Questions to Horton

[horton]

In your mindlet, does that mean that Homer and TGM are intact and still scientifically valid, regardless of what I have posted on this fine forum? I thought so ......

I guess your blissful ignorance again wins over logic and sanity .... eh 6bee1dee ....?!

Now get off Axel's topic thread and stop contaminating it with your neanderthal trolling.

 

[6bee1dee]

If you can re-write golf science and prove Homer is wrong with your research, footnotes and if you are able to use your text to teach a viable golf swing, then the opportunity is there for you. So far you have only re-named concepts that Homer uses. That isn’t proving something wrong, is it?

 

[horton]

I don't have to write a competing golfswing system book to prove Homer wrong in his use of Newtonian Physics. Neither do I have to demonstrate my golfswing skills to win any arguements with you. Homer wrote TGM in the 60s and revised it until the early 80s. Meantime the science of golf has advanced and proven that many of Homer's personal beliefs were incorrect. What's wrong with that?

New discoveries using sophisticated testing equipment has revealed what is happening throughout the golfswing and Impact. Homer did not have access to this new scientific knowledge and just used whatever he thought would back up his theories. He provided no scientific proof for his assertions in Chapter 2, and for two decades nobody really cared what was in his lil' yellow book, because it was not intelligible.

Homer himself called TGM a "manual" and a "system" that defined the golfswing as he saw it from a subjective and anecdotal pov. Then he made a fatal mistake by trying to fake science as the basis of his system. To put it politely, he was full of beans. Nuff said .....

Of course the TGM faithful will never admit nor accept that the Sacred Words of Homer as written in his TGM gospel can ever be erroneous. Everybody needs a hero. This is similar to the devout Hoganites who claim that the 5 Lessons is all you really need to know for a great golfswing. The pathetic thing about this is that most here cannot cope with change and only want to have a Golfswing Bible they can trust and hold on to for dear life. I think Homer would have updated TGM in the light of new scientific discoveries if he were still with us. It looks like there is nobody smart enough to update Homer's Star System so that it is corrected with current science. Why not??

All I am promoting is the simplification of TGM by abandoning the obsolete and incorrect scientific crap in the book and retaining and clarifying the "System" part, which may have merit if properly explained. Why doesn't somebody clean up TGM so it can be easily understood on first reading? Why is TGM kept so secretive??

Btw 6bee ... you are not very astute when it comes to learning what is written in TGM. Look at the second paragraph in section 2-F on page 26, and you will see that Homer has refered to the Sweet Spot (albeit incorrectly) as the "longitudinal center of gravity, the line</u> of the pull of Centrifugal Force." Poor confused Homer has called a "Spot" a "longitudinal line" !!!

Nevertheless he did stumble across the "longitudinal centroidal axis" because his "longitudinal center of gravity" is the same as the "longitudinal centroid", the only difference being that he called it a "Spot" whereas in actuality it is an "axis or line". Some engineer and scientist is your Homer !!!!!

 

[horton]

Hello Axel - still on the board? Help ....!

Horton

 

[rwh]

horton,

You may, indeed, have a great and scientific mind. I can tell from your writing that you are erudite and most likely have one or more professional degrees.

Ben Doyle, Brian Manzella, Yoda (Lynn Blake), Chuck Evans, Greg McHatton, Tom Tomasello and a host of other instructors too numerous to mention have helped many thousands of golfers by teaching the principles of The Golfing Machine. Why is that? I suggest it's because TGM stuff works, and works well. How can the techniques taught in The Golfing Machine work well unless they are "Law abiding"? Do you think it's a mere coincidence and all of these teachers and students have improved "in spite" of The Golfing Machine?

As far as I can tell, you have done nothing by way of teaching or writing that has resulted in anyone's game improvement. The one point you have clearly made is that, in your opinion, Homer Kelley misunderstood the science. I don't know if he did or didn't. However, until YOU provide a system of techniques and procedures that are superior, it will continue to appear that it is Mr. Kelley who understood the golf swing way better than you.

 

[horton]

quote:Originally posted by rwh

horton,
Ben Doyle, Brian Manzella, Yoda (Lynn Blake), Chuck Evans, Greg McHatton, Tom Tomasello and a host of other instructors too numerous to mention have helped many thousands of golfers by teaching the principles of The Golfing Machine. Why is that?

I suggest it's because TGM stuff works, and works well. How can the techniques taught in The Golfing Machine work well unless they are "Law abiding"? Do you think it's a mere coincidence and all of these teachers and students have improved "in spite" of The Golfing Machine?

Why is that? It's because these fine teachers of the golfswing have used the relevant valid aspects of TGM and intelligently applied it to their students. To their credit they used the Best of TGM while ignoring the scientific flaws they probably all know about but stay silent in public.

TGM may be correct in application, but wrong in it's Science. This is not unimaginable, because we have seen charlatans attempt to use Science to sell their scams, and gullible uneducated people and golfers fall for their skullduggery. I mean just look at what is on the GolfChannel infomercials promising a golfswing in just 30 days or your money refunded.

So come on and smell the roses and stop throwing your crap at the problems within TGM, trying to cover up the gross errors in Science. Scientific "Laws" are not etched in stone that they cannot be challenged in their application. Homer applied the Laws of Science incorrectly but still managed to come up with some golfswing gems. Reveal the Truth About TGM, and the golfing world will acclaim it and Homer too !!!!

Just imagine how much better TGM can become if it is updated to reflect the current scientific knowledge about the golfswing. So why do the TGM converts refuse to demand that TGM be updated and shared with the world in an intelligible manner? Answer me that !!!!!!

 

[rwh]

quote:Originally posted by horton

quote:Originally posted by rwh

horton,
Ben Doyle, Brian Manzella, Yoda (Lynn Blake), Chuck Evans, Greg McHatton, Tom Tomasello and a host of other instructors too numerous to mention have helped many thousands of golfers by teaching the principles of The Golfing Machine. Why is that?

I suggest it's because TGM stuff works, and works well. How can the techniques taught in The Golfing Machine work well unless they are "Law abiding"? Do you think it's a mere coincidence and all of these teachers and students have improved "in spite" of The Golfing Machine?

Why is that? It's because these fine teachers of the golfswing have used the relevant valid aspects of TGM and intelligently applied it to their students. To their credit they used the Best of TGM while ignoring the scientific flaws they probably all know about but stay silent in public.

TGM may be correct in application, but wrong in it's Science. This is not unimaginable, because we have seen charlatans attempt to use Science to sell their scams, and gullible uneducated people and golfers fall for their skullduggery. I mean just look at what is on the GolfChannel infomercials promising a golfswing in just 30 days or your money refunded.

So come on and smell the roses and stop throwing your crap at the problems within TGM, trying to cover up the gross errors in Science. Scientific "Laws" are not etched in stone that they cannot be challenged in their application. Homer applied the Laws of Science incorrectly but still managed to come up with some golfswing gems. Reveal the Truth About TGM, and the golfing world will acclaim it and Homer too !!!!

Just imagine how much better TGM can become if it is updated to reflect the current scientific knowledge about the golfswing. So why do the TGM converts refuse to demand that TGM be updated and shared with the world in an intelligible manner? Answer me that !!!!!!

You agree, then, that The Golfing Machine must contain techniques and procedures that work. Please educate us with scientfic proof as to what techniques and procedures in The Golfing Machine do not work.

I'll answer your question in a separate post.

 

[horton]

rwh::

I think your challenges and questions should be addressed to somebody like Brian, who himself has indicated that a Straight Line Power Package Delivery Path is not absolutely straight as shown in 10-23-A. He says that it is only "straight-er" in another topic thread. Obvouslty the AIs ignore the science too and only concentrate on the method.

I do not presume to understand everything in the application of TGM. Only qualified AIs can do that. I am only addressing my critique to the so-called scientific underpinnings of TGM as provided by Homer in Chapter 2. The science is a mess, so how can somebody with a scientific education have blind faith in the method? Your personal successes with TGM are not valid scientific proof that it must be correct. Sorry ....

Because the scientific interpretation of the golfswing changes with new discoveries, you must be able to compare and critique what Homer erroneously believe to be unalterable scientific fact. I think you should give me and Homer some slack when you indignantly challenge us to replace TGM with something better.

I only want to learn and understand the practical application of TGM, but I will certainly not forego criticizing the so-called Science and Geometry that Homer has so badly presented. Live with that .....

 

[6bee1dee]

Horton, I am giving you a chance to state your case, get published under your name and make a few bucks. Instead you Troll a forum like a little child. Here is my email: homeriscorrect@yahoo.com - my friends will give us til April to see a rough draft.
Jack K attacks Homer Kelley and I paid 60 bucks to see his argument - what a joke. Cloak and dagger at best. He hides in a mix of contempt, rudeness and numbers. And all poor Jack missed was a flat left wrist. BTW- do you, Jack K and Madrin every take into account the hands? I look at all those graphs and lines- I read all the procedure and never see the use of the hands. In TGM Hands are the microchip of the machine. As I said, your arguments may be valid in your own swing philosophy - the weak inferior single axis swing that was created for inflexible couch potatoes - but hardly is valid for convention swings. Planes, circles, inertia, centrifugal/centrifugal forces, levers, fulcrums, mass and weight are valid basic concepts. Homer used them to described the motion of the hands and clubface to make impact on the ball.

Sweetspot is a point on the clubshaft, the line runs from that point to the hands- pressure point #3.

So far Horton, the best you have done is re-phrase the basic physics and geometry with newer terms- the concepts never changed. Natural forces never changed- vocabulary did. If Homer is wrong- let's publish the findings.

 

[rwh]

quote:Originally posted by horton
Just imagine how much better TGM can become if it is updated to reflect the current scientific knowledge about the golfswing. So why do the TGM converts refuse to demand that TGM be updated and shared with the world in an intelligible manner? Answer me that !!!!!!

I agree that the text isn't "user friendly" -- at first. I doubt if anyone has ever "figured it out" solely on their own. It seems like those who best know and understand the text have not only put in a lot of personal study, but have had direct access to Mr. Kelley and/or indirect access via the many hours of tapes of his teaching sessions that are not yet available to the general public. Brian is a notable exception; however, he spent hundreds of hours with Ben Doyle who spent more time learning from Homer than anyone. My hope would be that everyone could eventually have access to those primary source tapes.

I think there is a market for material that would make the "what to do" of TGM easier to understand. Rather than re-writing the book, a good DVD demonstrating the techniques and procedures of The Golfing Machine would, in my opinion, help the most people. Brian has some videos in production that should be good and it is rumored that others may be putting some TGM instructional videos together.

In short, there is a demand -- but not necessarily for a new book. And, the demand will be met.

 

[rwh]

quote:Originally posted by horton

rwh::

I think your challenges and questions should be addressed to somebody like Brian, who himself has indicated that a Straight Line Power Package Delivery Path is not absolutely straight as shown in 10-23-A. He says that it is only "straight-er" in another topic thread. Obvouslty the AIs ignore the science too and only concentrate on the method.

I do not presume to understand everything in the application of TGM. Only qualified AIs can do that. I am only addressing my critique to the so-called scientific underpinnings of TGM as provided by Homer in Chapter 2. The science is a mess, so how can somebody with a scientific education have blind faith in the method? Your personal successes with TGM are not valid scientific proof that it must be correct. Sorry ....

Because the scientific interpretation of the golfswing changes with new discoveries, you must be able to compare and critique what Homer erroneously believe to be unalterable scientific fact. I think you should give me and Homer some slack when you indignantly challenge us to replace TGM with something better.

I only want to learn and understand the practical application of TGM, but I will certainly not forego criticizing the so-called Science and Geometry that Homer has so badly presented. Live with that .....

I understood that it is YOUwho have been calling for the TGM re-write. I'm pretty satisfied with it.

I wish you well in your quest to learn the application of The Golfing Machine techiques and procedures -- you will proft from your study.

 

[corky05]

"TGM may be correct in application, but wrong in it's Science."

Which one do you think golfers care about?

 

[horton]

quote:Originally posted by corky05

"TGM may be correct in application, but wrong in it's Science."

Which one do you think golfers care about?

I think golfers like you only want to be spoonfed the application of TGM. "Forget the facts and just tell me what to feel!!", they cry out.

Intelligent golfers, AI's with their Doctorate in Golf Swing Engineering, and I, Horton, care about the Science and the Method that constitutes TGM. Homer based his entire Method on his erroneous interpretation of the Sciences. Does this not bring the Method into doubt??

I believe it is incumbent on the owners of TGM and the many AIs to resolveTGM with current scientific discovery about the golfswing and reconcile the Method to correct it so it is properly applied to golfers. Otherwise TGM becomes stagnant and dies because it is obsoleted, because it is wrong in it's scientific underpinnings.

If the science behind TGM is to be ignored and only the application of the TGM method is considered valid, then that should be openly stated by the AIs, otherwise TGM will be differently interpreted by everybody and it will cease to be an acknowledged golfswing Method or System.

So now you tell me, is TGM a Science or just another golfswing Method / System to be attacked or ignored?

 

[Bigwill]

quote:Originally posted by corky05

"TGM may be correct in application, but wrong in it's Science."

Which one do you think golfers care about?

Look, nobody is going to change Horton's mind; Horton isn't going to change anybody's mind on this board. The fact is, when you get past all of the sometimes-difficult-to-understand terminology, TGM helps golfers improve. In an earlier post, you said that you wanted to learn and understand. The information is available to you on this and related boards; you don't even have to look at the book. And as far as your argument against the science of TGM, you may be as right as rain, but you've more than likely burned too many bridges here to have your arguments heard in an open-minded fashion.

 

[horton]

Bigwill::

I am open-minded and willing to change my mind on anything provided it is reasonably valid. I know that Brian is open-minded because he is a GSED, and TGM is part of his teaching portfolio. However, I find that others like corky, 6bee, etc. are very defensive and close-minded to anything that could shatter their unquestioning faith in TGM.

That is unfortunate, because I am certain that Homer would have revised TGM to reflect new scientific discoveries about the golfswing, and possibly even make wholesale changes so that TGM grew with the newScience. Homer did state that TGM is solely based on Physics an Geometry, if the assumed Physics and Geometry obsoleted by new information, Homer would be obliged to change TGM.

Currently TGM is stagnating in pre-1982 science, while a great deal of scientific work has been published about the golfswing, equipment, learning theory, even agronomy. Even though a few golfers claim to have benefitted from TGM teaching, it is not universally recognized as a legitimate teaching method or system, simply because it is unintelligible and confined to a few AIs who are apparently trying to sell it as a scientifically current golfswing System.

It's probably because the scientific flaws in Chapter 2 are just so glaring than nobody wants to get involved in publicly challenging it. The owners and AIs must bring TGM up to current scientific standards if they intend to promote it as Homer's scientific contribution to golf. So far nothing, but maybe the next posthumuous edition will clear the air. Let's hope ....

I have pointed out several Scientific flaws in TGM, but it seems that the cultists refuse to change their religious beliefs and irrationally defend TGM while personally attacking me. Go figure .....

 

[horton]

Bigwill::

I am open-minded and willing to change my mind on anything provided it is reasonably valid. I know that Brian is open-minded because he is a GSED, and TGM is part of his teaching portfolio. However, I find that others like corky, 6bee, etc. are very defensive and close-minded to anything that could shatter their unquestioning faith in TGM.

That is unfortunate, because I am certain that Homer would have revised TGM to reflect new scientific discoveries about the golfswing, and possibly even make wholesale changes so that TGM grew with the newScience. Homer did state that TGM is solely based on Physics an Geometry, if the assumed Physics and Geometry obsoleted by new information, Homer would be obliged to change TGM.

Currently TGM is stagnating in pre-1982 science, while a great deal of scientific work has been published about the golfswing, equipment, learning theory, even agronomy. Even though a few golfers claim to have benefitted from TGM teaching, it is not universally recognized as a legitimate teaching method or system, simply because it is unintelligible and confined to a few AIs who are apparently trying to sell it as a scientifically current golfswing System.

It's probably because the scientific flaws in Chapter 2 are just so glaring than nobody wants to get involved in publicly challenging it. The owners and AIs must bring TGM up to current scientific standards if they intend to promote it as Homer's scientific contribution to golf. So far nothing, but maybe the next posthumuous edition will clear the air. Let's hope ....

I have pointed out several Scientific flaws in TGM, but it seems that the cultists refuse to change their religious beliefs and irrationally defend TGM while personally attacking me. Go figure .....

 

[Bigwill]

quote:Originally posted by horton


I have pointed out several Scientific flaws in TGM, but it seems that the cultists refuse to change their religious beliefs and irrationally defend TGM while personally attacking me. Go figure .....

Don't you see how statements like this could invite those attacks? I think that maybe people are defending what they feel are attacks on something that they feel strongly about; in which case they are less likely to want to hear what you have to say. You could have valid observations, and never have anyone listen if they are being referred to as irrational cultists. I understand that this is fairly far down the line of this dispute, but the fact remains that it seems some people on this board feel like you came into their house tracking mud, whatever your original intentions may have been. It's a lot easier to get a point across to someone who is willing to listen.

 

[Bigwill]

quote:Originally posted by horton


I have pointed out several Scientific flaws in TGM, but it seems that the cultists refuse to change their religious beliefs and irrationally defend TGM while personally attacking me. Go figure .....

Don't you see how statements like this could invite those attacks? I think that maybe people are defending what they feel are attacks on something that they feel strongly about; in which case they are less likely to want to hear what you have to say. You could have valid observations, and never have anyone listen if they are being referred to as irrational cultists. I understand that this is fairly far down the line of this dispute, but the fact remains that it seems some people on this board feel like you came into their house tracking mud, whatever your original intentions may have been. It's a lot easier to get a point across to someone who is willing to listen.

 

[6bee1dee]

horton crowed: Currently TGM is stagnating in pre-1982 science, while a great deal of scientific work has been published about the golfswing, equipment, learning theory, even agronomy...
Homer did state that TGM is solely based on Physics an Geometry, if the assumed Physics and Geometry obsoleted by new information, Homer would be obliged to change TGM.

When did the laws of physics change (besides the terms)? I am in danger? Which laws don't exist anymore? Gravity, inertia? Centrifugal force/Centrifugal force? Can I still turn my car when I drive? Have any of the three Laws of Newton been repealed? Which ones?

Let me know which laws stopped existing- I won’t leave the house til I know it is safe out there.

How is the rough draft coming: email me homeriscorrect@yahoo.com

hurry- if TGM needs to be revised so badly- I have two contacts willing to puiblish it. And since you are so excited about the up comimg changes needed. I can't wait. But first- fill me in on those changes to the universe.

Horton- think about this - I can't present the work of an idiot. What college and degree can I tell my contracts you have?

 

[tgmhitter]

Thanks for admitting that your swing is worth a sh1t. Ignore my request to post your swing here.

Originally posted by horton

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.


...but you are being funny again. c'mon Horton, be real.

Originally posted by horton
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 !!!!