Best ball striker?
- Thread starter shortgamer
- Start date
- Status
birdie_man
New
Mint course!
Played there a few years ago....my dad's buddies with the manager.....(my dad told me not to spit on the ground)....
Sweet place man. I'm pretty sure u take your shoes off when u go inside. (blew my MIND!....lol.........I'm serious....)
Didn't know they did a SWWOG there.
birdie_man
New
Nice swing for sure...
Reminds me a lot of Bobby Schaeffer....
Check @ 44 secs.
(too bad the scrolling ability is so crappy)
Perfect Impact
New
Why the takking offense? It was not a put-down at all. It was simply an acknowledgement that there are some words in the TGM environment which bear certain discrete meanings and I overlooked that context in using the word "hit"--which gave rise to the question posted after my comment.
Jared Willerson
Super Moderator
Then be a little more respectful to the people you are dealing with here. They are not code words but simply how the book was written, I don't know why you have such a problem with that. Maybe if you would learn to "hit" or "swing" you would have a better understanding of what it is we are trying to accomplish here, sans the backhanded pot shots at many here who are learning to play better golf. Isn't that the goal?
Perfect Impact
New
If you don't like my use of the term "code words," what would you like me to say to distinguish how common words are restrictively used in HK vs. in common usage? Hitting golf balls is straightforward english usage.
Can't you enjoy a little levity in my jesting about "my bad" in using the word "hit" here without being fussy about it?
Sounds like you are protecting a sacred shrine...and took offense when absolutely none was intended. Lighten up.
Can't you enjoy a little levity in my jesting about "my bad" in using the word "hit" here without being fussy about it?
Sounds like you are protecting a sacred shrine...and took offense when absolutely none was intended. Lighten up.
Jared Willerson
Super Moderator
I'm sorry, but your reputation for constantly and backhandedly bashing TGM, its instructors and students precedes you sir. I'm not trying to protect anything. But.....when in Rome.....I'm sure you understand.
StewartBannatyne
New
I have been a member there for the last 13 years or so, and there isn't a more wonderful place, in my opinion. They certainly were not a large fan of metal spikes in the clubhouse (there is still a sign that says "PLEASE REMOVE SPIKES BEFORE ENTERING" into the clubhouse).
When I am down at school in Texas for 8 months of the year, I get pretty antsy to get back home to Winnipeg and spend my days at St. C...Right about mid-March I start dreaming of tee shots and approach shots into the greens!!
Stew
shortgamer
New
He does this on EVERY forum and frankly I think it's getting old. You can tell George is an educated man and he's knows the TGM terms but then acts innocent. If I may take a quote from Ted Fort:
"Although we can respect the choices the Amish have made, they'll never walk on the moon. They have chosen the road of simplicity. I see golf instruction the same way. There are those that find the horse and buggy sufficient, and there are those at NASA that want to know all the possibilities. It's a choice one makes.
For every lesson I give using TGM terminology, I give 100 speaking Amish. "
Perfect Impact
New
Two issues come up from the posts above --GLC and SG: 1) In a totally innocent question whether anyone could post a swing of Knudson hitting a golf ball, an answer to me was to the effect that he was thought to be a swinger, not a hitter. So I replied that oops, I had forgotten the distinctions held by TGM - my bad. Since the normal use of the english language where "hitting golf balls" is not about what technique is used but simply what anyone else would also say, I acknowledged the special meanings of words which I overlooked in my spontaneous question. For this I was reprimanded.
My response is that calling me on the carpet for that is over-reacting.
As for continual "bashing" - it is extremely common for people to regard the expression of differences of opinion as bashing when it is simply expressing differences of opinion and disagreements with things "assumed and taken for granted" that need to be questioned and where other opinions also prevail.
For example, Hogan decries squeezing the right thumb and forefinger on the grip, while maintaining a tight relationship between the right hand lifeline and the top of the left thumb. Harry Vardon says, let your right palm back off a bit and squeeze your right thumb and forefinger in order to allow more loadup at the top. Is Hogan bashing Vardon? or vice versa? If I were to post that I shared Vardon's opinion, would I be held for "bashing Hogan?"
When I "bashed" McLean's original "X-Factor" concept (building elastic loadup of the pivot for a faster startdown) I got similar reactions - "bashing an established teacher." Of course now he has changed his rationalization for it and the error about "elastic rebound" doesn't appear any more.
So the issue as I see it is that when an idea comes into question, the messenger gets slain. And the more messages that appear, the worse the messenger's character.
If truth in golf is of interest, and if people want truth instead of "the company line" without questioning it, then you or anyone should welcome the new points of view and let them be reviewed (as today the Supreme Court is reviewing Brown vs. Bd. Of Ed.about school desegregaion - a "done deal...").
Brian has himself introduced some new "exceptions" to established teaching here in the last couple months. WONDERFUL. Far from calling it bashing, I see the health in growth and change and refining and learning. Even Nicklaus was called on the carpet for "changing" stuff he taught between his two books.
See me as a disrupter if you wish: I hope everyone with convictions will also speak up: it is the nature of dialogue.
And it is obvious that to a non-TGM audience as exists in some other forums, it is problematic to use words with special meanings and terms that need explaining and turn out to have meanings very different than "street" interpretation. Clearly, people without that special context will be confused when they read them. I always had a problem with that, and the more I expressed that it was difficult, the more those who like those terms reinforced their investment in them and criticized me for "championing" simple English which really CAN express necessary distinctions accurately. I also read, and agree with others, that some PREmises of Mr. Kelley are problematic, hence voicing THAT is even more serious "bashing." Unforgiveable, probably.
Seems the real difficult in fora (!) is remaining on topic -- which is THINGS - instead of leaping to personALities.
(I also find it just as easy to take an Amish to the moon as a nuclear scientist. To convey to him all the possibilities might take a lifetime: we simply use the easiest ones. HE doesn't need to know them all: I do. And I do.)
BTW, I admire Brian's articulate instruction, his willingness also to question, his acknowledgement of his own evolution of learning, and speaking up with his own views in the face of disagreement from others. I especially like his simplifications: nothing beats common sense and a clear head.
My response is that calling me on the carpet for that is over-reacting.
As for continual "bashing" - it is extremely common for people to regard the expression of differences of opinion as bashing when it is simply expressing differences of opinion and disagreements with things "assumed and taken for granted" that need to be questioned and where other opinions also prevail.
For example, Hogan decries squeezing the right thumb and forefinger on the grip, while maintaining a tight relationship between the right hand lifeline and the top of the left thumb. Harry Vardon says, let your right palm back off a bit and squeeze your right thumb and forefinger in order to allow more loadup at the top. Is Hogan bashing Vardon? or vice versa? If I were to post that I shared Vardon's opinion, would I be held for "bashing Hogan?"
When I "bashed" McLean's original "X-Factor" concept (building elastic loadup of the pivot for a faster startdown) I got similar reactions - "bashing an established teacher." Of course now he has changed his rationalization for it and the error about "elastic rebound" doesn't appear any more.
So the issue as I see it is that when an idea comes into question, the messenger gets slain. And the more messages that appear, the worse the messenger's character.
If truth in golf is of interest, and if people want truth instead of "the company line" without questioning it, then you or anyone should welcome the new points of view and let them be reviewed (as today the Supreme Court is reviewing Brown vs. Bd. Of Ed.about school desegregaion - a "done deal...").
Brian has himself introduced some new "exceptions" to established teaching here in the last couple months. WONDERFUL. Far from calling it bashing, I see the health in growth and change and refining and learning. Even Nicklaus was called on the carpet for "changing" stuff he taught between his two books.
See me as a disrupter if you wish: I hope everyone with convictions will also speak up: it is the nature of dialogue.
And it is obvious that to a non-TGM audience as exists in some other forums, it is problematic to use words with special meanings and terms that need explaining and turn out to have meanings very different than "street" interpretation. Clearly, people without that special context will be confused when they read them. I always had a problem with that, and the more I expressed that it was difficult, the more those who like those terms reinforced their investment in them and criticized me for "championing" simple English which really CAN express necessary distinctions accurately. I also read, and agree with others, that some PREmises of Mr. Kelley are problematic, hence voicing THAT is even more serious "bashing." Unforgiveable, probably.
Seems the real difficult in fora (!) is remaining on topic -- which is THINGS - instead of leaping to personALities.
(I also find it just as easy to take an Amish to the moon as a nuclear scientist. To convey to him all the possibilities might take a lifetime: we simply use the easiest ones. HE doesn't need to know them all: I do. And I do.)
BTW, I admire Brian's articulate instruction, his willingness also to question, his acknowledgement of his own evolution of learning, and speaking up with his own views in the face of disagreement from others. I especially like his simplifications: nothing beats common sense and a clear head.
George,
You do this all the time and bring this on yourself. You press issues that don't need to be pressed. You did it on our site and now here. You have a way of writing, sometimes, that promotes confrontation. Then, you forget what you said and try to justify with poor me.
I'm sorry to be so blunt. I, too, have been hit on the head due to my lack of TGM terminology and understanding. But I can take a few bumps on the noggin, if it will help me become a better teacher.
There is nothing to "prove" here by continuing this line of persuit! I think we all get it.
You do this all the time and bring this on yourself. You press issues that don't need to be pressed. You did it on our site and now here. You have a way of writing, sometimes, that promotes confrontation. Then, you forget what you said and try to justify with poor me.
I'm sorry to be so blunt. I, too, have been hit on the head due to my lack of TGM terminology and understanding. But I can take a few bumps on the noggin, if it will help me become a better teacher.
There is nothing to "prove" here by continuing this line of persuit! I think we all get it.
Perfect Impact
New
I have no poor me to wail, Spike. "Bring on myself..." like what?
I speak my opinion: if an OPINION rather than a personality is of interest, maybe ppl would respond in kind, with rationale, etc.
There happens to be a ton of things that need challenged in golf instruction, as a matter of fact. I really wonder at the stubbornness of so many to be open to other ideas.
If you are saying, don't disagree with ANYthing in Brian's forum and that's what he wants, that's fine: it's his. If it is purely a vehicle for the promotion of his stuff, that is also fine: it IS his. I have not, to my recollection, said anything any more "confrontational" here than my comment about overlooking the "correct" use of the word "hit" when I should have said "swing."
I speak my opinion: if an OPINION rather than a personality is of interest, maybe ppl would respond in kind, with rationale, etc.
There happens to be a ton of things that need challenged in golf instruction, as a matter of fact. I really wonder at the stubbornness of so many to be open to other ideas.
If you are saying, don't disagree with ANYthing in Brian's forum and that's what he wants, that's fine: it's his. If it is purely a vehicle for the promotion of his stuff, that is also fine: it IS his. I have not, to my recollection, said anything any more "confrontational" here than my comment about overlooking the "correct" use of the word "hit" when I should have said "swing."
OK, George,
Code words....oops....fussy....sacred shrine....lighten up....
Snide and confrontational.....imo
I don't think any of us can truly keep our personalities out of our posts. And as for the innocent mistake....ok...got no problem with that. As I mentioned before, it is your desire to press such an issue that concerns you personally for such a long winded amount of time, that is really unnecessary.
So, how many more posts are you going to put up to "prove" your point? You have brought up many good points in the past and I've enjoyed reading them. I'd like to see more of those than these, ok?
Perfect Impact
New
Long winded IS me. Got that right.
My ex was a wordsmith - nearly made it to the Jeopardy finals. Goes to crossword puzzle tournaments. Really educated
I called her Dr. Word.
She called me Dr. Wordy.
Now we can correctly understand GH.
My ex was a wordsmith - nearly made it to the Jeopardy finals. Goes to crossword puzzle tournaments. Really educated
I called her Dr. Word.
She called me Dr. Wordy.
Now we can correctly understand GH.
Hey George,
The main reason I got married was because I was tired of finishing my own sentences.
Love ya man
Perfect Impact
New
Spike: I had a pupil a couple months ago who came for three days. From the first moment I started with her until my last words to her, she did exactly that: finished every single sentence (wrongly, of course). I do believe she learned absolutely nothing because she was already framing the finish of my sentences and where she imagined I was going -- such that despite my protestations, nothing registered.
I came home and dumped on my wife how sad it was: it proceeded, I think, from the anxiety of working with THE GOLF GURU and she simply couldn't allow herself to hear--just so intimidated and nervous: emotionally unable to listen.
Ain't it neat? just start the sentence and let it run. Now, as for WIVES: well, men are from Mars, women from another universe: not a chance they are as closely related as Venusians. Carl Sagan. where are you when I need you?
I came home and dumped on my wife how sad it was: it proceeded, I think, from the anxiety of working with THE GOLF GURU and she simply couldn't allow herself to hear--just so intimidated and nervous: emotionally unable to listen.
Ain't it neat? just start the sentence and let it run. Now, as for WIVES: well, men are from Mars, women from another universe: not a chance they are as closely related as Venusians. Carl Sagan. where are you when I need you?
Perfect Impact
New
On a National Geographic special a few nights ago, - an hour program produced BY NG, the story was about the "savant" syndrome or condition. They noted that there were about 50 in the entire world. One of the better known ones was a man in probably his 30s who could do complex mathematical calculations in seconds in his head. As a test, they took him to England to the graduate department of mathematicians, and probably some psychologists, and maybe twenty or thirty graduate students, and sat him down at a table in front of the auditorium, while each one of the grad students had in front of him a printout of the decimal solution to "pi" - as in "C = 2 pi x r" -- solved by computer(s) to 22,500 digits to the right of the decimal point (which begins, of course, 3.14159.....).
He had not had access to their printouts, so when they gave him the problem of seeing how far he could calculate the result in his head, he was SOLVING, not REMEMBERING.
He took 5 1/2 hours and with a couple breaks where he needed a drink or a stretch, HE RECITED WITHOUT A SINGLE MISTAKE, the entire row of numbers out to 22,500 and was still going when someone stopped him, saying that he was probably correct on those additional digits as well, since he had just correctly solved the first 22,500 without repeating himself or making any mistakes at all.
Such is the SAME BRAIN CAPACITY that I think we are all probably born with, but of course do not access normally.
Most of us have seen "Rain Man"--a movie based on a real savant who was also featured on the program and they showed clips of when Dustin Hoffman had visited and "interviewed" him prior to acting in the film.
What has this got to do in this thread? MOE NORMAN, THAT'S WHAT!
His behavior showing undeveloped social skills, his precise memory of how many golf balls he has hit, how many courses played, his precision impact, his accuracy - these kinds of things are all of a like kind to the truly unbelievable, astonishing feats of the savants featured in the NatGeo production.
So it is no mystery to me that Moe did what he is reported to have done.
We all remarked at the incredible putting stat that Tiger accomplished in his first Masters: 72 holes at Augusta Nat. without a single three putt. Given the stimp on those greens, their crowns, the acutely difficult pin placements, and his "first" Masters--his feat has the same caste to it...accessing parts of the human brain so far beyond our imagination or credulousness as to have no words of description.
That program opened my imagination and eyes enormously. (Gave me even more awe as to what God has in mind for us!).
just thought I'd share that here, re mr. Norman and his reputation. Moe, that is.
He had not had access to their printouts, so when they gave him the problem of seeing how far he could calculate the result in his head, he was SOLVING, not REMEMBERING.
He took 5 1/2 hours and with a couple breaks where he needed a drink or a stretch, HE RECITED WITHOUT A SINGLE MISTAKE, the entire row of numbers out to 22,500 and was still going when someone stopped him, saying that he was probably correct on those additional digits as well, since he had just correctly solved the first 22,500 without repeating himself or making any mistakes at all.
Such is the SAME BRAIN CAPACITY that I think we are all probably born with, but of course do not access normally.
Most of us have seen "Rain Man"--a movie based on a real savant who was also featured on the program and they showed clips of when Dustin Hoffman had visited and "interviewed" him prior to acting in the film.
What has this got to do in this thread? MOE NORMAN, THAT'S WHAT!
His behavior showing undeveloped social skills, his precise memory of how many golf balls he has hit, how many courses played, his precision impact, his accuracy - these kinds of things are all of a like kind to the truly unbelievable, astonishing feats of the savants featured in the NatGeo production.
So it is no mystery to me that Moe did what he is reported to have done.
We all remarked at the incredible putting stat that Tiger accomplished in his first Masters: 72 holes at Augusta Nat. without a single three putt. Given the stimp on those greens, their crowns, the acutely difficult pin placements, and his "first" Masters--his feat has the same caste to it...accessing parts of the human brain so far beyond our imagination or credulousness as to have no words of description.
That program opened my imagination and eyes enormously. (Gave me even more awe as to what God has in mind for us!).
just thought I'd share that here, re mr. Norman and his reputation. Moe, that is.
Last edited:
Finishing School
PI
My wife always finishes my sentences. One time I became very frustrated and asked why does she insist on finishing my sentences. She replied "because you take too long to get to the point."
PChandler
PI
My wife always finishes my sentences. One time I became very frustrated and asked why does she insist on finishing my sentences. She replied "because you take too long to get to the point."
PChandler
shortgamer
New
Did you just call yourself "THE GOLF GURU"?
Perfect Impact
New
No--the comment applies to her experience. I put myself into the pupil's imagery of what she might have felt: here she is, travelling a long way and spending a lot of money for instruction from "the man, not an assistant instructor!", and I had written a couple books on golf. So there is a kind of awe in some people when they meet 'THE AUTHOR !!!" as though that was a big deal. So given what I imagine was intimidating for her, it probably fits to describe what she felt.
- Status