I think I previously began something similar as I try to navigate business elements, like displaying my original work to help golfers while at the same time also protecting the intellectual property (including the ability to control who can further use it and how). This is a very natural and reasonable business goal, but the creator(s) of the Worrisome Reasonless Xenogolf forum website does not share this sentiment based upon that site’s published posting terms (noting that it is far from the only site that publishes and tries to impose such terms).
Greed that can be conspicuously observed in such published terms has already hurt such sites (and the game of golf) and will eventually sink them if it continues unchanged. The terms contribute to why posters on such sites are commonly utterly unqualified, why posts are commonly so poor in nature and erroneous regarding countless topics, and why such sites as a whole have developed extremely poor reputations. Despite supposedly wanting to help golfers and the game, these sites broadly achieve the opposite effect instead with the way they are currently structured and/or run.
A glut of technically incorrect and uncorrected content (especially instructional content regarding golf swing and clubfitting aspects of the game) has already been amassed by such forum sites. And the error-filled content can now be easily searched, referenced, and believed by Messrs. Gullible Golfer as well as the rest of the world, presumably for generations to come. If true, this will contribute even more to the ongoing delinquency and diminishing popularity of and participation in the game.
So for various reasons (some not even discussed here) I cannot really post any original, corrective, and/or game-changing materials directly on the forum site referenced above and/or other similar sites at the present time. But I am slightly more open to potentially posting more indirectly or secondarily on such sites. I can formulate a personal response to an inquiry seen on a public forum that interests me and that I am qualified to address. Next the response would originally be displayed within Waggle Weight Wisdom™ work, and only then would it be secondarily posted onto the forum. Time will tell whether this endeavor might make any difference regarding protecting my original work any better.
I believe I had exactly this in mind with at least one previous entry. But as I recall, by the time I finished it I had added an amount of unique corrective material and/or terminology to where I just could not bear to post it on the forum even as a secondary repeat. And by the time I finished this entry, I felt similarly again after including certain comments I felt compelled to make. But material that systematically corrects errors of the past, which might be slightly more important to protect than other types of original work, is a bit more obscure in this specific entry. (Other original material is spelled out abundantly clearly). So we shall see whether I subsequently infringe so to speak upon any of my own original work based on this particular entry.
The specific forum inquiry addressed here was posted by a member with the name of rjcejka. In a nutshell, the member expressed a mixed opinion regarding the benefit of clubfitting (which is the second most important and a critical aspect of the game of golf). The member stated that while he enjoyed a recent clubfitting, it has not impacted his on-course scoring. Based on the money he spent, he concluded that it was not worth it and asked for the opinions of others. About 65 replies were offered as of the time I planned to post part of this entry to the forum. A few comments predating mine were somewhat valid, although mostly too limited in scope to really be of any value. And as usual, many were so nonsensical it was almost as if the posters were intentionally acting out a comedy skit (though they were in fact being very serious).
But there was a decidedly consistent underlying theme throughout, which was a general concession that the clubfitting trade on the whole is admittedly not very good (unless of course certain posters were referring to themselves), and that an exhaustive effort usually has to be made to find someone truly qualified as a clubfitter. This can be awfully true. Nevertheless, none of the posters really seemed to comprehend the extent of the issue(s) and why, because the problem(s) is far more severe and runs much deeper than currently realized. Even the “best” clubfitters of today, found after the exhaustive effort mentioned above, will basically only amount to the best of the worst, comprising individuals and/or organizations that are still destructively deficient in understanding and/or applying proper clubfitting (and intimately connected golf swing) theories and practices competently.
There are very logical and understandable reasons for this plight, with specific solutions for many issues already addressed in detail in previous Waggle Weight Wisdom™ work. And there is really no choice but for the golf industry to ultimately implement revelations made here if it desires to survive and grow (especially but hardly limited to the clubfitting trade), as scientifically the correctness of the solutions is inescapable. Alternatively, the industry can (try to) continue teaching, spreading, and/or following all of the same truly embarrassing golf swing and clubfitting theories and practices that have helped to create the current debacle to begin with. But with the content of much of this existing material being nothing less than ludicrous and being realized by more and more people every day that are compos mentis, fully expect the sarcastic laughter and ridicule of the industry to not only continue (and rightly so), but to get publicly worse until badly needed change(s) is capably enacted.
But it has come to be what it has come to be at the present time within the golf industry, with a growing body of evidence emanating from multiple sources that depicts certain facets of the game in a very unfavorable light at the present time (thus broadly affecting the game as whole). Based upon this preliminary foundation, the following was written to be posted secondarily onto the inquiry discussed above, only after being displayed here first:
There is somewhat of an even split between golfers having been fit and people calling themselves clubfitters. Regardless of which, and unless bound by some confidentiality agreement, consider posting the exact fitting process used on you or that you use on your customers before making any other comments. That alone would leave many speechless.
Exactly what specifications were fit, in exactly what order, and in exactly what manners? Was club length the very first specification chosen, and if not which one was? When was swingweight fit (if it even was at all), exactly how was its value determined, and how was that further applied (if at all) during the whole of the fitting process? Was MOI (Moment of Insanity) golf club matching used instead? When was grip size fit, precisely how was it fit, and how was that further applied (if at all) during the whole of the fitting process?
Was club length fit completely independently of grip size? Were other club specification values kept the same or changed (intentionally or unintentionally) if and when various shaft weights were tried? Which specifications had values chosen based on the science of ball travel result numbers and/or club/ball contact data, which had values chosen based on the science of swing execution, and exactly who performed this alleged clubfitting(s)?
These few example questions are basic, not even advanced, and today’s so-called fitting “experts” would very likely score less than 50% (considerably less for many people that are even quite well known) when graded on a competently developed clubfitting exam. At any price and service level, the commercial clubfitting industry as a whole has become a pathetic joke (much more so in more recent times) that has substantially contributed to the declining popularity of and participation in the game. The aphorism that golfers are not really athletes might very well be rooted in clubfitting trade behavior and procedures.
Even the most well-meaning and caring of clubfitters are doomed to total failure or very limited success due to the ridiculously inept clubfitting theories and practices they have been taught (and that still continue to be taught). Fitting procedures developed and/or supported by the likes of Wishon, Tutelman, and others, as well meaning as they might be, are some of the poorest equipment-fitting procedures ever developed for any activity, clearly devised by those lacking experiences, skills, and/or insights in relevant activities.
Virtually all of the clubfitting schools and/or organizations from which many current clubfitters have gotten their “credentials” have long since folded, and with very good reason(s). Larger entities (including club manufacturers), frequently forming their own fitting methodologies, can be even worse. A printout of club specification values based on the fitting programs of any of these entities is usually a recipe for disaster if followed (proven more appreciably if and when answers to the above questions are presented).
If the producers of Saturday Night Live for example really got wind of how truly farcical the clubfitting trade currently is and the reasons why (while the trade is actually trying to be quite serious), they would have such a field day with satirical skits at the expense of the golf industry that it would be some of the funniest material they have ever developed. And the industry as a whole is still digressing deeper into the mess it has created for itself. Ironically, the trade excels at giving the shaft so to speak to itself better than golfers.