Manzella/TGM vs. Horton (once & for all)...

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Sir, you and your pal have tried your darnest to take over this site.

To be brutally honest, you haven't made one good point.

So....you have one more chance.

Here it is:

ONE point at a time. No rambling. Has to make sense to anyone with half a brain.

You first. You ridicule Homer's work. Name one thing in the book that is dead wrong: (ps make it snappy and to the point)!
 
H

horton

New
There is no discernible LOC during Impact because the ball is in a visco-elastic state while on the clubface. If there is no LOC, how can you sustain or manipulate the Impact event based on this fallacious concept?
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Homer defines the LOC as the path of the sweetspot through the ball's centerline.

There are unlimited possibilities of this occurance and with some skill, the golfer can produced desired ball flight by MANIPULATING this line.
 
H

horton

New
"...the actions of the golfswing well before Impact can affect how the ball will behave after Impact and this is where the golfer's skill must be applied -- not at the moment of Impact manipulating some fictitious LOC."
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
That's is exactly correct.

Homer even says this: " Make no adjustment during the stroke for--or becuase of---Impact. NEVER EVER. That is "Hacking at the ball" and produces only "Hackers."
 
H

horton

New
I too can agree with Homer on that point, however you have not addressed your comments to the more significant points I have made. Or do you concede my points by having edited them out?

Btw, can you provide the exact TGM reference to Homer's comments so I can put them in proper context? Thanks.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Horton asks:

On page 11:

20. For any given Line of Compression (through the ball) every Machine must produce identical Impact alignments.

And at 6-B-0 -- Force is applied to the Ball through the Lever Assemblies.

And did Homer believe that the clubshaft levered the connected clubhead through the Impact event of 0.4 ms?

I believe these statements are still on topic, and if you could oblige me by explaining how these statements relate to sustaining the LOC through Impact. Thanks.
 
6

6bee1dee

New
quote:Originally posted by horton

Sure brainman ::

Through IMPULSE !!!

(Newton's Third Law of Motion ... fyi ...)
Click to expand...

Newton's III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Or, if you push it, it pushes back.

An impulse: an urge, a whim, a momentum, ahh yes - in physics it is a force acting briefly on a body and producing a change of momentum. Sounds like Newton’s third.

But impulse might be closer to the second: if you place a force on an object, it will accelerate.

So the vagueness of impulse is only what you want it to be.

Funny, your science being so vague.

So regardless of the second or the third, How is force applied?
 
H

horton

New
quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee
So regardless of the second or the third, How is force applied?
Click to expand...

Well 6bee ... Thank you for asking, and I will do my best to explain how force is applied.

The golfswing is all torque because it is rotatory in it's motion. Of course the relationship between the clubhead and ball upon Impact is torsional impulse However there are rectilinear forces at play in the golfswing and they are found underfoot.

These forces are called Ground Reaction Forces (GRF's), and they play a large role in the Dynamics of the golfswing as you swing back and forth. Of course there are also torsional shear forces between the ground and golf shoes, which explains why clean cleats are so necessary to maintain stability.

GRF's have two components, a horizontal thrust component and a vertical weight component. The resultant force of these components is called the GRF, which are directly affected by your weight distribution and where you are in your golfswing.

Hope that helps .....[8)]
 
6

6bee1dee

New
quote:Originally posted by horton

Thanks 6bee .... it's nice to be understood and appreciated too .... keep on truckin' ....:)
Click to expand...

But wait.

Let me get this straight- what you are saying with all the above is that force is applied with Newton’s second Law, not the third? This is what you stated with your GRF’s, isn’t it? But you said the third in your original answer to Brian.

Your GRF’s are a two axis system, Newton’s third Law which is an incline plane- the horizontal axis and your clean cleats being the foundation of the other- vertical axis, a foundation that is pushed down against during the swing but unlike walking- it remains still.

The golf swing does apply some torque, but it is not all torque just because it is in motion. Torque can be applied in a horizontal motion but, and back to levers, the only force that acts on a lever is vertical force and impact is a downward vertical impact (if done correctly- you sweep the clubhead, I’m guessing, right?) And has NO torque, so lets drop that assumption

With all that GRF’s and clean spikes and I knew that cleanliness had to be somewhere in your equation, it still comes down to the basic Newton’s Laws that have been correctly applied and described by Mr. Kelly.

Don’t get me wrong, you can over design anything you want, put strip the jive and it is still basic geometry and physics that TGM applies correctly, isn’t it?
 
H

horton

New
quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee
Don’t get me wrong, you can over design anything you want, put strip the jive and it is still basic geometry and physics that TGM applies correctly, isn’t it?
Click to expand...

Nope, no matter how hard you try to trip me up that doesn't compensate for the fact that Homer's science and geometry is all screwed up. His written assertions, bad, out-of-scale sketches and even the fuzzy photos with pasted askew arrows and incorrect hand paths on some inclined planes, do not pass any scientific test for validity.

Just accept that Homer's scientific claims were unfounded and even grossly wrong, and, his golfswing theories are just his personal opinion bearing no more weight than his golfing credentials.

I am amazed that you would so diligently attempt to challenge my scientific statements, while you do nothing to question Homer's so-called science in his published works. Is it because you consider TGM to be the gospel truth, unalterable my modern science? Your faith in Homer astounds me !!!
 
6

6bee1dee

New
Nope, no matter how hard you try to trip me up that doesn't compensate for the fact that Homer's science and geometry is all screwed up. His written assertions, bad, out-of-scale sketches and even the fuzzy photos with pasted askew arrows and incorrect hand paths on some inclined planes, do not pass any scientific test for validity.

I wouldn’t mine a book written a bit clearer and I’d love to re-do the pictures but and here is the important part- he didn’t screw up anything. Nor have you proved anything wrong- you just changed Newton to GRF’s. A paint job at best.

Just accept that Homer's scientific claims were unfounded and even grossly wrong, and, his golfswing theories are just his personal opinion bearing no more weight than his golfing credentials.
tough to beat successes, Horton. You should see how well the ball is struck with TGM instruction. It is amazing the sound of impact and the flight of the ball.

I am amazed that you would so diligently attempt to challenge my scientific statements,
whoa - are you annoyed but someone like me challenging you? If you are, get off the horse and apply some rectilinear motion on a horizontal plane. while you do nothing to question Homer's so-called science in his published works. Is it because you consider TGM to be the gospel truth, unalterable my modern science? Your faith in Homer astounds me !!!

1- I have questioned just about everything that crossed my path. Homer got his. Guess what- he proved himself to be correct. But what you have forgotten is science doesn’t hit the golf ball- a person does. If he doesn’t know jack sheet about rectilineal motion, or even Sir Isaacs top three- it doesn’t matter. The principals, the basic laws of physics and geometry that Homer uses- and please tell me where and when the scientific community tossed any of this out the window, last time a tossed a ball to my son, it complied - works just dandy explaining the golf swing.
2- modern science ? What changed? Circles, levers, radius, motion, what as it applies to golf- GOLF.
3- Yes I do have faith, Why does that astound you? You have no faith?
 
C

corky05

New
So poor Horty has us twisting in our golf shoes in order to generate the force to hit a golf ball? Interesting! I've seen handicapped individuals hitting prodigious drives out of a swivel seat ( The equivalent of you and I hitting golf balls, off a sheet of ice with our dress shoes on) That must be a miracle? No! Just maybe Horty has built a flawed and overcomplicated mousetrap, the usual plight of someone who isn't in touch with the game. You undercalculate the value of gravity and the vertical component of the game and overestimate the horizontal(twisting in your shoes?). Laughable!
 
J

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
Am i just looney or do i remember that during Homer's study of the swing that he helped changed some certain ideas in the physics community?

Where he found out that the common knowledge on the subject (which escapes me and why i'm asking here) was wrong and due to his research it was changed?

I could've swore that this happened...can anyone help? brian maybe?
 
6

6bee1dee

New
quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

Nope, no matter how hard you try to trip me up that doesn't compensate for the fact that Homer's science and geometry is all screwed up. His written assertions, bad, out-of-scale sketches and even the fuzzy photos with pasted askew arrows and incorrect hand paths on some inclined planes, do not pass any scientific test for validity.

I wouldn’t mine a book written a bit clearer and I’d love to re-do the pictures but and here is the important part- he didn’t screw up anything. Nor have you proved anything wrong- you just changed Newton to GRF’s. A paint job at best.

Just accept that Homer's scientific claims were unfounded and even grossly wrong, and, his golfswing theories are just his personal opinion bearing no more weight than his golfing credentials.
tough to beat successes, Horton. You should see how well the ball is struck with TGM instruction. It is amazing the sound of impact and the flight of the ball.

I am amazed that you would so diligently attempt to challenge my scientific statements,
whoa - are you annoyed but someone like me challenging you? If you are, get off the horse and apply some rectilinear motion on a horizontal plane. while you do nothing to question Homer's so-called science in his published works. Is it because you consider TGM to be the gospel truth, unalterable my modern science? Your faith in Homer astounds me !!!

1- I have questioned just about everything that crossed my path. Homer got his. Guess what- he proved himself to be correct. But what you have forgotten is science doesn’t hit the golf ball- a person does. If he doesn’t know jack sheet about rectilineal motion, or even Sir Isaacs top three- it doesn’t matter. The principals, the basic laws of physics and geometry that Homer uses- and please tell me where and when the scientific community tossed any of this out the window, last time a tossed a ball to my son, it complied - works just dandy explaining the golf swing.
2- modern science ? What changed? Circles, levers, radius, motion, what as it applies to golf- GOLF.
3- Yes I do have faith, Why does that astound you? You have no faith?
Click to expand...


I guess Horton can't reply to any of this- just as well.

Horton, I'm trying to make arrangements for you to re-write golf science, but to be honest, I know nothing of about the swing philosophy you adhere to and frankly - all that GRF's is Newton with a paint job - it is no different the old scinece- repackage. If I get this chance for you to present your ideas, please - don't screw this up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top