|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 11, 2013 18:28:58 GMT -5
3jack,
I find your argument that MOG discovered the concept of the "resultant path" (whatever that means) very weak.
You wrote-: "It's not a rumor. He was simply teaching this to people for a very long, long time. Plenty of people can testify to it and plenty of people have video of him discussing and demonstrating it."
If there is "evidence" in terms of "video of him discussing and demonstrating it" but those videos are not publicly available, then that means that there is no "evidence". Also, if people can testify to it, then their testimony must be be expressed in the public sphere for it to be regarded as valid "evidence". Also, MOG has to testify that their testimony is accurately reflective of his personal opinions for their testimony to be regarded as valid. Until all these conditions can be met, it is irrational for anybody to make a claim that MOG discovered "anything new" about this issue.
You also wrote-: "The real irony here is that I don't think you understand the definition of a 'secret.' How can something be a 'secret' if it is told to thousands of people at every school for over the past 20 years? Isn't that no longer a secret?".
I think that it is still a "secret" if the information is not in the public sphere. It is my understanding that those "thousands of people" are sworn to secrecy and that they are not allowed to freely publish the information in the public sphere.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 11, 2013 19:46:07 GMT -5
If there is "evidence" in terms of "video of him discussing and demonstrating it" but those videos are not publicly available, then that means that there is no "evidence". I don't know how you figure that. He either knew it and taught it to thousands of people or he didn't. He was either on video by people who were able to video tape it or he didn't. He either discussed this ad nauseum with certain things like the CP vs. CF release...or he didn't. He did. Just because you weren't privy to it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Jorgenson's book on the D-Plane wasn't exactly widely published. It doesn't mean that I should credit Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer for discussing D-Plane because that was the first I had heard it from anybody and they discussed it on an open forum. It would be like claiming that Jorgenson's book was really a 'secret book' because it wasn't well known. Ridiculous. Says who? Either they knew it and got it from Mac or they didn't. It's that simple. Again, says who? The only irrational one here is you. Your belief that there is some sort of law that if you know something, teach and demonstrate it to thousands of students over the past 20 years...then you somehow don't know it until it is published. How? If something is a secret, why would I set up 3 and 7-day schools, along with working with several well known Tour players and teach everybody that. It's like saying that if I never published my work on statistics, but in the meantime I held seminars and each seminar I would teach the attendees what I have researched. Then there is also the Tour clients that I work with that I teach them what I know as well. According to you that is a secret. I work with several Tour players and I more or less tell them that I would appreciate it if they would not divulge key statistics that we have gone over. Not because I want to 'keep it a secret', but it's best to protect my best interests from a business perspective. If golfers want to find out what I have researched and discovered, then I want to be paid for it. I don't see it as a 'secret', I see it as common business sense. He either knew it or he didn't. This isn't a 'peer review' so your demands are completely illogical. Lastly, all he did was understand the geometry of a circle. It's a scientific *law* that he followed and understood. It was not research done by 'trial and error' and coming up with findings. So again, your demands are illogical and do not fit the subject at hand. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 11, 2013 20:02:39 GMT -5
Mac wasn't the first to know this stuff so why you think he should be given credit for things others knew way before him is just wrong. Matter of fact according to you Mac was doing what Manzella is doing now except now there is better info from scientists and doctors due to better equipment and understanding. But you don't trust those with Dr. in front of their name I guess the exception would be if they are Mac's Dr.'s or scientists. You have already given up your argument because you know you're wrong. Otherwise you would not have *changed* your argument that 'other people knew before Mac.' If so, who? If so, when? If so, did they meet your demands of being published and in an open forum that you decried for when it came to Mac? You have further altered your argument and have deflected it on something that I never said, hinted or implied. The other 2 parts of the original post were: 2. The Hub (Hand) Path and three forces and torques — Dr. Steven Nesbit 3. GROUND REACTION FORCE VECTORS — DR. YOUNG-HOO KWON AND CHRIS COMO." I never took these things to task and yet they have 2 doctors (Nesbit and Kwon) involved. You're just grasping at straws and looking to further deflect and alter the argument into something else. I don't care if somebody else discovered the 'resultant path' concept before Mac. But, it certainly wasn't Tuxen or Jurgensen. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 11, 2013 20:08:42 GMT -5
The truth is Mac didn't discover anything he needed scientists and phd's and doctors etc., just like you guys accuse Manzella of just an info gatherer... so is Mac. He couldn't have written what Jorgensen did -the d-plane or invent Trackman and all that goes along with it like Tuxen.
He needed these kinds of people to get information from, in essence he gathered information from others. He may of had ideas but he needed to seek out the scientists and doctors to see if what he thought was correct.
Guaranteed he didn't know it all, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 11, 2013 20:15:47 GMT -5
Mac wasn't the first to know this stuff so why you think he should be given credit for things others knew way before him is just wrong. Matter of fact according to you Mac was doing what Manzella is doing now except now there is better info from scientists and doctors due to better equipment and understanding. But you don't trust those with Dr. in front of their name I guess the exception would be if they are Mac's Dr.'s or scientists. You have already given up your argument because you know you're wrong. Otherwise you would not have *changed* your argument that 'other people knew before Mac.' If so, who? If so, when? If so, did they meet your demands of being published and in an open forum that you decried for when it came to Mac? You have further altered your argument and have deflected it on something that I never said, hinted or implied. The other 2 parts of the original post were: 2. The Hub (Hand) Path and three forces and torques — Dr. Steven Nesbit 3. GROUND REACTION FORCE VECTORS — DR. YOUNG-HOO KWON AND CHRIS COMO." I never took these things to task and yet they have 2 doctors (Nesbit and Kwon) involved. You're just grasping at straws and looking to further deflect and alter the argument into something else. I don't care if somebody else discovered the 'resultant path' concept before Mac. But, it certainly wasn't Tuxen or Jurgensen. 3JACK Oh that argument wasn't mine by the way, I posted it for someone else. I never said it was Jorgensen or Tuxen , show me where I said that. You said that. That post is Manzella's not mine. And by the way I learn't how to change and deflect from you and your buddies Jeffy and Kelvin. Can you believe Kelvin's post about 6degrees of freedom? No wonder he can't understand what the scientist are telling him, but I digress.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 11, 2013 20:18:39 GMT -5
3jack,
You wrote-: "I don't know how you figure that.
He either knew it and taught it to thousands of people or he didn't.
He was either on video by people who were able to video tape it or he didn't.
He either discussed this ad nauseum with certain things like the CP vs. CF release...or he didn't.
He did.
Just because you weren't privy to it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Jorgenson's book on the D-Plane wasn't exactly widely published. It doesn't mean that I should credit Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer for discussing it because that was the first I had heard it from anybody.
It would be like claiming that Jorgenson's book was really a 'secret book' because it wasn't well known.
Ridiculous."
I think that your argument is ridiculous!
You claim that "he did", but if the MOG information is not confirmable by being freely available in the public sphere - then there is no way to confirm "anything" that MOG apparently stated to people who have been personally exposed to MOG's opinions. There may be thousands, or even tens of thousands, of people, who claim that they know what MOG stated, but if they are not allowed to divulge that information publicly, then it is not "confirmable evidence".
You also wrote-: "Jorgenson's book on the D-Plane wasn't exactly widely published. It doesn't mean that I should credit Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer for discussing D-Plane because that was the first I had heard it from anybody and they discussed it on an open forum.
It would be like claiming that Jorgenson's book was really a 'secret book' because it wasn't well known.
Ridiculous."
Again, I find your argument ridiculous!
Jorgenson's book was published and it is publicly avaliable. Therefore, anything that he stated is "verifiable evidence" even if very few people bother to look at the "verifiable evidence". By contrast, there is no way that I can ascertain whether the thousands of people who have been exposed to MOG's opinions, and who therefore have personal testimony to that fact, are telling the "truth" regarding MOG's personal opinions re: the "resultant path" because they are not allowed to provide that testimony in the public sphere.
You also wrote-: "If something is a secret, why would I set up 3 and 7-day schools, along with working with several well known Tour players and teach everybody that.
It's like saying that if I never published my work on statistics, but in the meantime I held seminars and each seminar I would teach the attendees what I have researched. Then there is also the Tour clients that I work with that I teach them what I know as well.
According to you that is a secret.
I work with several Tour players and I more or less tell them that I would appreciate it if they would not divulge key statistics that we have gone over. Not because I want to 'keep it a secret', but it's best to protect my best interests from a business perspective.
If golfers want to find out what I have researched and discovered, then I want to be paid for it.
I don't see it as a 'secret', I see it as common business sense."
That argument proves my point. You have "some information" that you are willing to sell for a price, but you do not prevent that person (who paid for the information) from discussing your opinions in a public forum - even if you prefer that he not publicly discuss your opinions re: golf statistics. Therefore, that "information" cannot be deemed to be a "secret". So, for example, if a person paid for your research/book and disagreed with your personal perspective, and he expressed his reasoning in a public forum by critiquing your "analysis", you do not ban that phenomenon from happening. That means that you are not really being secretive about your work. By contrast, MOG's opinions cannot be publicly critiqued/debated in any golf forum - and that's why I regard his information as being a "secret". There is a world-of-difference between MOG and you regarding this issue of open public discussion!
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 11, 2013 20:24:01 GMT -5
I have deleted a number of sentences from a number of Chipitin's posts, which I deem unnecessarily confrontational. I will say it again - attack another person's reasoning, but do not attack the person.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 12, 2013 8:02:53 GMT -5
The truth is Mac didn't discover anything he needed scientists and phd's and doctors etc., just like you guys accuse Manzella of just an info gatherer... so is Mac. I never denied any of that. In fact, I've commented on that (even in this post). I've even stated in the past that I think it's a great thing that Manzella and Co. are working with credible researchers to help them. Anybody is going to need help. Who is saying or implying that he did? It's the geometry of a circle and understanding how that works in conjunction with a golf swing. It takes somebody smart to figure it out, but it's not exactly rocket science. Again, don't disagree with this. The same could be said for Chris Como who works with Dr. Kwon and his staff to better understand GRF. And I'm sure that Tuxen had people assisting him with different aspects from time to time. It's the nature of the beast. And I guarantee that I never said or implied he did. It's just that people get bent out of shape when it's mentioned that Mac did know and teach certain aspects that are very popular right now, like the 'low point of the hands', the out-toss (although interpreted extremely differently), much of the extension and thrusting pieces that S&T and Manzella teach today and of course...the swing plane direction and its relationship to the path. This is very much like when the 'new release' video with Mike Jacobs came out and I mentioned that much of the stuff in the video was stuff that Mac and his researchers discovered years ago. The interepretations of the findings were different, but he had similar findings and did teach it. And I knew it because I was taught this by John Dochety in a lesson back in January 2010, who got it from Mac. Then I had yourself, Finney and others act like that was in no way possible. Like I just happened to dream up what John Dochety taught me and what George Hunt later taught me. Even Dana Dahlquist, who doesn't like Mac, had to own Mike Finney on the Facebook forum over this. Acting like it didn't happen, doesn't mean it actually didn't happen. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 12, 2013 8:09:00 GMT -5
[ Oh that argument wasn't mine by the way, I posted it for someone else. I never said it was Jorgensen or Tuxen , show me where I said that. Your argument is illogical because if you did not believe it was Jorgensen or Tuxen...then you would have never replied to my post to begin with. Furthermore, you would have answered my simple questions of: 1. If not Mac, who? 2. If not Mac, when? 3. And did you give this person the same demands of having to have published their work? If so, where is it? Where am I changing the argument here? Show us. Oh the irony. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 12, 2013 13:34:43 GMT -5
[ Oh that argument wasn't mine by the way, I posted it for someone else. I never said it was Jorgensen or Tuxen , show me where I said that. Your argument is illogical because if you did not believe it was Jorgensen or Tuxen...then you would have never replied to my post to begin with. Furthermore, you would have answered my simple questions of: 1. If not Mac, who? 2. If not Mac, when? 3. And did you give this person the same demands of having to have published their work? If so, where is it? Where am I changing the argument here? Show us. Oh the irony. 3JACK I told you I posted it for someone else, plus with you it's easy to know that the Mac knew all this twenty years ago was coming, so I know that others before him knew and thus here we sit. You think Mac discovered all this by his lonesome and I know he didn't he needed all those dr.'s and scientists that you have no faith in...oh the irony!
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 13, 2013 7:50:53 GMT -5
I guess you missed that post where I stated that he did use those researchers and he needed them for his study.
That's why I'm done with this thread. You are acting completely irrational and seem to be hell bent on saying the opposite of what I say, just for the sake of it. You have continued to misquote me and ignore what I have posted and you have clearly lost this argument as you have made repeated attempts to deflect this into your dislike for Kelvin and Jeff which has nothing to do with this particular thread. Then you have the gall to say that you 'learned it from me' and then go back to trying to change the argument again.
You have no credibility as you have posted under multiple handles on different forums trying to act like a new person. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt way too many times, but I'm just wasting my time and effort dealing with your nonsense and disturbing behavior.
3JACK
|
|