The Golfing Machine heads to obscurity on the book shelf

Brian Manzella · Oct 20, 2010

A Brick Wall with no Mortar.

Daryl said:
Michael, I was harsh and my comments would have been phrased differently had you not mentioned your intentions to publish. However had you not mentioned your intentions to publish I wouldn't have responded at all.

Who is going to go after the book, it is already published with numerous errors?

You see, D, you can't have it both ways.

The Golfing Machine is just like any other work, including all the posts on any website, open for review.

And my review of your actions on this post is simple:

Ignore, deflect, obscure, the main points.

The symposium was NOT about the how, it was about the what.

And since the WHAT in many parts of TGM is wrong, including "Hinge Action," what is the point of performing it?

You TOTALLY ignored Mike's challenge to have your guys do a 3D test. You know it wouldn't be pretty....so you...

Ignore, deflect, obscure, the main points.
Ignore, deflect, obscure, the main points.
Ignore, deflect, obscure, the main points.

And trust me, all of this is making my point about you guys perfectly.

Daryl said:
...I'll write the Editors and explain a different perspective and ask for a retraction for any misquotes. What good would that do for the Golf World? Nothing, but for me, it's just standing up for what I believe is the right thing to do.

And that's what I am doing on this and other posts on this subject.

Only difference is this:

I will win. You and your boys will lose.

I have science on my side, you have a self-published work, with no references given.

I have NO DESIRE to protect my stuff. My "stuff' is whatever science says it is.

Your desire to protect the unprotectable, dooms you and your pals.

Daryl said:
...I don't have any financial or other interests in TGM or Golf in general.

But you do have a horse in the race. Your BOOK LITERALIST friends. And they do.

Daryl said:
. I find many of Homer Kelley's concepts irresistibly compelling to understand which is probably why it's sometimes difficult not to speak up when others use misinformation to belittle it.

I tell you what, YOU PUT UP ANY PART OF CHAPTER 2, and we'll do the same thing to it.

Because it is incorrect in way too many ways.

Daryl said:
If you don't think that TGM is enough for you, I don't consider it any of my business.

Enough for us?

Read the below quote, then print it out, and put it on your wall:

"We got involved in The Golfing Machine because we wanted answers about how the golf swing works that are scientifically correct, and we are leaving The Golfing Machine because we want answers about how the golf swing works that are scientifically correct."

Daryl said:
But this conversation has gone on long enough to know that if it doesn't end now, it will deteriorate even more.

You wouldn't even admit the book was wrong in this one little section.

That's why I started the thread "A Couple More Mistakes."

It was just bait to prove you guys are so dogmatic, that any admission of error form the sacred text, will crumble the house of cards "book literalism" stands on.

Like I have said before, "Wouldn't it be great if the book was 100% correct and had all the answers?"

It isn't. And it doesn't.

Not even close.

Daryl · Oct 20, 2010

greenfree said:
Are you part of the fight or just a bystander?

LOL.. Just defending the faith. LOL. I could care less about the fight. I'm sure others get tired of it too.

Brian Manzella · Oct 20, 2010

Very True, but sad.

Daryl said:
.. Just defending the faith...

And I'm defending the Truth.

You really don't care a lick about the truth, Daryl, just your little club.

And that's the truth too.

greenfree · Oct 20, 2010

Daryl said:
LOL.. Just defending the faith. LOL. I could care less about the fight. I'm sure others get tired of it too.

So defending the faith in...? the concepts in the book?

Daryl · Oct 20, 2010

Brian...who cares? Get on with your science. Why do you think it's more important to condemn a book than to develop the science you so embrace?

Has TGM done wrong by you? Have you given back ANY of the money you collected over 20 years teaching TGM based instruction? How much?

Do you say to your students: "Hey, I really don't know if what I'm telling you is true because the science hasn't been completed, so your lesson is free."

You teachers are a joke. You care more about beating up another teacher than anything else. You really are the Italian Stallion.

So ya'all start these websites and draw people in by promising the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. and we can participate as long as we listen to your tiring rants about other systems and other teachers.

Interesting, one thing I can say about stack and tilt and a dozen other methods out there, is that I don't see them beating up other methods. They teach their own. They believe in what they're doing and they "Just Do It".

Daryl · Oct 20, 2010

greenfree said:
So defending the faith in...? the concepts in the book?

I'm playing your preconceived notions. Where did I put my Hooded Robe?

Brian Manzella · Oct 20, 2010

Absoultely.

Daryl said:
Brian...who cares?

Eventually, 40 million golfers, and 40,000 instructors world-wide.

They NEED the truth.

You are part of trying to KEEP THE TRUTH from them.

You have gotten a lesson in internet debate tonight Mr. D.

I made good points, presented some real—brand new—science, to back up my points, and you just repeated your talking points.

I think I won pretty easy.

Daryl said:
Get on with your science. Why do you think it's more important to condemn a book than to develop the science you so embrace?

Great question.

Because your Book Literalist pals keep trying to convince the public that our science is wrong and your little yellow book is infallible.

It is a simple as that.

And BTW, we work on the science everyday, almost non stop, we have a Manzella instructor working on research. Today, we went through about three papers, and worked on setting up a meeting with two of the top minds on the field this December.

Daryl said:
Has TGM done wrong by you?

The Golfing Machine book saved me many years—on the front end. But, the more I learn the truth, it probably hurt me a lot as well.

You see, the book says plainly that if you trace a straight plane line, and have the perfect clubface alignment, and you go right down a plane angle to low point, and right up the other side, you will hit the ball pretty straight.

You won't.

It cost a few guys a Tour career, and and lots more enjoyment from the game.

The heavy hit concept, the inside-aft quadrant concept, trying to hit or swing but not both, the aiming point concept, simultaneous and sequenced release, the tripod pivot, the basic motion curriculum, extensor action, just to name a few, are either complete wrong or partially so.

Eons of manhours were lost.

Daryl said:
Have you given back ANY of the money you collected over 20 years teaching TGM based instruction? How much?

The deal you are making with the golfer is that you will improve their golf ball-striking ability and there scores. I have always told my students that if they are not satisfied, we will make it right. My record on that over 28 years is very good.

You see Daryl, you can make golfers better with incorrect information.

Don't your book literalist pals improve some golfers?

Didn't Leadbetter, Flick, and Harmon?

BRIAN MANZELLA'S FIRST LAW OF GOLF INSTRUCTION:

1. What the teacher WANTS the student to do.
2. What the student THINKS the teacher wants him to do.
3. What the student actually does.

There is a lot of #3 that is closer to being correct than #1 in golf instruction.

Daryl said:
Do you say to your students: "Hey, I really don't know if what I'm telling you is true because the science hasn't been completed, so your lesson is free."

I think I am the best live lesson golf teacher of all-time.

I can get it done with almost any information (although that sequenced release crap was pretty bad).

I sell this:

I can help you right now, and I can do it without bastardizing, so you can continue to improve with me or another capable teacher. And, I can do it better than anybody else.

That is all I ever sold.

To that end, I have been on a non-stop search—for 30 years—for the ANSWERS to the WHAT the club needs to do to hit the ball from point A to point B, what the body has to do to get that done with power, and what the best way to get a student to do it right now, and continue to improve.

Correct scientific information helps me do just that.

And in the last three or four years, as I have moved further and further away from TGM, the better I have taught, and the more successful I've become.

Sorry.

Have you got anything else?

Brian Manzella · Oct 20, 2010

Oh...back editing....

So you did a have couple of more things on your mind...

Daryl said:
You teachers are a joke. You care more about beating up another teacher than anything else. You really are the Italian Stallion.

Daryl, if your boys would just face the facts of life and realize that science is winning this debate everywhere, they could just teach their stuff and that would be that.

But that is NOT that, you have debated me now for a couple of hours, and you haven't said ANYTHING that is not a talking point of your cult.

I fight for me, my guys, the truth, and golfdom.

I really am Brian Manzella, teacher of golf, and I am damn proud of it.

Daryl said:
So ya'all start these websites and draw people in by promising the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. and we can participate as long as we listen to your tiring rants about other systems and other teachers.

You are fresh out of material, huh?

I never run out.

This website is the #1 site of all-time run by a single named instructor.

Why?

Well, I give out a lot of good solid free information I work my ass off to get.

I help people with their games with posts, free and paid videos.

And a few of them like to watch me slice and dice rank golf swing debate amateurs like you, with no substance other than the atta-boys from your cult.

Daryl said:
Interesting, one thing I can say about stack and tilt and a dozen other methods out there, is that I don't see them beating up other methods. They teach their own. They believe in what they're doing and they "Just Do It".

You must be smoking something.

As as a group, they fight 10 times harder than any group ever has to protect their own stuff and people.

And, I applaud them for it.

You see pal, I am going to give it to you straight:

We will always stay in front of the folks that think they have it all figured out.

Dariusz J. · Oct 20, 2010

We got involved in The Golfing Machine because we wanted answers about how the golf swing works that are scientifically correct, and we are leaving The Golfing Machine because we want answers about how the golf swing works that are scientifically correct.

Excellent quote. It's high time to treat this book as one of many books that either can or cannot help the golfing society while stopping to treat this book as point of higest reference or dogmats. I've been fighting about such attitude for some time now on my field of biokinetics. Enough is enough.

Cheers

Daryl · Oct 20, 2010

Brian Manzella said:
You see pal, I am going to give it to you straight:

We will always stay in front of the folks that think they have it all figured out.

You see Pal, Dr. Zick recognizes the difference between Angled and Horizontal Hinging. Are you willing to accept that? The Clubface and Swing Plane are referenced to the Center of Gravity Application. Angled Hinging produces and Un-centered Motion. That means that while the "Clubface is Laying Back" the Center of Gravity - Sweetspot is continuing Down-plane. The Clubface has a relationship to the Center of Gravity of the Clubhead and Hinging provides a way of controlling that relationship. Obviously, so does "Gear Effect" for off-centered impacts, but Irons don't have much "Gear Effect".

The situation is a little more complicated with "horizontal hinging", during which the club face is square to the club head's path only when it is square to the target line. ... Dr. Zick

And for your review.....

HINGE ACTION Example – all types of swinging doors.
Mechanical – The blade of a hinge is always vertical to its Plane of Rotation.
Golf – Holding the Flat Left Wrist vertical to one of the Three Basic Planes will impart the same motion to the Clubface.

Brian Manzella · Oct 20, 2010

You are really out there.....

Daryl said:
You see Pal, Dr. Zick recognizes the difference between Angled and Horizontal Hinging. Are you willing to accept that?

We realized that folks like you would GRAB ON TO any line in Dr. Zick's math to keep from drowning.

So we corresponded with him all day on just that.

This is what Dr. Zick is saying with regards to THEORETICALLY being able to perform either "Vertical." "Angled," or "Horizontal Hinge Action" while the club is in contact with the ball:

(Which by the way, would be much more accurately stated this way, since, as I have pointed out in the past, there are no "Hinges" actually mounted in the shoulder.)

1. The face going from .6° open at impact to 0° square at separation—"horizontal"

2. The face going from .3° open at impact to 0° square at separation—"angled"

3. The face going from 0° square at impact to 0° square at separation—"vertical"

Dr. Zick is just doing the math IF this actually could be done—on purpose.

But, alas, book literalists, it just can't be done on purpose.

For starters, referencing 50,000 frame per second video, and a fair amount of math, Dr. Wood said last year, and last week at the symposium, that the club is closing more like .2° in the real world.

We see the very same thing with 1,000 fps video and TrackMan.

The face really doesn't make ANYTHING LIKE a "Hinge Action" either on the ball, in the impact interval, or in the 18-20 inches on either side of the ball.

To this either pre-impact or post-impact hinge action, Paul Wood said at the symposium, that no one comes close to Angled Hinging.

Since you obviously have spent next to no time on 6°3D, or TrackMan, you have NO IDEA how preposterous attempting to base a teaching system on such measurables like clubface rotation (I really have to keep reminding you that there are no hinges mounted in the shoulder).

I repeat....

It is preposterous attempting to base a teaching system on such measurables like clubface rotation to base a teaching system on such measurables like clubface rotation.

Being able to actually PRODUCE the six tenths of a degree difference at impact of the three "motions" who so dearly cling to, is not within the ability of any human being.

Now, that is to say NOTHING of the preposterous attempt to "control" this un-human clubface differences with the goofy-at-best right forearm wedge alignment to the hinge action.

Like Mike Jacobs actually pointed out, a live test of just the ability to get the right forearm in any such alignment within even magnified amounts of tolerances while striking a golf ball is so far in the land of the impossible, that a person who studies these kind of things would have you committed for even trying, or trying to sell it with a straight face.

None of this obscures the fact that Dr. Zick's math shoots even more holes in the book, and that was spotting Homer the correct path, something Homer couldn't do for himself.

You show your hopelessness, as you continue to copy & paste from a book that hasn't stood the test of time science wise, and will continue to be found to be several lacking in fact more every day, and probably more in this thread.

Like this one, I had to go rescue from your constantly updated posts....

Daryl said:
Obviously, so does "Gear Effect" for off-centered impacts, but Irons don't have much "Gear Effect".

That would be VERY WRONG as well.

You might want to do a search on that.

In fact, it may turn out to be the reason so little closing is actually happening during the impact interval.

You see, the real CofG on an iron is a bit higher on a normally weighted one than the golfer can get the ball to on a fairway lie of any tightness at all.

So the club GEAR EFFECT de-lofts itself during the interval many degrees. On what we would all call a sweetspot strike!

But the folks who hang out with me on this site, already know that....

Keep it up, and you'll have your own chapter in the book—"When Real Science Came to Golf Instruction."

Brian Manzella · Oct 20, 2010

How doable are the three different Hinge Actions?

Michael Jacobs · Oct 20, 2010

Daryl said:
But, you did misquote and your interpretation of Hinging is certainly nowhere near my explanation nor to Homer Kelley's concise definition in the glossary.

I don't think I misquoted anything, I quoted 7-10 word for word

Daryl said:
So, what do you say Michael?

I say I like this thread and my article and I have 12 more articles coming so get some sleep tonight, you will need it

Daryl said:
Or would you like me to go away?

Not at all! Stay around.. as a matter of fact here you go:

I will pay for your roundtrip stay to the next Summit.. all inclusive for you and another Minutia-ist

Pay for you to spend 2 hours on a 12 sensor 3d machine with a trackman or flight scope.

You will have a lot of fun on it... you won't see any Hinge Pins or any or swinging doors in your stroke pattern and you will be disappointed to see the true movements of your left wrist.

You will see a geometry of a circle that looks completely different from the book... Ok, so maybe you won't have fun but at least your golf will improve

Todd Dugan · Oct 20, 2010

Regarding Hinge Action... since the clubhead moves on a circular arc which is inclined, the clubhead changes direction, both vertically and horizontally, during the collision. Tuxen has said the the clubhead path changes nearly 1* during collision. My understanding of Angled Hinging is that the clubface stays square to the arc during collision, in which case, it would change, relative to the target line, to the same degree that the Clubhead Path changes. Horizontal Hinging sees the clubface rotate on the plane/to the arc during collision. This, it seems, to varying degrees, is what any good player is doing. Since the Clubhead begins the downswing anywhere from 45-90* open on the plane, it must be rotating on that plane approaching the collision, and so, during the collision.

The "wacky" one is Vertical Hinging, which supposes that the clubface opens, clockwise, on the plane, during collision (staying square to the target line). No good player ever did this on a swing of any force. This would require the clubface to suddenly reverse its counter-clockwise rotation by impact. That the book recognizes this as an "acceptable" or even "practically possible" procedure weakens the case for its merit.

dbl · Oct 20, 2010

Todd, vertical hinging was for lob type shots and other short shots, not driver or full irons shots.

That said, I think hinging has more to do with how you want the face after impact, and with that determination you would be afffecting the face angle and loft at impact.

Brian Manzella · Oct 20, 2010

Actually....

Todd Dugan said:
... since the clubhead moves on a circular arc which is inclined, the clubhead changes direction, both vertically and horizontally, during the collision. Tuxen has said the the clubhead path changes nearly 1* during collision.

Paul Wood just got back from a research trip on impact physics and said it was more like .2°

Todd Dugan said:
My understanding of Angled Hinging is that the clubface stays square to the arc during collision, in which case, it would change, relative to the target line, to the same degree that the Clubhead Path changes.

If the clubface wasn't doing basically more of a NO ROLL procedure during impact, your 1-to-1 assertion would ONLY be correct on a 45° Plane Angle/Horizontal Swing Plane.

Todd Dugan said:
Horizontal Hinging sees the clubface rotate on the plane/to the arc during collision. This, it seems, to varying degrees, is what any good player is doing.

The "wacky" one is Vertical Hinging, which supposes that the clubface opens, clockwise, on the plane, during collision (staying square to the target line). No good player ever did this on a swing of any force.

What we see in our research, and it was somewhat backed up by Dr. Wood, was a face that is more open than vertical to the ground a few inches from impact, and a few degrees inside the target line, and then gets on a straighter line and a more square-ish for while clubface motion through the ball.

Really fascinating stuff, and nothing that could have been done in Homer's time. The camera's and the research labs are really on outer-space since 1983.

Mike O · Oct 21, 2010

Approach

Mike Finney said:
"the golfing machine is fine......the people who push it as something that it is not (scientifically infallible) are doing the disservice...."

Not only is that an excellent point - even Mr. Kelley when he was alive would tell a new or avid proponent of the book - "Don't sell the system" - he knew that it would only hurt his "system" or turn people off. I'm not a fan of pushing it, thinking it's "scientifically infallible" - (that would be crazy) - nor thinking "it's all there". I am a fan of trying to improve, increase your understanding of something and moving forward - so I do love that approach that the "team" has here - from that perspective it's a can't lose approach.

Brian Manzella · Oct 21, 2010

Made my heart feel better...

Mike O said:
Mike Finney said:
"the golfing machine is fine......the people who push it as something that it is not (scientifically infallible) are doing the disservice...."

Not only is that an excellent point - even Mr. Kelley when he was alive would tell a new or avid proponent of the book - "Don't sell the system" - he knew that it would only hurt his "system" or turn people off. I'm not a fan of pushing it, thinking it's "scientifically infallible" - (that would be crazy) - nor thinking "it's all there". I am a fan of trying to improve, increase your understanding of something and moving forward - so I do love that approach that the "team" has here - from that perspective it's a can't lose approach.

Thanks Mike.

That meant an awful lot to me.

It is really tiring to be called names when trying to do what I believe Homer Kelley would have LOVED TO DO—consult with the top golf scientists in the world and uncover more about how the golf swing really works.

It is really sad that everyone who loves the book, doesn't feel the way you do.

You know how I feel about Mr. Kelley and his work. I was like a kid in Macy's toy department when I went through you Homer Kelley/Golfing Machine collection at your house.

I really believe I am doing what he would have wanted—taken his stuff, and moving forward.

Again,

Thank you very much.

Michael Finney · Oct 22, 2010

Kevin Carter recently said this:

"Like Mr. Kelley said, No right, wrong, or best. We all have to find what works for us!"

But when pushed on the audio tapes with some leading questions, Mr. Kelley did have some comments on a perceived "optimum". And the literalists have run with these comments and have hammered out their niche.

roll - gybe · Oct 22, 2010

Michael Finney said:
Kevin Carter recently said this:

"Like Mr. Kelley said, No right, wrong, or best. We all have to find what works for us!"

But when pushed on the audio tapes with some leading questions, Mr. Kelley did have some comments on a perceived "optimum". And the literalists have run with these comments and have hammered out their niche.

So does that defend Kelley or not?

What I am not getting here is the title of this thread. "The Golfing Machine heads to obsurity on the book shelf."

Do you always throw out all the old information when you think you have found something better? Did Aristotle throw out Plato? Which brings up another point - In one recent thread there were arguments for relativism and absolute truth all at the same time. You guys have your epistemology all over the place. You can't have Locke with a side of Rousseau!

New information is great. But are you really going to throw out the Golfing Machine? Plus guys on this site rip it and don't even own it! Brian said himself it made contributions in the area of classification. So what is the point of all this hostility?

There is no new piece of work yet as a replacement, just loose ideas floating around on the internet. These ideas have not been put together into one complete philosophy for critical review by anyone. Maybe one day they will. Until then, I am not sure what you are accomplishing.

But I will tell you this: understanding how to release the accumlators took more strokes off my game than anything else, and results are my truth, because I can get home in fewer strokes with more change in my pocket.

The Golfing Machine heads to obscurity on the book shelf

Administrator

Banned

Administrator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Administrator

Administrator

New member

Banned

Administrator

Administrator

Super Moderator

New

New

Administrator

New

Administrator

New

New member