DariuszNow, you stated "why not" - which means that you can imagine that the cluface sweetspot can be on a different plane than the back of the left wrist/hand at this time point.
To me, that means that you really do not understand the relationship between left hand movements and the clubface. If the clubface was not on the same plane as the back of the left wrist/hand at this time point, then the left wrist/hand cannot be flat - it would have to be bent. In my mental universe, the left wrist/hand must always remain flat throughout the entire swing. If the left wrist/hand always remains flat and the clubface is always exactly in a straight line relationship with the back of the flat left wrist/hand, then the clubface must always rotate at the same rpm as the back of the flat left wrist/hand.
Jeff.
Jeff, you are right, I don't understand what trigonometric influence on wrist flatness can make an inch of distance between the hosel and the sweetspot when comparing to 40 inches distance between the wrist and the clubhead.
Enlight me, please, but I still think you are missing the big picture while concentrating on not important details that usually darken this picture.
Homer's definition of "on-plane" refers to the end of the clusbhaft and not sweetspot. See last paragraph of 2-F. Normally the sweetspot can be used as being equivalent to the end of the clubshaft - because it is roughly equivalent to the end of the clubshaft when the clubhead width is <4", but it will not work if the clubhead width is 18" and the hosel-to-sweetspot distance is 9".
Jeff,
This is the first of your posts I've read today, and there's no telling what else I've missed. As usual, though, I didn't have to read far before I found an absurd misrepresentation of TGM.
'First instance' misrepresentations -- I view those as misinterpretations -- I can handle. It is the repeat offenses that really get under my skin. Your quote above is a perfect example. Homer Kelley's operative definition of 'On Plane' references the Sweet Spot (Longitudinal Center of Gravity), not the Clubshaft. Read the first three sentences of the second paragraph in 2-F. Or just re-read my post #155 (68 posts ago) where I not only explained that fact, I actually took the time and trouble to write it out for you verbatim. Further, the last sentence of that paragraph explains precisely when the Clubshaft is an acceptable visual equivalent for both Planes. And now you come up with this drivel that once again compels me to respond.
I can draw only three conclusions regarding your persistently obnoxious behavior:
1. You don't read the replies to your tomes.
2. You read them, but choose to ignore them.
3. You read them, but when confronted with the truth, you continue to state otherwise to suit your own purposes.
Your incessant, argumentative responses and use of quotes indicate that you at least read the replies. However, you have made items #2 and #3 an artform.
Here's the problem I've got with you, Jeff . . .
I am the proprietor of this site. I pay for it every month. I have dedicated volunteers who help me deliver its content 24/7. And we have a mission, part of which is to deliver accurate information regarding Homer Kelley and his book, The Golfing Machine. Now, this may come as a surprise, but I have absolutely no problem with those who question his ideas. If that were the case, you'd have been gone a long time ago. What I do have a problem with -- a very big problem -- is someone coming along and continuing to attribute ideas to the book that are either (a) simply not there, or more often, (b) dead wrong in their interpretation.
I've lately been on the receiving end of plenty of advice from people I respect and whose opinions I value. And what they tell me is that, despite my disclaimer on the Forum Home Page (where I state that your opinions are definitely your own and not those of LBG), your presence here implies my tacit approval of the information you deliver. For better or worse, I have come to agree with them. Else, why would I waste so many hours setting things right? Only to find in the very next hour that you've come back and whacked things upside down again.
I thought I could just set up a dedicated Forum for you, leave you be and let you wander through your wonderland alone. I thought you would attract a small but interested following, and you guys could enjoy each other while the rest of us were out working, playing golf or posting quasi-normally. Sadly, I was wrong.
To the contrary, every time I come in I find instances where, as happened tonight, I simply must set the record straight. Usually, I let these recurring opportunities go: I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into pissing contests with you. But, as you can see from this and prior posts in this thread and others, I sometimes must respond, especially to the more agregious affronts to TGM. Or else be viewed as a passive constituent in your efforts. Which, to some degree, I would be, because I'm funding your operation and making it visible to the world.
We gotta do something, Jeff. I'm not sure what. You present your misrepresentations of TGM as facts, and it is taking far too much of my time to correct things. And it burns my soul when I have to let your misstatements stand unanswered because I actually have other, more valuable work to do. Which, by the way, often means writing a post in another forum that I feel will help my students and readers play a better game of golf, a situtation I believe rarely occurs when I spend my time -- no, waste my time (as I have here) -- replying to you.
You have certain redeeming qualities, Jeff, and as I've said before, I applaud your seeking nature. However, you cannot be allowed to sabatoge my mission. You have your own web site, and I am becoming more and more inclined to encourage you to pursue your activities there and not on LBG. Set up your own Forums. I promise I won't go there -- it will be out of site and out of mind -- and you'll have the whole playground to yourself. On the other hand, it takes a long time and a whole lot of effort to get 6,000+ members, so I don't blame you for wanting to hang out here. It gets pretty lonely pretty quick over at your place.
I do not want to ban you, and this exclusive Forum is the ultimate evidence of that fact. But I'm running out of alternatives. Given the obvious incongruity between your persistant attacks and my own personal mission, you may have left me no other choice.
You are free to disagree with me, and harbor a contrary belief, but you have no "right" to attempt to censor my opinion (by stating "enough is enough") because my opinion conflicts with your opinion.
Jeff,
I know you directed your post at O.B. Left, but he was only seconding the headline in my own post; namely, So Stop Already. You didn't confront me with the issue, but you did with him. Hence, this post and more time wasted for me.
My objective is not to censure your opinion. My objective is to deliver value to our readers. You've pecked on this now not-so-shiny hubcap long enough. You've been told that the only bird there is you. And yet you continue to peck.
This ain't a democracy, Jeff. It is a benevolent dictatorship. And you've just about drained my benevolence reservoir dry.
As landlord and bill-payer around here, I have neither the right nor the desire to censor your opinion. I do have the right to evict you from this building, and I will if you persist in this anti-TGM (and hence anti-LBG) behavior.
Heed my warning, Jeff, or you'll be pecking to your heart's content on your own site. Then perhaps you'll be able to answer the age-old question:
"If a tree falls in the forest when no one's around to hear, does it make a sound?"
Yoda,
please have mercy.
Jeff is alone.
Others are not misled by him. They are learning from seeing him pounded, I think?
Jeff,
You do not need a new pair of glasses. Your vision is probably a lot better than mine. The problems lie behind your cameras, there are bugs in your computer! I am so glad that we think we can identify the locations of the particular problems. As a physician, you know well that correct diagnosis is a major step in fixing the problems.
Problem 1: Jeff’s failure to perceive rotation around the Z axis
Symptoms:
1. He is vehemently against AJ Bonar method of swinging.
2. The meshed gears in the mechanical wrist joint of the swing machine caught him off guard, he thought it was a universal joint.
3. He frequently claims the turning of the left hand without the corresponding rotation of the lower lever around the Z axis
Root causes:
Jeff is a physician who is used to articulated bone joints. Although he is very analytical, he was neither trained as a mathematician nor a physicist.
Treatment:
Consult nmgolfer or the lurking mandrin.
Problem 2: Jeff’s fixation on the clubshaft plane
Symptoms:
1. He frequently states that the only way to return the club to the position at address effectively is to swing the clubshaft on the clubshaft plane.
2. He refuses to fully accept the method of swinging the clubhead by keeping the sweetspot on the sweetspot plane.
Root causes:
Jeff’s over reliance on gadgets: plane boards, dowels, flashlights.
Treatment:
Consult any GSED
Why is it when reading this thread I am reminded of the Mythbusters quote :
"I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own"
Jeff, it seems you are looking to prove you are right rather than learn.
Try something for me if you could. Run a dowel from the clubhead sweetspot to PP3 as you grip the club. Keep this dowel on a plane board (will have to be a sort of inverted plane board) as you swing. (short swings)
I think that it is best if you close down this "Golf by Jeff" forum.
You are trying to reconcile two conflicting desires without obvious success.
Your first desire is to teach TGM using Homer's work as the "final answer" and the "final decider" of the "truth" regarding the golf swing.
Your second desire is to create an aura that you are less autocratic, and more open-minded, than many TGM-golf website fourm owners and that you are willing to entertain alternative opinions - even if they contradict your personal opinions.
However, you, and the majority of your forum members, place a very high value on the fundamental idea of orthodoxy, and you/they do not like anybody to question the wisdom of Homer's work. For example, you get easily slighted when you think that I am misrepresenting Homer's work. You are also overly concerned that my misinterpretations are somehow damaging to your reputation and your website. If that is your major concern, then it makes no sense to allow me to express my opinions freely on your website.
I actually believe that my personal opinions expressed in this "Golf by Jeff M" forum, even if totally wrong, can never be damaging to true students of the golf swing. I believe that "truths" regarding the golf swing can never be damaged by "untruths". I, as forum moderator of this forum, have constantly expressed my belief that this forum should be "open" to all opinions - no matter how ridiculous or how contrarian. It is based on my sincere belief in the wisdom of Karl Popper's "falsification principle" and his idea that a theory becomes more true if it can constantly/successfully withstand all attempts at falsification. Regarding TGM theory, in the light of KP's "falsification principle", I believe that it becomes increasingly strengthened as a valid golf swing theory if it can withstand rigorous intellectual attacks.
I think that Homer would have been very sympathetic to my intellectual position as forum moderator and as a forum participant. If Homer had died after he wrote his first edition of TGM, then TGM-disciples would have regarded the first edition as the ultimate "orthodoxy" regarding golf swing theory. Then, we would have not have acquired new insights regarding the golf swing, that came with Homer's further insights, and further revisions of his TGM book. For all we know, if Homer had lived another 20 years, we could now be reading the 10th edition of TGM and we would have gained even more insights into "truths" regarding golf swing mechanics. physics and geometry. It is even theoretically possible that he may have revised his 2-F section to clarify certain points, based on further research and further thinking. I am certain that Homer would have wanted his followers to think deeply about the golf swing and come up new ideas and new revisions to his original TGM-ideas. I believe that you are actually sympathetic to the basic idea that Homer would have wanted people to question his ideas and expand on them, but I think that you cannot tolerate the "messiness" that accompanies the uncensored rigorous intellectual exploration of Homer's golf swing theories. You also have a strong autocratic streak that is in conflict with the idea of hosting an uncensored/open forum on your personal golf website. In that sense, you are in a "catch 22" situation, and your life will be much easier if you close down this forum.
I appreciate your temporary hosting of this "Golf by Jeff" forum. I have gained a great deal by reading criticisms of my personal opinions, because it has forced me to rethink my position, and revise/modulate my counterarguments. I understand golf swing theory issues much better when faced with a barrage of criticism, even when I think that the criticism is invalid, because it gives me greater insights into alternative ways of thinking about golf mechanics and golf biomechanics. My own knowledge reagrding the golf swing has been enhanced by participating in this forum and subjecting my personal opinions to "uncensored falsification attacks". I thank all those forum members who relentlessly questioned my personal opinions, because they forced to me to think more rigorously about the golf swing. I will certainly miss the intellectual challenge that their counterarguments presented.
I think that it is best if you close down this "Golf by Jeff" forum.
You are trying to reconcile two conflicting desires without obvious success.
Your first desire is to teach TGM using Homer's work as the "final answer" and the "final decider" of the "truth" regarding the golf swing.
Your second desire is to create an aura that you are less autocratic, and more open-minded, than many TGM-golf website fourm owners and that you are willing to entertain alternative opinions - even if they contradict your personal opinions.
However, you, and the majority of your forum members, place a very high value on the fundamental idea of orthodoxy, and you/they do not like anybody to question the wisdom of Homer's work. For example, you get easily slighted when you think that I am misrepresenting Homer's work. You are also overly concerned that my misinterpretations are somehow damaging to your reputation and your website. If that is your major concern, then it makes no sense to allow me to express my opinions freely on your website.
I actually believe that my personal opinions expressed in this "Golf by Jeff M" forum, even if totally wrong, can never be damaging to true students of the golf swing. I believe that "truths" regarding the golf swing can never be damaged by "untruths". I, as forum moderator of this forum, have constantly expressed my belief that this forum should be "open" to all opinions - no matter how ridiculous or how contrarian. It is based on my sincere belief in the wisdom of Karl Popper's "falsification principle" and his idea that a theory becomes more true if it can constantly/successfully withstand all attempts at falsification. Regarding TGM theory, in the light of KP's "falsification principle", I believe that it becomes increasingly strengthened as a valid golf swing theory if it can withstand rigorous intellectual attacks.
I think that Homer would have been very sympathetic to my intellectual position as forum moderator and as a forum participant. If Homer had died after he wrote his first edition of TGM, then TGM-disciples would have regarded the first edition as the ultimate "orthodoxy" regarding golf swing theory. Then, we would have not have acquired new insights regarding the golf swing, that came with Homer's further insights, and further revisions of his TGM book. For all we know, if Homer had lived another 20 years, we could now be reading the 10th edition of TGM and we would have gained even more insights into "truths" regarding golf swing mechanics. physics and geometry. It is even theoretically possible that he may have revised his 2-F section to clarify certain points, based on further research and further thinking. I am certain that Homer would have wanted his followers to think deeply about the golf swing and come up new ideas and new revisions to his original TGM-ideas. I believe that you are actually sympathetic to the basic idea that Homer would have wanted people to question his ideas and expand on them, but I think that you cannot tolerate the "messiness" that accompanies the uncensored rigorous intellectual exploration of Homer's golf swing theories. You also have a strong autocratic streak that is in conflict with the idea of hosting an uncensored/open forum on your personal golf website. In that sense, you are in a "catch 22" situation, and your life will be much easier if you close down this forum.
I appreciate your temporary hosting of this "Golf by Jeff" forum. I have gained a great deal by reading criticisms of my personal opinions, because it has forced me to rethink my position, and revise/modulate my counterarguments. I understand golf swing theory issues much better when faced with a barrage of criticism, even when I think that the criticism is invalid, because it gives me greater insights into alternative ways of thinking about golf mechanics and golf biomechanics. My own knowledge reagrding the golf swing has been enhanced by participating in this forum and subjecting my personal opinions to "uncensored falsification attacks". I thank all those forum members who relentlessly questioned my personal opinions, because they forced to me to think more rigorously about the golf swing. I will certainly miss the intellectual challenge that their counterarguments presented.
Jeff.
Thanks, Jeff . . . you've done the right thing.
I sincerely appreciate your many positive contributions. Unfortunately, your stifling, adversarial approach with its Karl Popper "falsification principle" tactics strains our resources and diverts us from our mission. Hence, our inherent conflict and agreement that it is time for you to move on. The LBG bus has taken you as far as it can, and your end destination awaits. From here, you'll need another connecting line . . . maybe even your own.
Linear Mode
