As soon as one says "final, period, no questions asked", they are on shaky ground. EVERYTHING CHANGES ALL THE TIME. But these people have built an empire on "final, period, no questions asked" and when they are proven wrong, it is a devastating brand blow. What is TGM selling? What makes their product unique? "Final, period, etc. You are striking a blow to their lifeline by "proving" them wrong. So they will atempt to make you the "Galileo of golfdom",a role you seem to relish...Truth is a relative concept; in this case realtive to the on going investigation of scientific principles about the gaolf swing. You are giving them an out, fair enough seems to me. But that out is a big ouch TGM fundamentalists.
A couple more mistakes in The Golfing Machine
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
As soon as one says "final, period, no questions asked", they are on shaky ground. EVERYTHING CHANGES ALL THE TIME. But these people have built an empire on "final, period, no questions asked" and when they are proven wrong, it is a devastating brand blow. What is TGM selling? What makes their product unique? "Final, period, etc. You are striking a blow to their lifeline by "proving" them wrong. So they will atempt to make you the "Galileo of golfdom",a role you seem to relish...Truth is a relative concept; in this case realtive to the on going investigation of scientific principles about the gaolf swing. You are giving them an out, fair enough seems to me. But that out is a big ouch TGM fundamentalists.
Deadly_Scope
New
I agree that with science it is best to be completely objective and I would add that if Homer had investigated in a scientific manner with pure logic then it would have been totally feasible to have written a technically correct and practical book. He must have known deep down that he really was confused but he chose to write out his confused perception.
It helped from the perspective that it raised the level of thought at the time but since then has done more harm than good. The wrist conditions are incorrect, the hinge action is a half-truth, the flying wedges are wrong...etc. It also takes a lot of effort to understand that its incorrect... it's a waste of life.
Can I go right back to the start of this thread (sorry, but I missed it first time round):
I'm interested to know how this was proven. I'm not doubting it (in fact it seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm an engineer specialising in impact analysis!) I'm just interested to know what method was used (high speed video, laser measurement, mathematical/computer model?)
I'm also interested to know if it makes a significant difference (could it result in a missed fairway/green). I'm saying its not significant (but happy to be proven wrong). If a golf ball impact lasts less than one millisecond and the club only travels around an inch, how much rotation is there really anyway (and whatever it is, halve it because we're only talking about the difference between max compression, about half way through, and separation). I'd guess some small fraction of a degree. What would be the effect of this on ball flight?
And that's before we get into whether or not a club can continue to rotate (or be influenced to do so) whilst the ball is on the face.
I'm interested to know how this was proven. I'm not doubting it (in fact it seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm an engineer specialising in impact analysis!) I'm just interested to know what method was used (high speed video, laser measurement, mathematical/computer model?)
I'm also interested to know if it makes a significant difference (could it result in a missed fairway/green). I'm saying its not significant (but happy to be proven wrong). If a golf ball impact lasts less than one millisecond and the club only travels around an inch, how much rotation is there really anyway (and whatever it is, halve it because we're only talking about the difference between max compression, about half way through, and separation). I'd guess some small fraction of a degree. What would be the effect of this on ball flight?
And that's before we get into whether or not a club can continue to rotate (or be influenced to do so) whilst the ball is on the face.
Wrong, or just incomplete
I think this is a great example of how science & technology advances knowledge. Technically, the old ball flight laws were not wrong, just imcomplete. They do apply, but only for the specific case of impact (however you define THAT!) right at the bottom of the swing arc. Technology like trackman allowed us to expand the 'laws' to apply to the general case of impact anywhere on the arc - which gives us the D-plane.
As we know more and more about everything in our world, there are fewer theories that are just plain wrong - most are just somewhat simplified or incomplete. As an example, some time ago a smart guy with messy hair came up with E=MC^2. Now Einstein was a genius and got it pretty much bang on at the first try, but more recently other smart guys like Stephen Hawking found cases where this didn't apply, so needed to refine it, adding more detail (things like 'dark matter'). Now I'm nowhere near smart enough to be a physicist, never mind an astrophysicist, but this always seemed to me like a 'fudge', kind of like "we have this thing we can't explain but if we add some factor then all the maths works". In time it might be proven wrong, or it might just get refined some more, but for now its (mostly) accepted as correct.
If you're still with me, I do have a point (honest). There is usually some sound basis in most theories, they just need some refinement. I think TGM is the same - there is some good stuff in there (Homer was a pretty smart guy after all) and we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think this is a great example of how science & technology advances knowledge. Technically, the old ball flight laws were not wrong, just imcomplete. They do apply, but only for the specific case of impact (however you define THAT!) right at the bottom of the swing arc. Technology like trackman allowed us to expand the 'laws' to apply to the general case of impact anywhere on the arc - which gives us the D-plane.
As we know more and more about everything in our world, there are fewer theories that are just plain wrong - most are just somewhat simplified or incomplete. As an example, some time ago a smart guy with messy hair came up with E=MC^2. Now Einstein was a genius and got it pretty much bang on at the first try, but more recently other smart guys like Stephen Hawking found cases where this didn't apply, so needed to refine it, adding more detail (things like 'dark matter'). Now I'm nowhere near smart enough to be a physicist, never mind an astrophysicist, but this always seemed to me like a 'fudge', kind of like "we have this thing we can't explain but if we add some factor then all the maths works". In time it might be proven wrong, or it might just get refined some more, but for now its (mostly) accepted as correct.
If you're still with me, I do have a point (honest). There is usually some sound basis in most theories, they just need some refinement. I think TGM is the same - there is some good stuff in there (Homer was a pretty smart guy after all) and we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Last edited:
Leon, I think you may be offbase with the above summarization. The old ball flight laws said initial direction was based on path, and Trackman and other improvements in science show that is wrong. So, unless I'm missing something you are saying, saying the old ballflight laws were "incomplete" is incorrect.
ggsjpc
New
If they were called the initial direction laws, I think you would be 100% correct. As they were called the ball flight laws, I think incomplete or not fully accurate is a fair statement. They were correct in terms of the direction of the curve and how the face and path related to each other and that curve.
They were surely lacking in the initial direction piece.
I think you are both right! I'd meant to say they were correct for the specific case of path and face aligned, but I'd missed the initial direction issue, which I agree was flat wrong for all other cases. Some bits were right though, so I still think 'incomplete' is a fair description overall.
coophitter
New
I believe the measurements the Search for the Perfect Swing guys took estimated that initial direction of ballflight favored clubface over path by 65% to 35%. I heard that Kelley thought these guys were pretty much on the money. My PGA manual LATER favored path over face. I think Gary Wiren started this dubious stuff but I don't know where he got it from. I'm an old TGMer and we always went by Search for Perfect Swing stuff. So path over face is NEWER to me than face over path. I remember when we old TGMers were considered batty in PGA school for disagreeing with Wiren.
I don't have a book nearby so I'm not sure about the 65%/35% ratio. In my old age I could have remembered it incorrectly, but I do know they leaned heavy towards face. Also I believe their ball flight ESTIMATES were never considered LAWS. Does anyone know? Before SFTPW were there any other definitive attempts to sort this stuff out?
I think Zick found face to be about 70% but still an estimate based on elastic collision formulas. I don't know but I think collision result numbers are based on elastic assumptions and therefore there will always be small degrees of uncertainty because real collisions are not perfectly elastic. So can there be ball flight LAWS or just very close estimates?
mandrin
New
coophitter,
I am rather intrigued. This does not quite fit with my interactions with TGMers.
When this forum was still basically TGM oriented in the years past I had a fair amount of interesting discussions with TGMers.
I definitely remember that it was mentioned several times that Homer Kelley thought there to be many errors in 'The Search for the Perfect Swing'.
Hence bluntly suggesting that any information I used from this rather important research effort to argue my point did not have much value.
TGM was not only considered to be the end all of golf but even considered to have preseance over a major British research effort.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Good post Mandrin.
Folks, let me say a couple of things that need repeating:
For all non-dead straight shots....
The Ball NEVER Starts on the Path.
and
The Ball never starts on the Face.
I repeat:
The Ball NEVER Starts on the Path.
and
The Ball never starts on the Face.
No "practically at right angles at separation.
Just this:
The Ball NEVER Starts on the Path.
and
The Ball never starts on the Face.
The Ball NEVER Starts on the Path.
and
The Ball never starts on the Face.
Got it?
Folks, let me say a couple of things that need repeating:
For all non-dead straight shots....
The Ball NEVER Starts on the Path.
and
The Ball never starts on the Face.
I repeat:
The Ball NEVER Starts on the Path.
and
The Ball never starts on the Face.
No "practically at right angles at separation.
Just this:
The Ball NEVER Starts on the Path.
and
The Ball never starts on the Face.
The Ball NEVER Starts on the Path.
and
The Ball never starts on the Face.
Got it?
Michael Finney
New
The Golfing Machine debate
It's so easy to look at the latest threads on The Golfing Machine and condemn the combatants and the discussion. But most of you reading it have not lived through this crap.
There are so many personal and business twists and turns in this saga that to attempt to tell the complete story from our point of view would be fruitless. In spite of that, many of you do know some individual stories and have an idea why these topics and debates come up from time to time and why they are so heated.
That being said, science will never stop. The Golfing Machine and Homer Kelley were great for its time. The book helped many people and hurt many people in more ways than just golf scores in tournaments. But, the reason this thread exists is simple: the book literalists present edition #6 as the inspired word - infallible and unapproachable. They say that it is all backed by science - 1941's science, 1969's science, 1983's science, and 2010's science.
Brian disagrees. He points out where results from modern measurement devices don't line up with Kelley's assertions.
But then the leader of the Book Literalists offers this:
"Meanwhile, we have today a captained handful of TGM 'nouveau-sect' focused on their own negative bias: Namely, their molehill perception of miniscule error against the mountain of irrefutable fact that is absolutely correct."
The "mountain of irrefutable fact that is absolutely correct" is the sticking point. This "leader" and his followers cannot (and will not) admit to more than "miniscule error" because it's their brand and their life. That is why Daryl was here late last night - defending the flame while plans were made for the future of Alignment Golf.
I am certain that if Daryl were to sit in a room with an open mind and was presented some "irrefutable facts" that did not line up with the Golfing Machine - he would change his mind. But you can lead a horse to water....
Good luck to everyone involved!
It's so easy to look at the latest threads on The Golfing Machine and condemn the combatants and the discussion. But most of you reading it have not lived through this crap.
There are so many personal and business twists and turns in this saga that to attempt to tell the complete story from our point of view would be fruitless. In spite of that, many of you do know some individual stories and have an idea why these topics and debates come up from time to time and why they are so heated.
That being said, science will never stop. The Golfing Machine and Homer Kelley were great for its time. The book helped many people and hurt many people in more ways than just golf scores in tournaments. But, the reason this thread exists is simple: the book literalists present edition #6 as the inspired word - infallible and unapproachable. They say that it is all backed by science - 1941's science, 1969's science, 1983's science, and 2010's science.
Brian disagrees. He points out where results from modern measurement devices don't line up with Kelley's assertions.
But then the leader of the Book Literalists offers this:
"Meanwhile, we have today a captained handful of TGM 'nouveau-sect' focused on their own negative bias: Namely, their molehill perception of miniscule error against the mountain of irrefutable fact that is absolutely correct."
The "mountain of irrefutable fact that is absolutely correct" is the sticking point. This "leader" and his followers cannot (and will not) admit to more than "miniscule error" because it's their brand and their life. That is why Daryl was here late last night - defending the flame while plans were made for the future of Alignment Golf.
I am certain that if Daryl were to sit in a room with an open mind and was presented some "irrefutable facts" that did not line up with the Golfing Machine - he would change his mind. But you can lead a horse to water....
Good luck to everyone involved!
Wilson!
New
As a not too ilustrated bystander, I always thought TGM must be wrong here and there. Kelley didn't have a trackman or a zillion fps pocket camera. Actually what amazes me the most is how scarcely wrong is TGM, despite the decades and the new equipment.
Now we know that a certain phenomenon happens before separation, unlike Kelley thought. A few nano-seconds before, actually. We know that his "not more than 80%" proved wrong, it's actually 83%! That's a nice level of accuracy.
Other than that, I see no reasons to treat TGM like a bible, and don't think the very Homer Kelley would like that approach to his work.
Let me say something about manipulation. In Italian, mano means hand. It's manus in Latin, where the term comes from. Manipulation is the same as handipulation, the only thing you can do with a hand is manipulate. I always thought that by manipulation Kelley meant presetting the hands in a certain way, because during impact nobody on Earth could voluntarily alter anything.
... But I admit I could never really understand the different types of hinging
Now we know that a certain phenomenon happens before separation, unlike Kelley thought. A few nano-seconds before, actually. We know that his "not more than 80%" proved wrong, it's actually 83%! That's a nice level of accuracy.
Other than that, I see no reasons to treat TGM like a bible, and don't think the very Homer Kelley would like that approach to his work.
Let me say something about manipulation. In Italian, mano means hand. It's manus in Latin, where the term comes from. Manipulation is the same as handipulation, the only thing you can do with a hand is manipulate. I always thought that by manipulation Kelley meant presetting the hands in a certain way, because during impact nobody on Earth could voluntarily alter anything.
... But I admit I could never really understand the different types of hinging
Last edited:
who??
because i might be the oldest person on the site....well maybe in the top 2%
this reminds me of the old Johnny Carson show called........" who do you trust"
when my kids (now 38 and 35) were young, their mom and i did the best we could in raising them (with what we knew) at that time
now my precious daughter does things differently then i did....with my grandsons alex and jacob
i had a "brownie camera" she has a "digital"....which she had to explain to me how to work
i smiled (i love my kids)... when she said "dad, things are changing" you did the best you could with me and jason with what you had to work with at that time
i am sure Homer did the best he could at the time....but its 2010...and as JENN says "things are changing"
Lets use Homer's book as a BROWNIE....great camera for its time...........then Brian and Michael (jacobs and finney).............take us to the "digital age".............I didn't know Sally Kelly....but i would think she would
want her husband's book..updated and kept "ALIVE"
BUT THEN AGAIN.....you know i know very little
hjacknicklaus
because i might be the oldest person on the site....well maybe in the top 2%
this reminds me of the old Johnny Carson show called........" who do you trust"
when my kids (now 38 and 35) were young, their mom and i did the best we could in raising them (with what we knew) at that time
now my precious daughter does things differently then i did....with my grandsons alex and jacob
i had a "brownie camera" she has a "digital"....which she had to explain to me how to work
i smiled (i love my kids)... when she said "dad, things are changing" you did the best you could with me and jason with what you had to work with at that time
i am sure Homer did the best he could at the time....but its 2010...and as JENN says "things are changing"
Lets use Homer's book as a BROWNIE....great camera for its time...........then Brian and Michael (jacobs and finney).............take us to the "digital age".............I didn't know Sally Kelly....but i would think she would
want her husband's book..updated and kept "ALIVE"
BUT THEN AGAIN.....you know i know very little
hjacknicklaus
Last edited:
Michael Finney
New
No, we are not.
gmbtempe
New
See this is an issue, by using code names you are confusing people which is unfair to the people you do not use by name.
Are you talking about L.B. ?
Daryl?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Every internet junkie in the world knows that LB is the king of the book literalists.
We don't use his name on here for a variety of reasons.
coophitter
New
coophitter,
I am rather intrigued. This does not quite fit with my interactions with TGMers.
When this forum was still basically TGM oriented in the years past I had a fair amount of interesting discussions with TGMers.
I definitely remember that it was mentioned several times that Homer Kelley thought there to be many errors in 'The Search for the Perfect Swing'.
Hence bluntly suggesting that any information I used from this rather important research effort to argue my point did not have much value.
TGM was not only considered to be the end all of golf but even considered to have preseance over a major British research effort.
Mandrin,
I got involved with TGM back in the late 80's. I met three TGM AIs, Jim Surber, Chuck Evans, and Ben Waugh, at a Henry-Griffitts PGA clubfitting seminar. My partner at the time, PGA pro Tim Odegard, met them too and they talked him into becoming an AI. He loved the stuff and quickly progressed to an AI. They all sort of ganged up on me to become one too, so I gave it a shot. I was introduced to Ben Doyle and George Kelnhofer who seemed to be the pre-eminent GSEDs of the day. I did not understand much of anything they said, I could not understand the book either, and I therefore resisted the way they told me to read and study it. I also struggled mightily with the pivot driven, snap loaded, bent back right wristed, narrowed pulley width golf swing they were trying to teach me to perform. When I tried to answer their 500 question open book test, I knew I was in over my head. I couldn't understand many of the questions or figure out many of the answers even when they told me what paragraph to look in. When I did find many answers, I wrote them in but wasn't sure why they answered the particular question that I didn't understand in the first place. I decided to quit, but got talked in to going to Myrtle Beach to see another GSED, Tom Tomosello, before I did.
I was quite doubtful that any other GSED could help me, but within the first five minutes of working with Tomosello on the range I was completely shocked that he even belonged to the same organization that Doyle or Kelnhofer did. He didn't use TGM terminology and he abrubtly told me to throw the clubhead from the top of my swing right into the ground to the right of my right heel. I thought he was crazy or maybe trying to pull a practical joke on me. But he insisted. I asked him how I was supposed to do it and he told me to uncock my right forearm and both hands to throw the clubhead right into the ground. I did it and the club hit the ground about 6 inches behind the golf ball. I was surprised it got that close to the ball because I wasn't trying to throw it anywhere near the ball. He told me to do it again but leave my body completely out of it. Just the forearm and the hands uncocking from the top. Now I knew he must be pulling my leg. But again I tried with the new information to leave the body out of it. I still hit the ground before the ball but it was closer and more of a scrape than a thud. A skinny but straight skull resulted. He told me to do it agin the same way and lead with the heel of the club the whole way down toward that weird place on the ground. I remember telling him this went against everything I'd ever heard with TGM or PGA. This is casting! He was adamant though. I did it again leading with the heel and my swing hit that next ball better than I'd ever hit a ball before and with the greatest ease and freedom I've ever felt. I was dumbfounded. I can't remember another time in my life except in fear that I experienced that many chills along my spine, goosebumps all over, and raised hairs on my neck. From that point on I listened to every word that man said and tried to carry out his instructions as precisely as I possibly could.
I took his curriculum and became a GSEM with his and Sally Kelley's help. I still had to turn in a test but they out and out gave me the answers. Tomosello taught me a different way to read the book that made sense and he only told me to study three particular paragraphs.
He also showed me the way he helped Jodie Mudd, Sally Little, Lee Elder, Peter Croker, AJ Bonar, and others.
It was Tomosello who told me Homer liked Cochran and Stobbs' work, and he showed me the page where face took precedent over path. I quickly learned what he called Homer's right forearm karate chop from the top and how to keep my legs, thighs, hips, and stomach out of the shot. I especially learned a very difficult to describe seemingly simutaneous and interrelated forearm and both wrist uncocking maneuver that allowed me to throw the clubhead without clubhead throwaway. He said Tommy Armour had it right but just couldn't explain it. I can't explain it that well either and I don't know that Homer Kelley explained it very well either.
Anyway I soon found out that Tomosello was not very popular with the vast majority of the TGM crowd. I went to summts where Doyle, Jacobs, Manzella, Daniels et al seemed to convince everyone but me that "the pivot does all the work" in the best swings and to use your core. I argued meekly in Tomosello and Kelley's behalf and eventually gave up. Then Zick came along and said his research showed that superior swings may very well result when the angle between the clubshaft and left arm is thrown out due to a direct muscular force. I remember one summit crowd went pretty quiet after that.
He never said exactly the source of that thrust but I think Kelley and Tomosello would say that you can throw that angle out via right triceps force or the muscles of both forearms.
I do not plan on writing in this or any other forum on TGM anymore. There's always too much drama and controversy. I've been a GSEM for 18 years now and I don't know what the hell a strong single action grip means or strong double action for that matter. If Homer Kelley taught Tomosello what Tomosello taught me though then I will be grateful to him to my dying day. I will also hold my Tomosello translation of three particular paragraphs dear to my soul. Thanks and I'd love to respond to any other questions from you privately if you'd like.
- Status