I've always wondered about the time and space measurements concerning the interval between impact and separation. Does Kelley cite numbers that are significantly different than current instruments measure? I took a lesson from a fellow AI and was informed that a square face at impact in an otherwise ideal 300 yard driver swing would be significantly closed enough by separation to send the ball way more left of target than my non-scientific mind can believe. I was also informed by the same AI on the same day that for every inch that the ball was played behind low point on that same 300 yard driver swing, the ball would end up 20 yards or more to the right of target. A film of my swing showed me to have the ball set at address two inches behind an ideal low point opposite the outside line of my left shoulder and therefore misaligned right of target by 40 yards. I was then told that I would require of my swing quite a menu of compensations to subconsciously choose from to make the ball go straight whether it be one choice a' la carte, a combo platter, or a smattering of each.
I don't have a book on hand and I can't remember if Kelley even offered up concrete numbers concerning the above. This AI pretty much said Iron Byron and the Ping machine supported his claims.
Did Kelley offer any definite take or measurements concerning any of this, and if he did, was he right?, wrong?, outdated?, or were even precise measurements of this sort possible when he was alive? Have new club/ball equipment technologies and materials significantly changed any measurements concerning basic club and ball behavior since Kelley's time? Does my fancy new driver's clubhead speed during a centered strike still get slowed down by 20% and do my fancy new balls still have that .7 restitution thing?
I'm an AI with an English degree and only answered Chapter 2 questions by quoting the book. I was fortunate to have Tomosello as my mentor because I don't think he knew what to do with Chapter 2 either. I wouldn't know an error if I saw one in any edition of TGM. All I know is that whatever Kelley told Tomosello to tell me turned my golf world upside down and shook out loads of crap that got replaced by a few remarkably simple concepts that I still consider errorless in content yet happily flawed in real world application. The greatest thrill for me to this day is that because of Homer Kelley I don't anticipate bad shots and the bad shots I still often hit into woods. water, or wherever are still usually struck fairly well.
To quote page 5 of the 6th edition:-
"As a term is specifically defined herein,that is the basic connotation which is always a dictionary definition but not necessarily that of physics,electrical ,etc.And the dictionary is generally considered a standard of precision.Scientific terms in quotes denotes a loose application with obvious intent,because no better term seems available .Measurements given herein are for the golf course rather than the laboratory but the laboratory will show them well within acceptable tolerances.Clarity and usefulness are the only motive.The result is that this book provides a complete ,unified golfing terminology."
You should probably post this on every site that talks about TGM, particularly in reference to the terminology. People, especially the "scientific types" (no offense), get so hung up on this term or that term that isn't used "correctly", that they miss the point of whatever sentence/paragraph it's used in. Ever heard the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees"? Sure, some of the phrases/terms aren't correct strict scientific sense, but Homer says that himself. I think that if more people approached TGM from a practical standpoint, as it relates to improving your golf swing, then there wouldn't be so much drama in the TGM community. Theory is fine to discuss on internet boards, etc. But when it comes down to it, if it works on the golf course for you, then how wrong can it be (whether it's theoritcally correct or not)?
Hi Bucket, what was Homers job a Boeing? I always thought that Homer
was a chief designer of the B17 and an engineer. Don Lucus, a first class
engineer, told me that Homer wrote the Golfing Machine in the engineers
method at the time where every statement had to be verified. Evidently
engineers don't write that way anymore, but shows that Homer thought
in terms of engineering. Homer must has had a lot of engineers savy due
to his knowledge of flail, CF, venturi affects etc. I love the guy and his
works no matter what his education, but would be interested work status
at Boeing. I guess that I have missinformed people telling them that Homer
was a designer on the B17 and that the Boeing executives asked Homer
to figure out the golf swing and this is where Homer got his start on Golf.
Hi Bucket, what was Homers job a Boeing? I always thought that Homer
was a chief designer of the B17 and an engineer. Don Lucus, a first class
engineer, told me that Homer wrote the Golfing Machine in the engineers
method at the time where every statement had to be verified. Evidently
engineers don't write that way anymore, but shows that Homer thought
in terms of engineering. Homer must has had a lot of engineers savy due
to his knowledge of flail, CF, venturi affects etc. I love the guy and his
works no matter what his education, but would be interested work status
at Boeing. I guess that I have missinformed people telling them that Homer
was a designer on the B17 and that the Boeing executives asked Homer
to figure out the golf swing and this is where Homer got his start on Golf.
Homer was NOT an engineer at Boeing. He was in charge of engineers and the production of aircraft. He even taught many of them as an instructor, new ways to solve problems. He re-designed the production process for efficiently. No aircraft left them plant without being signed off by Mr. Kelley.
Homer began has quest to solving his golf issues before he worked for Boeing. He thought it would take a few days. Luckily for us- he never tired when a new set of variables were exposed. Homer was unique.
You should probably post this on every site that talks about TGM, particularly in reference to the terminology. People, especially the "scientific types" (no offense), get so hung up on this term or that term that isn't used "correctly", that they miss the point of whatever sentence/paragraph it's used in. Ever heard the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees"? Sure, some of the phrases/terms aren't correct strict scientific sense, but Homer says that himself. I think that if more people approached TGM from a practical standpoint, as it relates to improving your golf swing, then there wouldn't be so much drama in the TGM community. Theory is fine to discuss on internet boards, etc. But when it comes down to it, if it works on the golf course for you, then how wrong can it be (whether it's theoritcally correct or not)?
"unified golfing terminology" -I believe that's all Mr Kelly wanted to do , whilst making the science reasonably explainable to golf pros and ,consequently, their students.
With greatest respect ,not all golf Pros are technically or scientifically minded.
As I said in a previous post-Mr Kelly wrote in a language that was designed to be consistent terminology.I have had 6 different teachers who told me the same thing in 6 different ways.
Since October 2005 I have had lessons from Lynn,Ted ,Jeff &VJ(Trolio).They all spoke the same language-if you wanted them to .Having said that, I would guess that if you weren't into learning the book ,you would just get a great lesson and not much mention of the terminology.
I wanted to understand the book-and at the Old Waverly Academy ,where Lynn ,Ted and Vj ,standing in the locker room went through the 12 stations with Yoda calling the stations ,without looking at one another ,in perfect unison.I was hooked on -"unified golfing terminology".
NOT scientific exactness.
[quote=neil;45532]"unified golfing terminology" -I believe that's all Mr Kelly wanted to do , whilst making the science reasonably explainable to golf pros and ,consequently, their students.
.......I was hooked on -"unified golfing terminology".
QUOTE]
With unified golfing terminology you should be able to give the lesson down the phone line... the terms are specific and graphic. In medicine ( another profession with highly specific language) students are taught to describe disease or xrays in a similar manner so that as a junior Doc, quaking in your boots at 3AM as the life drains out of your poor patient .... you can calmly ring your boss, who is tucked up in bed at home , and get some specific advice!! It usually works but you had better be specific and disciplined in your use of terminology... otherwise the patient might die... or worse still your boss might have to get out of bed!!!
Unified and specific language - This is one of Homers greatest achievements.
"unified golfing terminology" -I believe that's all Mr Kelly wanted to do , whilst making the science reasonably explainable to golf pros and ,consequently, their students.
.......I was hooked on -"unified golfing terminology".
QUOTE]
With unified golfing terminology you should be able to give the lesson down the phone line... the terms are specific and graphic. In medicine ( another profession with highly specific language) students are taught to describe disease or xrays in a similar manner so that as a junior Doc, quaking in your boots at 3AM as the life drains out of your poor patient .... you can calmly ring your boss, who is tucked up in bed at home , and get some specific advice!! It usually works but you had better be specific and disciplined in your use of terminology... otherwise the patient might die... or worse still your boss might have to get out of bed!!!
Unified and specific language - This is one of Homers greatest achievements.
Big coincidence in your analogy-I had surgery on Tuesday!
Are you a Surgeon /Doctor?
It doesn't matter what you tell the patient-as long as he / she understands the "post op" procedure.
Hi Bucket, what was Homers job a Boeing? I always thought that Homer
was a chief designer of the B17 and an engineer. Don Lucus, a first class
engineer, told me that Homer wrote the Golfing Machine in the engineers
method at the time where every statement had to be verified. Evidently
engineers don't write that way anymore, but shows that Homer thought
in terms of engineering. Homer must has had a lot of engineers savy due
to his knowledge of flail, CF, venturi affects etc. I love the guy and his
works no matter what his education, but would be interested work status
at Boeing. I guess that I have missinformed people telling them that Homer
was a designer on the B17 and that the Boeing executives asked Homer
to figure out the golf swing and this is where Homer got his start on Golf.
So the deal is basically this . . . not only did Homer Kelley in my opinion have the secret of golf (or many secrets) . . . he also had a bit of LIFE's secret too. Homer was a man that just loved to learn and figure stuff out . . . it was a labor of love I would say. I mean if you think about the ROI on right 6 versions of one book that took 40 years to write??? That's love. I think he was actually given a series of golf lessons by his boss because he gave him a hard time about playing the game. So Homer was like "OK what the heck." And he was pretty much hooked after he broke 80 and couldn't figure out why he did it. And the rest as they say is history.
So what do you get out of golf and life? I know you man . . . you got those holes in those irons . . . that ain't nothing but love. That's how to get fullfillment outta your life . . . find something you love to do . . . and if you can figure out how to get paid doing that to boot . . . you got a lot of life licked. If you want to feel good about your life get interested in something and be passionate about it. Be consumed by it. Just make sure it's not the stuff that Mike O's into.
Many people would think that somebody who hit balls into a piece of carpet until the dimples wore off in his garage was a looney toon. I guarantee you he wouldn't have traded it for the world. He probably loved every minute of it. And it's a damn good thing for all of us that he did. I understand. And with those holes in your iron faces . . . I bet you do too.
Since I am not qualified to judge the book. I had benifited from it nonetheless and been exposed to a multitude of opinions.
Now, my question is, who is truly qualified to judge this book?
Those who take the time and trouble to understand it-for what it is,not for a scientifically correct "there is only one perfect swing " book.
For those who do take the time,there is something to be learned .I cannot think of one swing that cannot be classified in the book.
Mr Kelly never says any way is perfect-BUT THE GOAL is to get more and more PRECISE.
IMO -if you benefited you are qualified to judge what you understand.
Linear Mode
