LynnBlakeGolf Forums
Page 3 of 6 < 12 3 45 > Last »

LynnBlakeGolf Forums (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/index.php)
-   The Golfing Machine - Basic (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Clubshaft "on plane" (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5649)

pistol 06-06-2008 05:25 AM
Dr Jeff
I am wondering what your credentials are in the field of Physics and Engineering are???
Homer may not have got it all correct after all Mac Ogrady stated only 70% was correct but he has not even published anything BUT at least he can swing a golfclub extremely well.
Can you put YOUR GOLFSWING UP on the forum so I can get some perspective on the PERFECT swing and then i can model my swing after yours
Please im begging you PUT YOUR SWING UP

bts 06-06-2008 08:28 AM
On plane?
 
The swing, including the club, is shifting toward or on a shoulder plane when powered by the shoulders.

The swing, including the club, is shifting toward or on an arm plane when powered by the arms, including the forearm and upperarm.

The swing, including the club, is shifting toward or on a hand plane when powered by the hands.

The swing, including the club, is shifting toward or on a shoulder-arm-combined plane when powered by the shoulders and arms.

The swing, including the club, is shifting toward or on a shoulder-arm-hand-combined plane when powered by the shoulders, arms and hands.

.
.
.
.

The swing, including the club, is shifting toward or on whatever plane when powered by whatever.

Jeff 06-06-2008 09:42 AM
Pistol

I cannot fulfill your request to post my golf swing, because I don't really have a golf swing. I only pretend to have a golf swing by mimicking a certain number of golf swing motions. Now, if that fact that makes me unqualified to comment on the golf swing in your mind, then please ignore my unqualified/uninformed posts and please refrain from repeatedly commenting negatively on my unqualified/uniformed posts, because they are obviously not worthy of your time and effort.

Jeff.

hg 06-06-2008 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff (Post 53279)
...Regarding my modus operandi of attacking any golf swing theory, it merely reflects my scientific approach established over many decades. I find that the best way to understand a scientific theory and assess its "falsifiability factor" is to attack and analyse it from every possible angle. If it withstands rigorous analysis, then my admiration for its "low falsifiability" factor increases, and I respect it much more. So, don't be offended. Instead, you should realize that my inability to find flaws in Hk's theory actually strenghtens his theory in a way that you would not realise if his theory was not repeatedly dissected and analysed and criticized by me, and many other critics.

Jeff.
For those of us who appreciate your insights and who share the same scientific approach to analysis please continue to ask questions and offer your own insights & contributions. Homer would have loved the debate and probably would have participated with great enthusiasm. What is so great about this FORUM is the latitude given to diverse opinions as long as it is kept civil and conducted with integrity and in a gentlemenly fashion. Do not be discouraged by those who only offer criticism. If participating in this FORUM required degrees in science and engineering and/or a Zero Handicap, few of us would be members, including HK.:)

12 piece bucket 06-06-2008 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burner (Post 53274)
Jeff,

Homers intention, his gift to golfdom, was to provide the information and mechanical understanding necessary for golfers to be able to make an uncompensated golf stroke - a model of mechanical efficiency based on Physics and Geometry.



Nevertheless, I have to say that I, for one, find it more than slightly offensive that you persist in the introduction all sorts of variations of "golfer examples in action" into your arguments as grounds for your presumption that, somehow, Homer may just have got it all wrong and you will set us all to rights.
.

Embrace the information Homer bequeathed to us and ask how ever many questions you must in order to gain an understanding of his work. Don't just chuck up bits and pieces willy nilly in order to prove that you are right in cases where you have clearly not grasped the concept at issue. That is doing yourself a disservice.
Boss . . . NOBODY HAS AN UNCOMPENSATED STROKE. NOBODY IS ON THE SAME PLAN ALL THE TIME.

Don't just pigeon hole Homer into a little box. Don't forget about Chapter 10. I think Jeff is a credit to this forum for the light he shines under the mushroom. I think Homer would ENJOY the discourse . . . so should we. Jeff is a seeker and is welcome in my world. I love the pictures.

Keep in mind golf isn't played in the "uncompensated world" . . . we play in the real world. And bottom line for a long time in his stroke Sergio AIN'T on plane . . . . but he's as uncompensated as anybody where the bidness gets done.

12 piece bucket 06-06-2008 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol (Post 53281)
Dr Jeff
I am wondering what your credentials are in the field of Physics and Engineering are???
Homer may not have got it all correct after all Mac Ogrady stated only 70% was correct but he has not even published anything BUT at least he can swing a golfclub extremely well.
Can you put YOUR GOLFSWING UP on the forum so I can get some perspective on the PERFECT swing and then i can model my swing after yours
Please im begging you PUT YOUR SWING UP
Come on dude . . . this is the same playbook that's been used on golf forums forever . . . Give that a rest . . . Jeff's OK let him do his thing and we ALL may learn some stuff.

pistol 06-06-2008 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket (Post 53296)
Come on dude . . . this is the same playbook that's been used on golf forums forever . . . Give that a rest . . . Jeff's OK let him do his thing and we ALL may learn some stuff.
Sure Bucket no problem...keep it going jeff i was just giving you some ribbing...still hoping you gonna put your swing up :salut:

6bmike 06-06-2008 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOC (Post 53236)
Pay attention to Homer’s words: the inclined plane is usually BUT not always the line of flight.
misquoted!!!

KOC- he was talking about the BASE LINE of the incline plane- not the incline plane's angle. Where it is attached to the ground which is usually but not always the line of flight. You can have the base line open or closed to the line of flight. The incline plane is always FLAT and extends in every direction.

go to the quote and add three words to the beginning.

6bmike 06-06-2008 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol (Post 53281)
Dr Jeff
I am wondering what your credentials are in the field of Physics and Engineering are???
Homer may not have got it all correct after all Mac Ogrady stated only 70% was correct but he has not even published anything BUT at least he can swing a golfclub extremely well.
Can you put YOUR GOLFSWING UP on the forum so I can get some perspective on the PERFECT swing and then i can model my swing after yours
Please im begging you PUT YOUR SWING UP
Mac has been quoted as saying Homer was 80% right, 70% right, even once 20% right, problem is that means MAC is 100% right and even he knows he isn't. Before you belittle anyone by forcing them to post their swing as proof of knowledge- POST YOURS before such a request. You afraid of him having a "bigger gun."

pistol 06-06-2008 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6bmike (Post 53301)
Mac has been quoted as saying Homer was 80% right, 70% right, even once 20% right, problem is that means MAC is 100% right and even he knows he isn't. Before you belittle anyone by forcing them to post their swing as proof of knowledge- POST YOURS before such a request. You afraid of him having a "bigger gun."
Nope i don't think anyone on this forum has a "bigger gun" than me and really why should i as i am not contradicting HK and his work


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 AM.
Page 3 of 6 < 12 3 45 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page