I didn't just introduce an isolated bloke's swing (Sergio Garcia's swing) out of context. I used Sergio Garcia as an example of another plane theory - Hank Haney's theory of conguent plane angles. Whether you regard Hank Haney's plane theory as being as "scientific" as HK's plane theory is a personal choice, but I don't think that I am being "destructive" or "unnecessarily disrespectful of HK" by comparing HK's plane theory to other plane theories (Hank Haney's). I think that we all can learn by dissecting/comparing golf swing theories.
Jeff.
Jeff,
The introduction of your ad hoc examples is not the issue. The issue, for me, is that I find it difficult at times to understand your motives in doing so.
Often it seems, to me, that you are more intent on proving your own theories with these "evidential" examples, than furthering your own understanding of the concept in question - i.e usually your own question.
Finally, a Plane is a Plane, is a Plane. But, congruency must be avoided at all costs. At least that's my understanding.
I have learnt through experience that I can never prove my "own theories". I can only test their "falsifiability level" by exposing them to alternative points of view. That's why I constantly have to adopt different "own theories" - because they are frequently falsified, and I have to either modify them or adopt a "new" theory. I am not wedded to any "particular" theory over the long-term, and I primarily believe that deep thinking, critical analysis,and passionately expressed arguments/counterarguments is the "best" way for me to constantly improve my knowledge of golf mechanics/biomechanics/physics/geometry.
I have learnt through experience that I can never prove my "own theories". I can only test their "falsifiability level" by exposing them to alternative points of view. That's why I constantly have to adopt different "own theories" - because they are frequently falsified, and I have to either modify them or adopt a "new" theory. I am not wedded to any "particular" theory over the long-term, and I primarily believe that deep thinking, critical analysis,and passionately expressed arguments/counterarguments is the "best" way for me to constantly improve my knowledge of golf mechanics/biomechanics/physics/geometry.
I have learnt through experience that I can never prove my "own theories". I can only test their "falsifiability level" by exposing them to alternative points of view. That's why I constantly have to adopt different "own theories" - because they are frequently falsified, and I have to either modify them or adopt a "new" theory. I am not wedded to any "particular" theory over the long-term, and I primarily believe that deep thinking, critical analysis,and passionately expressed arguments/counterarguments is the "best" way for me to constantly improve my knowledge of golf mechanics/biomechanics/physics/geometry.
Jeff.
Trouble is Jeff that it is never your own theories that are being tested and falsified.
Your modus operandi always seems, to me, to be to try and falsify TGM, for example, by advancing arguments to the effect that "If HK is right, then why is this guy doing something that I, Jeff, think is an indicator that HK may have been mistaken?
A more acceptable approach, to me, would be to seek clarification should you have doubts which you have trouble reconciling, rather than directly contest those issues by giving evidential examples of some mistake that you think you may have uncovered.
As 6bmike says "Somewhere a hat needs to be hung".
As I would ask "At the foot of whose bed do you leave your shoes?"
Hybrid Mode
