Secret Research Mission

[SteveT]

In order:

(a) I followed your link. If you helped dlam, then it was only through a classic example of the misappropriation of scientific terminology and concepts that you claim to despise. Read your own post and come back and tell us how a fulcrum might absorb momentum?

Simple ... a right hand fulcrum is supported by the right forearm directly under the hand ... whereas the left arm is essentially a cantilever hanging in the air from the left shoulder and depending on shoulder muscle structure to carry the load of the left arm and the momentum of the club.

That's a lot of loading and potential instability .. and then to dump all that golf club reversal momentum into the protruding left thumb ... well that's mechanically stupid if you ask me ...!!!

I hope you won't ask me to calculate all the force moments and torques ... and please recall that Sarazen wrapped his left thumb around the handle .. so he had to use a right hand fulcrum .. to win all those tournaments.

 

[SteveT]

SteveT -

Am I correct you can't break 80 on a consistent basis?

I have difficulty staying in the 80s nowadays .... but that doesn't stop me from being 'golfwise' ...

 

[Glordfocker]

Simple ... a right hand fulcrum is supported by the right forearm directly under the hand ... whereas the left arm is essentially a cantilever hanging in the air from the left shoulder and depending on shoulder muscle structure to carry the load of the left arm and the momentum of the club.

That's a lot of loading and potential instability .. and then to dump all that golf club reversal momentum into the protruding left thumb ... well that's mechanically stupid if you ask me ...!!!

I hope you won't ask me to calculate all the force moments and torques ... and please recall that Sarazen wrapped his left thumb around the handle .. so he had to use a right hand fulcrum .. to win all those tournaments.

Well Steve I read the thread and low and behold didn't Homer say the same old thing.... school us on why the left wrist can't be the fulcrum

 

[cwdlaw223]

I have difficulty staying in the 80s nowadays .... but that doesn't stop me from being 'golfwise' ...

I'm shocked you admitted that you don't break 80. You surprise me. Your posts are consistently condescending and yet you tell the truth about your own game. I thought for sure you would say that you consistently break 80 to give yourself some credibility.

 

[footwedge]

I'm shocked you admitted that you don't break 80. You surprise me. Your posts are consistently condescending and yet you tell the truth about your own game. I thought for sure you would say that you consistently break 80 to give yourself some credibility.

I thought Horton said he doesn't play golf.

 

[birly-shirly]

Simple ... a right hand fulcrum is supported by the right forearm directly under the hand ... whereas the left arm is essentially a cantilever hanging in the air from the left shoulder and depending on shoulder muscle structure to carry the load of the left arm and the momentum of the club.

That's a lot of loading and potential instability .. and then to dump all that golf club reversal momentum into the protruding left thumb ... well that's mechanically stupid if you ask me ...!!!

I hope you won't ask me to calculate all the force moments and torques ... and please recall that Sarazen wrapped his left thumb around the handle .. so he had to use a right hand fulcrum .. to win all those tournaments.

A guy who is bandying around terms like "fulcrum" and "momentum" should know what they mean. I'm neither an engineer nor a scientist - but I know that a fulcrum doesn't absorb momentum, otherwise see-saws wouldn't work very well.

I don't think there's any amount of jargon or diversions that you can drop into your posts to convince me that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

 

[chipingguru]

Hey Steve T,

A friend of yours comes to you and wants to learn to play golf. What are the three or four most important things you would work with him on to start him on his golf journey?

How would you explain them to your new student?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Hello Folks...

Most of us TGM background guys have never been sane anyway (maybe O'Grady? jk), Wulsy. We are golf NUTS. Don't you listen to each other? Fellow nuts rejoice!
McHatton told me early on that Homer knew his science had lots of room for improvement. My "answers" have always had asterisks, but my passion, never--my ability to help golfers get better, never.
My circle of TGMers all compress it a little better than most of our colleagues...lots of mini-tour and club pro victories for my 6 best friends...some US Open and PGA Tour appearances. My best student is the D3 National Champ and Jack Nicklaus award winner. Not trying to brag, but letting you know that lots of this (this website) was built on the shoulders of TGM. Granted, my group aren't the literalist fundamentalists (doesn't that mindset just ruin everything in the world?!), and we love learning new stuff and applying it.
This is all part of the scientific method and we're getting there.
My re-hab and refuge happens every time I or one of my clients strike a blueprint shot.

Without TGM and Bentley J. Doyle, I would be 10 years behind where I am today.

I was (obviously) never a literalist either, and until I knew what they espoused to be EXACTLY what Homer meant, did I realize..."Uh oh! This is all a house of cards, isn't it."

None of the scientists we have met with since the ANTI-SUMMIT though the book was worth a darn "scientifically."

But they all gave Homer credit for trying, and coming up with some gems.

It sure does help to know the following...

Plane Line vs. Plane Angle

Hand Path

Different Kinds of Pivots

Variations can produce the same alignments

...among other observations.

Ben didn't (and doesn't) follow the book exactly, and plenty of those non-book exact ideas, are better than the book's versions.

I sorta feel sorry for the folks that haven't been privy to all the new science we've learned since late October.

But I will release it in usable form.

Science is usually found in book ... literally ... but there are some books that purport to be 'science' and are only rubbish (TGM).

Now if TGMers retreated into a "method" bunker, then they might gain some credibility.

If any of the TGM GSEB's, M's and D's had an inkling about science, they would have rejected Homer a long time ago ... but none of those with the TGM designations understand nor can defend Chapter 2 .. they are ALL 'science-ignorant' ... and that's why TGM is not a 'science-based' method .. it's strictly based on Homer's personal musings.

Harvey Penick Little Red Book, page 74 -- "Golfers are gullible."

SteveT (aka Horton) -- "Golfswing instructors are desperate for knowledge."

Steve, it was the best we all could find.

Will you admit that you can't explain TGM 'scientifically' as Homer espoused in Chapter 2 ... because you are only a good golfer, communicator, teacher ... but totally 'scientific-ignorant" ..??!!!

Will you confirm that nobody within TGM can competently connect Homer's "engineering science" to his golfswing observations and musings?

When people bear the qualifications of "Bachelor, Master or Doctorate", their education should have no gaping holes filled with ignorance. Homer wasn't scientifically educated, nor did he present 'science' in TGM in a competent manner .. in fact Chapter 2 if filled with 'rubbish' that only made sense to Homer in his fantacising.

Homer and TGM insults all "engineers" because his science is wrong wrong wrong ... and for you to bear the title of 'Engineer' is a total scam ...!!!

You are on shaky ground with all of this bashing. Really, try to cool it a bit.

Hey Steve T,

A friend of yours comes to you and wants to learn to play golf. What are the three or four most important things you would work with him on to start him on his golf journey?

How would you explain them to your new student?

Save your time SteveT, I answer this one after you defer to a real expert on the subject.

 

[chipingguru]

Very nice diplomatic response Brian.

 

[SteveT]

Well Steve I read the thread and lo and behold didn't Homer say the same old thing.... school us on why the left wrist can't be the fulcrum

Nope, you're wrong again because Homer did erroneously make the left wrist a fulcrum in 6-A-3 for his Secondary Lever Assembly. Not only that in 6-A-2 he starts with the left shoulder as the fulcrum for the Primary Lever Assembly ... and in both cases he is wrong wrong wrong. When I was 'Horton', I pointed out this gross error of sheer stupidity and I'm not going to redux the issue to respect our host Brian.

The left wrist cannot be a fulcrum because a fulcrum requires a foundation to establish itself .. and the right hand can use the flexed right arm as a foundation because the right arm is quite secure under the club at the Top of the swing.

 

[SteveT]

I'm shocked you admitted that you don't break 80. You surprise me. Your posts are consistently condescending and yet you tell the truth about your own game. I thought for sure you would say that you consistently break 80 to give yourself some credibility.

Gimme a break, because not even Palmer nor Nicklaus can break 80 nowadays ... and when you golf less often, your game suffers ... ask busy Brian. The only thing I can say about my game is that I pretty much have all my clubs under control .. and only the driver still misbehaves ... I shall never conquer the driver ...

 

[SteveT]

A guy who is bandying around terms like "fulcrum" and "momentum" should know what they mean. I'm neither an engineer nor a scientist - but I know that a fulcrum doesn't absorb momentum, otherwise see-saws wouldn't work very well.

I don't think there's any amount of jargon or diversions that you can drop into your posts to convince me that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Hey, maybe it's a "flying fulcrum" ....

I assure you that I have a faintest idea what I am talking about ... it's you who will be obsoleted by Project 1.68.

 

[ej20]

Gimme a break, because not even Palmer nor Nicklaus can break 80 nowadays ... and when you golf less often, your game suffers ... ask busy Brian. The only thing I can say about my game is that I pretty much have all my clubs under control .. and only the driver still misbehaves ... I shall never conquer the driver ...

Is there a scientifically correct expalnation of why your driver misbehaves?

 

[SteveT]

Hey Steve T,

A friend of yours comes to you and wants to learn to play golf. What are the three or four most important things you would work with him on to start him on his golf journey?

How would you explain them to your new student?

First of all, I don't give lessons ... but if I were a professional teacher with the massive scientific and practical knowledge that I possess, I would not ever give a single lesson to anybody because that's no better than a golf tip.

The student would have to make a commitment to me for a group of say 10 lessons and pay perhaps $2,000 up front and agree to work full time on his or her golfswing because it's not gonna be 'fun' but the end result will be fantastic. If they did not maintain their commitment, they could walk because I would lay it out for them that I made a commitment and their failure to hold up their end was their problem, not mine.

My teaching regime would involve general conditioning, golf-specific training, knowledge training, performing. The pussies can go find some golfswing guru to massage their feeelings and tell them how great they are ... not me ... because this is what I did to myself when I transitioned from tennis to golf.

However, if somebody like Tiger called me up in his desperation ... I would demand a cut of his winnings.

 

[cwdlaw223]

Gimme a break, because not even Palmer nor Nicklaus can break 80 nowadays ... and when you golf less often, your game suffers ... ask busy Brian. The only thing I can say about my game is that I pretty much have all my clubs under control .. and only the driver still misbehaves ... I shall never conquer the driver ...

You don't give anyone else a break! Quit being so hostile in your posts if even you can't execute with all of your knowledge. Nobody on this site holds their views in such high regard as you do and yet you have so little to show that your views actually work in the real world. (Palmer and Nicklaus are inherently credible to speak about the golf swing and criticize.) A little humity might actually work for you and having others believe what you say. You might have a ton of knowledge (which I suspect you do) but you can't communicate this knowledge to most through all of your hostility. The delivery of your message counts just as much as the content.

 

[footwedge]

First of all, I don't give lessons ... but if I were a professional teacher with the massive scientific and practical knowledge that I possess, I would not ever give a single lesson to anybody because that's no better than a golf tip.

The student would have to make a commitment to me for a group of say 10 lessons and pay perhaps $2,000 up front and agree to work full time on his or her golfswing because it's not gonna be 'fun' but the end result will be fantastic. If they did not maintain their commitment, they could walk because I would lay it out for them that I made a commitment and their failure to hold up their end was their problem, not mine.

My teaching regime would involve general conditioning, golf-specific training, knowledge training, performing. The pussies can go find some golfswing guru to massage their feeelings and tell them how great they are ... not me ... because this is what I did to myself when I transitioned from tennis to golf.

However, if somebody like Tiger called me up in his desperation ... I would demand a cut of his winnings.

I'd take you up on that.

 

[ej20]

I'd take you up on that.

You sure you wanna amputate your left thumb to improve your golf?

 

[footwedge]

You sure you wanna amputate your left thumb to improve your golf?

Man i'd cut off my{{{{{....}}}} well maybe not...lol

 

[SteveT]

Without TGM and Bentley J. Doyle, I would be 10 years behind where I am today.

I was (obviously) never a literalist either, and until I knew what they espoused to be EXACTLY what Homer meant, did I realize..."Uh oh! This is all a house of cards, isn't it."

None of the scientists we have met with since the ANTI-SUMMIT though the book was worth a darn "scientifically."

But they all gave Homer credit for trying, and coming up with some gems.

It sure does help to know the following...

Plane Line vs. Plane Angle

Hand Path

Different Kinds of Pivots

Variations can produce the same alignments

...among other observations.

Ben didn't (and doesn't) follow the book exactly, and plenty of those non-book exact ideas, are better than the book's versions.

I sorta feel sorry for the folks that haven't been privy to all the new science we've learned since late October.

But I will release it in usable form.

Not only was Homer's science a scam .. he couldn't swing a club worth a snot ... and TGM couldn't help him.

Steve, it was the best we all could find.

I got the book in 1980 and immediately realized it was a scientific scam .. and the work of somebody with a disorganized mind. If TGM was a flight manual for a Boeing aircraft, it would crash on takeoff. I ignored it until it became a cult fad used to suck in gullible golfers. If Joe Daniels had just made it into a Kelley Golf Method and redacted all the scientific references, it would just be another opinion by somebody who couldn't teach nor play.

You are on shaky ground with all of this bashing. Really, try to cool it a bit.

Yes, I know .. but you know I'm right ... as was Horton ....

Save your time SteveT, I answer this one after you defer to a real expert on the subject.

Udaman, BManz .... and when you are armed with Project 1.68 you will be invincible ... believe it..

 

[SteveT]

You don't give anyone else a break! Quit being so hostile in your posts if even you can't execute with all of your knowledge. Nobody on this site holds their views in such high regard as you do and yet you have so little to show that your views actually work in the real world. (Palmer and Nicklaus are inherently credible to speak about the golf swing and criticize.) A little humity might actually work for you and having others believe what you say. You might have a ton of knowledge (which I suspect you do) but you can't communicate this knowledge to most through all of your hostility. The delivery of your message counts just as much as the content.

Oh lighten up and don't be such a pussy crying about your feeelings. This is a man's forum and what you are experiencing is a clash between science and voodoo.

Most on this forum and those who only lurk, eschew science because they know they don't have the education ... and they don't want to go back to school to learn about their homemade golfswing and problems. School is no 'fun' for most golfers .. they would prefer to muddle.

Wait until BManz unveils his Project 1.68 and then you may have a gentler version of my scientific brutality.

mandrin was always a gentleman on the old forum ... but even he became frustrated with TGM ... btw, where is mandrin ...??!!!