How do you process the science?

[OLIVER1]

For those of us without a scientific bent...When you read the various treatises couched only in scientific verbiage, how do you go about making yourself understand it? I'm reasonably competent, but, try as I might, I often get lost along the way. My nature won't allow me to give up and wait for it to be spoon-fed to me in laymen's terms so I keep going.
I try to put the various equations into pictures in my mind and then work backwards. How does everybody else do it?

 

[Matt Bryda]

Read the information over and over and over and over if your like me.

Have a specific question in mind and break it down into small parts then try and put it all back together so it makes sense.

But mostly it helps to have smart friends

 

[leon]

Slowly!

Or if you're really stuck you could ask SteveT

 

[OLIVER1]

Or if you're really stuck you could ask SteveT

LOL - When I'm in a hole, I'm looking for a ladder, not a shovel!
Although in an unrelated thread he was kind enough to offer to some hair-washing tips, which I thought was very civil...

 

[SteveT]

LOL ... my many detractors who are bowled over by the "science" will be soon rendered obsolete, together with their decrepit homemade golfswingies. Science is gonna plow you over into the bunkers .... believe it.

Of course you can endlessly study the swings of the ancient and current greats and isolate the position of their pinkie fingers in the downswing... and then practice it while hoping hoping hoping ....

Keep up the bad work, boys.... your brainlets will sabotage your childish efforts while attempting to feel your way into a scientifically optimal golfswing .... unless you go for lessons with Brian. That will be your only salvation... believe it too.

 

[birly-shirly]

I think the science can be interesting, to the extent that I can follow it, but largely for its own sake.

I'm not sure what proportion of the scientific discussion actually has a direct application.

Some stuff is undoubtedly useful.

Some stuff, like the endless wrangling over centrifugal force, strikes me as being of doubtful practical value.

And some stuff, like the out-toss, handpath and line-up, is just, for want of a better word, messy. You've got math models that prove what happens with precisely defined vectors. And then physiology muddies the waters. And then along come psychology and turns the whole thing upside down.

"Spoon-fed in layman's terms" sounds good to me. I like the stuff that's been filtered through teachers - but it's good to have teachers that are curious enough to look at things in a new light. And it pays to remember that for most of us, better golf than ours has been played in the past.

 

[SteveT]

I think the science can be interesting, to the extent that I can follow it, but largely for its own sake.

I'm not sure what proportion of the scientific discussion actually has a direct application.

Some stuff is undoubtedly useful.

What you and others are obviously waiting for is somebody to tell you what it's all supposed to "feeel" like, and if you're unsuccessful at feeeling it and getting the instant happy results you expect from it, it must be useless to you. Explaining science to emotional people is futile, fruitless, useless... because they have nothing but their feeelings and their homemade golfswingie. Gonna be interesting to see how the doubting Thomas' will receive 1.68 .... with apprehension, fear and foreboding, I suspect.

 

[birly-shirly]

Would love for you to illustrate your arguments by posting up your evidence of golf swing science applied.

 

[OLIVER1]

What you and others are obviously waiting for is somebody to tell you what it's all supposed to "feeel" like, and if you're unsuccessful at feeeling it and getting the instant happy results you expect from it, it must be useless to you. Explaining science to emotional people is futile, fruitless, useless... because they have nothing but their feeelings and their homemade golfswingie. Gonna be interesting to see how the doubting Thomas' will receive 1.68 .... with apprehension, fear and foreboding, I suspect.

In all seriousness, Steve, in the midst of a golf swing, how exactly is a human being supposed to process the information other than feel? Sight? smell? taste?
Nobody's decrying the science in favour of this feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel. And nobody would. It's just people are anxious to see the process accelerated into something they can hang their hat on during a swing. Too tout suite? Absolutely, but why not. We're all a-quiver with excitement.

 

[SteveT]

Would love for you to illustrate your arguments by posting up your evidence of golf swing science applied.

Oh... not more of your gorilla chest-beating bravado .... just assume that I have a decrepit golfswing if that will make you happy.

Btw, if you believe that I must have a fantastic golfswing before you believe my scientific comments, maybe you should also ask Brian to post his golfswing for your approval prior to acceptance of 1.68... go ahead, try that....!!!!

 

[SteveT]

In all seriousness, Steve, in the midst of a golf swing, how exactly is a human being supposed to process the information other than feel? Sight? smell? taste?
Nobody's decrying the science in favour of this feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel. And nobody would. It's just people are anxious to see the process accelerated into something they can hang their hat on during a swing. Too tout suite? Absolutely, but why not. We're all a-quiver with excitement.

That's Brian's job with 1.68... making true science palatable so it can be digested into a shitty golfswing. I can only attempt to offer my best scientific guess as to what is being discussed. If you don't understand me, just compliment me on my vast knowledge .... as most do with mandrin's angelfire skeeds filled with differential equations, 2D models, charts, graphs... all in color too.

Interestingly, nobody asks mandrin to post his golfswing vid ... wonder why..??!!!

Unless you are taking out your frustrations over your ignorance out on helpless moi ....

Btw... feel is not real ... so how are you going to apply science to your golfswing unless you understand the science, like I do??

 

[birly-shirly]

Oh... not more of your gorilla chest-beating bravado .... just assume that I have a decrepit golfswing if that will make you happy.

Btw, if you believe that I must have a fantastic golfswing before you believe my scientific comments, maybe you should also ask Brian to post his golfswing for your approval prior to acceptance of 1.68... go ahead, try that....!!!!

What are you talking about? Brian can play.

I do think ability to execute has a bearing on credibility. Don't you?

 

[SteveT]

What are you talking about? Brian can play.

I do think ability to execute has a bearing on credibility. Don't you?

Of course Brian can play and play well .... but don't you want to see his swing pre-1.68 and then post 1.68 and thus demonstrate to you how 1.68 works well??

I don't have to prove my science with my golfswing, because "Science is not a Swing"... remember that topic I posted several weeks ago?!

And no... ability to execute does not have a bearing on credibility when you are talking about pure science ... nobody asked Einstein if he could travel at the speed of light to prove e =mc[sup]2[/sup].

Science is universal and available to all who understand it ... while a golfswing is unique to a person. Who are you to judge my golfswing, what are your qualifications... or do you just depend on your subjective feeeelings..??!!!

 

[birly-shirly]

I don't have to prove my science with my golfswing, because "Science is not a Swing"... remember that topic I posted several weeks ago?!

I remember it well. That's why I asked you whether you'd taken your own advice and taken any lessons. Don't recall getting an answer to that one.

And no... ability to execute does not have a bearing on credibility when you are talking about pure science ...

You post too much glaring BS and duck too many questions to have any credibility as a "pure scientist". I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they have credentials, ability to execute, or talk some sense. But guess what...?

[...] a golfswing is unique to a person. Who are you to judge my golfswing, what are your qualifications... or do you just depend on your subjective feeeelings..??!!!

Don't be so sensitive. Post it up, and I solemnly promise not to judge. Mightn't I learn something?

 

[magicmarker]

If only we could see that scientifically marvelous tempo and harmony that must be his full swing so that we may learn something from steveT.

Feel is absolutely real to each individual, and getting them to the optimal science may 'feel' a little different for everybody. No?

 

[BertramSterling]

If performing and teaching (or knowing) something was the same thing, Luke Donald would be the no.1 teacher in the world..

That said, I don't think its that unreasonable asking SteveT to at least display some competence. After all this is a golf forum, not a science forum...

 

[birly-shirly]

I'm absolutely not saying that ability to perform and credibility are the same thing. But most people would admit to making a link.

Would you take lessons from someone who chunks and whiffs it?

Would you hire an obese, wheezing personal trainer?

Would you let your kids take driving lessons from someone who bumps your car in the driveway?

Would you listen to SteveT?

 

[JEREMY5577]

SteveT
You've posted last on 5 different threads right now. It's over kill man. Golf is you passion cant fault you for that, but Jeez it's Friday night have a few beers and watch a Seagal movie or something. Btw feel is real.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Sorry about SteveT.

This is not his forum. It does seem like it sometime.

 

[SteveT]

SteveT
You've posted last on 5 different threads right now. It's over kill man. Golf is you passion cant fault you for that, but Jeez it's Friday night have a few beers and watch a Seagal movie or something. Btw feel is real.

Sorry about SteveT.

This is not his forum. It does seem like it sometime.

JEREMY: Follow the advice in your forum sig: Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. Does that make you a perpetual "doubting Thomas" who cannot accept current scientific fact? And feel is real for those who use their feelings to swing a golf club... and feelings are emotional... and certainly not scientific. Brian is trying to bridge the chasm between uncertain emotional feel and stone-cold science in 1.68. Buy it and believe it, otherwise your doubting will dump you back into your emotional pit of feel.


Brian: Maybe I should take a voluntary time out ... but things are moving so fast now, I can't resist prepping the guys for 1.68 and a mild dose of "science"...!!!