[golfbulldog]

I disagree - the two represent different perspectives, yes, but those perspectives are in general agreement IMO, taking into account the core difference you mentioned regarding SFTPS using observational data, which by no means suggests that observation represents any 'ideal'.

In short I consider both texts important works in the field, but at least in my view there can be no doubt that TGM is 'deeper' in its content by leaps and bounds.

Perspective matters, to be sure.

By "contasting ...methods" i was referring only to the styles of scientific method ( observation verus "first principles" )rather than the golf swing that each advocates.

I agree that Homer's work is the more refined, the catalogue of components alone is a fantastic contribution to golf!

At some stage TGM needs to be put to a practical observational study - NOT so that TGM can be rubbished if the golfer fails to trace a perfectly straight line but still hits it perfectly... rather to see what can be achieved biomechanically by humans, how close can we get to Homer's Machine...etc

Titleist Perfomance Institute style data may lead to greater knowledge of component compatability and quicken the journey from hacker to pro!