Jeffy wrote-: "Jeff Mann is the internet equivalent of one hand clapping. Nobody cares what he has to say anymore."
His personal opinion is proven wrong by the "facts".
First of all, 174 guests have visited the NGI forum in the past 24 hours. Also, there have been 199 views of the "spine engine" thread at the present time.
More importantly, I do not actually expect that my posts in the NGI forum will be be read by many golfers. I mainly post in the NGI forum to clarify my own thinking about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics, and to exercise my prose writing skills, while knowing that the "content" of my posts will eventually end up in new review papers on my golf website, which is presently visited by 2,000-2,500 visitors/day. It is very likely that I will write about Gracovetsky's "spine engine" theory in a new review paper that will be read by many of my perfectgolfswingreview.net website's visitors, and my website's number of daily visitors continues to grow.
Post by grantrhooper on May 20, 2014 15:25:11 GMT -5
I have read through your site and forums as well as jeffys and I have seen that you both seem to argue with each other... you call him crafty. He calls you crafty, etc. As an outsider, it would be nice if we could find out who was lying. Now, this may just be a mistake on your part and I have no idea what your "influence is," but I believe counting "visitors" as oppose to "unique visitors" actually can count the same person more than once, and can also include multiple page views. Meaning that one person can visit twice and also click on 4 links, and you have 6 total pageview (every page counts once, even by the same person), and you have two visitors (the same person twice). A more accurate way to determine traffic is to look at unique visitors, where every person that visits your website, no matter how many things he clicks on, counts as 1 visitor. A website can have 1000 visitors a day, and 3000 page views, but only have 300 unique visitors... 300 separate individuals visiting the site. As I said this could be an honest mistake, but your post had me curious, because 2000 hits seems like a lot, so I went and researched it at google, and alexa, who are able to track traffic fairly accurately and most sites that measure traffic (also including websiteoutlook.com and trafficestimate.com) had you at much less. One had you at 990 page views, and the other had you at 750 roughly, which visitors spending an average of 3 minutes at your site. This includes the same person visiting more than once and also includes every link clicked on within your site. These types of numbers would likely boil down to only a couple hundred separate visitors per day.
Because of this discrepancy, could you please make a link available or post a screen shot of your traffic numbers, so that we can find out whether Jeffy is either wrong or right about your integrity, and also your influence?
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 20, 2014 17:32:22 GMT -5
I have no problem providing you with a screenshot of my website's traffic numbers.
Here is a screenshot of the Goggle Analytics page for my website for the past month.
You can readily see that I average 2,000-2,500 visitors per day and that the average percentage of unique visitors is 61.7%.
My website has a very high bounce rate of ~80%, and only about 400 visitors/day spend a lot of time reading my website's material. That doesn't surprise me considering the in-depth quality of my review papers, a quality which many casual golfers find very disadvantageous because they are merely looking for a few golf tips (as one can find in Golf Digest).
I noted that you made the following derogatory comment in the Jeffy forum-: "How much you want to bet he does not cooperate with my request for his detailed traffic information, and makes some excuse such as " I don't have to prove anything" or something else that just shows he is being crafty. "
How can you have the audacity to label me as being *crafty before you even ascertained how I would respond to your request for a screenshot showing my website's traffic?
(* note that the word "crafty" is the ProBoards word-alteration choice for a person who is not being honest)
You also made the following derogatory comment in the Jeffy forum-: "The thing is, I found his website and the way he hit me with a barrage of numbers and math, and also talked about why Kelvin was wrong, it was the one time for a moment I stopped reading Kelvin, and once again didn't know what to think or who was right. Then I realized that Jeff Mann literally just takes every wrong swing, and argues.... "WHAT JEFFY, KELVIN, OR WHOEVER FAILS TO REALIZE IS THAT BRIAN GAY, JUMPY MCJUMPERSON, AND FLIPPY MCFLIPPERTON, HAVE A DOUBLE WATERFALL, TWO BARRELL, QUAD AXEL SWING..... "
Your claim that I take every wrong swing to make a point against KM is simply a reflection of your "lack of knowledge of golf swing biomechanics/mechanics" and your personal pro-KM bias. You are free to argue why you think that those swings that I use as examples are "wrong" in this forum - as long as you do not over-indulge in frank "ad hominem insults".
You also made the following derogatory comment in the Jeffy forum-: "For instance, it is clear that he hates certain ways of swinging that he cannot perform, due to lack of flexibility... so he says "this isnt the only way to swing." "no! this way is fine too..." when the truth is he just can't do it."
You have no reason for stating that I dislike swing styles/techniques that I cannot perform. Please provide "evidence" to support your outrageous claim? I describe a variety of swing techniques on my website (TGM left arm-swinging, right arm swinging, TGM hitting and non-TGM hitting) even though I cannot perform any of those swing styles well. I describe swing styles used by professional tour golfers, and I never even consider whether I can perform those swing styles (or not) because it is irrelevant. My personal inadequacies (in terms of flexibility, coordination, athleticism and skill) prevent me for performing any swing style well, and my reasoning re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics is based on observations of skilled professional golfers.
You also made the following derogatory claim-: "I remember last golf season reading his comments that basically he has stopped discoursing on the ins and outs of the golf swing, and shut down the debate (while continuing to debate) because he has essentially discovered all there is to know and that there is nothing new to add. And then this year he adds a 2014 update that basically changes a ton of different ideas he had on the swing. And he basically says he isn't changing anything, but that its just an update.... when really it just proves how much he was wrong about, by his own admission."
I started my golf website in December 2006 as a pet hobby interest, Initially, the content of my website was based on standard instructional teaching from standard golf instructors (eg. David Leadbetter, Jim McLean, SLAP authors). I made my first major revision to my website's contents a few years later - after I discovered Homer Kelly's TGM book and after I became enamored of TGM mechanics. I made a second major revision to my website's contents a few years after that time period when I had completed my personal research into the biomechanics underlying TGM mechanics and I have subsequently only added a few original thoughts re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics since that time (eg. i) based on my personal thinking about the value of playing golf with an intact LAFW/GFLW and ii) based on my personal thinking regarding the biomechanics of the different drive-hold hand release actions). I have made no major changes in the past few years, and my latest review paper only deals with refinements/revisions in my thinking regarding certain minor issues. I will continue to add revisions/refinements to my golf website if I discover a better way of thinking about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics, but I do not anticipate any major changes in my thinking in the near, or distant, future.
p.s. Addendum added later: To assess whether my website is really popular (compared to other online golf websites), simply type some generic golf terms in a google search engine - terms like "golf downswing" or "role of the right elbow in the golf swing" or "how to get clubhead lag in a golf swing" or "golfer's release action" - and you will note that my golf website is near the top of the google search list. When golfers click on my website's link and visit my website, it probably makes it more likely that the google search engine will again place my website's link near the top of its search list. Of course, it is a "fact" that >80% of the visitors simply bounce-off my website after spending <1 minute looking at my website - because it is far too detailed and far too prose-heavy for the average golfer who is simply doing a google search hoping to find a simple (easy-to-understand) golf tip explanation. I am only interested in the "return visitor" who feels that it is worthwhile to repeatedly visit my website, and they represent about ~40% of my website's visitors.
Post by grantrhooper on May 21, 2014 5:07:45 GMT -5
Not gonna lie. I was not confident that your stats would prove your statement. But you don't need to talk to me about the percentage of unique visitors and stuff... I was mainly pondering out loud whether or not you were accurately representing your numbers, to be perfectly honest. I don't know you... I simply know that I looked up your traffic and there was a discrepancy. I suppose in some cases, the traffic estimates are less accurate than others. Indeed you have accurately represented your visitors. I'm not against you having visitors. I have read a good bit of your articles, and do agree with a lot of things... but I side with Kelvin for the most part for several reasons. First off, I have seen Jeffy and you both make unfair arguments against each other at some point or another, but as I read your site and forum for the first time about a year ago, I was shocked at the way you responded to KM's teachings, and I barely knew anything of either of you. In some instances (which I won't be citing...this is just my general opinion. not looking to get into a big thing), I feel like you reach for pieces of KMs articles and really necessarily blow them up. There are legitimate things to criticize, but it seems to me that you find fault often with phraseology and semantics. I understand that in your field, being specific is very important, but to me, from afar, you are extremely aggressive with your arguments against EVERYONE, as though your the only right person on earth. Now I'd call you nuts, but it just happens to be that almost all of golf instruction is wrong... so indeed, in this case, there's actually room for a few people to step up and be "the only right individuals on earth." Here's the thing... you debate KMs teaching as though he is right there with manzella and leadbetter and foley. It's very odd to me. Not gonna lie... to an outsider, it looks like a personal vendetta.
THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE TO ME.... and I won't get into it much further. KM's students swings are incredible, powerful, and stable. Kelvin, Andre, and Lucas have before and after swings like no one in so-called "top 100" teachers list, and to be honest, no one anywhere. There's no one who actually changes people's swings. No one takes a 15 handicapper with a crap swing, and gets them to swing 120, and drop 10 handicap strokes. These teachers are teaching this stuff and are getting results with every single student. In addition to that, people on the Jeffy forum are also making night and day progress. 99% of PGA professionals get no results from their students, other then their students getting better from hitting more range balls.
I will give you one example of what I'm talking about. You criticize KM's description of lordosis, saying basically, there's no such thing as right side and left side lordosis. I don't care what its called. We are talking about the curve in the lower spine, sticking the butt out, and anterior pelvic tilt. If you looked into the matter further, you would see that "KM groupies" know what needs to happen here ( look at Steve Marshalls swing on youtub, duel angles synced), and do it... whether your preferred term is used or not. Some people call lateral bend... side bend. Your seeming desire to argue about things that are not functionally important makes it difficult to learn anything.
s The fact is that what Kelvin is teaching is the most powerful way to swing, I believe. Can we at least agree on that? I know you think there are a lot of different ways to swing, but why would anyone teach a less efficient way? I believe the drive hold model swing is not the easiest to perform, but that it is the upper echelon. Like Kelvin says, its the ferrari. I don't want teachers telling me how to be a honda, if there is a ferrari out there. You can tell me how to have a less efficient swing, but I think it should be labeled as such. I'm not going to endeavor to swing like Brian Gay, right? He may have things in his swing that make it work... but I'm going to try to swing more like Dustin Johnson or Keegan Bradley, or even Woodland. Well Kelvin does call this speed training after all. The goal is to raise clubhead swings and become more powerful, and then stabilize impact to ensure the added power doesn't cause one to be wild. Would you not say that he is successful in teaching this to his students and to those like me who follow him? My handicap was about a 7 in high school. Stopped golfing, started again, was a 20 handicap flip roller and only was swinging about 100 mph, and I am back into single digits and swinging 110-115 now. My friend steve has a negative 2.5 handicap and following these teachings has increased his clubhead speed from 108 to 117, without sacrificing distance. He never mishits a shot, since he was 4 years old. He just has no ambition (until now) to try to make the tour. Now that he has the distance he never had as a 5 foot 7, 145 pounder.... his potential is really looking like it may be realized. His name is Steve Marshall and his swing videos are on youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjtuZPmtYqI
Another example is that I've seen you say that Kelvin essentially only talks about one way of swinging, and you have used several examples of golfers that Kelvin has critiqued something about and misrepresented what he said. I couldn't find the example I was looking for, but you essentially are astonished that he things (insert name ) player has a poor swing action, when in reality, I'd seen kelvin praise the swing action in other places, and perhaps he was only talking about one aspect of that players swing. Kelvin doesnt say a player can't swing flat, for instance. He doesn't prefer it.... and for good reason. You may have more anatomy knowledge than kelvin.. i dont know. But wouldnt you agree kelvin has taught more students golf? And also that his, and his certified instructors' results are certainly in the uppermost percentile as far as results in before and after swings? I think Kelvin has more golf teaching experience than you, and you debate and debate and debate about the way he phrases things.... but he sees people swing day in and day out. In my experience, it absolutely is more difficult to swing from a flat position then steep. You really need to make some moves to get that clubhead in front. I think it would be a lot harder for me to get someon to swing like mahan as oppose to carl patterson or JB holmes. Are you aware Kelvin has even wrote an article about a toned down drive hold swing, where he uses Zach Johnson as an example? He doesn't only praise the 10 or so players he likes to mention... I've consistently seen him find good things to say about most swings on tour. You seem to represent him a a guy who says "this is the only way to swing" when really he thinks that what he is prescribing is the way to get the most power out of your swing. It's always been about power. Not about one way. After you get the power.... you gotta stabilize that impact though. And I agree that a good pivot, and good balance is important too.
I've also seen you represent pictures drawn by "KMs groupies" from jeffies forums and ridiculed them. Miles, a newbie at the time, not some swing expert, drew a picture on lateral bend that was posed as a question, not an answer, and you proceeded to berate this inexperienced individual for asking a question, and exploited the opportunity by saying it wasn't surprising that this was what the KM students were thinking about lateral bend. He was corrected, first off. Second off, they were trying to put a feeling into a drawing. This was not a scientific paper submitted for peer review. When I still read both you and kelvin, and had no poor opinion of you either, and I saw this.... it came off as extremely unprofessional, low, out of context, and grasping for straws. And then I continued to see more posts like that.
Would you not agree that acting as though that picture drawn by miles, who was asking a question and seeking advice, was a representation of the type of things that KM followers believe, was taken out of context? .... Again, I'm not being mean. 6 months ago, I was in a completely neutral position, reading both you and kelvin, with no knowledge of this fued.
Can I ask you an honest question? ... Do you come at KM so hard because his teaching has gained a lot of steam and he has become somewhat successful, not only in getting attention, but in producing results? .... I don't know your intent. I really don't. But the only conclusion that I can come to, is that you don't like that a guy whos swing ideas you disagree with, is being touted as "the truth," from golfers who have been searching for such, for years.....sometimes over your own work, like in my case?
At any rate, I was wrong about the website stats. Cheers. I'd rather those folks visit your site over BMs site. At least there is some decent stuff to learn there.
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 21, 2014 18:15:55 GMT -5
You wrote-: "I feel like you reach for pieces of KMs articles and really necessarily blow them up. There are legitimate things to criticize, but it seems to me that you find fault often with phraseology and semantics. I understand that in your field, being specific is very important, but to me, from afar, you are extremely aggressive with your arguments against EVERYONE, as though your the only right person on earth. Now I'd call you nuts, but it just happens to be that almost all of golf instruction is wrong... so indeed, in this case, there's actually room for a few people to step up and be "the only right individuals on earth." Here's the thing... you debate KMs teaching as though he is right there with manzella and leadbetter and foley. It's very odd to me. Not gonna lie... to an outsider, it looks like a personal vendetta."
I have relentlessly attacked KM's opinions re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics, but I have nothing personal against KM as a person. I have never personally insulted KM's character and I have only vigorously critiqued his personal opinions regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I have also relentlessly attacked the personal opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics of many other golf instructors (eg. Jim McLean and Jim Hardy and Mike Bennett/Andy Plummer and BM) with the same degree of intellectual vigor. My relentless criticism is not a personal vendetta issue, and it simply a reflection of my strong penchant to be extremely critical when it comes to critiquing other golf instructors'/theorists' ideas re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I don't care whether you (or other people) believe that I am too brashly arrogant and too self-righteous. I also never complain when my personal opinions re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics are vigorously criticized, and I only object to personal ad hominem attacks that are directed at me personally - as Jeffy and you have done. In the Jeffy forum you wrote-: "Is it possible that he suffers from from that thing that Russell Crowe had in that one movie? I mean he does seem smart but he just reminds me a lot of this...You know? The one where he writes on windows, talks to himself, paces around, has imaginary friends, and has a shack in the woods where he things he a is in the CIA and writes codes all over walls? --- Yeah, that's it. I got it. He is John Nash. For sure has a shack in the woods where he goes to write swing equations all over the walls and argue with himself. That represents an uncivilized personal attack that is morally unjustifiable. I would never behave in a similarly uncivilized manner.
You also wrote-: "THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE TO ME.... and I won't get into it much further. KM's students swings are incredible, powerful, and stable. Kelvin, Andre, and Lucas have before and after swings like no one in so-called "top 100" teachers list, and to be honest, no one anywhere. There's no one who actually changes people's swings. No one takes a 15 handicapper with a crap swing, and gets them to swing 120, and drop 10 handicap strokes. These teachers are teaching this stuff and are getting results with every single student"
I think that your opinion is meaningless/meritless. It is basically a personal hearsay (subjective) opinion that cannot be verified. By the way, I never get into discussions/arguments about any golf instructor's teaching skills, and I only discuss/debate their expressed ideas re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. I have nothing negative (or positive) to say about KM's golf instructional teaching skills - even though I regard his ideas re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics as being totally wrongheaded.
You also wrote-: "The fact is that what Kelvin is teaching is the most powerful way to swing, I believe. Can we at least agree on that?"
I definitely disagree with you that KM is teaching the most powerful way to generate swing power. I think that he is essentially clueless about TGM mechanics, and I think that he doesn't really understand the major factors that result in swing power generation.
You also wrote-: "I believe the drive hold model swing is not the easiest to perform, but that it is the upper echelon."
I agree with you regarding the value of a DH-hand release action - but I believe that KM doesn't correctly identify the "true" biomechanical factors that allow a golfer to perform a DH-hand release action. I think that his list of essential biomechanical elements are totally wrong - and I discussed this issue at great length in topic number 9 of my latest review paper (and also in many threads in this forum).
You also wrote-: "Kelvin doesn't say a player can't swing flat, for instance. He doesn't prefer it.... and for good reason. You may have more anatomy knowledge than kelvin.. i don't know. But wouldn't you agree kelvin has taught more students golf? And also that his, and his certified instructors' results are certainly in the uppermost percentile as far as results in before and after swings? I think Kelvin has more golf teaching experience than you, and you debate and debate and debate about the way he phrases things.... but he sees people swing day in and day out. In my experience, it absolutely is more difficult to swing from a flat position then steep.
I think that your argument - based on subjective hearsay evidence about KM's golf teaching results - is meaningless/meritless - as I have previously explained. Also, the idea of trying to establish the legitimacy of two different (contrary) ideas regarding golf swing biomechanics by comparing the level of teaching experience of two different golf instructors is ludicrously wrong-headed. I also personally think that it is preferable to swing from a flat position (where the left arm is along, or just below, the shoulder turn angle) - like Ben Hogan.
You also wrote-: "Can I ask you an honest question? ... Do you come at KM so hard because his teaching has gained a lot of steam and he has become somewhat successful, not only in getting attention, but in producing results?"
No! I only attack KM's ideas re:golf swing biomechanics/mechanics because I think that are totally wrongheaded. By the way, I am not aware of any evidence that his teaching has gained a lot of steam or that he has become somewhat successful (whatever that means) in getting attention or producing results. I also couldn't care less whether your opinion about his success is "true" or "untrue" because it is irrelevant from my perspective. I wish all golf instructors the very best, and I hope that they all have successful teaching careers. I am simply not interested in the topic of "personal golf instructional teaching", and I never discuss the topic - to repeat myself (ad nauseum) I only discuss/debate a golf instructor's expressed ideas regarding golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.
You also wrote-: "But the only conclusion that I can come to, is that you don't like that a guy whos swing ideas you disagree with, is being touted as "the truth," from golfers who have been searching for such, for years.....sometimes over your own work, like in my case?"
You are totally wrong! It doesn't bother me in the least that you prefer KM's ideas rather than mine. I simply express my personal opinions re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics in this forum's posts and in my website's review papers, and you (and any other golfer) is free to reject them. I am extremely content to learn that many of my website's visitors love my stuff, and I do not ever dream of seeking universal appreciation.
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 22, 2014 9:17:11 GMT -5
Consider yet again this comment made by Grant-: "But wouldn't you agree kelvin has taught more students golf? And also that his, and his certified instructors' results are certainly in the uppermost percentile as far as results in before and after swings? I think Kelvin has more golf teaching experience than you, and you debate and debate and debate about the way he phrases things.... but he sees people swing day in and day out."
Grant is implying that KM can help golfers improve their swing more than me - because KM teaches golfers day-in-and-day-out, while I never offer personal golf swing lessons. Is that subjective "claim" true?
Consider my personal experience. I have been contacted by a fair number of my website's visitors who have shared their video lessons that they have received from golf instructors like Andy Plummer, Ben Doyle, KM and BM. I have therefore been able to see those golf instructors actually perform golf lessons, and I have noted that they often misdiagnose swing faults and misunderstand/misrepresent sound golf swing fundamentals. I also have had a number of Skype video communications with golfers who have been taught by famous golf instructors like David Leadbetter, Hank Haney, Jim McLean, Lynn Blake and Butch Harmon, and they have described their private lessons in great detail. All these website visitors have told me that they didn't obtain any benefit from having personal lessons with these famous golf instructors (who often charge a fortune eg. $500/hour) and that they radically self-improved their personal golf swing after studying my website's golf instructional material in an in-depth manner. Does that prove that I benefit golfers more than those previously-mentioned golf instructors? The answer is no! The reality is that my website can only help very analytical golfers who are very mechanically-oriented, and who are willing to obsessively study golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. They represent a small minority of golfers. Most golfers are "feel golfers" who would be harmed if they studied my website's material on golf swing mechanics/biomechanics - because they would likely end up suffering from "paralysis by analysis" (a neat phrase that infers that acquiring too many complex, or poorly understood, swing thoughts about golf swing mechanics can actually interfere with that golfer's ability to efficiently perform a full golf swing action). That's why I think that my website should not be visited by the casual/social golfer who is not fanatically interested in acquiring an in-depth knowledge of golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.
Consider how much time my website visitors spend on my website.
Here is the breakdown for May 21st 2014.
Note that there were 2,160 sessions and 3,032 page views.
Note that 1,854 page views lasted <10 seconds, which means that the bounce rate is >80%. That's very desirable from my perspective! Those golfers should never visit my website because they are not the type of golfer who is fanatically interested in learning about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics and they are not the type of golfer who is willing to spend hundreds of hours reading my website's chapters/review papers.
Note that 358 golfers spent between 10-30 minutes reading a particular webpage during that day's visit-session, and that 227 golfers spent >30 minutes reading a webpage. They represent my target audience, and they are representative of the "return visitors" who repeatedly visit my website and who often end up spending hundreds-of-hours reading, and re-reading, my review papers.
It is therefore ridiculous comparing my "infuence" on golfers to the "influence" of golf instructors (like KM and BM) because we deal with very different types of golfers.