The Reason. Plain and Simple - a Blog by Brian Manzella

[Brian Manzella]

I attended the 1st PGA Teaching and Coaching Summit in 1988. I brought Ben Doyle back to his hotel everyday, and we promoted The Golfing Machine to every curious instructor, and defended it to every detractor.

Fast forward to the 2006 MIT Better Golf Through Technology—18 years later.

Dr. Robert Grober and I sat at a small table outside the meeting room after everyone else was gone.

Trying to save me time with the wealth and depth of his real science knowledge, Dr. Grober said this to me in reference to The Golfing Machine:

"Brian, there is a mistake in every paragraph."
​

I sat there and argued the book's accuracy with a professor of Applied Physics from Yale, and owner of a PHD in the subject.


What a stupid I was.


So, this question needs to be answered, and it needs to be answered right now:

Why did I go from a staunch Golfing Machine supporter to a staunch non-supporter in about 4 and half years?

Here is the top 3 (there are so many more):

1. Finally learning from "Mandrin" that the "heavy hit" is a big fat lie.
​

You can't imagine how much my teaching improved that day.
​

2. Listening, questioning, challenging, and befriending Dr. Aaron Zick.

After every TGM Summit presentation by Dr. Zick, all of which were contrary to the book, my teaching and understanding of the golfing swing improved by leaps and bounds.
​

3. Fredrick Tuxen's TrackMan backed re-emergence of Jorgensen's D-Plane.

Not only did my teaching improve over night, but I was able to understand every mistake I ever made in 25+ years of teaching, almost instantly.

​

So, the reason I went from being a staunch Golfing Machine supporter, to a staunch non-supporter, is simply two things: the desire to know the truth, and the desire to become the best teacher of all-time.

Like I said in another post:

"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."
​

Simply put, myself and all of my colleagues have improved our understanding of the way the golf swing really works, and our real-world teaching immeasurably, when we started applying REAL SCIENCE to these pursuits, and moved away from the tenets of The Golfing Machine.


Can you blame us?

 

[Waynkie Doodle]

Brian,
This is why I like you as an instructor. Your firm and you stand behind what you believe in until someone is able to come along and prove you wrong. Then your the first person to say that everything you had been doing before was wrong, not just blow that person off and tell them they're crazy and your way is the only way to do it. Your an honest man who's not too stubborn and stuck in your ways to change the entire way you think about a subject. I thank you for constantly pushing for something better not only from yourself but the rest of the golfing community.

Looking forward to seeing what the next 18 years holds for us all. Good luck.

 

[Matt Bryda]

Brian,

THANKS FOR KEEPIN IT REAL!!!!!!!!!

Matt

 

[ZAP]

How do you remember these details? And I second sideyard.

 

[HowardK]

first of all

Did you became smarter after that conversation with the DR. FROM YALE???

Did he educate you??

Did you become a better teacher??

If the answer is yes to the above questions then you are "silly for thinking you were silly"..i wont use

the word st---d...its an ugly word.... one last ques.....if you and i played golf would you learn anything??

NO NO i dont mean "not to play with me" its a real question...........answer is NO

point is...we learn only from people that in certain areas are smarter.or better then we are...........in fact it makes us SMART.......

to find and learn from them

 

[Brian Manzella]

Did you became smarter after that conversation with the DR. FROM YALE???

No.

I was too busy trying to convince him Homer Kelley knew more about physics then he did—in so many words.

Now the next time I sit with Dr. Grober, I will learn a lot.

 

[HowardK]

well then

i respectfully disagree.......when Jason and jennifer were growing up...i told them things they argued against

they respectfully but vehemently argued with me...........but as I did (yes i read your post)

I put thoughts in their minds and those thoughts.... were there when they wanted to go to them....maybe not that day...but they eventually did

did you become smarter that day?? YOU SURE DID....problem is (was) you didn't know it then.

Let me close by saying....if you are right.....then those you call literalists.....are YOU.....fighting for what they believe.... as YOU did.......and YOU are DR Grober........just sharing thoughts for them to use at a later time

 

[mandrin]

Brian,

Your approach is not the most easy one. You face the same problem a scientist inventor has when going in business trying to commercialize his invention. Often enough he remains too much science oriented, wanting to satisfy his scientific curiosity and keep developing ideas but as a consequence not spending enough energy and time on the business aspects.

By remaining constantly open to any new idea you take the risk not crystallizing your teaching concepts into a well defined package. People like to hear one concept to hang their hat on. Centrifugal golf, natural golf, single plane golf, rotary golf, stack&tilt, TGM, ABS, or whatever their exists as branding.

One advantage you have is that you have not defined your approach to golf into a book as it is then henceforth difficult to change much thereafter. Being basically net oriented allows you to keep a much greater flexibility.

If you had to come up with a simple definition of how you would like your approach be known to the public at large what would you use? What do you teach? Basically whatever works supported by science? I don't see an easy concept conveying the essence of your teaching method.

I suggest, WWSS – whatever works science supported.

That way you give yourself a nice and honest margin for any quite probable future development/change/enhancement of your teaching philosophy.

......................

Brian,

I just had another idea.

Since you came from a TGM background it is perhaps natural to simply change TGM into SGM.

SGM - scientific golf method.

 

[HowardK]

nice post mand

If i might add.....might be silly...... but nice i am allowed to speak freely on this site

how about................S.I.T.O.A.

which means.......Science Is The Optimal Answer

 

[birdie_man]

A quote I got from Carey Mumford:

"There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. The innovator has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the old system and only lukewarm defenders by those who would gain by the new system." -Niccolo Machiavelli​

(I believe the history books state he was known as "The Italian Stallion" in his home villiage in Italy)

3. Fredrick Tuxen's TrackMan backed re-emergence of Jorgensen's D-Plane.

Not only did my teaching improve over night, but I was able to understand every mistake I ever made in 25+ years of teaching, almost instantly.​

That's crazy.

 

[birdie_man]

Was just looking in The Archives...

Brian's third post on this site:

"I really want to thank ya'll for the kind words.

And yes, haysie...I got what I wanted...a similar type to FGI.

But I really just want to help people with golf. And be #1 at it."​

...

The basic intent seems the same...the science has changed...

 

[siksta]

Brian,
With all due respect i've been around as long as you trying to understand the golf swing teaching and analyzing swings . I had guys teach me TGM but when i watched tour players i realized that is not what they were doing . I've never heard one Tour player say his hinge action was off or even no what hinge action was. When the TGM categorized swinging vs hitting i had my doubts also i didnt see these guys doing that but i couldnt get any answers and was having trouble finding answers. Til i met a Tour player who has won on Tour and other places in the world a guy who studied the TGM back in the late 70's and 80's he realized it didnt work on Tour and that the book was flawed so it took him a yr to figure it out and then had his best yr and ballstriking. The point i'm making is the Scientists confirm what these Tour players figured out yrs ago if i want to study golf swings and theory i go right to the source tour players who have won and fought in battle. He has shown me the same thing Trackman does but hands on training- skip forward20yrs later my teaching has improved leaps and bounds like yours and same with my ballstrikin. There was nothing wrong on the way you learned but next time it's easiers going to the tour player and if you want to grow corn go to the farmer!

 

[Michael Jacobs]

Brian,
With all due respect i've been around as long as you trying to understand the golf swing teaching and analyzing swings . I had guys teach me TGM but when i watched tour players i realized that is not what they were doing . I've never heard one Tour player say his hinge action was off or even no what hinge action was. When the TGM categorized swinging vs hitting i had my doubts also i didnt see these guys doing that but i couldnt get any answers and was having trouble finding answers. Til i met a Tour player who has won on Tour and other places in the world a guy who studied the TGM back in the late 70's and 80's he realized it didnt work on Tour and that the book was flawed so it took him a yr to figure it out and then had his best yr and ballstriking. The point i'm making is the Scientists confirm what these Tour players figured out yrs ago if i want to study golf swings and theory i go right to the source tour players who have won and fought in battle. He has shown me the same thing Trackman does but hands on training- skip forward20yrs later my teaching has improved leaps and bounds like yours and same with my ballstrikin. There was nothing wrong on the way you learned but next time it's easiers going to the tour player and if you want to grow corn go to the farmer!

Siksta,

Great Post! You nailed it on the head...

I remember back in the day the famous line all the old time TGM'ers used to use -
'if the tour players only knew' .

Yeah well they did! they had toss and in a pitch shot, TGMers had forward leaning shaft front edge divots that could be considered birthday cakes.

Tour players had sound impact alignments, TGMers were hovering an 11 degree inside out Alternate Target Line.

The list goes on and on......

Still waiting to see POINTING - TRACING - AND FANNING at a British Open

 

[siksta]

Michael
I think the findings are fantastic and if people dont want to learn off them then shame on them. We all made mistakes in teaching but you get a second chance dont do it again!Trackman is a great tool and a million things can be learned from it but the bottom line is still getting the student to hit it square and in the direction he wants and the methods are endless.

 

[Steve Khatib]

Siksta,

Great Post! You nailed it on the head...

I remember back in the day the famous line all the old time TGM'ers used to use -
'if the tour players only knew' .

Yeah well they did! they had toss and in a pitch shot, TGMers had forward leaning shaft front edge divots that could be considered birthday cakes.

Tour players had sound impact alignments, TGMers were hovering an 11 degree inside out Alternate Target Line.

The list goes on and on......

Still waiting to see POINTING - TRACING - AND FANNING at a British Open

Mike, you forgot the lawn mover right arm piston!

 

[Brian Manzella]

Contents.

For those who don't know, The Golfing Machine is filled with 4 different kinds of information:

1. A classification system that is not scientific, but pretty much was the first decent one ever done.

2. Some science and attempts at science. Got some right, some wrong, and some close or incomplete.

3. Some observations, like "the elbow plane is almost always subconsciously used." Mostly brilliant stuff.

4. Some Opinion. The Basic Motion Curriculum is one man's opinion, and he really was not a teacher for a living.​

All the pointing, tracing, fanning, lawn mower pulling, and such is all just one man's opinion.

It is nowhere NEAR what the top golfers at any level do.

 

[Dan44GT]

i respectfully disagree.......when Jason and jennifer were growing up...i told them things they argued against

they respectfully but vehemently argued with me...........but as I did (yes i read your post)

I put thoughts in their minds and those thoughts.... were there when they wanted to go to them....maybe not that day...but they eventually did

did you become smarter that day?? YOU SURE DID....problem is (was) you didn't know it then.

Let me close by saying....if you are right.....then those you call literalists.....are YOU.....fighting for what they believe.... as YOU did.......and YOU are DR Grober........just sharing thoughts for them to use at a later time

Honestly, this could be my favorite post of all time.

I often think that most of the things I learn, I've actually heard before. Maybe I'm just always temporarily stubborn.

 

[Brian Manzella]

So correct....

If you are right.....then those you call literalists.....are YOU.....fighting for what they believe.... as YOU did.......and YOU are DR Grober........just sharing thoughts for them to use at a later time

There is no doubt about that.

There is so much science to uncover, and so many golfers to save from bad information, that I'd love to have everyone on board with the project we have undertaken‚ which is to uncover the necessary scientific facts to understand how the golf swing actually works.

Nobody has come even close, but here we are, a small group of guys, making head way.

We just had another scientist sign up to help yesterday.

I think most folks who preach the book is near 100% scientifically correct, and the folks that own the rights, know that the science in the book is at least as incorrect as we have found. For crying out loud, we met Dr. Zick at a TGM Summit, and learned a lot of what was not scientifically sound listening to his presentations.

The simple solution is, and was, to update the book, and make it a real community effort by the LLC.

Otherwise, we really have no other option but to go our own way, unencumbered by anything but our want-to.

And we have a lot of that.

 

[greenfree]

There is no doubt about that.

There is so much science to uncover, and so many golfers to save from bad information, that I'd love to have everyone on board with the project we have undertaken‚ which is to uncover the necessary scientific facts to understand how the golf swing actually works.

Nobody has come even close, but here we are, a small group of guys, making head way.

We just had another scientist sign up to help yesterday.

I think most folks who preach the book is near 100% scientifically correct, and the folks that own the rights, know that the science in the book is at least as incorrect as we have found. For crying out loud, we met Dr. Zick at a TGM Summit, and learned a lot of what was not scientifically sound listening to his presentations.

The simple solution is, and was, to update the book, and make it a real community effort by the LLC.

Otherwise, we really have no other option but to go our own way, unencumbered by anything but our want-to.

And we have a lot of that.

G.T.E.

 

[birly-shirly]

For those who don't know, The Golfing Machine is filled with 4 different kinds of information:

1. A classification system that is not scientific, but pretty much was the first decent one ever done.

2. Some science and attempts at science. Got some right, some wrong, and some close or incomplete.

3. Some observations, like "the elbow plane is almost always subconsciously used." Mostly brilliant stuff.

4. Some Opinion. The Basic Motion Curriculum is one man's opinion, and he really was not a teacher for a living.​

All the pointing, tracing, fanning, lawn mower pulling, and such is all just one man's opinion.

It is nowhere NEAR what the top golfers at any level do.

Brian - how easy would it be for you to expand on part 3 of your list?

Basically, whenever I've tried to engage with the book, I've been so put off by the structure and style of presentation, together with a few concepts that I feel are downright misinformed or wrong, I've given up on finding anything of great value in there.

It's been my suspicion that the people who benefit most from TGM are the people who, coming face to face with any systematic attempt to understand the swing (even a poorly executed one) make a huge effort themselves to resolve the problems they see with the system. It's almost like antibiotics - it's not what's in the book that makes the difference, it's how you respond to the book.

What you're saying though is a deal more than that, I think. Could you list the stuff that, in your view, is both brilliant and right?