A couple more mistakes in The Golfing Machine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian Manzella

Administrator
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.

Nice post Coop.

Not sure what the heck it has to do with the errors in the book, though.

Anecdotal Evidence, at best, but a nice story.

The pivot does NOT do all the work, not even close.

If I ever said that, I apologize and I was dead wrong.

Not to throw Tommy under the bus, but his disciples have NO IDEA about how much hook you'll hit if you do it exactly as stated.

It's the D-Plane, my brother.

I liked much of what Tom had to say, but it sure wasn't hard science.


This is a fight for the truth, and you seem to know first hand how bad, bad information can be.


Just think if you had your best swings from that day on TrackMan and 6°3D!!!!
 
Since we are on the topic of golfing machine flaws.

Lets have a look at the ephemeral nature of impact and hinge action.

Lets say you are going to use horizontal hinge action. The golfing machine would have you believe that as the hands roll back into impact that they are somehow going to rotate at one rate from being turned to the plane rate until the hands are perpendicular to the ground plane and then continue to rotate at this new rate until both arms straight and then rotate at yet another rate until the hands swivel back to the plane.

Homer Kelley fails to understand the physics of the clubhead orbit and its effect on wrist conditions yet again.
 
Last edited:
As long as it makes me a better teacher that's what I want. I don't care who wrote it or the politics of it. I need to understand it better than any student does and be able to communicate it to them better than anyone else.

I never liked TGM because of the attitude of the people who promoted it. Brian is included when he was an advocate. I frankly couldn't stand the sight of the word TGM. Despite all of that I BOUGHT THE BOOK. Why? Because I wanted to know what they knew. More importantly I wanted to own it and understand it for MYSELF. I could care less what their interpretation was.

Funny thing is, I constantly see them pointing to a reference in the book and when I go look it up there is 0 relevance in that section to our discussion. This further emboldens the fact that interpretation is everything. They are reading the same exact words I am yet have derived something else entirely from it. That makes it seem hardly scientific.
 
;)
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.

coophitter,

I have rarely read a post with so much interest as yours. I found it truly fascinating to read your involvement with TGM and its various actors, especially Tomasello. I really enjoyed your almost brutal honesty in describing how all the mumbo jumbo did not really ring a bell with you. I am sure many wholeheartedly would agree with you, but don't quite dare to admit it openly.

You are probably quite aware that the self acclaimed leading TGM guru does not look very favorable on Tomasello's ideas. I have experimented over the years with many concepts indeed and I liked Tomasello's ideas, very appealing for its elegance and simplicity. Indeed quite refreshing and very contrasting with the very complex rigid TGM code and precepts.

I liked the reference to Tommy Armour, and various other teachers such as Peter Croker, made by Tomasello. One finds out were the source is for some. I always adored the rich landscape of paradoxes golf seem to foster over time. For any teacher teaching white one can always find another teaching black. Each of them has a long list of people witnessing how much they are enthralled finally having found the perfect teacher.

Your remarks about the positive way Homer Kelley considered 'The Search for the Perfect Swing' makes me wonder if again this negative attitude, I noticed, towards this very important early research effort is perhaps the result of the opinion and influence of only one man, the purist by definition, trying to save TGM from any possible negative influences.

Thanks again for a truly fascinating post. Your ideas fit in with my intuitive feelings about golf, feeling it to being multifaceted and hopefully forever open to very individual artistic interpretations. Science is indeed needed to debunk the nonsense but also too much of it and the charm will eventually disappear with everyone swinging like everyone. :(

I would not mind if you would perhaps reconsider and continue to have us partake a bit on occasion of your involvement in golf, teaching and teachers. ;)

mandrin
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
...a truly fascinating post. Your ideas fit in with my intuitive feelings about golf, feeling it to being multifaceted and hopefully forever open to very individual artistic interpretations. Science is indeed needed to debunk the nonsense but also too much of it and the charm will eventually disappear with everyone swinging like everyone.

Here is an example of what might have happened....


A guy who is thin and can unwind like mad, has a relatively weak grip and and over rotated left arm/club triangle.

Fighting a wide open face he spins his body open violently, really low left shoulder, tons of trigger delay trying to keep the club in the air long enough to open up enough to square up the club or start it left enough.

He takes a lesson from a teacher who says: don't pivot at all, and throw the club into the ground way to the right, inside, and behind the ball.

The golfer never hit it that good in his life.


Not saying that is what happened, but you get my drift.
 
Here is an example of what might have happened....


A guy who is thin and can unwind like mad, has a relatively weak grip and and over rotated left arm/club triangle.

Fighting a wide open face he spins his body open violently, really low left shoulder, tons of trigger delay trying to keep the club in the air long enough to open up enough to square up the club or start it left enough.

He takes a lesson from a teacher who says: don't pivot at all, and throw the club into the ground way to the right, inside, and behind the ball.

The golfer never hit it that good in his life.


Not saying that is what happened, but you get my drift.

Brian,

Great minds think alike. :D

Whatever works, works. :cool:

mandrin
 
A general comment here,

I was a part of the TGM organization at the time of the TGM Summit in 2006. At that time Michael Jacobs, Michael Finney, Chuck Cook, Martin Hall, Tom Ness, Joe Daniels, Aaron Zick, Brian Manzella, (and I believe) Tom Bartlett, and many others of equally worthy distinction were in attendance. On one particular evening, we were debating the 7th edition changes (which should not be correctly referred to as the "Joe Daniels" changes by the way). And it was clear that there was a strong division on handling some of the changes that were transposed directly from Homer's notes (which was my personal responsibilty, along with Joe).

As a co-moderator of that event, I made a statement that received nearly-unanimous agreement from the attendees.

"The minute we defend this material as infallable is the minute we mortgage our long term credibility".
Someone MUST remember this. Please verify.

I no longer work for the organization, I run a golf school of my own, and I use Homer's SYSTEM in basically every single presentation I give. I find the components and variations to be very useful to classify the movement patterns of my students and find complementary arrangements. I also find that the BIA division of TGM an excellent example of the organization moving forward with upgraded information, and highly useful as well. I own or have access to several of these 3D measuring tools, and cannot nor will not refute any of the new revelations discussed here in this forum.

I must say, I do know the majority of the people within the TGM AI group, and am totally unaware of a group of "literalists" officially tied to the organization.

Admittedly I am a bit out of the "forum loop", please forgive my ignorance.

I also have had extensive private discussions with Dr. Zick and Brian Manzella and of course Joe Daniels about the book, and I find their sincerity in locating the best information to be very compelling on a professional level.

It has been long agreed upon that an annotated version of the book would be the most reasonable manner in which to update TGM, and for my part, these discussions offer information in that arena, and perhaps may nudge that process.

For that we thank you.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Thanks, Doug!

On one particular evening, we were debating....(and)as a co-moderator of that event, I made a statement that received nearly-unanimous agreement from the attendees.

"The minute we defend this material as infallible is the minute we mortgage our long term credibility".

Someone MUST remember this. Please verify.

You said it. I remember.

I find the components and variations to be very useful to classify the movement patterns of my students and find complementary arrangements.

As do I.

I think it was Homer's second biggest contribution to golf.


I must say, I do know the majority of the people within the TGM AI group, and am totally unaware of a group of "literalists" officially tied to the organization.

The leader is not officially tied to TGM, LLC, that is correct.


I also have had extensive private discussions with Dr. Zick and Brian Manzella and of course Joe Daniels about the book, and I find their sincerity in locating the best information to be very compelling on a professional level.

It has been long agreed upon that an annotated version of the book would be the most reasonable manner in which to update TGM, and for my part, these discussions offer information in that arena, and perhaps may nudge that process.

Doug,

Joe has not updated the incorrect science in the book. Nor has he made any announcement that he would.

He knows the book has serious flaws, Dr. Zick has told him that, and Zick's presentations at the TGM Summits have been very much NOT IN THE BOOK, but correct.

So here we sit.

Joe has gotten a lawyer to "craft" an AI agreement that basically says he can throw anyone out for stating proven science if he wants to.

I will not sign any such thing if the book remains scientifically incorrect.


If he announced plans to immediately begin to update the book, and GET IT RIGHT, I'd be his biggest supporter.


Joe's handling of the TrackMan "issue" cost him a lot of AI's....this is his chance to right the ship.
 

Steve Khatib

Super Moderator
A general comment here,

I was a part of the TGM organization at the time of the TGM Summit in 2006. At that time Michael Jacobs, Michael Finney, Chuck Cook, Martin Hall, Tom Ness, Joe Daniels, Aaron Zick, Brian Manzella, (and I believe) Tom Bartlett, and many others of equally worthy distinction were in attendance. On one particular evening, we were debating the 7th edition changes (which should not be correctly referred to as the "Joe Daniels" changes by the way). And it was clear that there was a strong division on handling some of the changes that were transposed directly from Homer's notes (which was my personal responsibilty, along with Joe).

As a co-moderator of that event, I made a statement that received nearly-unanimous agreement from the attendees.

"The minute we defend this material as infallable is the minute we mortgage our long term credibility".
Someone MUST remember this. Please verify.






I no longer work for the organization, I run a golf school of my own, and I use Homer's SYSTEM in basically every single presentation I give. I find the components and variations to be very useful to classify the movement patterns of my students and find complementary arrangements. I also find that the BIA division of TGM an excellent example of the organization moving forward with upgraded information, and highly useful as well. I own or have access to several of these 3D measuring tools, and cannot nor will not refute any of the new revelations discussed here in this forum.

I must say, I do know the majority of the people within the TGM AI group, and am totally unaware of a group of "literalists" officially tied to the organization.

Admittedly I am a bit out of the "forum loop", please forgive my ignorance.

I also have had extensive private discussions with Dr. Zick and Brian Manzella and of course Joe Daniels about the book, and I find their sincerity in locating the best information to be very compelling on a professional level.

It has been long agreed upon that an annotated version of the book would be the most reasonable manner in which to update TGM, and for my part, these discussions offer information in that arena, and perhaps may nudge that process.

For that we thank you.

Doug, I admire all of the things you had done for TGM llc. and enjoyed being at every Summit with you. I am sure it must have been like 'beating your haed against a brick wall' to get any changes and innovations implemented. However if TGM does not move forward it will be left behind.

I agree there are so many great things in the book, however they are more grip/stroke classifications rather than pure science.

It is not a negative to admit that we now need to re write the book from a scientific standpoint, rather it would be so positive as an innovative approach.

The business of golf is a different story and as an organization TGM must provide the best available information regardless period, rather than trying to sell the same thing what all the other methods are selling eg. "The Cult like book literalists" - we are right because we just are.
 
A SHOOTOUT AT THE GOLF CHANNEL CORRAL: A nationally televised debate on the science of golf instruction. Combatants: TGM Literalists vs. The Manzella Progressives. Agenda: The Literalists will defend the findings in Homer Kelley's book "The Golfing Machine" as gospel truth and prove, beyond a doubt, that their findings can withstand the scrutiny of modern technological investigation . The Manzella Progressives will prove, beyond a doubt, that many of the findings in Kelley's book are flawed and therefore misleading to the golf instruction community. Moderator: Gary McCord.

The show is obviously in need of some "fresh air" and the format is always an attraction regardless of the subject matter. It would be enlightening as well as entertaining, and would be a wonderful opportunity to "mainstream" this whole debate! Thoughts?
 
Is golf a science or an art

Personally I frequent both Forums from time to time and I find info, thoughts and therories in both which I try out. Sometimes the info helps my swing others it does not.

Both are good and I think there will be no winner to this debate as golf is an art not a science. If your thoughts and theories create good golf shots they are correct for you and visa versa.

PS I am a Chartered Engineer so I value science in my working hours but when I am on a golf course I try to hit solid golf shots
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
I am telling ALL OF YOU, this is where the literalists will wind up—mark it down!

there will be no winner to this debate as golf is an art not a science. If your thoughts and theories create good golf shots they are correct for you and visa versa.

In my world, waking up EVERYDAY trying to make sure I stay on top of my UNCHALLENGED PERCH as the World's Greatest Live Lesson Giver, I try to learn as much REAL SCIENCE as I can. Most days I do. Sometimes a lot.

But on the lesson tee, all that science is way in the background of my mind as I will do ANYTHING—except blatant bastardizing—to get my student to hit it better.
Brian's 1st Rule of Golf Teaching...There is...

1. What the teacher WANTS the student to do.
2. What the student THINKS the teacher wants them to do.
3. What the student ACTUALLY does.

So, a recent example on the board I talked about:
A guy who is thin and can unwind like mad, has a relatively weak grip and and over rotated left arm/club triangle on the backswing..

Fighting a wide open face he spins his body open violently, really low left shoulder, tons of trigger delay trying to keep the club in the air long enough to open up enough to square up the club or start it left enough.

He takes a lesson from a teacher who says: don't pivot at all, and throw the club into the ground way to the right, inside, and behind the ball.

The golfer never hit it that good in his life.

Ok...let's look at the Manzella Rule in respect to this example:
1. What the teacher WANTS the student to do.
We really don't know WHAT the teacher wanted. The above bold is what he SAID he wanted.
2. What the student THINKS the teacher wants them to do.
In this case the student took it literally, and try to do it, as is.
3. What the student ACTUALLY does.
He would up going from ANGLE OF ATTACK of -9°, CLUB PATH of -3°, CLUBFACE of -2°, to
ANGLE OF ATTACK of -3°, CLUB PATH of 3°, CLUBFACE of 2°

This same kind of thing cold happen with a teacher who teaches a stay-at-home tripod pivot, and a "leave the plane" "cross line hit."

It worked.

But it ain't SCIENCE.

In fact—it is DEAD WRONG.


The student just wound up "in the middle."

So, why don't they just market their stuff as a "Feel System"??

Because, that's all it is: A Feel System.

They KNOW they are cornered science wise, I don't think they have any other out.
 

dbl

New
Doesn't the book say it's all about feel anyway? It doesn't say literally this, but isn't it....Using our mechanics (even if fake or error filled), get to a point where you feel what you need for you to make a good shot.
 
Doesn't the book say it's all about feel anyway? It doesn't say literally this, but isn't it....Using our mechanics (even if fake or error filled), get to a point where you feel what you need for you to make a good shot.

Not sure. I'm not a TGM insider - but I always took the "learn feel from mechanics" bit to mean that the TGM approach was to describe and ingrain fundamentally correct mechanics, and to learn your feel cues from there.

How that squares with the explanation of the "heavy hit" or hinge actions as feels or sensory images, rather than mechanical reality, is confusing to me.

I'm sure there must be a ton of AIs who are too pragmatic to get caught up in that kind of theoretical debate. There are probably others who will point out how I've wilfully misinterpreted the book.

I think the approach you describe is good. I'm just not sure that it's the approach sanctioned by a strict interpretation of the book.
 

ej20

New
TGM's selling point has always been science and it's followers believe it's infalliable because some MIT guy gave it a thumbs up.He obviously just flipped through the book on the bus going home from work.
 

dbl

New
Well...I thought I was right about the learn F through M....I was just going way round about for a huge shortcut and focusing on the Feels part! Plus, sadly, with bad mechanics you may never get to learning any feels worth remembering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top