I recently made an exception and went against my own recommendation of posting on golf forums that contain certain kinds of rules or terms imposed upon its members and posters, as I elaborated upon in Linking Today’s Golf Forums to the Game’s Ugly Deterioration: Part One. I posted a response on the Worrisome Reasonless Xenogolf site in reaction to a few specific statements made by an individual whose member name is Stuart G. (who has posted more than 15,000 times to date on that forum) that made me almost literally cry in sadness for all golfers in general.
It was certainly not an easy post to write, on one hand expressing what someone sure needed to say regarding the current state of the golf club fitting trade in particular. Yet I also needed to be extremely careful to not post any relevant new and/or unique information that could be utilized forever, in any manner so pleased including but hardly limited to altering my post, with absolutely zero permission from and/or compensation to me by the grubby hands of the forum site’s owners, management, employees, and/or associates. The term grubby is quite appropriately derived from the rules or terms the site wishes to impose on members and posters, particularly regarding certain intellectual property rights that any individual gains immediately upon placing any posting in a tangible form.
Such terms might not even be read by posters that predominantly and blindly repeat (often technically wrong) materials already previously developed by other so-called clubfitting experts, as under these circumstances such posters generally have little if anything notable at stake. While such posters might know certain past materials cover to cover so to speak, yet quite commonly accompanied by insufficient personal and/or professional experience(s) to really know whether any given materials are correct or utter nonsense, they often naively and very mistakenly consider themselves to be deeply knowledgeable regarding certain clubfitting (and/or golf swing) topics. And unfortunately, even more naive and inexperienced Misters Gullible Golfer have little other choice but to believe the frequently defective information presented to them by countless clueless clubfitters when there is no legitimate information available to compare against that which is defective (awarded “credentials” to such clubfitters mean nothing when the entire trade from the ground up is as bad as it currently is).
Not surprisingly, such rules or terms and the driving force(s) behind them can tend to attract certain types of contributors, posts and other content, advertisers, employees, and more while repelling other potential contributors, posts and other content, advertisers, employees, and more. I am one of the latter who will wait for a better “forum” before I will be persuaded to move any relevant work of mine from here to there and/or post any spontaneous or impromptu comments or expressions that could at any time potentially result in valuable intellectual property rights. Any such rights would become severely diluted if not essentially worthless based on the published rules or terms of the noted site. Despite my very strong desire to help the game of golf recover and grow, my desire is not so absolute that I am willing to sacrifice such IP rights to an inferior forum site that consistently contains and publicizes very poor and incorrect content in foundational areas (along with supporting the very people that originally developed such poor and incorrect material). Quite frankly, without the legal mechanism in place to protect such IP rights and prevent my work from being utilized by others without proper authority (wholly undermined by the rules or terms of the noted forum site), I would never have had the motivation to write even the very first Waggle Weight Wisdom article let alone what I have revealed since.
In that regard, I did okay with the posting, although in hindsight I kind of regret even mentioning the Moment of Insanity expression that I originally developed with respect to MOI golf club matching. In light of the site’s rules or terms, this certainly does not sit well with me even for just this one single expression of mine. However, because I am not convinced that such rules or terms are even legal in the first place, I would likely pursue legal action against the site or anyone else anyhow where due credit and/or compensation are not provided when any of my work is used without proper permission. The attempt at imposing such rules or terms might open the door for some interesting litigation at some point regarding copyright rights of individuals. If appropriate, perhaps someone pursuing a legal action against the noted forum site and certain rules it publishes sooner rather than later would in some small way help the game of golf recover and grow a little better in the future. Maybe I will even consult with a legal professional about this should my path lead in that direction.
Because I was quite careful to not provide any real relevant answers in my recent posting on the noted forum site, I would ordinarily find no reason to include it here as well. In this case, however, and largely due to certain feedback received from the post, I have decided to publish some correlated and more definitive follow-up comments. But that step cannot be taken until the original posting is published and displayed here first, as it may need to be referenced in a subsequent posting.
If trying to identify this and at least one related follow-up entry with some type of memorable theme, it might partly be that the stewardship of golf still leaves a lot to be desired and is still not in very good hands, as the game still appears to be moving distinctly rearward as a whole despite all of my previous revelations. Havoc continues to be wreaked on the game, particularly on the clubfitting trade (though hardly limited to that sector), by various individuals seemingly anointing themselves as a “Keeper(s) of the Game” of golf. But a far better term or title for many of these individuals, who might passionately although blindly repeat literally thousands of times the same technical irrationalities previously learned from other unqualified individuals, would more aptly be a ”Freaker(s) of the Game.” (In staying within the general context of this particular article I am primarily referring here to individuals posting on golf forums, but this theme can just as appropriately be applied to organizational entities and/or different mediums of communication).
Such posters and posts help to carry on a long tradition of poorly developed clubfitting theories and practices that have turned the trade into the virtual freak show it is today. (This can also apply to certain golf swing theories and practices because swinging and clubfitting facets of golf are interrelated in certain respects). The almost exclusive use of launch-monitor-type devices in clubfitting nowadays has actually underscored how truly terrible many clubfitting theories and practices are that underlie the use of such devices. Sound clubfitting fundamentals are sound clubfitting fundamentals, regardless of whether a high-tech launch-monitor-type device is utilized that might or might not help to slightly fine-tune certain club components and/or specification values (really only valid after sound underlying principles are correctly applied first). And glitzy launch-monitor-type device use simply cannot cover up the fact that competent clubfitting fundamentals of first-grade and low-tech levels are conspicuously absent within the clubfitting industry to begin with.
Similar to a recent headline stating that the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus is going to shut down after a tradition of almost 150 years, another current circus known as the clubfitting industry in its current state might very well soon follow into oblivion. The current poor reputation and content in critical areas of golf forums on the whole for reasons explained are certainly not solely to blame for all of the current issues facing the golf industry in general and the clubfitting trade more specifically. But I can nevertheless confidently state that parallel occurrences of the noted and other such forum sites materializing and the declining popularities and reputations of various aspects of the game of golf are not just totally coincidental.
I cannot say at this point whether my very next entry will be directed toward some of Stuart’s specific quotes that I have on record now, as there may be any number of forum posts made by others that might best be addressed more specifically before I am able to formulate and publish a follow-up for this particular entry. But follow up with it I will, and it will be quite enlightening in more ways than one. Thus, directly below is that post text of mine, originally presented on the Worrisome Reasonless Xenogolf online forum website on 01/08/2017, and published here to establish a reference for what I will need to subsequently present.
As one of the more frequent responders at about 15,000 posts to date, over time I have read uncounted answers from Stuart G. on this forum regarding various clubfitting topics. More often than not his replies provide decent general guidance along with good compassion, especially toward lesser skilled golfers that might be made fun of by others. I respect that.
But his answer above is extremely misguided, one of the most uniformed responses I have ever witnessed regarding the solidly proven foundational golf club specification of swingweight, and could substantially hurt the golfing future of the original poster. And unfortunately, it is the kind of response that helps firmly secure the clubfitting industry as being the worst, most embarrassing laughingstock in all of sports by far (so bad it drags the whole game of golf down with it). Such answers contribute to the game’s continuing deterioration in recent years, deterioration that might have been accelerated since the reintroduction (yet again) of the loony MOI golf club specification (best termed Moment of Insanity as a club matching concept).
His initial response to the question(s) promotes generalized confusion (even for many having more experience), some avoidance of the subject, and contains so many inaccurate and invalid statements that I cannot keep track of them all. For every ten golfers trying to improve through clubfitting that might read and try to implement it, perhaps six or seven might be more prone to abandoning golf for something more worthy (and perhaps the original poster will ultimately be yet another individual that abandons the game) rather than being encouraged to stay with it.
If the golf industry, particularly the clubfitting trade, would like to have a better 2017 and reverse its present direction toward extinction, it had sure better quickly and aggressively seek out and start supporting people that comprehend such subjects considerably better. The horrific mess originally created by certain others by way of producing terribly flawed materials, especially concerning extremely fundamental theories and practices that are the most critical, are now being published and distributed more widely than ever, naturally followed by more widespread ridicule and ill repute (and with very good reason). Unless and until this is corrected, the number of golfers that will prudently avoid so-called professional clubfitters and commercialized clubfitting institutions (and potentially even avoid just playing) will continue to rise.
Failing to realize these issues and causes and effects here and now will result in harder and harsher lessons to be learned somewhere down the road, guaranteed. It is not my express intent to single out Stuart here, and in a manner of speaking he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when I felt compelled to write and post this. There are in fact countless clubfitting “experts” that routinely and consistently inflict far worse advice and even less accurate technical information on a regular basis to poor gullible golfers. But some of these golfers are seemingly becoming a little less gullible over time and starting to catch on to how woefully bad the trade currently is.