Plummer and Bennett Article

Status
Not open for further replies.
cmartingolf

cmartingolf

New
FROM BRIAN MANZELLA:

I MERGED TWO THREAD ON THIS IMPORTNAT SUBJECT, SO IF IT READS A LITTLE FUNNY, I APOLOGIZE.

MY "OFFICIAL" COMMENTS START ON PAGE 7.


Interesting article sent to me from Mike Weir's caddie.

http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/gw20070420rubenstein2.html

Excuse me if this has been beat to death already, but I'm interested in Brian's opinion of this pattern for these Tour Players. I can just see my 20 hdcp Men's Clubber on the range attempting this after these guys publish a book. I'll have more fun with this than fixing the Hardy stuff:)
 
J

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
I'll find my post on this in a different thread, but in a "nutshell" it will work great for hookers and not at all for slicers.

THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.
 
birdie_man

birdie_man

New
"No weight shift to the right, and in some situations a weight shift to the left on the backswing."

"He (Weir) couldn't prevent what he told Bennett and Plummer was a problem of "drifting" off the ball--the weight shift."

(my bold BTW)

The real questions that need to be asked are: WHY is this a problem? Is it always a problem? (for every golfer)

...

Other than that stuff (which I think is fishy all by itself) the only real problem I have is from what I can see this is still a method. Hopefully it will NOT be represented as "TGM." (not even close)

....

Anyone got footage of Gore BTW? Want to see his swing now...and figure why it didn't work for him....
 
Last edited:
bcoak

bcoak

New
I always find quotes from DL in stories on other instructers interesting. Whereas most other teachers tend to be nuetral/professional it always seems that DL twists the knife a little.
""They've obviously had some success," says David Leadbetter, who worked with Baddeley before Plummer and Bennett. "I like what they've done with Aaron, the shortness of his action. There's a look of the old reverse-C in the finish position [of their players], so you hope the guys they work with have seriously mobile backs. The interesting thing to me about them is how much time they spend looking at cameras. You just wonder if by doing that, you actually own what you're doing or are you are just borrowing it, and how long it will last and if it will stand up. It's a method, not the method."
 
J

jbrunk

New
birdie_man said:
"No weight shift to the right, and in some situations a weight shift to the left on the backswing."

"He couldn't prevent what he told Bennett and Plummer was a problem of "drifting" off the ball--the weight shift."

(my bold BTW)

The real questions that need to be asked are: WHY this is a problem? Is it always a problem? (for every golfer)

...

Other than that stuff (which I think is fishy all by itself) the real problem I have is from what I can see this is still a method. Hopefully it will NOT be represented as "TGM." (not even close)

....

Anyone got footage of Gore BTW? Want to see his swing now...and figure why it didn't work for him....
Click to expand...

Maybe this would work for someone who truly sways (weight outside of right foot) off the ball. Tell them to do the opposite and "feel" like they are "covering" the ball. I can't think of where else that idea would be useful.
 
M

mcflog

New
bcoak said:
I always find quotes from DL in stories on other instructers interesting. Whereas most other teachers tend to be nuetral/professional it always seems that DL twists the knife a little.
""They've obviously had some success," says David Leadbetter, who worked with Baddeley before Plummer and Bennett. "I like what they've done with Aaron, the shortness of his action. There's a look of the old reverse-C in the finish position [of their players], so you hope the guys they work with have seriously mobile backs. The interesting thing to me about them is how much time they spend looking at cameras. You just wonder if by doing that, you actually own what you're doing or are you are just borrowing it, and how long it will last and if it will stand up. It's a method, not the method."
Click to expand...

Funny mentioning backs cause Weir swears since working with the Dynamic Duo his back problems are a thing of the past. DL is gonna get his share regardless, I don't know why he constantly badmouths other instructors. And people say Brian has an ego.....
 
J

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
This type of pivot actually should be EASIER on the back because:

the people who will use this and improve are those who hang back, sway off the ball, lean too far to the right in their backswing, and also swing too far to the right. The above will almost always make the club want to go more "up" rather than "in" IN THE FOLLOW THROUGH which is HARD on the back.

So this type of pivot will help them eliminate those things and should allow the players to swing a bit more left (than they are used to) and not be leaning so far back in their finish.
 
J

Jared Willerson

Super Moderator
I don't think this stuff is so bad. Brian teaches a full hip turn, maybe not as steep a shoulder turn, but similar hip action.

Also Brian teaches us to have a center and that the center really doesn't move. The center ( point between the shoulders) doesn't move with a correct pivot, which to me is what Bennett and Plummer are advocating
 
golfbulldog

golfbulldog

New
glcoach said:
I don't think this stuff is so bad. Brian teaches a full hip turn, maybe not as steep a shoulder turn, but similar hip action.

Also Brian teaches us to have a center and that the center really doesn't move. The center ( point between the shoulders) doesn't move with a correct pivot, which to me is what Bennett and Plummer are advocating
Click to expand...

I agree, the article makes them sound reasonable - looking for objective measurement of swing improvements not just standing around waiting for a well timed flip to then say "awesome shot ... that swing change has really settled in now!"

SOme teachers may be scared of facts and figures.... Brian seems to like them.... Bennett and Plummer do too.... good thing IMO!!:)
 
Dana Dahlquist

Dana Dahlquist

New
I think the funny thing is people out sid eof TGM dont really understand what axis tilt is. I know Brian does and is in real tune with COG's from our conversations. Its just a pattern as is many. A zeroed out backswing as a few ways to go on the downswing as would a one with more pivot. The main thing is not the back and forth motion as much as how it changes in the swing itself. This all takes us back to the shot at hand, bunker shot to full driver.

Thats what makes TGM so great, patterns!
 
R

Ryan Smither

Super Moderator
oh boy...i didn't believe it when I heard these guys were teaching a "hover over the left leg" theory...

wow...

Jason Gore probably quit this stuff when he found out he couldn't fly it over 260 while "hovering"...
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
OFFICIAL BRIAN MANZELLA STATEMENT ON BENNET AND PLUMMER

I think it is great to see the continued successes of teachers who have learned from The Golfing Machine.

I would welcome Mike and Andy to join and re-join the AI ranks. Just as I would for the others who have "left the fold," so to speak.

Wouldn't it be great to have ALL of us and a TGM summit submitting our stuff for peer review and debate. Well...it would be great.

Anyhoo, I have now seen this Pattern in the flesh, and like many "suggested" patterns, in actuality, it is done in different degrees by differnt student of Mike and Andy. I am sure they would agree with that assessment.

Obviously, I am a MUTIPLE PATTERN teacher, but once upon a time, I taught one pattern, and I did it with different one-patterns. I also taught a few patterns, now I teach hundreds. Mike and Andy are "supposed" to teach just one, but the article sems to allude to a couple. Either way, they are going to miss a lot of folks. I think they know that.

I can get ANY of the guys they have worked with, to accomplish the three imperatives with an effective pivot, without using the pattern they teach. But, at the end of the day, they are going for the same club geometry.

I have said that they need a little work with their "on camera presence," and I hope they realize I was trying to be helpful.

I wish them all the luck in the world, but unlike ole Leadbetter and McLean, I won't rip 'em. They are doing great things, like:

1. They "Changed the Channel" form the "Troubled Shooters."

2. They show how OVER PIVOTING to the right is bad (remember, I teach a counter-fall that is impossible if you actually SHIFT weight to the right).

3. The show how the right knee can straighten and the hands can move to the inside.

They would be fun to compete with in a "World Teach-off." Believe me, if someone smart did the seedings, they'd have a lower seed then their Golf Digest article detractors.

—Brian Manzella, PGA, G.S.E.D.
 
C

Chris Sturgess

New member
They said that they want the shoulders to turn steeper but the hands' path to be more inside. I really don't understand how this could ever be a good idea.
 
J

JohnThomas1

New
Nobody can tell me The Golfing Machine has not grown in the last 4 years. Only a short time ago media like Golf Digest was calling the book "controversial" amongst other things. Witness them now calling it "fascinating" instead of Controversial and the likes. All of a sudden respect is seeping thru in different area's.

I tell you, all it needs at the moment is a bit of luck or a prominent moment and lookout.

A major win by a Brian Gay.

Brian Manzella working with a prominent pro.

And plenty of other possibilities.

The question has changed from if, to WHEN IMO.

It's just a matter of time.
 
M

mcflog

New
JohnThomas1 said:
Nobody can tell me The Golfing Machine has not grown in the last 4 years. Only a short time ago media like Golf Digest was calling the book "controversial" amongst other things. Witness them now calling it "fascinating" instead of Controversial and the likes. All of a sudden respect is seeping thru in different area's.

I tell you, all it needs at the moment is a bit of luck or a prominent moment and lookout.

A major win by a Brian Gay.

Brian Manzella working with a prominent pro.

And plenty of other possibilities.

The question has changed from if, to WHEN IMO.

It's just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

The problem is in how its presented. Are you using TGM as a tool, or are you preaching from the book. If you use it as a tool then whatever person or persons you're working with success is a result of your ability as a teacher and their hard work. If your preaching the book, then any successes or failures is the direct benefit or fault of TGM. Same way they tried to blame it when Clampett took his dive. I think it is a wonderful tool, but I think to suggest that it is the be all end all and that there is some secret TGM swing that is gonna take over the world is just silly.

When I see on these other forums, that so and so is TGM or they teach a TGM swing,that does not benefit the book. When I hear that so and so Is TGM certified, that tells me that they care enough about the game and their ability to teach that they want to make sure they have "all" the info that is available. Homer was ahead of his time, but if he was still around you know with the computers and other technology that is available today that he would have evolved the book even further. The day you quit trying to learn, your ready for the grave. And I know golf pros that have given the same lesson for 30 years... it works for some ..maybe most, but not ALL. Customization and Optimization what the book and a good teacher should really be about in my opinion. You take that knowledge and you build from it and grow it. You don't let it sit and grow weeds. And I think that's what Brian does, The book is your bachelors degree, what you do from there is your graduate work.
 
M

mb6606

New
"Homer was ahead of his time, but if he was still around you know with the computers and other technology that is available today that he would have evolved the book even further."

Possibly but how to you improve geometry?? You either have the 3 imperatives or you don't. Homer stated the golf swing was simple.
 
S

scandres

New
Can someone explain "shift" to me? Even with a centered look, the data that I have from the elite players (i.e. DBS plates) clearly show that weight is moved towards the heel of the rear foot in the backswing.
 
birdie_man

birdie_man

New
mcflog said:
The problem is in how its presented. Are you using TGM as a tool, or are you preaching from the book. If you use it as a tool then whatever person or persons you're working with success is a result of your ability as a teacher and their hard work. If your preaching the book, then any successes or failures is the direct benefit or fault of TGM. Same way they tried to blame it when Clampett took his dive. I think it is a wonderful tool, but I think to suggest that it is the be all end all and that there is some secret TGM swing that is gonna take over the world is just silly.

When I see on these other forums, that so and so is TGM or they teach a TGM swing,that does not benefit the book. When I hear that so and so Is TGM certified, that tells me that they care enough about the game and their ability to teach that they want to make sure they have "all" the info that is available. Homer was ahead of his time, but if he was still around you know with the computers and other technology that is available today that he would have evolved the book even further. The day you quit trying to learn, your ready for the grave. And I know golf pros that have given the same lesson for 30 years... it works for some ..maybe most, but not ALL. Customization and Optimization what the book and a good teacher should really be about in my opinion. You take that knowledge and you build from it and grow it. You don't let it sit and grow weeds. And I think that's what Brian does, The book is your bachelors degree, what you do from there is your graduate work.
Click to expand...

Great POST!!!

This staunch "by the book"....(the quotation marks are important on that one BTW)......"stuck on the book"...."Homer would have wanted it this way"......"this is THE WAY".......never advancing "cause TGM is 100% perfect and complete".....etc.....

....all that crap.....

Is exactly that- CRAP. 100%.

Not good for anything. Not good for golf. Or TGM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top