[Yoda]

This is my first post, and , sorry, but I am sure it will be a long one. This
is addressed to you, Brian, as I have a lot of respect for your opinion and I
understand from reading other posts that you have spent a good deal of time
with Ben Doyle. You undoubtedly know the book as well as just about anyone. I
am a very humble GSEB, and will be the first to say that my knowledge of TGM
has a LONG way to go. But, I have the rest of my life to work on it and I am
not on any specific timetable. But, I digress...

A few years ago, before I had the pleasure of studying TGM, I met a fellow at
a driving range in Cleveland who was an accomplished ball striker. Also, this fellow
happened to have 3 PHD's in engineering, metallurgy and aeronautics. He also
was fluent in 5 or 6 languages. He made his living by studying tecnical
papers and journals from other countries, translating the findings into
English, then advising companies here in the states how these findings might
have applications to their production. Impressive? I'd say so... a VERY
bright guy. Anyway, I had 'the book', but did not understand it, but he had
never heard of it. I asked him if he would like to read it, and he took it
back to his apartment that evening (he lived across the road from the DR). He
returned it to me THE NEXT DAY, having read it completely the night before.
He also left me a short note, which I will quote..."Kelly's book is a
sham. If it seems that it contains great, realizable truths about the golf swing,
that is because the reader lacks a background in mechanical physics,
kinematics, and elements of physical- system modeling and subsequently is
easily impressed by Kelly's efforts to clasify discrete (itty-bity)
phenomena. If you limit yourself to Kelly's own conceptual framework, you can
show the gaps and mistakes in his delineation. Further, when you bring to
bear in analysis, understanding of the golf swing milieu beyond Kelly's, his
discussion is vapid. If you want insight, save this note and ask me about the
following points: (the following are within Kelly's conceptual framework)1)
power accumulators: vertebra and ring and middle fingers of right hand (also
equal and opposite reactions) 2) Acceleration: m x v = momentum, a = ^v over
t 3) gravitational field framework, 4) Radius: scapular articulation
5)Periodicity: time period T of rotational oscillation. 6) Gyroscopic action:
continuous, steady state momentum vs. inertia.
The following are beyond Kelly's framework: 1)Swinging vs hitting: arbitrary
distinction discounting synergy (leading edge in tension, trailing edge in
compression): 2)Big picture: trying to express the spatial nonverbal,
analytically. 3) Statics vs dynamics: sensory phenomena associated with low
and high angular velocities (weight vs momentum).

Unfortunately, I never had the chance to discuss this with him, as I moved
away from Cleveland (thank God!)


Again, this is directed at Brian, but anyone with a scientific background
that could decipher some of this, if you would, I would be very grateful.

DSS

Cute little story, but not original.


Mac Ogrady has told it a 1000 times.





Thanks, Doug. Now everybody knows this post wasn't 'real.'

And even if it was, all anyone must do is read the words of Mr. 'Baffle'em
with B.S.' to know that it is wrong.

I chose to use the post to make my own point: The Golfing Machine is The
Truth in Golf Instruction.


It has no equal.