LIVE From European Teaching Conference Day 1

[Steve Khatib]

Brian
Here is a breif run down from some of the speakers in Munich

Dr. Paul Schempp

The guy the picks the top 100 teachers and the guy with the tripple wrist action at the top that Brian gave a lesson to in Florida Summit 04.

He gave the same presentation as he did in Florida about the characteristics of great coaches. Yawn.

He also said that some of the top coaches that had a great profile were overated. But I know he still selects them in his top 100.

Dr. Ralph Mann - Swing Like A Pro

He put his model on the screen and went through why he believes its the best. It is just a 'the way' method as he believes all swings shouls look as close to his model as possible.

He talked about short game and said that all the great pitch shot plyers dont release the the club(

 

[Steve Khatib]

He was just demonstrating a verticle hinge action and we all know that the accumulators is what you release not the club.

He said that Golfing Machine followers are to set in their ideas and that Hommer Kelley had a philosphy on the swing. I found this hard to understand myself as G.O.L.F. is not a method it is a system.

Finally Geoff Mangum gave his putting presentation and he used a paw minor basic stroke pivot from a rocking of the shoulers swinging motion which was great but then he said the face stays square to the target all the way and that you strike the ball on the upswing. I was confussed to know wether he meant a verticle hinge action or steering.

I think he knows about G.O.L.F. as he used terms such as 'tetherball from the glossary section of the little yellow book.

He also said Stan Utley used too much roll in his putting proceedure which is just horizontal hinging for IMO.

Anyway I will keep you posted with more from Hank Haney, Dennis Pugh, Scott Cranfield and Randy Smith on Day 2 soon.

STL.

 

[hue]

I know Scott and Denis and I have an opinion of them. I was taught by Denis . I shudder to think where I would be had I not come accross TGM ( Thank you Brian for posting on FGI). Scott Cranfield used to teach at a club I play golf at. I have got some stories about him. I will be interested to see what you make of them.

 

[BigBadDonkey]

Lol be interested to hear what Cranfield says.

 

[Damon Lucas]

Steve...G'day...

I have worked with Geoff Mangum a lot, and he doesn't teach a reverse roll. His model for a straight stroke(as per the target line) is to get the left shoulder moving toward the ball of the left foot, relax, then move it away from the left foot. It is essentially a no roll,pivot driven proceedure.

He dislikes forearm rotation due to the variability with ball positions, the 'proper amount', the differences from putt to putt, and because he believes it is sub optimal in terms of rolling the ball as straight out of his set up as possible.

It would be doing Geoff a MASSIVE disservice to comment on his work and ideas if he were judged solely on his ideas about stroke. He has spent the last 15 years of his life dedicated to understanding everything about putting from optimal to sub optimal to anything goes. He is particularly strong with regard to the neuroscience of putting, as well as the physiology. Don't take my word for it...read his website(tips and forum) and see the debate over various questions - www.puttingzone.com .
My gut feeling and what thus far counts for my intellectual knowledge say that in 10,20 years time, Geoff will be recognized in a similiar light to Homer for his contributions to putting.

Cheers,
Damon
P.S Let's try and catch up in December

 

[Steve Khatib]

Damon, I agree he is ahead of his time in understanding the brain eyes etc in putting. It is sometimes hard to translate what these guys say and what is precisely meant to mean, but essentially I thought he was a great speaker.

 

[6bee1dee]

quote:Originally posted by FOUR BARRELS AUSTRALIAN


Finally Geoff Mangum gave his putting presentation and he used a paw minor basic stroke pivot from a rocking of the shoulers swinging motion which was great but then he said the face stays square to the target all the way and that you strike the ball on the upswing. I was confussed to know wether he meant a verticle hinge action or steering.

I think he knows about G.O.L.F. as he used terms such as 'tetherball from the glossary section of the little yellow book.

Geoff Mangum is no real friend of TGM. I love his web site and I know some AIs have had lessons from him and teach some of the things he likes. But he didn’t have much of an opinion of Homer Kelly’s ideas on putting in this article-

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=52812&messageid=1055734059


Ted Fort uses paw minor basic stroke pivot when he putts. Keep your money in your trousers- he is dead on. I posted a clip of him putting on Lynn’s site.

 

[Damon Lucas]

6B,
Did Geoff really raise any points that you disagree with?
Is he not a friend of TGM as you would have it, because he questions various points Homer makes in the three or four pages Homer 'dedicated' to putting?
Should we all stop trying to go beyond TGM because it is so complete??

Damon
PS I am a huge proponant of TGM

 

[birdie_man]

Even I can pick apart lots of things Geoff wrote in that link....and I'm sorry, I have to.

I just don't like it when people talk like "that's the way it is" about their opinions on TGM. All it is, is his opinion...I don't think he has any business saying it's not a well-written book. I don't think it takes a genious to figure out the purpose of TGM and what's it's all about...it's "place in golf."

It isn't meant for the "average" golfer....and it sure as hell isn't "vague" either.

C'mon Geoff...if "Accumulator" and "No Pivot Stroke" are really too complex for you then read into it a bit....it's in the book. If that doesn't work then go back to school...

"From what I can tell, Kelley basically has not vested a lot of attention specifically in putting. he regards it as nothing more than just another "stroke" option, along with cut shots and drives. So his emphasis is limited to the biomechanics of the stroke pattern, plus a little dab of physics, and ignores neuroscience, motor learning, kinesthesis, psychology, putter design, greens agronomy, lore and tradition, and psychology."

Duh! And it's true. But who cares. I don't think it's meant to be the "be all end all" putting book...but it has the basics. And I don't care what anyone says....putting is not as technical (mechanically) as the rest of the game. It just isn't.

Not to say that I don't welcome Geoff's very thorough stuff. He writes lots of good stuff. I've been to his site. Good stuff.

Like TGM to the full swing, anything you need to know you can basically find on his site. And that's the way it should be really.

If you ask me though, putting isn't nearly as hard to learn as the full swing. And I'm talking about learning the basics of putting....not mastering it.

I'm not gonna go out and say Geoff writes a bunch of "jargon" just because I don't care to know about all the stuff he writes about...or care to put the time into reading his stuff.

And again...I like Geoff's stuff. His site is great.

"From the illustrations Kelley has of the three sorts of impacts, it is obvious to me that he does not fully understand the pattern of stroke movement in three dimensions. If you look at his drawings, you will see that the arrow (or vector) indicating the motion of the putterhead into the ball is level or parallel to the surface in all three blows. This implies "no rising" of the putterhead during the stroke back and through. The only way this is the case is when the putterhead is kept low to the surface all the time back and through by rotating the entire upper torso back and through as a unit, with the shoulderframe rotating laterally in a semicircular path at the end of a canted-forward torso above a stable pair of hips. I'm sure he's not really aware of this necessary implication, since no one putts that way. To be charitable, very very few golfers are sufficiently analytical to take strong notice of the vertical trajectory of the putterhead during the stroke.

In ALL putting strokes (without contorted movements), the putterhead rises vertically as it moves back from the start and also rises vertically as it moves farther forward past impact. The hallmark of almost all putting is a stable head, which means the spine does not sway back or forward in the stroke, but stays oriented straight perpendicularly to the putt's start line."

Etc. etc....he goes on....

Well, it's obvious to me that this is a simplified diagram of a putt...and it isn't meant to demonstrate the exact path of the putterhead.

I think Geoff should have realized this......he's just being nitpicky here. Arrows? C'mon man.

I think what he didn't realize is that the rest of the book applies to putting....i.e. there are many things that apply to ALL strokes.

When Homer said a putt was a miniture version of a driver swing he wasn't screwing around.

...

I just realized that I'm really yelling at no one.

Oh well, I had to vent.

Annnnnnnnnnd.....I'm done.

 

[Damon Lucas]

Go on...

 

[birdie_man]

quote:Originally posted by Homerson


Is he not a friend of TGM as you would have it, because he questions various points Homer makes in the three or four pages Homer 'dedicated' to putting?
Should we all stop trying to go beyond TGM because it is so complete??

BTW...

HELL NO, we should not stop looking beyond TGM. HELL NO.

BTW....TGM is definately NOT a COMPLETE putting book.

I don't think Homer meant it to be....

 

[Damon Lucas]

Birdie Man,
Thanks for your insights.
Just a couple of points...
Geoff is just as entitled to his view/opinions, as is Homer. When does opinion become fact? It would 'seem' from what you wrote that TGM is doctrine whereas Geoff's writings,'opinions', views, whatever you might call them, are mere opinions and somewhat unsubstantiated ones...it would seem!
I think that of anyone in the golf industry, Geoff would have as much right as anyone to say TGM was not well written. He is a former lawyer(not that that means all that much), and is as astute as anyone I've ever met with regard to the vagaries of the English language. However, ask anyone who has ever read TGM for the first time what their opinion on it is, and I would say the overwhelming majority would deduce that it is not well written.
As for your critique of what Geoff said that was incomplete, false, or misunderstood, well... saying that TGM does not purport to be the answer to the difficulties of putting, or that TGM was simplified, or that the arrows were not exact...sorry, that does not cut it.
Nitpicky?? Geoff uses very precise knowledge so that HIS words are not misconstrued.
I'm not yelling, and I'm very interested in criticisms of Geoff's work(as he would be), that go beyond ranting, and saying that something that is supposed to be precise is simplified and therefore exempt from criticism.

VERY INTERESTED!
Still not yelling though

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Personally, I do not like the style or way Ted Fort putts (whatever TGM options he uses).

I just don't like it. I can do it, but i feel a square stance with a square setup and a rocking shoulder stroke is more effective.

But that is the beauty of golf, there are always different options. Hell, some even say that SIDE SADDLE is the "true way" to putt. LOL

 

[birdie_man]

quote:Originally posted by Homerson

Birdie Man,
Thanks for your insights.
Just a couple of points...
Geoff is just as entitled to his view/opinions, as is Homer. When does opinion become fact? It would 'seem' from what you wrote that TGM is doctrine whereas Geoff's writings,'opinions', views, whatever you might call them, are mere opinions and somewhat unsubstantiated ones...it would seem!
I think that of anyone in the golf industry, Geoff would have as much right as anyone to say TGM was not well written. He is a former lawyer(not that that means all that much), and is as astute as anyone I've ever met with regard to the vagaries of the English language. However, ask anyone who has ever read TGM for the first time what their opinion on it is, and I would say the overwhelming majority would deduce that it is not well written.
As for your critique of what Geoff said that was incomplete, false, or misunderstood, well... saying that TGM does not purport to be the answer to the difficulties of putting, or that TGM was simplified, or that the arrows were not exact...sorry, that does not cut it.
Nitpicky?? Geoff uses very precise knowledge so that HIS words are not misconstrued.
I'm not yelling, and I'm very interested in criticisms of Geoff's work(as he would be), that go beyond ranting, and saying that something that is supposed to be precise is simplified and therefore exempt from criticism.

VERY INTERESTED!
Still not yelling though

It's not that it isn't well written....

I just don't think that's the issue here.

I wasn't picking on any of Geoff's TECHNICAL opinions on the PUTTING STROKE. Just on how he talks about TGM...I think he missed the boat a bit. I hope I'm not saying this just because I'm "offended" and want to defend Homer or something...but I don't think so. I just don't care for those cut and dry statements.

Again....I wasn't "picking on any of his work"...I was picking on what I thought were some incomplete statements and opinions by Mr. Mangum. I was picking on HIS "picking-on" of TGM (if that makes sense).

The thing is that it is a more technical book than most (and that is FOR A PURPOSE)...and second- Homer didn't want the book to turn into a dictionary-sized monster. I'm sure you know all this but I'm gonna say it anyway.

Basically, I believe that THE STYLE in which TGM WAS WRITTEN was for a purpose....this book was not MEANT for some Joe Blow to just pick it up....you can't learn this book in a week or a month.

Keep in mind it was supposed to be: for teachers, for students, complete, not vague, etc. And SMALL!...not a dictionary. All this stuff AT THE SAME TIME. In ONE book!

AND- you were supposed to use this in conjunction with an AI...I think Homer wanted this book to really take-off and blossom into a full-fledged golf program.

Would it have been great for him to write a massive version with big pics, easier to read (and longer) sentences and stuff? Probably. Would it have been great if he spend more time on putting. Probably.

BTW...TGM isn't a book that you can EXPECT to read for the first time and understand...I don't care if Bill Shakespeare wrote it or Homer Kelly did.

Of course he is entitled to his own opinions....damn right he is.

That doesn't make them right though....I just think that saying it was flat-out not well-written was too cut and dry. Things aren't always that simple.

 

[birdie_man]

BTW, Geoff is right about the arrows.

But that still is nitpicky. I don't care.

I felt that he tried to make it sound like Homer didn't know that the putterhead doesn't move parallel to the ground.

"No flat spots in a circle."

Duh.

Another thing....

Geoff wrote in that link about those putting diagrams of Homer's (on the TGM cover, top left corner).

...Something about "a putter head is not a pool-cue."

Interesting stuff actually.

I'd like to explore this further if anyone knows about it. If someone has proved Homer wrong I, for one, would be all ears. So long as it's the truth.

-Paul

 

[nevermind]

Bold by me

nitpicking? Isn't that the entire point of TGM.

birdie man, I'm glad I read the last half of your latest reply, otherwise I would categorized you together with all the people who dismiss TGM because they don’t its style.[/b]

 

[Brian Manzella]

Isn't this great??

But what about THIS question:

If 12 students of random ability/age/sex/etc, showed up to a Geoff putting school....and he had 'em for one day...could they out putt my students? Or Ben's ? Or Lynn's Or Fort's??

That is the REAL question....



I say...RACK 'EM UP!

 

[6bee1dee]

quote:Originally posted by jim_0068

Personally, I do not like the style or way Ted Fort putts (whatever TGM options he uses).

I just don't like it. I can do it, but i feel a square stance with a square setup and a rocking shoulder stroke is more effective.

But that is the beauty of golf, there are always different options. Hell, some even say that SIDE SADDLE is the "true way" to putt. LOL

Jim, which putt stroke is that you can do?

Ted uses a Paw stroke with rocking shoulders and does go straight back- straight through. What do you think he does?

Ted put on quite a display of putting in Canton, on the practice gree and on the course.

 

[6bee1dee]

Well, I didn’t think my original post would have gotten such a response. I have always turned folks onto Geoff’s web site. He is much better than Pelz, Utley, etc. A friend of mine, an AI, has him teach at his GC. I enjoy his ideas on reading greens, etc. But I didn’t take to him minimizing Homer’s basic stroke pattern. Homer didn’t write a putt only book. Homer does know a thing or two about the function of the right arm and how the clubhead impacts the ball. Geoff is entitled to his opinion but I’m sure if he wrote about the full swing, Homer Kelley wouldn’t have been so demeaning.

And as for, writing styles, read Geoff, as much as I like him, he is very long winded. As an old journalist student, being concise and to the point goes a long way.

I’d pick Brian and Ted as the winners of any putting school. Of course they have Ben and Lynn in their corner but the results would startle even putting web site owners that know more about...” neuroscience, motor learning, kinesthesis, psychology, putter design, greens agronomy, lore and tradition, and psychology."

Roll them straight, let the speed bend them.

 

[Steve Khatib]

I asked Geoff Mangum more questions yesterday about TGM and his putting theory and he said Lynn Blake had helped him with understanding TGM. He also said his stuff was so good but the politics of Golf Magazine has kept Pelz alive as all the editors etc keep feeding his articles into the monthly editions even though he has little basis of research to go from. He nows all about Dr Schemmp and the boys club the top 100 teachers really is.

To make it perfectly clear he does not dislike TGM he simply says it is not complete on the area of putting, and it doesnt take a genius to work that out. Hommer didnt mean it to be the be all and end all of putting as 241 pages is not enough room to do much at all.