The two words "can be" was just my grammatical method of stating that a theory that can be tested can be deemed to be a scientific theory, and thereby implying that a theory that cannot be tested cannot be deemed to be a scientific theory.
Homer Kelley's TGM theories regarding the golf swing are testable, and have been tested. In fact, he probably spent endless hours testing his theories, and he probably then used his test results to refine his theories. In that sense, he was quintessentially a scientist working according to the fundamental tenets of "good scientific practice". By contrast, most golf instructors have "opinions" that are not even coherent enough from a cognitive perspective to represent a testable theory.
I regard the term "thesis" and 'theory' to be interchangeable.
I also don't like using the term "centrifugal", but that doesn't automatically disqualify Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. That's only one "word" used to express a concept, which is still conceptually relevant!
The two words "can be" was just my grammatical method of stating that a theory that can be tested can be deemed to be a scientific theory, and thereby implying that a theory that cannot be tested cannot be deemed to be a scientific theory.
Homer Kelley's TGM theories regarding the golf swing are testable, and have been tested. In fact, he probably spent endless hours testing his theories, and he probably then used his test results to refine his theories. In that sense, he was quintessentially a scientist working according to the fundamental tenets of "good scientific practice". By contrast, most golf instructors have "opinions" that are not even coherent enough from a cognitive perspective to represent a testable theory.
I regard the term "thesis" and 'theory' to be interchangeable.
I also don't like using the term "centrifugal", but that doesn't automatically disqualify Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. That's only one "word" used to express a concept, which is still conceptually relevant!
Jeff.
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.
I can give you a number of examples where Homer used the "scientific technique" - which starts with a theory that is subsequently verified, and non-falsified, by the experimental facts. The experimental facts in a golf swing comes from observing the effects (ball flight) in response to executing a theory.
Example theory 1:
Homer's flat left wrist and bent right wrist at impact theory - which requires forward shaft lean, and the clubhead lagging behind the hands.
This theory has been proven every day by millions of golfers who can hit the ball further and straighter when following this theory - instead of allowing the clubhead to flip past the hands (clubhead throwaway).
Example theory 2:
Homer's stationary pivot stabilising point (eg. head or base of neck) theory.
Again, there is no doubt in my mind that a golfer who has a stabilised pivot action is going to hit the ball better than a golfer who allows the pivoting skeletal structure to wobble, sway or slide (allowing the spine/head to slide forward in the direction of the target).
Example theory 3:
Homer's theory on how to hit the ball straight based on the idea of keeping the clubshaft on-plane through the impact zone.
Again, evidence form good golfers shows that having the clubshaft on-plane through the impact zone as the clubhead moves from in-to-square-to-in through the impact zone is much better than a clubshaft that moves off-plane and produces an out-to-in or in-to-out clubhead path.
Example theory 4:
Homer's theory of how best to manage clubface control through the impact zone.
Homer teaches hinging actions where the left hand controls the clubface - via a hinging action operating at the level of the left shoulder socket, and where the left arm/left hand/clubshaft rotate at the same rpm in the followthrough.
I think that there is substantial evidence from watching professional golfers that his theory works much better with respect to consistent clubface control through impact than alternative theories eg. AJ Bonar's "Magic Move" theory of an active hand crossover release action through the impact zone.
Homer Kelley's power accumulator loading/release concepts with respect to swinging versus hitting.
This is Homer's "best" theory in my estimation. I don't know of a better (scientifically more valid) golf swing theory regarding the issue of "how best to power the golf swing" in a mechanically efficient manner.
Jeff.
Yoda - note that I didn't abbreviate Homer's name.
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?
I can give you a number of examples where Homer used the "scientific technique" - which starts with a theory that is subsequently verified, and non-falsified, by the experimental facts. The experimental facts in a golf swing comes from observing the effects (ball flight) in response to executing a theory.
Example theory 1:
Homer's flat left wrist and bent right wrist at impact theory - which requires forward shaft lean, and the clubhead lagging behind the hands.
This theory has been proven every day by millions of golfers who can hit the ball further and straighter when following this theory - instead of allowing the clubhead to flip past the hands (clubhead throwaway).
Example theory 2:
Homer's stationary pivot stabilising point (eg. head or base of neck) theory.
Again, there is no doubt in my mind that a golfer who has a stabilised pivot action is going to hit the ball better than a golfer who allows the pivoting skeletal structure to wobble, sway or slide (allowing the spine/head to slide forward in the direction of the target).
Example theory 3:
Homer's theory on how to hit the ball straight based on the idea of keeping the clubshaft on-plane through the impact zone.
Again, evidence form good golfers shows that having the clubshaft on-plane through the impact zone as the clubhead moves from in-to-square-to-in through the impact zone is much better than a clubshaft that moves off-plane and produces an out-to-in or in-to-out clubhead path.
Example theory 4:
Homer's theory of how best to manage clubface control through the impact zone.
Homer teaches hinging actions where the left hand controls the clubface - via a hinging action operating at the level of the left shoulder socket, and where the left arm/left hand/clubshaft rotate at the same rpm in the followthrough.
I think that there is substantial evidence from watching professional golfers that his theory works much better with respect to consistent clubface control through impact than alternative theories eg. AJ Bonar's "Magic Move" theory of an active hand crossover release action through the impact zone.
Homer Kelley's power accumulator loading/release concepts with respect to swinging versus hitting.
This is Homer's "best" theory in my estimation. I don't know of a better (scientifically more valid) golf swing theory regarding the issue of "how best to power the golf swing" in a mechanically efficient manner.
Jeff.
Yoda - note that I didn't abbreviate Homer's name.
Yoda - I am totally puzzled. What did I do wrong in expressing my opinions re: Homer Kelley in the last post?
You deliberately baited me, Jeff. You know it. I know it.
But now you plead ignorant and innocent. On the extreme outside chance you remain "puzzled" as to the nature of your offense and your pending 10-day absence, here's a hint:
Originally Posted by Jeff
. . . Homer
. . . Homer's
. . . Homer's
. . . Homer's
. . . Homer's
. . . Homer
. . . Homer Kelley's
. . . Homer's
Yoda - note that I didn't abbreviate Homer's name.
Nine 'mentions' in one post, including the last just for good measure. In the almost 60,000 posts at LBG over the past four years, this is an all-time record (by at least five). Please explain this sudden and dramatic increase in the frequency of your use of Mr. Kelley's name (or initials). Further, state that your lack of journalistic skills made it impossible for you to craft your post in a less exaggerated fashion. Finally, state that this exaggeration was merely coincidental with the posts of the past day regarding this site's policy as to his authority and name.
Alternatively, pack your bags for a little well-deserved R&R.
If you believe that I was deliberately trying to bait you then your sensitivity threshold to perceived insults is very low. I deliberately used the word "Homer" instead of the word "he" in deference to your recently stated sensitivity re: disrespecting Homer Kelley.
You created this "Golf by Jeff" forum independently and without consulting me regarding the purpose of the forum, and without consulting me regarding the rules that would pertain. I simply discovered the forum in existence one day and I have posted my opinions in this forum using my own personal standards of decorous behaviour. I have openly stated that I would, as moderator of this forum, host an open forum where any LBG forum member could openly and freely post his opinions without any fear of censorship. I stated that I would only censor posts that were overt ad hominem attacks that had no informative content regarding a TGM issue. I have adhered to that standard and I have only censored two posts.
I have maintained a high level of decorous behaviour and I have not attacked any forum member for disagreeing with me and for expressing a contrary point of view. I have even "turned the other cheek" when being subjected to demeaning/belittling posts and I have not retaliated in kind.
However, I cannot operate comfortably in a forum where the officiating umpire has his own set of arbitrary and capricious rules pertaining to perceived insults. This is your website and your forum and you are free to shut it down at any time. As you stated "it only takes a click of a mouse".
It's your choice, but I will not participate in this forum under such strict censorship rules.
If you believe that I was deliberately trying to bait you then your sensitivity threshold to perceived insults is very low. I deliberately used the word "Homer" instead of the word "he" in deference to your recently stated sensitivity re: disrespecting Homer Kelley.
Thanks, Jeff, that is a reasonable explanation, especially given your analytical nature and desire to comply with our 'rules of the road'. But please, in the future . . .
Write normally, i.e., where appropriate, use Homer's name. Otherwise, the word "he" works just fine. Do this, and you'll be all right.
Linear Mode
