Science and G.O.L.F

[ThinkingPlus]

Not exactly lite reading is it. Maybe "that guy from the other site" can simplify it for us....

G2M

Don't let the equations up front derail you. Their conclusions and explanations of the figures are more accessible. It is still a little thick to wade through, but some of the conclusions go against other oft-quoted research. I expect the debates shall rage ...

[6bmike]

No Offense to ThinkingPlus but this is exactly what Homer wanted to avoid in his book. But ‘that other guy’ uses it against Homer.

[birdie_man]

No Offense to ThinkingPlus but this is exactly what Homer wanted to avoid in his book. But ‘that other guy’ uses it against Homer.

"Against Homer"....

Hmmm.

I have never seen anything that'd I'd go so far as to call "anti-Homer" from any host of ANY TGM-based site. (I assume you are talking about a host of another TGM site...correct me if I'm wrong)

Which is great cause you can't take anything away from Homer really.

...

Now, if you're seeing the same thing I'm seeing, I'd merely call it progression. (and besides, I never hear anyone jump on MORAD or Mac O'Grady much....other than people voicing views that the book will not be released)

It's hardly "against Homer."

Homer never did hang up his "researching pants," you know.

And then there is the issue of different "personal interpretations" of the book...

[golf2much]

Don't let the equations up front derail you. Their conclusions and explanations of the figures are more accessible. It is still a little thick to wade through, but some of the conclusions go against other oft-quoted research. I expect the debates shall rage ...

No problem with the math Steph; I've got a couple of degrees in Engineering so I can manage the math. My post was more a tongue in cheek response in light of the criticism we both have taken on "that other forum" over our attempts to simplify the physics for the masses, only to get slammed for "imprecision"

G2M

BTW I want YOU on My scramble team. 240 from the red tees would be on most par 4 greens. 4 putts for eagle on the par 4's has the makings for some low scores. We might win one of those chippers they seem to be so fond of giving away! Seems we frequent the same places.

[ThinkingPlus]

No problem with the math Steph; I've got a couple of degrees in Engineering so I can manage the math. My post was more a tongue in cheek response in light of the criticism we both have taken on "that other forum" over our attempts to simplify the physics for the masses, only to get slammed for "imprecision"

G2M

BTW I want YOU on My scramble team. 240 from the red tees would be on most par 4 greens. 4 putts for eagle on the par 4's has the makings for some low scores. We might win one of those chippers they seem to be so fond of giving away! Seems we frequent the same places.

Sorry about the math comment. I am never sure about everyone's background.

I played a scramble last year. I ended up feeling so guilty. It just was not fair. I played the red tees and it gave us a huge advantage on tee shots. About half the round was played in 30 MPH wind and we still shot 64 and missed a bunch of putts.

I post occasionally on the GEA forum. It is a pretty good spot for club building information, but the swing instruction wars can be a little brutal at times.

[bts]

I found this research paper and thought it would be appropriate to post in this thread. While I am not generally enamored of models based on just any set of players' golf strokes, this research seems to be well done. This kind of research is possible today with the advances in computing technology and software. Check it out: http://www.jssm.org/vol4/n4/17/v4n4-17text.php#1

Seems like a valuable work, yet too bad they didn't wire their heads to read their minds during the action, so that the "input" and "output" could be connected.