The reply I gave earlier that Geometry = motion has been taken out of context. I was defending an AI who was quoting a slide which appeared in his GSEB class. I was using the a statement made in the book page VII in the Preface. The direct quote is "Motion is Geometry -- Action is Physics", and I simply replaced "is" with an equal sign.
When this information is presented during class it has been designed to educate the students on information from the text. Furthermore attendees of the GSEB class also learn at that point in class that Geometry is lines, circles, planes, etc. and in order to become shaptes they must add the Physics of rotation to produce them.
In G.O.L.F. we need both GEOMETRY (therein1-C) LINEAR and Force (therein Physics) to complete the swing mechanics. We must use them symbiotically.
Taking my slide quote out of context only creates confusion among The Golfing Machine Forum readers. Which is not my intention.
[Bold type by Yoda]
Joe,
I wholeheartedly agree that the slide quote was taken out of context with theGSEB curriculum. However, let it be hereby known that I wasn't the one whodid it! I merely addressed the issue to the one who did --namely the same AI you chose to "defend." Since even those who carehave probably already forgotten, let me refresh everybody's memory byreprinting the original post and my reply that appeared 'way up North' (January10) in the thread:
Yoda wrote:
Martee wrote:
Geometry = Motion Physics = Action
Geometry=Alignments (dynamic or static)
That's it. That's all I said. My all-time, personal best, shortest reply post.
A reasonable and productive debate followed (your words in an interim post were"Great Debate." Then came The Big Zap, in which I wassummarily "put in my place" by your effort to, as you say above,"defend an AI who was quoting a slide that appeared in his GSEBclass." My heretical thesis, namely Geometry=Alignments, notGeometry=Motion, went unanswered.
Unfortunately, my thesis had no such defender and thus I was forced to defendit myself, which I proceeded to do in two subsequent posts. My weapons ofchoice were The Facts as presented in The Book. Andthe object of my protestations was -- and continues to be -- "the quotetaken out of context" that started the whole rigamaroll.
It is now apparent that I have ruffled feathers big-time, and I want to make agenuine effort to smooth them. At the same time, I want to clarify this mostimportant issue. In fact, I can't think of any issue more important toclarify than this one. I mean, we're talking about Geometric -- thevery first Letter in G.O.L.F.! If this issue so central to Homer's workis left enshrouded in Fog, then a price will be paid down the road. And that'swhy I care enough -- it's no green skin off Yoda's nose -- to take the timenecessary to get it right, not to mention the very real risk of alienatingthose who wish the issue would just 'go away.'
So, lets all take a deep breath, admit that Homer wasn't exactly TheGreat Communicator, and that there is an important issue on the table.An issue that, for the benefit of all who love and respect The GolfingMachine, needs to be resolved. I thought that was the purpose of the forum.If it is not, then please accept in advance my apologies.
The only way to resolve -- no fair under-rug sweeping! -- this conflict is togo back to Homer's sentence -- The Sentence -- in the Preface that wasthe genesis of your slide and this "great debate:"
"And herein, 'Motion' is geometry -- 'Action' is Physics."
First of all, note that Homer did not say:
"Herein, Geometry is Motion." [But that is what the slide says.]
What he did say was:
"Herein, Motion is Geometry." [So, you see, the slide didn't,as you stated in your post, merely substitute the "=" sign for theword "is." In fact, it totally reversed the subject (Motion)and its descriptive noun (Geometry).
Now, this isn't Grammar 101, but I'm sure that most would agree that, despite thereversed wording of the slide, in the actual text Homer used thedescriptive noun Geometry -- the science of alignments andrelationships -- to describe the sentence's subject, Motion.He was not using Motion (the subject) to describe Geometry (the descriptivenoun). You just can't willy-nilly reverse those two words, but that isexactly what the slide did. And that is what caught my attention-- however it was explained in class -- and that is why we are here.
There is a difference! I'll be the first to agree that the distinctionmay seem subtle, but by golly, it's people like me that buy books like Homer's,so you better get used to it. The devil is always in the details, particularlyon this watershed issue. And the not-so-subtle distinction is that Homer'ssubject is Motion. It is not Geometry!
So, with 'Motion' the subject -- not geometry -- the central issue becomes:
What did Homer mean by the word 'Motion?' If he truly meant that the termGeometry was not merely descriptive of Motion but, in fact, was actuallyinterchangeable with it, then Yoda is all wet. But if he meantsomething else, then another starship is about to be raised from the swamp.
The good news for Yoda and the G.O.L.F. world is that there is no doubtabout his meaning for the word 'Motion' and that the words Geometry andMotion are not interchangeable. In fact, though Homer unfortunatelydid not append the specific paragraph reference to The Sentence -- thatwould have saved us all a lot of effort! -- he did define it in 12-0(page 220 of the 6th edition). And, he put it in ALL CAPITALS so wewouldn't miss it:
"A Stroke Pattern is a player's selected 'MOTION.' The Motionmakes the Shots. As the Motion improves, shots improve--not viceversa. [For the grammar buffs, the word 'Motion' in the firstsentence is serving as the subjective complement, not the descriptive noun.]
So, given Homer's definition, it is correct to clarify his intent with thefollowing rephrasing of The Sentence:
"And herein, the Player's Stroke Pattern -- his Total Motion per 12-5-3-- is Geometry -- Action [Webster: the doing of something] isPhysics."
So, all in the world Homer was trying to say with The Sentence -- and infact what he did say in 12-0 -- was that "In executing your StrokePattern...it is the alignments and relationships of [the Component's]Motions and Actions that are central to this system."
Again, he was referring to the Player's Real Time Stroke Pattern --Chapter 8's 'Flip' book of 12 Sections -- as his means of executingprecision Geometrical alignments, and that per the Preface, G.O.L.F. is allabout producing "a sequence of alignment-sustaining motions."
Once the student understands this, then the Fog lifts! At least it does forthose interested only in accurately presenting facts as opposed to blindlydefending the indefensible.
Well, I guess the feathers are still ruffled. But that's the bum thing aboutfacts: They are the way they are, not the way we necessarily want them to be.In the book, Homer called his system Scientific Golf. He called it GeometricGolf. He called it Alignment Golf. Never in his wildest dreams would he havecalled it Motion Golf.
All Golf Strokes have "motion." In fact, that is the essence of"Position Golf!" Any old motion will do:
"Get that Right Elbow in."
"Fire that Right Side."
"Give me three right hands at impact!"
But...it is Geometrical alignments and relationships that define Homer'sG.O.L.F. and that are, in fact, "...central to this System"(12-0). And to totally omit that fundamental Alignment Linchpin whendifferentiating Geometry and Action was a mistake -- a seriousmistake that needs to be corrected. The slide is wrong. It is misleading. Itshould be sent to Slide Heaven. I'll guarantee you that if Homer were alivetoday, he would tell you exactly the same thing. But since he isn't here topoint that out, you got this pesky little gadfly named Yoda instead.
Hybrid Mode
