I didn't initially realize that the definition of a pivot center didn't automatically imply that the pivot stabilising point has to be centralised to efficiently perform its function - stablise the motion. In other words, I think that the phrase "pivot stabilising point" may therefore be a more exactingly correct definition of that "SOME POINT".
Jeff,
You really are trying my patience here, and trust me, I have better things to do with my time.
Thirty years ago, the 5th edition of The Golfing Machine defined 'Pivot Center' as follows:
"PIVOT CENTER -- Some point on the body kept stationary throughout the Stroke to stabilize the motion."
-- Homer Kelley (The Glossary)
Homer presumed a certain intelligence in his readers, an intelligence that would instantly understand that the term "some point" meant any point -- central or otherwise -- chosen by the golfer to stabilize the motion. What could be more clear?
Now, you come along with this 'clarification':
". . . I think that the phrase "pivot stabilising point" may therefore be a more exactingly correct definition of that "SOME POINT".
-- Jeff
Can you not see that your phrase is nothing more than an incomplete definition of the term under discussion (Pivot Center)? A term Homer adequately defined for any reasonable person three decades ago?
And while I'm here . . .
Until you start signing your posts "J" (whereupon I will immediately rename this forum Golf by J), you are specifically prohibited from using the initials "HK" when referring to Mr. Kelley (alternatively, Homer Kelley or simply Homer). You may not respect his "Authority", but at least on this site, you will respect his name.
Lynn makes a good point about "Mr. Kelley". In my time with Alex Sloan he always refered to "Mr Kelley". It really stuck out. The tone of voice he used when he said it spoke volumes. To me it means that that appellation was always used by Mr Sloan and Mr Blake because it was earned and signified their great respect for him. Who is this man that Lynn Blake and Alex Sloan revere so much? The more I learn about the yellow book and hear Lynn talk the better I understand it. That is why I read this forum
I apologize for using the abbreviation "HK" in one of my posts. I would never disrespect Homer Kelley and I never thought that it would be disrespectful to abbreviate his name to his initials.
I have often used abbreviated initials when replying to posts, and I never intended my use of abbreviated initials to be disrespectful. I therefore apologize to Hennybogan (for using the abbreviation HB) and to all other forum members whose online names I have abbreviated.
Regarding the issue of respecting his "authority", I wonder if Homer Kelley would have wanted people to respect his "authority" or whether he would have simply wanted people to treat his amazingly insightful ideas/insights with a great deal of thoughtful consideration. I would imagine that he would have felt that the clarity and logic of his ideas could stand up to intense intellectual scrutiny, and I cannot easily imagine that he would expect people to unthinkingly accept his ideas simply because he is deemed by some people to be an "authority".
I would imagine that he would have felt that the clarity and logic of his ideas could stand up to intense intellectual scrutiny, and I cannot easily imagine that he would expect people to unthinkingly accept his ideas simply because he is deemed by some people to be an "authority".
Jeff.
I have noticed that if you stick to Mr Kelley's definitions and concepts as written, without redefining, re naming or mincing in new concepts that werent there in the first place............. TGM has withstood the scrutiny every time.
I apologize for using the abbreviation "HK" in one of my posts. I would never disrespect Homer Kelley and I never thought that it would be disrespectful to abbreviate his name to his initials.
I have often used abbreviated initials when replying to posts, and I never intended my use of abbreviated initials to be disrespectful. I therefore apologize to Hennybogan (for using the abbreviation HB) and to all other forum members whose online names I have abbreviated.
Regarding the issue of respecting his "authority", I wonder if Homer Kelley would have wanted people to respect his "authority" or whether he would have simply wanted people to treat his amazingly insightful ideas/insights with a great deal of thoughtful consideration. I would imagine that he would have felt that the clarity and logic of his ideas could stand up to intense intellectual scrutiny, and I cannot easily imagine that he would expect people to unthinkingly accept his ideas simply because he is deemed by some people to be an "authority".
Jeff.
Jeff,
HB is good enough for me. I did not write the definitive work on GOLF.
Regarding the issue of respecting his "authority", I wonder if Homer Kelley would have wanted people to respect his "authority" or whether he would have simply wanted people to treat his amazingly insightful ideas/insights with a great deal of thoughtful consideration. I would imagine that he would have felt that the clarity and logic of his ideas could stand up to intense intellectual scrutiny, and I cannot easily imagine that he would expect people to unthinkingly accept his ideas simply because he is deemed by some people to be an "authority".
Homer Kelley demanded neither deference nor homage. Nor did he demand that his concepts go unchallenged. To the contrary, he welcomed new ideas, encouraged discussion and thrived on questions.
He did, however, insist that those who questioned his ideas bring the same support to their argument that he already had brought to his own. Namely, scientific proof. Also, he did not suffer fools gladly, and he would have considered it a total waste of his time to debate "what the definition of 'is' is".
The root word of the term 'authority' is author, and Mr. Kelley authored the most original work in the history of golf instruction. Working with tools that today could only be considered primitive, he published the solution to one of the great puzzles of athletic endeavor. He was a humble, but resolute, intellectual giant who earned his right to the title authority through his genius, and in his own words, "the sweat of blood on every page".
For five years now, I have done my best to help those genuinely interested in understanding his teachings and personal philosopies. At the same time, those dismissive of that authority or who otherwise cavalierly reject his work can generally expect to see two things from me:
Good . . . Thus far, I have operated under that premise. That is why I not only have allowed you to exercise your probing pursuits, but have provided you a dedicated forum to do so.
However, with that privilege comes responsibility. And the cornerstone of that responsibility is respect for Homer Kelley's work and the mission of this site. Adhere to this standard, and you will receive little censure from me.
I think that "science" as it applies to the golf swing is the idea of seeking to produce testable theories regarding the mechanics/biomechanics/geometry of the golf swing, and if those testable theories have a high verifiability factor and a low falsifiability factor when experimentally tested (using "objective reality" as the gold standard), then those testable theories could represent the "best" theories. The theory, among all existing theories, that has the highest verifiability factor and the lowest falsifiability factor is the "best" theory - from my perspective. That's why I hold Homer Kelley's golf swing theories in such high regard - his theories regarding the golf swing could be accurately regarded as being the "best" (in the present-day world of existent golf swing theories) - in the sense that they have the highest verifiability factor and the lowest fasifiability factor. It doesn't mean that one cannot theoretically develop another swing theory that will be better - by having a higher verifiability factor and lower falsifiability factor - it simply means that if Homer Kelley's theories are presently regarded as representing the "best" theories then it sets the bar very high - and for that accomplishment he deserves an enormous amount of respect. Yoda also deserves an enormous amount of respect as an "authority" - as a person who most clearly understands Homer Kelley's theories and can defend them from being misunderstood and misrepresented. I am an example of a person who has unintentionally misunderstood and/or misrepresented Homer Kelley's theories, and I am always appreciative when Yoda "corrects" me regarding the "correct" understanding of Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. I may disagree with Yoda regarding certain golf swing issues, but I am very willing to regard him as being an "authority" regarding Homer Kelley's body of work. I do not believe that Yoda equates being an "authority" on Homer Kelley's body of work as being equivalent to being the "ultimate authority" that determines the level of verifiability/falsifiability of any proposed golf swing theory.
Hybrid Mode
