Please comment EdZ on the following: "At impact, the arms become fully extended while the hands and wrists return to their natural form, that is, square to the target for a straight shot. The right elbow, meanwhile, returns to an extended form at impact. Beyond impact, the left elbow will fold midway to the finishing position while the right arm extends."
Calling EdZ
- Thread starter ppt3
- Start date
- Status
Sorry to do this to you Edz because you seem like a nice sincere man who wants to know lots about the swing but the quote in my post came from your favorite book, The Natural Golf Swing by George Knudson. Unfortunately the book is full of dozens of howlers like this. My point was this: you must read critically. Homer wrote the book with precision to explicitly avoid nonsensical, illogical statements that George made throughout his book. The book needed a good editor to somehow complement George's knowledge about his awesome golf ability.
Give Lorne Rubinstein a failing grade in this regard.
Give Lorne Rubinstein a failing grade in this regard.
Have you ever seen me say that Knudson's book was 100% correct?
Nope, but it is far closer than most.
Why.... because,
focusing on pure BALANCE, TARGET and seeing your finish position, in pure BALANCE will help more folks, faster, than anything I have ever read.
Is that all there is? - no - but there is a LOT less that needs to be 'done' in a good swing - a vast majority of the swing is a natural reaction to balance, and to intention - TARGET
As for both arms straight at impact, actually it is closer to the 'ideal' than it may sound - problem is that it is one extreme, and gives you less margin for error, and requires too much 'around'
And as far as reading critically - "at IMPACT both arms BECOME fully extended"
not = both arms ARE fully extended..... fully extended at separation would be the 'limit' -
Sorry to do that to you ppt3..... but you call me out and don't even have a tough question to answer....nice try though
how many alias names is that now?
that's a good one at least....
Nope, but it is far closer than most.
Why.... because,
focusing on pure BALANCE, TARGET and seeing your finish position, in pure BALANCE will help more folks, faster, than anything I have ever read.
Is that all there is? - no - but there is a LOT less that needs to be 'done' in a good swing - a vast majority of the swing is a natural reaction to balance, and to intention - TARGET
As for both arms straight at impact, actually it is closer to the 'ideal' than it may sound - problem is that it is one extreme, and gives you less margin for error, and requires too much 'around'
And as far as reading critically - "at IMPACT both arms BECOME fully extended"
not = both arms ARE fully extended..... fully extended at separation would be the 'limit' -
Sorry to do that to you ppt3..... but you call me out and don't even have a tough question to answer....nice try though
how many alias names is that now?
that's a good one at least....
Ed I put a statement out for you to comment on and now you are backpedalling. Your original reaction was that the statement was so ludicrous on the face of it that you said (assuming on your part that I made the statement) that I must be smoking crack. Actually I don't indulge but be that as it may you cannot have it both ways. Your argument now is that 'become' and 'are ' are not the same. All I know is that when the fairy godmother turned the pumpkin into a golden coach it was a pumpkin that became a golden coach, consequently it was a golden coach. In any case maybe we should leave the meaning of the word 'is' to Bill Clinton or Jean-Paul Sartre and get down to business.
You said the book is close. Close to what. In most cases the statements are entirely antithetical to The Golfing Machine and could anybody start at square one and learn to play from this book? If so what in this book would substitute for Chapters 4 and 5 about which Homer says, "...without the Key of Educated Hands per Chapters 4 and 5, more information only means more confusion." Knudson says on the other hand, "It is important to emphasize that we do nothing consciously with the hands, wrist, and arms during the motion." Homer on the other hand says,"The player must acquire, and continue to develop, habitually skillful, disciplined, conscious manipulation of the Hands usind the Clubhead Lag Pressure Point (6-C) as the main line of communication between Hands and Clubhead- both ways. See 5-0." Can't you see the difference here? George has all the right wrist conditions and CAN do it subconsciously but to tell someone else to not think about it and somehow correct hand action will come by magic or if you move your legs in a certain way or concentrate on the target you will develop lag is asinine. We are trying to get to the truth on this forum and nonsense is nonsense no matter who propagates it. The answers are all in The Golfing Machine and all George had to do concerning the actual conditions of the arms at impact was to look at 8-10 or a picture of his idol Ben Hogan at impact.
The fact of the matter Ed is that The Golfing Machine is the most creative and informative book on the market bar none. Homer modestly said that he has written nothing new and everything could be found somewhere else but I take issue with him here. Where else can you find such clear explanation of so many things from Plane of Motion to Educated Hands to Aiming Point Concept to 12 Sections and on and on and on. The point of my original post was if a statement is made it must stand up to scrutiny no matter who makes it. You made my point for me.
P.S. I am not sure what this alias stuff means but I have only posted a few times and only under ppt3.
You said the book is close. Close to what. In most cases the statements are entirely antithetical to The Golfing Machine and could anybody start at square one and learn to play from this book? If so what in this book would substitute for Chapters 4 and 5 about which Homer says, "...without the Key of Educated Hands per Chapters 4 and 5, more information only means more confusion." Knudson says on the other hand, "It is important to emphasize that we do nothing consciously with the hands, wrist, and arms during the motion." Homer on the other hand says,"The player must acquire, and continue to develop, habitually skillful, disciplined, conscious manipulation of the Hands usind the Clubhead Lag Pressure Point (6-C) as the main line of communication between Hands and Clubhead- both ways. See 5-0." Can't you see the difference here? George has all the right wrist conditions and CAN do it subconsciously but to tell someone else to not think about it and somehow correct hand action will come by magic or if you move your legs in a certain way or concentrate on the target you will develop lag is asinine. We are trying to get to the truth on this forum and nonsense is nonsense no matter who propagates it. The answers are all in The Golfing Machine and all George had to do concerning the actual conditions of the arms at impact was to look at 8-10 or a picture of his idol Ben Hogan at impact.
The fact of the matter Ed is that The Golfing Machine is the most creative and informative book on the market bar none. Homer modestly said that he has written nothing new and everything could be found somewhere else but I take issue with him here. Where else can you find such clear explanation of so many things from Plane of Motion to Educated Hands to Aiming Point Concept to 12 Sections and on and on and on. The point of my original post was if a statement is made it must stand up to scrutiny no matter who makes it. You made my point for me.
P.S. I am not sure what this alias stuff means but I have only posted a few times and only under ppt3.
And folks wonder why TGM has a bad name.... posts and attacks like this one are a prime example.
Have I ever attacked TGM? I have ever said anything negative about Homer? ever said he was 'wrong'?
nope
Have I ever attacked YOU? Mr. PPT3?
(hiding behind those new screen names again and attacking me.... why is that? - why do you feel the need to attack me?)
So, back to golf..... did you have a point to make? Or are you simply trying to discredit Knudson? Who, BTW, did quite a good job of knowing what was, and wasn't, required to 'DO' to learn to swing well.
No argument from me that what Knudson did can be described using TGM.
Give up control to gain control.
You do it your way, I'll do it mine, ok? Tell you what, think about the plane of the pen next time you sign a check...
Obey the on plane swinging force in balance....
And as far as any back pedaling goes... put the crack pipe DOWN
down is part of the reason that arms extended fully AT impact doesn't work
it would only work IF the ball were struck AT the low point, which, unless you have a horizontal motion and/or perfect timing and stability of the hub, isn't possible, or advisable - the pure 'sweep' of the ball off the turf, ZERO margin for error
Downward, outward, on plane
and if this really were your first posts, what the heck is your deal with me? I'm simply trying to help folks play better golf, and you attack me? (or rather Knudson) You must be a real jerk, or a complete idiot, or both.
As always, if you care to discuss golf, or have a valid discussion to contribute about golf, lets hear it.
Have I ever attacked TGM? I have ever said anything negative about Homer? ever said he was 'wrong'?
nope
Have I ever attacked YOU? Mr. PPT3?
(hiding behind those new screen names again and attacking me.... why is that? - why do you feel the need to attack me?)
So, back to golf..... did you have a point to make? Or are you simply trying to discredit Knudson? Who, BTW, did quite a good job of knowing what was, and wasn't, required to 'DO' to learn to swing well.
No argument from me that what Knudson did can be described using TGM.
Give up control to gain control.
You do it your way, I'll do it mine, ok? Tell you what, think about the plane of the pen next time you sign a check...
Obey the on plane swinging force in balance....
And as far as any back pedaling goes... put the crack pipe DOWN
down is part of the reason that arms extended fully AT impact doesn't work
it would only work IF the ball were struck AT the low point, which, unless you have a horizontal motion and/or perfect timing and stability of the hub, isn't possible, or advisable - the pure 'sweep' of the ball off the turf, ZERO margin for error
Downward, outward, on plane
and if this really were your first posts, what the heck is your deal with me? I'm simply trying to help folks play better golf, and you attack me? (or rather Knudson) You must be a real jerk, or a complete idiot, or both.
As always, if you care to discuss golf, or have a valid discussion to contribute about golf, lets hear it.
First off Ed lighten up for heaven's sake. I did not attack you or George Knudson. I have great admiration for George Knudson and greatly enjoyed watching him play in person and spent some time with him. He was actually very nice to me but I do think his book is highly unfortunate. Scrutinizing his statements falls under the category of giving your closest friend your honest opinion of something he is about to do, no more or no less. There is no malice intended in that instance nor was there any intended in my post.
Secondly I am neither a jerk nor an idiot and I am sure you are not either so please never let an open and honest discussion devolve into name-calling.
As far as attacking I can assure you that as a longtime proponent of The Golfing Machine I have been called every name in the book by people who never have taken the time to even read the book. At least I always take the time to read something before I form an opinion. Perhaps I took a somewhat too proactive approach here and offended you. For that I apologize but my original point still stands and that was to evaluate every statement at face value no matter what the source i.e. PGA Tour player or whoever.
Secondly I am neither a jerk nor an idiot and I am sure you are not either so please never let an open and honest discussion devolve into name-calling.
As far as attacking I can assure you that as a longtime proponent of The Golfing Machine I have been called every name in the book by people who never have taken the time to even read the book. At least I always take the time to read something before I form an opinion. Perhaps I took a somewhat too proactive approach here and offended you. For that I apologize but my original point still stands and that was to evaluate every statement at face value no matter what the source i.e. PGA Tour player or whoever.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
I was never, ever very impressed by this book by Mr. Knudson.
The ideas in the book, taught in EXCESS by 'run-of-the-mill' pros in my hometown, were laughable or sad, depending on your perspective.
The ideas in the book, taught in EXCESS by 'run-of-the-mill' pros in my hometown, were laughable or sad, depending on your perspective.
Forgive me for jumping to conclusions - considering you called me out specifically, claimed you were 'sorry to do this to me', and I'm supposed to think your condesending tone was accidental? and I explain WHY I said what I did and you called it back pedaling?
and yet back to the point.....
Yes or no - in an ideal swing (physics) both arms straight exactly after seperation?
Yes or no - this gives you the most advantage of angular momentum (power), but less margin for error?
Yes or no - for more margin for error (for solid contact), you need more DOWN?
Yes or no - the disadvantage of that margin for error is slightly less distance/loft control?
The REASON that balance and giving up control is the key - a pure swinging force, uninterupted, is the most effecient movement of the club
Minimize any inefficient motion, and you will find pure balance, find pure balance, and you will minimize any inefficient motion, of the club, or body
Understand WHAT efficient motion of the CLUB is - why lag is good
and then DO NOTHING to interupt that efficient motion
That is why Knudson was so good, and teaching golf CAN be that simple, when you know what to look for.
Homer knew this too..... he just DESCRIBED it (better than anyone)
Ed just a few closing thoughts as I exit from this thread.
1. Ed I called you out specifically because you highjack many threads and turn them into a George Knudson lovefest. Nobody else does that with any one specific book so I called you on it and you bit. In your first post you called what I quoted from the book nonsensical which is what it is unless you know some human being who can get his elbow into 3 anatomical positions at the same time. You cannot turn around later and try to cover your tracks by asking me some mumbo-jumbo theoretical questions. It doesn't matter for example if I answer your first question with a yes or no because it doesn't address the point of my first post which is if you are going to write something be careful. Sincere people read this stuff looking for practical answers. You cannot do what Knudson says. You say so yourself. As far as condescension the only condescension in the whole thread is in your first answer, sort of a look what this village idiot posted, he must be on drugs attitude on your part.
2. Try this for me Ed. Go to your local driving range and pick 100 golfers at random and ask them if they think balance is important and if they need to hit their ball at the target when they play. You will get 100 yeses to both questions. Then watch them hit the ball and see how many hold their balance and how often the ball goes at the target. The number will decrease drastically. Then ask them to describe the three wrist conditions of the left wrist at impact or do what Homer says in 2-G, "For a practice drill, Educate the Left Hand (5-0) to reproduce -with Zero Pivot- the three Hinge actions, distinct and separate, while swinging continuously back and forth." All you will get will be blank stares and with all due respect the answers to help them just ain't in your book. You see Ed they all have leakage and pretending they don't and giving them simple-minded, impractical stuff or patently obvious stuff that they already know will not change that no matter how many times you say it. And giving them information that is demonstrably false like both arms become fully extended at impact makes the job even harder.
3. Brian takes a no prisoners approach and I must say at first I was a little taken aback but the guy has got balls and he learned from the best, Ben Doyle so he should shout it from the rooftops because heaven knows The Natural Golf Swing isn't the only heavily flawed instructional book on the market.
1. Ed I called you out specifically because you highjack many threads and turn them into a George Knudson lovefest. Nobody else does that with any one specific book so I called you on it and you bit. In your first post you called what I quoted from the book nonsensical which is what it is unless you know some human being who can get his elbow into 3 anatomical positions at the same time. You cannot turn around later and try to cover your tracks by asking me some mumbo-jumbo theoretical questions. It doesn't matter for example if I answer your first question with a yes or no because it doesn't address the point of my first post which is if you are going to write something be careful. Sincere people read this stuff looking for practical answers. You cannot do what Knudson says. You say so yourself. As far as condescension the only condescension in the whole thread is in your first answer, sort of a look what this village idiot posted, he must be on drugs attitude on your part.
2. Try this for me Ed. Go to your local driving range and pick 100 golfers at random and ask them if they think balance is important and if they need to hit their ball at the target when they play. You will get 100 yeses to both questions. Then watch them hit the ball and see how many hold their balance and how often the ball goes at the target. The number will decrease drastically. Then ask them to describe the three wrist conditions of the left wrist at impact or do what Homer says in 2-G, "For a practice drill, Educate the Left Hand (5-0) to reproduce -with Zero Pivot- the three Hinge actions, distinct and separate, while swinging continuously back and forth." All you will get will be blank stares and with all due respect the answers to help them just ain't in your book. You see Ed they all have leakage and pretending they don't and giving them simple-minded, impractical stuff or patently obvious stuff that they already know will not change that no matter how many times you say it. And giving them information that is demonstrably false like both arms become fully extended at impact makes the job even harder.
3. Brian takes a no prisoners approach and I must say at first I was a little taken aback but the guy has got balls and he learned from the best, Ben Doyle so he should shout it from the rooftops because heaven knows The Natural Golf Swing isn't the only heavily flawed instructional book on the market.
Gee Brian, I think you outed your alias there..... show me some of those PPT3 threads that were 'hijacked' by me/knudson eh?
Dude, if you think I didn't know what you were doing when I answered put the pipe DOWN, then I can't help your ego. I explained the reasons, asked you specific golf related questions, which you now won't answer (because I suspect you know the answer supports my point)
If Knudson was so wrong, why even bother discrediting his book?
Simple fact is, if you have someone swing two clubs, eyes closed, and have them stay in balance and obey the swinging force, focused on target, their swing will look pretty darn good - from there, they just need to learn some setup (strong single action to start) and 'depth' control. The relaxed swing motion will take care of 'lag'.
I have no disagreement with you, with TGM, or especially with Ben.
Just trying to help folks play better golf. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.
Again, if you have specific golf related points on which you don't agree with me, lets hear them, with a supporting argument. We are all here to learn from each other.
As for hiding behind an alias, I have posted nothing in any thread of yours (PPT3) about knudson except this one, nor have I even made more than a passing comment in any thread that you have contributed to or started.
Folks can do a simple search if they wish.
Brian (PPT3, whoever you are), I have no agenda except to help folks play better. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can both help the game of golf, heck we might even grab a beer sometime, hard to find a bigger golf swing nut than me...
Dude, if you think I didn't know what you were doing when I answered put the pipe DOWN, then I can't help your ego. I explained the reasons, asked you specific golf related questions, which you now won't answer (because I suspect you know the answer supports my point)
If Knudson was so wrong, why even bother discrediting his book?
Simple fact is, if you have someone swing two clubs, eyes closed, and have them stay in balance and obey the swinging force, focused on target, their swing will look pretty darn good - from there, they just need to learn some setup (strong single action to start) and 'depth' control. The relaxed swing motion will take care of 'lag'.
I have no disagreement with you, with TGM, or especially with Ben.
Just trying to help folks play better golf. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.
Again, if you have specific golf related points on which you don't agree with me, lets hear them, with a supporting argument. We are all here to learn from each other.
As for hiding behind an alias, I have posted nothing in any thread of yours (PPT3) about knudson except this one, nor have I even made more than a passing comment in any thread that you have contributed to or started.
Folks can do a simple search if they wish.
Brian (PPT3, whoever you are), I have no agenda except to help folks play better. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can both help the game of golf, heck we might even grab a beer sometime, hard to find a bigger golf swing nut than me...
OK I lied, but this is definitely my last post just for Brian's sake to save him some trouble. Paul was not the walrus and Brian is not ppt3. Case closed on that issue.
I do not have a problem with you. I actually kind of enjoy the fire in your belly. I do however have a problem with bad or lazy golf instruction.
"The relaxed swing motion will take care of 'lag'". Uh, no sorry Ed. Life is just not that simple and quite often the truth is counterintuitive to what people think. Homer says,"A "Feel" System without an "Engineering" System is a lop-sided lottery." He also says, "Almost anyone can do an imitation that could appear to the untrained eye to be as good looking as those of many experts. And all that would need to be added would be more precision in the Component Relationships." In other words lots of people like I believe 6bee1dee in another thread think they have lots of lag but see on videotape that they have a ways to go. Hell if just telling people to relax was the answer the Golf Professional could sit up on the deck at his club in front of a tall, cool one and instruction would be a breeze. It doesn't work like that. It takes precise and complete information as presented in The Golfing Machine delivered by caring, dedicated instructors and pupils who truly "Look!Look!Look!" until they can get it right and can convert it ultimately from conscious thought to subconscious feel, a wonderful and rewarding journey.
And yes I would gladly have a beer with anyone who enjoys golf but I feel I should warn you that like Ben I come from Canada and we only drink real beer or men's beer up here unlike that horse.. well you know what I mean in the States.
Best Wishes in your own game this year and Sustain the Lag.
I do not have a problem with you. I actually kind of enjoy the fire in your belly. I do however have a problem with bad or lazy golf instruction.
"The relaxed swing motion will take care of 'lag'". Uh, no sorry Ed. Life is just not that simple and quite often the truth is counterintuitive to what people think. Homer says,"A "Feel" System without an "Engineering" System is a lop-sided lottery." He also says, "Almost anyone can do an imitation that could appear to the untrained eye to be as good looking as those of many experts. And all that would need to be added would be more precision in the Component Relationships." In other words lots of people like I believe 6bee1dee in another thread think they have lots of lag but see on videotape that they have a ways to go. Hell if just telling people to relax was the answer the Golf Professional could sit up on the deck at his club in front of a tall, cool one and instruction would be a breeze. It doesn't work like that. It takes precise and complete information as presented in The Golfing Machine delivered by caring, dedicated instructors and pupils who truly "Look!Look!Look!" until they can get it right and can convert it ultimately from conscious thought to subconscious feel, a wonderful and rewarding journey.
And yes I would gladly have a beer with anyone who enjoys golf but I feel I should warn you that like Ben I come from Canada and we only drink real beer or men's beer up here unlike that horse.. well you know what I mean in the States.
Best Wishes in your own game this year and Sustain the Lag.
Fair enough..... not sure why you feel I am against TGM, not at all. Most complete description of the swing ever. Not the 'only' way to learn, and at root, all golf instruction is after the same motion, same result, same instructions to the ball.
Lazy instruction? Depends on the student, and how to best get a point across. Certainly hard to do in text, which is why so many folks are confused, trying things that don't apply to them etc. Understanding concepts - understanding what the club must tell the ball, is the real key.
No worries about bad beer.... I worked for a 'beverage' company for several years out of college here in SF - they had a brewery in Montana that I visited often, very quality hand made beer, no 'piss water' mass produced crap - agreed that few Americans know good beer. I'm a guinness guy myself, but appreciate any 'quality' brew.
Lazy instruction? Depends on the student, and how to best get a point across. Certainly hard to do in text, which is why so many folks are confused, trying things that don't apply to them etc. Understanding concepts - understanding what the club must tell the ball, is the real key.
No worries about bad beer.... I worked for a 'beverage' company for several years out of college here in SF - they had a brewery in Montana that I visited often, very quality hand made beer, no 'piss water' mass produced crap - agreed that few Americans know good beer. I'm a guinness guy myself, but appreciate any 'quality' brew.
silvercreek
New
ahh, finally a topic I need no road map for. ppt3, where in Canada are you? a fellow canuckle head.
Cheers,
gr
silvercreek
New
southwestern ontario, but in february it sure feels that way.
- Status