Golfing Machine says "Shame" on Jim McLean

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Per Twitter... Jim McLean just posted this:

Good for him. The pulls must be in regards to start line, but yes, that article appears to be pretty darn old.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Fair enough, going on that video. No?

He doesn't, as Joe Daniels states, claim credit for having "discovered" anything. He does say he's been teaching this for years - and there would seem to be some support for that.

As for: "Now we know that McLean visited Mr. Kelley because he stated so in his book about Mr. Hogan. Therefore, logic states that Mr. Kelley led McLean on a journey of mental discovery, which McLean has chosen to forget so he can take credit for and put himself in the limelight of being an intellectual in the field of golf."

and "Considering McLean’s disrespect for Mr. Kelley which is evident in his book on Mr. Hogan I do not believe him to be a threat to anyone’s intellect."

JMO, but I'm finding Mr Daniel's "logic" a little hard to follow.

I agree with this.  From the evidence provided (and not even by the Daniels guy, but by people here on TST) he certainly doesn't seem to be claiming credit for anything.

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Per Twitter... Jim McLean just posted this:

And here he even attributes it to Mr. Kelley.  (I presume that this is the article he mentioned in the Ball Flight Laws video above, and if so, it's from the late 80's)

I would have to say that unless and until the article Mr. Daniels is quoting in his blog is referenced and verified, that this qualifies as pretty shoddy "journalism."  That's the whole problem with blogs though, right?  People get to pretend to be journalists without actually being journalists.  (Although the "real" journalists are not much better these days)

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I agree with this.  From the evidence provided (and not even by the Daniels guy, but by people here on TST) he certainly doesn't seem to be claiming credit for anything.

And here he even attributes it to Mr. Kelley.  (I presume that this is the article he mentioned in the Ball Flight Laws video above, and if so, it's from the late 80's)

I would have to say that unless and until the article Mr. Daniels is quoting in his blog is referenced and verified, that this qualifies as pretty shoddy "journalism."  That's the whole problem with blogs though, right?  People get to pretend to be journalists without actually being journalists.  (Although the "real" journalists are not much better these days)

To be fully transparent, McLean was responding to the Golf Digest claim that Foley's article presented new research data via Trackman:

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-instruction/2012-12/sean-foley-law-of-the-draw

McLean is stating that he knew this data from conversations with Homer Kelley (author of The Golfing Machine), and studies he conducted in the 80's.  The article McLean linked was an example of an article published by him in the 80's which touches on the ' new research ' of club face versus swing path and its effect on ball flight.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Stretch

The book is "Golf: By Henry Longhurst". Part of the Modern Sports Series, edited by Howard Marshall. Published by J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd, first printing 1937, reprinted 1943.

It's full of the most marvelous pictures, too, like this one of Henry Cotton at impact with a hickory:

I loved those pictures but I'm still trying to figure out what's going on here.  Why is there a ball sitting on a tee 12-16" in front of where it looks like his divot started?  Some kind of drill ... or maybe somebody clueless photoshopped that one in later?

Quote:

To be fully transparent, McLean was responding to the Golf Digest claim that Foley's article presented new research data via Trackman:

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-instruction/2012-12/sean-foley-law-of-the-draw

McLean is stating that he knew this data from conversations with Homer Kelley (author of The Golfing Machine), and studies he conducted in the 80's.  The article McLean linked was an example of an article published by him in the 80's which touches on the 'new research' of club face versus swing path and its effect on ball flight.

Maybe then, Mr. Daniels should be defaming Golf Digest for either ignorantly, or shamelessly, claiming the data to be "new."

P.S.  When I try to use Google to look up the offending article, the first return is ... this thread!

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I loved those pictures but I'm still trying to figure out what's going on here.  Why is there a ball sitting on a tee 12-16" in front of where it looks like his divot started?  Some kind of drill ... or maybe somebody clueless photoshopped that one in later?

Quote:

Maybe then, Mr. Daniels should be defaming Golf Digest for either ignorantly, or shamelessly, claiming the data to be "new."

P.S.  When I try to use Google to look up the offending article, the first return is ... this thread!

I love how the the guy who does the tweet feeds for Golf Digest uses the word 'SHOCK' in capital letters.  I guess he doesn't know about this site? Maybe Golf Digest readers should cancel their subs and just start lurking over here?

[the chopper]

Hey, the photo is very interesting, i think allot can be drawn from it! sorry couldn't help that one. Seriously though i hope nobody has messed with it to put that ball and tee in. The ball is in a more conventional ball position. Sir Cottons obviously looking at that thin divot mark which is clearly in-out swing path. Was he was practicing a low draw?, maybe there is a suggestion that people have been understanding impact and ball flight laws for some time now. The ball if simply being used as part of his drill then it would then be an obstruction to be avoided on the outside swing path in my

opinion. What are your thoughts? What a nice photo though, the action and position of his right wrist and trigger finger is just great. Thanks for sharing.

[newtogolf]

Didn't McLean also claim to have invented the long putter?  I seem to remember reading something from him about it.

[joekelly]

Very slightly off the topic, but are the short pants that Henry Cotton is wearing available for sale today?  I just think they would be ideal for me.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I loved those pictures but I'm still trying to figure out what's going on here.  Why is there a ball sitting on a tee 12-16" in front of where it looks like his divot started?  Some kind of drill ... or maybe somebody clueless photoshopped that one in later?

Think it's just an effect of the camera.  Hickory shafts don't help either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

I love how the the guy who does the tweet feeds for Golf Digest uses the word 'SHOCK' in capital letters.  I guess he doesn't know about this site?   Maybe Golf Digest readers should cancel their subs and just start lurking over here?

Agree! The guy that does the twitter feed for this site knows his stuff

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Agree!   The guy that does the twitter feed for this site knows his stuff

LOL ... nice!  I love it.

(As for your comment on the photo, for some reason it left that out when I quoted you)  Anyways ... I know very little about old cameras, so maybe you are right.  It just looks funny.  For example, the lack of a club tells me that the shutter speed was pretty slow ... but his arms are pretty darn clear for that to be the case.  Who knows?  Either way, still cool to see 70 year old swings like that.

[birlyshirly]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I agree with this.  From the evidence provided (and not even by the Daniels guy, but by people here on TST) he certainly doesn't seem to be claiming credit for anything.

And here he even attributes it to Mr. Kelley.  (I presume that this is the article he mentioned in the Ball Flight Laws video above, and if so, it's from the late 80's)

I would have to say that unless and until the article Mr. Daniels is quoting in his blog is referenced and verified, that this qualifies as pretty shoddy "journalism."  That's the whole problem with blogs though, right?  People get to pretend to be journalists without actually being journalists.  (Although the "real" journalists are not much better these days)

Mr Daniels should be called to the carpet to apologise, no?

For anyone interested in the so-called history of the old/new ballflight laws - there's an interesting article posted by John Graham at http://johngrahamgolf.com/blog/impact-john-jacobs-golf-coaching/

According to this, John Jacobs, who is associated with the idea that path determines launch angle, says that he understood the truth about impact ballistics before he wrote his books in the '70s - but that he thought the way he explained things was a useful simplification.

I've thought for the longest time that the real issue isn't how you express the "ballflight laws" - but how you use and apply them. In this case, too many people understood only the simplification, and did not go in search of the underlying knowledge which was pretty accessible all that time.

Lastly, per that Jim McLean article, surely the only way you can hit a truly straight pull with a rightwards path is if you hit it out of the heel.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Mr Daniels should be called to the carpet to apologise, no?

Why? I'm not saying he should or shouldn't - honestly I find this whole thing to be pretty boring and thus I haven't paid a lot of attention to it - but why?

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

For anyone interested in the so-called history of the old/new ballflight laws - there's an interesting article posted by John Graham at http://johngrahamgolf.com/blog/impact-john-jacobs-golf-coaching/

According to this, John Jacobs, who is associated with the idea that path determines launch angle, says that he understood the truth about impact ballistics before he wrote his books in the '70s - but that he thought the way he explained things was a useful simplification.

I don't think "simplifying" it makes any sense, especially if in attempting to "simplify" you get things wrong and possibly confuse people. I've seen texts written by Jacobs which very clearly said that path governs start line. That doesn't "simplify" things in my opinion.

Jacobs pioneered using the ball flight to teach, and somehow he improved the swings of many, many, MANY people - which makes it pretty amazing that he understood the ball flight incorrectly.

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Lastly, per that Jim McLean article, surely the only way you can hit a truly straight pull with a rightwards path is if you hit it out of the heel.

He may have been using "pull" to talk about only the start line , but yes, that's a weird part of his article. He described what we'd call a pull-hook, of course.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I agree with this.  From the evidence provided (and not even by the Daniels guy, but by people here on TST) he certainly doesn't seem to be claiming credit for anything.

And here he even attributes it to Mr. Kelley.  (I presume that this is the article he mentioned in the Ball Flight Laws video above, and if so, it's from the late 80's)

I would have to say that unless and until the article Mr. Daniels is quoting in his blog is referenced and verified, that this qualifies as pretty shoddy "journalism."  That's the whole problem with blogs though, right?  People get to pretend to be journalists without actually being journalists.  (Although the "real" journalists are not much better these days)

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Mr Daniels should be called to the carpet to apologise, no?

Originally Posted by iacas

Why? I'm not saying he should or shouldn't - honestly I find this whole thing to be pretty boring and thus I haven't paid a lot of attention to it - but why?

Slander.  If that article he quotes cannot be produced, then it sounds like the guy lied about McCleans claims.  (Can I just say his McClaims?)

EDIT:  Whoops ... I meant libel.  I always get those two backwards!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Slander.  If that article he quotes cannot be produced, then it sounds like the guy lied about McCleans claims.  (Can I just say his McClaims?)

EDIT:  Whoops ... I meant libel.  I always get those two backwards!

Wouldn't Joe Daniels need to be even a little bit relevant for slander or libel to apply? :) McLean would have to show damages, and, what, 100 people know who Joe Daniels is or what he said? :P

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

Wouldn't Joe Daniels need to be even a little bit relevant for slander or libel to apply? :) McLean would have to show damages, and, what, 100 people know who Joe Daniels is or what he said? :P

I don't know ... I ain't no lawyer.  I certainly don't think this qualifies as something Jim McClean will get too worked up over.  But just because somebody isn't well know doesn't mean he should have a license to lie.  My 3 year old steals toys from my 18 month old all the time, and she could not care less ... she just grabs another, but that doesn't make it right and unpunishable.

By the way, you are not giving yourself enough credit.  100 people???  There are already almost 700 views of this thread alone!

[birlyshirly]

Originally Posted by iacas

Why? I'm not saying he should or shouldn't - honestly I find this whole thing to be pretty boring and thus I haven't paid a lot of attention to it - but why?

I don't think "simplifying" it makes any sense, especially if in attempting to "simplify" you get things wrong and possibly confuse people. I've seen texts written by Jacobs which very clearly said that path governs start line. That doesn't "simplify" things in my opinion.

Jacobs pioneered using the ball flight to teach, and somehow he improved the swings of many, many, MANY people - which makes it pretty amazing that he understood the ball flight incorrectly.

He may have been using "pull" to talk about only the start line, but yes, that's a weird part of his article. He described what we'd call a pull-hook, of course.

Why apologise? Well, I guess you either see the irony or you don't. If you're bored, perhaps you don't.

I'm curious. If you still think that Jacobs "understood the ball flight laws incorrectly" - did you read the article? Or did you just not believe it?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Why apologise? Well, I guess you either see the irony or you don't. If you're bored, perhaps you don't.

I'm curious. If you still think that Jacobs "understood the ball flight laws incorrectly" - did you read the article? Or did you just not believe it?

Jacobs didn't understand them properly. He understood what made the ball curve (the "old" and "new/proper" laws never disagreed on that) but wrote several times himself that the ball starts in the direction of the path. That article doesn't say anything to contradict that (and isn't written by Jacobs himself, of course).

His "first fix" for anyone was to get the path and the face to match up, which is of course the only time the path will match the starting line of the ball (in 2D anyway, obviously it won't in 3D except for perhaps some putts).

Claiming he'd read Cochran & Stobbs or knew the true laws after the fact seems like revisionist history. The most accurate thing we can go by is what HE wrote, IMO.

Either way, I don't really care about John Jacobs all that much. His descendants seem to favor fixing the face while I tend to lean towards fixing the path, but that's neither here nor there... it's beyond the scope of this thread.

[Phil McGleno]

birly I taught with Jacobs and learned from him and he was good but he didnt have the ball flight laws right. Almost nobody did then so there is not a lot of shame in it. I read the pdf on Graham's site and it even says path is what makes the ball start- [CODE]"Next, take a nine-iron and hit a few more shots. Because of its greater loft, this club contacts the bottom back of the ball, imparting heavy backspin. Consequently, the influence of sidespin is reduced to the point where the direction in which the ball flies accurately reflects the path of the swing."[/CODE] From teaching with him too and looking back that was what he believed-that start line was from the path.