[12 piece bucket]

Jeff

I don't intend to take you any further off topic so this is the last I will say on this matter. I'm not questioning R-E-S-P-E-C-T or anybody's self-proclaimed (or earned) 'authority' . Everyone deserves it (at least at the outset) and some undoubtedly are (authorities). I'm questioning the science (rather lack there-of) in the book. I'm questioning what are acceptable subjects for discourse in the pursuit of knowledge if that is indeed the mission of Golf by Jeff.

Research.... Science... has arguably five steps or identifiable traits.

1) Identification of the problem (statement)
2) Collection of all of the essential facts (indisputable basic assumptions...i.e. the premises)
3) Selection of one or more tentative solutions (thesis)
4) Evaluate choosen solutions to determine if they are in accord with the facts (data collection/analysis... perhaps some theoretical modeling too)
5) Select the final solution (theory)

Science is a processes whereby thesis gets elevated to theory, but even theories aren't "cast in stone". The scientist is epitomized by: accurate observation, objectivity, willingness to consider all evidence, recognition of causal relationships and demonstration of originality and independence of thought. Anything conclusions arrived at by any means other than the above given framework are not 'scientific'. TGM is not scientific (there's no data... many of the premises have been debunked). TGM is not a scholarly report; TGM is an essay that is full of the author's conjecture.

Syllogism is not science either... here's a common examples of a syllogisms:

-Some Good golfer's hands are seen to slow down
-Joe is a good golfer
therefore Joe's hand's slow down..... NO

or

-Some Good golfers maximize the angle between hips and shoulders (X factor)
-Joe turns his hips almost as much as his shoulders
therefore Joe is not a good golfer... NO

or

-Some Good Golfers hips face the target at impact.
-Joes hips are parallel to the target line at impact
therefore joe can't be a good golfer.... NO

Syllogisms do not lead to scientific conclusions... Infact they are probably not even accurate conclusions (particularly if Joe can play).

So its all about asking the right question.. (Problem statement... is it testable?) Defining the research study (possibly experimentation or perhaps mathematical soln.?).... all the while remaining objective towards the pursuit of knowledge. Predjudice and premature conclusions or discounting a possibility simply because an authority has rejected it has no place in scholarship. The Scientific method.... a scientific attitude implies basing generalizations not upon the authority of others or upon abstract logic or one's personal opinions but on carefully observed facts.

(Emphasis should be on CAREFULLY OBSERVED) Merely hitting the range with a trackman in hand does not constitute science or scientific method. Conclusions drawn from such haphazard research are likely as fallacious as those drawn from the "lessor" truth-seeking methods.

Ultimately the value of any theory is its efficacy.. at explaining possible outcomes or in the case of golf instruction producing winners. On that account, at least in my mind, the jury is still out on TGM. How many winners has it produced? Yes I know... Bobby Clampett had a run of luck but given the time its been around and the number of adherents, one would think, simply by the law of large numbers, more winners would have been produced... that is if it is as good as "they" say.

P.S. I hope I don't get banned like Mandrin says I will for simply stating my opinions. I respect Homer... really I do.

Brian Gay won . . . . Riegger got a win . . . . Elk was a Machine guy . . . . about every teacher has some back ground in the Machine . . . . Mac O'Grady gives credit to Homer . . . . Stack & Tilt gives credit to The Golfing Machine . . . winners in their stable. Ledbetter had his people reading the Machine supposedly.

Opinion is one thing but then to roll up to somebody's house and take a piss on the rug is another thing. The "cult" thing? Come on dude . . . .

Some of these flaws y'all come up with and say Homer was a doofus about are putting words in his mouth anyway.

Who would pay your own cash to take a lesson from?