Bridging A Gap
Resolving an Issue of Ownership with Minimum Aspersion
KeyGolf's Position
Golf Improvement Techniques: Original or Facsimile? |
| GIT
continues to make changes in their website. These changes
include secreting their sources and preventing scruntiny
pending purchase of their "books." Current date and time of our posting: 10-21-07 9:26 a.m. Detected changes: They have moved from requiring a paid membership for the "Automatic" section and alterations in their wording in other areas and replaced that with "three books," the last of which is touted thus: "and finally - Become A "Player" - Learn the real truth about being able to take your game from the practice tee and out on to the golf course. This is how you learn to get confident and be the proud owner of a consistent golf game. If you've ever wondered how to perform your best under pressure, then this is it!" We know for a fact that Strachan could not have come up with that without taking it directly from our materials, as our correcpondance clearly indicates. Now he says he's advertising in Golf Digest, which means that they (GD) do not know they are advertising plagiarized content Failing Response from Golf Science, we are continuing our comparative review that we began on 12/2/05 - 8:25 AM CDT |
| 10/21/07: It really requires no
genius to note that their continuing scrambling to
disguise and/or hide what they are doing is a rather
transparent method of pretense. Instead of just amusing,
however, it now lends itself to "amazing." Added 12/14/05: We are amused by the hypocrisy of their "Privacy Policy," which we just copied from their website (below). It keeps getting deeper and deeper, as we used to say in the cow pasture, that is, unless they have changed what they are hiding behind their 7.95 monthly "subscription." It certainly makes sense to us to protect anything one is holding without authorization. In some circles that would be referred to as "hiding on suspicion of theft." Golf Science “Privacy Policy” quotation from their website:
Now we can't wait to see their trick pony. (Our sarcasm is intentional! If nothing else, hopefully we will embarrass them). |
We may be mistaken, but we nevertheless have evidence that the owners of the Golfimprovementtechniques website have used that vehicle to publish material drawn directly from our KeyGolf books, newsletters, profile support forms and articles that appear on our clearkeygolf.com website. And unless our vision is blemished, that has happened without our permission and without clearly and specifically documenting sources. We may be off-base, but we believe that to be a violation of good taste at best, and encroachment of personal property at worst.
It is possible that we have miscalculated, but we perceive such actions as clearly demonstrating a belief that it is acceptable to reproduce 25 years of study, research and development belonging to someone else, as though it were their own, so we elect to respond to that thoroughly, completely, forthrightly with a mind to cleanse the record.
When we first saw their web presentation, we were struck by disbelief. We heard the sounds of our own words, saw the evidence of our own message and mission, found material that even minor research would show could only have come from us, and a signature that was totally their's. Since they had promised to credit our work with anything they produced, we were all the more surprised.
| -----
Original Message ----- From: Cameron Strachan Hi Carey, I have been involved in a major scientific study of the golf swing as a golf consultant. My swing was actually used as one of the models to help understand exactly what happens during the golf stroke. (see Pic attached) Anyway, I have some excellent info and have decided to publish the work. I have spent a considerable amount of time translating the info into golf speak so the average golfer can understand it. I want to make the program different from all of the other instructional books etc that are out there, so I have decided to include a portion on my experience with the mental game. This would also include your clear key approach. I believe I have two options,
I believe this would be a unique product, provide accurate information on the golf swing, combined with the best mental data on how to learn it and take it to the golf course. I have a background in marketing golf products and feel my experience would make this project a success. I also want to be upfront with you because you have been a great help with my golf.I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Cameron
Strachan From:
Carey Mumford [mailto:keygolf@charter.net] Cameron: Interesting, if so. I'm also a lefty (at least was always "known" as that), but play golf and tennis right, bowl, throw, bat and kick left, write and eat right. (No wonder my ideas are unusual) LOL Later, ***************** From:
Cameron Strachan Carey,
After thinking about the options this is my plan, 1. Advertise the clearkey system (double
connexion) in a golf magazine here, something like this, Discover the insider secrets to a
consistent, reliable and automatic golf game. I am working on the ad copy, this is where you give golfers exactly what they want. Better swing, consistent game, beat their buddies etc. I will put together a couple of options and send them through for you to look at. 2. Include The New Mechanics in package. This is the results from the scientific study, includes, ‘The Downswing Move of the Future’ (magic move), ‘Flat Spot Principle’, ‘Big Toe Theory’ and ‘Where Power comes from’. This is very accurate information and has been very well received from golf professionals and the golfing public that has seen it. 3. Include playing profile as a bonus. This will enable people to get the ‘complete package’. I feel this would be an excellent product and would enable one to improve their golf game better than most other products out there. Naturally would have to work out a fair and reasonable remuneration for you. The product could be sold as a CD-Rom or
directly over the Internet. I want to start small (in I also have a background in Internet marketing and think it could sell exceptionally well through that medium. I also know that when you have a great product and market it well it can go absolutely ballistic! Let me know if this sounds like something you are interested in. Thanks again for your help. Regards Cameron Cameron StrachanGolf Science Australasia Pty
Ltd |
Before we began to compose this site, and after their webpage went up, further exchange of email with GIT took place, and following that, we noted at least two separate edits in their webpages. On the heels of our challenge of what seemed to us a lack of even normal literary attention to sources, they managed to add a couple of general, non-specific acknowledgements of our work, along with the same for about two dozen others. As we see it, almost no attention is given to a specific connection between any of those sources and what they indicate are their findings, except where they showed disagreement with a source. Determining which part of "GIT's" content is, and is not, attributable to any particular one of those more than 24 sources could require careful study of all of them.
In our eyes, "GIT's" findings, as claimed on their website, reflect an almost symbiotic match to the principles, formations and designs in our work, which, under close observation, will be found reasonably evident.
It is one thing to be "influenced" by others and from that influence, go on to actual original conclusions. That's moving forward. It is another thing entirely to claim "influence" and then proceed with virtual copies of someone else's work, as it appears to have happened.
Of course, we don't doubt that they have been looking for awhile. Otherwise it would appear unlikely that they would have found our material. Their acquisition of three of our books came on March 3, 2005, after "seeing our remarks on a golf forum." Over time since then, more than 30 emails have given account of their "new" experiences with our process and what they were learning, pointing to positive impressions of our work and a desire to promote it for us. So assuming that is what constitutes "research," indeed, they have been doing some.
As far as we can see, that does not add up to any privilege or right to claim originality of what they now present. But we prefer that our perception not be the only one. So we urge readers here to take note of what they say. Then compare that picture, which they indicate is based on their 12 years of study and research, with no more than what you can find on our website. If that needs more light, look in our books, which show a process that began 25 years ago, and took substantial effort on our part to bring it together. You will find evidence of our work at clearkeygolf.com
As we see it, the comparative task is made easier by virtue of the reality that little, if any, content even remotely similar to our work, is apparent, in principle or program, in any of the other "sources" listed by GIT. That similarity only shows on their pages and our's. There are, however, a few books and papers that preceded GIT, not listed by GIT who have given proper reference when they cited us, and certainly, proper reference is acceptable, as we have indicated. even from GIT.
So, without malice, we hasten to add that we have not been able to find any complete work, even arguably like the singular finished program we have created, in a golf world replete with incomplete programs. None of the others that we have seen are incorrect, as far as they go. They simply do not show the final touches on the issues that would have culminated in an active process involving "How" the mental game is applied. That is one of the measures that reinfoces our view concerning "where" GIT found their imagery. We also note that, apparently, GIT does have, and present their own findings concerning the physical (or mechanical) side of the game, but that is not part of what concerns us here.
We can, if need be, demonstrate that our work on the mental game is the marked exception to the traditional rule. That statement has never been challenged by any of the large number of players who have sought our help, while many have sent us confirmation and validation to that effect. Until we found a necessity for this website, the message to us from Golf Science's Cameron Strachan was one that said, in effect, "Where has this been and why has it been largely left out by the golf industry and by golfers?" So we had no reason until recently to have any doubtful concern about his intentions.
Even as we read it, their web presentation has shown enough to "sound good," notwithstanding omission of some essential details, which leaves them short of complete information. Before concluding that this makes any or everything OK, what their omissions suggest to us is a compromise of our work in a different way. Unless one has a command of the principles and issues, it may not be possible to fill in the "blanks," distinguish the missing portions, or differentiate between what is present and what is missing, though any venture through the sources may be a lure for some to go "back to school."
The way the situation comes across to us is that they may have pushed their own impulsive button, hoped their "new" website would provide promotion of their programs, and in so doing disregarded relationships and unsolicited promises they made to us that preceded their presentation. So in our view, their trespass may be no more than a product of over-zealousness, but a matter, nonetheless, that we would be remiss in overlooking.
| Meanwhile, if you wish to find your
way into the automatic process with a thorough, well
defined and completed process, you will do well to
investigate further by going to the source - KeyGolf. Likewise, if you wish to understand and utilize what it means to become a "Master," (which is their synonym for our "mastery level" in learning), you will find that on our website, in our paper "Reaching the Fourth Dimension in Golf," which is about the habit learning and mastery level. If you want the complete picture of our carefully designed "32 Ball" drill, based on learning research, which is a full featured method for practicing, learning and installing new motor skills and habits into your game, you will need to review our findings rather than any imprecise, "adjusted" version. As we see it, any "lite" rendition of the "automatic"principle that is fractional and less detailed than ours, even where the connection seems evident, will not finally deliver a full measure of success to players. The only place that will be found in finished form is in our books and on our website. As for the issues around anxiety, which golf-related concerns only get a nod in golf literature, we doubt that it is possible to come upon that information and ensuing program for management without the articles on our website or a background in the synthesis of psychological and physiological issues that no one else appears to have noticed, or at least that no one else has published in its entirety. And if, in fact, as they infer, GIT previously engaged in independent work in any of the aforementioned arenas, the content of their emails to us would have been expected to carry a considerably different tone. |
So our perception is marked by two plausible signs - duplication of our effort and programs, and fragmentation of information through paraphrasing and missing the mark. Either way, in our eyes, that compromises the value of what belongs to us. Certainly, we want others to know about the "How's" of the mental game, and we shared that with GIT willingly, as well as with many others who have taken advantage of our books, but that does not include, or warrant, the behavior that has presently shown itelf.
Second hand is rarely as good as "first," and imitations are generally flawed in some way. We like the fact that what we have produced is viewed as worth the effort to reproduce it. We just have trouble with how that was done in this case.
We do not argue against the availability and use of researched material and findings of others, unless and until that use fails precisely noted source credit, as in footnotes or use of quotation marks, also credited to a legitimate source. It only requires abiding by the normal rules of literary integrity. We have experienced difficulty in finding that in this instance, though after we made our view known to them, they did enter a number of additional names, including ours, but in a generalized list that makes it impossible for observers specifically to link "their" words and the sources of those words, even if one were previously familiar with all the authors they list.
It is not, again in our view, a matter of available information. Everyone is entitled to use all the words in the dictionary. It is how those word are arranged that makes the difference. The same is true of action oriented processes and procedures. It is the originality of the architecture that is at issue here. We confess to having a problem with anyone who takes over someone else's dwelling without benefit of reason or service of an eviction notice. In this matter, our arrangement of principles and research have been used by another without permission from us, and, though it may be the case, perhaps innocently, sought to claim it as their own. We have had neither reason nor notice from them, except thinly, after the fact.
Perhaps unwarranted, we also felt the sting of their assertion that all of this should be "given away," which we suppose is fine, assuming it came "free" in the first place, but we have paid a rather high price in time and energy to produce something of value for the entire golf population. We confess that it does stretch our imagination to have someone volunteer to give away something that they do not own. Beneficence, is certainly a desireable trait, but if that became the "rule of thumb," then we suppose we'd need to encourage all service providers to quit monetary exchange and become benefactors of the world.
[Here we note and insert, parethetically, as of today, 11/30/05, however, we find them now charging a monthly fee for their second-hand rendition of our automatic principle and process presentation. If you want the entire program, you can have it from the "horse's mouth" for the price of one book and a bonus of your personal/playing profile to go with it.]
But, please, if you care about such things, visit their site, and then ours, or vice versa. Study both. Don't stop with one.
The entire matter leaves us with more questions about the limits of our own trust of others than we care to consider, and we have provided a glimpse of the under- or overtones which may have led us off the path of that trust including their request to enroll with us to become certified in our "Clear Key" process. That, along with testimonials concerning what they had been learning from us surely by-passed any untoward concerns we might have had. It further puzzles us that now, however, they say they knew the same things we arrived at all along. We surmise that if that were the case, the emails we received from them would not have said otherwise. The following past exchanges may allow making one's own judgments.
| From: "Cameron Strachan" <camerons@golfscience.com.au> > Date: 2005/03/10 Thu AM 4:38GMT > To: "Carey Mumford" <keygolf@charter.net> > Subject: feedback Hi Carey, Thought I would drop you a line and let you know that I have thoroughly enjoyed going through the issues of ‘one under par’. It is
refreshing to read such profound but simple wisdom on the
game of golf. It is also fun putting it into practice. I feel that your information has enabled me to fill in some of the gaps that I experience in both my play and in helping others reach a higher level of play. I have found much humour in your writing style, particularly when it comes to your way of having a dig at conventional instruction. You do so without insult which is a real talent. I have tried many theories both technical and mental in my quest for a better game. I appreciate fully what you say, especially with respect to all of the ‘experts’ out there telling us what is wrong without telling us how to fix anything. It reminds me of my clash with the PGA education system when I said “but how do we teach this stuff?” The National Coaching Coordinator reply was “they have to work it out for themselves. It is only our job to diagnose the problem”. I also
had a good laugh with your comments about golf
commentators. This has been a pet hate of mine for some
time. There is a well known commentator here in It is a shame that conventional wisdom has a monopoly on golf instruction worldwide despite the fact that so many people struggle to play anywhere close to their potential. I am sure the tide is turning but it is probably going to be a slow process. Anyway I thank you again for your work and I look forward to learning more from you. I would especially like to learn more about behaviour styles. Regards **************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Cameron Strachan Hi
Carey, I have been very busy with other projects and have had little time for golf or coaching. I am still very interested in learning more about the automatic process and human behavior styles. I have noticed that you have updated your ‘distance education’ section on your website and would like to take this opportunity to see if it is possible to undergo further training/education with you? I have really enjoyed the last few months of getting back to just playing golf without any interference. I also hope with more training I will be able to further assist others with their golfing goals. I look forward to hearing from you Kind
regards **************** From:
Carey Mumford [mailto:keygolf@charter.net] Cameron: Greetings. I see no reason that would prevent doing what you want to do. The only real variable for completing the program lies in the time frames aavailable (Some can do it in shorter time and others take longer, but that is only a matter of individual circumstance). The fee structure has a practical foundation, based on my average of about 3-4 hours a month for communicating and evaluating progress. (At this point, I simply flat rate that monthly, which also "assumes" a one year structure for completion. If the student needs more time, that does not add to it. In other words, the total comes out the same. If it's less time, the total also remains the same). It isn't introduced in the
description on the website (as a task), but the best way
to start, if you want to pursue this, is for you to
spend a little time drafting a "white paper"
that gives your own reflections about the first eight
items listed under "Basic Issues" on the
website. Then I will have a better handle on where to
start with you, since everyone has a little different
background and experience and I am not "hot"
for carrying coals to Later, |
To be thorough, we add one final note at this time, reflecting GIT's response to our initial concern about their website content, though more is available if needed.
| ----- Original Message ----- From: Cameron Strachan To: 'Carey Mumford' Sent:Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:31 PM Subject: RE: Update Carey, I have spent considerable time changing the website (this was done last Thursday and Friday) to acknowledge you and other people that have influenced my thinking and approach to playing golf. There are a number of links to your website and also... A Carey Mumford bio page and instances where I speak about you in glowing terms. I strongly urge people to visit your site and purchase your E-books. Considering my website receives up to 700-800 visitors per day you should start benefiting from this traffic immediately. I’m not sure what else I can do. Regards Cameron *************** Our Response to Cameron, in part, to the above: I
guess we are seeing things much differently. I would much
prefer to be gentile, but I am definitely not in that
mood. While I was away, I did think there was something
to preserve, but that has now taken a downward turn. That leaves your content appearing (at least, to me) as no more than a cursory copy of my book, an evaluation that I believe I am singularly qualified to make. Others won’t have that facility. Their perception will be based on what you wrote, not their research of my material. They won’t make that connection, even if they visit my website. You use my words, with some carefully chosen synonyms, but that’s about it as far as your own originality goes. If you decide to choose accuracy in your reporting, you can at least enter a disclaimer that the principle concepts (pertaining to my work) did not originate with you, so I don’t have to do that in some other way. (That’s at least one thing more you can do). Sincerely,
|
Your Comments are Welcome, at least by us: clearkey@gmail.com
We cannot speak for them , but if you choose to comment to them: camerons@golfscience.com.au
