TGM Bashing and Praising

[Richie3Jack]

One of the worst bashings of TGM I had ever heard came from the BM site when a poster there basically said that Homer Kelley 'got lucky' because all he did was 'guess' thru observation and that wasn't 'real science.' I had to inform him that observation is how most scientists do their work. If a chemist wants to invent a drug that cures a rash, they don't just use their know how and never test the drug on lab rats and observe their behavior. You more or less come up with a theory based up on what you know or think you know, then test it out on multiple subjects, observe and come up with your findings. Basic Scientific Research 101.

Unfortunately, that is what you run into over there with *some* of the posters. Brian wants to avoid talking TGM and for his reasons which are plausible, but many of his followers are quick to assume that TGM is completely wrong and useless, which I don't think even Brian believes is the case.

But like I posted earlier, that obsequious lapdog crap happens a lot on message boards (the SliceFixer example of followers claiming he had one of the best golf books ever that hasn't even been written takes the cake).

In my next blog post I will go into a part of TGM that I believe is inaccurate on some level, but still helpful for golfers and teachers to understand. But I will show directly why I think it is inaccurate to some degree.





3JACK

[TeddyIrons]

Jan 25, 2010 10:38:33 GMT -5 gmbtempe said:

you mean like Hogan and his stance diagram.

I would be interested to see a bunch of people on his board at the range trying to swing left, I don't think people understand what he means because its not being explained with any clarity. I bet we would be seeing a bunch of OTT moves.

The thing about BM is that he seems to be intentionally vague. I agree, I've never understood what he means by swinging left, and personally, I don't think "swinging left" is the right term - more like "aiming left" - that is, if I've understood what he means.

[Richie3Jack]

Jan 26, 2010 1:47:56 GMT -5 TeddyIrons said:

The thing about BM is that he seems to be intentionally vague. I agree, I've never understood what he means by swinging left, and personally, I don't think "swinging left" is the right term - more like "aiming left" - that is, if I've understood what he means.

It's not 'aiming left' at all, even BM has stated that. He says you *can* aim left to help you swing left. It's basically keeping the club on plane past impact into the finish. NYC Lagster wrote a nice post about it on his blog (http://gothamgolfblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/swinging-left.html)

The more I read and the more I understand it the more I think that basically BM and his instructors, darome guys, Lag, and SliceFixer are essentially trying to get their students to do the same thing, just how they go about teaching it is different.

I agree with the method as the more I read the much less I am a fan of horizontal hinging, which almost guarantees the golfer will be swinging out to the right to some degree, but I also think it's a loss of control of the clubface past impact which makes a lot of sense of what Lag Erickson thinks about 'swinging.'





3JACK

[dodger]

Manzella is hardly a TGM basher. He is a doctorate level TGM instructor who obviously has spent a lot of his teaching life learning the book. This is a forty year old book, done before high speed video, software programs... Persimmon woods, steel shafts with steps, no frequency matching. Homer never had the opportunity to change the book with scientific advances, he would have made some revisions. I love the book, literally I read part of it every day, and even rereading something I pick things up. Brian is aggressive and outspoken, but rightfully so. I have visited his site regularly for five years, and have never heard him criticize the book as a whole. I had a top 100 instructor denigrate the golfing machine as a method. This is ignorance at its finest. In any event, we all are looking for answers, who cares where they come from if they work. I enjoy this site even though Richie3 likes a flat swing and hits, where I am trying to swing more upright. I still learn a lot from the blog and forum. The book is a toolbox for instructors, that is in the preface. Nothing says the toolbox was designed with no room for new tools.

[Richie3Jack]

Jan 26, 2010 14:40:03 GMT -5 dodger said:

I enjoy this site even though Richie3 likes a flat swing and hits, where I am trying to swing more upright. I still learn a lot from the blog and forum.

Welcome aboard, dodger.

My question is do you prefer an upright backswing or a upright downswing.

I have really no preference when it comes to the backswing, but I do think you'll be more consistent with a flatter downswing.





3JACK

[dodger]

My backswing tends to be flat, and I flatten it even more on the downswing. I have a drop move at the top that is tough to get rid of. I come into the ball below the elbow plane which really effects my shots. I am trying to have my downswing on the turned shoulder plane, that feel tends to get me to the elbow plane. Your setup ideas have helped a lot 3jack. I am bending over more and trying to get away from the ball. Shoulders working steeper, the club does not tend to shallow as much. What I am trying to do is swing like Tom Watson.

[dodger]

Nope, still incorporating some of it, mainly the hip slide on the downswing. I am trying to feel more over the baqll on the downswing, with the club going up the plane after impact, which feels like its going left. Similar to how I hit it when you gave me the lesson. That's the best I hit it in two years easily. We have to get to the dome Kev!

[dodger]

I will try to make it some monday when its quiet at the office. Thanks Kevin.

[imperfectgolfer]

3jack

You wrote-: "I have really no preference when it comes to the backswing, but I do think you'll be more consistent with a flatter downswing."

Why do you think that a golfer will be more consistent with a flatter downswing?

Jeff.

[Richie3Jack]

Jan 29, 2010 23:57:04 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

3jack

You wrote-: "I have really no preference when it comes to the backswing, but I do think you'll be more consistent with a flatter downswing."

Why do you think that a golfer will be more consistent with a flatter downswing?

Jeff.

I agree with Lag Erickson that the margin for error with upright swings is less. I don't quite agree that you can 'never swing too flat' as he likes to mention...but I think he's getting that at a 'feel isn't real' type of thought there.

The way the club is designed is probalby the big part of it. Designers have made clubs more upright in order to get golfers away from slicing it, which sort of shows the hazards of an upright downswing.

I thought Lag brought up a good point of how difficult it is to come over the top from an lie with the ball well above your feet. Plus, from experience it feels much easier to 'swing left' coming down from the elbow plane than it does the TSP.

Of course, you have to go with what is best for you. Nicklaus swung down on the TSP and wouldn't have been Nicklaus if he swung on the elbow plane. The general 'book' on Nicklaus was he was super long and very good with everything until about an 8 or 9-iron and lower and was mediocre by Tour standards (also supposedly a horrible bunker player). I don't think consistent ballstriking was Nicklaus' forte by any means, I just think he was reallly really really great with a lot of his clubs in his bag and the clubs he struggled with were short irons and I'd still take him and his length having to hit a PW into a hole when the rest of the field was hitting a 6-iron. And then he was a really good putter as well.

Lastly, while I am a novice at understanding it, I do question on how well upright downswings create angular momentum.





3JACK



3JACK

[teacherfitter]

I am new to this forum and do peruse several forums. I see golf and it's instruction much like a supermarket (I see a lot of things I like and other things I do not, I only use those things I like and test some of the others). Never have cared much for someone who attempts to build themselves up by tearing someone or something down. That approach insults the intelligence of the reader and is unbecoming and unprofessional. State your facts, reasons and or beliefs and be done with it.
Richie it appears you are able to absorb from several sources and seperate the Wheat from the Chaff, for that I applaud you and others on this forum who appear to do likewise.
Fred

[Richie3Jack]

Welcome aboard, Fred. Look forward to hearing more from you.



3JACK

[imperfectgolfer]

I think that an upright swing will produce less variation in clubface angle at impact if a golfer's timing is slightly off.

You wrote-: " Designers have made clubs more upright in order to get golfers away from slicing it, which sort of shows the hazards of an upright downswing."

I do not understand this point. Could you please elaborate on this point?

I would imagine that golf club manufacturers design golf clubs so that they are optimal for a golfer who swings on an inclined plane that is close to the elbow plane through impact (which is the most frequent impact plane used by most golfers).

Jeff.

[Richie3Jack]

Jan 30, 2010 12:32:11 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

You wrote-: " Designers have made clubs more upright in order to get golfers away from slicing it, which sort of shows the hazards of an upright downswing."

I do not understand this point. Could you please elaborate on this point?

I would imagine that golf club manufacturers design golf clubs so that they are optimal for a golfer who swings on an inclined plane that is close to the elbow plane through impact (which is the most frequent impact plane used by most golfers).

Jeff.

First, let's look at the some old specs of golf clubs from the 70's.

www.benhogan.com/legacy/irontour/images/70c_specs.jpg

Here's a look at the specs of Callaway Diablo Edge irons.

www.callawaygolf.com/Global/en-US/Products/Clubs/Irons/DiabloEdgeIrons/Specifications.html

You're seeing that the Callaways are about 2* more upright. I do think they got the shaft lengths slightly wrong on the Hogan's. My 1963 Hogan IPT 5-iron measures at 37.5", not 37.75".

IIRC, Tom Wishon says that for every 1/2" of shaft length added or taken off a club, that equals 1* of lie angle.

So, let's just say that the vintage Hogan blades play a total of 3* flatter in the end (2* flatter lie angle + 1/2" less of shaft length).

I think this more upright lie angle is used to help out with golfers who make that deadly, OTT move 'wipe.' And I think what the upright lies do is just help further ingraine that deadly, OTT 'wipe.'

If you look on any range in the country almost every golfer with a higher handicap does not have a flat downswing or a downswing that is too flat that it's causing a problem. I don't think it's a coincidence and I certainly don't think it's a coincidence that golf clubs are built with more upright lies and longer shafts either.





3JACK



3JACK

[jerryg]

I am 64 and for the past few years have slipped into a total golf funk. Once an iron was in my hands I was lost. A little over a year ago KevCarter put me onto TGM. I went from seeking tips and quick answers to studying TGM. A few lessons with Kev and a day with Yoda has me back on track. I now actually look forward to making some money off the same guys that have been sending a cab for me. Having a structure and a process has been golden. TGM has provided that for me.