A long time ago on our technical papers we were required to list our reference sources, even if we didn't quote from that works.
So with some who continue to claim the TGM isn't given credit, is that misplaced? For example if a pro teaches the 'hands' are the key to a good golf stroke, it could have come from several sources, who if anyone needs to be given credit?
If the instructor uses TGM terminology as a foundation of his instruction than I would say - YES.
If the instruction is based on just good information like a flat left wrist or pull into a CF release then fine, good for him and his students. If the language is not used and I will state again, Homers language- the bane for many- is his greatest contribution to the learning of the golf stroke- then at best, the instructor should recognize where he learned it. And he may have learned it second or third hand- who knows? I don’t think Homer would care that his work is seeping into the mainstream of golf instruction after so many years.
I do feel that anyone that studied TGM, became an AI or not, they should have the decently to pay at least homage to Mr. Kelley in some way.
Back to the college course outline. The course was written by a third party freelance writer who specializes selling college course outlines to instructors. All the materials and references were listed. It drew attention when the one book was used so heavily. The panel concluded that the writer did not illegally plagiarize original thought but did a less than stellar job writing the course outline.
Threaded Mode
