Real Book Errors
 

The purpose of this thread is to discuss and point out REAL book errors. It's not a thread about application, how useful the book is to golfers, incompatible components, or how well I can hit a golf ball. Just errors from a scientific point of view.

For example, Inertia is a Scaler quantity but labelled as a Vector Symbol in Chapter 2.

Is it the same in the sixth?

Homer clearly states that his Vector Symbols, in 2-C-1, indicate the direction of a Force. That symbol would then indicate the direction of the ball.

You are correct, vectors unlike scalers have a direction. I don’t think Homer was trying to explain that difference to the reader -nor does it change the outcome of occurrence if the legend was modified.
Perhaps the “I” should have been label Inertia Unrested. Either way Newton’s Laws prevail, impact occurs and the ball is launched.

How does this 'mistake' change anything?

Mistakes
 

Tong,
Do you think that he just missed this completely? Do you have any idea how he might have made this mistake? In other words, under what context would Inertia as a vector symbol make sense?

There are several that think Homer was a complete retard when it came to science . . . . whatever write your own book. Like that Jergenson dude or whoever he is talks about the ideal swing bending the left elbow . . . mmmm hmmm ok chalk one up for astro-physics. So you can spend your time listening to people rip dead people who can't defend what they wrote . . . or . . . . the sound of balls being compressed . . .

Tongzilla - can i just confirm the spirit of yor thread - i think i know where you are coming from but just so everybody can confirm.

It seems to me that you are concerned with accuracy and precison of the science contained in the book - not at denigrating the work and effort that Homer put into TGM. In which case i am sure that Homer would not stand in the way of this quest for precision. It would be contrary to the stories that Lynn has told us about Homer!:golf:

If this is continued in a responsible manner i see no reason for there to be a problem. The problems arise when you do not know the credentials of the person who is supposedly "correcting" Homer! We know Homer's credentials and CV.... but if you are to correct Homer in such a way as to convince the audience then your credentials do matter. Not in the sense that credentials make you right... but they do make you convincing!

Homer didn't really have ANY credentials so to speak . . . he wasn't a physicist . . . he wasn't a scientist . . . he wasn't even an engineer . . .

But Homer Kelley had a very very special gift in fact many. And most of all Homer Kelley was a gift to us.

Homer Kelly was a great man. He has made a brilliant contribution to the golfing world. His work has greatly increased my understanding and application of the golf stroke. The errors we are discussing in this thread do not diminish the greatness of The Golfing Machine.

This purpose of this thread is to discuss some of the stuff Homer didn't get right. If you are convinced that Homer got every bit of the science and geometry correct, then this thread is not for you. Or if you don't care about these errors because it doesn't make a difference to your score, please go to the other sections of this site, where professional contributors such as Lynn Blake and Ted Fort are more than happy to help you with your game.

So...pleeeeease get back on topic!

Mike O (surprise surprise) was the only person that bit on the Inertia thing . . . you gonna answer his questions :eyes: ? Looks to me that several folks studying angular motion and moment of inertia have used "inertia vector." So is it really wrong? Why do you think this is an error?

Mistakes
 

Everyone gets things wrong at some point, in some way- Homer Kelley was no different. I'm all for understanding errors. So let's discuss it. (Refer to my original questions)

It is very common to use the term 'vector' when plotting points, which is what Mr. Kelley was doing. Nowhere in the book does he claim that Inertia anything different than how it works under Newton's three laws. That would be a mistake in science- not plotting points in a legend about Horizontal Hinging.

So, is this something you discovered - or read from others still trying to rip HK's use of basic science?

Weak. At least start off with a blockbuster.

Exactly!!


An area that ought to be amenable to definite physical understanding is the concept of resisting impact deceleration. It is a key part of the book and some people think that this is impossible.

Whilst the alignments that Homer puts forward to achieve resistance to deceleration would seem to be correct ( right forearm flying wedge and lagging clubhead ) - how would one set out to prove or disprove this - in such a way that all would believe!

TGM with proof of its core statements would be a very powerful tool. TGM whose core statements happen to be correct but for the wrong reasons will always be open to attack and scepticism.

Weed out the weak physics and clearly distinguish the " seems -as-ifs" from the "real feels" and TGM grows stronger. Just as Homer modified his 1st edition to improve it...

PS. Homer never hid his credentials - an employee of Boeing and instructor in their problem solving courses... a very practical man with a natural understanding of natural physics ! So what you get in the book is the fruit of such a man. But perfect...?? only if equal or better brains can fail to correct it... it is easy and fair to raise the questions but few can answer them convincingly and openly.

Where are the 'seems as ifs' in Kelley's book?
That is a far cry from labeling a legend showing momentum of the ball as a vector -commonly used in the aero space industry btw- without regard of its mass or directional component, just a point of reference and out and out misused of physical laws.

Resisting impact is a "seems as if" if you believe some of the science presented in "Search for the Perfect Swing" and websites eg. Tutelman stuff ( he seems to have no agenda / no score to settle ) ... http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/De...wing4.php?ref=

If this is accepted as true then it makes the radius of the primary lever immaterial - at least for anything other than enhancing clubhead speed. The only thing that matters is the mass and velocity of the clubhead - not the length of the lever. ( although for a given angular velocity, the longer the lever the greater velocity of the clubhead) but why bring mass into the discussion?? Therefore "increasing effective clubhead mass" is unhelpful concept. There may be some benefit to alignmment and clubface control in keeping left wrist flat and hence extending lever from clubhead to left shoulder... but that is clubface control and not increasing effective mass.

The mix of pure science and "seems as if" is a potential weak point for TGM. Correction or peer-reviewed confirmation of the science strengthens TGM.

I , like Tongzilla, have found enormous benefits from studying Homer's works and learning how to read the book from this website. Very grateful for the opportunity to learn and discuss.

Tired
 

I'm getting tired of all this CRAP.
I'm a pretty placid individual normally, but I'm taking this opportunity, on Lynn's site, to expend some steam,so I am quite prepared for this post to be deleted by Admin.
To quote page 5 of the 6th edition:-
"As a term is specifically defined herein,that is the basic connotation which is always a dictionary definition but not necessarily that of physics,electrical ,etc.And the dictionary is generally considered a standard of precision.Scientific terms in quotes denotes a loose application with obvious intent,because no better term seems available .Measurements given herein are for the golf course rather than the laboratory but the laboratory will show them well within acceptable tolerances.Clarity and usefulness are the only motive.The result is that this book provides a complete ,unified golfing terminology."
SO WHICH PIECE OF THAT DO YOU "knockers "NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!
I'm an Engineer (civil) ,and I do understand certain things about force ,motion ,levers ,vectors ,etc etc etc .

And I really don't give a sh** whether some nitpicker wants a fight about how "correct" Mr Kelly was -There isn't one to be had!

-read above!

If you can't read the book -on the basis it was written ,and play better,then see an AI .
Or write your own .
Just get off the "what's wrong with the technical side "bandwagon.
IF YOU READ IT -HE TOLD YOU!:mad:

There's no doubt that the term "effective mass" could be somewhat criticized . . . BUT essentially what he is getting at is again inertia. Something with a longer radius has more resistance to change relative. Goes back to Conservation of Angular Momentum. Now there are some guys on other sites that say that COAM doesn't really play much part in the golf swing . . . I would like to hear about that. That would be the proverbial "blockbuster" that 6B spoke of. I'm "banned" in the U.S.A. . . . so I can't read that stuff. But I know that you frequent other places . . . . what's the scoop on COAM not really being a part of the golf swing?

I'm with you, Neil.

It was never about laboratory but about clamping the Hands on a club driving the clubface through the Line of Compression. Kelley did not write a science book about the golf swing like Cochran and Stobbs or Jorgensen. Now Cochran and Stobbs or Jorgensen may have been thinking Lab while hitting balls on a range but not HK, he was thinking G.O.L.F.

That's hawt!!!
 

Wow didn't know you were an engineer! I figured that you were like some kinda international playboy type when I met you in O-town. I'm a guy and all that but I had you pegged for intergalactic pimpdaddy of the year type . . . with the whole accent, rugged good looks and impish charm. And now smart too!!! I may start "playing for the other team!"

Bottom line Mr. Kelley just figured the stuff out for pure love of it. I could be wrong about this but I don't think he had a college degree . . . to me that makes this whole deal even MORE IMPRESSIVE. The fact is the dude didn't really know physics or the terms so he got a college physics book to figure it out. So what? I mean if people just want to rip chapter 2 out of their book and heck all the others but chapter 10 . . . chapter 10 is just plain monumental. How many of the goobers could have even come up with the stuff in Chapter 10 and 4 and 6?

Oh, I think he did better than that. TGM was 28 years old BEFORE HK put it in book form. He had a great sense of applied science based on truths and laws. He didn't need a book to figure it out but he needed a book so We could understand what he knew.

Steeaaadddyy Bucket!-What do you mean "the other team"!:eh:
I might have to get "the other half" to pay you a visit -and THAT would be worse than anything you'd expect from Mike O.:violent:

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.

I've always wondered about the time and space measurements concerning the interval between impact and separation. Does Kelley cite numbers that are significantly different than current instruments measure? I took a lesson from a fellow AI and was informed that a square face at impact in an otherwise ideal 300 yard driver swing would be significantly closed enough by separation to send the ball way more left of target than my non-scientific mind can believe. I was also informed by the same AI on the same day that for every inch that the ball was played behind low point on that same 300 yard driver swing, the ball would end up 20 yards or more to the right of target. A film of my swing showed me to have the ball set at address two inches behind an ideal low point opposite the outside line of my left shoulder and therefore misaligned right of target by 40 yards. I was then told that I would require of my swing quite a menu of compensations to subconsciously choose from to make the ball go straight whether it be one choice a' la carte, a combo platter, or a smattering of each.

I don't have a book on hand and I can't remember if Kelley even offered up concrete numbers concerning the above. This AI pretty much said Iron Byron and the Ping machine supported his claims.

Did Kelley offer any definite take or measurements concerning any of this, and if he did, was he right?, wrong?, outdated?, or were even precise measurements of this sort possible when he was alive? Have new club/ball equipment technologies and materials significantly changed any measurements concerning basic club and ball behavior since Kelley's time? Does my fancy new driver's clubhead speed during a centered strike still get slowed down by 20% and do my fancy new balls still have that .7 restitution thing?

I'm an AI with an English degree and only answered Chapter 2 questions by quoting the book. I was fortunate to have Tomosello as my mentor because I don't think he knew what to do with Chapter 2 either. I wouldn't know an error if I saw one in any edition of TGM. All I know is that whatever Kelley told Tomosello to tell me turned my golf world upside down and shook out loads of crap that got replaced by a few remarkably simple concepts that I still consider errorless in content yet happily flawed in real world application. The greatest thrill for me to this day is that because of Homer Kelley I don't anticipate bad shots and the bad shots I still often hit into woods. water, or wherever are still usually struck fairly well.

You should probably post this on every site that talks about TGM, particularly in reference to the terminology. People, especially the "scientific types" (no offense), get so hung up on this term or that term that isn't used "correctly", that they miss the point of whatever sentence/paragraph it's used in. Ever heard the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees"? Sure, some of the phrases/terms aren't correct strict scientific sense, but Homer says that himself. I think that if more people approached TGM from a practical standpoint, as it relates to improving your golf swing, then there wouldn't be so much drama in the TGM community. Theory is fine to discuss on internet boards, etc. But when it comes down to it, if it works on the golf course for you, then how wrong can it be (whether it's theoritcally correct or not)?

Hi Bucket, what was Homers job a Boeing? I always thought that Homer
was a chief designer of the B17 and an engineer. Don Lucus, a first class
engineer, told me that Homer wrote the Golfing Machine in the engineers
method at the time where every statement had to be verified. Evidently
engineers don't write that way anymore, but shows that Homer thought
in terms of engineering. Homer must has had a lot of engineers savy due
to his knowledge of flail, CF, venturi affects etc. I love the guy and his
works no matter what his education, but would be interested work status
at Boeing. I guess that I have missinformed people telling them that Homer
was a designer on the B17 and that the Boeing executives asked Homer
to figure out the golf swing and this is where Homer got his start on Golf.

Homer was NOT an engineer at Boeing. He was in charge of engineers and the production of aircraft. He even taught many of them as an instructor, new ways to solve problems. He re-designed the production process for efficiently. No aircraft left them plant without being signed off by Mr. Kelley.
Homer began has quest to solving his golf issues before he worked for Boeing. He thought it would take a few days. Luckily for us- he never tired when a new set of variables were exposed. Homer was unique.

"unified golfing terminology" -I believe that's all Mr Kelly wanted to do , whilst making the science reasonably explainable to golf pros and ,consequently, their students.
With greatest respect ,not all golf Pros are technically or scientifically minded.
As I said in a previous post-Mr Kelly wrote in a language that was designed to be consistent terminology.I have had 6 different teachers who told me the same thing in 6 different ways.
Since October 2005 I have had lessons from Lynn,Ted ,Jeff &VJ(Trolio).They all spoke the same language-if you wanted them to .Having said that, I would guess that if you weren't into learning the book ,you would just get a great lesson and not much mention of the terminology.
I wanted to understand the book-and at the Old Waverly Academy ,where Lynn ,Ted and Vj ,standing in the locker room went through the 12 stations with Yoda calling the stations ,without looking at one another ,in perfect unison.I was hooked on -"unified golfing terminology".
NOT scientific exactness.:thumleft:

[quote=neil;45532]"unified golfing terminology" -I believe that's all Mr Kelly wanted to do , whilst making the science reasonably explainable to golf pros and ,consequently, their students.
.......I was hooked on -"unified golfing terminology".
QUOTE]


With unified golfing terminology you should be able to give the lesson down the phone line... the terms are specific and graphic. In medicine ( another profession with highly specific language) students are taught to describe disease or xrays in a similar manner so that as a junior Doc, quaking in your boots at 3AM as the life drains out of your poor patient .... you can calmly ring your boss, who is tucked up in bed at home , and get some specific advice!! It usually works but you had better be specific and disciplined in your use of terminology... otherwise the patient might die... or worse still your boss might have to get out of bed!!!:)

Unified and specific language - This is one of Homers greatest achievements.

[quote=golfbulldog;45533]Big coincidence in your analogy-I had surgery on Tuesday!
Are you a Surgeon /Doctor?
It doesn't matter what you tell the patient-as long as he / she understands the "post op" procedure.:salut:

Since I am not qualified to judge the book. I had benifited from it nonetheless and been exposed to a multitude of opinions.

Now, my question is, who is truly qualified to judge this book?

So the deal is basically this . . . not only did Homer Kelley in my opinion have the secret of golf (or many secrets) . . . he also had a bit of LIFE's secret too. Homer was a man that just loved to learn and figure stuff out . . . it was a labor of love I would say. I mean if you think about the ROI on right 6 versions of one book that took 40 years to write??? That's love. I think he was actually given a series of golf lessons by his boss because he gave him a hard time about playing the game. So Homer was like "OK what the heck." And he was pretty much hooked after he broke 80 and couldn't figure out why he did it. And the rest as they say is history.

So what do you get out of golf and life? I know you man . . . you got those holes in those irons . . . that ain't nothing but love. That's how to get fullfillment outta your life . . . find something you love to do . . . and if you can figure out how to get paid doing that to boot . . . you got a lot of life licked. If you want to feel good about your life get interested in something and be passionate about it. Be consumed by it. Just make sure it's not the stuff that Mike O's into.

Many people would think that somebody who hit balls into a piece of carpet until the dimples wore off in his garage was a looney toon. I guarantee you he wouldn't have traded it for the world. He probably loved every minute of it. And it's a damn good thing for all of us that he did. I understand. And with those holes in your iron faces . . . I bet you do too.

Those who take the time and trouble to understand it-for what it is,not for a scientifically correct "there is only one perfect swing " book.
For those who do take the time,there is something to be learned .I cannot think of one swing that cannot be classified in the book.
Mr Kelly never says any way is perfect-BUT THE GOAL is to get more and more PRECISE.

IMO -if you benefited you are qualified to judge what you understand.:golf: