Good post Yoda.....

I have long ago avoided the discussions regarding TGM and Math/Science (Geometry/Physics). Actually I am not educated well enough to be an expert in these areas (My son proved this to me, who is well versed a PhD). I did make several and one last attempt to request that the information that is suppose to exist where TGM was reviewed my a number of scientist be published, released to AI's etc. Evidently that isn't going to happen, which leads me to wonder if it every did. Much like the list of error in "The Search for the Perfect Golf Swing".

I have come to realize that trying to sell or defend if you want too TGM as pure science or based on pure scienc isn't of any value or worth IMO.

What really matters is understanding TGM and being able to apply it. If you want to sell, demonstrate it, have those who would say it isn't apply it. Clearly through out the years, pre-TGM as well post TGM you can find golfers whose stroke employed various combinations of these 24 components with success. Also it is evident that there is more than one effective combination of the components that you can achieve success with.

I think Yoda's opening description in his presentation and teaching sums it up best...

Hinge Action

Angular Motion

Inclined Plane

... Don't need any formulas...

I try to conclude
 

My remaining feeling is that I do not want to introduce the book to fellow golfers having to "defend Homer" by pointing out 1-H and saying that all may not be scientifically correct. Guess that goes for me as well as many other engineers and such. I also understand if non-engineers could not care less.

On the other hand: Most people know there are some pretty serious errors in Hogans Five Lessons, but they are still in there & will most likely never change. Nor is it likely to see a foreword saying that this and that is not accurate.

So why do we care so much? Might it be that Five Lessons is not associated with an authorization process? Or that people want the book to contain errors so that they do not have to suffer the embarrassment of not understanding it? I can only say that for some reason I feel it is more natural that The Golfing Machine would undergo revisions and strive to be accurate and flawless. In other words; be managed differently than Five Lessons. What was Homers opinion? Guess Hogan would not have liked to see his book altered. Maybe the same goes for Homer. As for Shakespeare and Twain.

Who am I to say this, but I'd love to see:

An 8th revision based on the unpublished 7th revision with any flaws and disputable definitions/arguments would be conservatively edited by an appointed group of G.O.L.F. gurus.

or (if not possible or feasible)

An addendum where all flaws and disputable definitions/arguments where listed and discussed in a neutral way.

What do readers value most? Having Homers exact wordings available (as we would not alter the errors in Five Lessons) or avoid the type of embarrassmenst that occured to tongzilla and/or avoid making the book an easier target for bashers?

I do not have the answer.

It is also interesting why The Golfing Machine is not considered by some, even though the same people gladly read & recomment Five Lessons containing probably a lot more severe errors. But that's another discussion.

JMHO

(Even the bible has undergone numerous revisions. )

Judging Homer
 

First, the 'serious errors' of Ben Hogan's Five Lessons have no counterpart in The Golfing Machine.

Second, I do not agree that Homer Kelley's book is scientifically incorrect. And that includes TGM's underpinnings of Centrifugal Force, which any scientist will tell you is merely a fictional or simulated force.

Third, Homer was all about helping people play better Golf. He was not at all interested in a technical dissertation on Newton's Laws of Motion. In fact, he didn't even want to write Chapter 2 (Statement of Principle) but felt it necessary to substantiate his research.

Fourth, as the author, it was Homer's privilege to state his 'rules of engagement,' i.e., to limit the playing field of his work. And it was his stated purpose in the first sentence of The Glossary's introduction to define terms within the context of their mechanical and golfing APPLICATION. Mechanically speaking, the application of the acceleration concept is to alter a moving object's momentum (P=mv). And golfingly speaking, its application is to increase during the Downstroke the Angular Momentum of the Clubhead through the Pressure Points in your Hands, thereby increasing the Clubhead Force (F=ma). And also, to use those same Pressure Points to sustain (to the extent possible) the Clubhead's Momentum and Force through the unavoidable Deceleration of the Impact Collision.

Thanks for your post, Yoda. I'll print it & tuck it inside the back of my book. Please accept if the incubation process is longer for earthlings :D

Sidenote:

Make no mistake. I cherish the book and find Homers work simply stunning and amazing. For me personally there are no strings attached and no but's when it comes to give credit to Homes work.

Reason? The Golfing Machine has helped me tremendously.

I spent some 13 years golfing (or should I say goofing around) without knowing of the existence of the book. In retrospect I feel all those years I was one of zillions of hackers contributing to 'spending eons of man years trying to eliminate effect instead of cause' on the driving range and occasionally spending less conclusive time with what I now consider pretty average instructors, magazines and books.

My schedule does not allow spending extensive time practicing or digging deep into the system developed by Homer Kelley. But the few things I HAVE grasped (through the book, TGM gurus and TGM forums) have made a huge contribution to my game and this made it far more enjoyable. Not the least since it explains concepts that were previously pretty much in deep fog and sometimes enables me to provide small and productive hints to fellow golfers. And not to mention yesterdays birdie on that 596 yard par 5.

Since 'Homer was all about helping people play better golf' I believe he did what he set out to do.

I feel he did not just try to do it. He actually did it. So does this forum.

Communicating Clearly
 

IMO, If what Homer meant was clearly explained- which is very attainable- his work would really have alot more power behind it! Whether in person or in the book- it's no different - he didn't always clearly communiciate his ideas- for whatever reason, personally I just think it was an issue of - he understood the context in which he was talking and assumed that it would be obvious to others. There are examples of that, which he specifically talked about- for example he didn't think that 21 items in 1-L were needed- as that was all obvious. After talking to many people, he realized that it wasn't obvious to people by looking at the sketch in 1-L, so in the 3rd edition he added 21 items that related to the machine. Likewise, his use of speed, velocity, acceleration, RPM's, MPH's are many times based on the context of the discussion- which make it impossible for the beginner to follow- unless clearly explained. Besides the Momentum vs. Acceleration issue in the glossary item- I'd like to post in the next day what I believe he was saying in the acceleration glossary item by using other areas of the book that are applicable plus actual quotes from Homer discussing this particular glossary item.

All of us here agree that the guy was brilliant but like most brilliant people- he had some issues. I'm with Metallion and Tongzilla, that I think there are many places where you could continue to help Homer achieve his goal-"It has to be bullet proof!" and the glossary example is one place to start. It's not so much he didn't understand the concept- the guy was more than smart, he just didn't communicate it clearly all the time.

A 7th edition really won't change much, but an 8th....?, you'd need some sunglasses! :D

On Mike O.
 

While Mike O. is not an Authorized Instructor, he has been a diligent student of The Golfing Machine for more than twenty years. And while he never personally met Homer Kelley, he has the benefit of many hours of taped discussions from the GSEM classes Mr. Kelley conducted in 1981-1982. He is also a pretty bright guy in his own right.

For those reasons, anything Mike O. has to say regarding G.O.L.F. should be carefully considered. For me, his posts are a 'must read.'

My views (if you care)
 

This post will be slightly off topic, but what the heck.
I have similar views with Mike. If only Homer could empathise with people of normal intelligence without a college level physics background. If only Homer could explain ideas more clearly and lucidly.

Whenever I say that TGM may be so much better explained, people (especially those who already have a very good grasp of the concepts in TGM) argue, "See 1-H. Homer says that 'the extreme brevity herein is dictated by the advantages of holding such voluminous information to a one volume Handbook. Because of questions of all kinds, reams of additional detail must be made available-- but separately. And probably endlessly.'" They also quote, ‘In the interest of brevity, regardless of how often any point is mentioned, every effort has been made not to discuss an one aspect more than once. So a complete definition can only be the sum of the comments about it.’ Fair enough, all very good reasons, but...

Well, here's how I look at it. Yes, Homer is very clever, and he can summarise ground-breaking concepts in a few sentences. But so what. What's the use of having a really cleverly written book in one volume when 99% of golfers won't be able to utilise it? Might as well be written in Swahili to them! The Bible probably contains at least five times as many words as TGM. And yet people actually read it, understand it and carry it around with them (and live it?:roll:). Would you rather keep TGM as it is (traditionalists), so that only a select few will really understand it, or make TGM much more clearer and easier to grasp, so that 80%+ of golfer will understand it, if they want to (hehe, I would choose the former as I like keeping secrets to myself and being a better golfer than my golfing buddies :D).

Note that I do not mean it should be dumbed down. Dumbing down implies simplification at the expense of correctness. That is clearly undesirable. I mean what I mean—same concepts, same laws, same physics, but explained clearer and better, which, if necessary, will need more words and take up more pages.

As for proponent’s point about the physical size of TGM...IMHO, if Homer merely wanted to make sure all this information is contained in a portable handbook, just change the font size! That's what they did to make those mini portable versions of the Bible or dictionaries- you know the ones which are about the size of your palm, printed on really thin paper.

Even considering it's format TGM is still considered by many if not most to be the most important golf book ever written. It's frustrating at times for sure tho. Thank goodness we have the likes of Yoda, Chuck, Brian and co helping us online to better clear the fog. Homer didn't invent AI's for no reason either, a couple of visits to them can clear a vast amount of fog very quickly from all accounts. There might even be a chance of Yoda bringing out a book of his own with much simpler instruction. If so i simply cannot wait to get my hands on it.

Follow-up Post
 

Well, I made the mistake of promising a follow-up post to the Acceleration item in the Glossary- so I need to get the monkey off my back. Due to a number of reasons I'm going to keep it brief- maybe add items later if necessary (if questions arise).

Below is the item as listed in the Glossary.
ACCELERATION Example-Tobaggan ride.
Mechanical- A change in the product of Mass times Velocity
Golf- The Pressure Points increasing the Hand Speed or resisting Clubhead Deceleration.

I've said it before- I believe he had a knack for not communicating clearly, what he himself clearly understood. The following is my interpretation of what Homer is referring to in this Glossary item and I believe if I am correct- you'll see that my interpretation is something that you would not have understood by just reading the item for the first time or many times. Although, it's still messy and really would need to be completely re-done in one manner or another.

1) "ACCELERATION Example- Tobaggan ride."
As he says in the first paragraph of the Glossary ""Examples" selected are seldom total parallels but a parallel is there. So the Tobaggan ride example illustrates acceleration- which a Tobaggan ride has, but that's where the similarity ends, as the Tobaggan ride is a linear example and the Mechanical and Golf definitions relate to Angular Motion.

2) "Mechanical- A change in the product of Mass times Velocity."
In the golf swing we are dealing with Angular motion, Angular acceleration- see 6-C-2-B because if there was a cross reference to Glossary items this would be one of them. So in regards to changes in Mass, we're referring to an extension of the Primary Lever assembly- accumulator #2. In regards to Velocity we're referring to RPM's of the Primary Lever Assembly. So if you keep the radius of the primary lever assembly the same- and increase the RPM's then you have an increase in Angular Acceleration. And that's what you have happening during the Downstroke (Section Eight-Eight)

3) "Golf-The Pressure Points increasing the Hand Speed or resisting Clubhead Deceleration"
The Pressure Points increasing the Hand Speed happens in Section 8-8 The Downstroke before the release starts- that's the period of increasing RPM's- which in his equation is the Velocity. Regarding the comment "or resisting Clubhead Deceleration", that's referring to the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum where an increase in the radius (accumulator #2)(more mass) slows the RPM's unless supported by clubhead lag pressure- so the resisting Clubhead Deceleration in this context is really RPM deceleration during release of accumulator #2 and not Deceleration of the surface speed of the MPH of the clubhead as that is always picking up speed - (section 8-9 Release- the period of Clubhead acceleration.)

So I'm not saying that I my explanation completely explains the Glossary Item - "Acceleration", but without changing it to be more clear and consistent - that's the best I can do.

Follow-up Post
 

Thanks Mike. This is a "tough" area, it's possible that Tongzilla, Yoda or others with more math background might shed additional light or provide additional skepticism by coordinating 6-C-2-B with the Glossary item of Acceleration.