Know that the guys in the TOUR equipment vans are in the trenches every day. They are on the tee in 'real time', watching their players launch it and making recommendations. It is not unusual for a player to do so perfectly while generating some TM numbers that collectively make no sense. Their players know this, too.
This is simply inaccurate.
Get me any sheet you can and I will explain it.
If they can't read it or understand the data and the causes of the data, that is a shame.
Martin Hall used to have this same concern until they showed him why the numbers were what they were.
If they can't read it or understand the data and the causes of the data, that is a shame.
Martin Hall used to have this same concern until they showed him why the numbers were what they were.
Might be worth a call to this great TGM teacher.
Finally, John, after all these months of pussy-footing around . . .
Your true colors.
As if we didn't know.
Congratulations for showing some backbone!
Indiana Jones:"There's a big snake in the plane Jock!"
Jock:"Oh that's just my pet snake Reggie!"
Indiana Jones:"I hate snakes Jock! I hate them!"
Jock:"Come on, show a little backbone will ya!"
-- Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark
Why did you wait so long, John?
Why didn't you engage us in meaningful discussion before now?
Why did you play "Cool Hand Luke" hiding behind your endless stream of "questions"?
I'll tell you why:
It's because you've adopted the attitude -- at least on this site -- of "being smarter" by "playing dumb". It's a learned behavior. It's how you've learned to avoid being held accountable. As long as others tolerate that indulgent behavior, they enable it.
Here, on three occasions -- which I chose deliberately because of their core significance -- I executed a 'pattern interrupt':
1. You posited a question whose premise was that the Clubface alignment at Separation for each of the three Hinge Actions was the same. It is not the same. In fact and by definition, the Clubface alignment is the differentiating factor. I therefore labeled your ensuing question as specious, i.e., "having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious". You bristled, but never provided any evidence to the contrary. No problem from my side: Such behavior was, after all, your M.O.
2. You made several mistaken comments -- most often framed as "questions" -- regarding Sketches 2-C-1/2/3. On one notable occasion, you lost control and actually made a statement; namely, that the geometry in the drawings would "pinch" the Ball between the Clubface and the ground. In rebuttal, I pointed out that, in the sketches, the Ball is teed and that Low Point is illustrated clearly above ground. You disappeared. When you did reply -- eight days later -- any reference to your "pinch" comment (the basis for the entire exchange) was conspicuously omitted.
3. You yesterday posted that, after all your seeking on this site, the D Plane had not been "trumped" by the Geometry of the Circle. Cool! Didn't know we were into that! Something to discuss! But, when I put the pie to your nose -- 2-C-1 #3 -- you once again were found wanting. This despite your not-so-hidden agenda to "trump" it.
Now, finally, in concert with your exit Swan Song (on the aforementioned thread), you want to stand up and be counted. TrackMan is always right, and Homer Kelley and the guys in the TOUR vans (and their players) are always wrong. You're not doing so good right now in the Homer department -- -- but that very well might be the case with the boys in the vans (and their players).
Yay!
Go for it!
But, I'll bail on this one. It's not my gig. Call the guys at Mizuno, TaylorMade and Titleist. They (and their players) are the ones who have told me these things, e.g., perfect launch angles with 'disturbingly' steep angles of attack.
But, hey, who cares? Not me, that's for sure. After all, it's your gig! I love TrackMan, and I'm sure there is an answer for every question. [Well, maybe not every question.]
Still, let's not call Martin Hall, my student at the Secrets of The Golfing Machine school at the PGA TOUR Academy, St. Augustine, Florida, in April 2004, and indeed a "TGM great". A straight-up guy who last year in his presentation at the PGA Show generously and publicly thanked me -- in absentia -- for my contributions to his tool chest. Instead . . .
Let's call you!
Only, we need to talk to the "real" you!
The real you who now is righteously ready to stand in the breach and take on all comers. The real John Graham who is front and center. The guy who suddenly has leaped from the grandstands into the arena. The guy who can "read" any sheet and "explain" any data. The guy who says, "Gimme the ball, coach. I can score!"
In our January 1982 Master Class, I never once heard Homer Kelley raise his voice in anger or deliver any critique that could be considered "scathing". He talked of many competing ideas, but never did I hear an attitude of "They're wrong, and I'm right." Nor did he give the impression he was "threatened" by the work of others. He asked only that they prove their ideas (as he had his).
Regarding 'Search', he never steered us "away" from it. To the contrary, he introduced us to it. He applauded much that was good and spoke of the need for more and more research along the lines presented. Much of his relatively minor criticism was directed at the sin of omission, i.e., "They had the data, and they could have gone 'this way', but they didn't."
O.K., fair enough. But criticism to near dismissal of "Search" by TGM devotees is recurrent. Gummer is critical in his book, making unfair comparisons between TGM and "Search". And Ive seen other TGM devotees take a "TGM VS. Search" stance. It IS overly defensive. "Search" remains the most extensive collection of golf research findings ever assembled. Every serious "student of the game" would benefit from intimate familiarity with its findings.
I make it a point to study the many classic texts of golf instruction.....of which TGM certainly is. Simply put, "the more you know, the more you know".
Yoda, your videos have been instrumental in my understanding of several key TGM concepts. Thank You, Sir.
I make it a point to study the many classic texts of golf instruction.....of which TGM certainly is. Simply put, "the more you know, the more you know".
Yoda, your videos have been instrumental in my understanding of several key TGM concepts. Thank You, Sir.
You're welcome, Max. Glad to have made a difference.
BTW, my own bookshelves are filled to bursting with golf books of the last 120 years or so. Nothing to compare with Drewitgolf's collection, but all piled up, they would make quite a stack.
You're welcome, Max. Glad to have made a difference.
BTW, my own bookshelves are filled to bursting with golf books of the last 120 years or so. Nothing to compare with Drewitgolf's collection, but all piled up, they would make quite a stack.
Not to get off topic but...All I want for Christmas is another bookcase. I am running out of room . Maybe I should get a book on how to build them.
Nice find Daryl. The book on the left could be any of the first three editions (they were the same size with a yellow/brown dust jacket). The middle book is a fourth (shorter than all other editions) and the book on the right a fifth, sixth or seventh. It is still an impressive collection, despite the lack of the complete works of Homer Kelley.
Nice find Daryl. The book on the left could be any of the first three editions (they were the same size with a yellow/brown dust jacket). The middle book is a fourth (shorter than all other editions) and the book on the right a fifth, sixth or seventh. It is still an impressive collection, despite the lack of the complete works of Homer Kelley.
Damn, I don't have 2 or 3. Damn again, I noticed the 4th is shorter but I never gave it thought. It's boxier/thicker looking too. My First has a yellow color jacket that matches the 4-5-6-and 7. Did the Jacket come in brown too? I didn't know.
Damn, I don't have 2 or 3. Damn again, I noticed the 4th is shorter but I never gave it thought. It's boxier/thicker looking too. My First has a yellow color jacket that matches the 4-5-6-and 7. Did the Jacket come in brown too? I didn't know.
The dust jacket only came on the first three editions. They didn't come in brown, but were more "brownish yellow" than the bright yellow 4th-7th editions.
Something to discuss! But, when I put the pie to your nose -- 2-C-1 #3 -- you once again were found wanting. This despite your not-so-hidden agenda to "trump" it. 
-- but that very well might be the case with the boys in the vans (and their players).
. Maybe I should get a book on how to build them.
Linear Mode
