I’ve taken the weekend to reflect on things, hence my lack of posting since the Friday’s offering.
First things first before restarting this season:
I’ve been planning or wanting to post something like this ever since I decided to take the blog off hiatus & resume the MCS Golf Swing journey, because it’s something close to me, personally.
When I began to blog back in ’07, I knew nothing other than how far I could hit a golf ball when it comes to swing analysis. By the time I’d begun to garner some readership, late in ’09, I was driving the ball upwards of 350 yards & I began to get requests to allow comments on the site.
So was born “Smash Golf Blog,” which became “DJ Watts Golf Blog” and finally arrived at “WAX Golf Blog.” Call it growing pains.
Something I do look back upon with regret however, is the arrogance with which I went about things when I discovered that there was nothing redeemable about the Modern Golf Swing & that the Classic Golf Swing was the proper way to swing.
That of course doesn’t exclude the Mike Dunaway “Post-Modern” Swing model, as I’ve said it’s a Classic Golf Swing because of the free & full hip action to power the swing – just that the pivot action is so different from the traditional rotary hip pivot, I designate it as its own sub-group of Classic.
Back in ’13, John Christensen as you’ll remember some of you, published an eBook about Mike Austin (the contents of which we’ll not discuss as they have little bearing on this particular issue), in which several bloggers were mentioned, yours truly included.
His criticism of my methodology was that I was constantly tinkering with my models and changing things.
I felt it an odd critique at the time because I’ve never been afraid to admit being wrong or not knowing the answer to something, and I truly have been on a search for something here, not saying from the outset that I had the answers.
So if I found something better or that I’d been wrong about something or that it wasn’t crucial (that one must stand on an angle to the target line for longer clubs, for example), I’d change course and immediately let my readership know.
It doesn’t excuse the overall arrogant air of my blogging however, and while I felt I was correct in my analysis of certain schools of swing thought or instructors/articles/writers regarding the swing, I certainly could have been nicer or more respectful in my disagreement with them.
I would like to consider my research to be philosophical but more on the scientific side of things, and if a scientist discovers error in something (even Einstein himself admitted erring in a calculation that he kept repeating and which cost him years of delay in finishing his relativity theory), he should of course admit it.
Not that I’m a scientist by any means! Just that I’d like to take that approach and I believe I have in a way in my empirical research.
I don’t do dogma, or rather I’d like not to. In fact, you’ll all remember The Welshman, with whom I did a consult on his golf swing in early ’17 & which meeting I was extremely fortunate to have done, as we’ve become fast friends (I hope).
He comes from the school of philosophy in life but also holds a science PhD, and he wrote to me about research and discussion as we were debating physical science versus social science & academia:
In my experience, scientists are far more robust in debate… philosophers too. There’s some structure to the arguments and possibility for provision of proof if required.
Not so in social sciences or even ‘English’. The debate there is entirely around fiercely held internal cognitive structures, which means EVERYTHING is personal. If new data comes in which would challenges the lens, the data is dumped and the filter retained.
Not open to challenge. Restricts everything to polite but dull conversation.
I’d like to think we’ve all engaged in healthy debates and discussions here, as long as they followed my requirement that commenters be civil and keep things family-friendly.
Nowhere in his message, you’ll see, does he advocate arrogance or dismissal of opinion, merely the presenting of & the presence or absence of fact.
I distinguish sharply between those who have advanced degrees in science, mathematics & engineering vs those who have advanced degrees in social sciences. It’s one of the areas where I’ll accept ad hominem insults.
See, there’s two approaches to science – does it work? Why does it work? For years we used Penicillin without knowing how it worked. But (there are those who) insist on knowing why before they accept the practical application.
You, you’re praxis. Theory informed practice.
It was after meeting the Welshman that I began to regret the way I wrote about certain things, even though I promised more than once over the years to change, with modest success. I only put on my “Mean Hat” when dealing with a premise so absurd I couldn’t “be nice” about it.
But I’m resolving to go the whole way in future and deal with my own views while still remaining civil even if disagreeing with a certain thing about which I write. Hopefully, I can stick with MCS & simply outline why it works & why I believe I can prove it is the optimal model to use, either the Classic or the Post-Modern models.
For the record, I don’t know it all, have never claimed to, and if I’ve acted as such, I was in the wrong. I’m fond of saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I’ve not avoided that foible myself, to be sure.
In fact, the more I’ve learned, the more I’ve realized how little I actually know about anything.
For my past transgressions, I do apologize & promise to do better going forward. And as ever, if I find that I’ve been incorrect about something or that something doesn’t make my model wrong but there is better (as I’m investigating with traditional Classic vs Post-Modern), you’ll all be the first to know about it here!
Now, who’s ready for some golf swing talk?!?
More to come!