|
Originally Posted by strav
|
|
Quote:
|
brianmanzella
Homer Kelley was on record saying that he put the book together from many sources, Cotton's work propably among them.
|
So should Cotton's contributions to the Golfing Machine be examined and if found to be substantial and substantiated, be acknowledged in some meaningful way or not?
|
This was recently debated about a college professor who used a book as the foundation for an outline for a course he was teaching without given credit. Although the book was used more than any other source, additional material completed the outline. The result of the debate stated that no credit was needed for the outline as long as the material used from the book was not uniquely presented or researched by the original author.
Since Cotton, Hogan, Ernest and Bobby Jones, Boomer, Amour, etc all taught golf and each had different ideas about the golf stroke. Homer’s study is unique in its presentation and depth. Homer never claimed to discover a new way to swing the club- although I think the Hit stroke is close- but his approach and use of language is unconditionedly his.
Homer started the book with one problem to solve- how to get a solid impact on the ball. Everything else in the book radiated from that first “problem.”
Homer doesn’t need to credit anyone, nor does any other golf instructor with an original approach to the golf stroke. But there aren’t that many ‘original thinkers’ out there.
Threaded Mode
