spike
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by spike on May 6, 2011 13:36:41 GMT -5
Love the comment from BM about Trackman.... I wonder if he owns/leases/is paying for one.?? Rand He owns, what does that matter? Trackman gives the data that no one could even come close to guessing by just observation with the naked eye. That's the point of the Trackman reference.
|
|
spike
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by spike on May 6, 2011 13:52:20 GMT -5
BM wrote-: "I have the flattest left wrist you ever saw. But I didn't start improving again—after years of going backward—until I practiced bending my left wrist through impact.
Quite simply, I had overdone it.
How?
I had no "free wheeling" clubhead>wrists>arms.
Why?
Because I thought I could "sustain impact."
Now where did I get that idea from???
YOU CAN OVER DO KEEPING YOUR LEFT WRIST FLAT."That's only because Brian doesn't understand the swinging of the LAFW. Brian incorrectly believes that one needs to "manufacture" a FLW at impact using negative wrist torque in order to "sustain impact". I believe that one creates an intact LAFW in the early backswing and one then swings the intact LAFW through impact. If one has an intact LAFW, then one doesn't have to artificially create a FLW for impact. I also don't believe that one can "sustain impact". Impact is simply a moment in time when the swinging LAFW and clubhead is passing through impact. Brian wrote-: "YOU CAN OVER DO KEEPING FORWARD LEAN.
Of course, one shouldn't overstress the shaft in the change-of-directions. One also shouldn't overdo the amount of forward shaft lean at impact. The amount of forward shaft lean at impact is dependent on the inbuilt shaft lean present in a golf club - when the sole is correctly placed on the ground so that the leading and back edges of the sole are flat on the ground. That determines ball position - the ball should be positioned so that the club will have the 'correct" amount of forward shaft lean at impact when the hands are just inside the left thigh. Then, one simply has to time one's downswing action so that the hands reach that point at impact. Any attempt to exaggerate the degree of forward shaft lean can only lead to unnecessary complications. Brian wrote-: "Are you trying to hit a huge hook?
Then don't try to do this.
Unless it works for you.
Hit the back of the ball like the great players have told us for 600 years.
Except for a couple of guys....
Maybe IT worked for THEM.
YOU CAN OVERDO HITTING THE INSIDE OF THE BALL."One should only be aiming 1 dimple inside the center-of-the-back of the ball when thinking of coming from the inside. That's functionally equivalent to hitting the back of the ball. Many people have misinterpreted the idea of hitting the inside quadrant of the ball. Brian wrote-: "PORK CHOPS VS. BACON STRIPS.
Fluffy divots vs. Shinny divots.
See "The U-Plane" or "The Resultant Path."
Yikes.
YOU CAN OVERDO HITTING THE BALL ON THE WAY DOWN."Homer Kelley never advocated producing pork chop divots. Brian wrote-: "Forward lean is 1,000,000 times more important than lag.
And too much of it, is no good either."Forward shaft lean implies a certain quantitative amount of lag, and too much forward shaft lean implies too much lag. Forward shaft lean cannot be 1,000,000 more important than lag because they are conceptually the same thing. Brian also wrote-: "And without TrackMan, you are stone cold guessing." Of course one is guessing, but it not too difficult to guess correctly based on one's ball flight - if one hits the ball at, or near the sweetspot. Jeff. You will never guess the important variables nescessary to help a golfer just by eyeballing their swing. While your guessing and making errors and frustrating golfer's, B.M. is already fixing them. Also I think B.M. knows about the LAFW and TGM inside and out. He was a GSED before you even took up your golf instruction hobby. So for you to say that he doesn't know how the LAFW works in a swing is ridiculous. I'd pay money to see you debate Brian about TGM.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on May 6, 2011 15:26:13 GMT -5
I'd pay money to see you debate Brian about TGM. You could've gotten that for free a few months ago 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 6, 2011 15:28:20 GMT -5
|
|
spike
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by spike on May 6, 2011 15:31:36 GMT -5
I'd pay money to see you debate Brian about TGM. You could've gotten that for free a few months ago 3JACK Apparently wishes do come true. Wow! thanks Nate.
|
|
|
Post by aimsmithgolf on May 6, 2011 17:01:21 GMT -5
Love the comment from BM about Trackman.... I wonder if he owns/leases/is paying for one.?? Rand He owns, what does that matter? Trackman gives the data that no one could even come close to guessing by just observation with the naked eye. That's the point of the Trackman reference. Oh no ... please don't tell me you've paid $$'s for a Trackman analysis based on your better than the "naked eye" assumption.! Randy
|
|
spike
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by spike on May 6, 2011 17:12:03 GMT -5
He owns, what does that matter? Trackman gives the data that no one could even come close to guessing by just observation with the naked eye. That's the point of the Trackman reference. Oh no ... please don't tell me you've paid $$'s for a Trackman analysis based on your better than the "naked eye" assumption.! Randy Actually no, but after viewing that debate between Jeff and Brian I might buy one. Better than a crystal ball analysis.
|
|
don
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by don on May 6, 2011 17:29:29 GMT -5
I watched the so called debate I didn't know that it even existed. I saw that there is no doubt that Brian knows TGM to the nth degree. He had Jeff on the ropes most of the debate and what was surprising was Jeff asking Brian for proof and when Jeff said something it always started with "I believe".
The Hinging debate was most humorous, as was the pure hitting debate. TGM has some serious issues with proof, mostly observation and opinion. "A small subset of golfer's" was B.M's description of TGMers, ouch!
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 6, 2011 17:52:49 GMT -5
Spike wrote-: "You will never guess the important variables nescessary to help a golfer just by eyeballing their swing. While your guessing and making errors and frustrating golfer's, B.M. is already fixing them."
Nonsense!
How can any Trackman readings tell you what a golfer is biomechanically doing that causes a particular clubhead path and particular clubface orientation at impact? Trackman can only give more precise values for the clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact. One still has to eyeball the golfer, or examine a slow motion video of his swing, to discern what biomechanical movements are causing that particular combination of clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact.
Spike wrote-: "Also I think B.M. knows about the LAFW and TGM inside and out. He was a GSED before you even took up your golf instruction hobby. So for you to say that he doesn't know how the LAFW works in a swing is ridiculous."
Unfortunately, he doesn't understand that point or he wouldn't assert that one has to manufacture a FLW at impact via negative wrist torque. If one has an intact LAFW, then one already has a GFLW.
Jeff.
|
|
don
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by don on May 6, 2011 17:53:32 GMT -5
Thanks Natep for that link, enjoyed that very interesting to say the least.
|
|
don
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by don on May 6, 2011 17:58:20 GMT -5
Spike wrote-: "You will never guess the important variables nescessary to help a golfer just by eyeballing their swing. While your guessing and making errors and frustrating golfer's, B.M. is already fixing them." Nonsense! How can any Trackman readings tell you what a golfer is biomechanically doing that causes a particular clubhead path and particular clubface orientation at impact? Trackman can only give more precise values for the clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact. One still has to eyeball the golfer, or examine a slow motion video of his swing, to discern what biomechanical movements are causing that particular combination of clubhead path and clubface orientation at impact. Spike wrote-: "Also I think B.M. knows about the LAFW and TGM inside and out. He was a GSED before you even took up your golf instruction hobby. So for you to say that he doesn't know how the LAFW works in a swing is ridiculous." Unfortunately, he doesn't understand that point or he wouldn't assert that one has to manufacture a FLW at impact via negative wrist torque. If one has an intact LAFW, then one already has a GFLW. Jeff. Not Spike but, To the first part of your post, that's why you need a qualified instructor like Brian who can interpret the data, I thought that was obvious to you as your a scientific advocate, when you get data what else do you do with it? To the second part of your post you can believe what you want.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 6, 2011 18:01:03 GMT -5
Don wrote-: "He had Jeff on the ropes most of the debate and what was surprising was Jeff asking Brian for proof and when Jeff said something it always started with "I believe".
Your partisanship is apparent to even the most ignorant observer. It is my pattern to always state that "I believe" because I realize that golf instructional opinions have little factual basis based on scientific evidence.
Don wrote-: "The Hinging debate was most humorous, as was the pure hitting debate. TGM has some serious issues with proof, mostly observation and opinion."
Of course the TGM hitting concept is only based on opinion. The same situation applies to "foolish golfers" who think that there is factual/scientific evidence to support their opinion that there is no such thing as TGM hitting. If Don thinks that Brian has proven that TGM hitting doesn't exist, then he is only demonstrating his partisan opinion and his incapacity to differentiate fact from fiction.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 6, 2011 18:09:45 GMT -5
Don wrote-: "To the first part of your post, that's why you need a qualified instructor like Brian who can interpret the data, I thought that was obvious to you as your a scientific advocate, when you get data what else do you do with it?"
I will state it again because Don doesn't understand a fundamental point - if any golf instructor (including BM) is given Trackman data without seeing the golfer's swing, then he cannot rationally postulate the biomechanical causes that produce the Trackman data, and he therefore cannot remedy the golfer's swing faults. If Don can provide any explanation as to how any Trackman data can pinpoint the biomechanical causes of a golfer's swing faults, then I would like to read/analyse that explanation.
I am still waiting to see how any golf instructor can usefully use Trackman data to identify, and remedy, a golfer's swing faults better than another golf instructor who only has access to a swing video and ball flight details.
Jeff.
|
|
don
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by don on May 6, 2011 18:10:45 GMT -5
Don wrote-: "He had Jeff on the ropes most of the debate and what was surprising was Jeff asking Brian for proof and when Jeff said something it always started with "I believe". Your partisanship is apparent to even the most ignorant observer. It is my pattern to always state that "I believe" because I realize that golf instructional opinions have little factual basis based on scientific evidence. Don wrote-: "The Hinging debate was most humorous, as was the pure hitting debate. TGM has some serious issues with proof, mostly observation and opinion." Of course the TGM hitting concept is only based on opinion. The same situation applies to "foolish golfers" who think that there is factual/scientific evidence to support their opinion that there is no such thing as TGM hitting. If Don thinks that Brian has proven that TGM hitting doesn't exist, then he is only demonstrating his partisan opinion and his incapacity to differentiate fact from fiction. Jeff. The proof is in the fact you say TGM hitting is opinion based. By the way there is no fact it's opinion like you said and we all know that there are no foolish golfer's and you wouldn't be directing that comment at me. And of course your not biased towards TGM and all the science it uses to prove it's observations. I enjoyed your debate with B.M.you looked a bit unravelled when Brian asked you for proof of hinge actions.
|
|
don
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by don on May 6, 2011 18:13:53 GMT -5
Don wrote-: "To the first part of your post, that's why you need a qualified instructor like Brian who can interpret the data, I thought that was obvious to you as your a scientific advocate, when you get data what else do you do with it?" I will state it again because Don doesn't understand a fundamental point - if any golf instructor (including BM) is given Trackman data without seeing the golfer's swing, then he cannot rationally postulate the biomechanical causes that produce the Trackman data, and he therefore cannot remedy the golfer's swing faults. If Don can provide any explanation as to how any Trackman data can pinopoint the biomechanical causes of a golfer's swing faults, then I would like to read/analyse that explanation. I am still waiting to see how any golf instructor can usefully use Trackman data to identify, and remedy, a golfer's swing faults better than another golf instructor who only has access to a swing video and ball flight details. Jeff. Be serious Jeff, "without seeing the golfer's swing" who said that? Brian uses Trackman on an everyday basis on the lesson tee. Your just trying to argue now just for the sake of starting a fight. I will no longer respond to your abusive posts. Also you wouldn't know because you don't give lessons or use a Trackman.
|
|