I sympathaize with your belief that HK's on-plane ideas are good enough to "hang one's hat on" (to use Mike's phrase). That's where my hat is personally hanging at the present time. When I introduced this thread, I was simply comparing HK's plane theory to another plane theory (Hank Haney's). I never stated that I had sympathy for Haney's plane theory, or any other non-HK plane theory. I simply thought that this forum was a suitable forum for serious intellectual discussions regarding golf swing theory (TGM swing theory in relatiionship to other swing theories). However, there is a subgroup of forum members who don't like to see anyone question HK's swing theories. They remind me of the radical Islamicists, who want to issue a fatwa on anyone who questions, or lampoons, their beliefs (eg. Salmon Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist). However, this is supposed to be an intellectually-sympathetic forum for the free expression of serious, but different, opinions regarding golf swing theory. Or isn't it? Are you arguing that only posts that idolise HK, and all his swing theories, should be allowed? I agree with you that HK's book may "offer the most", but it is not the Koran.
Jeff, I think that you make some fair points - but the independence of any forum is always at the discretion of the host. LBG hosts the forum and has a VERY even hand when it comes to governing - as Lynn often says it is a Collegiate atmosphere, questions, debate, answers. But the bottom line is that Lynn teaches HK's work. Therefore the forum works to help people understand HK's words and ideas...spreading the message that Homer would have done had he been given the opportunity.
Lynn and other forum members have a great knowledge of the literature and players that helped HK forge his own ideas and my own library has swelled to incorporate all the old books that HK had access to...so debate goes on about how these books influenced HK etc.
Showing pics of people who have had no exposure to TGM and saying that they are great strikers with their planes does not help....they achieve results in spite of the above hip high patterns rather than because of their above hip high patterns.,,,in fact because their patterns get close to HK's theories below hip high...which makes most of us think that HK was onto something. Politically the problem might arise when those people are associated with people who earn money in the same arena as LBG... I know that this has not happened yet...but the boundary is easily crossed...
There is alot more to TGM than you get just by reading the book and forum for 6 months...eggs keep on hatching many months and even years later...
Seriously, have you built a plane board?...I did...in my living room....full size...that is a great place to start and then people will not take any offence if they know that you have tried it... "less Gedanken...more G-doing"
Think about what you are recommending. You are stating that I need to change my writing approach to resolving contentious theoretical problems to suit your personal tastes of "how best to address an issue". Jeff.
Jeff,
Whilst I can only speak for me my intention has only ever been to, maybe, prompt a change in your writing style such that it may enhance your appeal to the much wider audience.
I can live with your Popperian approach, at a pinch, but sincerely believe that you do yourself no justice in pursuing it. It can be, to me, a real turn off at times. Its simply not user friendly.
Whilst I am "attacking" you (I would have preferred "trying to offer a little literary guidance") your introduction of Islamic references in response to KOC is offensive and I think a little editing might be in order.
Regarding "hanging one's hat" on a certain set of beliefs, I do that all the time, but I constantly challenge my own beliefs (the strength of my hat rack), because I believe in the Popperian principle that a "theory" is only valid to the extent that it cannot be falsified, rather than verified.
I sympathaize with your belief that HK's on-plane ideas are good enough to "hang one's hat on" (to use Mike's phrase). That's where my hat is personally hanging at the present time. When I introduced this thread, I was simply comparing HK's plane theory to another plane theory (Hank Haney's). I never stated that I had sympathy for Haney's plane theory, or any other non-HK plane theory. I simply thought that this forum was a suitable forum for serious intellectual discussions regarding golf swing theory (TGM swing theory in relatiionship to other swing theories). However, there is a subgroup of forum members who don't like to see anyone question HK's swing theories. They remind me of the radical Islamicists, who want to issue a fatwa on anyone who questions, or lampoons, their beliefs (eg. Salmon Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist). However, this is supposed to be an intellectually-sympathetic forum for the free expression of serious, but different, opinions regarding golf swing theory. Or isn't it? Are you arguing that only posts that idolise HK, and all his swing theories, should be allowed? I agree with you that HK's book may "offer the most", but it is not the Koran.
Jeff.
There is usually 2 topics best left out of forums - religion and politics. You managed to include both with the same example. It is true that comparing people to others is a suitable effect when you wish to.
Recently there was a thread where some professional was shooting a video, a bird was squawking and he shot a couple of golf balls to scare it away and hit/killed a bird and someone on here was calling for him to get jail time for the pampered athlete...etc. Now I hate animal rights protest movements and I basically used an analogy of Hitler. The effect was to be overly extreme because I personally can't abide anyone with that kind of anti-humanist mentality, and if I annoyed him in the process that was fine.
However I am curious as to the nature of your comment. As an arguement it is rational enough but seems contradictory to the deliberate effect of annoying those to whom it is aimed at if you were serious about your claims. Just don't understand the purpose of the post as the reference nullifies the arguement and the arguement nullifies the effect to those that is aimed at.
Linear Mode
