Was Homer Wrong?

[birdie_man]

Word.

There's like 15 pages of this debate on iseek...

I was into it but am not too into it anymore.

[comdpa]

http://www.iseekgolf.com/forums/inde...&gopid=213692&

Just told them off...

Sorry, I am not usually like this, but I think enough is enough.

Who gives a dang about semantics if the idea conveyed works???

I don't mind being called a Slinger, Whinger, Pinger, Plonker, whatever as long as I am carrying the darned thing 300.

[Daryl]

http://www.iseekgolf.com/forums/inde...&gopid=213692&

Just told them off...

Sorry, I am not usually like this, but I think enough is enough.

Who gives a dang about semantics if the idea conveyed works???

I don't mind being called a Slinger, Whinger, Pinger, Plonker, whatever as long as I am carrying the darned thing 300.

Very few people from Oz have the Book and fewer have access to qualified AI instructors. If some of them want to cut their own way through the Forest then let them. Wish them luck and ask to see their work following publication. Golf history is a history of individual effort. Most that have improved on their own, create their own theories and boast their way (their Pattern) as THE Way. Some have become Great Golfers. But don't be misled: When you can't see the forest through the trees it's an effort born with setbacks and hardship, and lasts all men their lifetimes. Our efforts to improve are founded on the Three Imperatives of TGM; a promising beginning.

So get yourself a pair of 3X reading glasses because that's what you'll need when Vman publishes his Work. It may be a nice addition to the Collection.

[Toolish]

Very few people from Oz have the Book and fewer have access to qualified AI instructors.

There are a few of us from the land down under with the book, and I think there are about 5 AI's in the country. Considering the size of the population we are travelling ok, hopefully things will take off soon though!!

[birdie_man]

I think it's important that the stuff in TGM is right...

However small a detail.....however little (or NOT AT ALL even) it will help people play better....

Might as well.

Dunno exactly where they're at in this discussion....the posts started getting really long and complex....terms....physics.....equations...etc.

...

Comdpa man...

They may be trying to discredit (fix?) a small small part of TGM....

Dunno if it has a motive behind it.....I don't think so.....a few of these guys are into TGM for the most part....

Don't worry....

They couldn't take away from TGM much if they tried anyway.

[Martee]

Interesting Title to this Post...

To be honest, trying to get through 16 pages and understand the positions/arguement, well that is more than I am up for. So I asked for a summary, probably won't get it but we will see.

Just an observation, over the years that I have been visiting TGM related forums, there are those who will say the Homer got everything right. They will toss out that it has been reviewed by engineers and scientists. Unfortunately I have never met anyone who has these reviews and I have requested them.

Homer did 7 editions, and there have been changes. Was what was changed for the better? Was it to correct something? I don't have all the editions so I can't say.

Then we do have those who have at best done a cursory read and do not a complete understanding and will argue that it is full of errors.

It would really be nice to have Homer here to ask a few questions. He did have one problem, he often thought things were so obvious that they didn't need to be addressed, I heard some of his changes he made in later editions were to correct this oversight, not that the material was incorrect, just not obvious to everyone.

[lagster]

Mr. Kelley, for the most part, invented his own golf language. Much of the golf world now uses his terms, probably without knowing where they came from... LAG, LOADING, THROWAWAY, HITTERS vs. SWINGERS, ETC..

He worked on TGM for over 40 years, and was still working on it at the end.

There probably is MORE that can be learned, but Mr. Kelley gave it quite an effort.

[Daryl]

These discussions will continue for a long time. The more I read and the more I'm taught the components, then the better I swing and play. There is more to HK than a lifetime can apply, and there is more to Golf than a single book can describe. I'm happy with the path that I've chosen and my knowledge of the Golf swing that I've acquired from HK and this forum and its members and other TGM people. The progress is slow but sure and I believe I've chosen correctly. The sound of ball compression and lower scores are proof enough for me. But, there is a place for doubt and re-evaluation, but after all of that, I'm still here.

[golf_sceptic]

So I asked for a summary, probably won't get it but we will see.

Oh ye of little faith! Here it is...

Sources of power in the golf swing (focussed on the club)
1. early in the downswing -- leverage through "locked" wrists
2. mid-downswing to impact -- the slingshot (or flail) effect
together with leverage applied through the hands.

TGM
1. The most comprehensive theory on swinging a golf club
2. Contains some misconceptions which detract from
the frequent claims that it is based in physics but do not
detract from its usefulness as a teaching tool (eg centrifugal
force, endless belt effect, swinger v hitter dichotomy)
3. Suffers from non-standard use of terms which make for
confusing discussions (vertical is the worst in this regard)

Centrifugal force
1. One of the worst understood concepts in physics
2. Not a source of power in any context

For the record Martee's response to my summary
would enable me to write something much better
in the "sources of power" section if asked for
a summary now.

Just told them off...

Oh, so that's what your uninformative rant was.
I hope you felt better afterwords and earned
a few brownie points here following your boast.

I'll consider myself told, but you do realise you
were told off by one of the moderators at ISG
for your post don't you? You were well out of order.

Your rant won't stop me from explaining why centrifugal
force does not cause the "throw out effect", or
why the endless belt model is bogus, or explaining
why one or two of the definitions in the little
yellow book are complete gobbledegook, or continuing
to explore the hitter/swinger issue (ok red herring
is a bit strong).

As I say on ISG, let's suppose that there are a few
problems with the words of Mr Kelley. Will knowledge
of those flaws put TGM on firmer or shakier ground?

I'm happy with the path that I've chosen and
my knowledge of the Golf swing that I've acquired
from HK and this forum and its members and other TGM people.

...as you should be. Don't mistake my blasphemy as an
attempt to discredit TGM. I just think it would be
better if the high priests of TGM didn't have to paper over
the theoretical cracks quite as much. Surely anybody who knows
both physics and wants a bright future for TGM is
embarassed by the centrifugal force thing.

There's no need to feel threatened. We come in peace!

[Yoda]

Don't mistake my blasphemy as an attempt to discredit TGM. I just think it would be better if the high priests of TGM didn't have to paper over the theoretical cracks quite as much. Surely anybody who knows both physics and wants a bright future for TGM is embarassed by the centrifugal force thing.

Homer Kelley was well aware of the academic notion that Centrifugal Force is "artificial."

In fact, in our 1982 GSEM Class, he mocked his accusers in a purposely-pained voice: "There is no centrifugal force, son!"

Nevertheless, the concept as he defined it in the Glossary -- "The effort of the Swinging Clubhead to pull the Primary Lever Assembly (Left Arm and Club) into a straight line" -- is the essence of the Physics of Rotation. As any kid who has ever whirled a rock on a string could tell us.

And that is the important thing.