leave me defenseless. I mean, what kind of defense does ANYONE have under such circumstances?

I can understand having a post deleted if it contained vulgar language, etc. but that was never the case. I don't resort to those tactics. The rationale was that they "off topic", but that was an excuse. I wasn't talking about the weather, etc. but in fact replying to the questions asked of me.

You and everyone one here who thinks a forum should exhibit some semblance of fair play should have objected. Heck, man, I would object even if I knew someone was doing that on "my behalf" to weaken my opponents. I don't need that kind of help.

 

[David Alford]

rwh, trust me, it's not just me that thinks TGM is poorly written.

I have not objected to anything HK wrote at this point other than his analysis of BC's swing in the swing forum. That answers your question.

My question, just what about the golf swing is so technical that it cannot be written clearly about remains - so far - unanswered.

 

[David Alford]

Matthew wrote: "Infact you have not even demonstrated that you know anything other than 'I think the shoulder turn is over rated'.

In fact, I also wrote "I think the shoulder turn is UNDER rated". How can that be? Well, Brian deleted the thread before I had time to full describe how both are true.

 

[rwh]

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

rwh, trust me, it's not just me that thinks TGM is poorly written.

I have not objected to anything HK wrote at this point other than his analysis of BC's swing in the swing forum. That answers your question.

My question, just what about the golf swing is so technical that it cannot be written clearly about remains - so far - unanswered.

I agree; many think the book is poorly written. It takes much study to begin to see how the book is organized and how everything fits together. Could it have been written more clearly? Probably. Could Mr. Kelley have written it more clearly, given all that he wanted to cover in the minimum space limitations he set for himself? I doubt it -- he revised it six times. I think we got his best effort for what he wanted to accomplish.

A dictionary definition of a watch is pretty clear. A manual on the science and building of watches may not be so clear to most of us.

 

[Mathew]

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

Mathew, here is the point. Advanced courses can be completed with relative ease by "even a 16 yr. old", as you have testified. So, what is the justification for writing a treatise on a subject like the golf swing so that it is basically unintelligble for people who have been able to complete other advanced courses with relative ease?

The reason that your question is stupidity opitimised is precisely because it has no point! Infact anything so far you have said hasn't had any point !!

How about I rewrite your question....

quote:Originally posted by David Alford edited by Moi

can you name one subject in TGM that is so complex it couldn't be written about so that even a 46 yr. could understand it?

Does this sound stupid ?

Chances are 16 year olds will be more willing to learn than the 46 year olds. They have just the same capacity to understand if not more so. They are fresh from school where their minds are exercised everyday, they're more used to learning.

In the context you wrote - "they'res nothing in the golf swing that someone with the intelligence of a 16 year old couldn't understand" is the statement that suggests that someone that is 16 is limited in learning as to a fully grown adult which is just plain wrong im afraid.

quote:
I'll tell you. There is no justification and there should be no praise for this type of writing style. Now, that is different from content, which may or may not be good. These are two different subjects, but in the "rush to defend" are too often combined.

Well I tell you what - If you take Homers book and rewrite it and take it round every AI and they all agree its better then ill go along with it too. Until the time comes when you do something</u> ! anything</u> ! other than spout a spray of saliva in our faces with your homegrown spraff like your too drunk and shouting over the music at your local disco, a little humility would do you good.

Lets see

Homer - Boeing Engineer - Excellent knowledge of mathematics and physics...

David Alford - Kinda tinkers with his swing and thinks he's 'good' has miserable english skills.

Who do you think is more qualified ?

quote:
Let's do this thought experiment. If TGM had been written in a crystal clear fashion, does anyone here believe there would be a lot of people getting all worked up and complaining "ya, it's great content, but HK explained everything too clearly"?

Maybe because a golf swing is an engineering problem. Do you think all engineering texts should be kept as simple as possible ? Ok - we would have no arched bridges, no curved roofs, we would of been still transported by horse and cart and all because they can't be bothered to comprehend something complex.

The language is clear and precise ! The language is complex because of the precision of the text where nothing can be mistaken or taken in wrong context 'if' they spend the time to read. Just because it doesn't speak with babylike language that you yourself can't understand because you can't be bothered and try to smear a great piece of work that took a very intelligent man something like 20+ years to complete in comparison to you who lets face it is a completely selfpromoting egotistical little prick.

 

[David Alford]

I also think we got his best effort. He just didn't know how to write clearly, IMO. Certainly, a book on watch making could be easily understandable.

So can books on how to make wine, juggle, play poker,
SCUBA dive, and use a voltmeter. There really aren't that many things in our lives that can't be explained clearly.

Matter of fact, the better the understanding, the more clearly something can be explained. If you can't articulate something clearly, I question how well you know it.

 

[mclare]

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

If you can't articulate something clearly, I question how well you know it.

David, What an ignorant answer! Many very intelligent people are poor communicators. One has no correlation to the other. I would have expected a more objective response from you. Don’t let your bias against TGM influence your comments!

 

[holenone]

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

holenone, can you name one subject in TGM that is so complex it couldn't be written about so that even a 16 yr. could understand it?

I teach a Stroke so simple and efficient that a six-year-old -- much less a sixteen-year-old -- can do it. That does not obviate the wealth of science behind it.

 

[David Alford]

That answer is the exact statement a professor of logic gave me. At the time, I felt as you do. One may stumble on a presentation in front of an audience, etc. but somewhere in some media such as a golf lesson or on paper one should be able to express clarity if they know what they are talking about.

What's the stroke you teach and how is there a wealth of "science" behind it?

 

[denny.]

I think Holenone could teach you 2 strokes-----Hitting or Swinging. And the science is Homer's Book.
Now the students must realize who the teacher"s are.
Now take your seat.
Write 500 times ---I don't know it all.
Today at U of M
(University of Manzella)---- We are blessed to have a guest teacher .
Let's welcome and thank Holenone a.k.a. Yoda --Do you hear the standing ovation Beethoven
Begin the question's
Remember there are no dumb questions ---there just students who don't understand the answers.

 

[nevermind]

quote:Originally posted by denny.

Remember there are no dumb questions ---there just students who don't understand the answers.

who's fault is that?

 

[David Alford]

denny, there is no big science behind TGM. It's all basic. Nor is there any huge complexity about swinging and hitting models.

Nevermind, your question is spot on.

 

[6bee1dee]

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

denny, there is no big science behind TGM. It's all basic. Nor is there any huge complexity about swinging and hitting models.

Nevermind, your question is spot on.

Always felt it was more laws then science. The book was written to be a certain size. Homer didn't want a book the size of an encyclopedia. Its brevity is a blessing and curse.

Yes, amazing how simple swinging and hitting can be with TGM. That's why it is the best. Simple, effective, powerful, and repeatable.

 

[denny.]

No one has said that Mr. Kelley was the "Great Communicator" but he worked hard to bring us good information. We must package the info so that the students can understand .

 

[David Alford]

That's all fine, but why not just stop defending TGM's "style". Obviously, it could have been written more clearly. Come on! You all know that in you heart.

If I was really into TGM, I'd just laugh about it's style instead of making these absurd entrenched defenses.

Fascinating.