"Swing Machine Golf" by Paul Wilson

[mvmac]

a side note on the hip slide.  I believe that there will always be elements of both, there has to be.  I agree with Paul that it being something he does not intentionally focus on as it occurs naturally. If you close your eyes, make a back swing with passive arms, initiate the down swing with a hip turn and open your eyes after impact, you will note your hips have slid in that direction. The angle of the right knee will be pretty much the same as if you intentionally slid your hips to the left.  If this does not occur, you have swayed to the right and left too much weight on your trailing leg as has been pointed out by the last poster.

If the weight shifted "naturally" because golfers turned their hips, then most golfers wouldn't suck.  Most golfers turn their hips, don't have enough weight forward, send the path across the ball.

http://www.megsamethod.com/get/the-megsa-method-video?utm_source=gt-megsa&utm;_medium=email&utm;_content=gt-megsa-direct-vsl-e1&utm;_campaign=gt-megsa-direct-vsl

Although the narrator I believe is Mr. Olyer, he is talking about Megsa. Nothing whatsoever mentioned as you describe.

Megsa is NOT a robot.  The robot the video refers to is Iron Byron.  This is Megsa, like Erik said, it's a training aid.

http://www.megsappe.com/index.php

From the video

[Blade Runner]

Thank you Paul. I agree with you 100% on the weight shift and hip turn. As far as Mike Bender, I was only going by the link in my previous post that appeared in my in box from The Golf Tailor shortly after your discussion came up on this forum. From what you say, I guess the similarity ends at the link discussing the machine, then followed by the commercial ad. I presume the product in the ad would be somewhat different.. Your conclusion is spot on, and I would definitely like an opportunity to witness your methods in person one day.  Thank you so much for taking the time to shed light on this.

[Blade Runner]

to MVMAC, thanks for the clairification. The device MEGSA was not mentioned in the article, but only in the URL of the video and the accompanying commercial ad at the end.  Since The entire piece was discussing the Iron Byron, I thought it relevant. It certainly is a weird looking thing, no wonder they did not mention, but it appeared that Mike Bender was using Iron Byron as his method.

[pwgolfpro]

You did not read my reply.  I said if they do my "Touch the Legs Position" the weight would have to shift.

Again, you do not know my method and you are assuming you do not want me to have people shift their weight.  To clarify again, the student cannot get to my "Touch Legs Legs Position" unless they shift their weight.  By turning and getting to my Touch the Legs Position their weight will shift on its own.

Can we now put this to rest.

[Lihu]

We have taught lessons. I'm Director of Instructor Development for 5 Simple Keys® and Mike's the Co-Director of Instruction for 5SK in San Diego. We've had a lot of success fixing the path and then not having to do anything else after that. One step, one fix.

Worked for me. I've been trying to fix OTT for 6 months, and one lesson with Mike made me understand the right methods to a better path. I was immediately hitting straighter shots with less effort. Now it's up to me to apply the practice part, and get a camera setup.

[iacas]

to MVMAC, thanks for the clairification. The device MEGSA was not mentioned in the article, but only in the URL of the video and the accompanying commercial ad at the end.  Since The entire piece was discussing the Iron Byron, I thought it relevant. It certainly is a weird looking thing, no wonder they did not mention, but it appeared that Mike Bender was using Iron Byron as his method.

Here's the problem I have with this whole thing: Iron Byron is not a "method." It's a machine that's used to test clubs and balls. That's it. It looks like this:

It doesn't have legs. It doesn't have a weight shift. It swings on plane, it doesn't have wrists, a poor grip, bad alignment, etc.

Again, you do not know my method and you are assuming you do not want me to have people shift their weight.  To clarify again, the student cannot get to my "Touch Legs Legs Position" unless they shift their weight.  By turning and getting to my Touch the Legs Position their weight will shift on its own.

Can we now put this to rest.

No, I still have a question. The "Touch Legs Legs Position" as you said would occur well after impact, so how much weight is on the left foot at impact ? Because I know how much the average PGA Tour player has there.

I think you'll find that people here will tell you that Mike and I have explained a LOT of information. Please consider doing a bit of that yourself. It would be appreciated.

[Slowcelica]

Here's the problem I have with this whole thing: Iron Byron is not a "method." It's a machine that's used to test clubs and balls. That's it. It looks like this: [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/83720/] [/URL] It doesn't have legs. It doesn't have a weight shift. It swings on plane, it doesn't have wrists, a poor grip, bad alignment, etc. No, I still have a question. The "Touch Legs Legs Position" as you said would occur well after impact, so how much weight is on the left foot at impact ? Because I know how much the average PGA Tour player has there. I think you'll find that people here will tell you that Mike and I have explained a LOT of information. Please consider doing a bit of that yourself. It would be appreciated.

Maybe Paul would be more inclined to share more about his teaching methods if any time he posted it didn't turn into an attack in him. Paul's method works for me, and according to other people in this thread it worked for them too. He explains each position and how to practice it very well in his book, and for most holders I'm pretty sure it would work too. Have you guys even read his book?

[Blade Runner]

Maybe Paul would be more inclined to share more about his teaching methods if any time he posted it didn't turn into an attack in him. Paul's method works for me, and according to other people in this thread it worked for them too. He explains each position and how to practice it very well in his book, and for most holders I'm pretty sure it would work too. Have you guys even read his book?

Agreed.  I do not know what Paul may or may not do, but if it were me, I would simply do as I do now:  "Adieu' mon amis".

[Phil McGleno]

I dont think that pointing out that a machine does not have legs is an attack-And what exactly works for you? Your handicap says 20. I cant speak for Eric or Mike but why would I or they have to read his book? Theyve asked him questions here and he doesnt answer. Like how do you base a "swing" for humans off a machine without legs that can be programmed to do whatever you want? [quote name="Slowcelica" url="/t/42960/swing-machine-golf-by-paul-wilson/108#post_902046"] Maybe Paul would be more inclined to share more about his teaching methods if any time he posted it didn't turn into an attack in him. Paul's method works for me, and according to other people in this thread it worked for them too. He explains each position and how to practice it very well in his book, and for most holders I'm pretty sure it would work too. Have you guys even read his book?[/quote]

[iacas]

Maybe Paul would be more inclined to share more about his teaching methods if any time he posted it didn't turn into an attack in him.

Paul has not been "attacked" at all.

I - and Mike, and others - have asked him questions and shared some of our data.

[mvmac]

Not attack just discussion and asking questions.  Helps further knowledge.  We've got the our data and share it regularly on the site.

[Slowcelica]

I dont think that pointing out that a machine does not have legs is an attack-And what exactly works for you? Your handicap says 20. I cant speak for Eric or Mike but why would I or they have to read his book? Theyve asked him questions here and he doesnt answer. Like how do you base a "swing" for humans off a machine without legs that can be programmed to do whatever you want?

My point is, all of their questions are explained in his book, and if they had read the book which this thread is about they may see what he teaches. I personally if I was Paul, would be weary about what information I post for free, especially since I am selling it in my book.

My handicap in my profile is just a number I put in when I made my account, I don't keep track of my handicap, but I do keep track of my scores per round. I can tell you my average, GIR, putts per round, and driving accuracy, I don't keep track of my handicap.

I'm not here to argue with anyone, I appreciate Eric and mikes opinion and input, I'm here to discuss the book. How many of these threads actually have the author come and post about their book in it. Paul has invited anyone to come out and watch him teach, has anyone taken him up on that? There was a guy that posted earlier in the year that lived in Vegas that was going to what happened with that?

[iacas]

My point is, all of their questions are explained in his book, and if they had read the book which this thread is about they may see what he teaches. I personally if I was Paul, would be weary about what information I post for free, especially since I am selling it in my book.

Suffice to say, given the amount of information I share, that Mike shares, that Dave shares, that our entire team shares - that we disagree with this.

I admit that there's a fine line between sharing information and being able to still earn a living, but in my experience, golfers are unique, and talking about your swing philosophy or things as a generality or as a whole, with non-specific advice, helps a little bit, but not so much that people are getting advice specific to them, which is what they really need to improve.

To be blunt, people here have been helped by the information we give out for free, and that builds our reputation as "smart guys," and eventually leads to some income here and there. People will travel across the country to see me, Dave, Mike, etc. Because they still need the stuff specific to them.

I'm not here to argue with anyone, I appreciate Eric and mikes opinion and input, I'm here to discuss the book. How many of these threads actually have the author come and post about their book in it. Paul has invited anyone to come out and watch him teach, has anyone taken him up on that? There was a guy that posted earlier in the year that lived in Vegas that was going to what happened with that?

And you're free to discuss the book… but so are Mike, Phil, and anyone else. If Paul is willing to engage in meaningful conversation here, there's little need to spend the money and take the time to watch him teach. Discussing the book is the same as discussing Paul's theories, his swing model, his core concepts, etc. If someone says they've based their human-ized golf swing on a legless, armless robot's "swing," then I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask what in the world that means.

Now, if Paul doesn't like that, he's more than welcome to take his ball and go home. That's fine, and there wouldn't be any hard feelings. I think golfers respond to people, however, that are willing to engage in debate and provide some insight. To discuss. To share. To be challenged and to challenge back.

And I think what happened to Joe observing Paul teach was that Joe tried to make arrangements, but Paul basically said "well, now's not a good time because it's going to be winter soon." You can take that however you wish.

[Slowcelica]

TrackmanMaestro,

It is winter here right now so lessons are spotty.  Once it gets into March I should be in full swing.  Just shoot me an email.  You will find this on my website: http://www.paulwilsongolf.com/ so we can make arrangements.  I am at Bear's Best Las Vegas.

From page 4..

I'd still like to know what came of this, TrackmanMaestro ever contacted him once it warmed up.

Paul says in his book and almost all of his video's that his method is based on a physics that are repeatable in life. He took the swing of the machine and came up with a swing that humans can do that matches that of the machine.

[iacas]

I'd still like to know what came of this, TrackmanMaestro ever contacted him once it warmed up.

I think Joe probably lost interest after being sloughed off by Paul. Winter appears to be a great time to give lessons in Las Vegas. Heck, the schools we've taught in Las Vegas have been during the winter.

Paul says in his book and almost all of his video's that his method is based on a physics that are repeatable in life. He took the swing of the machine and came up with a swing that humans can do that matches that of the machine.

And people, including me, have asked him to explain this more.

I have two degrees in sciences. I get the physics of the golf swing. That doesn't mean I'm going to base what I teach on what a machine that can be built (without legs, arms, eyes, muscles, etc.) and programmed to do ANYTHING does to hit a golf ball. It does mean I'm going to teach a golf swing to someone that uses and is based on the physics of the world in which we live. It does mean that I can explain the physics behind what I teach. Surely Paul can do the same, no?

You're here to discuss the book. This strikes me as something awfully fundamental to Paul's entire philosophy, and thus, a great place to start the discussion.

[pwgolfpro]

Erik,

I see the golf swing differently that others.  My technique was not always based on the machine.   For the first 8 years, I taught people to look like pros when they swung.

I knew what Iron Byron was back then but never gave it a second thought.  In 1999, the internet was gaining popularity so I went online and found True Temper's website.  On it I saw a looping video of the Iron Byron.  To me, it looked like a golfer as it kept swinging the club.  After making this realization, I grabbed my golf digest magazines and opened up the swing sequences of various pros.  I freeze framed the Iron Byron and compared them side by side.  Every pro I put beside the machine matched up with the machine frame by frame.  Here are a couple of examples:

Tiger Woods Swing Sequence vs. Iron Byron

Ernie Els Swing Sequence vs. Iron Byron

After seeing this, I decided to analyze the machine.  The machine hit the ball 100% consistently whereas pros were only about 70%.  To me the machine looked simple yet it got perfect results.  So why not at least look at it?  In looking at it I realized it only had 3 elements that allowed it to hit perfect shots:

1.  Circular Rotation

2.  An Unrestricted Hinge

3.  A Constant Forward Tilt

These are the elements I teach in Swing Machine Golf.  I want to make it simple for people to understand and to get great results. From the thousands of testimonials I have received I think what I am teaching is working.

Whoever wants to come out and watch me teach is more than welcome to do so.  Just let me know.

Here is what the inventor of Iron Byron, George Manning has to say about how he invented the machine:

I answered most of these questions in my very first post. Here are the answers to your questions again:

It doesn't have legs: ANSWER:  The motor represents the golfers legs

It doesn't have a weight shift:  ANSWER: it is a machine designed to test golf clubs.  It doesn't need to have a weight shift.  The golfer shifts their weight to power their swing.

so how much weight is on the left foot at impact ?  ANSWER: 70-90%

It swings on plane:  ANSWER: yes, it swings on plane. It replicates Bryon Nelson's downswing.

it doesn't have wrists:  ANSWER: yes it has a hinge at the end of the arm which represents the golfer's wrists.

a poor grip: ANSWER:  the club is held in a sleeve representing the golfer grip.

bad alignment: it aligns wherever they align the machine for what shot they want it to hit.  I don't see how this is bad alignment.

Paul Wilson

[iacas]

I see the golf swing differently that others.  My technique was not always based on the machine.   For the first 8 years, I taught people to look like pros when they swung.

To be clear, we don't teach people to "look like pros when they swing."

Tiger Woods Swing Sequence vs. Iron Byron

Ernie Els Swing Sequence vs. Iron Byron

You see similarities; I see differences. The angles of the arms and the "wrists" are not the same, and as I've said, Iron Byron has no legs. Iron Byron could be made to never cock or hinge the "wrists" and still drive the ball 350 yards. That doesn't mean it would be a "model" for a golf swing.

Whoever wants to come out and watch me teach is more than welcome to do so.  Just let me know.

To be fair, the last time someone tried to do that you told them to wait several months. And Mike and I could extend the same offer, except that we don't have to, because we freely share a great deal of information, here and elsewhere.

It doesn't have legs: ANSWER:  The motor represents the golfers legs

That doesn't answer the question. The machine has no legs, the golfer does. If your swing was truly modeled after Iron Byron, the golfer would form a wide base and never move their legs. Or hips, since the machine doesn't have hips. The golfer would somehow simply twist and hinge his wrists, and that would be that, because that's all Iron Byron can do. Turn the shoulders (torso), hinge the wrists.

It doesn't have a weight shift:  ANSWER: it is a machine designed to test golf clubs.  It doesn't need to have a weight shift.  The golfer shifts their weight to power their swing.

In other words, yet another way that the machine is different from a golfer.

so how much weight is on the left foot at impact?  ANSWER: 70-90%

How much is on the right foot at the top of the backswing? How does it get to 90% forward by spinning the hips only?

It swings on plane:  ANSWER: yes, it swings on plane. It replicates Bryon Nelson's downswing.

Of course it swings on a plane - it only does two things: spin on an axis and "hinge" a mechanized "wrist." I don't think anyone asked a question about that.

However, I will point out that nobody swings on the same plane throughout the entire golf swing, though Moe Norman may have come the closest. So yet another difference between humans and the Iron Byron.

a poor grip: ANSWER:  the club is held in a sleeve representing the golfer grip.

bad alignment: it aligns wherever they align the machine for what shot they want it to hit.  I don't see how this is bad alignment.

I think that you misunderstood the points I was making.

Please, Paul, provide a little substance. I'm eager to move beyond the obvious - that the machine is not very much like a human golfer - and into the actual swing theory you have.

[pwgolfpro]

Erik,

Quote:

I think Joe probably lost interest after being sloughed off by Paul. Winter appears to be a great time to give lessons in Las Vegas. Heck, the schools we've taught in Las Vegas have been during the winter.

Winter is not the greatest time to teach in Vegas.  I can only teach people who want to come out for lessons.  99.9% of my students come in from all over the world.  Would you like to book a trip to Vegas taking a chance that the weather is not going to be 45 degrees and howling wind?  People want to come here when the weather is guaranteed to be warmer.

I never sloughed anyone off.  I don't sit here all day waiting to reply to people.  When I have time I check this site.  Your messages go to my spam folder.  If I catch them and have time to answer I will.  To answer your question, TrackmanMaestro did call.  He said he was going to come out and never did.  The offer still stands.

---------------------------------------------------

Quote:

I have two degrees in sciences. I get the physics of the golf swing. That doesn't mean I'm going to base what I teach on what a machine that can be built (without legs, arms, eyes, muscles, etc.) and programmed to do ANYTHING does to hit a golf ball. It does mean I'm going to teach a golf swing to someone that uses and is based on the physics of the world in which we live. It does mean that I can explain the physics behind what I teach. Surely Paul can do the same, no?

I do not have a degree in the sciences but I get the physics behind it.  99.9% of golfer's do not have science degrees either.  Instead of wowing people with my knowledge, why not explain it to them in a way they can understand and gets results?  I think this would be more productive.  I do have plenty of rocket scientists that have my products.  Engineers seem to love my method cause they finally see it and get it.  Am I going to talk to them on their level?  Probably not.  What I am going to do is explain it in a way that they can figure it out in their own mind.

---------------------------------------------------

Quote:

If Paul is willing to engage in meaningful conversation here, there's little need to spend the money and take the time to watch him teach

I am willing to engage in meaningful conversation.  It just seems you are forming an opinion of my technique before you even know what I teach.  Why not just ask the question civilly instead of ... things like:  "there is no way this can happen" ... "it can't do that" ... etc. etc.

I have heard all of this before when I used to post on the Golf Channel discussion board.  They would doubt my method and say it doesn't work.   Instead of arguing with them I just kept teaching.  I have the proof that my method works by selling over 80,000 copies of Swing Machine Golf, the tens of thousands of comments people made on Revolution Golf site beneath my tips, all the YouTube comments, and the thousands of testimonials people have emailed me.  If you doubt it works just come out and watch me.  If you are willing to make the same offer just let me know when you are doing a school in Vegas (or maybe San Diego) and I will come and watch you so I can learn more about what you are teaching.