Of bomb dropping and golf ball landing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BertramSterling

New
What's your point? The bombsight turned out to be largely useless in any practical situation..are you suggesting the same of Trackman/Flightscope, etc?

Didn't Brian (fairly) recently talk to Robert Rock regarding the D plane (before Italian Open success and a decent US Open)? If someone like that doesn't already know of the D plane, what would make anyone think the average amateur would be looking at ball flight laws?

Most people think they should follow what they hear on TV/read in a magazine. There are some people more in the loop, but most of those think holding the lag is the holy grail. It'll be some time before this 'good info, solid tech' filters down to average joe club golfer..

In the meantime, I completely fail to see how it can be a negative thing?
 
B

birly-shirly

New
Thanks for posting that up golfdad - quite apart from the fact that MG is a terrific speaker, I think the analogy is a good one.

I don't think that MG's point was that the bombsight was a failure, but that various human and circumstantial factors prevented it from realising its potential. Not in anyway a criticism of anyone, but the analogy is surely highly pertinent to golf.
 
W

wulsy

New
I think more relvant to the film/talk is all the technology in clubs. Most folk can't hit it well enough to get any real benefit from it. And in order to learn to hit it well, you probably don't need much technology.
 
hp12c

hp12c

New
Now golf students have much easier access to good info, solid tech.

Question: are golf students getting better?

I consider myself a student and from my personal experience I didnt get better untill I started putting into practice some of Bmanz material and another teacher who will remain nameless but never the less for me a good teacher. The history of golf instruction demonstrates that even with incorrect information good golf can be played, so the future to me looks much better as the good/correct information trickles into golf instruction which will take some time due to beliefs currently held by instructors. I heard this last week from an instructor to get the ball to draw you have to put top spin on the ball.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
golfdad said:
Now golf students have much easier access to good info, solid tech.

Question: are golf students getting better?
Click to expand...

Tech?

Like video? That lies like a dog (parallax).

TrackMan can only be misused if you are a stone cold one method teacher, and some of those do a good job with it.

Like access to some so-called scientific methods??


Teaching is better now than it was.


5 years from now, every golf pro will know of the D-Plane, will know of some decent science, have cheap access to 3D, and have access to a TrackMan-like device.



Book it.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
Your opinions, or your facts?

Fraud seems to me a statement of fact - so could you elaborate please? Was the posted video fraudulent, or is there some other fraud in Gladwell's life that is somehow pertinent to the thread?
 
D

dbl

New
He could have that done that 15 minutes in two minutes or less and gotten higher marks from me. And his conclusion that the WWII nuke bombs did not save lives is definitely debatable.
 
ZAP

ZAP

New
I have read a couple of Gladwell's books and while they are interesting it seems to me he takes a long time getting to the point. I would also call his perspective on some things "interesting" but they are not the entire picture. The world does need people like Gladwell in it to expand the picture of events.
 
drewyallop

drewyallop

New
birly-shirly said:
Your opinions, or your facts?

Fraud seems to me a statement of fact - so could you elaborate please? Was the posted video fraudulent, or is there some other fraud in Gladwell's life that is somehow pertinent to the thread?
Click to expand...

Opinion only birly.

Facile: (from Google) ... ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial.

Fraud: Adopting the persona of the homely, charming, shirt-hanging out genius hoping we forget he is only a pedlar of commonplaces. A poseur. How does his mind and thinking rank against, to name a few, Hofstadter, David Chalmers, Feynman, Tyler Cowan, Pinker, Kahneman?
 
B

bellisaurius

New
Malcolm's main thesis seems to be technology doesn't always solve the core problem (I can design a bombsight that can drop a 500lb bomb down a flea's back end, but that's not helping me find the flea), comes with the obvious corollary "Well, what do I need to do to figure out the core problem?" which typically comes down to human judgement, it would seem. Which, I guess means good lessons>>technology, with technology being a tool of improving a teacher's ability to give a lesson.
 
G

golfdad

New
bellisaurius said:
Malcolm's main thesis seems to be technology doesn't always solve the core problem (I can design a bombsight that can drop a 500lb bomb down a flea's back end, but that's not helping me find the flea), comes with the obvious corollary "Well, what do I need to do to figure out the core problem?" which typically comes down to human judgement, it would seem. Which, I guess means good lessons>>technology, with technology being a tool of improving a teacher's ability to give a lesson.
Click to expand...

Concur.

A case in point, possibly quite representative among golf students out there, is a poster on this forum in that recent thread lamenting--or is it complaining at the top of his lungs--that despite his time and effort and money, he is not getting better, when the fact is, when we look around, we are actually in the beginning of the golden age of golf teaching. In his case, I saw in another video where he lined up in the background over 10 devices/swing aids that he used and did not benefit from.

So, no matter where you go, there you are: good teaching trumps all, always had, always will.
 
Last edited:
B

birly-shirly

New
drewyallop said:
Opinion only birly.

Facile: (from Google) ... ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial.

Fraud: Adopting the persona of the homely, charming, shirt-hanging out genius hoping we forget he is only a pedlar of commonplaces. A poseur. How does his mind and thinking rank against, to name a few, Hofstadter, David Chalmers, Feynman, Tyler Cowan, Pinker, Kahneman?
Click to expand...

Well I'll be darned, but you're right drewyallop. His shirt was hanging out.

Fraudster.

I only hope that Richard Feynman kept his tails tucked in whilst playing the bongos. And get a haircut, Pinker.
 
drewyallop

drewyallop

New
birly-shirly said:
Well I'll be darned, but you're right drewyallop. His shirt was hanging out.

Fraudster.

I only hope that Richard Feynman kept his tails tucked in whilst playing the bongos. And get a haircut, Pinker.
Click to expand...

Good one birly. I am just glad you didn't watch Kahneman's TED presentation. His shirt was hanging out too. My whole post blown out of the water!
 
B

birly-shirly

New
Thanks for the tip off, Drew. I didn't know Kahneman had "played" TED - but I will make a point of watching. But for content, not style:)

Cheers
BS
 
drewyallop

drewyallop

New
birly-shirly said:
Thanks for the tip off, Drew. I didn't know Kahneman had "played" TED - but I will make a point of watching. But for content, not style:)

Cheers
BS
Click to expand...

Worth it birly. A brilliant communicator. Even if you don't care about the content still a pleasure to watch a master in action. He has a new book out, published now or soon to be. I am waiting for the Kindle edition. The people I read and respect are anticipating great things.
 
Virtuoso

Virtuoso

New
I don't think his main point had anything to do with technology--it was a larger statement about morality.

It seems to be along the same lines of something he had mentioned in an earlier piece about not thinking outside of the box, but fixing the box itself.

It would be very difficult for me to draw any parallels to technology in golf.
 
G

gaspasser1

New
I don't think the main message was morality.
Gladwell begins his talk by giving it some context. He says the theme is "the things we make."
I think the whole point is that we become enamored with the things we make. And when the things we make are so complex, we focus on the advance of technology instead of the practicality.
Ultimately such an object becomes irrelevant in its application but proves important because it marks the advance in technology.
The Norden bomb sight, for example, was a sophisticated invention that proved less than ideal in practice and ultimately was used to deliver the atomic bomb, which didn't really require the precision of a bomb sight.
How does this relate to golf? Not sure yet. But it says volumes about human nature.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top