Jump to content
iacas

"The Golfing Machine" by Homer Kelley

124 posts / 88352 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, nevets88 said:

Because it's incredibly technical and some of it is outdated. Many have stood on the shoulders of Kelley and corrected, updated and refined. 

Most that, @cutchemist42. It's outdated as heck and won't help a regular golfer at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

On 3/16/2017 at 5:59 AM, iacas said:

Thanks for your insight. :-P

Ok,  a little more detail on my opinion for this book.  I got a version several years ago and studied it quite a bit.  I catalogued my existing swings components.  I then studied and cross referenced to see what components of my swing might not match well when used together.

I did shoot down as low as 89 which for me at the time was an improvement.  I was using what TGM geeks would refer to as a three barrel hitting action.  I threw the book and all my notes on it away or I could probably be more specific.

Anyhoo,  the book is poorly organized and imo does not look like work of a truly qualified engineer.  Truly great engineers thrive on organization.  But I could live with poor organization if the information within had true Quality.

Homer never produced a great golfer.  TGM produced Clampett (flame out) and Erickson (wacko) who never won anything of note at the highest level.  Ogrady was revered for his striking talent but never made it big except as a driving range attraction AND did his own thing with Morad.

So imo the legacy lacks results but that's not my true point.  My true point can be reduced to a question.  If one views golfers as golfing machines as Homer did then what is the tolerance in the machine?

Everything that is manufactured to precision has a tolerance.  Parts made for your cars engine are made to tolerance,  maybe exacting tolerance but nonetheless there's tolerances.

what is the tolerance in the golf swing?

Maybe it's the size of the sweet spot.  So by definition if one uses this TGM approach every movement they train in must be made to exacting tolerances within say an eighth of on inch.

Do we think this is even possible?

Can you tell when you swing if your head dips fractions of inches thus causing fatsies?

whats are the tolerances in The Golfing Machine?

I ask that to any proponents of this methodology.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To elaborate imo the golfing machine approach forces one to play a game Sisson calls 'blame a body part' i.e. On bad swings we have to guess was it our head dipping fractions of an inch or was it our hip motion or right elbow or arms.

This can go on ad infinitum.  IMO it's not the best way to approach the problems we face when playing golf.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really like that at all.

TGM is just a cataloging of the parts of the golf swing. It's not a "How To" book and it has its flaws. But it's not total tripe. Plenty of great instructors have a background in TGM.

Also Bryson is a proponent. He won NCAAs and the US Am.

Basically, it was never really a book for golfers. It's outdated now, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Could anyone be so kind, and update pictures of it to the community? If anyone can contribute 5 minutes of your life and send me pictures of pages even taken by phone, then I could make a pdf of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bryson said:

Could anyone be so kind, and update pictures of it to the community? If anyone can contribute 5 minutes of your life and send me pictures of pages even taken by phone, then I could make a pdf of it.

If the book is still in print, this could qualify as a copyright infringement.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

If the book is still in print, this could qualify as a copyright infringement.      

Is it? If I could order original version by Homer from Amazon, I would be happy to do so. Currently there is version 7.2 corrected by some other guy. Homer unfortunately is not here with us anymore. I am talking about old 6 version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bryson said:

Is it? If I could order original version by Homer from Amazon, I would be happy to do so. Currently there is version 7.2 corrected by some other guy. Homer unfortunately is not here with us anymore. I am talking about old 6 version.

The Golfing Machine company still owns the rights.

Look for a version 6 on eBay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, dennyjones said:

If the book is still in print, this could qualify as a copyright infringement.      

Copyright law is not dependent on publication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, bryson said:

ok, I understand you would never lend a book to a playing partner? if anyone does not mind sharing, I would appreciate a lot

Lending someone a book and photocopying it are two completely different things, not to mention the amount of time it would take to do what you asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

18 minutes ago, billchao said:

Lending someone a book and photocopying it are two completely different things, not to mention the amount of time it would take to do what you asked.

I will spend 3 times the amount it took you to do it by walking with homeless dogs - so world profits by your effort.

If you walk every day by the rules set by other people - I am impressed. Though it is just my personal point of view, that owning copyrights over somebody who is dead is way wronger than making a photocopy of a book and sharing it (not selling) to another guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bryson said:

I will spend 3 times the amount it took you to do it by walking with homeless dogs - so world profits by your effort.

If you walk every day by the rules set by other people - I am impressed. Though it is just my personal point of view, that owning copyrights over somebody who is dead is way wronger than making a photocopy of a book and sharing it (not selling) to another guy.

It's literally illegal, AND someone still OWNS the rights to the book.

Just because an author dies doesn't mean his works become public domain immediately.

Go somewhere else, please, in search of someone who will break the law for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, billchao said:

Copyright law is not dependent on publication.

When do things become public domain?   I'm not experienced in copyright or patent law.

 

The answer to my question was easy to Google:

S - Copyright expires 70 years after author's death; but if the work is anonymous or made for hire, or the author or the author's death date is unknown,copyright expires on the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation.

Edited by dennyjones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2018 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    More to come…
  • Posts

    • Point by point: • I noted above 6 holes with different options and decisions to be made off the tee. • I agree some fairways should be widened and noted which ones above. That said, the holes are still good to excellent and highly memorable and far from boring • This point about the greens being plain and flat is somewhat a misnomer. Yes, they are not Winged Foot or Augusta, but they aren’t all flat ovals either. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11( since the changes last year), and 15-18 all have shapes, slopes, tiers or undulations to a significant degree.  • Agreed, the course was designed to be a beast tee to green • Same comment as above, although I will say that this point also gets overplayed. It’s not like you have no option but to chip out of the rough. Hit a wedge or short iron, position yourself for a wedge into the green, and try to go up and down.  • Agreed there are no short or drivable par 4s. Those are good features but not some make or break requirement for a course to be not boring • 1 and 18 are fine. They aren’t world beaters but you can probably count on one hand the number of courses with all 18 world class holes. And Golden Age courses often had soft opening holes and their best holes before the 18th because back then Match Play was the dominant game and matches often didn’t make the 18th. And 18 is not boring at all, with the bunkering and elevated greensite • I have played the Black countless times and never once came close to a 6 hour round. Maybe if you catch a very busy Saturday afternoon you will hit 5-1/2 or so. Usually I play in 5 hours or just past that. People who play the Bethpage courses know that rounds on the Red and Blue take longer than rounds on the Black. And btw, that is no different than any other public course in the NY-NJ area except Ferry Point. 
    • I don't know. A weird one. I had four birdies on Friday and shot 87. Those things do not jive.   EDIT--Also, in case you think I may be one of those long hitters who just get in trouble a bit, I'm not. No penalty shots in that 87 with four birdies. Just a lot of bad shots.
    • Rock Bottom did wee, by me  
    • I'm not doing it here just for the heck of it - I think that BPB is wildly over-rated. I think it's boring. It completely fails to live up to what it could or should be given the property. If you need to hang your hat on me agreeing that "some holes aren't boring" then that says quite a bit. Untrue. Get an avatar for yourself, please. My opinion in a nutshell? 20-26 yard wide fairways on relatively long holes force you to almost always just hit a driver and to find the really narrow fairway. There's almost never a decision to be made on the tee about the club OR the location of the tee shot. Angles don't matter, but they really don't matter at BPB. The bunkers are set into the rough, meaning that the fairway corridors have been somewhat artificially narrowed. The greens are generally flat, relatively oval-shaped, and uninspiring. There are few that have any interesting contours, interior OR exterior. Virtually every hole is a mid- to long-iron that must carry and land and stop on the green. Very few holes even allow a run-up shot. Thick rough with virtually no recovery options everywhere. Almost no half-par type holes (unless you count the ample 4.5-par par fours). A dud of a hole opens and closes the course: 1 and 18, meh. Six-hour rounds are common.
    • I prefer the Zero gloves.  It is basically a one size adapts to all.  Feels more like a second ski and I have enjoyed it over 6 months of using it.  Reasonably priced.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Adunifon
      Adunifon
      (38 years old)
    2. Caveman59
      Caveman59
      (60 years old)
    3. Mech12
      Mech12
      (44 years old)
    4. metbid
      metbid
      (70 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...