Questions to Horton

Axel_WIngert · Dec 25, 2004

Hi Horton,
I read some of your writings from time to time during the last month.
Due to my Physics courses I wasn't really able to follow. But by crossreading it seems to me as though you were either here just in order to attack TGM and Homer OR you really had a point to make.

I have the impression that it is the latter (in a way similar to Brian when he first showed up on FGI)
Could you tell us what you don't like about Homers work by doing a complete list of details where you think he is wrong.

Then we could compare your opinions to the empirical experiences made by Brian,Yoda and others. BOTH sides have to be questioned. Is the physical model incomplete (two lever model not enough?)? Do instructors believe to see things that do not exist? WHY do things not go along?
Newton was aware that his work was incomplete others weren't. Until a fellow named Einstein came along. We shouldn't be more selfsecure than Newton- should we? So let's find out where the missing links are.

Axel

horton · Dec 26, 2004

Okay Axel ::

Homer's use of Newtonian Physics is both amateurish and wrong. If he were an engineering student he would have failing grades. I have provided several examples of his erroneous analysis and incorrect use of scientific terms in his obvious attempt to make TGM sound scientific and therefore correct. He has failed because legitimate scientific experiments and studies contradict what Homer imagined was happening in the golfswing. Homer was deficient in Physics and Physiology.

There are numerous other gaffes intertwined in his writings, and it would be too destructive if I exposed all the faults - besides it would be too much for this simple forum anyway. Most are here to admire TGM and try to discover the hidden complex secrets that must hold the answer to a tour pro golfswing.

Since it is apparent to anybody with a scientific education, and a deep understanding of the golfswing, that Homer's confused assertions are flawed, one must doubt the scientific basis of his interpretation of the golfswing. Science requires scientific proofs and Homer provides nothing other than his interpretations using scientific terms incorrectly. Homer was no scientist and it is obvious that he was ignorant how to properly apply Newtonian Physics to the golfswing.

Nobody on these fora, except perhaps mandrin, can discuss Newtonian Physics, and when I saw his two lever analysis using Lagrangian Mechanics, I thought I would make my contribution to this forum too. As usual the same neanderthal attitudes exist here as on other golf forums. As for Brian and Yoda, they can only relate their opinions to their subjective feelings and their personal anecdotal success using what they perceive to be TGM. That's fair, but that's not scientifically valid.

However, I do not begrudge TGM supporters of the practical methodology developed by Homer. His insights have provided golf teachers with another way to analyse and interpret the golfswing. Since most of the golf instructors are failed golfers and poorly educated, they must use their wits to extract whatever they think is applicable from TGM to get new students to buy their services. We all know that in the business of golf, it's very difficult to sell knowledge, when everybody is searching for fun or the latest new toys.

What annoys me is the TGM wannabees who think they can benefit from TGM by simply reading and lurking on forums. They are morons who should be buying the services of qualified TGM teachers who understand TGM and can apply it to the students golfswing deficiencies. Instead they try to steal it for free and then claim they are huge TGM golfers. I too have a 300+ yard internet golfswing.

Me? I can't accept TGM unless the scientific flaws are removed and the essence of TGM is revealed, without the secretive con game that is being perpetrated. I can't buy anything TGM unless the science scam is scoured out of the book, and a Practical and Simplified Version of TGM is published. If this does not happen, then Homer and TGM is just onother golfing snake oil scheme that is not worthy of attention, and best left to the average dumbed down golfer searching for a obscure, magic answer to his golfswing problems.

As Harvey Penick so aptly put it in his Little Red Book ::

"The golfing area of the brain is a very fragile thing that is terribly suseptible to suggestion. Golfers are gullible."

,to which I agree completely and as demonstrated on this fine forum. What more can I say? Trust you had a happy and uneventful Xmas.

horton · Dec 27, 2004

yes brianman .... you are a man of few words .... written, spoken or read .....

Axel_WIngert · Dec 27, 2004

Horton, Thank you thank you that you took the time to write.

"He has failed because legitimate scientific experiments and studies contradict what Homer imagined was happening in the golfswing"

Could you tell us which studies this were? Probably even where to find documentation of how things were set up?

"I have provided several examples of his erroneous analysis and incorrect use of scientific terms in his obvious attempt to make TGM sound scientific and therefore correct."

Could you give us a summary of the ones that you think are important (or just give links to your posts on that)

"There are numerous other gaffes intertwined in his writings, and it would be too destructive if I exposed all the faults - besides it would be too much for this simple forum anyway."

Why don't you give it a try. Perhaps people are not all that stupid.

"Nobody on these fora, except perhaps mandrin, can discuss Newtonian Physics, and when I saw his two lever analysis using Lagrangian Mechanics, I thought I would make my contribution to this forum too. As usual the same neanderthal attitudes exist here as on other golf forums"
I feel insulted by this passage. As many other readers may be.

"As for Brian and Yoda, they can only relate their opinions to their subjective feelings and their personal anecdotal success using what they perceive to be TGM. That's fair, but that's not scientifically valid."

You forgot that it isn't "reliable" or "objective" either (for those unfamiliar to sports science- "valid", "objective" and "reliable" are the criterias a study has to fulfill in order to be scientific).

But nonetheless their experiences with the students are practical ones. And they are both succesful in "makling the ball fly". To ignore their knowledge would be PLAIN stupid. I have seen strange studies resulting from this kind of behavior.

Axel

horton · Dec 27, 2004

Axel, my dear friend;

Why don't you do both of us a favor and just use the forum Search function for my many posts regarding my critiques of TGM and then ask me specific questions about what I posted. Otherwise we will get nowhere.

Really when you think about it the onus was on Homer (late) and now is on the current owners and promoters of TGM to validate the scientific claims in a proper manner. There are no calculations, no testing, no data, no nothing except Homer's brave declaration that TGM is based on Science, Geometry and Newton's Three Laws of Motion (which he faithfully reproduced for us and then revealed his ignorance by attempting to use the scientific terminology, and incorrectly). I pointed this out in several of my postings.

Homer did not even know how to analyse simple Levers in equilibrium as I explained in my post on Lever Assemblies. He didn't understand human physiology because he was an uneducated shop floor technician at Boeing, nothing more. What more do you want, a complete disintegration of TGM? Natural Golf is going bankrupt and TGM may soon follow unless somebody produces a sensible clarification of Homer's gem.

I mean, get real people .... !

Axel_WIngert · Dec 27, 2004

Hello Horton,

I did use the search function, but gave up after an hour of searching. Your 182 posts are spread all over the forum. I would have to read through each of the discussions just in order to find out whether you were talking about scientific flaws in the book or if you were just stating an opinion on "Is xy a good player?". And even after having found that out- I wouldn't know how important you consider them to be.

If you think putting the links up is too much work you might just give us headlines on subjects you think that are crucial e.g. "Lever asemblies- Form2 Lever instead of form3 lever"

You didn't answer my question about which studies disaprove Homer.I would be very thankful if you could tell us a little more about this.The same with the "other gaffes" in the book

Thanks, Axel

fdb2 · Dec 28, 2004

quote:Originally posted by horton

Axel, my dear friend;

Why don't you do both of us a favor and just use the forum Search function for my many posts regarding my critiques of TGM and then ask me specific questions about what I posted. Otherwise we will get nowhere.

Really when you think about it the onus was on Homer (late) and now is on the current owners and promoters of TGM to validate the scientific claims in a proper manner. There are no calculations, no testing, no data, no nothing except Homer's brave declaration that TGM is based on Science, Geometry and Newton's Three Laws of Motion (which he faithfully reproduced for us and then revealed his ignorance by attempting to use the scientific terminology, and incorrectly). I pointed this out in several of my postings.

Homer did not even know how to analyse simple Levers in equilibrium as I explained in my post on Lever Assemblies. He didn't understand human physiology because he was an uneducated shop floor technician at Boeing, nothing more. What more do you want, a complete disintegration of TGM? Natural Golf is going bankrupt and TGM may soon follow unless somebody produces a sensible clarification of Homer's gem.

I mean, get real people .... !

Horton, buddy

You have yet to answer my simple question. What class lever is the arm?? This is really the crux of your argument?

Axel_WIngert · Jan 6, 2005

Hello Horton- still on the board?

Axel

bcoak · Jan 6, 2005

quote:Originally posted by Axel_WIngert

Hello Horton- still on the board?

Axel

let's hope not

horton · Jan 7, 2005

quote:Originally posted by Axel_WIngert

You didn't answer my question about which studies disaprove Homer.I would be very thankful if you could tell us a little more about this.The same with the "other gaffes" in the book.

Thanks, Axel

Your lucky day Axel, I happened to be lurking.

There are no studies of any kind to disprove Homer's theories. Nobody with a scientific education would bother trying to decipher Homer's poorly written book. This alone must make you suspicious of Homer's state of mind. After 28 years of study and he still couldn't make his theories reader friendly?! No wonder no legitimate publisher would handle the book.

As for Homer's gaffes, the entire Chapter 2, and any references to Chapter 2 are based on totally incorrect interpretation of Newton's Laws of Motion. I have provided several glaring examples in my posts generally in those topics started by mandrin. Homer even invents new Laws of Physics with his "Law of Centrifugal Force". No such thing. The Physics is wrong and the Geometry is ridiculous.

(I have said that Homer's personal and visually-devised theories may have merit provided the claim to a scientific base is scoured out of the book and the rest is simplified for human consumption. As it is now, anybody scientific who tries to critique TGM is mobbed by the cultists.)

Anybody educated in the science of Dynamics and Statics will immediately recognize that Homer became confused by placing himself in a non-inertial frame of reference when he tries to verbally apply Newton's Laws of Motion. You can't do that because you must interpret everything in an inertial frame of reference to properly apply the equations of motion to the golfswing. If anything this was Newton's greatest contribution to scientific analysis and Homer and his disciple are still blundering about in pre-1687 scientific ignorance.

Homer was a lovable old fake by proclaiming that his theories were based on Science and Geometry in the 1960s when the most acceptable golfswing advice was from Hogan.

Homer asserts that a straight line Delivery Path (?) can exist in the downswing, when anybody with any basic knowledge of Kinetics and Kinematics, and Human Anatomy, know that this is an impossibility in a rotatory golfswing, no matter what you think you feel or try to achieve. If you can show me strobe-sequenced golfswings with a linear hand path, I will show you an overshifting swing or a re-flexed lead elbow in the middle of the downswing. (Painting straight white lines on an inclided plexiglass plane does not count!) Lucky if you can hit the golf ball trying to do this!!

http://www.clubmaker-online.com/bj003.html

http://home.comcast.net/~wride/handsslow.jpg

Have fun ...... and a Happy New Year to all ..... FORE !!![:X]

mgjordan · Jan 7, 2005

Horton,
Do you actually think Boeing would hire someone to help engineer their planes who didn't know anything about physics? Who's signature was required before a new plane was allowed to go on the market? Homer Kelley's.

corky05 · Jan 7, 2005

Horton, Sweet Spot plane or axis, in scientific terms this is called the longitudinal centroidal axis of the golf club. I can't find any scientific references that use the term "longitudinal centroidal axis of the golf club that predate Homer's genious Yellow book. Do you think that the golf scientists "borrowed" Homer's term and renamed it? If not, could you point me in the direction of a scientific golf study that uses the term, longitudinal centroidal axis of the golf club, prior to Homer's book? Thanks in advance.

horton · Jan 8, 2005

quote:Originally posted by mgjordan

Horton,
Do you actually think Boeing would hire someone to help engineer their planes who didn't know anything about physics? Who's signature was required before a new plane was allowed to go on the market? Homer Kelley's.

I hope that Homer knew more about aeronautics than he does about simple Newtonian physics, because if TGM is any indication of his engineering capabilities then I certainly would not want to board any Boeing aircraft that he inspected prior to delivery.

Somebody on this forum did indignantly proclaim that Homer was a "scientist and and engineer". Could anybody dig up Homer's bio so we can determine which college he graduated from with his B.Sc. Engineering? Thanks.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

quote:Originally posted by corky05

Horton, Sweet Spot plane or axis, in scientific terms this is called the longitudinal centroidal axis of the golf club. I can't find any scientific references that use the term "longitudinal centroidal axis of the golf club that predate Homer's genious Yellow book. Do you think that the golf scientists "borrowed" Homer's term and renamed it? If not, could you point me in the direction of a scientific golf study that uses the term, longitudinal centroidal axis of the golf club, prior to Homer's book? Thanks in advance.

Oh corky, that's just generic terminology that anybody with a scientific education would immediately recognize as the Sweet Spot axis of the golf club. Nobody in the scientific world would need any further definition, but for you try this::

Longitudinal -- along the length of the club
Centroidal -- central distribution of mass
Axis -- that about which you can rotate

To find the LCA (aka Homer's "scientific" Sweet Spot Axis) just pick up any golf club by the handle butt with your thumb and index finger and just gently twirl it around as the club hangs vertically. It's spinning around it's LCA. [8]

Sweet Spot Axis sounds so amateurish and unscientific. Maybe in the next edition of TGM they will change it to the LCA. Ya think ???

p.s. Fellas, lets remember that Axel is posting from Germany and it is only very early Saturday morning there. Let's not fill his topic thread with too much debris. Thanks.

6bee1dee · Jan 8, 2005

In the Geometry of the Circle the only thing that is not a straight
line is the circumference (Clubhead). Everything else is straight -chords,
tangents, radius, diameter, and planes.(Hands) There must be a constant
center and a constant radius.(left shoulder and Left Arm) The proper geometrical relationship of the circle to the line (The Three Imperatives) must be established to produce a workable procedure for applying a circular force (clubhead path) to a ball so as to produce the same reaction as that produced by a linear force. (Line of Compression)

Horton, first, I had a paying job for you to re-write the science of the golf swing. You disappeared- shame on you. Chicken or what? It would be a challenge for you.

Second- as I stated before. Your Geometry for your single axis- JK golf swing is applied differently then the science of Geometry we use in a convention swing. It is like arguing about apples and oranges. And only a loon would press on arguing a point that doesn’t exist with the other.

horton · Jan 8, 2005

quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

In the Geometry of the Circle the only thing that is not a straight line is the circumference (Clubhead). Everything else is straight -chords, tangents, radius, diameter, and planes(Hands)

.
Yah sure the hands may appear to be in a straight line if you are tracking it by looking at the edge of the plane, but Homer shows a Straight Line Power Package Delivery Path at 10-23-A, which is on TOP of the plane. That is the Hand Path I am referring to. I maintain that it is Geometrically and Anatomically improbable if not impossible to achieve. I provide links of strobe photos of the curvilinear nature of any part of the golfswing - hands or clubhead.

quote:There must be a constant
center and a constant radius.(left shoulder and Left Arm) The proper geometrical relationship of the circle to the line (The Three Imperatives) must be established to produce a workable procedure for applying a circular force (clubhead path) to a ball so as to produce the same reaction as that produced by a linear force. (Line of Compression)

Yes but the path of the hands and the clubhead in the downswing is proven to be slightly elliptical, most likely due to the imperceptible shifting of the swing centers that develop during the golfswing. Do you maintain that the swing centers are rigidly fixed in the golfwing to produce perfect circles? You should carefully check the links I provided and see if you can see the elliptical path of the hands while the clubhead is lagging far behind them. That is what I am refering to as curvilinear hand path and not a linear hand path as Homer tries to conceive. (This is a classic case of changing the facts when they don't fit the TGM theory of perfect circles.)

I think there is enough published current scientific data that indicates the various paths in the golfswing is elliptical. Sorry no circles, except for the golf ball.

quote:Horton, first, I had a paying job for you to re-write the science of the golf swing. You disappeared- shame on you. Chicken or what? It would be a challenge for you.

Sorry 6bee, but I went on a short holiday and did abandon the forum. Please forgive me for my transgressions. I will try to make it up to you if you forgive me.

quote:Second- as I stated before. Your Geometry for your single axis- JK golf swing is applied differently then the science of Geometry we use in a convention swing. It is like arguing about apples and oranges. And only a loon would press on arguing a point that doesn’t exist with the other.

Look here, I am not involved with the SA-JK golfswing, and I am not any of the personna I have been accused of hidding under. I am just an independent and original scientifically minded internet personality. Please, no assumptions and paranoia any more.

As for the science of Geometry and the golfswing circles assumed by Homer in the 1960's, I would ask you to produce the proof that Homer was in fact correct. You can't because scientifically controlled testing using strobe images has plotted the golfswing as an elliptical entity, as shown in the links I provided.

So where is Homer's Geometric Proof that the golfswing is purely circular without any deviation? Assertions are not acceptable, only valid scientific proofs please. Thanks.

corky05 · Jan 8, 2005

Poor Horton!
"p.s. Fellas, lets remember that Axel is posting from Germany and it is only very early Saturday morning there. Let's not fill his topic thread with too much debris. Thanks."

Translation: In reference to golf, No scientist/engineer had used the term Longitudinal Centroidal Axis predating Homer's book. However, Homer could have used this terminology but the audience for his book? Golfers. An envious engineer took a look at Homer's terminology "borrowed" it and renamed it, taking all the kudos, of course!

Poor, Horty!

horton · Jan 8, 2005

Poor corky::

His TGM world is collapsing around him and all he can do is cry out in anguish concocting bogey men who he can attack. No logical scientific thinking here, only holding on to the past as science marches on and proves that Homer was slightly ignorant about science.... but could he ever define the golfswing components with his astute eye !!!!!!

He was the first to discover the Sweet Spot plane which revolutionized our thinking of the golfswing. Homer probably knew it was the longitudinal centroidal axis, but named it something that golf instructors of the time would understand. Homer was a shrewd psychological manipulator, judging by how he organized TGM -- a manual for golfswing instructors and not meant for the gullible minds of recreational golfers, nor for that matter for tour pro golfers who are just athletic ballbeaters.

Homer had a method to his madness .....[}

]

6bee1dee · Jan 8, 2005

Horton, I am giving you the chance to be published, amend Homer and be paid for your writing. Why try to convince a few online when you can reach thousands. I am afraid that from what I read from Jack K, you are very similar in your science and rage toward Mr. Kelley. But I don't care. Lets get the research done and then and this is the tough part- write in in a way that a golfer can understand and apply. That is the bottom line- hitting a golf ball.

Second point. If you are not up to the task writing and putting your name on this research, lets try this.

The bottom line is the golf swing. I have a great swing and great impact since studying TGM and working with Holenone. How is yours?
How about You and Mandrin (or whoever) and myself each get 25 minutes to demonstrate the golf swing and explain why it works. I will even let you five minutes at the end to refute anything I say. I will not disparage your teachings at all. I record and burn the CD's unedited and we can sell them to members here and on other forums and use the money to aid the victims of the tsunami or any other charity. It could be a great way to promote your swing and give people a change to see for themselves your science in action. I will let my swing (and I am still a student) speak for itself. We can set up a mid-point location and do this in less then 2 hours.

To this point, Horton, you are at best a Troll, I am giving you the chance to prove everyone wrong about Homer and the golf swing. And help some people at the same time.

Let me know for either one.

horton · Jan 8, 2005

quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

Horton, I am giving you the chance to be published, amend Homer and be paid for your writing. Why try to convince a few online when you can reach thousands. I am afraid that from what I read from Jack K, you are very similar in your science and rage toward Mr. Kelley. But I don't care. Lets get the research done and then and this is the tough part- write in in a way that a golfer can understand and apply. That is the bottom line- hitting a golf ball.

That's just plain ludicrous !! Who are you to suggest that I publish my critique of TGM? If you are serious are you prepared to send me a $25,000 retainer for my research and costs? I didn't think so!! Neither I nor Jack K are the issue, the issue is Homer's scientific claims in TGM. Why would anybody want to publish a critique of TGM when the scientific references are so obviously wrong that a first year engineering student could uncover. TGM deserves nothing more than an internet critique because it is so scientifically flawed. No calculations, no proofs, just nonsense scientifically. You do not make corrections to stupid errors in scientific terminology. Homer was ignorant scientifically. Get over it!!

quote:Second point. If you are not up to the task writing and putting your name on this research, lets try this.

The bottom line is the golf swing. I have a great swing and great impact since studying TGM and working with Holenone. How is yours?

This kind of "gorilla chest beating" test of golfswings is that of an adolescent mentality who believes that results are paramount over scientific truth. So you claim to have developed a fantastic golfswing by studying TGM and getting hands on custom tailored instruction from Yoda, therefore Homer cannot be wrong otherwise your golfswing successes are flawed. That's not science, that's religion. Your success is based on flawed science, but that's not to say that Homer did say something right about the golfswing, but certainly nothing scientific !!!

My golfswing is suspect. I cannot hit a driver worth a sh!t. The longest club I carry is a 5 wood. I do have 4 wedges and 2 putters along with 5 to 9 irons plus a 7 wood. I can play any golf course in the mid to high 80s. I play with scratch golfers and they are amazed how well I manage golf courses. They are under extreme pressure when competing with me and I usually beat them using psychological strategy. The hate me but love to play with me. Playing golf does not cost me anything and my equipment is free due to my winnings. Beat that meathead !!!!

quote:How about You and Mandrin (or whoever) and myself each get 25 minutes to demonstrate the golf swing and explain why it works. I will even let you five minutes at the end to refute anything I say. I will not disparage your teachings at all.

My golfswing is subjective, while the science of the golfswing is objective. I have some scientific knowledge and therefore I am able to analyze TGM on a scientific basis. It has nothing to do with my golfswing. Well educated people can do that. Obviously you can't because you don't understand how science works. You are only a ball-beating, self-indulging adolescent mentality who thinks the world revolve around your feelings.

quote:To this point, Horton, you are at best a Troll, I am giving you the chance to prove everyone wrong about Homer and the golf swing. And help some people at the same time.

The onus is not on me to prove anything. Homer has published his so-called scientifically based TGM, and as such the words in his book are subject to review and critique. Nothing wrong with that because that is how objective science works. Obviously you disagree with the scientific method, and you prefer to compare golfswings and beat your chest proving that you and Homer are winners. The fact is that their is no published scientific proof by Homer or anybody else that the scientifice underpinnings claimed by Homer are anything more than rubbish.

quote:Let me know for either one.

Yeah sure ..... like you deserve anything intelligent ... not .... [

)]

6bee1dee · Jan 8, 2005

I have produced several instructional books, even top talent goes for less then 15 grand. I can buy the paper outright or we can work on sales. Either way the chance to prove Homer wrong is in your hands or should I say chicken feet. You are a failure Horton. You missed a chance to one up the golf science world, instead you remain a troll.

As for the tape/cd, I guess showing your chops, a chance to soapbox and raise some money is too much for you too. I was just going to let your golf swing theories stand to be watched. I was not going to beat my chest- just show what I learned for the book. Same stuff Clampett, Tway, Elkington, Nelson and others understand and do.

There you have it folks, second rate Troll. The offer is good til end of April.