|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Apr 14, 2011 9:21:08 GMT -5
Consider this 3jack forum thread. richie3jack.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2096Mike Finney asked the following question-: "Which scientists were consulted by Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer with respect to developing the Stack and Tilt golf swing?" What's the relevance of that question? Naming "scientists" behind a swing style does not give that swing style any greater legitimacy. Jack Kuykendall claims that his left elbow bend swing has scientific legitimacy. Dan Trahan makes the same claim for his Peak Performance swing. Chuck Quinton now makes that claim for his rotary swing. There are numerous swing style proponents that make the claim that their swing is backed by "scientists". 3jack has repeatedly asserted (without definite evidence) that MOG's MORAD ideas are supported by scientists. I think that it's basically a useless idea to claim that a swing style is supported by "scientists". What is needed is swing style ideas that are supported by "scientific evidence" that can be subjected to critical/Popperian analysis. For example, if some researcher studied PGA tour golfers with i) muscle probes in certain arm/torso muscles, ii) pressure sensors in the clubshaft under PP#1, PP#2, and PP#3, and iii) time -coordinated 6D motion analysis machines, then they could produce "evidence" that could be subjected to critical/Popperian analysis. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by candygram on Apr 14, 2011 10:16:45 GMT -5
Well, we agree on this one. "Scientists" have been responsible for any number of claims that ultimately turned out to be bogus. Remember the Y2K hysteria or global warming? Or, much more tragically, the ban of DDT (estimated to have cost 40 MILLION lives!)? You can find a "scientist" or "expert" to say anything.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Apr 14, 2011 10:41:37 GMT -5
Well, we agree on this one. "Scientists" have been responsible for any number of claims that ultimately turned out to be bogus. Remember the Y2K hysteria or global warming? Or, much more tragically, the ban of DDT (estimated to have cost 40 MILLION lives!)? You can find a "scientist" or "expert" to say anything. Your last sentence is the an issue I believe, especially if one has shown a bias against or for something in the past.
|
|
|
Post by aimsmithgolf on Apr 14, 2011 10:46:33 GMT -5
It's all just sales promotion hype... trying to make a buck.
Rand
|
|
|
Post by natep on Apr 14, 2011 17:04:32 GMT -5
I think a lot of people who have claimed to have science to back them up have been completely clueless about what they're talking about. Jeff pointed out just the other day someone who referenced COAM and the golf swing, even though COAM has nothing to do with the golf swing. Chapter 2 of TGM is way off in it's scientific "info". Etc, etc.
But I also believe that the capacity for applying science to the golf swing is growing everyday and hope that new technology will result in lots of new credible findings in the near future.
|
|