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!
The heart of TGM ( IMHO )is the concept of "optimum impact alignments".
What scientific evidence is available, now or with experiment, to confirm the concept of a left arm - dual lever/pendulum swing having optimum impact alignments = FLW/ right forearm on plane , in to out impact , 3D impact vector , sustaining the line of compression(STLOC).
Scientific objective evidence for the above ( using the technology Homer would have loved to have!) is the starting point for taking TGM into the 21st century. Let's make the 8th edition the quickest successor yet. Give that lovely yellow and green hardback the hard facts to make it punch its weight!
All 7 are by Homer and I don't believe there is anything left of Homer's to include.
I am not sure what TGM LLC policy or they believe their rights are, but unless they embrace some other efforts, I fear that the AIs are the only ones to carry the torch.
So IMO it behoves all that beleive that TGM is a gift all golfers should experience, that we all do our level best to work together to expand the base...
Science is a man-made tool. It's up to the carftsmanship and wisdom of those who use it.
__________________ Yani Tseng, Go! Go! Go! Yani Tseng Did It Again! YOU load and sustain the "LAG", during which the "LAW" releases it, ideally beyond impact.
"Sustain (Yang/陽) the lag (Yin/陰)" is "the unification of Ying and Yang" (陰陽合一).
The "LAW" creates the "effect", which is the "motion" or "feel", with the "cause", which is the "intent" or "command".
"Lag" is the secret of golf, passion is the secret of life.
Think as a golfer, execute like a robot.
Rotate, twist, spin, turn. Bend the shaft.
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!
I disagree - the two represent different perspectives, yes, but those perspectives are in general agreement IMO, taking into account the core difference you mentioned regarding SFTPS using observational data, which by no means suggests that observation represents any 'ideal'.
In short I consider both texts important works in the field, but at least in my view there can be no doubt that TGM is 'deeper' in its content by leaps and bounds.
Perspective matters, to be sure.
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"
"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"
Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
I disagree - the two represent different perspectives, yes, but those perspectives are in general agreement IMO, taking into account the core difference you mentioned regarding SFTPS using observational data, which by no means suggests that observation represents any 'ideal'.
In short I consider both texts important works in the field, but at least in my view there can be no doubt that TGM is 'deeper' in its content by leaps and bounds.
Perspective matters, to be sure.
By "contasting ...methods" i was referring only to the styles of scientific method ( observation verus "first principles" )rather than the golf swing that each advocates.
I agree that Homer's work is the more refined, the catalogue of components alone is a fantastic contribution to golf!
At some stage TGM needs to be put to a practical observational study - NOT so that TGM can be rubbished if the golfer fails to trace a perfectly straight line but still hits it perfectly... rather to see what can be achieved biomechanically by humans, how close can we get to Homer's Machine...etc
Titleist Perfomance Institute style data may lead to greater knowledge of component compatability and quicken the journey from hacker to pro!
Hybrid Mode
