|
Post by gmbtempe on May 6, 2011 23:31:38 GMT -5
Since you guys want to talk about the debate so much, let's try to remember, if we don't mis-remember (Roger Clemens throwback) that neither side looked good at all. Jeff failed to get across any of his ideas (some of that had to do with Brian's interruptions, some of it had to do with the fact that Jeff couldn't explain his ideas in the debate format). Brian couldn't do anything except interrupt Jeff and say Zick said this and Zick said that, without any ability whatsoever to explain what it was that Zick had said. In the absence of the petty arguments, I don't think any of this stuff is provable right now. Even with a slow motion camera, one cannot say what a particular body part is doing in space (rotating, moving laterally, to what degree of each, etc.) at a certain point in the swing, at least not with great accuracy. this!
|
|
don
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by don on May 7, 2011 2:05:38 GMT -5
Since you guys want to talk about the debate so much, let's try to remember, if we don't mis-remember (Roger Clemens throwback) that neither side looked good at all. Jeff failed to get across any of his ideas (some of that had to do with Brian's interruptions, some of it had to do with the fact that Jeff couldn't explain his ideas in the debate format). Brian couldn't do anything except interrupt Jeff and say Zick said this and Zick said that, without any ability whatsoever to explain what it was that Zick had said. In the absence of the petty arguments, I don't think any of this stuff is provable right now. Even with a slow motion camera, one cannot say what a particular body part is doing in space (rotating, moving laterally, to what degree of each, etc.) at a certain point in the swing, at least not with great accuracy. The key words are "I don't think" it is your opinion, not fact based and without any real investigation as there are many studies done already on this. What's TGM based on? They had no slow motion camera's etc. yet people believe in it. Is it provable? S. Mackenzie, Phil Cheetham, Arron Zick, TPI, Nesbit etc. all have research on this. The debate speaks for itself, the basketball demo pretty much sums it up.
|
|
don
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by don on May 7, 2011 2:06:39 GMT -5
Since you guys want to talk about the debate so much, let's try to remember, if we don't mis-remember (Roger Clemens throwback) that neither side looked good at all. Jeff failed to get across any of his ideas (some of that had to do with Brian's interruptions, some of it had to do with the fact that Jeff couldn't explain his ideas in the debate format). Brian couldn't do anything except interrupt Jeff and say Zick said this and Zick said that, without any ability whatsoever to explain what it was that Zick had said. In the absence of the petty arguments, I don't think any of this stuff is provable right now. Even with a slow motion camera, one cannot say what a particular body part is doing in space (rotating, moving laterally, to what degree of each, etc.) at a certain point in the swing, at least not with great accuracy. this! Not that, this. Yesterday 10:42 PM #47 Brian Manzella View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries Visit Homepage View Articles Add as Contact -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join Date:Jul 2003 Location:USA. Posts:11,634 Blog Entries:10 The point I was making Greg is this: "Line Drawers" love swings without any carry—ON VIDEO. So do "take every swing to low point"/"cross-line"/book literalists—ON VIDEO. Some of these swings, might be 8-10° inside-out. Trying to hit the inside-back of the ball on the way down to a down-and-out low point, "looks good on video" to LOTS of teachers. But inside-out resultant paths of 6° or more, are BIG TROUBLE in real golf Ya think anyone could eyeball that?
|
|
spike
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by spike on May 7, 2011 2:24:36 GMT -5
The reason the debate wasn't as good as it should have been is one person(Brian) knows his stuff and the other person didn't. Loved the basketball with the handle demo, was that hitting or swinging, or switting, couldn't tell. I think it was all 3.
|
|
|
Post by neckbone on May 7, 2011 7:24:47 GMT -5
The key words are "I don't think" it is your opinion, not fact based and without any real investigation as there are many studies done already on this. What's TGM based on? They had no slow motion camera's etc. yet people believe in it. Is it provable? S. Mackenzie, Phil Cheetham, Arron Zick, TPI, Nesbit etc. all have research on this. The debate speaks for itself, the basketball demo pretty much sums it up. Don, you make a good point here and I don't doubt that some extensive research has been done by people who are very knowledgeable in the fields of physics and biomechanics. We should also let these knowledgeable people explain these concepts, because it's been shown over the last year or so that most of the information is beyond the grasp of well-meaning golf instructors and amateur swing theorists... even those with high Wonderlic scores.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on May 7, 2011 12:24:07 GMT -5
The key words are "I don't think" it is your opinion, not fact based and without any real investigation as there are many studies done already on this. What's TGM based on? They had no slow motion camera's etc. yet people believe in it. Is it provable? S. Mackenzie, Phil Cheetham, Arron Zick, TPI, Nesbit etc. all have research on this. The debate speaks for itself, the basketball demo pretty much sums it up. Don, you make a good point here and I don't doubt that some extensive research has been done by people who are very knowledgeable in the fields of physics and biomechanics. We should also let these knowledgeable people explain these concepts, because it's been shown over the last year or so that most of the information is beyond the grasp of well-meaning golf instructors and amateur swing theorists... even those with high Wonderlic scores. this I have yet to see the information touted explained in any real detail........and for not blindly getting on the bandwagon its like your a pariah. 3 years ago or so that forum blinded followed Brians stuff like hit down on the driver and other TGM stuff, now they all seem to agree that "x" is correct today, or whatever position he takes on a subject. I am not saying which is right versus wrong but everyone agree before, and they agree with X now? Very few threads over there challenging much of what he says, maybe he is just that good now and was not three years ago.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on May 7, 2011 12:53:15 GMT -5
Just gotta add that I actually like a lot of Brian's teaching, his ideas, and his communication when explaining his ideas on the golf swing.
Not really thrilled how he dumps on everyone else, their methods, or the way they teach.
The two are apples and oranges really so I try to focus on his ideas, try not to let the dumping bother me even when I am the brunt of a particular dump.
|
|
|
Post by neckbone on May 7, 2011 13:34:39 GMT -5
Just gotta add that I actually like a lot of Brian's teaching, his ideas, and his communication when explaining his ideas on the golf swing. I like a lot of his stuff as well and I have no doubt that he will hit the big time in teaching at some point. It's just the incessant bashing on everybody else ("Book literalists, "white belts", etc.) that has become such a turn off. If they're wrong, let 'em be wrong and you go be right. This is what I try to do myself. There is some good and some bad at any of the popular forums. You just have to decide for yourself which ideas correspond the most with logic and toss the rest.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 7, 2011 16:19:56 GMT -5
I have just heard from Rand that Don and Spike have the same IP address and that they are the same person. They have justly being banned from this forum. I strongly suspect that they were BM-groupies who joined this forum in order to discredit me because I frequently criticize Brian's golf instructional opinions. Both Spike/Don never posted a single post where they actually presented an argument that was based on a deep discussion of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. Their posts were primarily a relentless barrage of personal attacks against me - and an attempt to defend Brian without discussing the intricate details of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. Pitiful!
I don't mind BM-groupies, or other forum members, disagreeing with me if they would only present an argument that actually discusses the details of golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. I am happy to read contrary opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics if they are cogently expressed - instead of being subjected to Spike's/Don's nonsensical assertions.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 7, 2011 16:35:17 GMT -5
Don's last post quoted BM as follows-:
""Line Drawers" love swings without any carry—ON VIDEO. So do "take every swing to low point"/"cross-line"/book literalists—ON VIDEO.
Some of these swings, might be 8-10° inside-out.
Trying to hit the inside-back of the ball on the way down to a down-and-out low point, "looks good on video" to LOTS of teachers.
But inside-out resultant paths of 6° or more, are BIG TROUBLE in real golf.
Ya think anyone could eyeball that?"
I think that Brian is again posting anti-TGM opinions that have little intellectual coherence. A TGM swinger performs a release swivel action and that will cause the FLW to face the target a few inches prior to impact. He will then transition to a HH action after impact, but the FLW will still be facing the target in the first few inches of the followthrough. If the FLW is facing the target for ~6 inches in the immediate vicinity of ball-impact, then that will create a "flat spot" at the bottom of the clubhead arc that extends from the ball position to low point.
I agree that an in-to-out clubhead path >6 degrees is not desirable, and that it is impossible to eyeball that small degree of in-to-out clubhead path. That is a definite advantage of having Trackman readings.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by aimsmithgolf on May 7, 2011 17:18:31 GMT -5
To add to Jeff's post, this deception and trickery will not be tolerated and I apologize for the disruptive behavior that was allowed by lack of oversight. It seems that this is only one or two guys from what I can tell. They were only here to discredit and disrupt it seems. As I have said many times I don't agree with Jeff in many instances but I will defend his right to state his ideas and he makes a great contribution to this forum regardless. These guys are not concerned with constructive debate at all and that's why they were banned.
I have always stated that all this is about is $$$ and instructors and their pupils perceived threat of competition that's free of charge. Threat, regret....who knows.
Rand
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 7, 2011 18:45:37 GMT -5
Jeff, If you dont have a Trackman, and you are teaching students impact per this diagram; then you have junk information and are teaching junk to your students. Its as simple as that. There is enough evidence out there now so that we all know this diagram is false.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 7, 2011 19:06:25 GMT -5
Natep,
I agree that the diagram is junk, and I do not discuss the arc of approach and the angle of approach in any of my review papers. Although I am a fan of many TGM concepts, I do not believe in hitting the inside quadrant of the ball or trying to hit out to first base (cross-line procedure for hitters). I no longer believe that the clubface closes significantly during the ball-clubface impact interval, and I have modified my review papers accordingly
However, although chapter 2 has many errors, I do believe in the basic biomechanical concept of the release swivel action (release of PA#3) and hinging actions. They make so much sense from a biomechanical perspective. I especially like the LAFW/RFFW concept and the power accumulator loading/release concepts because they also make sense from a biomechanical perspective.
Jeff.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 7, 2011 19:07:56 GMT -5
Where do you find this diagram?
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 7, 2011 19:11:34 GMT -5
Where do you find this diagram? TGM 6th ed., page 17 2-C-1
|
|