Secret Research Mission

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Jacobs

Michael Jacobs

Super Moderator
Brian, myself & the boys (Mike Finney, Jon Hardesty, Damon Lucas, Kevin Shields, and Phil Rosenbaum) are on a two-day secret Project 1.68 research mission.

We will report back.
 
S

SteveT

Guest
I think Project 1.68 is slightly constipated here ... we shove things in and nothing comes out ... :eek:

(Hey, Ringer ... Sustain the tlorgue. :D)
 
W

wulsy

New
Looking at scientific enquiry from a historical persprective, I would be inclined to be just a little more sceptical of claims based on scientific evidence than seems to be the case on this forum. In a golfing sense TGM is a great example of labelling something as science in order to gain universal acceptance. It seems a lot of people here are blinded by the term "scientist". If I call myself a scientist, does it mean that I am infallable? At the end of the day, science has a poor track record - many scientific "facts" have been disproven and even in some case "re-proven" over the years!
 
Last edited:
birdie_man

birdie_man

New
Never infallible!!

Are you aware of how much things have changed over the years wulsy?

Do "boot ass" when it is needed though.
 
Last edited:
Frans@France

Frans@France

New
I somehow have to agree with birdie_man. It's it getting annoying that the project is mentioned time after time but no information is given. But then again it is the man own forum so ....:p
 
W

wulsy

New
I would like to think so birdie.

Of course a lot of things indeed have changed because of scientific endevour, but there's a long list of scientifc failure eg TG mmm!
 
ZAP

ZAP

New
Even if they are hyping the project it is his site. Having met Brian I am setting funds aside now to buy the book. It is sure to be worthwhile.
 
W

weese

New
birdie_man said:
Hype machine!!

You guys can't even back it up...
Click to expand...

I'm curious with Project 1.68, but honestly, do we really need science to tell us how to swing a golf club? We have over 100+ years of golf history to tell us what works and what doesn't.

We just read here the other day that the new science says Paula Creamer has one of the best swings in golf. Still can't get over that one.
 
F

footwedge

New member
weese said:
I'm curious with Project 1.68, but honestly, do we really need science to tell us how to swing a golf club? We have over 100+ years of golf history to tell us what works and what doesn't.

We just read here the other day that the new science says Paula Creamer has one of the best swings in golf. Still can't get over that one.
Click to expand...


Paula Creamer has a swing that suits her, the only way it's one of the best is it's among swings that suit a player who can make it work for them, regardless of how it "looks". It's at this point in time the best swing for her. JMO.
 
W

wulsy

New
weese said:
I'm curious with Project 1.68, but honestly, do we really need science to tell us how to swing a golf club? We have over 100+ years of golf history to tell us what works and what doesn't.
Click to expand...

Not really, because we never really knew exactly what happenen through impact-separation. On the other hand, are we really in a position to use this very exact info any more than something less exact?

weese said:
We just read here the other day that the new science says Paula Creamer has one of the best swings in golf. Still can't get over that one.
Click to expand...

I hear people, sometimes even golf pros, talking about what a great swing this or that player has based on some absurd definition of whether it "looks good" to them. I never know whether to laugh or cry when I hear this, becuase it is just total BS. "Ugly" swings are sometimes better than "nice" ones because they get the job done better. What is "the job": control distance and shape it how you want.
 
B

Bigwill

New
wulsy said:
I hear people, sometimes even golf pros, talking about what a great swing this or that player has based on some absurd definition of whether it "looks good" to them. I never know whether to laugh or cry when I hear this, becuase it is just total BS. "Ugly" swings are sometimes better than "nice" ones because they get the job done better. What is "the job": control distance and shape it how you want.
Click to expand...


+1.

In the end, I think a lot has to do with what fits the eye. It seems that, in the golf world, we tend to separate "best swing" and "best ballstriker". Lee Buck is a perfect example. If you define the quality of a swing by the results it produces, his would be one of the best ever, no? Yet, his and other quirky swings which produce great results (a group that is probably larger than it gets credit for) never get a mention because instruction and swing ratings focus largely on what looks pretty.

IMO, the look of the swing should be changed only if it's related to a flaw that causes faulty flight/contact. There are a lot of pretty swings that don't do anything, and a lot of butt-ugly swings that produce the prettiest shots you'll ever see. To me, a good instructor/smart golfer would do well to leave it alone if it's working, rather than changing things for aesthetic purposes.

I wonder how many golfers would change their action to one that flips their stomachs if it would produce great results? I'd be willing to bet that even then, many would go back to the range with a camera the first time their game gives them an excuse to blame the ugly swing, using it as an excuse to try to ingrain something more conventional/classic/pleasing-to-the-eye/whatever. I've seen it before, including in myself:

"Ugh, my swing is ugly/too flat/too upright/too short/too long, etc. How do I make it do the opposite"

"How are you hitting it?"

"Fine. It just doesn't look like Tour Pro So-And-So. If I could only get it to look more like THAT..."

"Well, okay. Here's how you change it..." instead of

"If you're hitting it fine, then leave it alone. Do this instead..."

We should be more like Jim Thorpe. He knew that his swing is ugly, but he also knows that it worked, so he was fine with it being ugly. Zeroed out won't look the same for everybody. Some people will wear it well; some won't. What matters is that it works.
 
A

alexandjacob

New
don't B

I feel like i want to add something here..


1- Brian said he would share when the time is right

2- he has always been straight up with us , so lets wait until he can..remember they have investors and they may not be allowed to share things at this time.....i don't know....

3- I like that we want it NOW.....cuz it means we are looking forward to it

4- we can help B and MJ and boys by constantly asking ? after ? after we get info

5- this forum is very much part of the PROJECT...we (not me) but smart people

can and will take them to task and make them "PROVE" what they are saying

when i say task and proved....its said with respect for Brian mj and boys

AND FOR THE FORUM.....we have brillaince (not me) on this site..your time

will come...and your help will be needed.....sit back sip a diet coke and enjoy the ride

ALEX AND-JAKEY'S....POPPA...(OHH HOW I LOVE MY BOYS)
 
Last edited:
S

softconsult

New
"IMO, the look of the swing should be changed only if it's related to a flaw that causes faulty flight/contact. There are a lot of pretty swings that don't do anything, and a lot of butt-ugly swings that produce the prettiest shots you'll ever see. To me, a good instructor/smart golfer would do well to leave it alone if it's working, rather than changing things for aesthetic purposes."

In my many decades of playing golf, I have seen way more swings (pretty or not, mostly not!) that did not produce consistently good shots. My point is that I think more instructors change a student's swing because the student is producing poor shots. Almost has to be true because there really are not that many pretty swings out there as a percentage of all golf swings.

Just my entirely subjective view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top