|
Post by theswingengineer on Jul 2, 2013 7:34:57 GMT -5
I hope Richie doesn't mind me posting this here. I began writing it for the Newton Golf Institute forum, but life's too short. I'm a busy chap and only have enough time to contribute to one forum. I chose to join Richie's forum because not only do I enjoy Richie's work but also the forum contributors, you guys, have an open mind and respect for each other (most of the time ). Anyway, Jeff Mann emailed today letting me know I " still have a lot to learn about TGM" and kindly pointed out his latest contributions at the above forum. newtongolfinstitute.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=golfinstruction&action=display&thread=423 and newtongolfinstitute.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=golfinstruction&action=display&thread=464 if anyone's interested. This is my response to Mr Mann. "Afternoon Jeff, how are you? If in the future you'd like me to respond to your critiques of my Golfing Machine explanations I think it's only fair to me, and others on your forum, that you do so in the following way; "The Swing Engineer says < insert quote> and has referenced < insert TGM chapter> in doing so. I believe he is wrong because Mr Kelley says < insert TGM quote> in < insert TGM chapter>." You've refuted my explanations of The Golfing Machine's concepts without once referencing the book, providing the chapters and quotes from Mr Kelley, highlighting where I'm wrong and then why you disagree with me. All you've done is given your opinion. " The Swing Engineer is wrong because I believe...", " I disagree because I think..." type of thing. That kind of argument doesn't cut it with me. I make it very clear on my website, and when talking to folk on forums, not to trust what I say. Read the source material, look up the references I provide and make up your own mind. You on the other hand operate on a "I am right because I say so" policy. That's not the proper way to share your understanding, nor is relying on belittling ad hominems such as " The Swing Engineer is yet another person who audaciously believes that he understands the TGM book's concepts." or " How can the SE unilaterally/arbitrarily distort reality is such a self-serving manner?" to get across how right you are and how wrong I am. Show some respect to Mr Kelley's work, to the readers of your forum, and most of all to your own intelligence. Quote the book, share where those quotes come from, discuss what you think Mr Kelley means when he says "such and such". Do this and I will be happy to discuss The Golfing Machine with you. Until then, I'm not interested in your opinions. All the best, The Swing Engineer."
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 2, 2013 11:32:14 GMT -5
It's all opinion in the end, unless it's proven scientifically and even then there's differing opinions on that, even Kelly had his opinion on how he believes things worked aside from the classifications. That's how you have debates in golf, lot's of people have differing opinions. There's always the element of "I'm right and you are wrong" in these things, except some think they are always right. Along with the endless belt concept Kelly could have included a chapter on the endless debate concept!
|
|
|
Post by theswingengineer on Jul 2, 2013 13:21:26 GMT -5
It's all opinion in the end, unless it's proven scientifically and even then there's differing opinions on that, even Kelly had his opinion on how he believes things worked aside from the classifications. That's how you have debates in golf, lot's of people have differing opinions. There's always the element of "I'm right and you are wrong" in these things, except some think they are always right. Along with of the endless belt concept Kelly could have included a chapter on the endless debate concept! Hi RJ, hope you're keeping well! That's a good point well made. However, Jeff isn't disagreeing with the Aiming Point per se, he's disagreeing with my explanation of it. I welcome all disagreements and I'm happy to discuss my explanations with anyone. The problem is you can't have a discussion with someone when their argument is "you're wrong because I say so". I like what you say about a chapter dedicated to just the Endless Belt. But as Mr Kelley says in 1-H " The extreme brevity herein is dictated by the advantages of holding such voluminous information to a one volume handbook. Because of questions of all kinds, reams of additional details must be made available - but separately, and probably endlessly."
|
|
|
Post by rj on Jul 2, 2013 20:59:53 GMT -5
Hey there S.E. I understand Jeff Mann always "feels" he is right, but we know that feel and real are most times not the same thing. I was agreeing with you just so you know
|
|
|
Jeff Mann
Jul 4, 2013 7:45:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ericpaul2 on Jul 4, 2013 7:45:57 GMT -5
The impression I've developed after reading Jeff's posts on multiple forums over many years is that he has not and will not ever agree with what others write...period. Really no benefit in engaging in any exchange at all, it only extends the frustration.
There are many like him, he just happens to be one of the more prolific posters.
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Aug 5, 2013 12:43:54 GMT -5
The guy is too much. He posted last night that Bubba has a strong grip, and this morning he posts that Bubba has a neutral grip. Just like the annoying kid no one will play with, he will do or say anything to get attention. I bet he says that his dad is a secret agent!
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Aug 5, 2013 14:56:18 GMT -5
Preaching to the choir! Go to his forum and straighten him out I'm sure you can. You must know all about PA3 and how it works. Hmm.. is it already 5 years ago when I told those same things and made many videos about that. It seems Jeff Mann has learned a lot from me
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 5, 2013 15:01:51 GMT -5
Hardly! You thought good players were supinating early, and were told no one does that because they would whiff the ball because you don't understand PA3. Your whole theory is based on a move almost no one does and you finger torque the grip along with p.f. like you were told, you don't do pure p.f.
Iteach/Dan C. had to school you and a few others at wrx. on how PA3 works.
By the way show my house again somehow it got deleted......wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Aug 5, 2013 15:09:49 GMT -5
Hardly! You thought good players were supinating early, and were told no one does that because they would whiff the ball because you don't understand PA3. Your whole theory is based on a move almost no one does and you finger twist along with p.f. like you were told, you don't do pure p.f. Iteach/Dan C. had to school you and a few others at wrx. on how PA3 works. By the way show my house again somehow it got deleted......wonder why? That's total bullshit rj again. I get big fight with Kelvin and Jeffy just because I said Kelvin was wrong with that early supination. We have never had any other problems than that and that's just where the fight started. There is videos about two years back where I explain why you don't want to supinate. Not early or not late. Also in my own forum there is videos from beginning of may explaining just the same thing that JM now.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 5, 2013 15:20:35 GMT -5
You're in denial. But that's ok we all make mistakes but some of us admit them when shown the proof.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Aug 5, 2013 15:32:20 GMT -5
. It's your theory. Apparently you contradict yourself when the real facts are shown. You claimed you were not finger torquing the grip end when you were told you were not performing pure p.f. alone. You were told that you were using a combination of moves which you denied. I think Jeff Mann has proven you wrong again. There is no anatomical movement called finger torquing, at least not when they are already around the object. That movement is called palmar flexion in anatomy. And to claim me that I've said somewhere that players got early supination is just pure lie and totally opposite what I have said. So who is delusional??
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 5, 2013 15:38:01 GMT -5
Anyone can torque the grip end using the fingers as Jeff Mann showed. Pure p.f. does not involve a torquing of the grip end that would close the face angle it would deloft the clubhead, just like Jeff Mann showed.
You have no clue! Your video showing supination was an extreme example that you were told no good player does and that's a fact!
You claimed there is no supination at all, that's a fact!
Who is delusional? Take a good long look in the mirror!
|
|
|
Post by jeffy on Aug 5, 2013 16:07:08 GMT -5
I got through about 20 minutes and saw no holes, just some strawmen and some misinformation. Early supination will include palmar flexion, just as he eventually illustrates, and as you see in the swings of Gmac, Woodland and Hogan. He's dead wrong that supination doesn't close the face and just as wrong when he claims PF closes the face, but, at this point, who cares what he says? And this "finger torquing" stuff is fantasy. As Tapio says, we've been through all of this endlessly and Jeff Mann's latest video doesn't change anything.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 5, 2013 16:28:12 GMT -5
I got through about 20 minutes and saw no holes, just some strawmen and some misinformation. Early supination will include palmar flexion, just as he eventually illustrates, and as you see in the swings of Gmac, Woodland and Hogan. He's dead wrong that supination doesn't close the face and just as wrong when he claims PF closes the face, but, at this point, who cares what he says? And this "finger torquing" stuff is fantasy. As Tapio says, we've been through all of this endlessly and Jeff Mann's latest video doesn't change anything. Except not all use p.f. And p.f. alone doesn't close the face that's what I have said all along. You have to torque the grip end using finger pressure and that results in a p.f. wrist and a closing face angle. So you're wrong about " finger torquing" and Tapio is wrong about p.f. closes the face angle which you just said it doesn't. Someone isn't right here and it ain't me.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Aug 5, 2013 16:31:51 GMT -5
The only fantasies are Kelvin's and Tapio's and yours. Anyone can apply a finger pressure to torque the grip end of the club which will result in a closing face angle and that has absolutely nothing to do with pure p.f. in doing pure p.f. there is no finger pressure applied to the grip end that results in a closing face angle. It's a combination of those moves the finger torquing the grip end will result in a p.f. of the wrist and torque the face closing. But you can just p.f. with no finger pressure torquing the grip end and all that will do is layoff the club under plane or deloft it depending when it's done. I think even you said Tapio was using his fingers to torque the club. You guys are in denial LOL.. you really got no idea about this... not at all. I can't understand how someone can be that mean and stupid at the same time. Can't you really understand around what axis PF is done and there is no way to avoid fingers moving with that. This is totally insane...
|
|