Michael Finney
New
the golfing machine is fine......the people who push it as something that it is not (scientifically infallible) are doing the disservice....
A couple more mistakes in The Golfing Machine
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
I don't know Mike, if DR. Grober say's there's errors on every page i wonder how fine is it?
Amen Corner
New
So by them stop pushing it, would you stop with the bashing on tgm?
Michael Finney
New
cmon guys, you KNOW who we're talking about....i'm not going to get brian in trouble for mentioning some guy's name...
greenfree, it's fine in the sense that it stands on its own as a catalogue of components - just don't try to convince me that it has ALL the answers - because it doesn't
Amen Corner - if they were to come out and say that the book is (in the end) not scientifically infallible because of new evidence, then, yes - the "bashing" would stop - can you relay that to them?
and to joec.....it's the literalists - if you're not one of them, then you're fine - joe daniels has other issues unrelated to touting GM perfection
greenfree, it's fine in the sense that it stands on its own as a catalogue of components - just don't try to convince me that it has ALL the answers - because it doesn't
Amen Corner - if they were to come out and say that the book is (in the end) not scientifically infallible because of new evidence, then, yes - the "bashing" would stop - can you relay that to them?
and to joec.....it's the literalists - if you're not one of them, then you're fine - joe daniels has other issues unrelated to touting GM perfection
C
caedus
Guest
THIS IS ANOTHER THREAD BAG AIMED AT A PERSON, JUST IN CASE SOME OF YOU DON'T KNOW, MANZELLA CAN'T STAND AND VICE VERSA.
ITS COMICAL THAT MANZELLA SPENDS MOST OF HIS TIME ON BAGGING TGM WHEN BY ALL ACCOUNTS FROM REAL TGM FOLKS , MANZELLA DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE BOOK , AS DARYL SHOWED WITH HINGE ACTION ( WHETHER THAT IS SCIENTIFIC OF NOT IS ANOTHER MATTER) , JUST LIKE DOYLE WHO SWIVELS OFF PITCH ELBOW.
WHO GIVES A SHIT ANYWAY, THIS IS JUST GREAT ENTERTAINMENT. KEEP THE SHOW GOING CESAR, NICE SCORES 81, 76, 75 IN LIGHT BREEZE OLD BOY, SEE I TOLD YOU I WOULD MAKE YOU BETTER , AND I HAVEN'T EVEN GOT TO YOUR SWING YET
ITS COMICAL THAT MANZELLA SPENDS MOST OF HIS TIME ON BAGGING TGM WHEN BY ALL ACCOUNTS FROM REAL TGM FOLKS , MANZELLA DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE BOOK , AS DARYL SHOWED WITH HINGE ACTION ( WHETHER THAT IS SCIENTIFIC OF NOT IS ANOTHER MATTER) , JUST LIKE DOYLE WHO SWIVELS OFF PITCH ELBOW.
WHO GIVES A SHIT ANYWAY, THIS IS JUST GREAT ENTERTAINMENT. KEEP THE SHOW GOING CESAR, NICE SCORES 81, 76, 75 IN LIGHT BREEZE OLD BOY, SEE I TOLD YOU I WOULD MAKE YOU BETTER , AND I HAVEN'T EVEN GOT TO YOUR SWING YET
Approach
Mike Finney said:
"the golfing machine is fine......the people who push it as something that it is not (scientifically infallible) are doing the disservice...."
Not only is that an excellent point - even Mr. Kelley when he was alive would tell a new or avid proponent of the book - "Don't sell the system" - he knew that it would only hurt his "system" or turn people off. I'm not a fan of pushing it, thinking it's "scientifically infallible" - (that would be crazy) - nor thinking "it's all there". I am a fan of trying to improve, increase your understanding of something and moving forward - so I do love that approach that the "team" has here - from that perspective it's a can't lose approach.
Mike Finney said:
"the golfing machine is fine......the people who push it as something that it is not (scientifically infallible) are doing the disservice...."
Not only is that an excellent point - even Mr. Kelley when he was alive would tell a new or avid proponent of the book - "Don't sell the system" - he knew that it would only hurt his "system" or turn people off. I'm not a fan of pushing it, thinking it's "scientifically infallible" - (that would be crazy) - nor thinking "it's all there". I am a fan of trying to improve, increase your understanding of something and moving forward - so I do love that approach that the "team" has here - from that perspective it's a can't lose approach.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Cadeus, please respect that fact that I don't mention some people's names, if you could. So I edited that name out.
Let's take your rant, one "point" at a time.
I got involved the golfing machine because I thought it was "real science."
I had more success teaching "with it" the further from "book literalism" I was. When I starting teaching from it closer to the way the book literalists did, it was a total detriment to my teaching.
You see, you have never seen me teach, and I can understand the way you seem to feel about me, which is based on other people's "scouting reports" and your then tainted observations from this site.
But, I can flat out teach. Ask someone who is not a "Manzella-ite" like John Graham.
So, "book literalism" hurt my teaching. It would probably be a step up for 50%+ of all teachers.
So then, I had to find out why.
The answer was because the INFORMATION WAS BAD.
When you bring up something like the "how" best it is to "perform" something NO HUMAN can do, like Hinge Action, what's the point?
Like Mike Jacobs said, they can get their best "performer" to submit to a 3D machine + Trackman test to prove THEY can do it.
Pigs will fly beofre they submit to such a test. I would make me look too good.
So, I am running as far away from BAD SCIENCE as I can.
Do you suggest I do otherwise?
I want to personally thank you for taking bad about my ball striking and my golf swing.
Because, with out the mini-fire you lit under me, I wouldn't have played as well as I did in 15-25 mph winds.
I DID NOT practice for the event. I did not play the four days before it. I didn't play a practice round.
But I beat quite a few decent players, including Stan Stopa, who is a fantastic player who has played in a couple of Senior majors in the last two years. I'm going to be 50 next year, btw.
I'd love to help you with your golf game anytime.
I think you would have a totally different opinion of me, given that chance.
Let's take your rant, one "point" at a time.
I got involved the golfing machine because I thought it was "real science."
I had more success teaching "with it" the further from "book literalism" I was. When I starting teaching from it closer to the way the book literalists did, it was a total detriment to my teaching.
You see, you have never seen me teach, and I can understand the way you seem to feel about me, which is based on other people's "scouting reports" and your then tainted observations from this site.
But, I can flat out teach. Ask someone who is not a "Manzella-ite" like John Graham.
So, "book literalism" hurt my teaching. It would probably be a step up for 50%+ of all teachers.
So then, I had to find out why.
The answer was because the INFORMATION WAS BAD.
When you bring up something like the "how" best it is to "perform" something NO HUMAN can do, like Hinge Action, what's the point?
Like Mike Jacobs said, they can get their best "performer" to submit to a 3D machine + Trackman test to prove THEY can do it.
Pigs will fly beofre they submit to such a test. I would make me look too good.
So, I am running as far away from BAD SCIENCE as I can.
Do you suggest I do otherwise?
I want to personally thank you for taking bad about my ball striking and my golf swing.
Because, with out the mini-fire you lit under me, I wouldn't have played as well as I did in 15-25 mph winds.
I DID NOT practice for the event. I did not play the four days before it. I didn't play a practice round.
But I beat quite a few decent players, including Stan Stopa, who is a fantastic player who has played in a couple of Senior majors in the last two years. I'm going to be 50 next year, btw.
I'd love to help you with your golf game anytime.
I think you would have a totally different opinion of me, given that chance.
ggsjpc
New
Many of you will have opinions about Brian and his forum, information, science, behavior, grape busting ability or a whole list of other things and that's what life is all about.
Some good and some bad.
However,
Any person with an open and fair mind, that has a serious desire to improve golfers, that knows what real teaching is all about, and has actually seen Brian teach, knows that Brian can teach.
There is no question about that.
No amount of CAPS or name calling or anything will ever be able to take that away from him.
I argue and debate with Brian as much as anyone.
Especially, when I know I'm going to win.
Even with all that, I must say, it doesn't change the facts.
Brian can flat out teach.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
You know, i don't get on here as much as i used too anymore as my main career is busy as heck and i'm older with more responsibilities but i am sick and tired of all this nonsense and finger pointing at brian for pointing out obvious errors.
Wanna know how good brian is as a teacher? In basically 2 years i went from hacker to single digit handicap and a manzella instructor by basically PARROTING the man. I wasn't anything special, i just found GOOD information before any real BAD information and thought to myself, why can't i do this for others?
So i did; i started teaching NSA/NHA and the basic patterns. Then i learned some more and tweaked and eventually came to my own conclusions and i now have my own preferences. But i'd be NO WHERE if it wasn't for this man who has taught me so much so it really bothers me at the way people try to attack him for simply telling people how it is.
I don't know how Brian deals with all this nonsense at his age, i only hope to have that much energy when i get that old...errr...his age.
Wanna know how good brian is as a teacher? In basically 2 years i went from hacker to single digit handicap and a manzella instructor by basically PARROTING the man. I wasn't anything special, i just found GOOD information before any real BAD information and thought to myself, why can't i do this for others?
So i did; i started teaching NSA/NHA and the basic patterns. Then i learned some more and tweaked and eventually came to my own conclusions and i now have my own preferences. But i'd be NO WHERE if it wasn't for this man who has taught me so much so it really bothers me at the way people try to attack him for simply telling people how it is.
I don't know how Brian deals with all this nonsense at his age, i only hope to have that much energy when i get that old...errr...his age
.Brian Manzella
Administrator
Interestingly, the entire golf instruction business is about almost everything but who can really teach.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Thanks Mike.
That meant an awful lot to me.
It is really tiring to be called names when trying to do what I believe Homer Kelley would have LOVED TO DO—consult with the top golf scientists in the world and uncover more about how the golf swing really works.
It is really sad that everyone who loves the book, doesn't feel the way you do.
You know how I feel about Mr. Kelley and his work. I was like a kid in Macy's toy department when I went through you Homer Kelley/Golfing Machine collection at your house.
I really believe I am doing what he would have wanted—taken his stuff, and moving forward.
Again,
Thank you very much.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
I would love to hear your opinion of swiveling off pitch elbow. Talk about great entertainment.
david sandridge
New
I have followed these discussions with great interest.
I am a physician who has taken lessons from a number of golf machine instructors including Doyle, McHatton, Sloan, Tomasello, Blake and others. I had great respect for all of my teachers and they were good at what they did. They all had their own interpretations of the book.
Currently in medicine we are trying to practice "evidence based medicine" based on scientific studies. While laudatory it is not perfect. The human body is not a machine. Its complexity continues to baffle. A great article was published in one of our peer reviewed journals about how to use the information gleaned in these studies in clinical practice. So I pass this on as a suggestion.
Teaching students may be like treating patients.
The article pointed out that three bodies of knowledge needed to be integrated like three intersecting circles. Scientific knowledge, clinical experience and finally patient input and wishes.
Scientific knowledge would be the new trackman, D plane data, Clinical experience would be the knowledge of the Percy Boomer's, Harvey Penicks, Jack Grouts, and all of the other acknowledged good teachers, and finally the wishes of the student with the instructors knowledge tailored to each ones learning style.
I think it is a mistake to try to rewrite Homer's book. You science guys go your own way and write your own. However I would suggest chapters be divided intro scientific jargon for the smart folks and a related chapter in plain english for those that don't want to bother with the details.
The passion and energy you have should produce a valuable and helpful volume for those of us that like to study golf an "entertainment for a lifetime" Just as doctors may have to rely on the "art of medicine" to cure patients, golf instructors may also have to resort to something out the "little red book" to help a student. High speed cameras, trackman, biomechanics, and all of the other sports advances should be integrated into golf understanding and hence instruction.
It requires a new book, not a rewriting of the old.
I am a physician who has taken lessons from a number of golf machine instructors including Doyle, McHatton, Sloan, Tomasello, Blake and others. I had great respect for all of my teachers and they were good at what they did. They all had their own interpretations of the book.
Currently in medicine we are trying to practice "evidence based medicine" based on scientific studies. While laudatory it is not perfect. The human body is not a machine. Its complexity continues to baffle. A great article was published in one of our peer reviewed journals about how to use the information gleaned in these studies in clinical practice. So I pass this on as a suggestion.
Teaching students may be like treating patients.
The article pointed out that three bodies of knowledge needed to be integrated like three intersecting circles. Scientific knowledge, clinical experience and finally patient input and wishes.
Scientific knowledge would be the new trackman, D plane data, Clinical experience would be the knowledge of the Percy Boomer's, Harvey Penicks, Jack Grouts, and all of the other acknowledged good teachers, and finally the wishes of the student with the instructors knowledge tailored to each ones learning style.
I think it is a mistake to try to rewrite Homer's book. You science guys go your own way and write your own. However I would suggest chapters be divided intro scientific jargon for the smart folks and a related chapter in plain english for those that don't want to bother with the details.
The passion and energy you have should produce a valuable and helpful volume for those of us that like to study golf an "entertainment for a lifetime" Just as doctors may have to rely on the "art of medicine" to cure patients, golf instructors may also have to resort to something out the "little red book" to help a student. High speed cameras, trackman, biomechanics, and all of the other sports advances should be integrated into golf understanding and hence instruction.
It requires a new book, not a rewriting of the old.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Finally, a sane person.
David,
Nobody on the business wants ANY OF THIS to be about who can teach real people in the real world the best.
I have suggested "teach offs," "peer review lesson exhibitions," etc. any EVERYONE LAUGHS AT ME.
Well, not everyone, but the "powers that be," and the "method teachers."
Just imagine how much GOLF WOULD ADVANCE if there was such an exhibition or competition.
It is far easier to say the following....
"Brian's swing is ugly, my teacher's swing is pretty."
than it is for the same people to say...
"Let get them both on TrackMan and have a ball striking contest."
It is far easier to say...
"Brian doesn't know the right way to teach something out of a book, according to some person."
than it is for them to say...
"Let's get them both on 6°3D and see if it is possible, or see who CAN teach it, or demonstrate it the best."
It is far easier to say....
"Brian and his guys are all hot air, my teach is the best teacher."
than it is for them to say....
"Let's all go to a big range and find out who can REALLY teach."
And that is a fact, jack.
And you are right....
It requires a new book, not a rewriting of the old.
David,
Nobody on the business wants ANY OF THIS to be about who can teach real people in the real world the best.
I have suggested "teach offs," "peer review lesson exhibitions," etc. any EVERYONE LAUGHS AT ME.
Well, not everyone, but the "powers that be," and the "method teachers."
Just imagine how much GOLF WOULD ADVANCE if there was such an exhibition or competition.
It is far easier to say the following....
"Brian's swing is ugly, my teacher's swing is pretty."
than it is for the same people to say...
"Let get them both on TrackMan and have a ball striking contest."
It is far easier to say...
"Brian doesn't know the right way to teach something out of a book, according to some person."
than it is for them to say...
"Let's get them both on 6°3D and see if it is possible, or see who CAN teach it, or demonstrate it the best."
It is far easier to say....
"Brian and his guys are all hot air, my teach is the best teacher."
than it is for them to say....
"Let's all go to a big range and find out who can REALLY teach."
And that is a fact, jack.
And you are right....
It requires a new book, not a rewriting of the old.
You(being Brian and the Manzella Academy Instructors) and most of the forum has known that for a couple of years.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
And so the three threads are all completed....
This thread was just a little test for those who sell the book as the irrefutable word on all things golf swing.
I gave them ONE LITTLE PIECE that we know through science is NOT CORRECT IN THE BOOK, and they really could not bring themselves to admit it.
Some did, but other did not.
Pretty illustrative, wasn't it?
.................................................. .................................................. ..
This is a message for all who would like to comment or disagree on this, and the two other threads on this subject and closely related ones.
If you have a webcam, and would like to discuss any of your concerns with me live on UStream, please feel free to contact me and we will make it happen.
This is the ONLY WAY that any of this discussion ever makes it to the "next level" toward resolution.
Two (or more) human beings talking live, faces and expressions visible, no screen names involved, live on the web where other interested parties can watch, and recorded for posterity, will result in actual civil discourse that is hard to spin, and better for all.
Thank you all very much,
Brian Manzella
- Status