The late 60's were an important time for golf and G.O.L.F.
"search for the Perfect Swing" (SFTPS) was published in 1968 and "The Golfing Machine" (TGM) was published in 1969.
I have read that Homer's work was initially critised for "ripping off" the earlier publication... if these accusations were ever uttered then the author had clearly never read either book. Each sets out to scientifically analyse the golf swing to a degree that no previous "my way" style book had ever achieved.
BUT the contrasting approaches reflect the different scientific considerations Comdpa discusses above. ( theory versus empiracal and observation)
Homer Kelley approaches the task with a knowledge of current literature and practice but writes from a theoretical "first principles" standpoint with little referenced practical data to support his theories.
SFTPS attempts to objectively measure the current practices of top amateurs and professionals and evolve theory from the data.
Contrasting and complimentary methods which sadly have never really been united by anyone yet...
Homer researched his first edition for at least 30-40 years prior to publication and then modified it a further 5 times in his lifetime ( 6 if you include the latest edition based on his notes).... it clearly was an evolving process!
Our ability to analyse and measure aspects of the golf swing have evolved tremendously in the last 22 years since Homer's untimely death yet even the latest edition of TGM has had no/little factual benefit from this advancing hitech science.
TGM works... it has nothing fundamentally to fear from the scientific validification of its theories. EVEN if it did, would Homer shrink from objective evidence which might ultimately lead to a more precise book??
TGM may , I repeat MAY ( rumours abound), have to compete with a MORAD publication in the not too distant future... Mac O'Grady has never NOT acknowledged the strength of Homer's work as a foundation for his understanding of the golf swing.... if TGM is to live on as a premier manual for swing science then it may have to set about proving that its theory stacks up in an objective manner... ie. non anecdotal evidence... real repeatable science!
Not a challenge to shrink from ... but one to embrace!
Oh dear me, nearly as long as Comdpa!!! but if you are interested lets set out to find the evidence to advance TGM!
Threaded Mode
