[12 piece bucket]

Jeff,

I'd be "pleased as punch" if you could site just one example from the book that was tested Homer and has verifiable data trail supporting the stated conclusions. That would imply he at least knew what the term scientific stands for. Most of these guys (book believers) do (know what scientific stands for).

Take Clampett for instance. In his book he talks of a "study" he did wherein he measured how far in front of the ball the divot is for hackers and pro's alike. He did it to support is hypothesis that pros hit down and hackers don't. The data supported the hypothesis he elevated it his hypothesis to a theory or thesis and now scientifically claims we should hit down (damit)... Then he stretched the theory to the driver.... but failed to support that stretch with data... (thats called extrapolation.. a no-no) Oh well.. at least bobby c was on the right (scientific) track.

We take a guess at the solution to the problem (or veracity of the conjecture). That is the "hypo"thesis. Hypo meaning "insufficient" (as in hypothermia meaning not enough heat) by definition it means not "good enough" (not yet proven) to be a thesis or theory. I shortened hypothesis (step 3) to thesis in my previous posts and should not have done that. Yes thesis or theory are the same, (a hypothesis) that has not been falsified, fits the data and conforms with the known facts. When I said thesis I meant hypothesis. my bad.

I'm not knocking Homer's effort. Lots of logic and useful conjecture in there. But there are parts he got flat out wrong and CF is one of them. The question is it useful or detrimental to learning the game (CF concept that is). I argue its the latter but then I'm a "root cause seeking" sort of person.

Come on man . . . how many times are we going to rehash the cf debate . . . . fictional force blah blah blah. So Homer said CF. I'm by no means a scientist but from what I see there are scientist that don't adhere to the cf fiction deal. There's some force there or something going on when the levers extend . . .

It took Homer 40 years to write the book . . . no computers no video . . . . I mean it's almost unreadable now and you want a bunch of data and equations in there?

That Jorgenson dude comes up with the d-plane . . . Homer had that licked 40 years before he did without any computer modeling.

If there were a website for Isaac Newton would y'all be over there pissing on the floor too? Meanwhile people are getting better, learning and winning tour events while others, even the owners of the Machine, are invested in making Homer look like a doofus.

You still haven't told us who you'd take a lesson from?