"The Golfing Machine" by Homer Kelley

[zipazoid]

Golf instruction by Engineers. Assumes we are repeatable machines. It ruined Bobby Clampett's career.

Worthless.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Golf instruction by Engineers. Assumes we are repeatable machines. It ruined Bobby Clampett's career.

Uninformed comment. Bobby Clampett's career went down the tubes when he went away from TGM and started listening to other instructors. He was one of the most promising people and had a briliant start to his career while working with Ben Doyle, who was the second guy in the gates of TGM, so to speak.

It's pretty easy to overcome the "worthless" comment, too. If nothing else in the book provided value, it offers golf instructors (and some students) a language and a glossary of terms they can use as shorthand to discuss the golf swing.

P.S. I disagree that The Golfing Machine is "instruction." If you go into it thinking it's an instructional book, I can see how you might form the opinion that it's worthless.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by iacas

Uninformed comment. Bobby Clampett's career went down the tubes when he went away from TGM and started listening to other instructors. He was one of the most promising people and had a briliant start to his career while working with Ben Doyle, who was the second guy in the gates of TGM, so to speak.

It's pretty easy to overcome the "worthless" comment, too. If nothing else in the book provided value, it offers golf instructors (and some students) a language and a glossary of terms they can use as shorthand to discuss the golf swing.

P.S. I disagree that The Golfing Machine is "instruction." If you go into it thinking it's an instructional book, I can see how you might form the opinion that it's worthless.

Yeah, very odd comment, "worthless".

Even though it's more of an encyclopedia than an instruction book you could make the case  it's the most influential book for golf instruction.  Mac O'Grady, Chuck Evans, Mike Bender, Sean Foley, Dave Wedzik, Grant Waite, Gary Wiren, Davis Love II, Mark Blackburn, Lynn Blake, Plummer and Bennett are just some of the instructors that know, understand and have been influenced by the information in the book.  Many of these instructors teach or have taught the best players in the world.  I don't think TGM is perfect but it gives us a great frame of reference and helps us understand the geometry of the game.

[JesseV]

Clampett's Impact Zone and his philosophy are somewhat based on TGM.

TGM is what you make of it and take from it.  TGM explains a lot that you never find anywhere or are taught from many so called top 1000 instructors.

TGM explains the why and much of the how.  Again, how you get the how is up to you. Find a qualified TGM instructor and your game will improve!

Only a truly dense individual would not be able to see TGM for the relevant teaching aid that it is.

But of course those who think its worthless are already playing the PGA tour and making millions, right?

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Yeah, very odd comment, "worthless".

Okay. How about useless?

But if your point is that it isn't really an instruction book but instead something else, then I will concede it my have 'use' and 'worth' in that realm.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Okay. How about useless?

It's not useless either.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

But if your point is that it isn't really an instruction book but instead something else, then I will concede it my have 'use' and 'worth' in that realm.

It isn't really an instruction book.

So why comment on it, zip? Just seems like an odd thing to do. A lot of good or great golf instructors and golfers learned a lot from that book.

[zipazoid]

I'm commenting on what I think of the book. Isn't that the point of this thread?

I read it & was totally confused. But if you say it's more of a reference manual for instructors than an instruction book for golfers, then my confusion was understandable.

P.S. I disagree that The Golfing Machine is "instruction." If you go into it thinking it's an instructional book, I can see how you might form the opinion that it's worthless.

Thank you.

[Zeph]

I don't understand a whole lot of quantum physics, but I don't buy a book about the subject and call the book useless because I don't understand it. Very few golfers will have anything to gain from reading TGM.

[zipazoid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeph

I don't understand a whole lot of quantum physics, but I don't buy a book about the subject and call the book useless because I don't understand it.

But if you don't understand it, how much use is it to you?

I didn't understand it. Therefore it was useless to me. If someone else found use out of it, then it obviously was not useless to them.

Quote:

Very few golfers will have anything to gain from reading TGM.

Which, to me, is the definition of useless.

[Stretch]

Can we get back to the part where you admitted you were 100% wrong about Bobby Clampett and conceded that should probably color others' assessment of the rest of your take on this particular subject? I thought that was really big of you.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Can we get back to the part where you admitted you were 100% wrong about Bobby Clampett and conceded that should probably color others' assessment of the rest of your take on this particular subject? I thought that was really big of you.

Oh, you want me to admit that Bobby Clampett's career wasn't ruined by TGM?

Okay. His stellar pro career, consisting of one victory, was made possible by TGM. Better?

That aside, I stand by what I said - that as an instruction book, it's useless (or worthless, take your pick). See, this is what is called an opinion . And the nice thing about opinions is, you don't have to agree with them. And if you don't, hooray. But you disagreeing with it doesn't mean I have to change mine.

Further, I highly doubt my opinion 'colors' other's. If I had that kind of power I would be using it somewhere other than here.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I'm commenting on what I think of the book. Isn't that the point of this thread?

Not really, no.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's worth your while to share it or worth others' whiles to read it.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Oh, you want me to admit that Bobby Clampett's career wasn't ruined by TGM?

Okay. His stellar pro career, consisting of one victory, was made possible by TGM. Better?

You're exposing yourself, zip, to be really uninformed on this subject.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

That aside, I stand by what I said - that as an instruction book, it's useless (or worthless, take your pick). See, this is what is called an opinion. And the nice thing about opinions is, you don't have to agree with them. And if you don't, hooray. But you disagreeing with it doesn't mean I have to change mine.

Okay. In my opinion (and on this topic, it's a fairly well informed opinion), your opinion on this topic is both worthless and useless.

There we go.

(What you perhaps fail to grasp is that you can call a hammer [for example] useless just because you don't know how to use it, but that doesn't make it "useless." Saying something is "useless" borders on stating facts, not opinions. That YOU have no use for it is different than saying "it's useless.")

Anyway, your opinion is on record, and we'll move on now. Want to respond? PM or something. Not here.

[zipazoid]

Quote:

Not really, no.

This was what you initially posted:

Quote:

Discuss "The Golfing Machine" by Homer Kelley here.

So...we were to 'discuss' without proffering an opinion on it? If so, I stand corrected. Then ignore my opinion on it's worth - or lack thereof.

Quote:

Okay. In my opinion (and on this topic, it's a fairly well informed opinion), your opinion on this topic is both worthless and useless.

There we go.

(What you perhaps fail to grasp is that you can call a hammer [for example] useless just because you don't know how to use it, but that doesn't make it "useless." Saying something is "useless" borders on stating facts, not opinions. That YOU have no use for it is different than saying "it's useless.")

(sigh...) Okay then. Since it does not appear obvious that, when I say it's worthless, that it is only my opinion based only on my experience with it, then I guess, once again, I have to make that clear -

The opinion that TGM is worthless, is mine and mine alone. I realize that others who use the book differently or read it differently, may differ in that opinion.

And iacas, of course my opinion is worthless (I ain't making any money on it) and useless (I don't expect for anyone to get any 'use' out of it). But I still got the right to say it.

Or so I thought. Correct me if I am in error on that.

Now. You're a pro. You teach the game. I would expect your opinion to be more 'informed' since you're in the business & have likely digested Kelly's teachings more than me. But, with all due respect, you pull that card a lot - 'I'm a pro therefore I know...you're not so you don't'. Well hell - let's just not discuss anything & just wait until you chime in to tell us all what to think then. Why even have this thread? Just make a post that says 'Here's what I think of TGM & you can respond, but don't think you know more than me on this.'

Quote:

Anyway, your opinion is on record, and we'll move on now. Want to respond? PM or something. Not here.

Sorry - you tacked that onto your reply after I posted this. Long as nobody else comes at me on what I posted, I'm done.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

So...we were to 'discuss' without proffering an opinion on it? If so, I stand corrected. Then ignore my opinion on it's worth - or lack thereof.

"Discuss" is boilerplate for everything in The Reading Room.

I suppose I just expect that if you (anyone) don't have much to add to a discussion, you (anyone) just don't post. Instead, you (zip) didn't have much and yet you managed to say that little bit in an inflammatory and factually incorrect way.

You could have said "as a golfer, this book didn't make sense to me, so I found it useless for improving my golf game. Reading through the first few pages in this thread, it's clear that it's not an instruction manual, so I suppose I'm just re-iterating what's already been said, but all the same: I didn't understand it and thus couldn't use it to better my handicap."

And I didn't pull the "I'm a pro" card. Plenty of normal people can find use for a hammer, too, even if you can't. Hammers aren't just for carpenters.

That's it.

TGM helped a lot of golfers - and a lot of golf professionals - better understand, classify, taxonomize, etc. It helped bring forth several ideas. It's also past its time in terms of the science and some of the theories. There are holes in the book such as covering the way certain body parts function in various types of swings, etc. It's outdated, and yet, still has some purpose and use as a lexicon, as a source (hopefully one of many) of information, etc. It's NOT an instruction manual, but it's the foundation for a LOT of golf instruction.

[Dr. Strangeclub]

Originally Posted by iacas

There are holes in the book such as covering the way certain body parts function in various types of swings, etc. It's outdated, and yet, still has some purpose and use as a lexicon, as a source (hopefully one of many) of information, etc.

I've been reading golf instruction books, listening to instructors, and teaching the game myself for over 50 years, starting with the old Snead and Tommy Armour books and Hogan's series in Sports Illustrated (what is now Five Lessons).  The lexicon of golf was and is fine without the pseudo-scientific gibberish.  With a masters in Radio Engineering, I probably find his diagrams and jargon less impressive than people who haven't been exposed to a bucketload of math, physics and chemistry.  I don't care how many people vouch for it, I can find just as many to vouch for Power Pyramids and homeopathic remedies for cancer.  True, a lot of people have built careers around it, but then people also believe in chiropractors to chiropractors' great delight and profit.   I have followed this thread from the top and am still undissuaded.  It looks like a hoax and I find nothing new in it except a blizzard of pointless, unproductive neologism, almost as if Kelly didn't know what the normal golf words were for the things he attempts to describe.  Indeed, it's new "lexicon" that is the book's most egregious failure.

[Phil McGleno]

It is a lot easier to say something like "he rolls 3 in transition" than to describe it using whatever language golf had for that. It's a lot easier to say "get 4 down faster" than to describe what 4 is. The book is old and if you cannot appreciate what Homer did back in the 40s and 50s then you must not appreciate much. Im glad youre undissuaded since that's the entire point, not. FWIW Ive read the book and think 90% of it is junk (it used to be some of the best info out there but science has gotten better) but if you know the 10% you can converse with far more people easily and thus learn more, and that's a big part of golf instruction, not just learning an old Snead and Armour book and not learning more. Like it or not a lot of great golf instructors have a background with TGM, so being able to talk to some of those people is valuable. [quote name="Dr. Strangeclub" url="/t/31918/the-golfing-machine-by-homer-kelley/54#post_718833"] I've been reading golf instruction books, listening to instructors, and teaching the game myself for over 50 years, starting with the old Snead and Tommy Armour books and Hogan's series in Sports Illustrated (what is now Five Lessons).  The lexicon of golf was and is fine without the pseudo-scientific gibberish.  With a masters in Radio Engineering, I probably find his diagrams and jargon less impressive than people who haven't been exposed to a bucketload of math, physics and chemistry.  I don't care how many people vouch for it, I can find just as many to vouch for Power Pyramids and homeopathic remedies for cancer.  True, a lot of people have built careers around it, but then people also believe in chiropractors to chiropractors' great delight and profit.   I have followed this thread from the top and am still undissuaded.  It looks like a hoax and I find nothing new in it except a blizzard of pointless, unproductive neologism, almost as if Kelly didn't know what the normal golf words were for the things he attempts to describe.  Indeed, it's new "lexicon" that is the book's most egregious failure. [/quote]

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangeclub

Indeed, it's new "lexicon" that is the book's most egregious failure.

Nah. Golf has all sorts of terrible terminology. If you're going to write a book that's kind of an engineering-style look at the golf swing, you need precise definitions. You can't say typical golf lexicon crap and hope that people understand what you mean.

Half of the arguments on this site occur because people have different definitions for words. If you define your own terms, you can avoid the whole mess.

[Beachcomber]

I ordered the book.  Mainly because when I watch videos of various instructors - and they are discussing hinge points, pressure points, etc... I'd like to have it as reference to be able to speak that language and not have it fly over my head.  Plus, I'm interested in learning more about the difference between being a 'hitter' or a 'swinger'.