Why do the new videos seem so different from the old ones?

[Michael Jacobs]

I thought I would share this conversation here:


The new videos present a different approach from previous materials. 30 years of golf instruction has been married to the notions of Club Head Lag and left wrist locking & Rolling. TGM was seen as the scientific approach in golf and I started out my career adhering to the popular teaching culture of the time. Those principles were developed into a system that was successful for high handicap golfers and all of us could have made a great living continuing to teach those principles to regular club golfers, have a nice little wife and kids and live the life of a happy club pro. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!


In 2004, the industry was graced with 3D Tracking. For the first time ever, the Resultant Path was discovered. The resultant path trumped 100% of what was taught and thought about the impact. The upward and downward element of the impact was for the first time taken into account.


We have also been graced with 3D motion capture of the human golf swing. 3D capture will coming to our golf schools starting in 2012 and students will get to experience the 3D motion in 6 degrees of freedom of 12 selected areas of the body and club.


With the advent of this technology, we now have real data on what the great players are doing and what the not so great players are doing. We now have pools of information on data averages of all skill levels all of which we have purchased and have volumes of.


The golf industry relied on 2 Dimensional Video analysis for 30 years, TGM was deemed the science of golf, wouldn’t it have been nice if that was all that was needed??


Medicine, Military Defense etc.. are continually improving their methods. Does a clogged artery get treated the same way it did years ago?? We advance and we are not afraid to advance and stay ahead of the industry.


I taught a system supposedly based on science and the best info available at the time from age 21-31...


I took a stance and made a command for that system to be updated and it was not.


Now is the time for the advent of a new era and we have moved our instruction into our own system. We spare no expense here, the budget is unlimited and whatever is necessary for advancement will happen.


In my early 30's now and Brian approaching the big 50 the sights are set on being the best who ever taught and shared the game's instruction.


Many golfers will be crossed up in the transition and to them I say we will be certain to keep you abreast on each and every advancement in the industry. You will notice that some of the old golf instruction videos and tips have been removed and the stage is set for advancement.


Hope that helps we hope your transition will be quick!

 

[Brian Manzella]

I thought this thread would be a good place to put this:

I've been reading here and watching some of BM's and MJ's videos for the past month. Isn't there a lot of similarity between their concepts and those expressed by Jim Hardy for the two plane swing in his Plane Truth About Golf?

I would say there is no similarities. Have you purchased both BM and MJ's videos?

I'm not saying similarities to"one plane" but how another instructor describes the "two plane" swing. Both use Tom Watson as the perfect example of what they believe is a great example. Yes, have watched a couple of each including Ideas on The Release by BM and MJ's latest..

This site is about Brian, his staff instructors and their instruction. We do not discuss other instructors or their theories, unless specifically brought up by Brian or one of his instructors. Thank you.

Well that sure invites discussion! I like this forum but statements like this sound to much like censorship and 'Thou shalt not have any golfing instructors before me'. Is this the official policy here?

Statements like this will only deter people from joining and using this forum as it makes it clear that they only get 'one side' of things.

To be fair, if you had a forum for the iPhone app you advertise, and someone came on your forum (if you have one) and said "Isn't this like that other iPhone app?" You would probably not be happy with that or ask they don't advertise other apps.

As much as this is discussion, Brian and Michael have a living to make. It also stops other instructors/methods being badmouthed by forum members, for which they would be partly responsible for as it is their forum.

Simple, sensible rule really.....

BTW great app, just bought it.... one of the best i've seen for stats

Censorship? This is ONE instructor's place of business. Everyone who is here is hoped to be here for his information. So it really is a fair rule.
There are plenty of other message boars to discuss various other instructors. Try going on Hardy's website and doing the same thing.

I understand that this a forum for Brian Manzella and I don't have a problem with that. It is just how it was worded.
'We do not discuss other instructors or their theories'. PeteJ just tried to understand how what he read/seen from Brian maps to other ideas about the golf swing. PeteJ just joined the forum. Do you honestly believe he will come back after getting such a response?

Brian and Mike have started this project 1.68 which is supposed to look at the science behind the golf swing and how to apply this to teaching. I think they are doing a great job.

But imagine a group of scientist running a forum and the rule is not to talk about ideas from other scientist. No one would take the scientist seriously! I know there are the occasional trouble maker (Jeffy comes to mind) but I thought PeteJ's question was valid as he was just trying to understand things.




Thanks, glad you like it.

Par hunter, that is a fair post. We hope he comes back to contribute.

We have a hard fast rule—we don't really discuss other teacher's stuff on this site.

Why?

Well, it certainly isn't because we are "scared" of other ideas.

a. We have changed what we teach in the past few years more than any known teacher has since Jim Flick ran from "Square-to-Square."​

b. We internally discuss EVERY competitor's stuff nearly every day, figure out what is good, what isn't, and go on from there.​

c. We love to debate, and are pretty much the only folks in the biz that would like to participate in a "teach off."​

So, why the censorship?

Good question.


Here are the real answers:

a. Folks who are "fanatics" of other teachers or methodologies will NOT debate. They will just jump up and down and say their stuff is the best. That's why we have found a team of 8-10 of golf best scientists who we consult with regularly to learn from and to make sure our empirical findings are scientifically valid. The fanatics won't even defer to the scientists.​

b. I have been threatened with law suits by rich nut jobs with nothing better to do but to try to spend me into oblivion.​

c. Nobody else out there seems to really want to learn the answers to the golf swing. They just want to say their stuff is the best and is ALREADY scientifically sound. I can tell you from the time I've spent with the scientists, that NOBODY'S stuff is completely scientifically sound. Even ours. But, we have BRANDED ourselves as the guys that will find a mistake or omission in our work and change it tomorrow. Nobody else is sure saying that.​

d. This site has become a place where not only golfers come to learn and be entertained talking golf and golf swing, but 1000's of golf pros do as well. Any of this fist-fighting non-debate turns folks off and our viewership always goes down.

e. This is the #1 ranked site on the internet talking about the golf swing and instruction run by and named after a golf instructor, folks come around just to disrupt business all the time. I have reached a place in the business where all of that stuff needs to—and for the most part has—gone away.


​

Hope this helps,


BManz

 

[Erik_K]

Great post, Mike.

It is indeed refreshing to see that there is a camp of committed teachers and scientists willing to develop and share the most current approaches and science behind the golf swing. As you said in many other hobbies and professions - change (for the better) is welcomed. It seems that golf instruction is one such area where change and new ideas is met with much staunch resistance. Not only is it met with resistance, but very little proof is offered to show why "A" is better than "B."

It seems as if this site (and your own) is actually trying to establish some accountability or at the very least, some foundation based on objective measurements via 3D radar technology, as the basis for why you'd teach something like the new release.

I think it almost goes without saying that most people are resistant to change and new ideas. I doubt there were many (or any) great scientific discoveries that weren't met with heavy doses of skepticism before becoming universally accepted.

 

[ParHunter]

Hi Brian,

thanks for clarifying this. I have noticed that some people can get very 'religious' about their golf believes and I know that these 'crusaders' can run amok on a forum.

What I like is that you and Mike say, 'Yes we were wrong with TGM but we've learned from it'. It is the same in science. When you get new evidence that contradicts a certain theory then that theory has to be modified or replaced with a new theory.

I am looking forward to the outcome of project 1.68.

Regards
ParHunter

 

[Svenster]

Re: "Why do the new videos seem so different from the old ones?"

I have all of BM's retail videos including the new "Ideas on the Release" one. Truth be told I haven't 'studied' them all as much as I should have yet but do plan to do so now that the weather has turned to #%*@ here in the Pacific Northwest.

My question is, does the newest video with the new release information negate any of the previous videos? In other words, which videos, if any, should I not be studying in light of the new information. I know that all the videos have gems of insight about different aspects of set up, posture, backswing, pivot, etc. but are there certain parts of the previous videos that I should be "ignoring" now so that I'm not internalizing mixed messages and confusing the hell out myself?

 

[TeeAce]

I'm always happy seeing golf instruction going to 3D world and devices even if they are our device or some other.

The only problem is that people don't take / need so much lessons after that, because they really start to understand and learn. From whatever level they start.

 

[spktho]

I'm always happy seeing golf instruction going to 3D world and devices even if they are our device or some other.

The only problem is that people don't take / need so much lessons after that, because they really start to understand and learn. From whatever level they start.

Not a problem at all. Word of mouth is huge in referrals for other people to take lessons. Plus when the others that that person plays with actually sees the improvement, it reinforces it even more to go to the same instructor.

 

[TeeAce]

Not a problem at all. Word of mouth is huge in referrals for other people to take lessons. Plus when the others that that person plays with actually sees the improvement, it reinforces it even more to go to the same instructor.

Sorry I forget to put this at the end: ;D

 

[dbl]

In the New Release thread, Brian said how he would re-do (if he would) the existing videos. I think he said that any re-do would have full TM or 3D info.

Here's the link to his comments on all the current videos
http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...an-manzella-michael-jacobs-72.html#post203104


Here is something from Brian on NSA from a different thread,
re a future Nsa3 (w/o wedding ring up or full roll)

What the golfer is doing to the club during the push-pull and the radial force going normal could still be "caught" by a flat left wrist/ full roll swivel.

I know, because I've done it a bunch working on the new stuff and producing all the new impact alignments.

The ideal position for better players at this point, is more palm on the wall at that point.

 

[hue]

I don't see a problem with testing and validating set in stone ideas and theories when there is new technology out there that was not to available at the time of the conception of those theories that can either validate or disprove them now. To argue against that is ridiculous. It was Mr Kelley himself that said he wanted today's garbage to be better than yesterday's and tomorrow's better than today's. It was through that process he formed his conclusions and moved the boundaries of golf motion science an quantum level. Implied in that thought process is that set conclusions could be flawed and we don't know what we don't know and only through constant checking, testing and refinement can we arrive closer to the truth.

 

[Brian Manzella]

I don't see a problem with testing and validating set in stone ideas and theories when there is new technology out there that was not to available at the time of the conception of those theories that can either validate or disprove them now. To argue against that is ridiculous. It was Mr Kelley himself that said he wanted today's garbage to be better than yesterday's and tomorrow's better than today's. It was through that process he formed his conclusions and moved the boundaries of golf motion science an quantum level. Implied in that thought process is that set conclusions could be flawed and we don't know what we don't know and only through constant checking, testing and refinement can we arrive closer to the truth.

Great to hear from you!

Wow, it's been a long time.


We sure have come a long way from what we were teaching in 2003-2005.

It's great to "out in front," but you keep getting hit in the head from those who are behind.


Here are the highlights:

1. No "lag pressure" from the top — no "lag pressure" through impact.

2. Trigger delay is NOT "on purpose."

3. The resultant path.

 

[SteveT]

@hue .... the problem with Homer's TGM was it was based on a false foundation of incorrect science, even at that time. You may recall in 2003 when you joined Brian's forum that several legitimate forum members were debunking Homer's Chapter 2 science on which he claimed his TGM method was based.

Homer, to his credit and with limited knowledge, made several interesting observations about the golfswing, but it was nothing more than his anecdotal observations painted over with a mass of confusing references and incorrect definitions. However TGM gave instructors a base from which to work because the early science by such people as Dr. David Williams and Cochran & Stobbs was too disconnected from the age old orthodoxy's of the great golf masters.

Now Brian and Mike are developing a comprehensive working theory for the golfswing based on current science. But science is like a slippery slope as new science emerges. Bringing in new golfswing solutions is like trying to stop the merry-go-round to get off... it never stops.

Should be interesting ....

 

[BCGolf]

What happened to the rule?