Mike,:occasion:

Neil,

And you thought I was going to delete your post...:laughing1

But...jeez...looking back I probably should have for your own protection.

I'm sorry I wasn't quicker on the trigger son. Best of luck. :salut:

Was Kelley right???
Absolutely...Until someone proves him wrong.

All I've heard is a bunch of sabres rattling by self-professed "smart" guys with no proof presented other than..."trust me...Homer is wrong".

I believe this thread has been started in the spirit of moving G.O.L.F. science forward by either standing on Homers shoulders and adding to the knowledge base, or proving one or more of his fundamental theories incorrect. Either way, its a valiant effort.

Again...Best of luck. :salut:

Wooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

"THE LORD OF THE RINGS" was, and is , hailed as a literary masterpiece.
Yet, Tolkien invented a language .
It was HIS way of trying to explain the text ,much of which was written in "elvish"-which he "invented".
Not many people watched the Film version ,fewer understood it .I think it only grossed a few hundred million.:wink:

Mr Homer Kelly wrote a book -in his own terminology. It was written in English, as close as he could get to" Dictionary Meanings".
To some that might mean "elvish".
Does it matter?:scratch:

DON'T DO THE "ELVIS WITH A LISP" JOKES:blackeye:

Maybe you should have done Bagger!8-[ -Did he REALLY say" intergalactic pimpdaddy of the year" ?

Mistakes
 

Here's my perspective.

First, Tong, starts this thread two days ago and says that he wants to "discuss" errors in the book from a "scientific" perspective. He states one example and I ask a couple of questions for clarity and it's so silent that I can hear a pin drop. I'm all for discussions and debates as that's how you "get to the bottom of stuff". Disappointing. If you had said "I'm going to state what I believe but I really don't want to debate it" then it wouldn't be so bad.

Since I detect a small underlying theme (no one in particular) For the others, if you really wanted to do a service to Mr. Kelley then you'd want to listen to seemingly contrary ideas (from yours) and then either prove your perspective or learn during your analysis and change your perspective completely or in some way. It's not about Mr. Kelley - never was- it's about facts. You're not defending or representing him well by talking about him - how great he was, etc. you'd represent him better by hearing the facts, understanding the issues and learning FOR YOURSELF. Initially - having someone asking a question or questioning the legitimacy of a statement another person made - shouldn't be considered as a negative (an attack on the individual) but rather a positive (an inquiring mind). Of course, via further questioning or lack thereof- you'd discover if you are dealing with an inquiring mind or someone who is attacking an individual- and then you act accordingly i.e. move on, etc.

Finally, I really liked Bulldog's posts so nothing against you but I did go to the site that you linked and copied this quote:
"In a good swing, the wrists stay cocked until about 50 millisec before impact. So the club "lag" goes from 90° to 0° in 50 milliseconds. This is an average of 1.8° per millisecond."
Before I comment- believe me I'm all for debate in order to learn and I'm not knocking this guys website- but the above quote is concerning in that A) the wrists don't cock 90 degrees although with the #3 accumulator rotated sideways it might look that way. B) Certainly from a face on perspective it might look like that but that really doesn't have anything to do with actual club "lag". Doesn't mean that he doesn't know his other stuff- but since we are talking about "inaccurate scientific statements" in this thread- I'll add that to the list and stand to be corrected, debated, enlightened.:) And I'd be more than happy to clarify if that brief description is not clear. It's one of many "illusions" where more movement is implied than really takes place- and hence now we know why Bucket's swing has more moving parts than a .......................... getting tired I'll let someone else finish the sentence. (That's right grease Bucket! Bring it! Or have you run out of your pimpdaddy ammo?)

Is somebody a lil' jealous that I popped a shot another unsuspecting victim??? That's sooooo cute Mikey . . . you're jealous.

What's wrong with talking about Homer Kelley being great AND listening to what other dudes have to say? I don't think Tong is a Homer Hater or Book Basher or nothing like that . . . I told him not to respond to you too by the way because it would make you spin out of control :eyes: . . . but I guarntee you that there are some that have an axe to grind . . . I'll listen and learn from anybody . . . . even to a bedwetter like you.

Aren't you supposed to be watching The Facts of Life right now? You got a crush on the fat chick right?

That's right, Leo isn't.


But my point is that a mere plotting tool- calling point location a vector- is not something to claim as bad science.

If Leo- who is as inquisitive as anyone I know- or anyone else had something 'real' to deliberate, than that is a different ballgame.

Bedwetter
 

And you promised me that you wouldn't mention the bedwetting problem- so much for that!

Squat
 

Three pages in and we got squat- don't really get it. Good idea with no implementation.