I lifted the following from another website, but thought it was interesting enough to reprint here:
KX-13g
Golf Addict
Posts: 127
Posted: 06/11/04 2:31:53 PM
So much has been said and written about “The Golfing Machine” by Homer Kelly, that I recently spent some vacation time studying the book in order to discover for myself what all the fuss was about. What follows are some comments about the book based on my combined experiences of 40 years as a golfer, during which time I achieved some measure of competence, and 30 years as a scientist, during time which I read, wrote, and reviewed hundreds of scientific papers. While I am neither a physicist nor an engineer (Kelly wasn’t either), I have directed both and reviewed books and papers in both domains.
This book was self-published by Kelly in 1969, with several revisions thereafter. The edition I read was published in 1982 and is, I believe, the most common. It is said to be the product of 28 years of work. Indeed, it reads as though the author thoroughly understands its content but is having trouble relating it to his reader. This trait is common among scientific authors, which is why good editors are so valuable. Regrettably, Kelly did not choose to employ one. Both the book and its readers would have benefited immeasurably.
Kelly’s overall concept is that the body is a machine, and the mind is a computer. While this concept was popular in Kelly’s time, it is less so today, in part because of recent shortcomings in the area of artificial intelligence and in part because of a less rigid view of human anatomy. Contemporary thought would conclude that many of his unstated assumptions, like the linearity of muscle action, are gross oversimplifications.
The book is a notoriously difficult read, and this difficulty arises for a number of reasons. First, the book is said to be an “encyclopedia” and, hence, not intended to be read from first page to last. The Preface specifies a particular reading order, and its bewildering effect is exacerbated by the author’s introduction of a number of new terms. This in itself is not unusual (nearly all scientists seek to develop their own vocabularies), but Kelly does not define his terms in an orderly manner. The reading order demands that the reader understand new terms before they have been defined. Finally, the book is replete with internal references that have the reader bouncing from one section to another. The book must be read several times to even begin to penetrate the circular referencing.
However, for the resolute among us who simply refuse defeat, the book is fascinating. In the author’s view the golf swing is an embedded lever system with power focused at four different body parts (“accumulators”) and delivered at four different “pressure points”. He catalogs 24 different swing components, each having several variations. His central thesis is that no individual variation is necessarily ‘wrong’, but its use must be balanced by other complementary variations. His goal is an “uncompensated” golf swing where all of the variations are in harmony. To this end he outlines two swing patterns, one for “hitters” and one for “swingers”, which are examples of such an uncompensated swing. Presumably, there are others.
No author could catalog the entire universe of golf swing components, and Kelly doesn’t either. His catalog is based on several fixed essentials, some of which are specified and some of which aren’t. The first essential is the requirement for a still head. He is quite insistent on this point, because a still head is required for his “lever assembly” to move in a circle. Unfortunately, a still head, while perhaps desirable, is not employed by any golfer anywhere, and the golf swing is decidedly not circular. Theodore Jorgensen notes in “The Physics of Golf” that the head not only moves during the swing, but its movement is as unique to each golfer as his signature.
Another essential, but one only partially stated, is the requirement for a straight back. The author says that rotation around a straight back defines a straight plane line. Here, I must agree in principle but disagree in practice. First, the spine is not straight to begin with but curved in two directions. Second, the requirement eliminates the potential use of a rearward tilted spine, which most experts recommend at least for the driver and many employ for all clubs.
A third requirement, and not one overtly stated, is that the hands must be in a ‘single plane’ setup at address. Such a setup requires the club to be in line with the trail forearm when viewed from the rear. While numerous advocates have been highly vocal in their support of this setup, and one public corporation established to promote it, almost no one whose income depends on their performance employs it. My own experience is that the theoretical mechanical advantage of the single plane setup is an illusion.
Finally, the most controversial imperative is that the left wrist must be flat at contact. On this point I think most instructors would agree. But in the same breath they would have to acknowledge that one of the most accurate ball strikers in history, Ben Hogan, did not have a flat left wrist at contact and, in fact, advocated a bowed and arched wrist. I would like to believe that Kelly is merely arguing against the bent wrist position achieved by all too many beginners who hit with their hands. However, he hints over and over that the golf motion would be a whole lot easier if the lead wrist were not only flat at contact but at other points of the swing, as well. He notes that if the wrist bends when ****ed at the top, the golfer’s sense of feel loses its geometric basis. Once again, the author gets into trouble, since common practice undermines the conclusion. Very few professionals employ a flat wrist at the top. In fact, the most notable exception, Tiger Woods, is currently demonstrating the shortcomings of such a position when using longer clubs. My own experience is quite consistent.
In spite of these shortcomings, however, the book can be very useful, particularly for players and instructors with a penchant for video analysis. I have found it more helpful in diagnosing swing problems than other books of its ilk. I was able to pick up a serious problem with my shoulder plane, for example, something I had heretofore never considered. The rest of my swing was more or less consistent with the “swinger” model, but a flat shoulder plane was leading to premature release and a profound hook. While I have not totally found a cure, the book at least helped me diagnose the disease.
My final comment is one of caution. I mentioned above that the structure of the book is one of circular self-reinforcement. At first, like a well-locked door, it appears impenetrable. Later as you gain entry, that same structure traps you. “The Golfing Machine” is somewhat dangerous in its ability to envelope the reader with circular reinforcement. It’s like a building whose walls and ceilings appear straight when viewed from inside, but whose overall structure tilts when viewed from a distance. Removal of a single support causes the building to collapse to the surprise of everyone trapped inside. Any one of the shortcomings outlined above, as well as others, could have that effect.
So while I think there is much of value in the book, and I have benefited from its study, “The Golfing Machine” is not the whole picture. It is one view. As a technical manual, it has too many hidden assumptions to be considered authoritative. I prefer, instead, to view it as a work of science, and as such it is no more (or less) correct than any other theory. Followers of science need always to remember that no theory is exact, and regardless of how overtly convincing, exists to be tested, disproved, and replace by a better one. This continuous process strengthens our understanding and is the true nature of science. “The Golfing Machine” is a valuable contribution to that process.
KX-13g
Golf Addict
Posts: 127
Posted: 06/11/04 2:31:53 PM
So much has been said and written about “The Golfing Machine” by Homer Kelly, that I recently spent some vacation time studying the book in order to discover for myself what all the fuss was about. What follows are some comments about the book based on my combined experiences of 40 years as a golfer, during which time I achieved some measure of competence, and 30 years as a scientist, during time which I read, wrote, and reviewed hundreds of scientific papers. While I am neither a physicist nor an engineer (Kelly wasn’t either), I have directed both and reviewed books and papers in both domains.
This book was self-published by Kelly in 1969, with several revisions thereafter. The edition I read was published in 1982 and is, I believe, the most common. It is said to be the product of 28 years of work. Indeed, it reads as though the author thoroughly understands its content but is having trouble relating it to his reader. This trait is common among scientific authors, which is why good editors are so valuable. Regrettably, Kelly did not choose to employ one. Both the book and its readers would have benefited immeasurably.
Kelly’s overall concept is that the body is a machine, and the mind is a computer. While this concept was popular in Kelly’s time, it is less so today, in part because of recent shortcomings in the area of artificial intelligence and in part because of a less rigid view of human anatomy. Contemporary thought would conclude that many of his unstated assumptions, like the linearity of muscle action, are gross oversimplifications.
The book is a notoriously difficult read, and this difficulty arises for a number of reasons. First, the book is said to be an “encyclopedia” and, hence, not intended to be read from first page to last. The Preface specifies a particular reading order, and its bewildering effect is exacerbated by the author’s introduction of a number of new terms. This in itself is not unusual (nearly all scientists seek to develop their own vocabularies), but Kelly does not define his terms in an orderly manner. The reading order demands that the reader understand new terms before they have been defined. Finally, the book is replete with internal references that have the reader bouncing from one section to another. The book must be read several times to even begin to penetrate the circular referencing.
However, for the resolute among us who simply refuse defeat, the book is fascinating. In the author’s view the golf swing is an embedded lever system with power focused at four different body parts (“accumulators”) and delivered at four different “pressure points”. He catalogs 24 different swing components, each having several variations. His central thesis is that no individual variation is necessarily ‘wrong’, but its use must be balanced by other complementary variations. His goal is an “uncompensated” golf swing where all of the variations are in harmony. To this end he outlines two swing patterns, one for “hitters” and one for “swingers”, which are examples of such an uncompensated swing. Presumably, there are others.
No author could catalog the entire universe of golf swing components, and Kelly doesn’t either. His catalog is based on several fixed essentials, some of which are specified and some of which aren’t. The first essential is the requirement for a still head. He is quite insistent on this point, because a still head is required for his “lever assembly” to move in a circle. Unfortunately, a still head, while perhaps desirable, is not employed by any golfer anywhere, and the golf swing is decidedly not circular. Theodore Jorgensen notes in “The Physics of Golf” that the head not only moves during the swing, but its movement is as unique to each golfer as his signature.
Another essential, but one only partially stated, is the requirement for a straight back. The author says that rotation around a straight back defines a straight plane line. Here, I must agree in principle but disagree in practice. First, the spine is not straight to begin with but curved in two directions. Second, the requirement eliminates the potential use of a rearward tilted spine, which most experts recommend at least for the driver and many employ for all clubs.
A third requirement, and not one overtly stated, is that the hands must be in a ‘single plane’ setup at address. Such a setup requires the club to be in line with the trail forearm when viewed from the rear. While numerous advocates have been highly vocal in their support of this setup, and one public corporation established to promote it, almost no one whose income depends on their performance employs it. My own experience is that the theoretical mechanical advantage of the single plane setup is an illusion.
Finally, the most controversial imperative is that the left wrist must be flat at contact. On this point I think most instructors would agree. But in the same breath they would have to acknowledge that one of the most accurate ball strikers in history, Ben Hogan, did not have a flat left wrist at contact and, in fact, advocated a bowed and arched wrist. I would like to believe that Kelly is merely arguing against the bent wrist position achieved by all too many beginners who hit with their hands. However, he hints over and over that the golf motion would be a whole lot easier if the lead wrist were not only flat at contact but at other points of the swing, as well. He notes that if the wrist bends when ****ed at the top, the golfer’s sense of feel loses its geometric basis. Once again, the author gets into trouble, since common practice undermines the conclusion. Very few professionals employ a flat wrist at the top. In fact, the most notable exception, Tiger Woods, is currently demonstrating the shortcomings of such a position when using longer clubs. My own experience is quite consistent.
In spite of these shortcomings, however, the book can be very useful, particularly for players and instructors with a penchant for video analysis. I have found it more helpful in diagnosing swing problems than other books of its ilk. I was able to pick up a serious problem with my shoulder plane, for example, something I had heretofore never considered. The rest of my swing was more or less consistent with the “swinger” model, but a flat shoulder plane was leading to premature release and a profound hook. While I have not totally found a cure, the book at least helped me diagnose the disease.
My final comment is one of caution. I mentioned above that the structure of the book is one of circular self-reinforcement. At first, like a well-locked door, it appears impenetrable. Later as you gain entry, that same structure traps you. “The Golfing Machine” is somewhat dangerous in its ability to envelope the reader with circular reinforcement. It’s like a building whose walls and ceilings appear straight when viewed from inside, but whose overall structure tilts when viewed from a distance. Removal of a single support causes the building to collapse to the surprise of everyone trapped inside. Any one of the shortcomings outlined above, as well as others, could have that effect.
So while I think there is much of value in the book, and I have benefited from its study, “The Golfing Machine” is not the whole picture. It is one view. As a technical manual, it has too many hidden assumptions to be considered authoritative. I prefer, instead, to view it as a work of science, and as such it is no more (or less) correct than any other theory. Followers of science need always to remember that no theory is exact, and regardless of how overtly convincing, exists to be tested, disproved, and replace by a better one. This continuous process strengthens our understanding and is the true nature of science. “The Golfing Machine” is a valuable contribution to that process.
.