|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 22, 2012 22:49:20 GMT -5
Consider BM's new definition of handle-dragging. www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/17236-brian-manzella-golf-magazine-golf-com-front9-hit-like-hawk-2.htmlHe stated-: "A Handle Dragger is someone TRYING to put all the force across the shaft near, at, and past impact." BM is supposed to be TGM-literate, but he gets it wrong again-and-again. Where did HK state that a swinger should be applying a "force-across-the-shaft" near/at impact? A swinger is pulling the club through impact with a FLW and the club has released via a CF-release action during the mid-late downswing and it should catch-up to the left arm/FLW by low point. Impact occurs just before low point and there is no "force-across-the-shaft" in a swinger. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on May 25, 2012 17:24:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure what the obsession with Homer Kelly lingo (i.e. handle dragging) is about because Gay is good only very occasionally and doesn't hit very far ever then there is and Bobby Clampett who was good but faded fast. Am I missing any other TGM aficionado's that can play? Joe Durant works with a TGM AI in Ron Gring and Durant has been considered (and rightfully so) one of the top ballstrikers on Tour for years. Boo Weekley and Heath Slocum work with TGM AI Mark Blackburn, although I think Blackburn has gone to a few MORAD schools as well. As far as top-end players, I believe Langer has worked with a TGM AI and Annika Sorenstam's teacher, Pia Nilssen knows the book inside and out and has done instructional stuff that is basic TGM stuff. The TGM stuff is actually much more mental than it's ever given credit for. I think most critics get bogged down in the scientific part of the book that they don't agree with and completely miss out on things like how to view the swing from a conceptual basis and thinking more about learning feel from mechanics than learning mechanics from feel, which is raved about in books today like 'The Talent Code.' I've kinda got bored with trying to express those points and continually see TGM critics like Brian, who know the book, gloss over the essence of the book...how to learn to develop your own, effective golf swing. After a while, I've gotten to the point where I'll speak up when mistruths are written about TGM (i.e. McLean's nonsensical video), but other than that...I just look at it like it's their loss that the critics are more worried about the science than the overall concept of the book. Getting back to handle dragging...it wasn't too long ago that the Land of the Blind steadfastly claimed that Boo Weekley was a 'handle dragger.' So with this definition of 'trying to put all of the force across the shaft around impact'...I would like to know how they know what Boo is trying or not trying to do? Good to see you back, nmgolfer. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on May 29, 2012 17:00:15 GMT -5
Thanks. As a child, I got into sports at an extremely early age. I started collecting baseball cards at the age of 4. I couldn't quite read or write, but I new that the number 3 was bigger than the number 2 and stuff like that, so I knew that if Dave Winfield batted .294, that was better than Willie Randolph batting .244 and thus, Winfield was a better hitter (although with today's advanced metrics, batting average only tells a small part of the story).
From there, I remember as a kid thinking how brilliant Billy Martin was because he was the first manager I recalled keeping stats of certain pitchers vs. certain hitters. They point that out in the ESPN movie 'The Bronx is Burning' when Martin benched Reggie Jackson in the ALCS game against the Royals because Jackson was 1 for 14 lifetime against Paul Splittorff. The world thought Martin was crazy, but in the end he was right.
After that, I got into reading stuff from SABREmetric people such as Bill James. There were people around doing this level of advanced statistics and applying them to baseball before James came along. But, he had such a unique and captivating way of writing that it really took off. Insanely enough, the MLB world paid no attention until Billy Beane had success with it.
I think Moneyball has some flaws in it because it's mostly useful for clubs like the A's, who have lower payrolls. Mainly due to the fact that the truly best players in baseball usually have the best metrics as well, even if they are not trying to achieve them. What's interesting...and something I think I will run into...is somebody like HoF'er 2B Joe Morgan who was the epitome of a 'Moneyball' player. Ridiculously high On Base Percentage. When he talks baseball, he completely eschews Moneyball theories every chance he gets. And for myself, I don't like the game as much as I used to in part because Moneyball is boring to me. I prefer the great all around players who have to play defense, run bases, can stretch a single into a double, steal a base, etc. In Moneyball, you get a guy like David Ortiz who is undoubtedly a massively effective player, but is pretty limited in what he does.
Eventually, I got into football statistics which I found interesting because football is the ultimate team sport, so how does one measure success. I wound up having a good conversational relationship with some top football metrics people like KC Joyner and Aaron Schatz and they kinda set the tone for what a golf-based metrics could be.
But in the end, I wanted to understand the statistics of golf for the betterment of my own game. Why do some players who are completely unimpressive out on the course shoot good scores? How important are parts of the game like putting, driving, chipping, etc?
I can say that I view a round of golf completely differently from a strategy standpoint and for the betterment of my handicap. I also can now look more at the truly good and weaker players on Tour at certain aspects of the game instead of thinking I can derive that simply from Trackman numbers.
I believe that future Pro Golf Synopsis' will only get better. Better formatted, more insights, more myth busting, etc.
3JACK
|
|