Quick Answer:
The something I "spotted" was a principle - I've seen it so many times in my studies. In a previous post I called it "isolationism" and it's different in many ways than Finite element method - which doesn't really apply in this context - let me explain. When you have an expert from a certain field i.e. scientist, engineer, chiropractor, biologist, etc. and they use their area of expertise to make a statement on another field i.e. movement, they will observe a fact, then make a conclusion which seems obvious, WHILE ignoring an ESSENTIAL fact of the field they don't specialize in.
When I said you can't take a part of the swing and isolate it without understanding the parts around it, here's the broad explanation of that. Knowledge isn't created in a vacuum, it's created in a context, that context includes "everything", when new facts (let's keep it simple here - and call them major facts) arise it changes the entire context of your knowledge base - why? because it's all related.
How can these "scientist" get things wrong? (Keep in mind - I'm not saying everything that Brian has brought up is wrong - sure I saw one thing and I saw the principle involved, and my post labeled Free Guidance was to say "you better be careful otherwise you're going to have some real problems if you're putting all your money on the scientists".) I'll describe one large of many categories of these mistakes, in regards to the principle, which is the difference between observation of the movement as opposed to implementation of the movement.
Examples (fictional - to clarify and simplify the issue):
Scientist studies the down the line view of the top players in the world - notice that they don't stay on the same plane - that they shift up at 1/2 way back to a steeper plane. Tells his students - at half way back you need to increase the angle from 30 degrees to 50 degrees, as every pro does this. Not realizing that the pro(s) aren't trying to shift planes- they are making an effort to move in one plane on the backswing and anatomical issues create shifting.
Scientist studies backswing lengths for hand travel by taking high speed video - determines that top pros all take it to point A, all amateurs only take it to point B - instructs students to take their hands to Point A before starting the downswing. Not realizing that pros are only trying to take their hands to point A minus 6 inches, the final 6 inches is momentum carrying them to Point A even though the player as already initiated the downswing.
Let's go to your paragraph - I'm going to save myself some time and just give the essence of what I see. Scientist- "Nothing after the ball leaves the clubface affects it's flight - so what you do in the follow-through doesn't matter". "Right before impact there is no lag pressure - so you don't need to worry about that". "There is nothing you can do once the club is released". "So, really we just need to figure out on a procedural level what to do up until the point of release, becuase after that you can't control it". Now, it boggles my mind, assuming someone has played this game for over a couple of months how you wouldn't intuitively understand that key aspects of attention through impact, through the follow-through and finish - are critical elements of the mind. On a more scientific level the "scientist" who doesn't understand how movement takes place and how the Brain works, has missed the ESSENTIAL nature of movement. That it takes into account the past, present and FUTURE. Memory is a tool to predict the future. Every time you move you are making a prediction based on your prior experiences. So there is a focus on the future, those items past the time where your scientist said "it doesn't matter", because that controls the past and vica versa.
What's happening and What you try to do - are two completely different things.
