Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
If you can walk and swing your arms from side to side (in perfect timing with your 'walking' motion), you can learn to swing a golf club the same way. In doing so, you can learn to swing it the the same way the pros do -- the same way they learned to do it as kids. You won't hit the ball as far as they do -- nor as straight -- but you will hit it with the same authority, and you will begin to post scores you heretofore only imagined.
No offence D, but this is why the green one is GREAT!
.....................And you believed him?..........................
Perhaps you should read the Preface to the Book where the exercises were borrowed.
Golf, by Bob MacDonald, 1927.
Quote:
Preface
It is probably beyond argument that the golf stroke, apart from the putt, is the most highly technical method of hitting a ball in the whole realm of sport. Notwithstanding this there are innumerable people who expect to attain proficiency without considerable study and practice.
"There is no royal road to learning" and nowhere is this truer than in golf.
Golf, in so far as its mere mechanics are concerned, is really a simple game. It is the supreme demand of golf for mechanical accuracy, plus the very variable human factor, that makes .. it actually a very difficult game at which to excel.
The reasons for this insistent demand for mechanical perfection are fourfold.
Firstly, the striking surface of the club is the smallest that is used in field sports. Secondly, the ball is the smallest used in any outdoor game. Thirdly, as the ball, except, generally speaking, in the tee-shot, lies snugly on the ground, the mar¬gin for error between the centre of the ball, beneath which the player must always hit, in order to obtain an effective stroke, and the earth is extremely small. Fourthly, with the exception of polo, the ball is farther from the line of sight than in any other game.
After one has duly considered these points it will not be necessary to insist further on the extreme importance of reducing the stroke, as much as possible, to a settled form of mechanical production, that will enable one to reproduce at will the same mechanical effects, in order efficiently to duplicate similar shots.
Over twenty years, spent in golf tuition and playing the game, have caused me to make an exhaustive analysis of the golf-strokes, for it would manifestly be impossible effectively to improve a pupil's game without discerning the errors. And these very errors have been, on numerous occasions, of great benefit to my own game. All golf-players of experience know how often it will fall to their lot to go completely off some particular stroke. Many times, in correcting the fault of a pupil, I have had revealed to me the reason for a temporary, but nevertheless annoying, failure to produce in the most efficient manner, some shot with which I was ordinarily quite familiar and effective; which is. merely another way of saying that one of the most valuable means of acquiring good form is to watch carefully the good methods and style of others and to try to avoid any of their errors.
This, of course, presupposes a certain amount of knowledge of the golf stroke, but this will come very soon to the earnest student of the game, who is not looking for the "royal road" to proficiency.
The best way to acquire this knowledge is, naturally, from expert tuition and assiduous practice, but an exceedingly valuable aid is a careful study of the motion pictures in this book showing the actual playing of the stroke, for the eye is undoubtedly of far more importance in conveying the science of golf to the mind than the ear.
One often hears the statement "He is a natural golfer." This is a very misleading expression, for the only "natural" golfers are the dubs, and they are dubs, generally speaking, because they are trying to play golf "naturally" and the true golf stroke is most unlikely to come to anyone in that manner; What would seem to be an exception to this rule is the really remarkable aptitude of some mere children in playing the game in very good form. Children are very quick at imi¬tating and, when they are fortunate enough to have a good player, whom they can imitate, they often pick up the finer points of the game quickly and unconsciously; but it is a mistake to think that they attain their proficiency "naturally." Caddies often show the same facility and they acquire it mainly by watching the best players they know and by imitating them.
The expert player has nearly always acquired the game "by the sweat of his brow" and by study of the methods of other good players and this must be the usual lot of those that really desire to play the game as it can be played.
We have already referred to that very variable factor, the human equation. No matter how expert the player is, it is practically impossible for him to duplicate two consecutive strokes. The demand of golf for mechanical accuracy is so insistent and extreme that nothing except a machine could do this and, indeed, it is arguable that a machine could not do it. From this consideration of the matter it will be seen that it would be unwise for one to set up too high a standard of attainment; to make too exacting a demand on one's physical and mental powers, for this would result in a needless discouragement. One must, especially at the beginning, be satisfied with results, comparatively speaking, within a wide range short of actual perfection. This is a much more helpful state of mind and will soon lead to a gradual lessening of the margin for error and lack of accomplishment, that one who follows the more exacting line of thought, will have allowed oneself.
Nor must one expect to obtain one's results exactly as another does. Of a hundred or more players, of approximately similar capacity, and taught by the same instructor, it is safe to say that no two will swing alike. One has to take into consideration physical conformation and mental idiosyncrasies and they provide extreme variation in form. One player is tall and lithe, another short and stocky; one has big hands and long fingers, another small hands and short fingers; one, an alert active mind, the other a phlegmatic temperament, and so on.
It would obviously, in people so dissimilar in mental and physical makeup, be ridiculous to look for identical methods. They must be allowed the fullest opportunity to express their individuality in their style, provided their form, that is, the correct mechanical production of the stroke, be sound, and this form can only be acquired by what must be common to all of them and that is a rigid adherence to the fundamentals of the golf stroke.
lt is the purpose of this book to inculcate those fundamentals in the easiest possible manner for those, who really desire to know the game, and, in addition, to show the full technique of the stroke, whereby those fundamentals may be welded into a homogeneous unit, that represents what the golfer so ardently desires, a good game.
Occasionally in the explanations of the various positions there will be found some repetition. This is not unintentional tautology. In teaching one must iterate and reiterate until the pupil finally grasps the point sought to be inculcated and this has to be done much more frequently in actual teaching than is necessary or desirable in written instruction.
While one is trying to do something with the arms one must not forget what the feet ought to be doing or when one is doing something with the feet one must have in mind what the head should, or should not, be doing, and it is only by welding one explanation into another that one can hope to weld one movement into another and so to produce a correct and harmonious whole.
Only your posts make the game tough to understand!
Hey Swingmaster,
I want you to know that Post #57 was written with you in mind. Especially Illustrations #2&3. It brought me so much joy to make and share with you. Which one illustrates your procedure?
Personally I think golf is as simple or as complicated as each individual chooses it to be.
I think that someone like Lynn Blake chooses to present it in as uncomplicated light as possible. He actually makes golfers better golfers.
Your methodology seems to be to take the simple and make it as complicated as possible. Jeffman used a similar approach and eventually was persuaded that his methodology was unwelcome. Perhaps history can teach you a lesson there.
I witnessed your meltdown on John Erickson's site, it was a shame you chose not to continue sharing information there.
I guess the questions you were being asked made you uncomfortable.
Anyway, continue your quest to make the simple complicated and the easy to understand incomprehensible. I'm sure there is an audience for you somewhere. Me, I'll just gloss over anything you post now
__________________ The student senses his teacher’s steadfast belief and quiet resolve: “This is doable. It is doable by you. The pathway is there. All you need is determination and time.” And together, they make it happen.
Its completely lost on you ain't it Daryl. Personally I think golf is as simple or as complicated as each individual chooses it to be.
I think that someone like Lynn Blake chooses to present it in as uncomplicated light as possible. He actually makes golfers better golfers.
I think you misunderstand me. Simple or complex doesn't enter into it for me. It is what it is, no matter how simple or complex it sounds. It is simple or complex for the one learning, not for the one teaching. Simplifying the subject matter doesn't make it simple. Simplifying makes it palatable. Don't you find it interesting that when simplifying there always seems to be something missing? Breaking something down into detail promotes understanding which leads to knowledge. No one is doing you a favor by simplifying. They're buying you time until you can understand better.
Originally Posted by GPStyles
Your methodology seems to be to take the simple and make it as complicated as possible. Jeffman used a similar approach and eventually was persuaded that his methodology was unwelcome. Perhaps history can teach you a lesson there.
I was only here for a few weeks before Jeff went to greener pastures so I'm unfamiliar with his "Methodology" as you put it. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel. There is no "Daryl Way". I'm not introducing new terminology or redefining TGM terms. Everything I say is open to critical review and personal attacks for those that find such things beneficial. I am wrong much of the time.
Originally Posted by GPStyles
I witnessed your meltdown on John Erickson's site, it was a shame you chose not to continue sharing information there. I guess the questions you were being asked made you uncomfortable.
There wasn't a meltdown and the questions didn't make me uncomfortable but the answers certainly made some of them uncomfortable. It was a pointless discussion. Johns method won't work just because he trashes other methods. He has to prove it works. I asked john at the very beginning not to be drawn into a TGM bash and defend contest. I'm not the one that got kicked out of ISG.com because of abuse. I don't abuse. But abuse by others will make me leave and not post or visit a site anymore. John Erickson and Jim Waldron do abuse. But this isn't the place to discuss this. And anyone that knows them also knows this. And anyone that knows me knows that I'm fair and I have no hidden agenda.
Originally Posted by GPStyles
Anyway, continue your quest to make the simple complicated and the easy to understand incomprehensible. I'm sure there is an audience for you somewhere. Me, I'll just gloss over anything you post now
Judging from your posts, it appears you have already glossed over most everything.
It's easy for you to sling mud, yet you refuse to say how I complicate things. My purpose is to understand. This thread is a good example. Some say that the right arm bends and unbends throughout the swing. I disagree with that procedure for a swingers Basic Pattern . I presented arguments and followed with illustrations to support my point of view trying to reconcile it with the concepts of the Golfing Machine. Why is that the wrong approach?? I have only been met with "because I said so" arguments. Have I complained? No. I have worked very hard for many years to earn the knowledge that I've gained and I'm willing to share it with anyone. No one gave it to me the easy way but many have helped me along the way.
What other purpose is there for a Forum than to discuss a subject to better understand it? That includes differing points of view. This Website has TGM Forums. We analyze, take apart TGM in minute detail to better understand the Golf Swing. Members may not get "A tip a Day".
Perhaps you would prefer this to be a BLOG. Then Lynn can write and publish and you can read and learn.
It's a simple fact that Homer Kelley spent 40 years of research and condensed his findings into a 240 page manual that could be carried to a golf lesson. If you looked at his files and sketches they must be more than 10,000 pages. A lot of discussion on this website is devoted to backing out of that 240 page manual and trying to understand what went into it. Never has there been a website devoted to talking so much about such a small book. Remember, his first AI class lasted 12 hours per day for 11 classroom days. Homer thought that this amount of time was needed to give them a good foundation. If he thought reading the book would have done the job, he would have made the print larger.
This website started as a single effort but rapidly grew into a cooperative learning experience. That means that you must study too. You must contribute by thinking and applying and reporting. Certainly I learn by answering your questions, but I want you to be able to answer mine too. I don't want my learning to be limited to your mistakes.
So far you have complained about Brian Gays spitting on the Golf Course and accuse me of making things complicated. You've asked numerous basic questions over a long period of time that simply shows your lack of willingness to pick up the book, learn, experiment and contribute. You want everyone on this site to sift TGM information through a simplification procedure which suits your appetite for learning. Well, that doesn't suit mine. How a'bout meeting a little in the middle.
My purpose isn't teaching or getting enough out of this site to improve my swing. My goal has always been investigating TGM.
GP...what is the dealio? I would not recommend that you gloss over Daryl's posts. He knows TGM better than all but a select few, therefore if you hang in there you may learn something. It is one thing to say that he is the maestro of minutia, the earl of hair-splitting, the duke of details BUT you cannot say he has nothing to offer. There is only one Yoda. Perhaps Lynn can give us an understanding of what his sophisticated simplicity cost him in terms of toil and tear.This is the last place I thought that a knowledgeable contributor would be castigated for...eeek...being complex! Snack down and spit the bones out...no excuse for getting a bone stuck in your throat! Mentioning the so-called meltdown was SIMPLY bad form!
Okie, Daryl has hacked into your computer and is posting under your name again.
He just alleged that he is not making stuff up but instead is the "maestro of minutia" or something.
Okie, thank you for your support. Don't listen to O.B. I've never won a Golf Tournament and he won Two this year alone. He's just rubbing it in.
I didn't realize that everyone thinks of my very short experience on Johns website as a meltdown. I'm surprised.
I was there. Not many were, so it would be difficult to reconstruct the conversation for everyone's review. Simply put, John is very upset that I criticized his knowlege of TGM on an LBG forum. He didn't expect such an examination. But, his swing and 4 barrel hitting pattern claim was posted by another member and I responded as I always do. Anyone can review the thread. I complimented john on his swing but I disagreed that it was a Hitting Pattern in strict accordance with TGM.
I tried explaining to him that Radial Acceleration alone doesn't define a Hitter from a Swinger but he didn't want to hear any part of it. I also explained that I wasn't visiting his Forum to discuss TGM but rather to discuss his swing method and partake in a discussion of Yodas Swing Pattern using Johns approach.
I probably should have dismissed myself at that point but I didn't know that what was to follow was a barrage of insults to TGM. The insults were not pointed at me directly, but I did respond because I was asked the questions.
John is bitter about TGM. He feels it failed him and he's seeking another way. However, he doesn't pass any opportunity to misquote and misrepresent TGM for his own agenda. Jim Waldron feels that TGM people are elitists because we view every swing through TGM Glasses. I admitted the Truth in that but it only made him more angry. Jim Waldron claims to be a Psychologist (Degree? Licensed?) and Philosopher in addition to being a Golf Instructor. He claims that Homer and his followers suffer from "Asperger's Syndrome", a mild form of Autism. His diagnosis was performed from information he learned while reading the new "Golfing Machine" Biography.
SO, on the one hand I've got a guy who blames TGM for his early retirement and another who can diagnose Autism from a Biography. Then, to top it off, GPStyles claims that I'm the one having the Meltdown.
The pivotal point came when John asked for a definition of the "Stationary Head". I quoted the Book but he refused to accept the Answer. I explained that it came from the Glossary of the sixth edition and he responded that he only has a copy of the Fifth edition and doesn't have the Glossary.
It became obvious that after two dozen posts that this thread had nothing to do with an analysis of Lynns' swing from the perspective of Johns method. It had degraded into a "Pity Party" for John and striking out with anger against TGM became their focus and I was to be the scapegoat.
It was time to leave. If hindsight were forethought, I should have never visited the website. I always thought that golfers shared a common interest and in pursuit of that interest, they put aside self-interest for the betterment of understanding Golf Swing. Whoa. I'm very naive. For some, it's a cut-throat business and "win at any cost", which includes lying and spreading falsehoods.
I figure that if you don't fully understand TGM then more than likely you will be misrepresenting the concepts if you try to simplify them.
I can defend the concepts of TGM when asked a question. But I can't fight lies and misrepresentation and I can't argue with someone who refuses to accept a TGM definition for a TGM Term. I told John that I would leave if he continued the destructive path. It did, so I quit posting.
Given my experience at Johns Website and some others, I'm not surprised that they consider my leaving a victory. But it's a shallow victory when more is lost than gained.
.....................And you believed him?..........................
Linear Mode
