[Burner]

Burner
I am puzzled by your use of the word "offensive". It is never offensive to analyse/dissect/criticize a scientific theory, because a "true" scientist invites rigorous analysis/counterarguments/criticism of his theory, because he knows that his theory's ability to withstand any attempt at falsification (in a Popperian sense) strengthens his theory.

Regarding my modus operandi of attacking any golf swing theory, it merely reflects my scientific approach established over many decades.
Jeff.

Jeff,

I have no problem with arguments and counters thereto, it is the life blood of any forum. My "offense", maybe not the most well chosen word, arises out of your modus operandi where certain examples you put forward in support of your stance appear to be based on no other scientific principle than "look, this bloke (choice of bloke varies as to which one best suits your purpose) doesn't do it so it cannot be so".

Simple as that. I have no other issues with you and, indeed, welcome your input in the various forums we both enjoy. You have much to offer and raise questions that cause not only me, I suspect, to have a little rethink on various aspects from time to time.

Bucket,

"NOBODY HAS AN UNCOMPENSATED STROKE. NOBODY IS ON THE SAME PLAN ALL THE TIME.'Don't just pigeon hole Homer into a little box. Don't forget about Chapter 10. 'I think Homer would ENJOY the discourse . . . so should we."

I do realise that no one has an uncompensated stroke and thought I had made that point plainly enough without pigeon holing Homer.

Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that Homer would likely "enjoy the discourse". But, he would have preferred any discourse to be based on sounder scientific principles than those occasionally put forward by Jeff - this bloke doesn't do it, see, so it cannot be right. Know what I'm saying?