I guess I am Confused

Status
Not open for further replies.

ggsjpc

New
Brian,

Can you help me out on this:

If my memory serves me well, Zick and Wood are two scientists that you have heard speak multiple times and that you've been able to interact with.

I've read many posts discussing their views on the science of the swing and club and other matters that you have been kind enough to point out for all of us here.

My question is what are you hoping to learn that you don't already know?
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Got it?

Brian,

Can you help me out on this:

If my memory serves me well, Zick and Wood are two scientists that you have heard speak multiple times and that you've been able to interact with.

I've read many posts discussing their views on the science of the swing and club and other matters that you have been kind enough to point out for all of us here.

My question is what are you hoping to learn that you don't already know?

What am I trying to get out of our Scientific Panel?

Corroboration, and Collaboration.

None of the three have ever met.

Still confused?

For example: If Zick says that his math model says there is some "force across the shaft" in the transition, Wood corroborates that he has noticed this in club dymanics testing, and in 1,000,000 fps video analysis and in his math, and Neal says he has noticed a brief acceleration in some parts that are measured in 3D that support Zick & Wood...

Then we have a RED LETTER ITEM.
 
WHAT WILL I LEARN THAT I DONT KNOW?? UMMM

MAYBE A "LITTLE BIT"

DR. AARON ZICK



EXPERIENCE

President, Zick Technologies (Since 10/93).
Petroleum engineering consulting and software development, specializing in the area of reservoir fluid phase behavior modeling. References available on request. Key achievements:

Developed numerous equation-of-state and black-oil fluid characterizations for various major oil companies and as a sub-contractor for PERA a/s of Norway.
Recommended phase behavior experimentation and modeling guidelines for several major oil companies.
Wrote PhazeComp, a new, state-of-the-art program from Zick Technologies for equation-of-state phase behavior modeling, reservoir fluid characterization, and the robust, efficient calculation of minimum miscibility conditions.
Wrote Streamz, a key part of the Petrostreamz Pipe-It™ software package for translating, manipulating, managing, and optimizing vast quantities of fluid stream information.
Taught numerous industry courses on phase behavior, equations of state, reservoir fluid characterization, and miscible gas injection processes.
Designed and helped implement a new set of equation-of-state routines for the in-house reservoir simulator of a major oil company.
Advised the architects of a major commercial reservoir simulator on ways to significantly improve their equation-of-state routines.
Director of Research, Reservoir Simulation Research Corporation (6/91–10/93).
Responsible for the research and development of more efficient, accurate, and reliable techniques for modeling reservoir fluid phase behavior within MORE® (a fully-compositional, equation-of-state reservoir simulator). Also responsible for improving three-dimensional visualization of reservoir simulator output, and for occasional consulting work. Key achievements:

Designed and implemented new equation-of-state solution algorithms for MORE®, improving both efficiency and robustness while using less memory.
Developed a powerful and flexible interface between MORE® and Tecplot® (three-dimensional surface contouring software from Amtec Engineering).
Senior Principal Research Engineer, ARCO Oil and Gas Company (9/83–5/91).
Developed expertise in reservoir fluid phase behavior, phase behavior modeling, compositional reservoir simulation, and relative permeability modeling. Designed and analyzed PVT experiments. Created equation-of-state reservoir fluid characterizations. Developed ARCO’s phase behavior modeling software and relative permeability modeling software. Helped develop several of ARCO’s compositional and limited compositional reservoir simulators. Key achievements:

Discovered the true, condensing/vaporizing mechanism of oil displace-ment by enriched hydrocarbon gases.
Represented ARCO on the Prudhoe Bay co-owners’ Enhanced Oil Recovery Task Force for the Prudhoe Bay Miscible Gas Project.
Designed and analyzed most of the PVT and slim-tube experiments for the Prudhoe Bay Miscible Gas Project.
Created the equation-of-state reservoir fluid characterization adopted by the operating companies for the Prudhoe Bay Miscible Gas Project.
Developed the miscibility pressure correlations used by the facility operators for the Prudhoe Bay Miscible Gas Project.
Developed EOSPHASE, a then state-of-the-art program for equation-of-state phase behavior modeling, reservoir fluid characterization, and the robust, efficient calculation of minimum miscibility conditions.
Developed SLIMTUBE, a special-purpose, equation-of-state simulator for slim-tube displacements.
Developed new, compositionally-consistent, three-phase relative perme-ability models for ARCO’s compositional simulators.
Developed RELPEREG, software for fitting a variety of analytical three-phase relative permeability models to experimental data.
Developed the phase behavior and relative permeability routines for a new, limited compositional reservoir simulator and assisted on other aspects of it.
Continually added improvements to various reservoir simulators.
Regularly taught in-house courses on the phase behavior of miscible gas displacement processes.
RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS

A. A. Zick, “A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism in the Displacement of Oil by Enriched Gases,” presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, LA (October, 1986).

D. E. Tang and A. A. Zick, “A New Limited Compositional Reservoir Simulator,” presented at the 12th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, New Orleans, LA (March, 1993).

AWARDS

1990: ARCO President’s Award for “Advancing and Applying Compositional Technology.”
1990: ARCO Vice President’s Award for “Limited-Compositional Reservoir Simulator Development.”
1986: ARCO Special Achievement Award for “Development of the State-of-the-Art EOSPHASE Phase Behavior Program.”
1978: National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship.
EDUCATION

Ph.D. (1983) Chemical Engineering, Stanford University.
M.S. (1979) Chemical Engineering, Stanford University.
B.S. (1978) Chemical Engineering, University of Wisconsin.
 

ZAP

New
How can getting experts together to discuss golf ideas be a bad thing? The only bad thing I can see is my inability to attend.
 
How can getting experts together to discuss golf ideas be a bad thing?

it CAN'T be....but the detractors have gone on record:

1. Brian has found "like-minded" experts who will verify everything he's been saying
2. If the transcript of the entire 8 hour day is not posted on the web, then basically what was said is invalidated and has no scientific weight
3. All this is, is a S&T, Tripoder, Morad, one plane/two plane lynching
4. Brian has his agenda and this is his way of advancing it
etc, etc, etc....


I have known Brian for 30+ years - it's very hard for him to admit that he's wrong, but he will - i can honestly say that it's been fairly sad to find out that Homer Kelley wasn't flawless - it would have been so convenient and so easy to go through our teaching lives basing EVERYTHING on the contents of the book.....

I also know that Homer is looking down and is happy that people are trying to build upon his life's work - and at the same time is probably not too happy with people standing pat and handing out the same flyer about G.O.L.F that was handed out in the early 80s....

The symposium in Phoenix is for the betterment of golf - I will personally be pissed if every methodology is not represented. What if the S&Ters do have some science to stand on? wouldn't they want that to come out and get it verified or at least looked at?

Where are the PHDs backing up MORAD located? Has Mac found them and put them in hiding?

If foley's buddha connection is right, why doesn't foley bring him out for jeff mann peer review?

I was leaving the golf show this past January - walking through the Orlando airport - when I ran into two members of the National PGA Education committee. They asked me some questions about Brian's interpretation of low point - I mentioned that Brian and I were going to put together a panel to debunk the "junk golf science" out there.

They both agreed that the idea was long overdue - Brian has personally invited both - neither will attend. Sad, sad, sad.

I don't know what everyone is afraid of - this will be as open-mined a symposium that has ever been held. Brian is probably frightened of the potential questions I will ask because we don't always agree and we question the hell out of each other.

Make plans to get to Phoenix - it's gonna be fun.
 
Brian,

Can you help me out on this:

If my memory serves me well, Zick and Wood are two scientists that you have heard speak multiple times and that you've been able to interact with.

I've read many posts discussing their views on the science of the swing and club and other matters that you have been kind enough to point out for all of us here.

My question is what are you hoping to learn that you don't already know?

John,

Help me out on this...

How in the HELL can you miss this?

I just don't see this being in your DNA.

Mike
 

ggsjpc

New
Brian,

Can you help me out on this:

If my memory serves me well, Zick and Wood are two scientists that you have heard speak multiple times and that you've been able to interact with.

I've read many posts discussing their views on the science of the swing and club and other matters that you have been kind enough to point out for all of us here.

My question is what are you hoping to learn that you don't already know?

This was just a simple question for Brian because Zick and Wood weren't scientists that he didn't already know and interact with. What did Brian hope to learn? That was my question and he answered it.
 
it CAN'T be....but the detractors have gone on record:


2. If the transcript of the entire 8 hour day is not posted on the web, then basically what was said is invalidated and has no scientific weight

I really think you guys should carefully consider this, if your looking to just learn for yourselfs then there is no need for the recording either video or audio but if your looking to prove to all the golf kingdom you should have some record of what was said and not rely on he said this or he said that. At the very least a transcript could be made and the parties who want their names left out could be left out for what ever reason. I believe you will regret not having some sort of recorded proof of what the panel says, just my 2 cents.
 
it CAN'T be....but the detractors have gone on record:

1. Brian has found "like-minded" experts who will verify everything he's been saying
2. If the transcript of the entire 8 hour day is not posted on the web, then basically what was said is invalidated and has no scientific weight
3. All this is, is a S&T, Tripoder, Morad, one plane/two plane lynching
4. Brian has his agenda and this is his way of advancing it
etc, etc, etc....

The issue of a transcript/video is, AFAIK, a done deal and I understand the reasons why it won't happen.

Just my opinion, but I think the other points would be well addressed by putting together some sort of agenda or ground that you hope to cover.

The level of expertise that's going to be on display is obviously pretty high - but what comes out of the day will depend an awful lot on the questions that get addressed.

In my opinion, the "heavy hit" and ball-flight laws probably don't merit a whole lot of airtime. "kinetic chain" - yep. "clubfitting" yep. "Weight distribution and shift" - potentially interesting, but not sure whether to expect any clear outcome or conclusion. And so on...

Actually, the first question I'd ask each of the panel would be to sketch out which, in their views, are the bits of the golf swing that are already well understood scientifically, which bits would reward a bit of work, and which bits fall under the "art and inspiration" heading. Or as someone once said, the known-known, the known-unknowns and the unknown-unknowns. With the perhaps additional category of known-unknowables.
 
There is a difference in the way people interact when they know they are being recorded, either by a stenographer or by audio recording, and when they know they are not being recorded. Typically, people being recorded are more guarded and cautious in their discussions. Recording has a "chilling effect" on responses and could potentially inhibit the conversation these experts are expected to have with the attendees. That doesn't mean that an absence of a recording is an invitation to be reckless, it's simply an indication that the host has expressed an interest that the conversation be more freewheeling.

I don't think any "science", per se, will go on at the summit, but an important part of science is to advance hypotheses, without an agenda and without fear, and examine whether available data supports a decision to conduct further research. I get the sense that's what Brian is trying to do at this get together.

When I've met astrophysicists I've always been impressed by how impassive they are in evaluating a theory. If you've got a theory that's better supported by the data and a compelling argument, they'll drop their own model like a hot potato and never look back. Contrast that with some of the vitriol I've seen in these and other pages from folks defending their various methods as if you were criticizing their children. Maybe the difference is the relative absence of reliable data in the golf world. Hopefully the people at this summit, and other summits, can change that.
 
I just thought this was going to more on the scientific side and I can't imagine any "scientist" not recording their data. I really don't think recording would inhibit the people who are going to attend, they know their methods and idealolgies are on the chopping block and will defend what they believe to be true, whether they will accept what the panel says is another thing. Believe me, its amazing that two people can attend the same conference and come away with two totally different points of view of what was said, people tend to hear what only benefits them and without a transcript of some sort to prove oneside or the other nothing will be accepted as truth. Probably the people who hide behind screen names online and are unwilling to give their names to their statements on online forums will be inhibited but I think the rest would be willing to be recorded.

I don't have a pony in the race other than I would love to read/view/listen to the conference, if I was a teacher I would definately be there but as a layman learning golf theory for my own use, I cannot justify a flight to AZ and the entrance fee.
 
When I've met astrophysicists I've always been impressed by how impassive they are in evaluating a theory. If you've got a theory that's better supported by the data and a compelling argument, they'll drop their own model like a hot potato and never look back. Contrast that with some of the vitriol I've seen in these and other pages from folks defending their various methods as if you were criticizing their children. Maybe the difference is the relative absence of reliable data in the golf world. Hopefully the people at this summit, and other summits, can change that.

Science does have a bit of a head start on golf instruction. I'm sure that the reactions we are seeing from the proponents of incorrect golf methodologies isn't unlike the backlash that Copernicus and other scientists faced some 500 years ago. Minus the executions and excomunications, of course. ;-)
 

Jared Willerson

Super Moderator
I was cool reading it, until it was discovered that this was a paper that pretty much backed up Jim McLean, and was written by a McLean golf school employee.

Everything McLean does is polar opposite to S&T....which is fine (bunch of ways to swing), but it would seem kind of hard to be impartial, when where you work is on the letterhead.

Not discounting Dr. Neal at all. Just found it interesting. Unless they are just based at the Jim McLean school of golf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top