|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 9, 2013 10:04:35 GMT -5
BM is such a charlatan. Here is his latest thread at his BM forum. www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/18317-brian-manzella-golf-magazine-golf-com-kwon-como-pivot-adam-scott-style.htmlBM wrote-: " One of the three most important discoveries/explanations (Dr. Kwon and Chirs Como's not mine) in the history of golf instruction.
1. The Resultant Path — Fredrik Tuxen and Dr. Theodore Jorgenson. 2. The Hub (Hand) Path and three forces and torques — Dr. Steven Nesbit 3. GROUND REACTION FORCE VECTORS — DR. YOUNG-HOO KWON AND CHRIS COMO." BM defines the Kwon-Como pivot as follows. " KWON-COMO Pivot:
Step on the right foot—push up toward the right ear—push off the right foot to get the COP to the left—from the left foot, push up toward the left ear." He describes the KC pivot in the backswing in this video. www.golf.com/video/learn-adam-scotts-secret-power-moveBM acts like this is a major new discovery in the field of golf biomechanics. However, I described that recommended approach a number of years ago, and I even did a video on the topic when I was temporarily offering a Q&A video service to my website visitors. I have always decisively recommended a rightwards-centralised back swing action where one turns into one's right leg (rather over one's right leg). That allows one to push off the right foot at the start of the downswing while keeping the right buttocks against the tush line. The idea of stretching the right side of the torso as if one is pushing upwards towards the right ear is a stupid idea because it will promote reverse-pivoting - as seen in this Jason Zuback image. You can see that Jason Zuback is stretching out the right side of his body that promotes a reverse-pivot P4 position (image 1). I recommend doing what Jamie Sadlowski (image 2) and Ben Hogan (image 3) are doing - turning into one's right leg and performing a rightwards-centralised backswing action while maintaining the reverse-K angles (red lines in the Hogan photo). BM always wants to show that he is at the top-of-his-field and that he is up with the latest scientific developments in golf research, but he only demonstrates that he has a limited understanding of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. I demolished his "ideas about the three torques/forces involved in the hub path model" in a critical review paper, and I am still flabbergasted that so many BM groupies believe that one has to "go normal" between P6.5 to P7 in order to maintain the hand arc path. This right arm-only golfer can generate a perfectly adequate hand path - even though he doesn't have a left arm. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 10, 2013 8:25:13 GMT -5
I don't know how he can talk about Tuxen's 'discovery' of the resultant path and not give Mac O'Grady credit for that instead. I guess you need to have 'Dr.' in front of your name.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 10, 2013 11:33:15 GMT -5
I don't know how he can talk about Tuxen's 'discovery' of the resultant path and not give Mac O'Grady credit for that instead. I guess you need to have 'Dr.' in front of your name. 3JACK Maybe Mac should have published his findings and then he would of gotten credit. Kind of ridiculous thinking that Mac should get credit because of rumours that he knew this stuff 20 years ago. To get credit you need to put your findings out there for others to see and review in the light of scrutiny. That's the price you pay for acting like Howard Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 10, 2013 12:53:54 GMT -5
Maybe Mac should have published his findings and then he would of gotten credit. Kind of ridiculous thinking that Mac should get credit because of rumours that he knew this stuff 20 years ago. It's not a rumor. He was simply teaching this to people for a very long, long time. Plenty of people can testify to it and plenty of people have video of him discussing and demonstrating it. It's out there. Plenty of people have videotaped his work at schools, have shown it for others to see and have discussed this in their own teaching and have given Mac credit for what they learned. He didn't publish it himself, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he discovered this and taught it well before Tuxen. I think crediting Jorgensen for the 'resultant path' is a bit of a stretch although he deserves a ton of credit for his understanding of D-Plane. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 10, 2013 13:30:05 GMT -5
Richie -
So you're claiming Mac used the term resultant path? Or do you think Mac was the first guy to talk about the club path in 3D? Just because people talk about a topic doesn't mean they fully understand it, let alone the math behind this concept. Mac deserves no credit for keeping his information hidden. It's not like morad instructors are everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 10, 2013 13:32:12 GMT -5
I think it's a stretch trying to credit Mac with something that was a " secret" except to his followers.
He needed to bring it out, not hide it, that's how you get credit for something you discover.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 10, 2013 14:08:47 GMT -5
Richie - So you're claiming Mac used the term resultant path? Or do you think Mac was the first guy to talk about the club path in 3D? Just because people talk about a topic doesn't mean they fully understand it, let alone the math behind this concept. Mac deserves no credit for keeping his information hidden. It's not like darome instructors are everywhere. He didn't use the exact term 'resultant path'. Guess what? Neither did Jorgenson or Tuxen (it was coined by Mike Finney). But, he understood how the plane/swing direction and the path worked in conjunction with each other and he taught that to thousands of golfers, some of whom played on the Tour and won a major while working with him (i.e. Vijay). I don't see how it was a 'secret.' He taught it in all of his schools. Just because it was not actually published for print does not take away the fact that he understood it and taught it years ago. A 'secret' would be something like the instructor discovering something and only using it for their own golf swing...thus a 'secret' that is unknown to everybody else. Hogan had a 'secret', Mac didn't. You may not want to give him 'credit', but acting like it didn't happen is childish. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Sept 10, 2013 17:42:18 GMT -5
But, he understood how the plane/swing direction and the path worked in conjunction with each other and he taught that to thousands of golfers, 3JACK If you think O'Grady was the first golf instructor to understand the 3D path of the clubhead you must be pretty young. If it wasn't for people on the internet praising him for his teachings he would be like he was for many years, an obscure former tour pro turned teacher. The stuff that is written on internet golf forums can be horribly out of context and misleading along with all the egomaniacal bravado quarreling over who knows what and who has all the facts. It's like the crap the Stack & Tilt guys were slinging around several years ago about how the the face has to be "open" to hit a draw and "closed" to hit a fade. Bunch of morons at the time. It's obvious to those that understand shot shaping that the face has to be left of the path for a draw and right of the path for a fade, but, they tried to create confusion over that and the face relationship with the target line and start direction. Pathetic. Same with O'Grady's CF and CP release and KM's drive/hold release. They just make this stuff up and then talk about it like it's something more real than what many of us have known for decades.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 10, 2013 18:06:56 GMT -5
Richie - So you're claiming Mac used the term resultant path? Or do you think Mac was the first guy to talk about the club path in 3D? Just because people talk about a topic doesn't mean they fully understand it, let alone the math behind this concept. Mac deserves no credit for keeping his information hidden. It's not like darome instructors are everywhere. He didn't use the exact term 'resultant path'. Guess what? Neither did Jorgenson or Tuxen (it was coined by Mike Finney). But, he understood how the plane/swing direction and the path worked in conjunction with each other and he taught that to thousands of golfers, some of whom played on the Tour and won a major while working with him (i.e. Vijay). I don't see how it was a 'secret.' He taught it in all of his schools. Just because it was not actually published for print does not take away the fact that he understood it and taught it years ago. A 'secret' would be something like the instructor discovering something and only using it for their own golf swing...thus a 'secret' that is unknown to everybody else. Hogan had a 'secret', Mac didn't. You may not want to give him 'credit', but acting like it didn't happen is childish. 3JACK Guess what then Finney should get credit. Mac doesn't get credit because he never published his work, that's the way it works in the real world whether you or Mac or his disciples like it or not. It's just handed down hearsay and if repeated enough people like you that want to believe believe it. That's why there's a patent office. ;D
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 10, 2013 18:16:28 GMT -5
What's childish is trying to give Mac credit for something that has nothing to do with Jurgenson and/or Tuxen. Those guys probably never heard of Mac and yet you want to crown Mac with some unpublished teaching that allegedly all of his students knew but never really talked about until Jurgenson/Tuxen.
The reason I asked about "resultant path" is because there are so few m o r a d students and/or instructors and it is a secret society. If Mac taught something about this stuff good for him and his students. Far cry for trying to get Mac credit for something he never quantified like Jurgenson/Tuxen.
What's next? The comic book writers deserve credit for cell phones??? Plenty of people have great ideas and thoughts. The hard part is proof.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 11, 2013 8:11:17 GMT -5
I have yet to see Mike Finney 'publish' his work. I have yet to see much of Manzella's work published outside of some GOLF Magazine articles. That doesn't mean I wouldn't credit them for what they know and what they teach. If 10 years down the road somebody comes along and starts teaching alpha, beta and gamma torques and does it in a better fashion and then writes a book about it, claiming he is the only person teaching it...that doesn't take away from the fact that Manzella and Co. were teaching it years before.
And you do know that Mac has taught thousands of golfers over the years?
The real irony here is that I don't think you understand the definition of a 'secret.' How can something be a 'secret' if it is told to thousands of people at every school for over the past 20 years? Isn't that no longer a secret?
Furthermore, there were plenty of Mac's students that knew about and discussed Mac's teaching of 'swinging left' well before Tuxen came along. It was one of the issues that was commonly brought up when it came to criticism against TGM's 'swinging out to right field' concept and it's all part of understanding 'the geometry of a circle' concept with golf. Hell, S&T was built around those geometric concepts. And where did Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer get those concepts from (and they published their work).
Tuxen's 'quantifying' consisted of essentially discussing the geometry of a circle concept in a company newsletter. He just called it the 'horizontal swing plane' and the path. And again, claiming Jorgensen discovered the resultant path concept is a real stretch. His contribution is the D-Plane which I find invaluable.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 11, 2013 10:40:39 GMT -5
It's a secret society, anyone who utters the stuff from one of macs schools to an outsider who hasn't paid their iniation fee gets excommunicated. Why the need to call Morad "Darom" who do you think you're fooling with that?
It doesn't matter that Mac has taught hundreds, they like you are sworn not to reveal anything, have you told anything about Morad on your forum do you openly discuss Macs teachings or findings? It's like area 51, we know it exists but what's inside, no one knows except those hundreds who work there and they are sworn to secrecy.... so yes you can have many that know something and it can still be secretive!
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 11, 2013 10:43:31 GMT -5
Mac guessed correctly. Just because it's now your boy under the spotlight (and you put him there) doesn't mean he should get any credit for work that was never, ever told to Tuxen or Jurgenson. Why did the thousands of Mac's "students" never talk about this issue for years? Because they didn't know like everyone else. It was a guess. Some guessed correctly and the fact someone guessed correctly doesn't mean they should get a prize. Hell, give a prize for comic book writers for thinking about a wrist watch as a phone!!! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 11, 2013 15:22:55 GMT -5
I'll answer these in one post, since you have a faculty for splitting them into 2 separate posts for whatever reason:
1. It's not a secret society. I believe Mac wants people to learn from him personally. I know he has been blatantly ripped off in the past from certain instructors. One instructor had one of his famous students go to Mac, then come to that instructor with a checklist of what Mac taught him and then not only started to use it, but put it in a book that suddenly changed from his previous teachings in other books.
So if he were to write a book, there's no stopping fellow instructors from ripping it off for their own benefit and claiming it as their own. There's a certain instructor out there that I feel blatantly rips off everybody, including Manzella, and claims it for his own.
Between that and the time it takes to write a book (see Geoff Jones' book which has taken over 3 years to write and has yet to be published)...I can understand why some instructors have no desire to write a book and would rather just give lessons. It doesn't take away from what they know and when they learned it.
2. I was asked politely to not write about *certain* *specific* details in MORAD. Hell, I've been asked by another instructor that has no affiliation with MORAD to not post his work on my blog whatsoever. So, I'm not making an exception for MORAD or Mac or George...I oblige any instructor that asks me to not write about his work. In fact, Manzella felt that I was only writing about his work and promoting his Summits, teachings, etc for my own benefit...so I stopped altogether and haven't wrote about his teaching on my blog since.
Again, it's hardly a secret society. And there are plenty of former MORAD students that either have an axe to grind with Mac or just unwittingly can start writing something about MORAD that I was asked not to have on my forum. And the fall guy in that scenario would be George. It's not fair to him since he doesn't even go on the internet.
My only goal with the word filter is that if somebody were to post stuff about MORAD that I was specifically asked to not post, I could at least buy some time before people start using a search engine to look up MORAD and my forum would not come out. I could then moderate the post.
I have discussed some parts of MORAD before because it was deemed okay, such as the grip, the positions (P1 - P10), we've discussed CP vs. CF quite often, the CoG's, etc. I can't help it if you don't read those posts.
As far as being 'excommunicated', I've found that Mac isn't the only instructor that doesn't like their students giving away all of the information they learned in a lesson. And from what I've been told by those that have been 'excommunicated', it's usually not because they 'gave up the secrets', but other reasons. Personally, I feel that is between them and Mac and is none of my business.
3. There was no 'guessing' by Mac. I don't think you understand that Mac has been seeing doctors, scientists and researchers since he started MORAD back in the 80's. I know of people that are not affiliated with MORAD in any form, but understood the 'resultant path' concept simply because they understood the basics of the golf swing and they understood the geometry of the circle. They were also intelligent people (as I would have never been able to understand it unless it was explained to me).
I have no idea who 'my boy is under the spotlight' is or what it means. And again, there were plenty of Mac's students that did discuss the swing direction and it's relationship to the path for years, well before Tuxen. Just because none of them told you, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Ask David Orr, Andy Plummer, Mike Bennett, Mickey Yokoi, Dana Dahlquist, Andy Crinella, Bryan Hepler, Brendan Kennedy, Mike McNary and a host of others if it was a 'guess' and tell them that they were not teaching this to their students.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 11, 2013 16:22:43 GMT -5
Mac wasn't the first to know this stuff so why you think he should be given credit for things others knew way before him is just wrong.
Matter of fact according to you Mac was doing what Manzella is doing now except now there is better info from scientists and doctors due to better equipment and understanding. But you don't trust those with Dr. in front of their name I guess the exception would be if they are Mac's Dr.'s or scientists.
|
|