YPE HTML PUBLIC "-/ Science and G.O.L.F - LynnBlakeGolf Forums

Science and G.O.L.F

The Lab

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-18-2006, 10:17 AM
EdZ EdZ is offline
Lynn Blake Certified Instructor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: West Linn, OR
Posts: 1,645
Originally Posted by golfbulldog
The late 60's were an important time for golf and G.O.L.F.

"search for the Perfect Swing" (SFTPS) was published in 1968 and "The Golfing Machine" (TGM) was published in 1969.

I have read that Homer's work was initially critised for "ripping off" the earlier publication... if these accusations were ever uttered then the author had clearly never read either book. Each sets out to scientifically analyse the golf swing to a degree that no previous "my way" style book had ever achieved.

BUT the contrasting approaches reflect the different scientific considerations Comdpa discusses above. ( theory versus empiracal and observation)

Homer Kelley approaches the task with a knowledge of current literature and practice but writes from a theoretical "first principles" standpoint with little referenced practical data to support his theories.

SFTPS attempts to objectively measure the current practices of top amateurs and professionals and evolve theory from the data.

Contrasting and complimentary methods which sadly have never really been united by anyone yet...
Homer researched his first edition for at least 30-40 years prior to publication and then modified it a further 5 times in his lifetime ( 6 if you include the latest edition based on his notes).... it clearly was an evolving process!

Our ability to analyse and measure aspects of the golf swing have evolved tremendously in the last 22 years since Homer's untimely death yet even the latest edition of TGM has had no/little factual benefit from this advancing hitech science.

TGM works... it has nothing fundamentally to fear from the scientific validification of its theories. EVEN if it did, would Homer shrink from objective evidence which might ultimately lead to a more precise book??

TGM may , I repeat MAY ( rumours abound), have to compete with a MORAD publication in the not too distant future... Mac O'Grady has never NOT acknowledged the strength of Homer's work as a foundation for his understanding of the golf swing.... if TGM is to live on as a premier manual for swing science then it may have to set about proving that its theory stacks up in an objective manner... ie. non anecdotal evidence... real repeatable science!

Not a challenge to shrink from ... but one to embrace!

Oh dear me, nearly as long as Comdpa!!! but if you are interested lets set out to find the evidence to advance TGM!
I disagree - the two represent different perspectives, yes, but those perspectives are in general agreement IMO, taking into account the core difference you mentioned regarding SFTPS using observational data, which by no means suggests that observation represents any 'ideal'.

In short I consider both texts important works in the field, but at least in my view there can be no doubt that TGM is 'deeper' in its content by leaps and bounds.

Perspective matters, to be sure.
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"

"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"

Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-18-2006, 04:16 PM
golfbulldog golfbulldog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by EdZ
I disagree - the two represent different perspectives, yes, but those perspectives are in general agreement IMO, taking into account the core difference you mentioned regarding SFTPS using observational data, which by no means suggests that observation represents any 'ideal'.

In short I consider both texts important works in the field, but at least in my view there can be no doubt that TGM is 'deeper' in its content by leaps and bounds.

Perspective matters, to be sure.
By "contasting ...methods" i was referring only to the styles of scientific method ( observation verus "first principles" )rather than the golf swing that each advocates.

I agree that Homer's work is the more refined, the catalogue of components alone is a fantastic contribution to golf!

At some stage TGM needs to be put to a practical observational study - NOT so that TGM can be rubbished if the golfer fails to trace a perfectly straight line but still hits it perfectly... rather to see what can be achieved biomechanically by humans, how close can we get to Homer's Machine...etc

Titleist Perfomance Institute style data may lead to greater knowledge of component compatability and quicken the journey from hacker to pro!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Science Golf? KOC The Clubhouse Lounge 9 12-05-2006 02:19 PM
What % Science and What % Art 12 piece bucket Mind over Muscle – The Mental Approach 9 05-27-2005 09:52 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

504 Gateway Timeout ERROR

The request could not be satisfied.


We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner.
If you provide content to customers through CloudFront, you can find steps to troubleshoot and help prevent this error by reviewing the CloudFront documentation.

Generated by cloudfront (CloudFront) HTTP3 Server
Request ID: CYJ0yH9s5o_i4DhSHLfytivLbkaqW8M2qwPp81hdG_kzbywkxZSQtg==