ok..... I certainly can't attempt to respond to the original concepts put forth in this thread more appropriately than Lynn et al, so I'm going on a tangent here with my "opinions":
1) I for one "do not" appreciate Jeff's meandering posts and for the life of me I can't understand the objective of most of them. I get an immediate case of "tired-head" when I get past the 1st paragraph in most cases.
2) I made an attempt to read Jeff's "white paper", but when I pulled up the video segment on "hitting" and saw his demonstration replete with a flattening right wrist into impact then "all bets were off" so to speak.
3) I do not know what Jeff's "mission" is either (as OB Left asked), but I think I read something to the effect of it being a "precision" description of the golf swing for deep analytical scientific thinkers (I'm paraphrasing). Well..... I think I played behind your 4-some today and we waited on every shot.
4) It sickens me to see Jeff throw around TGM terms as if he's an AI. It's one thing to have learned forum members use HK's "language" to help others with their questions. It's another (in my opinion) to use them in print and on video as if one is an expert in their meaning.
This stuff has been simmering with me for a bit and when I saw the swing sequence of a HYPER-FLEXIBLE Gulbis who has a bad back as an example of "see..... HK is wrong again" I had to speak up. TGM is difficult enough to understand and Lynn has done a lot to make more comprehendable for the masses. When I read Jeff's posts it seems like the attempt is to perpetuate the TGM stigma.
Threaded Mode
