Is TGM-knowledge necessary?

[David Alford]

Brian, I'm working on it...I guess a lot of people are! ha. But, I have "deadly" intent...

 

[David Alford]

birdieman, I pretty much agree. I haven't seen Brian's videos, probably should. I'm sure they are very good.

Cmartin, how do you compare Moe vs. Knudson in ball striking? I'm a bit surprised Evershed adopted a swing pattern that is so different from Moe's.

 

[bts]

Got it all.

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.

It got it all. It's just people don't realize the REAL imperatives and essentials, including Mr. Kelley himself, nor his AIs.

 

[tongzilla]

It got it all. It's just people don't realize the REAL imperatives and essentials, including Mr. Kelley himself, nor his AIs.

so you realise something so profound that not even the person who spent over 25 years writing the book knew? please share!

 

[cmartingolf]

Moe and Knudson

On a "hit the target" challenge, I'd give Tiger 5 balls, George 4 and Moe 1 and still bet on Moe! In a tournament round on a regulation course, Tiger would have to give George and Moe 1 a side. Put them at Hilton Head and it the playing field would be more even. The tighter the course, Moe would be tough to beat.

Mark taught an orthodox pattern. I think he realized long ago that most mortals couldn't swing it like Moe and be effective.

With this recent "stack and tilt," Plummer and Bennet stuff, Evershed was teaching that patter to those that needed it long ago. He would have you set up on his "see saw" weight shift device, keep your weight left the entire time you swung. He was clear to say the pattern wasn't for everybody.

 

[rosser]

Evershed

On a "hit the target" challenge, I'd give Tiger 5 balls, George 4 and Moe 1 and still bet on Moe! In a tournament round on a regulation course, Tiger would have to give George and Moe 1 a side. Put them at Hilton Head and it the playing field would be more even. The tighter the course, Moe would be tough to beat.

Mark taught an orthodox pattern. I think he realized long ago that most mortals couldn't swing it like Moe and be effective.

With this recent "stack and tilt," Plummer and Bennet stuff, Evershed was teaching that patter to those that needed it long ago. He would have you set up on his "see saw" weight shift device, keep your weight left the entire time you swung. He was clear to say the pattern wasn't for everybody.

I don't remember Evershed say it wasn't for everyone? He would hammer his way home. He caused more golfers to block shots and loose power with his keep the right wrist bent tone. He had too many holding this angle.

He sure was not in the same class as BM, but who is. ')

 

[cmartingolf]

Evershed

I don't remember Evershed say it wasn't for everyone? He would hammer his way home. He caused more golfers to block shots and loose power with his keep the right wrist bent tone. He had too many holding this angle.

He sure was not in the same class as BM, but who is. ')

I assume you've take lessons from him and can speak from experience? Your comments are incorrect. Lose power? Hardly. His "bent right wrist" message translates to a flat left wrist with the correct grip. The only way a golfer would lose power and block shots is a lack of understanding of plane and arm swing.

 

[David Alford]

so you realise something so profound that not even the person who spent over 25 years writing the book knew? please share!

I think he was referring to my premise that what you really need to know are the things you really need to know...I'm not being sarcastic, but I am confident the world's best ball strikers have a different kind of knowledge than what is in TGM.

I know it's frustrating to many who feel the intellectual approach is their best best for having a decent chance ... bottom line, a great teacher would teach you what you need to know & it probably will be simple, because all great swings are simple.

W/o a great teacher... at this time good luck! Certainly TGM can provide a roadmap of possibilities. As detailed it is, the resolution is low where it really counts. Sorry if that sounds like a death blow criticism. It's hard for a single golf book to be all things ... and there certainly is nothing wrong with
a book being dedicated to a specific field of golf swing knowledge (e.g. "theory").

 

[David Alford]

so you realise something so profound that not even the person who spent over 25 years writing the book knew? please share!

I think he was referring to my premise that what you really need to know are the things you really need to know...I'm not being sarcastic, but I am confident the world's best ball strikers have a different kind of knowledge than what is in TGM.

I know it's frustrating to many who feel the intellectual approach is their best best for having a decent chance ... bottom line, a great teacher would teach you what you need to know & it probably will be simple, because all great swings are simple.

 

[cmartingolf]

Simple!

David, I respectfully disagree.

Swings aren't simple. A highly skilled golfer makes striking a ball correctly look simple. Too many teachers tell students how easy it is...that's crap. I taught myself how to juggle after watching a buddy who made it look simple. I tried. Not simple. I make it look pretty simple now. I could lie to someone and tell them it's simple, but the truth is, that it requires a specific skill set that must be acquired and developed. Same for golf. If it's so simple why do golfers generally suck? I mean, how many do you know that can control their trajectory, bend it both ways and not shoot 10 over their handicap when the wind blows 15 mph??

I'm not an AI. I have the exams (got them from Mrs Kelly years ago) and never got around to filling in all the answers. I guess I was turned off by the annual fees and contractual agreement as I understood it. Besides, I was young and broke.

That said, I have studied the book, it has a place in the top drawer of my nightstand. I have watched about as much TGM video as I could find, as well as all other "reputable" instructors. And, in my opinion, nothing else holds much water. There are a bunch of styles out there based on feels and "good teachers" as you say provide simple fixes for what's needed. Any decent AI would provide simple solutions rather than qoute the book verbatim. I for one, don't feel my students are ignorant and I dump a ton of info on them. If they don't comprehend all aspects of the lesson in the moment, great, they can review the session on the DVD's I provide. If someone is serious and they really want to get better, they'll take the time to review and gain a deeper understanding.

Does a great player need to think about TGM theory? No. Do some great players do it. Yes, and it looks pretty simple. Most "GREAT" players started young enough to where the imperitives were natural do to simple weakness and he inability to overaccelerate. These kids grow up into simply pure golf swingers. Most adults are beat before they start. No, or little chance of ever looking "simple." They need to be counterintuitive and learn why they suck and TGM is the best roadmap I've found to help them. I dont' bury them in chapter and verse, but the message is pretty clear and it revolves around the 3 imperatives.

 

[tongzilla]

simplicity

guys, isn't simplicity is a SUBJECTIVE thing? A five year old might find tying his shoelace very complicated - anyone on this forum would surely find it stupidly simple. A professor of mathematics will find the college exam questions he sets to be very simple, but most people taking the exam will probably disagree! Re David's comment about all great swings being simple, OBJECTIVELY that may or may not be true, but subjectively (ie from the perspective of the golfer), I'm sure all great players when they are at the top of their game FEELS an incredibly simple stroke which they can repeat just like tying a shoelace.

 

[daPong]

CMartin,
One of the best posts I've ever read here on this subject.
Thanks

 

[birdie_man]

David, I respectfully disagree.

Swings aren't simple. A highly skilled golfer makes striking a ball correctly look simple. Too many teachers tell students how easy it is...that's crap. I taught myself how to juggle after watching a buddy who made it look simple. I tried. Not simple. I make it look pretty simple now. I could lie to someone and tell them it's simple, but the truth is, that it requires a specific skill set that must be acquired and developed. Same for golf. If it's so simple why do golfers generally suck? I mean, how many do you know that can control their trajectory, bend it both ways and not shoot 10 over their handicap when the wind blows 15 mph??

I'm not an AI. I have the exams (got them from Mrs Kelly years ago) and never got around to filling in all the answers. I guess I was turned off by the annual fees and contractual agreement as I understood it. Besides, I was young and broke.

That said, I have studied the book, it has a place in the top drawer of my nightstand. I have watched about as much TGM video as I could find, as well as all other "reputable" instructors. And, in my opinion, nothing else holds much water. There are a bunch of styles out there based on feels and "good teachers" as you say provide simple fixes for what's needed. Any decent AI would provide simple solutions rather than qoute the book verbatim. I for one, don't feel my students are ignorant and I dump a ton of info on them. If they don't comprehend all aspects of the lesson in the moment, great, they can review the session on the DVD's I provide. If someone is serious and they really want to get better, they'll take the time to review and gain a deeper understanding.

Does a great player need to think about TGM theory? No. Do some great players do it. Yes, and it looks pretty simple. Most "GREAT" players started young enough to where the imperitives were natural do to simple weakness and he inability to overaccelerate. These kids grow up into simply pure golf swingers. Most adults are beat before they start. No, or little chance of ever looking "simple." They need to be counterintuitive and learn why they suck and TGM is the best roadmap I've found to help them. I dont' bury them in chapter and verse, but the message is pretty clear and it revolves around the 3 imperatives.

Ya man I agree with you. Good post.

Esp. to most people.....it ain't simple at all.

I think tho that there is another side to it.......

....and BTW- you obviously understand this because you hit on it....i.e. "specific skill set that must be aquired and developed."

But ya.....that "other side to it" being- that once you "get it on lock"......it IS pretty simple. (or simpleISH anyway)

Of course tho it's quite a process to get it "on lock." The training of your pivot and hands.....and the "finding" and implementing of the so-called "blueprint." I mean...when you think about just those things in depth it can be complex enough.....and then not to mention all the other facets of golf.....all the details.

Cause you take any pro even and.....simple enough right? (even if they don't hit it perfect every time)

But then you go another level up.......and if there's people who have gotten to a point where they can hit it more or less how they want, more or less every time....

.....how can it NOT be simple for them? I mean really........think about what it must be like.............if you are that good...........there's no way it can be hard. Point and shoot is basically where those guys are AT.

But again....and this parallels what you're saying cmartin.......the other side (and vastly more experienced side for golfers) is that golf for sure is not simple. Not even close.

(and BTW the greatest ballstrikers worked their asses OFF to get to where they got)

 

[birdie_man]

BTW this is very interesting:

Most "GREAT" players started young enough to where the imperitives were natural do to simple weakness and he inability to overaccelerate.

I've never heard it said exactly like that before. But it does make sense.

I know Brian has said that heavy clubs can be a good thing for the little gaffers....

 

[Brian Manzella]

Simple?

Nothing simple about what I do.

Has to be right up there with being a doctor.

Everyone is a little correct though. Alford is right when it comes to what good players know—very little/only what they need to. And CMartin is dead on when he says that the incomplete teachers—and the ones just cheerleading—are woefully short of a "GOOD" AI.

The trick is making it as simple as possible, for a student.

 

[Leek]

Man, I've been to a cheerleader. Do you know how frustrating it is to hear how well you're hitting the ball, when in fact you KNOW you're swinging poorly and something is seriously wrong?

I'd rather have an instructor rip me to shreds than one who acts like a disingenuous cheerleader.

 

[David Alford]

Ultimately, any great swing will be simple...I mean it can be spelled out on one page in understandable syntax.

But surrounding that precise knowledge is a forest of complexity. I'm saying, rather that take a course in forestry, a more direct route is to grab hold of the code and just do it: A, B, C, D!

Ah, if it were only so easy to get the codes...took me 25 yrs. to figure 'em out...right now there isn't a book or video I know of to get 'em. FIVE LESSONS came the closest for one great pattern (Hogan's) & even it isn't quite right.

And if it isn't entirely right, you won't be able to do it; an 85% right golf swing isn't going to work that well no matter how well you understand theory! It may take you a decade or your whole life to get that remainder right. Simple? Not if you your are clawing and fighting the darn thing for year after year.

Still, at the summit, when all is revealed...you may be disgusted with how stupid you were. And you may be even more disgusted you didn't learn the essential things you really need to understand as a kid.

Who knows what your true potential was...Some people luck out with having a great teacher from the get go. I'm not saying talent isn't part of the equation, but think of how many decades Hogan struggled before he got it right...

Good posts, everyone.

 

[David Alford]

Man, I've been to a cheerleader. Do you know how frustrating it is to hear how well you're hitting the ball, when in fact you KNOW you're swinging poorly and something is seriously wrong?

I'd rather have an instructor rip me to shreds than one who acts like a disingenuous cheerleader.

Leek, instructors do that because they know most pupils need to hear positives. Rip the average person and you won't see them again.

Nevertheless, I agree with you if the teacher has full confidence of the student...but here we have the dilemma of whether a teacher tries to revitalize a bad swing or start from scratch with a new pattern.

Consider, some or even a lot of students should give up on swinging and learn how to hit. That's quite a call for a teacher. Lobotomy, anyone?

 

[David Alford]

Good post.

Ya man I agree with you. It ain't simple at all.............to most people.

I think tho that there is another side to it.......

....and BTW you obviously understand this because you hit on it....i.e. "specific skill set that must be aquired and developed."

But ya.....that "other side to it" being- that once you "get it on lock"......it pretty simple. (or simpleISH anyway)

Of course tho it's quite a process to get it "on lock." The training of your pivot and hands.....and the "finding" and implementing of the so-called "blueprint." I mean...when you think about just those things in depth it can be complex enough.....and then not to mention all the other facets of golf.....all the details.

Cause you take any pro even and.....simple enough right? (even if they don't hit it perfect every time)

But then you go another level up.......and if there's people who have gotten to a point where they can hit it more or less how they want, more or less every time....

.....how can it NOT be simple for them? I mean really........think about what it must be like.............if you are that good...........there's no way it can be hard. Point and shoot is basically where those guys are AT.

But again....and this parallels what you're saying cmartin.......the other side (and vastly more experienced side for golfers) is that golf for sure is not simple. Not even close.

(and BTW the greatest ballstrikers worked their asses OFF to get to where they got)

Super post, birdieman!

 

[birdie_man]

Thanks David.

I'm not saying talent isn't part of the equation, but think of how many decades Hogan struggled before he got it right...

Yup......he coulda just as easily given up........settled.....w/e you wanna call it....

We never woulda heard of "The Hawk" if the dude wasn't so dedicated......