I hope no one minds if I start a new thread, but Damon posted something in the recently-brought-back-to-life research thread that I thought was important enough to discuss independently.
Here's what Damon had to say:
There have been a number of debates that have flared up recently which involve one side using old TGM speak and the other side saying "that stuff has been disproved."
I find myself sort of agreeing with both sides. What I mean is this: I know that Trackman does disprove the MECHANICS of all the things Damon lists above. But does it disprove the feel of some of them?
And I know that the new stuff is true mechanically in terms of trackman data, but what exactly does the golfer do with it?
So, in terms of the physics, there is no heavy hit and no ability to manipulate hinge actions right around the ball. But isn't it also true that folks who THINK they are using hinge actions actually get the clubface in a different position at impact that helps them to control the flight of the ball? And isn't it possible that trying to achieve a "heavy hit," even though no such think truly exists, helps to snap the kinetic chain in a way that creates more clubhead speed? Finally, there is no such thing as PURE swinging or hitting, but don't some people find they hit the ball better when the focus on the FEEL of either A) pulling while monitoring PP#2 and PP#4 or B) pushing while monitoring PP#1 and PP#3?
So I think there's a confusion in some of these debates. If the TGMers are trying to defend the actual mechanics of some of these things, then they are flat out wrong.
But I worry that the folks on the other side (who I agree with - I learned the TGM I learned HERE, and not from the book, and I have NO allegiance to the book) also need to see that sometimes there are some TGM feels that have YET to be replaced by Manzellisms. I'm sure one day they will be, but we seem to be in a transition phase here. Lots of us are still going back to Building Blocks and The Movie, which still use TGM explanations. So sometimes the Manzella folks respond just by saying "that's been blown up." That's fine as a rejection of TGM dogmatism, but what does it do for folks like me?
In other words, when I look at Damon's second list, I see LESS stuff that I can USE in my golf swing. I see results that show that TGM elements were literally, mechanically, wrong, but there's not necessarily something there to replace it.
I understand the D plane fundamentals and I get that the old ball flight laws were wrong. But when Brian lists out all the ways we can measure the clubhead in 3D, it only makes it MORE CONFUSING for me to think about how to swing. (And I think that's why we keep seeing new thread that say "please explain this D plane" thing, and the answers, while technically sound, don't necessarily translate into something one can take to the course.)
One example then: "Tracing a straight plane line" may be wrong, but I don't see what substitutes for it. "Zero out the path" may be something that a great instructor can do FOR their student while on Trackman, but what do I do to try to hit the ball consistently straight? TGM says "trace a straight plane line" and Manzella "blows that up" - but then.... I'm just blown up. When I watch Brian Gay swing, I can't tell you how he's "zeroing out the path" but it does look to me like he's tracing a straight plane line - like he's doing the basic moves that Brian describes in Building Blocks.
Maybe pattern #13 will answer ALL these questions. But until it arrives, I would hope there could be a little less acrimony between those who are still using some TGM language and those experts who have seen the trackman results.
Here's what Damon had to say:
There have been a number of debates that have flared up recently which involve one side using old TGM speak and the other side saying "that stuff has been disproved."
I find myself sort of agreeing with both sides. What I mean is this: I know that Trackman does disprove the MECHANICS of all the things Damon lists above. But does it disprove the feel of some of them?
And I know that the new stuff is true mechanically in terms of trackman data, but what exactly does the golfer do with it?
So, in terms of the physics, there is no heavy hit and no ability to manipulate hinge actions right around the ball. But isn't it also true that folks who THINK they are using hinge actions actually get the clubface in a different position at impact that helps them to control the flight of the ball? And isn't it possible that trying to achieve a "heavy hit," even though no such think truly exists, helps to snap the kinetic chain in a way that creates more clubhead speed? Finally, there is no such thing as PURE swinging or hitting, but don't some people find they hit the ball better when the focus on the FEEL of either A) pulling while monitoring PP#2 and PP#4 or B) pushing while monitoring PP#1 and PP#3?
So I think there's a confusion in some of these debates. If the TGMers are trying to defend the actual mechanics of some of these things, then they are flat out wrong.
But I worry that the folks on the other side (who I agree with - I learned the TGM I learned HERE, and not from the book, and I have NO allegiance to the book) also need to see that sometimes there are some TGM feels that have YET to be replaced by Manzellisms. I'm sure one day they will be, but we seem to be in a transition phase here. Lots of us are still going back to Building Blocks and The Movie, which still use TGM explanations. So sometimes the Manzella folks respond just by saying "that's been blown up." That's fine as a rejection of TGM dogmatism, but what does it do for folks like me?
In other words, when I look at Damon's second list, I see LESS stuff that I can USE in my golf swing. I see results that show that TGM elements were literally, mechanically, wrong, but there's not necessarily something there to replace it.
I understand the D plane fundamentals and I get that the old ball flight laws were wrong. But when Brian lists out all the ways we can measure the clubhead in 3D, it only makes it MORE CONFUSING for me to think about how to swing. (And I think that's why we keep seeing new thread that say "please explain this D plane" thing, and the answers, while technically sound, don't necessarily translate into something one can take to the course.)
One example then: "Tracing a straight plane line" may be wrong, but I don't see what substitutes for it. "Zero out the path" may be something that a great instructor can do FOR their student while on Trackman, but what do I do to try to hit the ball consistently straight? TGM says "trace a straight plane line" and Manzella "blows that up" - but then.... I'm just blown up. When I watch Brian Gay swing, I can't tell you how he's "zeroing out the path" but it does look to me like he's tracing a straight plane line - like he's doing the basic moves that Brian describes in Building Blocks.
Maybe pattern #13 will answer ALL these questions. But until it arrives, I would hope there could be a little less acrimony between those who are still using some TGM language and those experts who have seen the trackman results.
