A couple more mistakes in The Golfing Machine

[Brian Manzella]

Although the "Leave them alone and post your good work Brian" sentiment seems very nice, the reality is if it weren't for "that crowd" the Symposium probably never would have happened. They were the catalyst that put the fire unter Brians azz (and mine too).

If we don't look to their challenges and misconceptions we wouldn't have any reason to look at the real science.

Sometimes arguing is a necessary evil to find the truth. It just is. Otherwise why investigate it?

Hall-of-Fame Post.

Actually, the reason I did the ANTI-SUMMIT was all of the methods that claim science are at least somewhat full of crap.

And we WANTED TO blow the junk-scince up.

That includes the Book Literalists.

The other reason was I knew these three guys would be able to answer damn near every question asked—they almost did. There was one question that the panel fell silent on.

But this thread is just another reason we really dislike the book literalist camp.

We POST HARD SCIENCE, show mistakes in the book, and all you hear are crickets.

The book was shown to be wrong—again, and all they can do is call me the Caesar.

What about admitting you were wrong?

I did in the thread starter.

...If they just could admit to be at least partially wrong would be a major step in the right direction.

Damn straight.

...I was not allowed to even post once on LBG and only after a few days, without any notice, barred from iseekgolf. They are so darned scared of letting any scientist on their forums having a close look at all that they claim as the ultimate truth and possibly create doubt in the minds of their obedient disciples.

Truer words are rarely spoken.

none of what you say matters a bit - we're in it to find the truth....if it turns out to be TGM, so be it......TGM futures are trading lower, however, at this point

We are already planning a trip to see another scientist/golf researcher to learn more truths.

While "the other guys" will all meet in a room and try to figure out how to discredit me.

And that folks, is the whole ball-o-wax in a nutshell.

 

[Wilson!]

The point of maximum deformation, when the ball is being hit, which is somewhere between impact and separation, is where the clubface point influence on ball flight occurs.

Sounds quite true.

Period, end-of-story

What about the proof?

 

[Michael Finney]

we'll have dr. zick send you the math...what's your email address?

 

[birdie_man]

Ringer,

And mine too !

Just a visit to a TGM forum is all that one needs to convince oneself that they are rather special indeed. As any group thinking to possess the final and ultimate truth they are almost ridiculous going around in circles in their cosy mutual congratulation society.

If someone claims to possess an all-encompassing scientific approach to golf than one is fully justified to have a very critical look as this is inherent in any scientific endeavour. If they just could admit to be at least partially wrong would be a major step in the right direction.

Members have to make really a nuisance of themselves before they are banned from any forum. But I was not allowed to even post once on LBG and only after a few days, without any notice, barred from iseekgolf. They are so darned scared of letting any scientist on their forums having a close look at all that they claim as the ultimate truth and possibly create doubt in the minds of their obedient disciples.

Hehe.

 

[birdie_man]

The other reason was I knew these three guys would be able to answer damn near every question asked—they almost did. There was one question that the panel fell silent on.

Which was that? Can't member...

While "the other guys" will all meet in a room and try to figure out how to discredit me.

Ahahahahahaha.

Maybe we will get to see an Anti-Manzella political slander-style ad...

That could be an honour...

 

[Dariusz J.]

I don't get it. Are there still really believers that there might exist a book that can be flawless from A to Z ? Suppose Kelley was a real genius. Why did he need 6 editions to be released before his death ? And dare anyone think that provided he lived longer he wouldn't have edited more numbers ? Learning is an endless procedure, especially if the possibilities of examining it all more throughfully increase with flow of time.
People who do not understand the above or are not willing to are equal to a sect.

Cheers

 

[Michael Finney]

I don't get it. Are there still really believers that there might exist a book that can be flawless from A to Z ?
Cheers

yes

 

[JonWil]

you have to know brian

Probably better to jump up and down on a Mamba.

 

[birdie_man]

Here we go....

Listen close....

The top of the D-Plane, the TRUE 3D POINT of the clubface—lie angle tool style—is NOT formed at separation...

I repeat...

The clubface "point" that influences EVERY DAMN SHOT EVER HIT, is NOT formed at separation...

Not at separation...

Not...

Wa wa wee wa...

Amazing that golf is so muddled up that with all the tech out there these days it is even difficult to come to a consensus on the impact interval.

Just had a thought...

The thing about golf is no one dies (or something else terrible) if this stuff is wrong...

(and there's a lot of money in anything that might sell)

At least the real engineers are doing a better job building bridges, and whatnot.

Truly no offense to Homer Kelly (RIP)...

Wonder what he might've done different if he'd knew all this would be going on (involving his work) after he died...

Ringer,

And mine too !

Just a visit to a TGM forum is all that one needs to convince oneself that they are rather special indeed. As any group thinking to possess the final and ultimate truth they are almost ridiculous going around in circles in their cosy mutual congratulation society.

If someone claims to possess an all-encompassing scientific approach to golf than one is fully justified to have a very critical look as this is inherent in any scientific endeavour. If they just could admit to be at least partially wrong would be a major step in the right direction.

Members have to make really a nuisance of themselves before they are banned from any forum. But I was not allowed to even post once on LBG and only after a few days, without any notice, barred from iseekgolf. They are so darned scared of letting any scientist on their forums having a close look at all that they claim as the ultimate truth and possibly create doubt in the minds of their obedient disciples.

Hehe...

I'm sure you'll like the video a lot mandrin.

 

[birdie_man]

you have to know brian

As well as the circumstances?

 

[birdie_man]

And BTW, there was MUCH MORE in the way of mistakes found out at the Manziposium, but let's see if we can get a retraction on this SIMPLE DAMN couple of points first.

Lol...

As long as there is a market they gonna keep on truckin Brian.

The bigger they are the harder they fall, unfortunately for them.

Bigger waves when they hit the ground too...?

 

[Robbohank]

Here we go....

Listen close....

The top of the D-Plane, the TRUE 3D POINT of the clubface—lie angle tool style—is NOT formed at separation...

I repeat...

The clubface "point" that influences EVERY DAMN SHOT EVER HIT, is NOT formed at separation...

Not at separation...

Not...

I have said it before and I was wrong.

I am sorry.

But where did I get such an INCORRECT IDEA??

The Golfing Machine....

So from the book:

1-L #17. The Clubface needs to be square to the Line-Of-Flight only at Point
of Separation.

WRONG.

2-D-0 The direction of the ball will always be practically at right angles to the Clubface and square to the leading edge of' the Clubface at separation.

WRONG AGAIN.

2-D-0 Deviations in Horizontal Hinge Action during Impact can produce considerable variation in direction but little change in trajectory. Deviations in Vertical Hinge Action during Impact can produce great variation in trajectory but little change in direction.

AS WRONG AS IT CAN POSSIBLY BE.

The point of maximum deformation, when the ball is being hit, which is somewhere between impact and separation, is where the clubface point influence on ball flight occurs.

Period, end-of-story.

And all that deviation during impact stuff, is a PIPE DREAM. And it is ALL OVER THE BOOK.

So the book is wrong in those places, which is easily fixable if someone wanted to fix it.


So, can the "Everything in the Book is Correct Science crowd"—heretofore known as the Book Literalists—admit this mistake.


Can they?


Hmmmm.....?


.....waiting.......................................

I have to ask..... have you or any of your certified instructors EVER had a discussion with any of your students related to these topics during a lesson? If you have were any of them touring professionals? I can only imagine the looks you'd get.

I've studied the book a bit and have gotten some good stuff from it, but I guess I sort of glossed over this section. I have enough to worry about from transition to impact. Impact to separation stuff seems incidental.

Not trying to be a smart-ass or defend TGM, but I am curious as to how important these things really are to golf instruction in general.

 

[greenfree]

You could never be a smart-ass...lol. How's it going Robbo?

 

[gmbtempe]

Were there any other books that had issues proven wrong with them or was TGM the only one that was flawed? If there was is there a thread for those books that I missed?

 

[greenfree]

Were there any other books that had issues proven wrong with them or was TGM the only one that was flawed? If there was is there a thread for those books that I missed?

That's funny, for a guy that complains on a certain forum about others causing sh...t. Boring over there is it?

 

[Brian Manzella]

The Golfing Machine at the Manziposium

There were plenty of dragons slayed at the Symposium.

The Golfing Machine took a bigger hit because many of other FLAWED "science-based" methods do not make their scientific claims as clearly as TGM. And that is saying something.

Isn't it utterly amazing that in this thread, I present ONE LITTLE FLAW (albeit of many), and the folks who sell the book's infallibility do everything but admit they are wrong even once.

In my opinion, the book as written, is harming the golf instruction industry.

But so are the other FLAWED "science-based" methodologies.

Why can't these folks just market what they teach like a Leadbetter or a Harmon, "We think we can help you more than the other guys."

This "our science is perfect" stuff is going to fail—and fail big.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

There were plenty of dragons slayed at the Symposium.

The Golfing Machine took a bigger hit because many of other FLAWED "science-based" methods do not make their scientific claims as clearly as TGM. And that is saying something.

Isn't it utterly amazing that in this thread, I present ONE LITTLE FLAW (albeit of many), and the folks who sell the book's infallibility do everything but admit they are wrong even once.

In my opinion, the book as written, is harming the golf instruction industry.

But so are the other FLAWED "science-based" methodologies.

Why can't these folks just market what they teach like a Leadbetter or a Harmon, "We think we can help you more than the other guys."

This "our science is perfect" stuff is going to fail—and fail big.

EXACTLY, if your gonna scream "FACT" from the church tower you better be able to defend yourself. All of the false prophets in the golf instruction industry slow progress and steal from those doing good work.

 

[Robert McFadden]

Anyone who steals from here is poor indeed.

 

[bax1865]

Caught Red Handed.......I think?

Anyone who steals from here is poor indeed.

Thats a pretty bold statement for your 2nd post..........but welcome, I guess.... and tell them to bring back whatever they stole!

 

[gmbtempe]

That's funny, for a guy that complains on a certain forum about others causing sh...t. Boring over there is it?

not at all, its a very fair question and BM's response made sense. I think though it seems like there is a very clear agenda towards TGM in this search for the truth......which makes me wonder is it the truth or the agenda that drives the opinion.