You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Questions to Horton
- Thread starter Axel_WIngert
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Axel_WIngert
New
Horton: "Good man Axel !!!!!!!!!! Tell the trolls where to go !!!!"
Axel: I haven't seen any trolls here-only forum members. But it makes it very hard to keep a structure in this thread if people are interfering.
Horton: "You Axel, must be a very devoted golfer who not only loves the game but also has a high personal standard to maintain. Regardless of your handicap level, you must be a fine golfer who appreciates what it takes to play the game - knowledge + work."
Axel: Thanks for the kind words. I'm doing my best.
Horton: "In response to your many questions, let me start with this. Please study the basic physics of "inertial and non-inertial systems or frames of reference". Without this knowledge we will never be able to properly discuss TGM and how Newtonian Physics and the 3 Laws of Motion apply to the golfswing. Homer attempted to do this but failed because he took a subjective or non-inertial approach to his analysis. He did not properly apply Newton's Laws of Motion to his explanations, even though he proclaimed that he did."
I looked things up- my approach would be to use two systems. Lab System (Driving Range) and a point somewhere in the hands as the "rotating" or rather just moving and accelerating system- what do you think?
Horton: "As an educated technical person and a decent golfer, I can evaluate TGM and Homer's claim to a scientific basis to his analysis. Homer has incorrectly used scientific terminology so that casts great doubt on his qualifications. You say he was an engineer, but that is not true. He did not graduate from any engineering school and did not have an engineering degree. People who claim to know as much as an engineer are usually fakes who know nothing about the science. Homer was a good golfer and a worker in the Boeing factory, not an engineer."
Axel: I always thought he was an engineer, but haven't seen his diploma or Boeing-contract. But even if he wasn't my argument about engineers is still valid. During my university courses many professors would be TOTALLY lost if there weren't the technicians to help them. By the way- what did you study?I'm in my third semester of Physics now.
"The geometry claimed in TGM is really bad, particularily the Vector diagrams and the Impact Interval sketches showing Impact and Separation. These sketches are not only wrong, they are badly out of scale and deceptive in what they are trying to show. Homer's understanding of the Impact Interval are only his best guess and current science shows he is wrong -- plain and simple."
Axel: You say the impact sketches were just a guess made by Homer and that there are studies (current science) showing that they are wrong. Could you give us links to these studies or is it even possible to re-do the sketches with the help of these new studies?
Horton: "Together with the poorly written book, the claimed science does not exist. There are no tested geometric proofs and no objective experimental results to back up Homer's claims for scientific proof. Science depends on objective proof and not on subjective feeling or personal results. "
Axel: One could state it like this: Homer used his scientific knowledge intutively to analyze the golf swing. That's what engineers usually have to do- using the intution of an engineer.
Horton: "I am happy for you that you found great success by flying in from Germany to train with Brian and learn TGM, but that is not proof that Homer is correct in his scientific claims. Your faith in TGM is the same as your faith in the Bible or your faith in your favorite sports team or your country. Great teacher like Brian understand how to use and not use their knowledge for each student, and that is what makes them great. Just read what ignorant golfers say about Yoda !!"
Axel: I stayed there for one week and Brian explained a lot of the whole TGM theory to me. And now I can look at swings and see where people are losing power (distance) and where the ball goes and why and how to solve the problem(to a certain extend i could do that before, but now I can explain some phenomena which earlier where a mystery). It's not so much about faith- we have a system that to a good extent works- even though there might be flaws in it (as in every theory- Newtonian physics aren't totally correct either)
Horton: "Faith can be a wonderful and powerful force that makes you feel good about yourself and your golf, but you must agree with me that it is not Science, because Science is Universal, whereas an individual's feelings and experiences are not regardless of how many claim to have the same feeling and beliefs as you do. Science is not proven by majority voting and agreeing on feelings; only by experimental proof that is identical each and every time. By this test, TGM is not a science or even scientifically based, and that is why scientific people avoid getting involve with something that they consider a scam."
Axel: Is there a system available right now that is using science more correctly than TGM and still appliable to the real golfer?
"By accident, TGM may be a great golfswing system or method, but a Science it is not. Homer was scientifically wrong but golfically right. "
Axel: I don't think it has ever been said that TGM is a science- it's only based on science. That's a big difference.
Axel: In further communication I would like it if you could "quote and answer" the way I did. It has turned out to be a very good way of commuication where it is easier to maintain a structure. Another thing is that this way it's harder to fall in the trap of answering the question one liked to be asked instead of the one that is actually asked. (I often catch myself doing this while doing "quote/answer")
Axel
P.S.: Sorry I didn't answer earlier, but I didn't find the new location until I had alook at my e-mail account today.
Axel: I haven't seen any trolls here-only forum members. But it makes it very hard to keep a structure in this thread if people are interfering.
Horton: "You Axel, must be a very devoted golfer who not only loves the game but also has a high personal standard to maintain. Regardless of your handicap level, you must be a fine golfer who appreciates what it takes to play the game - knowledge + work."
Axel: Thanks for the kind words. I'm doing my best.
Horton: "In response to your many questions, let me start with this. Please study the basic physics of "inertial and non-inertial systems or frames of reference". Without this knowledge we will never be able to properly discuss TGM and how Newtonian Physics and the 3 Laws of Motion apply to the golfswing. Homer attempted to do this but failed because he took a subjective or non-inertial approach to his analysis. He did not properly apply Newton's Laws of Motion to his explanations, even though he proclaimed that he did."
I looked things up- my approach would be to use two systems. Lab System (Driving Range) and a point somewhere in the hands as the "rotating" or rather just moving and accelerating system- what do you think?
Horton: "As an educated technical person and a decent golfer, I can evaluate TGM and Homer's claim to a scientific basis to his analysis. Homer has incorrectly used scientific terminology so that casts great doubt on his qualifications. You say he was an engineer, but that is not true. He did not graduate from any engineering school and did not have an engineering degree. People who claim to know as much as an engineer are usually fakes who know nothing about the science. Homer was a good golfer and a worker in the Boeing factory, not an engineer."
Axel: I always thought he was an engineer, but haven't seen his diploma or Boeing-contract. But even if he wasn't my argument about engineers is still valid. During my university courses many professors would be TOTALLY lost if there weren't the technicians to help them. By the way- what did you study?I'm in my third semester of Physics now.
"The geometry claimed in TGM is really bad, particularily the Vector diagrams and the Impact Interval sketches showing Impact and Separation. These sketches are not only wrong, they are badly out of scale and deceptive in what they are trying to show. Homer's understanding of the Impact Interval are only his best guess and current science shows he is wrong -- plain and simple."
Axel: You say the impact sketches were just a guess made by Homer and that there are studies (current science) showing that they are wrong. Could you give us links to these studies or is it even possible to re-do the sketches with the help of these new studies?
Horton: "Together with the poorly written book, the claimed science does not exist. There are no tested geometric proofs and no objective experimental results to back up Homer's claims for scientific proof. Science depends on objective proof and not on subjective feeling or personal results. "
Axel: One could state it like this: Homer used his scientific knowledge intutively to analyze the golf swing. That's what engineers usually have to do- using the intution of an engineer.
Horton: "I am happy for you that you found great success by flying in from Germany to train with Brian and learn TGM, but that is not proof that Homer is correct in his scientific claims. Your faith in TGM is the same as your faith in the Bible or your faith in your favorite sports team or your country. Great teacher like Brian understand how to use and not use their knowledge for each student, and that is what makes them great. Just read what ignorant golfers say about Yoda !!"
Axel: I stayed there for one week and Brian explained a lot of the whole TGM theory to me. And now I can look at swings and see where people are losing power (distance) and where the ball goes and why and how to solve the problem(to a certain extend i could do that before, but now I can explain some phenomena which earlier where a mystery). It's not so much about faith- we have a system that to a good extent works- even though there might be flaws in it (as in every theory- Newtonian physics aren't totally correct either)
Horton: "Faith can be a wonderful and powerful force that makes you feel good about yourself and your golf, but you must agree with me that it is not Science, because Science is Universal, whereas an individual's feelings and experiences are not regardless of how many claim to have the same feeling and beliefs as you do. Science is not proven by majority voting and agreeing on feelings; only by experimental proof that is identical each and every time. By this test, TGM is not a science or even scientifically based, and that is why scientific people avoid getting involve with something that they consider a scam."
Axel: Is there a system available right now that is using science more correctly than TGM and still appliable to the real golfer?
"By accident, TGM may be a great golfswing system or method, but a Science it is not. Homer was scientifically wrong but golfically right. "
Axel: I don't think it has ever been said that TGM is a science- it's only based on science. That's a big difference.
Axel: In further communication I would like it if you could "quote and answer" the way I did. It has turned out to be a very good way of commuication where it is easier to maintain a structure. Another thing is that this way it's harder to fall in the trap of answering the question one liked to be asked instead of the one that is actually asked. (I often catch myself doing this while doing "quote/answer")
Axel
P.S.: Sorry I didn't answer earlier, but I didn't find the new location until I had alook at my e-mail account today.
Axel_WIngert
New
Horton- did you loose interest?
Something else I wanted to ask you. You stated in another thread that the club rotates around a point a few inches below the hands (prior during and after impact). There are others having the same assumption. But I never understood it. Wouldn't the hands have to go backward to do this?
Axel
Something else I wanted to ask you. You stated in another thread that the club rotates around a point a few inches below the hands (prior during and after impact). There are others having the same assumption. But I never understood it. Wouldn't the hands have to go backward to do this?
Axel
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Share: