Is TGM-knowledge necessary?

[David Alford]

The secret of a great golf swing is what it takes a person to do it.

I seriously doubt Ben Hogan or Moe Norman, Lee Trevino or Byron Nelson knew "all that" re: golf swing theory.

However, undoubtedly they knew their swings to a precise personal level.

 

[DOCW3]

Secrets of "Doing"

The secret of a great golf swing is what it takes a person to do it.

I seriously doubt Ben Hogan or Moe Norman, Lee Trevino or Byron Nelson knew "all that" re: golf swing theory.

However, undoubtedly they knew their swings to a precise personal level.

I don't believe Lee or Moe did a book-maybe someone should compile an audio . Nelson did at least one and of course there were two from Hogan. Then, The Driver Swing in Competition-1949 surfaced. If you have seen it, do you have any comments about what he said in 5 Lessons?

 

[protagonist]

I don't believe Lee or Moe did a book-maybe someone should compile an audio . Nelson did at least one and of course there were two from Hogan. Then, The Driver Swing in Competition-1949 surfaced. If you have seen it, do you have any comments about what he said in 5 Lessons?

Lee did a book called Swing My Way. He came up with a swing that was consistent and gave him control over the golf ball.

 

[David Alford]

I don't believe Lee or Moe did a book-maybe someone should compile an audio . Nelson did at least one and of course there were two from Hogan. Then, The Driver Swing in Competition-1949 surfaced. If you have seen it, do you have any comments about what he said in 5 Lessons?

5 Lessons had the potential to be the finest golf book ever, but is tragically flawed for reasons I don't have time to go into here.

My point was Moe Norman, Trevino, Nelson, and yes, even Hogan understood their swings to a precise point, BUT probably would look like illiterates in this forum. I'm sure all of them with the possible exception of Moe, could converse about their swing models articulately, but I believe they'd be lost in discussing other patterns.

Hogan once found himself in a discussion with a golf swing guru & realizing the guy pretty much knew his stuff, said to effect: 'I don't pretend to know everything about the golf swing, but I do understand my golf swing'.

Deductively, you don't really need to know beans about the 3 Imperatives,
elbow plane, 4 barrels, etc. etc. You really just need to know a valid swing model the way these greats did.

I'm certainly not against golf swing theory (to the contrary), but the weakness of TGM is that it doesn't really teach you what you need to know to make a great swing of any specific pattern. The precise codes are never spelled out. What is given are lower resolution codes for a lot of possibilities. Very interesting, but in itself, not a specific blue print, the type of information that great ball strikers really know.

If somone had asked Hogan what the 3 Imperatives are, he probably would have said Grip, Set Up, and Pivot. But he knew these more intimately than just listing them suggests.

The late hit, etc. all followed as a consequence...I'm not suggesting he would have denied the vital importance of the Three Imperatives, etc; he probably just thought about the swing quite differently. If you have a great swing, you don't think about the 3 Imperatives in the same way a beginner does.

I'm also sure he would have read the book with great interest. But is TGM stuff necessary? Let's also do the thought experiment to ponder what Moe Norman would have thought...from his recorded statements, he didn't appear to have a ton of complex thoughts about the golf swing.

Having gotten pretty well into the great golf swings of the game's best ball strikers, I'm saying the information required is quite a departure from the golf knowledge often endlessly debated.

Nor am I suggesting golf swing theory is not a potential shortcut. But the real shortcut is to know what you have to do to make a great golf swing.

I suppose all this is a bit aggrevating to the golf theoreticians here...however, this perspective is not well represented. And no doubt, I haven't made a conclusive case in this brief discussion.

 

[GolfVn]

Well true but TGM is not aimed at individual golfers, they are for teachers.
So one don't need to know everything, find an AI and start working on your golf swing. Now if you have too much time on your hand, that's a different matter.

 

[David Alford]

btw, I wrote: "no doubt I haven't made a conclusive case in this brief discussion" because I know how hard it is to get swing gurus to budge one inch from their positions.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

TGM is necessary to a point:

Here's an easy example:

You can't combine standard wrist action with right arm thrust unless you want to shank.

If you know TGM you know why and you wouldn't teach it to a student.

 

[David Alford]

I don't believe Lee or Moe did a book-maybe someone should compile an audio . Nelson did at least one and of course there were two from Hogan. Then, The Driver Swing in Competition-1949 surfaced. If you have seen it, do you have any comments about what he said in 5 Lessons?

5 Lessons had the potential to be the finest golf book ever, but is tragically flawed for reasons I don't have time to go into here.

My point was Moe Norman, Trevino, Nelson, and yes, even Hogan understood their swings to a precise point, BUT probably would look like illiterates in this forum. I'm sure all of them with the possible exception of Moe, could converse about their swing models articulately, but I believe they'd be lost in discussing other patterns.

Hogan once found himself in a discussion with a golf swing guru & realizing the guy pretty much knew his stuff, said to effect: 'I don't pretend to know everything about the golf swing, but I do understand my golf swing'.

Deductively, you don't really need to know beans about the 3 Imperatives,
elbow plane, 4 barrels, etc. etc. You really just need to know a valid swing model the way these greats did.

I'm certainly not against golf swing theory (to the contrary), but the weakness of TGM is that it doesn't really teach you what you need to know to make a great swing of any specific pattern. The precise codes are never spelled out. What is given are lower resolution codes for a lot of possibilities. Very interesting, but in itself, not a specific blue print, the type of information that great ball strikers really know.

If somone had asked Hogan what the 3 Imperatives are, he probably would have said Grip, Set Up, and Pivot. But he knew these more intimately than just listing them suggests.

The late hit, etc. all followed as a consequence...I'm not suggesting he would have denied the vital importance of the Three Imperatives, etc; he probably just thought about the swing quite differently. If you have a great swing, you don't think about the 3 Imperatives in the same way a beginner does.

I'm also sure he would have read the book with great interest. But is TGM stuff necessary? Let's also do the thought experiment to ponder what Moe Norman would have thought...from his recorded statements, he didn't appear to have a ton of complex thoughts about the golf swing.

Having gotten pretty well into the great golf swings of the game's best ball strikers, I'm saying the information required is quite a departure from the golf knowledge often endlessly debated.

Nor am I suggesting golf swing theory is not a potential shortcut. But the real shortcut is to know what you have to do to make a great golf swing.

I suppose all this is a bit aggrevating to the golf theoreticians here...however, this perspective is not well represented. And no doubt, I haven't made a conclusive case in this brief discussion.

 

[David Alford]

Sorry for the double post. Hope that is removed.

Good point, TGM is for teachers; it's not well emphasized.

 

[birdie_man]

5 Lessons had the potential to be the finest golf book ever, but is tragically flawed for reasons I don't have time to go into here.

My point was Moe Norman, Trevino, Nelson, and yes, even Hogan understood their swings to a precise point, BUT probably would look like illiterates in this forum. I'm sure all of them with the possible exception of Moe, could converse about their swing models articulately, but I believe they'd be lost in discussing other patterns.

Hogan once found himself in a discussion with a golf swing guru & realizing the guy pretty much knew his stuff, said to effect: 'I don't pretend to know everything about the golf swing, but I do understand my golf swing'.

Deductively, you don't really need to know beans about the 3 Imperatives,
elbow plane, 4 barrels, etc. etc. You really just need to know a valid swing model the way these greats did.

I'm certainly not against golf swing theory (to the contrary), but the weakness of TGM is that it doesn't really teach you what you need to know to make a great swing of any specific pattern. The precise codes are never spelled out. What is given are lower resolution codes for a lot of possibilities. Very interesting, but in itself, not a specific blue print, the type of information that great ball strikers really know.

If somone had asked Hogan what the 3 Imperatives are, he probably would have said Grip, Set Up, and Pivot. But he knew these more intimately than just listing them suggests.

The late hit, etc. all followed as a consequence...I'm not suggesting he would have denied the vital importance of the Three Imperatives, etc; he probably just thought about the swing quite differently. If you have a great swing, you don't think about the 3 Imperatives in the same way a beginner does.

I'm also sure he would have read the book with great interest. But is TGM stuff necessary? Let's also do the thought experiment to ponder what Moe Norman would have thought...from his recorded statements, he didn't appear to have a ton of complex thoughts about the golf swing.

Having gotten pretty well into the great golf swings of the game's best ball strikers, I'm saying the information required is quite a departure from the golf knowledge often endlessly debated.

Nor am I suggesting golf swing theory is not a potential shortcut. But the real shortcut is to know what you have to do to make a great golf swing.

I suppose all this is a bit aggrevating to the golf theoreticians here...however, this perspective is not well represented. And no doubt, I haven't made a conclusive case in this brief discussion.

Overall I think this is a pretty good post.......you have a point.........I honestly have no real standout objections.........myself.

 

[protagonist]

5 Lessons had the potential to be the finest golf book ever, but is tragically flawed for reasons I don't have time to go into here.

My point was Moe Norman, Trevino, Nelson, and yes, even Hogan understood their swings to a precise point, BUT probably would look like illiterates in this forum. I'm sure all of them with the possible exception of Moe, could converse about their swing models articulately, but I believe they'd be lost in discussing other patterns.

Hogan once found himself in a discussion with a golf swing guru & realizing the guy pretty much knew his stuff, said to effect: 'I don't pretend to know everything about the golf swing, but I do understand my golf swing'.

Deductively, you don't really need to know beans about the 3 Imperatives,
elbow plane, 4 barrels, etc. etc. You really just need to know a valid swing model the way these greats did.

I'm certainly not against golf swing theory (to the contrary), but the weakness of TGM is that it doesn't really teach you what you need to know to make a great swing of any specific pattern. The precise codes are never spelled out. What is given are lower resolution codes for a lot of possibilities. Very interesting, but in itself, not a specific blue print, the type of information that great ball strikers really know.

If somone had asked Hogan what the 3 Imperatives are, he probably would have said Grip, Set Up, and Pivot. But he knew these more intimately than just listing them suggests.

The late hit, etc. all followed as a consequence...I'm not suggesting he would have denied the vital importance of the Three Imperatives, etc; he probably just thought about the swing quite differently. If you have a great swing, you don't think about the 3 Imperatives in the same way a beginner does.

I'm also sure he would have read the book with great interest. But is TGM stuff necessary? Let's also do the thought experiment to ponder what Moe Norman would have thought...from his recorded statements, he didn't appear to have a ton of complex thoughts about the golf swing.

Having gotten pretty well into the great golf swings of the game's best ball strikers, I'm saying the information required is quite a departure from the golf knowledge often endlessly debated.

Nor am I suggesting golf swing theory is not a potential shortcut. But the real shortcut is to know what you have to do to make a great golf swing.

I suppose all this is a bit aggrevating to the golf theoreticians here...however, this perspective is not well represented. And no doubt, I haven't made a conclusive case in this brief discussion.

The weakness of TGM...
Really, it's only one book by one man. If it does not have what you are looking for then you have to find out from someone else, or find the answers yourself. But is there anything comparable? The man put his life into it. Perhaps you are just trying to stir the pot?

Is TGM stuff necessary...
When I think of every bogus golf lesson I've paid for in my life, and I regret that there have been many, I think - YES it is very necessary. At the very least it represents the starting knowledge a 'golf pro' should have before they take one cent for giving a lesson. There orta be a law.

What do you have to do to make a great golf swing David? If you put it into writing I will read it, digest it and put it into practice. Also, I tend to agree about 5 lessons and would like very much to hear what you think about it.

 

[Spike]

A good AI will take the guess work out of learning to hit the ball in an enjoyable and succuessfull manner. Would Hogan or the rest of them have benefitted from Homers knowledge? Hogan with a supposedly IQ of 150 would have for sure. But who knows maybe he would have needed an AI to help him along the way.

Jim's post and protagonist's post makes the most sense and should clear up any doubt about the value of TGM. It is for teachers, inmo, and should be an imperitive

 

[DOCW3]

I was actually speculating on how today's video tools and not TGM might have affected his conclusions and seeking your assessment.

5 Lessons had the potential to be the finest golf book ever, but is tragically flawed for reasons I don't have time to go into here.

My point was Moe Norman, Trevino, Nelson, and yes, even Hogan understood their swings to a precise point, BUT probably would look like illiterates in this forum. I'm sure all of them with the possible exception of Moe, could converse about their swing models articulately, but I believe they'd be lost in discussing other patterns.

Hogan once found himself in a discussion with a golf swing guru & realizing the guy pretty much knew his stuff, said to effect: 'I don't pretend to know everything about the golf swing, but I do understand my golf swing'.

Deductively, you don't really need to know beans about the 3 Imperatives,
elbow plane, 4 barrels, etc. etc. You really just need to know a valid swing model the way these greats did.

I'm certainly not against golf swing theory (to the contrary), but the weakness of TGM is that it doesn't really teach you what you need to know to make a great swing of any specific pattern. The precise codes are never spelled out. What is given are lower resolution codes for a lot of possibilities. Very interesting, but in itself, not a specific blue print, the type of information that great ball strikers really know.

If somone had asked Hogan what the 3 Imperatives are, he probably would have said Grip, Set Up, and Pivot. But he knew these more intimately than just listing them suggests.

The late hit, etc. all followed as a consequence...I'm not suggesting he would have denied the vital importance of the Three Imperatives, etc; he probably just thought about the swing quite differently. If you have a great swing, you don't think about the 3 Imperatives in the same way a beginner does.

I'm also sure he would have read the book with great interest. But is TGM stuff necessary? Let's also do the thought experiment to ponder what Moe Norman would have thought...from his recorded statements, he didn't appear to have a ton of complex thoughts about the golf swing.

Having gotten pretty well into the great golf swings of the game's best ball strikers, I'm saying the information required is quite a departure from the golf knowledge often endlessly debated.

Nor am I suggesting golf swing theory is not a potential shortcut. But the real shortcut is to know what you have to do to make a great golf swing.

I suppose all this is a bit aggrevating to the golf theoreticians here...however, this perspective is not well represented. And no doubt, I haven't made a conclusive case in this brief discussion.

 

[David Alford]

<It is for teachers, inmo, and should be an imperitive>

An imperative for the teacher, but not the student? The student must still, at some point learn "the string of pearls" that all great ball strikers know/feel/DO.

And that information is lacking in TGM. My conclusion, TGM isn't that great a learning tool for the student (for which it wasn't written). The student is still at the mercy of the teacher, and hopefully that teacher can impart the specific knowledge so the student can do what he needs to do for the pattern the teacher decides to impart or correct.

It's all questionable if this will work at a high success rate. Keep in mind the number of really well versed teachers who can also demonstrate great ball striking. How many are there in the world of golf? The answer demonstrates the unhappy chances of 99.99% of students developing a solid golf swing.

Consequently, most students will have to rely on a local teacher of questionable merit, golf tips from friends, etc.; and learning the hard way by solo experimentation.

 

[David Alford]

<The weakness of TGM...
Really, it's only one book by one man. If it does not have what you are looking for then you have to find out from someone else, or find the answers yourself. But is there anything comparable? The man put his life into it. Perhaps you are just trying to stir the pot?>

I'm interested in comments for constructive purposes. I'm quite serious that the real shortcut is not theory or possibilities of patterns, but rather the "string of pearls" that one needs to know/DO to hit the ball really well.

If you ask for a specific teaching example, it would be FIVE LESSONS, but again that book has errors that hugely subtract from it's practical usefulness.

 

[birdie_man]

The weakness of TGM...
Really, it's only one book by one man. If it does not have what you are looking for then you have to find out from someone else, or find the answers yourself. But is there anything comparable? The man put his life into it. Perhaps you are just trying to stir the pot?

Hey I like TGM too....

I gotta say tho man.....I can see where David is coming from....and I think he does have a point.

I think he's just saying: "For the STUDENT........IS the book and/or all the book-type STUFF necessary, or in some cases-even effective-in learning how to play?"

I think all he's saying is you don't NEED the book.........you don't NEED ALLLLLLL the "STUFF." Just the blueprint.

(David tell me if I'm wrong or incomplete)

"Up the wall down the wall left of the wall with a bum that slides on an imaginary wall behind you."

Never Hook Again. (short version) Or- more or less David Toms.

I mean.......you can't dispense of a guy like Brian anyway you go about it.....but it's right from his video....THIS is a blueprint. (it's a lot easier than sticking your nose in TGM)

And watching the video......anyone can do it--to some degree anyhow--especially if their hands and pivot are already educated. And if they aren't......well....

And.......surely Brian can do a better job teaching you in person too. (rather than video) That's the teacher's job. He knows all kinds of "stuff" (so you don't have to).....and how to TEACH it. Plus the customizing..........etc. etc. etc.

I guess he gives you your own "blueprint"?

...

Anyway- stuff like these videos ARE "blueprints" really.........but you can't dispense of a good teacher.....or dismiss the value of TGM or TGM-like stuff......OR dismiss the value of a teacher who knows some "stuff."

(and I don't think David has said any of that)

....

Now.....as for these great pros not knowing the 3 Imperatives......

I gotta say David........they may not be able to tell you them at the snap of a finger like most on this forum could......

.....but (and this is of course very speculative)......say a guy like Trevino.......I bet if you ask him today......I bet he knows the value of flat left wrist, lag, and plane.

I mean......David.......I know they may or may not be able to put it together exactly like the 3Is and really articulate it in such an organized and instantly clear way like the 3Is.........but they must know what a good impact is......no? Even if it's a feel.......a picture in their mind......a POSE of impact.....

Anyway tho.....like you did say: more importantly- they know how to get it.....over and over and over and over. Their own blueprint.

I read a quote supposedly from Moe actually: "Everyone has their own blueprint."

 

[Brian Manzella]

Is TGM stuff necessary?

Is Knowledge of "Golfing Machine" Concepts necessary for good golf, or great teaching?

Heck no.

To play very well, all you need is A WAY to make the club trace a STRAIGHT PLANE LINE, square up the CLUBFACE when desired, contact the ball on the way to LOW POINT (unless you have a tee or a vert fluffy lie) and generate enough POWER to hit the ball from point A to point B.

Oh yeah, you need a pretty good short game as well.

Lots of people—1000's—have figured out how to do it. From Old Tom Morris to Young Luke Donald.

Quite a few—maybe a couple 100— have figure out how to EXPLAIN IT. All you need to do is read Abe Mitchell's Essentials of Golf, wriiten in 1927, to see how much of Homer Kelley's Golfing Machine was "assembled" from this book and many others.

The information WAS THERE, all someone had to do was put it together.
Homer Kelley did the best job of it so far. Period.

Is The Golfing Machine perfect?

Not even close.

In my opinion—besides the fact that it reads like a D- term english term paper, with C- science—There are missing components, missing variations, missing explanations, very questionable "sample" stroke patterns, and a horrible Basic Motion Curriculum.

While I am at it, to be fair, in my opinion, I am 30lbs. overweight, woefully disorganized, pitifully out-of-shape, and goofier than a 3rd grade girl. I have helped way too many the wrong people business-wise, etc. etc.​

Does that make The Golfing Machine tragically flawed like Mac O'Grady claimed?

Not close.

It is a GREAT RESOURCE of Golf Stroke information and classification. The process a teacher goes through from buying the book, to getting Authorized, is as illuminating as the Sun, and worth every nickle and every second.

One day, someone will get the science right, make the classification simpler, and write a book that is visually stunning and literarily captivating.

In the mean time, The Golfing Machine is it. But you could be a great teacher without it and a poor one with it, and the same goes for being a player.

 

[strav]

Is TGM necessary?

The secret of a great golf swing is what it takes a person to do it.

I seriously doubt Ben Hogan or Moe Norman, Lee Trevino or Byron Nelson knew "all that" re: golf swing theory.

However, undoubtedly they knew their swings to a precise personal level.

David I believe you are right on the money. The golf machine, as is, is for theorists. I can’t help thinking that the golfing legends you mentioned relied on intuition, creativity, experiment and natural talent to find a practical way to achieve their simple objectives of getting the ball from A to B in the least number of shots. So the answer to your question “Is TGM-knowledge necessary” is obviously ‘of course not’ because these legends did it without it. To my mind the question should be is do the methods and techniques they used to achieve their objectives parallel Homer’s tenets as outlined in TGM? If so, then we are in a more fortunate position then they because we do not have to reinvent the wheel. Homer has given us the ‘blue print’, as Birdie calls it and what was once only available to the intuitive is now available to all - if somewhat obscured by Homer’s esoteric writing style. If somebody could successfully transcribe Homer to the masses, I believe golf would take an immediate giant stride forward.

 

[Jim Cook]

In my opinion—......a horrible Basic Motion Curriculum..........

Brian,
Does this mean that the time is ready for a Manzella Academy video showing both the proper basic and acquired motions?

 

[cmartingolf]

Moe Norman and TGM

Hi David,

Interesting post. I want to give you my opinions on a couple of items.

Moe - I grew up around Moe. He knew his golf swing (like you said) inside and out. In a "hit the target" competion, I would give Tiger 5 balls to Moe's 1 and bet on Moe. He could talk to you about the swing for hours and tell you why he didn't like certain grips or patterns. Moe didn't talk to very many people and I was a person he didn't really care to talk to either. Fortunately, I was and still am dear friends with Mark Evershed. Mark got along with Moe about as well as anyone and I was able to sit-in on some of these conversations. If Mark wasn't there, I'd have been like everyone else that was around Moe. He'd be courteous, but would share any info. He had tremendous wisdom about the golf swing. From time to time, he'd mutter "two things, two things..." and help a young pro hitting balls. He'd normally show some exagerated impact hand condition and emphasize a straight plane line. He was a sweet, albeit misunderstood guy. He was autistic and didn't mix very well with others.

TGM?? I grew up in Southern Ontario and spent 100 hours on the lesson tee with George Knudson. People regard him as one of the games best strikers. Aside from being a wonderful man that gave a lot of himself to the betterment of golf, he did share his wisdom. I would never trade the time I spent with George whether it was taking lessons from the time I was nine years old or working for him at his practice range. I do wish I would have had TGM influence as a young man. I was the type of kid that "needed to know." I wasn't satisfied with his explanation and simplicity of the action. He could stripe it and hit any call shot you wanted and the sound was heavy and very 3-D. He didn't teach the same dynamic motion he possessed.. Even as a kid, I could see what he tought didn't provide the direction to produce what he could do. I finally met a TGM based instructor (Mark Evershed) after I played College golf and while I was on the Canadian Tour. He shed some light on the "Imperitives" and took away a lot of the mystery. Like Homer says, "a guided struggle is better than a blind one." I feel TGM is primarily for instructors and is excellent for folks that really want to know.

TGM should be 90% of the PGA's Education for Apprentices....