Secret Research Mission

[macduffer]

In the interests of peace and harmony...

Steve, i think I speak for some others here when I say the problem is not what you say, but how you say it. It's generally considered the mark of educated individuals that they can agree to disagree, and conduct their dispute in non-provocative terms. I will admit that I have at times fallen below that standard. I would respectfully suggest that you have too.

I also don't think anyone has any problems with the application of science to golf (I certainly don't) nor do they proclaim that any book/method/camp has all the answers (again, I certainly don't). If project 1.68 significantly advances our understanding of the swing and, crucially, helps us play better golf then I agree entirely that anyone who ignores it will be foolish.

But by the same token, continually hyperbolising (is that a verb?) project 1.68 like the second coming, before any of us has any real idea what it is, is neither 'scientific' nor conducive to productive discussion. After all, most intelligent people typically want to see something before passing judgement on it. It is not trolling to say that.

I think that outlines pretty clearly where I, and I suspect many others, stand. When we hear what Brian etc have to say, we'll listen openly and with interest.

 

[SteveT]

macduffer ... there is an element on every forum that attempts to derail discussion because it doesn't fit into their feelings and religiously held beliefs. I encountered this in 2003-04 on the old BManz forum, and it's rearing it's ugly head here too. The pattern is unmistakable ... and I'm hoping that BManz will flush it out with Project 1.68.

mandrin seems to be gone ... and now ...???

 

[macduffer]

The only thing I believe in religiously is sod's law.

 

[SteveT]

The only thing I believe in religiously is sod's law.

You are a true and suffering golfer ... seek truth to know thyself ... (SteveT's Law) ...

 

[birly-shirly]

Let's be clear here - since SteveT "named and shamed" me, along with a few others.

There's very little going on in the general course of discussion here that "doesn't fit" with any cherished feelings or beliefs that I hold dear. Differences of approach or opinion for sure, but nothing that I find threatening or would want to undermine.

I do however think that SteveT talks bollocks. He sprinkles his postings with little bits of second-hand scientific jargon without any apparent depth of understanding. He avoids direct questions. He has no teaching record. And he can't play the game.

But his boasting, and trolling, gratuitous insults and endless attention seeking are getting in the way of many a good thread. And he's pissing people off. Who the hell would want to post here for advice and be told that their belly is in the way or that their belief system is at fault?

It's nothing personal, but smarten up - will ya?

 

[Glordfocker]

Nope, you're wrong again because Homer did erroneously make the left wrist a fulcrum in 6-A-3 for his Secondary Lever Assembly. Not only that in 6-A-2 he starts with the left shoulder as the fulcrum for the Primary Lever Assembly ... and in both cases he is wrong wrong wrong. When I was 'Horton', I pointed out this gross error of sheer stupidity and I'm not going to redux the issue to respect our host Brian.

The left wrist cannot be a fulcrum because a fulcrum requires a foundation to establish itself .. and the right hand can use the flexed right arm as a foundation because the right arm is quite secure under the club at the Top of the swing.

Ok , so a foundation is needed for a fulcrum to be established , are the 3 types of levers different , for example a class 3 lever.So what is the secondary lever assembly ? golf club I would assume , so the left wrist can't be the fulcrum?.

In your opinion in regard to a flexed right arm / is the right elbow the foundation and what elbow position would provide the most secure foundation, if its indeed the foundation

 

[spktho]

... there is an element on every forum that attempts to derail discussion because it doesn't fit into their feelings and religiously held beliefs. I encountered this in 2003-04 on the old BManz forum, and it's rearing it's ugly head here too. The pattern is unmistakable ... and I'm hoping that BManz will flush it out with Project 1.68.

mandrin seems to be gone ... and now ...???

You're still not understanding what many people here are saying to you. The element that I see resisting you is solely based on your rude comments and insults. I realize everyone must live in their own reality and each person's reality is different from others'. But, I don't know many people who like being called "pussies" and in terms "stupid", as you have done, even if you are trying to disguise it in generalist terms.

You have touted Project 1.68 so many times and in so many contexts that is difficult to understand your motives at this point.

If you search for mandrin's latest posts, I believe he explained why he has not visited the forum much and it's not the reason you are implying.

 

[SteveT]

Let's be clear here - ....... I do however think that SteveT talks bollocks. He sprinkles his postings with little bits of second-hand scientific jargon without any apparent depth of understanding. He avoids direct questions. He has no teaching record. And he can't play the game.

It's nothing personal, but smarten up - will ya?

Watch out, because BManz is depending on the same such people with legitimate doctorate degrees to explain the science behind the golfswing ... and I bet none of them has taught nor can break 100 ....LOL

Luddites abound ...!!!!

 

[eswan]

Steve, do you believe that Homer's division of golfer's into swingers and hitters had
any merit?

Just in case you do, was Hogan a hitter or a swinger in your opinion?

What is your opinion of stack and tilt?

Did VJ Trollio get Hogan's swing right?

Do you think game improvement irons make it more difficult to control the clubface into impact?

 

[willgolfer]

Steve, do you believe that Homer's division of golfer's into swingers and hitters had
any merit?

Just in case you do, was Hogan a hitter or a swinger in your opinion?

What is your opinion of stack and tilt?

Did VJ Trollio get Hogan's swing right?

Do you think game improvement irons make it more difficult to control the clubface into impact?

This probably deserved its own thread.

 

[SteveT]

eswan asks:

Steve, do you believe that Homer's division of golfer's into swingers and hitters had
any merit? >>> yes.

Just in case you do, was Hogan a hitter or a swinger in your opinion? >>> I don't know .. perhaps a hitter because he said he wished he had 3 right arms for his downswing.

What is your opinion of stack and tilt? >>> No opinion.

Did VJ Trollio get Hogan's swing right? >>> I don't know.

Do you think game improvement irons make it more difficult to control the clubface into impact?>>> Yes.

 

[eswan]

Thanks for the response.

 

[birdie_man]

Thorpe and the rest all worked on their games and swings trying to improve. No different than the classic swingers.

Perhaps we need to alter our thinking as to what "looks good".

IMO even swings with some unique characteristics can benefit from a good pro who knows the true dynamics of the swing, whether it be Furyk or Els.

Palmer is probably at the range right now trying to find something.

Arnie is great!

Pretty sure he said he thought he could still win pro tourneys at 70 something years old. (I think he was serious!)

Just nuts, maybe in a good way?

I love swings with quirks. Some weird things are somehow natural to different people. I guess you just have to decide whether something really needs changing...

 

[birdie_man]

My list of who's naughty and not nice:

- birdie_man
- birly-shirly
- macduffer
- cwdlaw223

.... and when Project 1.68 is finally published, you jokers will have to either learn or leave, because you will be shocked how simple, science will reduce the golfswing. The mystery will be gone and you will be flapping like fish out of water because gossiping will be gone ... believe it.

You are not Santa.

I am in fact a joker, I think I do it better than you do, for now.

But I am also damn serious about things I think are best to be taken seriously.

You think I just hang around here to screw around?

You are smarter than you are showing, I think.

Sorry if I've upset some, now go tell the others to stop their trolling. I have an opinion and it's more in line with the scientists backing up Project 1.68. Surely you don't want a forum devoid of scientific input ...!

Why don't you just do what you do best, and actually stick to science.

Really.

Why?

Credit where it's due with whatever you did in the past man (no I didn't take the time to re-read all of it) but regarding "devoid of scientific input", I think what Mike was saying was that you really haven't input a ton lately. (or whatever you have has been lost in this silliness)

You have been too busy Barry Horowitzing yourself and needling everyone.

It actually is cool that you are seemingly on board with the new (scientific) content here but Geez...even saying that I assume is somewhat lost in all this BS.

And again- yes I do realize that it seems you were right about some things concerning TGM. Nothing wrong with you even coming out and saying you were right (if you were), once, twice, or maybe thrice...

??

But it's your judgment call Steve...

 

[mgranato]

Yes, I know .. but you know I'm right ... as was Horton ....

Udaman, BManz .... and when you are armed with Project 1.68 you will be invincible ... believe it..

Eddie and Ricky here,

Finally we have found another member who fits our collective style. I, Eddie, respects a good puckering. Anyone who throws in as much compulsory brown nosing as I do has got to be all right.

And I, Ricky, respects a good acknowledgement of self through 3rd person. Ricky believes that anyone who references their own awesomeness, and needs two screen names to do it, is just bad assed. Ricky should have thought of that myself.

It's good to know we aren't alone.

Regards,

Eddie Haskell
Ricky Henderson

 

[birly-shirly]

Watch out, because BManz is depending on the same such people with legitimate doctorate degrees to explain the science behind the golfswing ... and I bet none of them has taught nor can break 100 ....LOL

Luddites abound ...!!!!

Well, it's neither here nor there, but I think I read somewhere that Dr Zick plays off 6. It's neither here nor there though, because all these people are being consulted for their professional expertise. That's where any comparison or analogy between them and you ends.

BTW - if you're going to try and insinuate yourself amongst "such people with legitimate doctorate degrees (sic)", then you should know that it's either "doctoral degree" or "doctorate". I'd expect anyone who has earned a legitimate phd would have known that.

 

[matt kluck]

Good One

Good one Birly!!
MK

 

[chipingguru]

I read that Albert Einstein went to play golf with one of his fellow Professors at Princeton. The local pro tried to give him a lesson. Einstein took out four balls and threw them at the pro and said "see if I throw you four balls, you can't catch any, but if I throw you one you can" so "Tell me one damn thing at a time"!

Could be a lesson in there somewhere.

 

[SteveT]

Hey, birly .... even our Brian has a "doctoral" degree ... GSED ... and it's in "engineering" too ... but I don't think he is a practicing doctor nowadays ..

 

[bax1865]

Weighty Subject

With all your knowledge perhaps Steve T you could publish Project 1.62.......because size doesn't matter...."weight" a minute I could be on to something.