Taylor’s Mechancis is exceptionally well written as compared to the other popular mechanics books at about this same level (Kleppner, Morin). However, the book is unrigorous in both its use of mathematics (after all, it's a physics book!) and its treatment of physics, especially angular rotation and the variational dynamics. That makes it a good follow up to something like Halliday for students who are content to use math and do physics heuristically; that is to say, for most engineering and science students, this book makes for a good, gentle introduction to advanced topics in dynamics.<br><br>However, Taylor is not suitable as a either and introductory or intermediate text in mechanics for students interested in graduate studies which will depend on this material. Kleppner rigorously derives the classical physics theorems in limited cases, using rigorous but elementary calculus, making it a more suitable introduction to the subject. Morin unrigorously derives the classical physics theorems in generality using huristic vector calculus, making it a much more suitable follow up to Kleppner and prerequisite to Goldstein (which is the standard doctoral text).<br><br>Notice, though, that Taylor covers significantly more topics than Kleppner and Morin combined. This is in the nature of things: heuristic examples are easier to explain than theorems and proofs, which affords Taylor the time to introduce some amazing applications of the theory, for example nonlinear dynamics and fluid dynamics. If you are looking for a cohesive introduction to these tangential topics, and are content to do things heuristically, there might not be a better book than Taylor.<br><br>I scored Morin 4/5 because it is the only book at this level which provides a rigorous accounting of physics of angular dynamics in the general case.  However, the chatty style--not just the random poems, but also in the excessive number of casual “remarks” throughout--detracts from the physics.  In particular, the chapter on Lagrangian Mechanics is terribly written.  There again, the treatment is more correct but less clear than in Taylor, but in this instance the line of argumentation is nearly unintelligible on a first reading.<br><br>However, it should be noted that almost no books prove, in the special cases where such a proof is possible, that Newtonian and Lagrangian physics are equivalent.  They all, for whatever reason, simply argue the “if” or the “only if” part of the correspondence.  In reality, Morin should probably deal with Lagrangian physics as he does angular physics:  break it into two chapters, the first dealing with the most important special case (Cartesian degrees of freedom), the second dealing with the general case (generalized degrees of freedom).  As it stands, none of the introductory Lagrangian Mechancis books, including Goldstein, do this--however, Goldstein is at least explicit enough with the definitions so that the untreated correspondence can easily be worked out by a student on a first reading.<br><br>Furthermore, it should be noted that the treatment of Special Relativity follows the “curious paradox” line of reasoning, rather than the “homomorphic equations” line of reasoning.  This is the standard, but by definition it is unintuitive.  Since physical--in particular, mechanical and electrical--intuition is of paramount importance in the study and application of physics, I also think this standard treatment is rather useless.  Physics Professors seem to insist on treating Special Relativity after Classical Mechanics but before Classical Electromagnetism, which precludes the line of argumentation which seemed to inspire Einstein in the first place:  that Maxwell's Equations, including the constant factors, ought to have the same form under suitable changes of coordinates.  For this reason, I think the best treatments of special relativity can be found in books like Griffiths and Jackson, rather than books like Morin and Taylor.  (Indeed, Taylor explicitly refers the reader to Griffiths, which is ridiculous since both books deploy the same mathematical machinery).