3Jack, now you are making a strawman argument. McLean said that some TGM fans/teachers get into a "religion" of searching for the perfect golf swing, he never said the book was about the perfect golf swing. I agree with his statement to a degree.
But, he didn't say that. So there's no straw man argument coming from me
He also talks about 'being perfect at the top' and then releasing the power accumulators and going into a 'perfect finish.' That is his interpretation of the 'TGM swing' as what he believes is prescribed by the book. Only, that's not how the book prescribes the swing, because there is no one way according to the book.
I have found that
some TGM AI's will take the swinger pattern and run with that and avoid the hitter pattern. However, I haven't come across any instructor who has talked about being 'perfect at the top' and going into a 'perfect finish.' And personally, I'm still trying to find the ones that talk about 'no weight shift.' I can give you the stationary head stuff and the power accumulators stuff and *some* instructors teaching a swinger pattern...but the 'perfect at the top' and 'perfect at the finish' is nonsense from my experience. Lord only knows how many different AI's I've talked to since 1997. Probably upwards to 200 or so. And I have never come across one who has talked about 'perfect swings' and 'only one way to do it' and 'being perfect at the top and going into a perfect finish.'
Like I said, I have found some that prefer the 'swinger pattern', but even then the ones I've come across have allowed for variability in that pattern. But searching for the perfect swing? Please, name me some outside of the 1 or 2 outliers that would come with any popular philosophy or theory.
If you go anywhere in the net where heavily TGM-influenced people are discussing the golf swing, all you read is stuff about perfect alignments and perfect geometry, preserving the integrity of the geometry of the circle, forearm on plane, flying wedges that are precisely aligned, on plane, and intact. Right forearm takeaway and the magic of the right forearm, tracing a straight plane line, stationary swing center/head, sustain theline of compression, #3 pressure point, etc etc. I could go on and on. The fact is, the TGM guys are not just saying that you should swing however you want, they have very clear biases and preferences based on the pseudo-science contained in the book.
Those are components and alignments. Far different from having a 'perfect swing.' Not even close.
For example, I've seen countless TGMer's bash Manzella regarding Lindsay Gahm, for teaching her a sweep release,
like he's some kind of incompetent for allowing her to swing like that and for disregarding the "endless belt". Meanwhile, she could probably kick most of their ***es on the golf course easily. In my opinion there's a lot of TGMer's who have some of the most rigid and narrow-minded views about the golf swing anywhere, but yet they claim to be all inclusive and non-biased.
Please show examples of the 'bashing' from TGM followers outside of the 1 or 2 outliers that come with any popular theory or philosophy.
I know Ms. Gahm has a FLW at impact in her swing and to my knowledge, that's the most important part of the swing for ardent TGM followers.
I'm not saying that it's not true. But, we would need to see a handful of examples from TGM followers bashing her swing so we can put it into context and judge the accuracy of your statement.
Lastly, I think there's a difference between disliking a golf swing and the 'searching for a perfect swing.' How much of the golf population do you think could swing similar to Furyk and hit the ball well enough to hit 12 GIR on a 6,500 yard course? 1%? 5%?
Would you want to start teaching golfers Furyk's swing?
I don't think you would. But, it's hard to argue with results...particularly his Trackman results.
One may not be fond of all of the pieces Furyk uses to get the job done. I'm not particularly nutty about Furyk's swing. If somebody asked me 'name the top 5 best swings on Tour', I'd have to verify the criteria.
Are we ranking them based almost solely on results and disregarding compensations/alignments/motion/etc? Or are we placing a little less emphasis on results and more emphasis on compensations/alignments/motion/etc?
If it's based solely on results...over the years I'd put Furyk up there. According to Trackman, he's been the closest to 0* path and 0* face on average and his ballstriking statistics are really top notch.
But, I may have to put a guy like Robert Garrigus up there. And Kenny Perry.
If I wanted a little less focus on results and more emphasis on the swing mechanics/alignments/motion/etc...I may go with somebody like Heath Slocum, Charles Warren, Boo Weekley, etc.
Personally, I prefer to list the latter when it comes to my opinions of the golf swing because there are more variables to consider. The first way I can just look at the stats and pick the top 5 pretty easily.' The latter way takes a bit more thought and consideration. Doesn't mean that Furyk and Kenny Perry can't swing the club, but I prefer the way Slocum, Warren and Weekley do it.
Again, show me examples of TGM followers dissing her swing...then I can get a better idea of the context rather than just taking it at face value.
3JACK
as I have read many of these types of posts.