You wrote-: "Nevertheless, I have to say that I, for one, find it more than slightly offensive that you persist in the introduction all sorts of variations of "golfer examples in action" into your arguments as grounds for your presumption that, somehow, Homer may just have got it all wrong and you will set us all to rights."
I am puzzled by your use of the word "offensive". It is never offensive to analyse/dissect/criticize a scientific theory, because a "true" scientist invites rigorous analysis/counterarguments/criticism of his theory, because he knows that his theory's ability to withstand any attempt at falsification (in a Popperian sense) strengthens his theory. In the absence of criticism, a scientific theory is essentialy untested, and therefore not knowingly "true". A scientific theory is optimally tested when it is attacked from every possible angle, because it becomes the "best' theory when it withstands all attempts at falsification (better than alternative theories in the same field). I have read virtually all of Yoda's archived posts and he has repeatedly demonstrated that HK's golf swing theories are extremely sound and not easy to falsify. That's why I hold HK's work in such high regard - it has a very low falsifiability factor.
Regarding my modus operandi of attacking any golf swing theory, it merely reflects my scientific approach established over many decades. I find that the best way to understand a scientific theory and assess its "falsifiability factor" is to attack and analyse it from every possible angle. If it withstands rigorous analysis, then my admiration for its "low falsifiability" factor increases, and I respect it much more. So, don't be offended. Instead, you should realize that my inability to find flaws in Hk's theory actually strenghtens his theory in a way that you would not realise if his theory was not repeatedly dissected and analysed and criticized by me, and many other critics.
Jeff
It is obvious that your have a very scientific approach, and I do know the based evidence medecine concept.But there is a long way from BEM to Based Evidence Golf, and without offending , I share Burner advice that this forum is not really the place.
You have your own site (http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/index.html), a very good one, where you kindly share your works. Why don't you open a forum on this site to "dissect" with people who appreciate this kind of approach.
Keeping on asking on this forum, wich is the best place, and elaborate on yours, seems to be a very scientific approach, and a good contribution to golf comprehension.
Dr Jeff
I am wondering what your credentials are in the field of Physics and Engineering are???
Homer may not have got it all correct after all Mac Ogrady stated only 70% was correct but he has not even published anything BUT at least he can swing a golfclub extremely well.
Can you put YOUR GOLFSWING UP on the forum so I can get some perspective on the PERFECT swing and then i can model my swing after yours
Please im begging you PUT YOUR SWING UP
Dr Jeff
I am wondering what your credentials are in the field of Physics and Engineering are???
Homer may not have got it all correct after all Mac Ogrady stated only 70% was correct but he has not even published anything BUT at least he can swing a golfclub extremely well.
Can you put YOUR GOLFSWING UP on the forum so I can get some perspective on the PERFECT swing and then i can model my swing after yours
Please im begging you PUT YOUR SWING UP
Come on dude . . . this is the same playbook that's been used on golf forums forever . . . Give that a rest . . . Jeff's OK let him do his thing and we ALL may learn some stuff.
Come on dude . . . this is the same playbook that's been used on golf forums forever . . . Give that a rest . . . Jeff's OK let him do his thing and we ALL may learn some stuff.
Sure Bucket no problem...keep it going jeff i was just giving you some ribbing...still hoping you gonna put your swing up
Dr Jeff
I am wondering what your credentials are in the field of Physics and Engineering are???
Homer may not have got it all correct after all Mac Ogrady stated only 70% was correct but he has not even published anything BUT at least he can swing a golfclub extremely well.
Can you put YOUR GOLFSWING UP on the forum so I can get some perspective on the PERFECT swing and then i can model my swing after yours
Please im begging you PUT YOUR SWING UP
Mac has been quoted as saying Homer was 80% right, 70% right, even once 20% right, problem is that means MAC is 100% right and even he knows he isn't. Before you belittle anyone by forcing them to post their swing as proof of knowledge- POST YOURS before such a request. You afraid of him having a "bigger gun."
Mac has been quoted as saying Homer was 80% right, 70% right, even once 20% right, problem is that means MAC is 100% right and even he knows he isn't. Before you belittle anyone by forcing them to post their swing as proof of knowledge- POST YOURS before such a request. You afraid of him having a "bigger gun."
Nope i don't think anyone on this forum has a "bigger gun" than me and really why should i as i am not contradicting HK and his work
Nope i don't think anyone on this forum has a "bigger gun" than me and really why should i as i am not contradicting HK and his work
I agree- I am not defending Jeff. I just hate when this forum resembles those other BS forums.
Individual sections, on to themselves, of HK's TGM will always confuse those that don't see the bigger picture- the elephant as Yoda says. If some understood the back stroke and the difference between END and TOP, the concept of being on Plane would suddenly look different.
...Regarding my modus operandi of attacking any golf swing theory, it merely reflects my scientific approach established over many decades. I find that the best way to understand a scientific theory and assess its "falsifiability factor" is to attack and analyse it from every possible angle. If it withstands rigorous analysis, then my admiration for its "low falsifiability" factor increases, and I respect it much more. So, don't be offended. Instead, you should realize that my inability to find flaws in Hk's theory actually strenghtens his theory in a way that you would not realise if his theory was not repeatedly dissected and analysed and criticized by me, and many other critics.
Jeff.
For those of us who appreciate your insights and who share the same scientific approach to analysis please continue to ask questions and offer your own insights & contributions. Homer would have loved the debate and probably would have participated with great enthusiasm. What is so great about this FORUM is the latitude given to diverse opinions as long as it is kept civil and conducted with integrity and in a gentlemenly fashion. Do not be discouraged by those who only offer criticism. If participating in this FORUM required degrees in science and engineering and/or a Zero Handicap, few of us would be members, including HK.
Hybrid Mode
