76 replies to this topic

[eagle1997]

Finbarr Saunders, on 17 January 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

eagle1997, on 17 January 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

iteachgolf, on 17 January 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

Didn't watch show and don't watch golf instructional shows. No point for me to do so.  But did he not say that if the ball is inside your left heel the ball will start to the right and will cause most people to slice?  Did the OP lie about what was said?

I don't need to watch the show to know that the above simply isn't true and in fact moving it back would make it more likely to draw if face angle at address is left unchanged.

i appreciate what you are trying to say, as well as your knowledge, but seriously you sound like an incredible (_____).  just wanted to point that out.

Harsh, unnecessary and bang out of order

please look again.  there is a blank space there.  YOU are the one filling in the blank.

[KDMullins]

eagle1997, on 17 January 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Finbarr Saunders, on 17 January 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

eagle1997, on 17 January 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

iteachgolf, on 17 January 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

Didn't watch show and don't watch golf instructional shows. No point for me to do so.  But did he not say that if the ball is inside your left heel the ball will start to the right and will cause most people to slice?  Did the OP lie about what was said?

I don't need to watch the show to know that the above simply isn't true and in fact moving it back would make it more likely to draw if face angle at address is left unchanged.

i appreciate what you are trying to say, as well as your knowledge, but seriously you sound like an incredible (_____).  just wanted to point that out.

Harsh, unnecessary and bang out of order

please look again.  there is a blank space there.  YOU are the one filling in the blank.

I'm sure you meant incredibly instead of incredible, and you somehow misspelled "nice guy" and that darn blank showed up instead?

[nbg352]

KDMullins, on 17 January 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

goobers80, on 17 January 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Quote

Didn't watch show and don't watch golf instructional shows. No point for me to do so. But did he not say that if the ball is inside your left heel the ball will start to the right and will cause most people to slice? Did the OP lie about what was said?

I don't need to watch the show to know that the above simply isn't true and in fact moving it back would make it more likely to draw if face angle at address is left unchanged.

Yet it is okay he calls somebody out to be lying ? That is *respectful* ? And disagree but that first sentence comes across condescending to me. Basically dismissed the points of this topic in my mind. I see no reason to add those words in. Defending a person because of who he is , does nots make that person better looking.  Nor does his *credentials* make it okay to be rude in first place. It was a topic on Larry Nelson. Sort of nots understanding how you think how you do. Yes , just do not understand how *NT* minds work.

Probably shoulds watch a show before trying to disprove it or *correct* it for the masses. Goings by word of mouth is never smart idea.

He didn't say anybody was lying.  He was replying to a post where somebody insinuated that you had to have watched the show to respond to the posts in this thread or that the OP miscommunicated what Nelson was trying to say.  Either way, Dan was responded to the point made in this thread, not the show.

I'm not defending Dan because of who he is.  I don't know Dan any more than I know you, but with all due respect, I value his opinion on the golf swing more than all but two or three others that post on GolfWRX.  I only point those things out as evidence that the guy knows what he's talking about, so I actively look for and read his posts.   Unfortunately, nearly every time he posts on these forums, there's always two or three big shots that either (a) don't like Dan; (b) don't like what he teaches; or © want to try to exhibit some knowledge they think they have for reasons I don't fully comprehend; and the thread turns into a mess.  It gets old.

He may well be good and I certainly don't want to lose a good teacher because of a misunderstanding. But this is a common theme when he posts, going back several years. It's not so much being contradictory that get's to other posters. It's the way it is done. Out of hand dismissiveness tends to tick people off.

[KDMullins]

nbg352, on 18 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

He may well be good and I certainly don't want to lose a good teacher because of a misunderstanding. But this is a common theme when he posts, going back several years. It's not so much being contradictory that get's to other posters. It's the way it is done. Out of hand dismissiveness tends to tick people off.

I'm not sure what "out of hand dimissiveness" means, but in all of the threads I've seen that have turned out this way, Dan makes posts that are intended to correct misconceptions or otherwise help the thread participants,  then some posters come at him in a manner similar to this thread, then these same people are appalled that he would defend himself and (GASP) perhaps use a harsh tone, then a couple of other people who probably haven't even read the entire thread pile on at the end.  

IMO, you can't judge another's actions when that person's actions are in response to somebody else's actions.  People tend to get what they give.

[MonteScheinblum]

KDMullins, on 18 January 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

nbg352, on 18 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

He may well be good and I certainly don't want to lose a good teacher because of a misunderstanding. But this is a common theme when he posts, going back several years. It's not so much being contradictory that get's to other posters. It's the way it is done. Out of hand dismissiveness tends to tick people off.

I'm not sure what "out of hand dimissiveness" means, but in all of the threads I've seen that have turned out this way, Dan makes posts that are intended to correct misconceptions or otherwise help the thread participants,  then some posters come at him in a manner similar to this thread, then these same people are appalled that he would defend himself and (GASP) perhaps use a harsh tone, then a couple of other people who probably haven't even read the entire thread pile on at the end.  

IMO, you can't judge another's actions when that person's actions are in response to somebody else's actions.  People tend to get what they give.

It's like an NFL game.  The guy who retaliates gets the flag.

[nbg352]

KDMullins, on 18 January 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

nbg352, on 18 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

He may well be good and I certainly don't want to lose a good teacher because of a misunderstanding. But this is a common theme when he posts, going back several years. It's not so much being contradictory that get's to other posters. It's the way it is done. Out of hand dismissiveness tends to tick people off.

I'm not sure what "out of hand dimissiveness" means, but in all of the threads I've seen that have turned out this way, Dan makes posts that are intended to correct misconceptions or otherwise help the thread participants,  then some posters come at him in a manner similar to this thread, then these same people are appalled that he would defend himself and (GASP) perhaps use a harsh tone, then a couple of other people who probably haven't even read the entire thread pile on at the end.  

IMO, you can't judge another's actions when that person's actions are in response to somebody else's actions.  People tend to get what they give.

I was referring to the I didn't watch it post. Otherwise, your point is well made.

[KDMullins]

nbg352, on 18 January 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

KDMullins, on 18 January 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

nbg352, on 18 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

He may well be good and I certainly don't want to lose a good teacher because of a misunderstanding. But this is a common theme when he posts, going back several years. It's not so much being contradictory that get's to other posters. It's the way it is done. Out of hand dismissiveness tends to tick people off.

I'm not sure what "out of hand dimissiveness" means, but in all of the threads I've seen that have turned out this way, Dan makes posts that are intended to correct misconceptions or otherwise help the thread participants,  then some posters come at him in a manner similar to this thread, then these same people are appalled that he would defend himself and (GASP) perhaps use a harsh tone, then a couple of other people who probably haven't even read the entire thread pile on at the end.  

IMO, you can't judge another's actions when that person's actions are in response to somebody else's actions.  People tend to get what they give.

I was referring to the I didn't watch it post. Otherwise, your point is well made.

Bottom line, I chalk it up to either the lack of ability to interpret tone in posts or simple personality conflicts.  Either way, it's something that we all deal with all the time in our daily lives, and it's better left ignored.  We'd all be better off if we just ignored our perception of tone and responded to the substance of each others' posts.

[Jim Waldron]

Dan - I sure hope you re-consider. You are one of the most informative posters on this forum. I have no doubt that your posts have helped a lot of average golfers who hang out here.

[bargolf]

No dog in this fight, not a frequent poster.
But,

I did not see any mention of clubface orientation to path for Larry Nelson. If you are an open to closed player as Larry Nelson was, as Hogan was and others, it is certainly reasonable that moving the ball forward would help a draw and playing it back promote a fade. Why?

Rotation.

If I reach impact and the face is open the the path I am going to get a fade. If I move the ball forward so the face has time to close I will get a hook.



If I move the ball forward

[Sean2]

I'd like to know how threads get to this point. Why can't people a) have a rational discussion about swing theory (in this case), or b) simply agree to disagree? Why does it have to degenerate into a "shouting" match?

People seem to get very defensive when someone disagrees with them these days. What happened to rational discourse?

I'm sorry to see that something so simple has become so complicated.

[kevcarter]

Sean2, on 19 January 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

I'd like to know how threads get to this point. Why can't people a) have a rational discussion about swing theory (in this case), or b) simply agree to disagree? Why does it have to degenerate into a "shouting" match?

People seem to get very defensive when someone disagrees with them these days. What happened to rational discourse?

I'm sorry to see that something so simple has become so complicated.

Attached Files

•  image.jpg   67.09K   15 downloads

[Sean2]

kevcarter, on 19 January 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

Sean2, on 19 January 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

I'd like to know how threads get to this point. Why can't people a) have a rational discussion about swing theory (in this case), or b) simply agree to disagree? Why does it have to degenerate into a "shouting" match?

People seem to get very defensive when someone disagrees with them these days. What happened to rational discourse?

I'm sorry to see that something so simple has become so complicated.

Ha! But we don't have to pee in our Wheaties over it! :-)

[kevcarter]

Sean2, on 19 January 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

kevcarter, on 19 January 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

Sean2, on 19 January 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

I'd like to know how threads get to this point. Why can't people a) have a rational discussion about swing theory (in this case), or b) simply agree to disagree? Why does it have to degenerate into a "shouting" match?

People seem to get very defensive when someone disagrees with them these days. What happened to rational discourse?

I'm sorry to see that something so simple has become so complicated.

Ha! But we don't have to pee in our Wheaties over it! :-)

:-)

[tradekid]

All I was trying to do was get iteach to watch the entire Nelson episode and he would have totally agreed with him. The first part of the show talked about ball position and swing path. If the original poster had talked about the last part where Nelson talked about face angle dictates where the ball starts we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[MileHighClub]

MonteScheinblum, on 17 January 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

There are three things at work here.

1.  The common theme in the golf media where a great player is imparting his feels and what worked for him that aren't necessarily correct or even what he actually does.

This is dead on.  I can't count how many times I have seen a pro explain how he does something, only to see him do something different when he actually swings.  

[gators78]

...no wonder the national handicap average doesn't go down.

Edited by gators78, 20 February 2013 - 04:19 PM.

[Mimir]

Some ridiculous posts in this thread, let's slay someone who's giving good information based on the given info because we don't like his tone/personality.

It's what usually what happens when one can't compete intellectually/knowledge-wise....shame.