CONTROVERSIAL FORUM EUROPEAN TEACHING CONFRENCE

[6bee1dee]

I have no love for Leadbetter, but this report was a hatched job, criticism with an agenda.
I have little doubt that Oliver Heuler knew exactly what he was writing and what the outcome would be. If Heuler is as good a writer as been stated, he knew Leadbetter would not keep his commitment furthering the ridicule at him. The reaction and his resignation from the TCC was the only thing he didn’t foresee.
I get the feeling that Heuler is paying Leadbetter back for some other reason we know nothing about.

I do not Leadbetter or his academy. He (the academy)likes to try out new things on the ‘weekend’ player to see how they work before passing them on to their grade AAA talent. They are all over the map, at times. The academy is like a test laboratory.
The money isn’t in the lesson packages from vacationers but the accredited High School Preparatory school he has and the big name Jr. talent he stables.

As in every profession, someone with less talent raises to the top and earns huge money as better, more qualified people are overlooked and under recognized..

Leadbetter <-------------> Manzella = perfect example.

 

[BigBadDonkey]

quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee



As in every profession, someone with less talent raises to the top and earns huge money as better, more qualified people are overlooked and under recognized..

Well said, 'cause of other "details" .

 

[Brian Manzella]

This is really important:

Isn't LIVE LESSON ABILITY WITH ALL LEVELS OF GOLFERS the #1 most imporatant determinant, in rating teachers????

 

[Steve Khatib]

Right on Brian, no set up students like at the summits we have been to!

 

[ulim]

Well, if you want to rate teachers according to their live lesson ability with random students, then yes, live lessons with random students are the best way to find out. On the other hand if you want to rank teachers according to the amount of knowledge they contributed to Golf, then you'd better look at something else. Also you could rank them according to objective results (say, tournaments won by their students or handicaps improved), there are a lot of possibilities. Finally, there may be teachers, who need a longer ramp-up time with a student, but teach better in the long run - you won't see them at a conference doing impromptu teaching.

I'm not sure what the actual purpose of this Top-100 list is, probably it exists so someone can make money and little thought went into it.

In any event, if there really was an idea of a "generally, all-around best teacher in the world", then only looking at live teaching will not do it.

Ulrich

 

[heuler]

Hi to all of you!

quote:Ulim:He still went there as a visitor, though, and I think that might be what kept Leadbetter away.

I decided to go there after Leadbetter withdrew. They wanted me to talk and teach as a substitute for Leadbetter. But I demanded a few things they didn’t want to fulfill.

quote:Australian: He taught a student a false feel hand action (clubhead throwaway)to help him feel lag.

In fact I taught the guy like the golfing machine guys would do it: Dragging the hands down and leaving the club behind. At the time I didn’t know better.
But thanks for the B+ anyway. Next time I promise to be better.

quote:Brian:This Oliver was dead on about Lead, but if he saw me teach, would run from Hank.

I am not at Hank anymore so I can’t run from him. Over the years I developed a few things that are quite different from the way he does them. He is not a great fan of delaying the release. One of his head pros (a good friend of mine) attended some G.O.L.F seminars and he was quite critical of what was taught there. He reported of lots of deep divots and low ball flights.
I only watched Mike Hebron teach; visited, watched and talked to Ben Doyle and I’ve seen Gregg Mc Hatton. I also read the golfing machine but didn’t study it like you guys. I still couldn’t describe the difference of a swinger and a hitter and I still don’t understand the benefit of introducing so many planes.
Your statement makes me curious anyway. What exactly do you think I could learn from you? I am always open to new ideas. I’ve seen two beta versions of your videos and I found a few similarities in the way you teach the average slicer (face first, plane second, release third). Without the golfing machine I developed the same three principles:
1. John Jacobs taught a few years in my club and I learned the importance of the clubface from him. Although I must say he cheated a lot. But between the 50s and 70s he was way ahead of all the rest.

2. Hank introduced me to the more sophisticated version of the plane. Although I refined it a little with the help oft this robot:

<center>

</center>

At the teaching conference I told Hank of the flaws of the old theory and he immediately agreed.
3. Five years ago I started teaching with a video system that I helped to develop. It gives me feedback from three angles in 0.9 seconds. In every lesson I am watching at least 100 swings live and on video. By the time the student has placed his next ball I have already analyzed the last swing. With this help we could fix the face and the plane a lot quicker and more accurate. But then you still have to fix the club head throw away. Almost a year ago a biomechanic guy taught me what I was missing. I just wrote a book with him which will be published next spring.
It is different from everything I’ve read before. We tested his way of teaching the release with 20 pros at my club and everyone was critical at the beginning but after one season and thousands of students we all have to admit that we are far more effective compared with the years before.

quote:6B1D: I get the feeling that Heuler is paying Leadbetter back for some other reason we know nothing about.

No, actually I always admired his sense of humor and the way he promoted himself. I still don’t feel any angriness. The big dispute in Germany helped me to separate friend from foe and actually I am thankful how everything worked out. I may have used some words that were to extreme in my review of Leadbetter’s teaching day. But I already apologized for that and have a good conscience now. If he is not resentful I might visit him one day and share thoughts with him. I already have a very good relationship with his first man in Germany Paul Dyer. Let’s face it: We are not in competition. I don’t plan to teach tour players and he is not going to steal any low and mediocre talented golfers from me who I prefer to teach.

quote: Australian: Right on Brian, no set up students like at the summits we have been to!

The students at the TCC weren’t set up in any way. The results of the teachers especially the ones of Scott Cranfield and Randy Smith proved that, didn’t they?

I am enjoying this forum already and hope to have some good time here.

Oliver from good old Germany
(born in Switzerland though)

 

[Mathew]

Oliver I have your book "Golf Swing - Basics" - a translated english version

I would like to address the biggest problem I have with what you teach in this book. Just wondering if you still tell people to have a bent plane line with the idea that the clubshaft always remains parallel to the original plane angle as a cornerstone of your theory?

Shall I post the picture ?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Oliver,

Welcome to the Manzella Golf Forum, where we don't care what you believe, but we will debate you if we disagree.

My videos have improved 500% since the ones you have seen, as as far as Videos go, I think Flipper is a good as any...

But!

What SEPARATES ME from all the rest is my LIVE TEACHING ability.

ANY level, any age, any PATTERN...the best of them all.

Well, at least until I see someone better.

 

[denny.]

How did Haney come up with that idea that the shaft always stays parallel to address angle?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Looking a "parallax-ed" pictures.

 

[Steve Khatib]

Oliver,

great to hear the real story thanks very much. I actually dont think the European Summit students were set ups, but the US summit students were definately set up,and I am sure Brian would agree with this.

I admire your knowledge and research and would love to hear more about your ideas.

 

[heuler]

Looks to become a great discussion!

quote:Mathew: Just wondering if you still tell people to have a bent plane line with the idea that the clubshaft always remains parallel to the original plane angle as a cornerstone of your theory?

These are two different questions:
1. Should the shaft be always parallel to the original plane angle?
2. How should the shaft lift above the original plane line, i.e. in a linear fashion or in a bent fashion?

1. 10 years ago I produced a computer animation to show why a parallel shaft is a simple way to swing a golf club. I have two different formats:

http://www.golf-tips.info/forumdyna/ebene.mpg
http://www.golf-tips.info/forumdyna/ebene.avi

But surely it is not the only way. A new video of Faldo that I recorded a few month ago shows that you can steepen and flatten the shaft like Leadbetter likes it.
http://www.golf-tips.info/video/faldo.mov

And you could also imagine someone having his shaft pointing at the target line all the time like Kelley described it. The difference between a parallel shaft and one that is pointing towards the target line is very small. I think it is not worth starting a big fight. What is much more important is being able to analyze a real golf swing. In a real golf swing you have to pay much more attention to the process a shaft is in: Is it flattening or is it steepening? A shaft that points at a correct point according to a certain theory doesn’t mean that everything is fine. If it is in a flattening process for example it is going to look wrong a few pictures later.

2. The second question is more important. I am not quite sure how the Golfing Machine would answer that question. But if the answer would be that the lifting has to take place in a linear fashion I am sure that this is wrong. I spent quite some time with 3D-Character animation, since I want to create my own model like Ralph Mann’s model golfer.
See my first try here: http://f3.webmart.de/f.cfm?id=497810&r=threadview&a=1&t=2458096
When animating humans you learn pretty quickly that there are no straight lines in human movements. Linear movement looks very robot like. Watch this video to see how a hand of a boxer moves

http://www.golf-tips.info/video/arching.mov

If you want to learn more about that, look at the DVDs of Jeff Lew: http://www.jefflew.com/DVD_content.html

Movement takes place in spline curves I made this graphic to illustrate the point:

<center>

</center>

The middle graph shows the Haney theory: Keep the club on plane till it has swung back 90 degrees and then lift in a Bezier fashion (i.e. no jerk, no jolt: speed and acceleration changes have no jumps); lower it from the top of the backswing in a Bezier fashion until the club is 90 degrees before impact; then stay on the plane again till 90 degrees after impact etc.

That not only looks wrong in the graph it also feels wrong (i.e. jerky) when you program it in the robot.

My new theory (upper graph) says the lift has to start immediately in the takeaway. At 90 degrees you are already 2 inches above the original shaft plane.

Now I would like to know from you guys what the Golfing Machine would say. Would the graph have to look like the lower one in my illustration?

Were you referring to this picture, Mathew?

<center>

</center>

quote:Brian: What SEPARATES ME from all the rest is my LIVE TEACHING ability. ANY level, any age, any PATTERN...the best of them all.

What separates many Americans from many Europeans is the way they look at themselves. I get the impression that we are far more self critical. But this is not the point here. If you have the better argumentation that is fine with me. It is not my biggest concern to be right. I just want to become better. Have you read Popper? He is the Tiger Woods of the philosophy of science.

quoteenny: How did Haney come up with that idea that the shaft always stays parallel to address angle?

I have no idea. Sorry. Maybe I can get him to read and maybe even write in this thread. I’ll send him an e-mail.

quote:Brian: Looking a "parallax-ed" pictures.

He indeed had his cameras very close to the golfer. That leads to big distortions especially at the top of the swing. But he bought my video system a few years ago and this reduces the problem by using a third camera which is directly behind and on height of the club at the top of the swing. This showed Tiger for the first time how much across the line he really was.
To illustrate that I put a club on a tripod in my teaching hut.

This picture shows a club that is perfectly parallel and parallel at the top:

<center>

</center>

It looks layed off from a normal camera view.

Now if you don’t know that. You might get your pupils in a parallel looking position at the top. But actually it is way across the line as this picture shows.

<center>

</center>

The little pictures shows what my third camera sees.

quote:Australian: but the US summit students were definately set up,and I am sure Brian would agree with this.

At the superdome when Leadbetter turned the fading girl into a big slicer the stundents weren’t set up. And if they were they would have been set up badly

Best wishes
Oliver

 

[nevermind]

Oliver, that ebene animation is great. So simple and clear. I can see now how that method can work for a double shift (TGM definition) swing. Thankyou.

 

[heuler]

Glad it helped you, nevermind. Can you explain the GM definition of a double shift in simple words for an ordinary golf pro from Duesseldorf?

 

[6bee1dee]

quote:Originally posted by heuler

Glad it helped you, nevermind. Can you explain the GM definition of a double shift in simple words for an ordinary golf pro from Duesseldorf?

But born in Switzerland? Ich bin ein Regensburger.

Any shift is taking the hands off the original plane- something 99 percent of golfers do - and returning them back to the same plane or some other plane of choice.
Homer didn’t care what plane you used as long as you knew what you were doing.

Double shift is one of eight plane angle variations Homer classified and that 99 per cent of golfers don’t need to care about but something teaches should know. It is all in the hands.

Double Shift is different from a Single shift. Since you have trouble with the terminology I do not know which you are really asking about since both have a similar motion.

A single shift takes the hands off the original plane- say an elbow plane and shifts them to a shoulder plane (very common take-away) and keeps them there for the downswing- on the shoulder plane (called a Turned Shoulder Plane). One single shift. No going back just forth.

A Double shift is the same thing but the hands return BACK to the original plane- Two shift forth and back.

He is how complicated Homer got when he wrote it in the book- follow this:

“10-7-C Double Shift This involves the return of the Stroke to the Elbow Plane Angle after a Single Shift in the Backstroke.”

Is that tough? Nicht stark zu mir. Sie?

 

[tongzilla]

Oliver,

Give me your email because I sooooo want you to "get it". Or drop a line at tongzilla@gmail.com if you don't want to post your email.

 

[heuler]

I could understand that. Thank you, 6b1d. One month in this forum and I surely speak the GM language fluently with your help.

How would my new theory be classified? One in which a shift takes place right at the start and the return to the starting plane doesn’t occur till impact. If there is no term for it, I’d call it “maximum spread no jerk no jolt double shift” or MSNJNJ2S.

Cheers Oliver

PS: Your German is probably as rusty as my English

 

[birdie_man]

Double Shift is like Vijay.

Path of hands looks like this (from DTL) on both the backswing and downswing: |

That's basically it.

Here's VJ- http://www.manzellagolfforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1905&SearchTerms=junk

......

Single shift would be like Mickelson (page 2 of this topic):
http://www.manzellagolfforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2530&whichpage=2&SearchTerms=mickelson

Red line is Turned Shoulder Plane- the line drawn from the ball through the top of the swing right shoulder.

Phil starts on the Hands-only Plane then (prolly with a Shoulder Turn Takeaway) takes it inside slightly......then, as he nears the top of the swing there is a shift to a steeper plane (1 and only shift).....he comes down the Turned Shoulder Plane.

Hope that helps Heuler.

BTW, is Germany REALLY the land of chocolate (*cue music*....drifts off into fantasy about prancing around in the land of chocolate)....la la la la la la la.....(eats chocolate dog) la la la.....

http://media.putfile.com/Land-of-Chocolate

 

[heuler]

Thanks, I think I got the idea.

quote:Tongzilla: Give me your email because I sooooo want you to "get it". Or drop a line at tongzilla@gmail.com if you don't want to post your email.

You don’t want to send me the shot-by-shot description of your last ten rounds, do you? Just kidding. I already sent you my e-mail.

quote:Birdie man: BTW, is Germany really the land of chocolate

We are some sugar eaters I can tell you. On average we eat 40 Kilos (that’s the weight of four fully equipped tour bags) each year. I just did a little research on that because I wanted to check whether I can accept other people feeding my little Heuler (http://www.heulers.de) a little chocolate bar once in a while.
The result was: I quit eating sugar completely a week ago. I couldn’t believe the experts saying that sugar is a drug. So I had to prove them wrong by just quitting to eat it easily. Now I know sugar is a drug, since quitting is all but easy. I went through cold turkey. The first night I couldn’t think of anything else. It was unbelievable. I was laughing about myself all the time. After a week it hasn’t become any easier. I still have to call myself addicted and I am by no means safe of a relapse.
Maybe I try to distract myself a little by starting endless discussions in foreign forums? If I should disappear suddenly as quick as I’ve come you know that I am eating sugar again.

 

[6bee1dee]

quote:Originally posted by heuler

I could understand that. Thank you, 6b1d. One month in this forum and I surely speak the GM language fluently with your help.

How would my new theory be classified? One in which a shift takes place right at the start and the return to the starting plane doesn’t occur till impact. If there is no term for it, I’d call it “maximum spread no jerk no jolt double shift” or MSNJNJ2S.

Cheers Oliver

PS: Your German is probably as rusty as my English

I speak little German anymore and can only read simple sentences. My uncles laugh at my German when we talk on the phone. I always said thatthe golf swing is like conjugating imperfect German verbs- if you miss a day - its back to square one.

I haven't had the chance to give your MSNJNJ2S a good look but the "shift may be made (1) during the Backstroke, (2) during the Downstroke, or (3) at the Top of the Stroke."

Less is more- I like to keep shifts to a minimum