[Mike O]

Resisting impact is a "seems as if" if you believe some of the science presented in "Search for the Perfect Swing" and websites eg. Tutelman stuff ( he seems to have no agenda / no score to settle ) ... http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/De...wing4.php?ref=

If this is accepted as true then it makes the radius of the primary lever immaterial - at least for anything other than enhancing clubhead speed. The only thing that matters is the mass and velocity of the clubhead - not the length of the lever. ( although for a given angular velocity, the longer the lever the greater velocity of the clubhead) but why bring mass into the discussion?? Therefore "increasing effective clubhead mass" is unhelpful concept. There may be some benefit to alignmment and clubface control in keeping left wrist flat and hence extending lever from clubhead to left shoulder... but that is clubface control and not increasing effective mass.

The mix of pure science and "seems as if" is a potential weak point for TGM. Correction or peer-reviewed confirmation of the science strengthens TGM.

I , like Tongzilla, have found enormous benefits from studying Homer's works and learning how to read the book from this website. Very grateful for the opportunity to learn and discuss.

Here's my perspective.

First, Tong, starts this thread two days ago and says that he wants to "discuss" errors in the book from a "scientific" perspective. He states one example and I ask a couple of questions for clarity and it's so silent that I can hear a pin drop. I'm all for discussions and debates as that's how you "get to the bottom of stuff". Disappointing. If you had said "I'm going to state what I believe but I really don't want to debate it" then it wouldn't be so bad.

Since I detect a small underlying theme (no one in particular) For the others, if you really wanted to do a service to Mr. Kelley then you'd want to listen to seemingly contrary ideas (from yours) and then either prove your perspective or learn during your analysis and change your perspective completely or in some way. It's not about Mr. Kelley - never was- it's about facts. You're not defending or representing him well by talking about him - how great he was, etc. you'd represent him better by hearing the facts, understanding the issues and learning FOR YOURSELF. Initially - having someone asking a question or questioning the legitimacy of a statement another person made - shouldn't be considered as a negative (an attack on the individual) but rather a positive (an inquiring mind). Of course, via further questioning or lack thereof- you'd discover if you are dealing with an inquiring mind or someone who is attacking an individual- and then you act accordingly i.e. move on, etc.

Finally, I really liked Bulldog's posts so nothing against you but I did go to the site that you linked and copied this quote:
"In a good swing, the wrists stay cocked until about 50 millisec before impact. So the club "lag" goes from 90° to 0° in 50 milliseconds. This is an average of 1.8° per millisecond."
Before I comment- believe me I'm all for debate in order to learn and I'm not knocking this guys website- but the above quote is concerning in that A) the wrists don't cock 90 degrees although with the #3 accumulator rotated sideways it might look that way. B) Certainly from a face on perspective it might look like that but that really doesn't have anything to do with actual club "lag". Doesn't mean that he doesn't know his other stuff- but since we are talking about "inaccurate scientific statements" in this thread- I'll add that to the list and stand to be corrected, debated, enlightened. And I'd be more than happy to clarify if that brief description is not clear. It's one of many "illusions" where more movement is implied than really takes place- and hence now we know why Bucket's swing has more moving parts than a .......................... getting tired I'll let someone else finish the sentence. (That's right grease Bucket! Bring it! Or have you run out of your pimpdaddy ammo?)