Can you imagine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
A friend of mine sent me an email with a link to a question and answer by another "Golfing Machine" book literalist.

The question was what they thought about the D-Plane ball flight explanation.

The answer was:

1. They like what Homer said better

2. I just coined some phrase​

He is my retort:

1. Homer was VERY WRONG about ball-flight

2. Theodore Jorgenson "coined" the phrase and defined the D-Plane

3. TrackMan just confirms it, and so did PING and their 100,000 frame camera​

So basically, this Q & A by this poor lost soul, is just a PERFECT explanation about how goofy someone who believes in something with blinders on.

And, how I wind up the bad guy who is "soooooo critical of other teachers."

What a joke.
 
Z

Zztop

Guest
Brian Manzella said:
A friend of mine sent me an email with a link to a question and answer by another "Golfing Machine" book literalist.

The question was what they thought about the D-Plane ball flight explanation.

The answer was:

1. They like what Homer said better

2. I just coined some phrase​

He is my retort:

1. Homer was VERY WRONG about ball-flight

2. Theodore Jorgenson "coined" the phrase and defined the D-Plane

3. TrackMan just confirms it, and so did PING and their 100,000 frame camera​

So basically, this Q & A by this poor lost soul, is just a PERFECT explanation about how goofy someone who believes in something with blinders on.

And, how I wind up the bad guy who is "soooooo critical of other teachers."

What a joke.
Click to expand...

They are in denial and they are trying desperatetly to protect what's left of their so called credibility. It's hard to admit your wrong when you have told everyone how right you are for so long.:eek:
 
K

kc8kir

New
Ya know...

... you could have just called it "The Shwartz!"

and really had them reeling for a definition of your shot making "magic".

------------------------------------------------------

If someone doesn't know... that's a reference to the movie Space Balls, a spoof of Star Wars... highly recommended btw.
 
jeffy

jeffy

Banned
The thing is, it isn't a matter of what anyone "thinks it is": all that matters is what can be demonstrated using Trackman and high-speed cameras. If they "like what Homer said better", then they need to confirm it with today's technology. If they can't, then their beliefs are simply faith-based. Without data to back it up, opinions on this topic are meaningless.
 
M

mb6606

New
I know I read somewhere in the TGM book that the further up the plane angle you hit the ball the more you have to adjust the club face for a straight shot - or something to that effect.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
mb6606 said:
I know I read somewhere in the TGM book that the further up the plane angle you hit the ball the more you have to adjust the club face for a straight shot - or something to that effect.
Click to expand...

No chance that the idea of the D-Plane is ANYWHERE in TGM's pages.

Geez....

Why is it sooooooo hard to admit you are wrong about a book's infallibility?
 
M

mb6606

New
Brian Manzella said:
No chance that the idea of the D-Plane is ANYWHERE in TGM's pages.

Geez....

Why is it sooooooo hard to admit you are wrong about a book's infallibility?
Click to expand...

True there is no D plane reference - but HK was not against swinging right or left. There are several references to opening and closing ones stance line relative to the straight away plane. Read 6-E-2 -2 and 3 for example.
Compare to nearly all traditional golf instruction suggests setting up ala the railroad tracks.
I think the D plane rocks. But so does the book. I also believe there is only two type of scientific theories per Karl Popper. Those theories that have been proven untrue and those yet to be proven untrue!
Brian,
IMHO you and Mr. Kelley would have had a great relationship if you had ever had the opportunity! Peace.
 
Steve Khatib

Steve Khatib

Super Moderator
I was emailed this link from a friend who saw it on another so called ' TGM forum'. I had to explain that TGM was full of many great ideas, although it is not 100% perfect to quote chapter and verse.

I suppose that is why I love the Manzella Academy and this forum: because we can all admit we taught something that was wrong and improve everyday, while others hang onto an idea to validate their ego rather than improve their students via an updated knowledge base.

Brian was not 'coining' anything, with a catch phrase called 'D-Plane' rather he has interupted science into a workable instructional learning model.

How do I know this?

I was sitting right next to him at every Dr. Aaron Zick talk and at every teaching summit.

Brian would not 'go public with an idea' unless it proved to work!
 
Last edited:
F

fronesis

New
mb6606 said:
I also believe there is only two type of scientific theories per Karl Popper. Those theories that have been proven untrue and those yet to be proven untrue!
.
Click to expand...

I'll be (rightly) called a geek for this, but I'm excited to see a Popper reference. Seriously! (I teach Popper.)

And mb's point is a really good one: part of what makes Brian's approach so great is that he actively seeks to disprove previous theories about the golf swing, ball flight, and instruction. The theory of the D plane and its verification by new video technology disproves some TGM theories.

But it's dangerous to take "the D Plane" as THE TRUTH of the golf swing, especially since I don't think anyone - not even Brian, though my money is on him to be the first - who has worked out a full set of teachings based on the D plane. One of the things that's so powerful about TGM (to me, someone who hasn't even read the book) is that it builds a set of feels and teaching components on top of its theories. Brian is now building those on top of the D plane theory.

This is perhaps another way of making the point that I utterly failed to make well in an earlier thread. Ideas like "hitting" and "swinging" are still really good teaching feels, even if they developed out of theories of the biomechanics of moving a golf club that new evidence has disproved. In other words, I hit the ball better trying to monitor PP#2 and PP#4, even if I know in my head for a fact that it's impossible do "pure swinging" and that in moving the club I have to be adding force across the shaft.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
mb6606 said:
True there is no D plane reference - but HK was not against swinging right or left. There are several references to opening and closing ones stance line relative to the straight away plane. Read 6-E-2 -2 and 3 for example.
Compare to nearly all traditional golf instruction suggests setting up ala the railroad tracks.
I think the D plane rocks. But so does the book. I also believe there is only two type of scientific theories per Karl Popper. Those theories that have been proven untrue and those yet to be proven untrue!
Brian,
IMHO you and Mr. Kelley would have had a great relationship if you had ever had the opportunity! Peace.
Click to expand...

Try this:

Mr. Kelley didn't have all the answers, in fact got a few thing wrong, but he did a wonderful job of cataloging the swing, and coming up with new terminology.

Even though he was not a scientist, he had several science-based ideas in the book, and several other ideas that were purely opinion. Both sets have parts that are correct, some that are close, and some that are not.

The D-Plane idea was the work of a real scientist, Theodore P. Jorgensen.

At a seminar a couple of years ago, two TGM book literalists argue with me about the D-Plane. They claimed that it was possible to swing on a straight (at the target) plane-line, have a path that was 11° inside-out, and hit a dead straight ball. Among other D-Plane factoids.

They lost to me 100 to nothing.

I am waiting patiently for my apology.
 
bcoak

bcoak

New
I asked a simple question on another "site" about putting and was chastised because I did not understand the book answer.
 
T

Tarheel90

New
Seems to me that Homer Kelley did an incredible job classifying and defining many aspects of the golf swing and its variations given the tools he had at his disposal at that time. However, how can one possibly argue with the information covered by Jorgensen and revealed by Trackman. It would be miraculous and convenient if all that Kelley discovered was true. Unfortunately, it is not and to admit this, in light of the updated information that currently exists, is to admit that every teacher worth his salt must check their ego and get to work studying and learning other possibilities. Clearly, you embraced that philosophy a long time ago, Brian, and it has helped many others, like me, realize the importance of expanding one's mind and continue to learn and improve. Some brilliant minds once believed that the world was flat...thank heaven there were those who challenged that belief and discovered the truth. Sorry to ramble...am feeling a bit philosophical on this rainy day in Orlando.
 
M

mb6606

New
Brian Manzella said:
Try this:

Mr. Kelley didn't have all the answers, in fact got a few thing wrong, but he did a wonderful job of cataloging the swing, and coming up with new terminology.

Even though he was not a scientist, he had several science-based ideas in the book, and several other ideas that were purely opinion. Both sets have parts that are correct, some that are close, and some that are not.

The D-Plane idea was the work of a real scientist, Theodore P. Jorgensen.

At a seminar a couple of years ago, two TGM book literalists argue with me about the D-Plane. They claimed that it was possible to swing on a straight (at the target) plane-line, have a path that was 11° inside-out, and hit a dead straight ball. Among other D-Plane factoids.

They lost to me 100 to nothing.

I am waiting patiently for my apology.
Click to expand...

Works for me - to bad Homer is not around as I imagine he would have amended version 8 based on the lastest science. How about answering my D plane putting thread question???
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
mb6606 said:
Works for me - to bad Homer is not around as I imagine he would have amended version 8 based on the lastest science. How about answering my D plane putting thread question???
Click to expand...

No doubt a man that wanted to get things correct, would change ever incorrect idea.

But, that will never happen.

So....thankfully some us don't have our head in the sand.

I am working on your putting question, which will hep me unify the theory I have developed called the "V" plane.
 
cal7426

cal7426

New
Brian Manzella said:
They lost to me 100 to nothing.

I am waiting patiently for my apology.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath.

Book literalist = closed mind = idiocy. Dangerous in some areas of life, but golf is a game with a ball and a few sticks so leave them to it.

My advice, stop looking in the rear view mirror. Teach what you believe to be correct and always keep an open mind. In other words, keep doing what you're doing.

The thought occurs though - are they saying what they're saying whilst doing what you're saying?
 
N

niblick1

New
fronesis said:
I'll be (rightly) called a geek for this, but I'm excited to see a Popper reference. Seriously! (I teach Popper.)
Click to expand...

Boy, you are a geek! (Hey we should have done the Manzella lesson together after all; afterwards we could have discussed whether Popper or Kuhn had a better framework for describing how the underlying understanding of the "science of golf" has evolved from Homer to now.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top