Brian Manzella
Administrator
New rule....if I can't email you (the only forum requirement) you can not post here.
You have until Monday to post a valid e-mail address.
You have until Monday to post a valid e-mail address.
What should I do with people who try to disrupt...
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
TGManMachine
New
brianman
I have searched your Instruction Articles forum, and I still can't seem to find a picture of you swinging a driver, only irons. Is there some reason for that?
I have searched your Instruction Articles forum, and I still can't seem to find a picture of you swinging a driver, only irons. Is there some reason for that?
silvercreek
New
i fly right over their posts. don't address them. its unfortunate but as the forum gets bigger, you're bound to get people like that. don't waste your energy.
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
http://www.manzellagolfforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=986&SearchTerms=driver
Why would it be in the instruction forum if it is a video sequence you're looking for?
mgjordan
New
If you people were articulate about TGM? I think you have had probably 50 posts directed toward you that were very well written. All you can articulate is "You are wrong because launch monitor this launch monitor that." Geometry and human physical characteristics say you hit down on the ball. I don't care what a launch monitor says. There are too many factors (shaft kick, spin, loft, effective loft to name a few) and a launch monitor cannot provide sufficient data.
This kind of gives me a sudden curiosity attack.
These SingleAxis escapades allways include a tender moment of mutual admiration. Mandarin is dead duck as far as this board is concerned. But rest ... and the way you like to trail postings.
What's the deal? Character assasinate EdZ - or what?
Vaako
Burner
New
Let the nuts continue to post and leave it to the rest of us to ignore them as it suits us.
Anyone who disputes or argues with you, Brian, or questions Mr Kelley, should be treated with a little suspicion until they can prove they are worthy of consideration and serious debate.
Guys who just want to argue will have a hard time doing it on their own.
Anyone who disputes or argues with you, Brian, or questions Mr Kelley, should be treated with a little suspicion until they can prove they are worthy of consideration and serious debate.
Guys who just want to argue will have a hard time doing it on their own.
TGManMachine
New
jim
Thank you for searching out a driver swing by brianman. I guess I should have experimented with the forum search function before I stuck my lead foot in my mouth !
brianman certainly has a developed swing, and from what I read brianman indicated it was a test swing with new components. Nevertheless it looks quite decent Width swing (LAWs) by a man with a shorter stature and robust build. I think EdZ noted there was a touch of OTT and if you watch the tee tumbling back and away from brianman that might confirm it. Even pros may have a bit of OTT but it is the results that count.
I tried to stop the swing at impact, but there were no impact views in the video, only a couple of feet before and then well into followthrough. I wonder if brianman could provide us with a quicktime video of his driver swing to illustrate the point of impact with the forward leaning driver shaft. That would be helpful.
mgjordan
You may reject launch monitor measurements, but neither you nor anybody else on this forum has provided definitive proof that optimal result occur with a descending driver impact. You may claim it results in better control, but you offer nothing to show the full geometry of the body, club and ball at impact to demonstrate a descending driver path.
brianman's signature swing.gif clearly illustrates his descending iron path, and I have suggested this swing can be transposed into an ascending driver swing path. Nobody wants to hear that an ascending driver path provides optimal launch conditions because it goes against Kelley's gospel (2-J-2) for a descending driver head. Kelley shows the geometry of impact, but there is no circle geometry that include the body, club and ball at impact within a full golf swing.
I am suggesting that TGM is wrong to suggest that only a descending driver path is acceptable. Current new technology proves the opposite is true, so why do you blind yourself to reality? That only diminishes TGM, which must be updated for new scientific knowledge about the golf swing. Kelley would probably have been into his 10th revision to ensure that TGM took advantage of new technology. As it is now, TGM seems to be rather dated in it's complex concepts and is slowly losing credibility as it is being attacked from all directions and that's unfortunate because TGM has some very good golf swing concepts.
Thank you for searching out a driver swing by brianman. I guess I should have experimented with the forum search function before I stuck my lead foot in my mouth !
brianman certainly has a developed swing, and from what I read brianman indicated it was a test swing with new components. Nevertheless it looks quite decent Width swing (LAWs) by a man with a shorter stature and robust build. I think EdZ noted there was a touch of OTT and if you watch the tee tumbling back and away from brianman that might confirm it. Even pros may have a bit of OTT but it is the results that count.
I tried to stop the swing at impact, but there were no impact views in the video, only a couple of feet before and then well into followthrough. I wonder if brianman could provide us with a quicktime video of his driver swing to illustrate the point of impact with the forward leaning driver shaft. That would be helpful.
mgjordan
You may reject launch monitor measurements, but neither you nor anybody else on this forum has provided definitive proof that optimal result occur with a descending driver impact. You may claim it results in better control, but you offer nothing to show the full geometry of the body, club and ball at impact to demonstrate a descending driver path.
brianman's signature swing.gif clearly illustrates his descending iron path, and I have suggested this swing can be transposed into an ascending driver swing path. Nobody wants to hear that an ascending driver path provides optimal launch conditions because it goes against Kelley's gospel (2-J-2) for a descending driver head. Kelley shows the geometry of impact, but there is no circle geometry that include the body, club and ball at impact within a full golf swing.
I am suggesting that TGM is wrong to suggest that only a descending driver path is acceptable. Current new technology proves the opposite is true, so why do you blind yourself to reality? That only diminishes TGM, which must be updated for new scientific knowledge about the golf swing. Kelley would probably have been into his 10th revision to ensure that TGM took advantage of new technology. As it is now, TGM seems to be rather dated in it's complex concepts and is slowly losing credibility as it is being attacked from all directions and that's unfortunate because TGM has some very good golf swing concepts.
Brian-- this is your forum to run as you see fit, but TGMM/Horton/Mandarin/Weinerman/Whoever/Whatever/CrosbyStillsNash&Young/MerrillLynchPierceTaylorFennor&Smith and whoever else plagues this site never, ever, ever, get a toehold at Chuck's or Lynn's sites because they ban them and delete their posts so fast their ears spin off. That doesn't mean that there is no room for spirited debate, of course there is. I don't think anyone will question your judgement when it comes to banning trolls.
Iowagolfpr
New
Let me ask you this? Would you ban Brad Faxon from this forum? In the March issue of Golf Magazine he gave three tips for hitting the ball longer. #1 Reduce the tension in the arms. #2 Make a full turn. #3 Hit up on the ball.
In the dark ages scholars were put to death for saying that the world was not flat. In Iran, free speech in banned. In countries that ban dissent, learning is greatly reduced. Look at Germany under Hitler, the USSR, North Korea or China.
Ben Hogan said that he learned something new about the golf swing every year because of science. Chuck's forum is not nearly as popular as this forum. What are the main differences? Brian says things in plain English and we have sprited, genuine debate. I try to be as positive as possible when I post. I feel Brain is a wonderful teacher. I have learned a great deal from him and I have been teaching golf for almost forty years.
Recently, I went to a web site of a well know G.S.E.D. At that site he stated that he was one of 13 G.S.E.D.s That is incorrect. G.S.E.D's are not keeping up with what is going on with The Golfing Machine. When this instructor writes magazine artilces he does not mention The Golfing Machine, Homer or that he is a G.S.E.D. He is like Chuck Cook in that regard. Something is wrong. There are things with The Golfing Machine that need to be fixed. Brain has a gift to explain swing principles in plain English. But, the Golfing Mechine must not be afraid of change. If we don't listen to people who have opinions that are different from ours, we are in real trouble. Sometimes we are going to have to agree to disagree. Like with Brad Faxon. If I had been closed minded, I would have not listened to my long driver tour friends. I would be twenty yards shorter off the tee. If I don't agree with a post, I just ignore it. I hope Brain is very careful about banning free speech. I have often defended The Golfing Machine even thou jealous instructors use it against me. They tell people that I teach a method that is hopelessly complicated. I don't care because I know the truth. But, we have to have honesty with each other. We just can't be "yes men." That doesn't really help any leader. My email address is: dryohe@yahoo.com Thank you Brain for sharing your knowledge. I wish you all fairways and greens.
In the dark ages scholars were put to death for saying that the world was not flat. In Iran, free speech in banned. In countries that ban dissent, learning is greatly reduced. Look at Germany under Hitler, the USSR, North Korea or China.
Ben Hogan said that he learned something new about the golf swing every year because of science. Chuck's forum is not nearly as popular as this forum. What are the main differences? Brian says things in plain English and we have sprited, genuine debate. I try to be as positive as possible when I post. I feel Brain is a wonderful teacher. I have learned a great deal from him and I have been teaching golf for almost forty years.
Recently, I went to a web site of a well know G.S.E.D. At that site he stated that he was one of 13 G.S.E.D.s That is incorrect. G.S.E.D's are not keeping up with what is going on with The Golfing Machine. When this instructor writes magazine artilces he does not mention The Golfing Machine, Homer or that he is a G.S.E.D. He is like Chuck Cook in that regard. Something is wrong. There are things with The Golfing Machine that need to be fixed. Brain has a gift to explain swing principles in plain English. But, the Golfing Mechine must not be afraid of change. If we don't listen to people who have opinions that are different from ours, we are in real trouble. Sometimes we are going to have to agree to disagree. Like with Brad Faxon. If I had been closed minded, I would have not listened to my long driver tour friends. I would be twenty yards shorter off the tee. If I don't agree with a post, I just ignore it. I hope Brain is very careful about banning free speech. I have often defended The Golfing Machine even thou jealous instructors use it against me. They tell people that I teach a method that is hopelessly complicated. I don't care because I know the truth. But, we have to have honesty with each other. We just can't be "yes men." That doesn't really help any leader. My email address is: dryohe@yahoo.com Thank you Brain for sharing your knowledge. I wish you all fairways and greens.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
That's WHY I don't ban anyone.
BigBadDonkey
New
Ok, just forget TGM for a minute...
#3 is obviously bad advice. The sort of rubbish that keeps getting churned out. Pop golf junk.. and I am not TGM biased , I take ideas from all over. The swing thought 'hitting up ' with a Driver is obviously bad advice, which creates problems for most golfers *end of story*!
What is all this 'long drive pros tour stuff!? We play ' Golf' ! This is a 'golf' forum.
Of course free speech is the number one priority.. no need to overdo the politics man
.Watch the slow mo replay close ups from the best pros on the tour... the Driver is going Down, and , btw, Hank Khuene is a bad example
. Watch a few and get the general idea.This TGMjoker man is obviously a joker
He tried to tell me this close up camera is to blame.
He suddenly appears in this forum trying to tell me (in a certain, subtle kind of way) that hitting down is questionable, and hitting up is the right way. Go figure...
.... Troll? , Joker?... Gutted that his theory of 'hitting up' (in the game of GOLF!!!!!
) with the Driver is 100% wrong, and he knows it. Next thing he'll be on here telling us that the clubhead must be ahead of hands at impact for all shots, lol.So there is 'free speech' and there is taking the 'p' .
birdie_man
New
Burn em at the STAAAAAAAKKKEEE!!! Har HAR! Yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Iowagolfpr
New
Brain admires the swing of the great Moe Norman. He was the straightest hitter of the ball in golf history. Moe set something like 29 course records. He once, in a four hour period, hit over 1,400 drives and not one drive was shorter than 220. Not one drive was outside a 40 yard wide fairway. He went an entire year on Canadian Tour without hitting a drive out of bounds. Around 1960 PGA Tour Officals took Moe aside and talked to him about his wardrobe. (He wore the same a black long sleeved turtle neck every day!) They also talked to him about not using a golf pencil as a tee. Why did Moe do that? He wanted to tee the ball as high as possible. Moe claimed that he used the same tee to hit his drives with for 7 years until someone else broke it. Moe said, "I hit golf balls not tees." In the Decemember 204 issue of Golf Magazine, there is an article about Moe. It shows a photo of Moe about a foot past impact. His left wrist is still flat. The tee in still in the ground. He is clearly, beyond any doubt, hitting up on the ball. Please go to the range and try to leaving the tee in the ground on drives when hitting down. You can't do it. People say that hitting up on the tee shot reduces accuracy. Not true. Moe was the the straightest driver ever. Tell me, was G.S.E.D. Lynn Blake wrong when he said that you can hit down with a drive, level or up?
Tom Wishon sell drivers to regular golfers not long drive tour members. He recommends hitting up on drives. Please, go to his clubmakers forum and pose the question. I did and not one member recommended hitting down on drives.
http://www.wishongolf.com/twforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1313
Here is what Tom Wishon, the clubmaker who is an advisor to the PGA of America, wrote when I asked about what is the correct angle of attack for a driver on his forum.
Iowa:
No question about it - an upward angle of attack for sure can optimize distance much greater than an level angle of attack. And the worst one for distance is a downward angle of attack.
This is precisely how the long drive competitors are able to use drivers with 5-6 degrees and still generate a launch angle of >10 degrees. Whe you get more of your optimum launch angle from the angle of attack, you can use less loft which does two things for the high swing speed golfer - reduces backspin and increases ball speed.
Thanks for joining us here in golf equipment nirvana!!
TOM
If you have a slow swing speed, by all means hit down with driver because you will need the extra spin to get the ball in the air. But, don't hit down if you are a "stud".
[/quote]
Tom Wishon sell drivers to regular golfers not long drive tour members. He recommends hitting up on drives. Please, go to his clubmakers forum and pose the question. I did and not one member recommended hitting down on drives.
http://www.wishongolf.com/twforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1313
Here is what Tom Wishon, the clubmaker who is an advisor to the PGA of America, wrote when I asked about what is the correct angle of attack for a driver on his forum.
Iowa:
No question about it - an upward angle of attack for sure can optimize distance much greater than an level angle of attack. And the worst one for distance is a downward angle of attack.
This is precisely how the long drive competitors are able to use drivers with 5-6 degrees and still generate a launch angle of >10 degrees. Whe you get more of your optimum launch angle from the angle of attack, you can use less loft which does two things for the high swing speed golfer - reduces backspin and increases ball speed.
Thanks for joining us here in golf equipment nirvana!!
TOM
If you have a slow swing speed, by all means hit down with driver because you will need the extra spin to get the ball in the air. But, don't hit down if you are a "stud".
[/quote]
Brian people are here for 3 reasons. 1-they already support TGM and yourself, 2-people are curious and open to your teaching and TGM , 3-there here to put down yourself and TGM and foolishly trying to discourage one of the first two. If they have other swing ideas and to me that's fine , post them on forums that accept them.You would have more time to assist people if you didn't feel like you had to defend your teaching , give them one chance and them dump them.
TGManMachine
New
I guess the consensus is that anybody who contradicts what Kelley wrote in TGM should either not post on this forum or should be banned if they continue to attack TGM and Kelley by suggesting that there may be something wrong in TGM.
What has this world come to when people close their minds to critical analysis of a scientific work like TGM. I'm almost certain that Kelley would welcome critical analysis of TGM, and he would have most likely revised TGM to incorporate new technology and knowledge.
I have been asking whether Kelley's concept of a descending driver head path (2-J-2) was still valid given what we now know through instruments like the launch monitor and other devices that track club head path pre and post impact. Kelley did not have the advantage of such knowledge in the 1970s and early 80s when he formed his ideas based on perfect circle geometry. Unfortunately, Kelley did not fully illustrate the geometry of the entire golf swing, only impact with line of compression concepts.
Now we have launch monitor data that contradicts Kelley's theory, and there appears to be not many here who want to acknowledge that TGM may not be up to date on every aspect of the golf swing. There's nothing wrong with that and it can be easily revised to make it current based on new technology. Otherwise TGM will lose credibility in all aspects, and that would be unfortunate. A simple revision updating aspects of driver head path is all that is necessary, and it would be welcome by all I'm sure.
If some on this forum want to poo-poo or deny new scientific facts that seems to contradict TGM, that's fine, but if you also want to ban such knowledge then that reflects adversely on your intellect. Of course if you consider TGM to be equivalent to biblical golf gospel, then we know where you are coming from, and going nowhere too.
What has this world come to when people close their minds to critical analysis of a scientific work like TGM. I'm almost certain that Kelley would welcome critical analysis of TGM, and he would have most likely revised TGM to incorporate new technology and knowledge.
I have been asking whether Kelley's concept of a descending driver head path (2-J-2) was still valid given what we now know through instruments like the launch monitor and other devices that track club head path pre and post impact. Kelley did not have the advantage of such knowledge in the 1970s and early 80s when he formed his ideas based on perfect circle geometry. Unfortunately, Kelley did not fully illustrate the geometry of the entire golf swing, only impact with line of compression concepts.
Now we have launch monitor data that contradicts Kelley's theory, and there appears to be not many here who want to acknowledge that TGM may not be up to date on every aspect of the golf swing. There's nothing wrong with that and it can be easily revised to make it current based on new technology. Otherwise TGM will lose credibility in all aspects, and that would be unfortunate. A simple revision updating aspects of driver head path is all that is necessary, and it would be welcome by all I'm sure.
If some on this forum want to poo-poo or deny new scientific facts that seems to contradict TGM, that's fine, but if you also want to ban such knowledge then that reflects adversely on your intellect. Of course if you consider TGM to be equivalent to biblical golf gospel, then we know where you are coming from, and going nowhere too.
TGManMachine
New
Iowagolfpr
I had the chance to watch Moe Norman many years ago when he was still using a persimmon driver. I saw it close up in his bag, and I swear the entire sole was covered with about 1/4 inch of lead tape!!
Why would he need to do that? Well I thought that Moe's homemade swing was like a windmill because he was short and stout, and couldn't get the club to horizontal and then lash down and out. He also bragged that his driver head path was "level" in the last 18 inches before impact, and that was how he was able to be so accurate and consistent. Imperfect circle geometry perhaps?
In fact, Moe's swing was rather slow because of his windmilling, so he had to put more weight into his driver head to get more distance. Low velocity and high mass so to speak. Moe apparently was a bit autistic or a savant "rainman", so I suspect that he masochistically trained himself so that his single axis (?) swing worked, and boy did it work!!
Hope my story helps put another perspective on the late Moe Pipeline Norman. Come to think of it, Brian's driver swing sort of reminds me of Moe.
I had the chance to watch Moe Norman many years ago when he was still using a persimmon driver. I saw it close up in his bag, and I swear the entire sole was covered with about 1/4 inch of lead tape!!
Why would he need to do that? Well I thought that Moe's homemade swing was like a windmill because he was short and stout, and couldn't get the club to horizontal and then lash down and out. He also bragged that his driver head path was "level" in the last 18 inches before impact, and that was how he was able to be so accurate and consistent. Imperfect circle geometry perhaps?
In fact, Moe's swing was rather slow because of his windmilling, so he had to put more weight into his driver head to get more distance. Low velocity and high mass so to speak. Moe apparently was a bit autistic or a savant "rainman", so I suspect that he masochistically trained himself so that his single axis (?) swing worked, and boy did it work!!
Hope my story helps put another perspective on the late Moe Pipeline Norman. Come to think of it, Brian's driver swing sort of reminds me of Moe.
Iowagolfpr
New
Well I think Brain is the only hope for The Golfing Machine. He has the gift to teach.
Actually, most golfers don't have driver clubhead speeds over 100 mph. so if they hit down on the ball it isn't the end of the world.
Nothing is set in stone and nothing in golf is black and white. It is part art and part science. The idea that we stopped learning about golf swing in 1969 is not valid. I wish golf were that simple but it isn't. The golf swing evolved a lot in past 100 years and it will continue to evolve.
Other sports are using motion analysis and computer data to help learn and teach movement. Gymnastics is a good example. A lot of Olympic training centers are doing that also. Golf will learn not to fear science and learn not to fear change. I take and use a lot of valid concepts from The Golfing Machine, but no method is perfect.
For example, I don't think that anyone can swing on a single plane. Moe Norman didn't. He returned his right elblow to his side on the downswing. That caused a plane shift. I would tell that to Jim Hardy and I would tell that to people on the Single Plane forum.
In the golf swing, there are not any perfect lines or perfect circles. Mr. Kelly was far more open minded than some of his modern day followers. He printed revised editions of his book. He understood knowledge changes. But, today their are religious fundamentalist that are far less understanding than Jesus. Jesus made wine from water. Lots of religions today feel that drinking wine is a sin. Closed minded thinking can occure in all aspects of life, from religion to golf instruction. Fadish closed mind thinking by followers is flattering. However, it doesn't really lead to anyones long term betterment.
I have great respect for Brain's knowledge. But, there has never been and never will be someone who is correct all the time in the world of golf instruction. No one owns The Golfing Machine body of knowledge, and I will always try to make it stronger by suggesting areas that need to be reviewed in light of modern science.
There are actually times I hit down on the driver. It is when I want to hit a cut shot that avoids trouble on the left. Mr. Hogan used that shot a lot. Teeing the ball low causes the mind to not want to close the face. Closing the face makes it very hard to get the ball airborn. However, that safty cut shot is thirty yards shorter than when I tee it high and let if fly.
Actually, most golfers don't have driver clubhead speeds over 100 mph. so if they hit down on the ball it isn't the end of the world.
Nothing is set in stone and nothing in golf is black and white. It is part art and part science. The idea that we stopped learning about golf swing in 1969 is not valid. I wish golf were that simple but it isn't. The golf swing evolved a lot in past 100 years and it will continue to evolve.
Other sports are using motion analysis and computer data to help learn and teach movement. Gymnastics is a good example. A lot of Olympic training centers are doing that also. Golf will learn not to fear science and learn not to fear change. I take and use a lot of valid concepts from The Golfing Machine, but no method is perfect.
For example, I don't think that anyone can swing on a single plane. Moe Norman didn't. He returned his right elblow to his side on the downswing. That caused a plane shift. I would tell that to Jim Hardy and I would tell that to people on the Single Plane forum.
In the golf swing, there are not any perfect lines or perfect circles. Mr. Kelly was far more open minded than some of his modern day followers. He printed revised editions of his book. He understood knowledge changes. But, today their are religious fundamentalist that are far less understanding than Jesus. Jesus made wine from water. Lots of religions today feel that drinking wine is a sin. Closed minded thinking can occure in all aspects of life, from religion to golf instruction. Fadish closed mind thinking by followers is flattering. However, it doesn't really lead to anyones long term betterment.
I have great respect for Brain's knowledge. But, there has never been and never will be someone who is correct all the time in the world of golf instruction. No one owns The Golfing Machine body of knowledge, and I will always try to make it stronger by suggesting areas that need to be reviewed in light of modern science.
There are actually times I hit down on the driver. It is when I want to hit a cut shot that avoids trouble on the left. Mr. Hogan used that shot a lot. Teeing the ball low causes the mind to not want to close the face. Closing the face makes it very hard to get the ball airborn. However, that safty cut shot is thirty yards shorter than when I tee it high and let if fly.
EaglesNest
New
You seem as though you have vast knowledge of the golfswing. Why don't you write a book called "My Golfing Machine" by TGManMachine(alias ISwingmyD*ck). And that way we can read it and assess for ourselves if it makes the all time classic golf reading list.
- Status