Yes this thread has degenerated simply because the whole lot of you can't argue the science. You just make up stuff which is unfortunately absolutely untrue in the scientific community.
Now why dont you argue the science instead or is it just a Boys Club and when you get out of your depth just as was the case with Dr Jeff Mann ( although he was a pain in the butt).
Maybe you just might learn something new from NMGolfer and even if you don't you just may confirm some detail you might not have been convinced of or knew exactly how to arrive at
Science and technology move forward and for sure Homer Kelley would embrace technology etc
I have read a lot of science as it relates to the golf swing lately. It has helped my golf game and my teaching exactly zero, zippo, nada. Homer Kelley's work and those who teach it are the people who have helped me play better, and helped me teach better. Good ole boys club? In a lot of ways, that's golf, that's what we are striving to learn.
It seems the focus on science in golf is simply attempting to disprove long standing knowledge and make it their own. It can't be done. It's not all science, it also involves feel and a human machine along with the 6 inches between the ears...
I better stop before I start ranting.
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
The Wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...
Originally Posted by pistol
Yes this thread has degenerated simply because the whole lot of you can't argue the science. You just make up stuff which is unfortunately absolutely untrue in the scientific community.
Now why dont you argue the science instead or is it just a Boys Club and when you get out of your depth just as was the case with Dr Jeff Mann ( although he was a pain in the butt).
Pistol, I am sure you will agree that having many friends and developing many wonderful relationships with people on this forum can be quite distracting. Would you not agree?
Physics changes depending on the frame of reference or does it.
The following two posts that I combined into one took place in 2006 from one of my favorite posters, “ThinkingPlus” aka Steph (a Physics major, who I wish would post more often). Should she make an appearance, I hope you don't mind if she says hello:
"Centrifugal force is a convenient term describing an effective force present on objects in a rotating reference frame (an object undergoing centripetal acceleration). It is what our bodies, arms, and hands "feel" as the pulling away from the center of rotation during a swing. This concept and feel can be used as an aid to creating angular velocity. That is all that is claimed within TGM to my knowledge. Angular velocity and acceleration is what ultimately matters."
The laws of physics in a non-inertial frame:
"The frame of reference is always a choice. The laws of physics in this case are invariant regardless of frame of reference. However, the explanation of what is going on varies. A rotating reference frame is proper during the downswing since that is the frame of reference the golfer lives in so to speak. You wish to keep things in a non-rotating reference frame because it makes the centrifugal force explanation less applicable.
This whole argument is splitting hairs about reference frames and centrifugal force. It is pointless to the golfer. One will get the right answer whether one invokes the concept of centrifugal force or explains the phenomena as inertial resistance of the clubhead mass. Basically it all comes down to what folks will understand more easily. Centrifugal force explanations are more intuitive to understand for the majority than inertia, which is why it is more generally taught that way in universities across the world (to physicists). It is nice that you learned your physics a different way, but the answers all turn out the same. I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree."
I have read a lot of science as it relates to the golf swing lately. It has helped my golf game and my teaching exactly zero, zippo, nada. Homer Kelley's work and those who teach it are the people who have helped me play better, and helped me teach better. Good ole boys club? In a lot of ways, that's golf, that's what we are striving to learn.
It seems the focus on science in golf is simply attempting to disprove long standing knowledge and make it their own. It can't be done. It's not all science, it also involves feel and a human machine along with the 6 inches between the ears...
I better stop before I start ranting.
Kevin
Now Kevin this is where i disagree with you cause the scientists are confirming stuff
Now NMGolfer was going on about hand path and the radius deal shortening etc etc a while back and the other one mandrin is now blowing his trumpet about vertical thrust adding speed etc etc
But you know the DS already had this figured out although it dont come directly from either parts of the body these guys talk about
Now Kevin this is where i disagree with you cause the scientists are confirming stuff
Now NMGolfer was going on about hand path and the radius deal shortening etc etc a while back and the other one mandrin is now blowing his trumpet about vertical thrust adding speed etc etc
But you know the DS already had this figured out although it dont come directly from either parts of the body these guys talk about
Do we have a mandrin and a DS that post on this forum?
Now Kevin this is where i disagree with you cause the scientists are confirming stuff
Now NMGolfer was going on about hand path and the radius deal shortening etc etc a while back and the other one mandrin is now blowing his trumpet about vertical thrust adding speed etc etc
But you know the DS already had this figured out although it dont come directly from either parts of the body these guys talk about
I think Mr. K got that vertical thrust deal . . . pivot lag . . . . the spine is a component of the pivot . . . hips forward and up for the biggest radius . . . swing from the feets.
I think Mr. K got that vertical thrust deal . . . pivot lag . . . . the spine is a component of the pivot . . . hips forward and up for the biggest radius . . . swing from the feets.
What, now you want a piece of me? Stand in line, I'm busy fighting with boneheads on other forums. I'll be back for you later.
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
I think Mr. K got that vertical thrust deal . . . pivot lag . . . . the spine is a component of the pivot . . . hips forward and up for the biggest radius . . . swing from the feets.
Maybe for what you want Mr Bucket. The boat was missed a bit here
__________________
If you cannot take the shoulder down the clubshaft plane, you must take along some other path and add compensations - now, instead of one motion to remember, you wind up with at least two!
). 
Linear Mode
