Could it be that ams and hacks have decided or realized
that the secret to golf is that there is no secret and
that knowledge spoils the search for the grail?

If there is "work" involved here do we really want to
pursue it?

Are all the theories used up now and nothing new is possible?

Can there be no further insight into Blake?

I recall reading that back in the 1890's there was some consideration given to shutting down the U.S. Patent Office because it seemed as though every truly novel idea had already been uncovered. Then some people started looking at the world in a different way and the floodgates of innovation and advancement were opened once again.

Blake writes that his swing principles provide a way to improve one's game continuously over a long period of time. I think that he may be correct. The question is whether each of us has a ceiling through which we can not penetrate no matter how much we practice. If so, then as you postulate there may be no "secret" and no "grail". All that remains would be hard work.

As for me, I think there is a secret. There is no need to close down the Patent Office. I think we just need to start looking at the golf swing in a different way.

Tom

I surmise there is a 'secret' to the golf swing but which is not contained in Blake's books or any other golf book that I have read. It seems to me that elite golfers instinctively grasp the swing's essence, usually in childhood, but are unable to convey it to others--at least not in a way that others can grasp and successfully emulate it. Could it be that many of them don't know exactly what they are doing? My guess is that the true nature of the skill is something analogous to riding a bicycle or catching a fly ball--what some would call 'right-brain' skills. But then almost anyone can learn to ride a bike, at least to acquire the basic nature of that skill, but less than one percent of golfers are able to swing a golf club elitely. So the 'secret' must be something very subtle. If someone eventually does discover a way to logically convey that 'secret' to ordinary mortals, the game would, I think, become much more interesting and satisfying as the level of play among amateurs increased.

As we all know, Mindy thought he had discovered a qualitatively different way of swinging a club, ie, using the legs as the engine of the swing and transmitting energy to the hands through relaxed and stretched muscles between the legs and hands. Over the three years that we've been exchanging ideas we have surely covered even the most minute aspects of the reflex swing. So there's nothing left to discuss, right? Maybe. How about this? (1) Blake's swing was elite but it was actually a conventional swing with legs' role being to stabilize the upper body which was the true engine of his swing. What does the Mike Douglas show swing reveal, ie, are his legs doing all the work? (2) Is Blake the only golf theorist who advocated or advocates an active role of the legs only in the downswing? In my opinion only John Redman in "Essentials of the Golf Swing" comes close to Mindy's main notion. (3) One attraction of Blake's swing is his claim of extraordinary straightness. He thought it had to to with keeping his clubface square to the target line throughout the swing, resulting in up to 18 inches of squareness through the hitting zone. Referring again to the Mike Douglas show swing, did he, in fact, keep his clubface square to target line throughout, and does this correctly explain straightness of ball flight? SD