More than 4 Accumulators??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alternatively, maybe it's not everyone's fault...or anyone's fault.

Perhaps the book (I'll go slowly so not to cause seizure)...could...have...been...written...b-e-t-t-e-r?
One or the other...
 

Bono

New
hi David!!!

I have seen your posts - and welcome them! You have stated you have learned the swing for yourself through your own studies - I would love to see them!!!

However, for the interim, please take my replies as a TGM advocate whom wishes to discuss in a healthy debate!



quote:Originally posted by David Alford
I'm only saying it can be an accumulator. If straightening the left wrist downward is an accumulator, so is straightening the right wrist. It's as simple as that.
A power accumulator, during its release, should not be a power loss. Clearly, the bending right wrist would result in power loss for a multitude of reasons.

quote:Originally posted by David Alford
So, far, no one has commented on #6. Perhaps because of the realization if rotating the left hand is an accumulator per Brian's explanation, so must rolling the right also be an accumulator? If you're a hitter and want to hook the ball, #6 might come in handly, if you'll excuse the pun.
Accumulator #3 seems to cover what you are referring to.

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

What I find almost "jaw dropping" is the amount of contradictions and confusion amongst TGMers on HK's defintions and useage.
I see your point. But keep in mind - because someone may not understand a definition does not make it incorrect or even confusing.
quote:Originally posted by David Alford
Look, I have PURPOSEDLY avoided TGM because I wanted to figure everything out myself. So of course, I don't know the book's definitions.
What is absolutely astonishing is that those who have studied TGM so religiously can't even agree on something so simple as to what HK meant by the 4 power accumulators! Jeeze, guys...!
Anyone who has the book, and has studied it, can agree. I wouldnt put too much stock in this.

quote:Originally posted by David Alford

Well wait a minute...if they are the same accumulators...everybody (above) who claims #5 and #6 violate all of HK's imperatives, screws up the hinge, etc. etc. would be wrong!! How funny!
Please explain.
quote:Originally posted by David Alford
An interesting dilemma!

To partially answer your question, TGMfan, I am only working from Brian's video. Brian did not define the accumulators as an out of line condition only. He used them in the sense of being released, from out of line to in line. In all the congrats to his video, no one said he got it backward. Did he?
I havent seen the video - but critiscinng Homer becuase of Brians video is like hammering me because of I am a disciple of Da Vinci when I paint.

You have stated on multiple occasions you havent read the book - yet, you post on here and state Homer was wrong - and then take the luxury of using Brians video to make your point - when it seems your main issue is with Homer. So...for one so educated, how could you possibly critiscize someone's teachings when you havent read their book?
 

geoffb

New
quote:Originally posted by David Alford

Then hit it with just straightening the right wrist (from a cocked wrist), nothing else.
What are you trying to say?
Please use the TGM definitions of these wrist conditions so we all know what you are talking about! Your use of these terms is confusing everyone because you are not using them as people here understand them.

Here's the wrist motions for your reference:
4A (Horizontal) Flat/Bent/Arched
4B (Perpendicular) Level/Cocked/Uncocked
4C (Rotational) Vertical/Turned/Rolled
 
quote:Originally posted by David Alford

Well wait a minute...if they are the same accumulators...everybody (above) who claims #5 and #6 violate all of HK's imperatives, screws up the hinge, etc. etc. would be wrong!! How funny!

An interesting dilemma!

Again, David, you're confusing the Accumulator with its Release. The criticisms were generated by your description of releasing your #5 by "straightening" your right wrist. That's an obvious no-no for TGM advocates because it implies the bending of the left wrist. It was only after you changed your description to "uncocking" your right wrist that it became clear you were talking about the same Accumulator. (Of course, that raises the question of whether your right wrist should be cocked in the first place.)

quote:
To partially answer your question, TGMfan, I am only working from Brian's video. Brian did not define the accumulators as an out of line condition only. He used them in the sense of being released, from out of line to in line. In all the congrats to his video, no one said he got it backward. Did he?

No, I don't think Brian got it backwards, but it seems you did. ;)
 
quote:Originally posted by David Alford

6bee, don't ever work in science, your distortions, lies, and exaggerations wouldn't go far. You really have a vendetta going here...other critics have made the trip to see me, you can too. My swing sequences have been published in rec.sport.golf. First hand reports on my ball striking were also published there.


I'll be glad to publish my swing sequence here under two simple conditions:

1) HK's swing sequence is put up as well - it's on Yoda's site if anyone is curious, but I would like them side by side.
2) You submit yours.
Please list what lies and distortions I have posted. I don’t see how criticism of your errors can be said to be lies or distortions. Is this a character fault of yours?

I’m glad to hear for that many have made the pilgrimage to see you first hand and get a glimpse of your golf prowess and vast superior wisdom. Here is my point about you- you think you are some kind of intellect, that you are better than everyone and have all the answers because nobody else could have figured out what I have. Narcissism shows your picture (speedo version).
And now we need to journey to you like you are some holy pope of golf. The internet works just find. This forum is small time compared to what you know. Help mankind and write that book you tell us for years you are going to do and can’t.

Posting your swing was to see how you compare to Mr. Hogan- the guy you can out hit. Nothing to do with me or Homer Kelly. Kelly’s swing clip was to show the downward Swinger’s motion- nothing more. Like posting a drill. If you want to see my swing it will be on a DVD soon or you can visit me and I’ll show you.

You make claims you can’t support, you spew inaccurate information as it pertains to TGM, which you never read. Maybe the AI summit should have let you address them- a cheap old comic is hard to beat to lighten up a place.
 
quote:Originally posted by Non-AuthorizedTGM

#2 Velocity - Using the left wrist for the right handed golfer to change the length of an "adjustable" radius...Results in an increase in Arc Velocity and Effective Mass that is proportional to the lenghtnening of this Shortened radius to a longer radius...
NAT, would you mind explaining what you mean when you use Homer's concept - 'Effective Clubhead Mass', (2-M-2). I am aware of 'effective mass' as used in physics and quantum mechanics with regard to electrons and semiconductors, but how do you change the 'effective mass' of a clubhead in a golf swing?

Parameters associated with an object having mass can vary, such as its position, velocity, acceleration, linear and angular momentum, its moment of inertia, etc.. Is Homer perhaps taking into account Einstein's theory of special relativity? :)
 
quote:Originally posted by mandrin

quote:Originally posted by Non-AuthorizedTGM

#2 Velocity - Using the left wrist for the right handed golfer to change the length of an "adjustable" radius...Results in an increase in Arc Velocity and Effective Mass that is proportional to the lenghtnening of this Shortened radius to a longer radius...
NAT, would you mind explaining what you mean when you use Homer's concept - 'Effective Clubhead Mass', (2-M-2). I am aware of 'effective mass' as used in physics and quantum mechanics with regard to electrons and semiconductors, but how do you change the 'effective mass' of a clubhead in a golf swing?

Parameters associated with an object having mass can vary, such as its position, velocity, acceleration, linear and angular momentum, its moment of inertia, etc.. Is Homer perhaps taking into account Einstein's theory of special relativity? :)

I eagerly wait for NAT’s answer too.

But, the answer lies in his quote- ‘adjustable’ radius. In a lever system you can adjust the length of the radius. Move the hands down the shaft- shorten the club length.

Another way to change ‘effective mass’ is to change the Lag Pressure Acceleration of the clubhead.

Remember we are talking about the physics of a golf swing not about electrons and semiconductors.. Homer’s ‘effective mass’ deals with Newton’s second Law- “An applied force is equal to the rate of change of momentum.”

So..”how do you change the 'effective mass' of a clubhead in a golf swing?”

Change the Acceleration of the clubhead over various the lengths of the Lever.

Homer’s science was not theory or quantum. It was everyday science- Newton’s Three Laws and Geometry. He used no amount of degrees, instead used words like flat and straight. And he used this to help design a golf stroke, not a theory. Many folks try to make it more than it is. The mechanics of an orbiting clubhead. Not particle quantum theory. There are plenty of swing scientists (like JK and others) that do enjoy over explaining a simple push or pull of a clubshaft through impact.

But can they teach or play golf?
 
Mr David Alford,

I really admire the your goal in figuring how the golf stroke works by yourself. It's a tough task -- it took Homer more than 28 years! And like some others, I would love to see your research. I will not pre-judge!

But here is what I think you should do. You can look at it as another challenge (of course you're not obliged!). Spend some time (and it will take more than one day, or one week or a month) and try to completely understand what Homer Kelly's book. I don't mean just learning a few definitions or dipping through bits and pieces in the book. Yes, even if you think it's all wrong, or you think he has missed things out, or you think it's not well written, etc. Read it as if (I mean as if) it's gospel and just try to understand it. I say this because it's hard to understand what another person is trying to say if you're constantly trying to disprove. There has been so many times I thought Homer has got it wrong. And the trick I learnt is to believe he is right even though I thought he's wrong (yes it sounds weired!). After a while, my brain incubates the different ideas and interlinks them...and bam...the egg cracks open.

Once you think you understand the book...then lets start debating what Homer 'got wrong'. But trust me, it's hard to do both at the same time!
 
6bee, I'll adress your lies and exaggerations here, hopefully for the last time. It's probably a waste of time and I doubt anyone other than you is that interested.

1) You claim I said I hit the ball better than Hogan. That is a lie. I've never said that. I've never seen Hogan in person, so I wouldn't make that claim. Saying I know his swing model very well is not the same thing.

2)You claim I offered to debate Brian on TGM at the forthcoming conference. That also is a lie. I offered to accept a ball striking contest with him and debate Hogan's swing. That's all. Since we've spoken in person, we both agreed this mano-a-mano thing is silly.

3)You claim I put down HK at every opportunity. That is yet another lie. I have consistently said I'm sure HK and I would have gotten along great. I have also said there is some good info. in the book (which I HAVE read, I just don't know his definitions currently since I read it a long time ago).

My only major complaint is the way TGM is written. I just have a thing about instructions being written simply and clearly. Like the directions for putting a widget together, that type of thing...all the way up to a book on the golf swing.

I won't back down on this and at any rate, probably most agree it could have been written more clearly, eg. the way Brian explained the 4 accumulators in his video.

4) You claim I always put myself on a pedestal. That is another lie. To me, someone's golf swing and their knowledge of the golf swing is fine. It's interesting. It shows determination. It does not mean one is a superhuman being or better than everyone else.

The problem with the internet and these types of communications is that it doesn't give the whole story. I have confidence and can demonstrate. That's not the same as believing I'm better than you or anyone else. I have a lot of friends who think I'm a biologist and an outdoorsman. They are truly surprised to learn about my golf work. My point is, most of us do a lot of different things, and I'm sure not going to evaluate someone's worth on whether or not they can hit the little white ball according to my or someone else's standards.

5) regarding my swimsuit photo. Ha ha...I think it's funny. I forget who it was, probably not you, but there was one fellow on this forum last year who was ABSOLUTELY SURE I WAS A BROKEN DOWN PHYSICAL WRECK who couldn't possibly have the physical ability to hit a golf ball more than 175 yds. I don't hate many things, but the one thing I do hate is this ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY some people like yourself have about me.

Re: swing sequence, yours has not been posted. Until then, stop demanding that I publish my sequence, that's the height of hypocrisy. Once you, do, try asking. I don't march to your drum.

If you still have peronsal issues with me here, stop wasting this forum's bandwidth and contact me personally. Brian has my permission to give you my contact info. I don't mind hard debate, but only a weak debater goes for ad hominem attacks again and again. Let's try to stick to golf OK?

If you're sincere, don't make yet another attack-rebuttal on these personal issues. Let your next post be on golf swing specifics. Fair enough?
 
Guys, I will try to make a demo video of #5 and #6 in the next few days. Please hold off on the ad hominem stuff like Brian got it right and I didn't....I'll explain #5 and #6 exactly as he did, as a process in going from an out of line to an in line position.
 
Thanks Tongzilla, that's very nice. I did read TGM a long time ago. Or spent a few hrs. with it. I closed the book and haven't look at it since because I didn't want to be influenced. I could see we were covering the same ground. Once, while hitting balls with the proverbial bleeding hands, I prayed "God, make this as hard as possible". My prayers were answered! lol.

None of this has been for me. I never did it for $$$ or fame. I've had a lot of fun in sports & when my work is done, it will be payback time.
That's all.
 
Originally posted by David Alford
So, far, no one has commented on #6. Perhaps because of the realization if rotating the left hand is an accumulator per Brian's
I see your point. But keep in mind - because someone may not understand a definition does not make it incorrect or even confusing.



without taking sides

lots of people find it confusing not just one person

I agree it is perplexing that even people who have been at GM for years disagree on things that are fundamental to GM

maybe they just hang on to their beliefs when a better explanation comes along rather than accepting the new correct explanation - egos get involved I guess
 
quote:Originally posted by 6bee1dee

Homer’s science was not theory or quantum. It was everyday science- Newton’s Three Laws and Geometry. He used no amount of degrees, instead used words like flat and straight. And he used this to help design a golf stroke, not a theory. Many folks try to make it more than it is. The mechanics of an orbiting clubhead. Not particle quantum theory. There are plenty of swing scientists (like JK and others) that do enjoy over explaining a simple push or pull of a clubshaft through impact.
6bee1dee, you can't have it two ways. Homer states clearly to have written a book, for serious thinkers, based on universal scientific principles - therefore one expects some rigour. Homer's did not write for the average layman but rather for serious golf students willing to spend time and effort.

Even if you open a popular science book for kids, you still will find no liberty taken with science. If someone studying Homer’s book, sees the term ‘effective mass’ and refers back to his school books in an attempt to find an explanation, he will not find it.

One can simplify things and still be scientifically correct - sliding down one's hands down the shaft does not change the effective mass of the clubhead, it simply shortens the effective shaft length and reduces the angular inertia of the clubhead re. to the hands. Idem for the ‘lag pressure’ - varying a force does not change mass.

Perhaps one of the reasons many are inclined to take Homer very serious is his very particular writing style and organization. It feels very much like some kind of bible, something very serious and trustworthy. However, style and contents are two different things.

There is the golf industry and some golf instructors doodling and fooling with science and it is really of no consequence since you sort of expect to take it as some form of sale’s hype. JK is a good example. But HK is the serious type and I expect a bit more rigour. [^]
 
quote: 6bee1dee, you can't have it two ways. Homer states clearly to have written a book, for serious thinkers, based on universal scientific principles - therefore one expects some rigour. Homer's did not write for the average layman but rather for serious golf students willing to spend time and effort.

No. The book was written for, in Homer’s words, “..Joe Duffer and Joe Pro for keeping golf alive and is intended to serve as the Duffer’s Bible, the Golf Nut’s Catalog, the Circuit Player’s Handbook and the Instructor’s Textbook. Nowhere is it mentioned that the book was written only for what you call the serious students that needs to understand Chapter two before they can swing a club.
Yes, the book uses, in Homer’s words, “ simple, universal Laws of Force and Motion that you use every day...” This isn’t theory or quantum research.

quote:
Even if you open a popular science book for kids, you still will find no liberty taken with science. If someone studying Homer’s book, sees the term ‘effective mass’ and refers back to his school books in an attempt to find an explanation, he will not find it.

Be a good student, think of “effective” clubhead mass, Homer never wrote “effective mass” as the increase in the heaviness of the clubhead like the G Force on a test pilot through an increase in velocity.

quote:
One can simplify things and still be scientifically correct - sliding down one's hands down the shaft does not change the effective mass of the clubhead, it simply shortens the effective shaft length and reduces the angular inertia of the clubhead re. to the hands. Idem for the ‘lag pressure’ - varying a force does not change mass.

Remember this is not quantum physics. We and Homer did, because it is “everyday” physics, use “M = E/C squared” to explain that a clubhead increases Mass with velocity. If you want to continue discussing whether Mass can increase using invariant mass as with quantum physics- lets stop. I’d just like to talk about the golf swing. This is way too boring for me.

And since velocity does change Mass, bingo -- change in Lever length works just fine. As does "dragging the mop.”

quote:
Perhaps one of the reasons many are inclined to take Homer very serious is his very particular writing style and organization. It feels very much like some kind of bible, something very serious and trustworthy. However, style and contents are two different things.

There is the golf industry and some golf instructors doodling and fooling with science and it is really of no consequence since you sort of expect to take it as some form of sale’s hype. JK is a good example. But HK is the serious type and I expect a bit more rigour.

Nothing wrong with the organization of the book. Could it be clearer, sure. But that is why we are here to help. When the PGA asked Homer to do a check on the Stubbs book, he find about 50 errors. The PGA then stopped their plans to do a follow up with them. When three independent universities were used to check the accuracy of the science Homer used, no mistakes were found. One said that it could have been written better. Homer would agree and so would Ben Doyle’s daughter. “She is trying to save me, Ben”
 
6bee1dee, your reference to Homer finding 50 flaws in a serious study - ‘Search for the Perfect Swing’ - done by a large group of well known English scientists, makes a me chuckle.

quote:When the PGA asked Homer to do a check on the Stubbs book, he find about 50 errors. The PGA then stopped their plans to do a follow up with them.

6bee1dee, you should perhaps take careful note of the comments by Dr. Gary Waren on the back cover of this book:

“Cochran and Stobbs have provided the golfing world with the first valid golf book based on scientific research that can be utilized by the public. Search for the Perfect Swing may be the most influental instructional golf book in history” - - - Dr. Gary Wiren, PGA Master Professional and editor of The PGA Manual of Golf

Seemingly the PGA did not take Homer’s advice very seriously. :D

I also advice you to carefully read chapter 22 - ‘The Ballistics of Golf : Free-Wheeling through the Ball’. The scientific laboratory experiments mentioned in this chapter disproof completely Homer’s ideas re to the behaviour of the clubshaft during impact. Perhaps you can point me to the experiments Homer perhaps might have done in this regard?
 
quote:Originally posted by mandrin

Dr. Gary Wiren, PGA Master Professional and editor of The PGA Manual of Golf

Seemingly the PGA did not take Homer’s advice very seriously. :D

I also advice you to carefully read chapter 22 - ‘The Ballistics of Golf : Free-Wheeling through the Ball’. The scientific laboratory experiments mentioned in this chapter disproof completely Homer’s ideas re to the behaviour of the clubshaft during impact. Perhaps you can point me to the experiments Homer perhaps might have done in this regard?

Yes, this is the same guy that provides the "Triple Whammy" solution for curing the slice, which provided his career lifetime thrill. See this by clicking on Ultimate Slice Cure at

http://www.golfspan.com/partners/mail/announce.asp#

This is the kind of advice the PGA does take seriously!

And perhaps you could direct us to a link of a tour player striking a golf ball with an unstressed shaft.
 
The 50 flaws are true. I guess chapter 22 was a major flaw. Re-read the quote, really doesn't say much. I hope such a flawed book isn't the foundation of your research.

Wiren rejected TGM, althouigh it was planned to be the foundation of PGA teaching, after a personality conflict with some members. Not everyone in the PGA was happy about the rejection. Today, many of the TGM ideas are widely accepted (almost to the term) in the PGA community. Many of the Top magazine swing gurus have visited Lynn Blake over the last two years. You can see what they learned in their magazine articles.

Second, let's end this. This is an old argument that you bring up bring up time after time. Last year you and Peter on the SA forum ran Lynn over the coals and through the mud (you guys (Peter) banned him from the site) over this very issue of effective clubhead mass. If you spend half the time learning to swing a golf club as you do attacking Homer every change you get- you would have a game. Instead you and your SA buddies resort to every new SA method that comes across that board. Ever wonder why nobody can swing as club on that forum?

I grip the club, set up to the ball, waggle it, set the right forearm on the plane I choose, take the club up applying extensor action with the right elbow folding, bump my hips back to the target, trace the plane line with my assemblied Flying Wedges, lag through my line of sight, feel the accumulators one right after the other release is a roll on the plane line, clubhead impacts down on the ball, last swivel, follow through, end, hold, rest. Now what part of this violates you quantum physics of golf. BTW- you're away.
 
mandarin,
Would you kindly explain the "radius of gyration" that's what we're dealing with here in regards to "effective" mass...Take a baseball bat for example....It's actual mass doesn't change when swung properly but when you flip it around it feels unusually "lighter" ...how does that happen?...it's not gonna hurt as bad when swung from the "Barrell" end as it does swung from the "handle" end...the "actual" mass never changed...but it's Moment of Inertia changed as a result of the radius of gyration changing...and you're right it's not in TGM....I don't want to get into quantum physics it's not my level of expertise.....I'll leave that for the PhD's here at the University...I'm more interested presenting solutions for golfers' than debating science...Besides science is always changing...one things than hasn't changed in over 2000 years...God's Word....Get in it and try to find an "untruth" there!!!!
 
quote:Originally posted by Non-AuthorizedTGM

mandarin,
Would you kindly explain the "radius of gyration" that's what we're dealing with here in regards to "effective" mass

Bad move NonAuTGM - he will post a set of differential equations which will, purportedly, "explain" it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top