jimmy mclean on perfection

[Richie3Jack]

Same old tired TGM arguments. Richie there are TGMers that bash Brian and anything associated with Brian there's no denying that so to ask for proof is kind of funny just go to to a couple of other sites site and you can always find your proof. I must be in an alternate universe as I have read many of these types of posts.

From my experience, there's arguments about the science of TGM and behavior between both sides. But, show me where they bashed Lindsay's swing because all I remember is that some people who were followers of this forum and non-TGM followers were negative towards her swing.

Put it this way...TGM talks about the full sweep release. It's not some obscure passage in the book...it's a pretty well talked about part of the book.

If she had a flip at impact, then I would believe that the TGM followers would bash her swing. But I don't believe they would bash for a full sweep release.

So I would like to see proof of it so I could see it in context. I mean, it wasn't too long ago I was accused here of saying that Tiger's grip was too strong...which was the exact opposite of what I said. So I ain't taking it at face value.




3JACK

 

[gmbtempe]

There also seems to be some missing context, if you are critical or disagree with something is it bashing? If you provide no facts or reasoning then it moves towards bashing.

I consider bashing to be on a personal level that is uncalled for, which I freely admit I am as guilty as anyone and so I try to just talk about the swing mechanics. Sister Mary would not always approve of my behavior for sure on these forums (and probably off

 

[footwedge]

There also seems to be some missing context, if you are critical or disagree with something is it bashing? If you provide no facts or reasoning then it moves towards bashing.

I consider bashing to be on a personal level that is uncalled for, which I freely admit I am as guilty as anyone and so I try to just talk about the swing mechanics. Sister Mary would not always approve of my behavior for sure on these forums (and probably off

Glad you defined bashing, I didn't know what it was...lol. Sister Mary could bash with the best of them.

 

[faux_maestro]

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.

If you go anywhere on 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.

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.

I did a google search and a search on golfwrx and a search on a site "I'd rather not name here". Golfwrx and "site I'd rather not name" had nothing on Lindsay (or "Lindsey" either). Google just turned up threads here and youtube vids and her profile at Indiana. Not saying that it has NEVER happened but I can't find any Manzella bashing re:her golf swing.

Just wondering, how the heck could anyone bash that swing? I'd give anything for that action.

 

[footwedge]

From my experience, there's arguments about the science of TGM and behavior between both sides. But, show me where they bashed Lindsay's swing because all I remember is that some people who were followers of this forum and non-TGM followers were negative towards her swing.

Put it this way...TGM talks about the full sweep release. It's not some obscure passage in the book...it's a pretty well talked about part of the book.

If she had a flip at impact, then I would believe that the TGM followers would bash her swing. But I don't believe they would bash for a full sweep release.

So I would like to see proof of it so I could see it in context. I mean, it wasn't too long ago I was accused here of saying that Tiger's grip was too strong...which was the exact opposite of what I said. So I ain't taking it at face value.




3JACK

Nate mentioned Lindsay I didn't.

 

[natep]

I'm not sure where to look but i saw the criticisms several times and I eventually I got in an exchange with someone on a forum about it. Thats why I remember it. There's a good chance that its one of the rabid literalist folks who used to troll Brian on this and other forums, saying he was a bogus GSED, the "Caesar", etc. but I'm not sure at this point, this was a while back. But I'm not making it up. And its just one example, there are numerous other examples and I dont think there's even any question about that.

 

[faux_maestro]

I'm not sure where to look but i saw the criticisms several times and I eventually I got in an exchange with someone on a forum about it. Thats why I remember it. There's a good chance that its one of the rabid literalist folks who used to troll Brian on this and other forums, saying he was a bogus GSED, the "Caesar", etc. but I'm not sure at this point, this was a while back. But I'm not making it up. And its just one example, there are numerous other examples and I dont think there's even any question about that.

Like I said, I'm not saying it didn't happen. I just didn't find anything on it. I'm new to internet golf discussion though. I still don't understand how anyone could hate on that swing.

 

[natep]

There are lots of folks who hate on anything and everything Manzella.

 

[faux_maestro]

There are lots of folks who hate on anything and everything Manzella.

There are lots of people that hate on EVERYTHING.

 

[natep]

Yes, its just part of being successful.

 

[gmbtempe]

Yes, its just part of being successful.

I would say its part of the net, I have no success and get hated on all the time ( :

 

[Michael Finney]

The literalists discard the "system that explains all methods" mantra when they teach two patterns at best because the audio tapes said so.

How's Lou Holtz's game? Has it recovered yet?

 

[Richie3Jack]

The literalists discard the "system that explains all methods" mantra when they teach two patterns at best because the audio tapes said so.

Two types of classifications with numerous variety of components isn't two swings.

Don't get me wrong...I started working with a GSED back in January of 1997 and all he taught was the swinger pattern...but even then the components were customized.

Eh, we're getting off point anyway.

McLean is talking about TGM having an 'imperfect search for the perfect swing.' Can't say I've seen it. Talks about *the* 'TGM swing' being a no weight shift, and 'perfect at the top' and 'release the accumulators' and being 'perfect at the finish.' Never heard that either.

I'd feel the same way if he had substituted TGM for Manzella and talked about how all Brian wants a 'perfect Trackman swing' and that 'nobody has ever been great under Brian' and then pointed out somebody like David Toms as being great.

Same moronic straw man argument.

Like I've said, I have no problem with somebody arguing the merits of the science behind it. But, that's not what McLean is doing here. He's just 'throwing' nonsense out there and 'dragging' it thru the mud





3JACK

 

[footwedge]

I watched the video and I think he is saying even players like Joe Durant and Annika S. who i believe their teachers are TGM influenced can't approach this idea of perfection in ball striking or whatever even though they are so good TGM is "THE GOLFING MACHINE" supposedly based on science which Mclean did mention, the problem is that the science is flawed, so the Machine is imperfect as are all other Methods, in other words there is no perfection no matter what the method even if there was a perfect method because we are Human not Machines and we make mistakes.

 

[ej20]

TGM has given the instructor and golf swing enthusiasts a chemistry kit without instruction.Most become mad scientists on the practice tee and are playing golf swing more than golf.Some luck onto a good pattern,others blow themselves up to smithereens.

It doesn't help that quite a few of the elements in the chemistry kit are flawed either.

The book should be more aptly called the Tinkerers Golf Manual.

 

[gmbtempe]

TGM has given the instructor and golf swing enthusiasts a chemistry kit without instruction.Most become mad scientists on the practice tee and are playing golf swing more than golf.Some luck onto a good pattern,others blow themselves up to smithereens.

It doesn't help that quite a few of the elements in the chemistry kit are flawed either.

The book should be more aptly called the Tinkerers Golf Manual.

I think this is a fair assessment and would not have as much an issue if McLeans video had said as much.

 

[BrendanC]

'Compensations'?

One word you see a lot in TGM discussions is 'compensations' (see also: 'mandatory' and 'recommended').

'Compensations' away from what?

What are people compensating for!?

(Seriously: if you have a concept of 'compensations', you MUST have a concept of 'perfect').

 

[birly-shirly]

TGM has given the instructor and golf swing enthusiasts a chemistry kit without instruction.Most become mad scientists on the practice tee and are playing golf swing more than golf.Some luck onto a good pattern,others blow themselves up to smithereens.

It doesn't help that quite a few of the elements in the chemistry kit are flawed either.

The book should be more aptly called the Tinkerers Golf Manual.

I don't have a horse in the race, but this is broadly what I thought Mclean was saying in that video. You can deconstruct it, and sweat the details, and if you have a fondness for TGM then you probably should. But I didn't take away much more than ej20 says - that it was a warning against overly-mechanical thinking. It's probably unfair to single out TGM for this criticism - but if all you have to go on is internet discussion boards, then that's not immediately obvious...

 

[Lindsey Newman]

One word you see a lot in TGM discussions is 'compensations' (see also: 'mandatory' and 'recommended').

'Compensations' away from what?

What are people compensating for!?



(Seriously: if you have a concept of 'compensations', you MUST have a concept of 'perfect').

One big compensation I have in my swing is that after I address the ball, I make a backswing, and because of that, I have to make a downswing. I know it's not optimal and it requires movement, but I can't stop doing it. So frustrating.

 

[Tball88]

Just heard on the news this morning that what was considered by scientists to be "good cholesterol" actually may not be so good, and actually may be bad, damn't more flawed science.....Next thing you know, somebody is going to tell me that I don't need more X-factor, what's this world coming too...