Priceless !!! 
1 Like
All for $99.99 and you get a Medicus
This is too much
He even has a hat with a big 5 on it
1 Like
I think you would buy a medicus and they gave you a few free videos. And ebook
$99
Life is good
Never said they couldn’t. The human body isn’t a door. Neither is the club. Neither is the golf swing.
What you interpret as “anti-science” is a rejection of pseudoscience, or what Richard Feynman called cargo-cult science. While I enjoy reading some of your posts, and parts of others, too many sections of your posts, and especially those from others elsewhere to which you link, read more like postmodern claptrap than works of science. They appear scientific—they have all trappings of scientific work, lots of numbers, graphs, and charts, a smattering greek letters and multi-syllabic words—but nothing deep or informative is produced from it. Reading these don’t result in a deeper understanding of the golf swing that can be used and to put to the test.
The remainder of your post, the beginning of which I quoted above, is a perfect example. John posts a photo of Greg Norman visibly holding shaft flex. It’s from a reputable golf magazine, so there’s no reason to think it’s doctored or produced using inferior cameras. You give the impression that you’re going to analyze that photo or speak to its provenance, but no. You instead do a classic bait-and-switch and show two unrelated graphs. (Are they from data collected measuring that particular swing in the photo?) Moreover, the graphs are from data that we can’t see and analyze, and don’t know how it was collected. And they are from swings we can’t even view ourselves. That’s science? Not taking that seriously is anti-science? Really?
But you don’t stop there. You then list three criticisms of John’s swing and teaching methods by those who aren’t even in the same universe as John as far as golfing skill and achievement. How do those criticisms refute that photo of Greg Norman holding shaft flex? More bait-and-switch.
I for one would like to see you post here. I think you have valuable points of view to contribute. But instead of accusing those who disagree with you as “obviously anti-science,” why not instead try to understand what they’re saying. If you think it goes against science then explain how using your own words instead of linking to those of others, and using simple descriptions instead obfuscating language (another tactic of postmodern pseudo-intellectuals) that most who contribute here shouldn’t be expected to know.
William
2 Likes
@Fore_Thirty This is why u look like a fool. 
As an assistant professional I played with alot of amateurs and professionals @Valhalla golf club in Eastwood KY. I was considered a very good player in the section finishing 3rd in the open. Many good players were members at Valhalla one in particular.
He worked all day raising his family but on the weekends would find his way to the club. I would play with the members 3/4 times a week. On one Saturday Bill M came in from his round and I asked him what he shot he said 72. I shot 73 that same day and was curious how he plays once a week and complained to me about his 72 where I felt good about my 73.
Back then, no internet in 1987 that I knew about. So 20 years later married w kids I looked up ole Bill on the internet. His google search showed playing teamate Hale Irwin, 5 Kentucky State titles multiple honors and rewards and in the hall of fame.
I went back to the day he told me he shot 72 when I asked what he was working on.
He said “I feel like I am opening and closing a door in front of my chest”
So where u get off talking like a fool, some of us actually have real life experiences that say otherwise. Keep ur dialogue going for ur own ego, we’ll all sit with out popcorn and chuckle.
Bye
1 Like
No, we are not the same with regards opinions about theorised optimal golf swing techniques but we all definitely agree that JE and ABS students are not retaining shaft flex through impact. Your own evidence is weak and JE (or maybe some ABS expert to represent him) has the option of accepting Erik Barzeski’s offer of a free GEARS analysis (2 days’ worth, which normally costs a lot of money) to prove us all wrong.
I mentioned Erik Barzeski because your ABS posters don’t seem to believe other people’s opinions who might not be good golfers themselves. Well Erik is a good golfer and can probably beat many of you.
He may feel like he’s opening and closing a door. That doesn’t change the fact that the human body isn’t a door. Fact.
Fact: no swing ldownloaded by any one of the 3 musketeers
@Fore_Thirty @JeffMann @Dubious
Just dribble bashing ABS.
Pretty pathetic trolls
Bye
So we have Jeff Mann who is just waiting to use the laptop in his community center. Once the nurses allow him to get around for a bit. And bash every golf instructor known to man on his glorious tell it as it is website. Where Most Newtons would never even touch that Apple
We have fore thirty who follows the I gave 10,000 lessons. Just cast and swing your swing and be happy brigade
And we have Dubious who will give you the five plastic baby keys to better golf and ebook once you buy the $99.99 Medicus single hinge. Or $129.99 for the Dual hinge training aids.
All that is left is for Hank Haney and turn someone into a duck hooker after 5 balls mojo. And lead lag takeaway to better golf along with my Tour Striker and Tour Striker Medicine ball Martin Chuck. To enter this folly.
Always thought watergate scandal was fascinating on the nightly news back in the day. This thread dwarfs that for sure
2 Likes
And we have you who provides nothing of any value in his posts apart from trying to be funny, but fails miserably.
Again priceless🥳
Dude its killing me 
U are an artist in the mind
And bedwetter too! He gets the shanks! 
I thought the human body did the act of closing the door, by grabbing the handle (grip), twisting (forearm range)and rotating it on its hinges (pivot)?
2 Likes
The human body moves the club, but a lot more is going on than just holding the club, twisting the grip, and pivoting. Again, you have forces in the alpha, beta, and gamma planes and you have torques in the alpha, beta, and gamma planes and then you have angular responses. Every golfer has to deal with all of it on every swing.
There are alot of very stupid and unkind things being said.
The title of the thread is “science validates Erickson.” Many people posting in the topic have presented evidence that science, in fact, doesn’t validate the contention that the club shaft is flexed back at impact, and further doesn’t validate that the hands have positive acceleration at impact.
The responses to this evidence have been basically twofold: 1) Your data are not relevant because they are collected from “swingers’” swings, or 2) nonsensical responses, including name calling, poor humor, insults, ad hominem arguments, circular reasoning, begging the question, etc.
Response #1 is not a logical argument, because it begs the question. The distinction of “hitters and swingers” is YOUR theory. If there are indeed 2 types of club delivery methods, and they are distinguished by how the shaft is flexed (or not) at impact, then why don’t we see this in the data? You are basically arguing “your data is irrelevant because it doesn’t support what we think happens.”
I have looked through the hundred or so swings of PGA and LPGA tour players whose swings have been measured and stored in the GEARS database, and there is not a single swing with a “flexed shaft” at impact, or one where the hands are not decelerating into impact. Zero.
Even if it is possible to play golf with the swing Mr. Erickson describes and contends he uses, why is it not used by any touring professionals today? (By the way, the GEARS database includes both Greg Norman and Bobby Clampett, neither of whom deliver the flexed shaft or accelerating hands). If it is a superior method, if it’s the type of swing that allows you to not miss a fairway for 4 days, surely someone would be doing it. The cop out that “they can’t use a hitting delivery with modern equipment” is bullshit, since they can set up their equipment to any specifications they choose. Surely if there is a holy grail method out there, someone would be trying to use it.
But if every major champion on every single tour today is a “swinger,” doesn’t that tell you something? Isn’t it at least worth considering that maybe they’ve learned, through their trial and error, playing against the finest players alive today, that this is the best way to do it?
1 Like
Its alot simpler to just open and close a door @Fore_Thirty
Just gotta realize there is no ball…drills help all this incessant thinking. The forum does the rest…join us!
You wont be sorry… 
2 Likes