I've had lessons from Led, Ballard, Gary Smith, Paul Moran, Sorrell, Robert Baker to name a few popular ones ...To me Ballard, Sorrell, "SliceFixer", and TGM are all different methods to get the job done...One method says your head moves 18 inches to left and is a fault if your head fixates at any point..And another says your head must remain fixed throughout most of the swing...I see a style difference as hitting versus swinging in TGM...Whether hitting or swinging is your style, you must keep your head fixed/FLV or the machine won't work too well..
I am surprised that nobody responded to your analysis mashie72. Permit me. TGM is not a method, but does indeed support all workable methods. It is the physics of rotation and the gemoteric apodictic certainties that govern ALL golf strokes, seeings they are all subject to the laws of force and motion. 24 components, 144 variations = a verititble buffet of golf stroke options. It is a systematic approach that supports MY WAY, but never THE WAY. It is a teacher's perogative to teach a favored stroke pattern (Homer expressed preferences) but their preference is not THE law, but to be worth anything it must be based on law. Outside of TGM the tendency is towards positions, whereas TGM is rooted in alignments. People think they understand that distinction, but I have expereince serendipitous wonder on that idea more than once!
Listening to Led and his protege Baker they are describing fleeting feelings with little mechanical substance. Mechanics produces the feel (if you are look...look...looking!) And then feel reproduces the mechanics with scientific precision. Automation is the utilization of the precision of science...concerning the golf stroke anyway. Some are automatically bad, others are learning to harness the forces of nature.
TGM is a philosophy that is driven by the true order of things. I believe it is unsurpassed in its ability to describe what is actually taking place. The ignorant and the arrogant suggest it is a cult. That is of course simply non-conformity to the true nature of things (that is for Bucket!) I think the golf puzzle was solved. Understanding the proof HK provided is the only quest that still remains. Endless info is still being provided...people have still gotta eat.
I'm interested in your experiences with such luminaries as long as we acknowledge that there is little or no parity with TGM!
Thanks for your input..No, I wasn't aware about the steeper plane angle and ball placement relationship...However it makes sense to me that the more tilted the tire is on the the ground, the more of the tire's circumference touches the ground..Now this brings up a question for Okie to see if his driver's low point is much further up plane than his 6" for his wedge...As I think I understand Okie, a 10" Air divot is probably not the case...
Tell me how you really feel... ...No problem I think understand where you're coming from..No doubt about for me too about HK's book in it's efforts to describe and explain the golf swing..I believe it's second to none as far as consistent in depth details of the mechanics of the swing based on an inclined plane..
However, for me, it's still a method which "refers to the plans or procedures followed to accomplish a task or obtain a goal"...If you use the Ballard method, you hardly follow any of the plans or procedures to accomplish the same task..
Then you might retort, "Well, Ballard is in there with PP#4 etc" or you might say Ballard method is inferior and fleeting...I'd reply the Rocco did OK this year for 5 days in the Open, Calvin Peete, Hal & Curtis all hit it pretty darn straight..
Anyway, I'm here to learn from you folkes and maybe you can learn from me and not fight over semantics... Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree
Feel free to ask me anything you want to know about the other high priests
Thanks for your input..No, I wasn't aware about the steeper plane angle and ball placement relationship...However it makes sense to me that the more tilted the tire is on the the ground, the more of the tire's circumference touches the ground..Now this brings up a question for Okie to see if his driver's low point is much further up plane than his 6" for his wedge...As I think I understand Okie, a 10" Air divot is probably not the case...
Mashie
The ball postion for the driver is further down plane. Low point is about two inches ahead...kinda off my left ear!
Yeah, we are probably at an empasse. Forgive my ethusiasm, but TGM taught me to put my own stroke pattern together. I am still tinkering. A method to me is a particular stroke pattern i.e. it has enough compatible components to work. Hal Sutton and co. were successful despite, not because of the methodology in question? I say if you can sway equally well in both directions go ahead and sway i.e. a compensation to overcome a move with no mechanical advantage. Example I do not think Tiger's knee would be jacked up if he kept his head at its impact fix position at startup (i.e. he stands too tall at address, has to squat to get back down and then torques the left knee coming out of the squat) Of course all of the options are available to him and he has figured out a way to get by!
There are three imperatives...how you achieve them is your own private golfing adventure. Swaying is not an imperative! The intent is not to be argumentative, but I feel that there is a real difference between TGM and the rest.
[quote=okie;56047]Example I do not think Tiger's knee would be jacked up if he kept his head at its impact fix position at startup (i.e. he stands too tall at address, has to squat to get back down and then torques the left knee coming out of the squat) Of course all of the options are available to him and he has figured out a way to get by!
QUOTE]
I am not sure the Tiger knee speculation is correct. Els, Perry, funk, Jacobson and others have had knee surgery. Toms had back surgery and Couples suffers from back problems. Yet John Daly has had none of these problems yet had stomach (hard to figure out why) muscles repaired. It may have to do more with genetics as many basketball players have knee problems and many others never have a problem.
I guess I'm still a little in the fog about the ball's distance from the low point for the driver since its plane is flatter than the wedge...To me your lob wedge ball position is 6" from the low point and 2" with the driver..But per Andy & 1-L-18 reads the ball should be closer to the low point on a steeper plane..
I am not sure the Tiger knee speculation is correct. Els, Perry, funk, Jacobson and others have had knee surgery. Toms had back surgery and Couples suffers from back problems. Yet John Daly has had none of these problems yet had stomach (hard to figure out why) muscles repaired. It may have to do more with genetics as many basketball players have knee problems and many others never have a problem.[/quote]
It is indeed speculation. Perhaps not the best example of to steel my point. I was suggesting that a high head at address neccessitates a bob-squat move in order to go down. Tiger may indeed have peanut brittle for knees, but my contention is that left leg snapping straight does not help his cause. Again my point was seeking the optimum mechanical advantage. The original critique was concerning the benefit Ballard's suggestion that lateral movement is an "imperative." I was trying to communicate to Mashie72 my understanding of the difference between method teaching (limited view of what works best) and TGM (the principles that undergird ALL workable patterns)
So my abridged contention is that due to Tiger's genetic predisposition to suspect knees he would be better off not snapping that left knee! I wince when he does it! I'm wrong more times than I am right on a host of topics so I welcome correction...with a wince of course!
Thanks for everyone's posts for the hybrid Pop-up question..This post is for others who might have the same problem...
It's just my best guess that the pop-ups were primarily due to 1) Bobby C's book mentioning the swing bottom and aiming point are both 4" ahead of the ball and 2) lack of pulley in my swing...I took BC's word for 1) because he has/had a GSED and 2) I basically had just straight line belt all the way to the aiming point with little or no release (pulley).
Add in the uphill lies with heavy bottomed hybrids and I'd pop them up every so often..
PHP Code:
The original critique was concerning the benefit Ballard's suggestion that lateral movement is an "imperative." I was trying to communicate to Mashie72 my understanding of the difference between method teaching (limited view of what works best) and TGM (the principles that undergird ALL workable patterns)
Also, FWIW Okie, I'll be the first one to hand you $5 when you tell Jim Dent to his face that there is no benefit to latteral motion for him.
...To me Ballard, Sorrell, "SliceFixer", and TGM are all different methods to get the job done...One method says your head moves 18 inches to left and is a fault if your head fixates at any point..And another says your head must remain fixed throughout most of the swing...I see a style difference as hitting versus swinging in TGM...Whether hitting or swinging is your style, you must keep your head fixed/FLV or the machine won't work too well..
...No problem I think understand where you're coming from..No doubt about for me too about HK's book in it's efforts to describe and explain the golf swing..I believe it's second to none as far as consistent in depth details of the mechanics of the swing based on an inclined plane..
Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree
Hybrid Mode
