|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 15, 2013 23:16:03 GMT -5
Can you link something in real text so we are not guessing at straw man type arguments? Preferably from a TGM literate person and not someone who posts an opinion on a forum(such as myself) but someone who is a TGM expert? Do you expect ME to waste my time to look over these silly TGM fora to bring some examples ? Think a bit. Go to TGM-influenced fora and see the diarhaea. The point is that they cannot decide themselves what's going on. Cheers I believe Hogan swing hit if that makes you feel better. I honestly don't think in those terms though anymore, and feel their importance were greatly overstated by followers of TGM.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 16, 2013 0:49:42 GMT -5
Greg,
I think that undertanding TGM mechanics is a major key to understanding how skilled golfers (like Hogan) perform a full golf swing efficiently. I specifically think that the intact LAFW/FLW concept is the key concept that makes most professional golfers' swings intellectually understandable. I am aware that Dariusz is anti-TGM as I have read many of his posts over many years, and I think that his lack of understanding of TGM mechanics is a major deficit in his overall understanding of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. I wouldn't dream of arguing with him about this issue, because it would be a complete waste of time.
By the way, I can easily accept that Hogan was a swing-hitter (using my definition) rather than a TGM swinger, but he is definitely not a TGM hitter. We will never know for certain whether he was a swinger, or a swing-hitter, because he is not available for testing, so debates about the "true" reality re: Hogan's swing mechanics will never end. There is no "objectivity" when it comes to personal opinions regarding the underlying mechanics of Hogan's swing, but there is instead an infinite plethora of subjective opinions.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 16, 2013 7:31:12 GMT -5
Greg, I think that undertanding TGM mechanics is a major key to understanding how skilled golfers (like Hogan) perform a full golf swing efficiently. I specifically think that the intact LAFW/FLW concept is the key concept that makes most professional golfers' swings intellectually understandable. I am aware that Dariusz is anti-TGM as I have read many of his posts over many years, and I think that his lack of understanding of TGM mechanics is a major deficit in his overall understanding of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. I wouldn't dream of arguing with him about this issue, because it would be a complete waste of time. By the way, I can easily accept that Hogan was a swing-hitter (using my definition) rather than a TGM swinger, but he is definitely not a TGM hitter. We will never know for certain whether he was a swinger, or a swing-hitter, because he is not available for testing, so debates about the "true" reality re: Hogan's swing mechanics will never end. There is no "objectivity" when it comes to personal opinions regarding the underlying mechanics of Hogan's swing, but there is instead an infinite plethora of subjective opinions. Jeff. ROFL, Jeff. You have already proved with the post above that you cannot decide what is true. And you're right, it would be a complete waste of my time to deal with you on these issues. I just wanted to help you to become more useful for people. You don't want, so be it. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 16, 2013 9:56:36 GMT -5
Dariusz,
How can you help me be "more useful for people" by presenting your subjective opinions? I readily admit that I may have an incomplete understanding of Hogan's golf swing mechanics/biomechanics, but why should I believe that you have a better "objective" insight into Hogan's golf swing mechanics/biomechanics? I have read countless posts made by you regarding Hogan, and I have never read anything that seemed insightful or "objectively true".
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 16, 2013 10:15:12 GMT -5
Dariusz, How can you help me be "more useful for people" by presenting your subjective opinions? I readily admit that I may have an incomplete understanding of Hogan's golf swing mechanics/biomechanics, but why should I believe that you have a better "objective" insight into Hogan's golf swing mechanics/biomechanics? I have read countless posts made by you regarding Hogan, and I have never read anything that seemed insightful or "objectively true". Jeff. Jeff, Let me be frank to the bone. I'll never repeat it, so treasure it. Your abilities are far better than mine. You're a fully educated person with high intelligence. You can help people to choose what is really important while learning how to strike the ball. I mean it very seriously. Instead, you took a way of being enframed with a faulty system. Even the most genial people will never have the influence they should have if they are not able to break boundaries. When do you be ready to accept the thesis that yo shouldn't narrow to one source ? TGM is full of gold and is full of shit. You're between gold and shit. Now listen. Whatever I created in my BGST was aimed to help people, not profit on people. Many of my concepts are theoretical and not confirmed in reality. Some are useful, some might be thrown to trashcan surely. I would condemn people -- yes, me -- who idolize my concepts as well as I'd do as regards others. There is no f'n truth which we can rely on seriously. So why you have choosen a way to go out of the train on a particular station instead going further and learn and teach others ? Enough. I am in a very philosophic historic mode today. Perhaps I said a few words too many here and there. But remember, that I was NEVER your enemy, even when you wrote what you wrote about me. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 16, 2013 11:08:52 GMT -5
Dariusz,
You wrote-: "Instead, you took a way of being enframed with a faulty system."
That's pure BS!
I studied TGM intensely, and I only accepted certain TGM concepts that I think that are useful. However, I have rejected many TGM concepts (eg. hinging actions and the principle of maintaining a sense of constant lag pressure via PP#3) and I was also banned from LB's golf forum for constantly questioning the validity of many TGM concepts.
I have also independently expanded on certain TGM concepts eg. LAFW. There is only a 1/2 page in the TGM book on the flying wedges, and I have greatly expanded my thinking on the utility of playing golf with an intact LAFW in ways that HK didn't ever discuss.
I don't mind you rejecting TGM concepts, but I will only take you seriously if you can show that there are any flaws in my personal use of a select number of TGM concepts. You have never demonstrated that my use of TGM ideas is flawed, and that you have better way of thinking about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 16, 2013 11:26:47 GMT -5
Jeff,
...I will only take you seriously if you can show that there are any flaws in my personal use of a select number of TGM concepts
It is being already shown in this thread. You are not able to apply terms of swingers and hitters precisely. Letting it be as swing-hit concept is just a smoke screen. Greg summed it well in hist post saying: "I honestly don't think in those terms though anymore, and feel their importance were greatly overstated by followers of TGM".
Before responding, think a bit. How one can use these vague subjective concepts in learning golf ? It is like a driving teacher wanted to argue what arm is being used to turn the steering wheel. It is total bullshit, Jeff. Just turn the wheel and subconscious mind will take care of it.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 16, 2013 12:11:35 GMT -5
Dariusz,
You wrote-: "You are not able to apply terms of swingers and hitters precisely. Letting it be as swing-hit concept is just a smoke screen."
That's another wrong-headed comment that simply demonstrates your ignorance. I can clearly describe with great precision how a student golfer can perform either a swinging or hitting action. However, the reverse scenario is obviously not true - one cannot look at any particular golfer's swing action and unequivocally claim that he is swinging versus swing-hitting because one cannot measure any push-pressure forces being exerted by the right hand at either PP#1 or PP#3 by simply looking at swing videos. It would require laboratory testing to measure these push-pressure forces being exerted by the right arm/hand. However, any individual golfer can choose to be a swinger or swing-hitter when he learns how to execute the required specific biomechanical actions.
It is like driving a car. A driver can selectively choose to use any of his two hands to turn the steering wheel if both hands are placed on the steering wheel. However, one cannot look at a video of a driver turning a steering wheel and state unequivocally which hand is applying the steering wheel turning-force.
Regarding your idea of "leaving golf swing biomechanics" to the subconscious mind is a true reflection of your ignorance, because the subconscious mind has no rational way of knowing what represents sound golf swing biomechanics. If it did, then all golfers would become skilled golfers without any need for golf instructional teaching.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 16, 2013 12:53:03 GMT -5
Dariusz, You wrote-: " You are not able to apply terms of swingers and hitters precisely. Letting it be as swing-hit concept is just a smoke screen." That's another wrong-headed comment that simply demonstrates your ignorance. I can clearly describe with great precision how a student golfer can perform either a swinging or hitting action. However, the reverse scenario is obviously not true - one cannot look at any particular golfer's swing action and unequivocally claim that he is swinging versus swing-hitting because one cannot measure any push-pressure forces being exerted by the right hand at either PP#1 or PP#3 by simply looking at swing videos. It would require laboratory testing to measure these push-pressure forces being exerted by the right arm/hand. However, any individual golfer can choose to be a swinger or swing-hitter when he learns how to execute the required specific biomechanical actions. It is like driving a car. A driver can selectively choose to use any of his two hands to turn the steering wheel if both hands are placed on the steering wheel. However, one cannot look at a video of a driver turning a steering wheel and state unequivocally which hand is applying the steering wheel turning-force. Regarding your idea of "leaving golf swing biomechanics" to the subconscious mind is a true reflection of your ignorance, because the subconscious mind has no rational way of knowing what represents sound golf swing biomechanics. If it did, then all golfers would become skilled golfers without any need for golf instructional teaching. Jeff. Jeff, I guess I have overestimated you. Very much, judging on your ignorant comment regarding subconscious mind. Live in your narrow world. Ultimately, it is you who did it to yourself. Have fun,
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 16, 2013 13:13:38 GMT -5
Dariusz,
I feel the same way about you - I grossly overestimated you because I thought that you would be capable of making at least one rational comment about any topic relating to golf swing mechanics/biomechanics, but the "evidence" suggests the opposite. You have contributed an endless number of posts to this forum, but you have never succeeded in making at least one sensible comment.
Have fun with the BM groupies on the BM forum.
Jeff.
|
|