• Announcements

    • iacas

      GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Contest   09/22/2016

      Join our GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Challenge to win an autographed GAME GOLF, a Pebble Steel watch, and many more great prizes!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mchepp

Validity of The Golfing Machine

34 posts in this topic

Taggsy,

Question for you. Do you think the yellow book is 100% correct? Honest question.

My opinion of TGM is very very high. Why? It has helped in the growth of the greatest instructors in the game. Not all of course, and it would be unfair of me to try to name them because I would certainly forget one, but for example most of the instructors on this site have developed from someone very close to TGM. There is 3 degrees (the whole Kevin Bacon joke) at most. Point being tons of it is right on and it has forced people to think and the brightest minds have learned a great deal from the yellow book. Also some have moved away from it, but if we sat them down they would no doubt tell you it had a profound influence on them at some point in their life.

That being said, I do not think it is 100% right. With Trackman and 300fps video we have learned more. Tons more. I think Homer would have loved these innovations as most engineers would. He could verify or find flaws in his theories and re-write some of what he wrote. We would be on the 22nd edition.

I will also add, considering what he had to work with he sure did get a bunch right.

1

Share this post


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

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I created a new thread. I hope that's okay Mike.

Also, I planned to respond even though you wrote to Taggsy, but all I ended up typing was "I agree with everything you just said." So there, I will just say it like that. :-)

0

Share this post


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

More than okay. I doubt there is much interest in discussing it as its own thread, but I am interested in what others think about how much the book is accurate.

0

Share this post


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

I think Erik should write the updated version, and I'm not joking.

Yes I also agree with everything said.  Not necessarily the "best" instruction book but will probably become the most important.  All the language should be standard in golf instruction so we can all talk to eachother and know what we all mean.  Instead of saying I "overswing" you would say i overload power accumulator #4 or #2.  May sound a little complicated but it actually simplifies things.

2

Share this post


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

There definitely needs to be a standard language for golf instruction.  It would make it easier for instructors to communicate, but also make it easier for students to learn.  That way they don't need to learn new terminology every time they get a lesson from a different instructor.  One word to on teacher may mean something different to another and that could really confuse the student, especially some of the vocab used in (Golf Digest, Golf Magazine, on Golf Channel, etc.)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by mvmac

I think Erik should write the updated version, and I'm not joking.

You Mikes seem to think alike. : )

Could I call it "Project 1.69"?

Originally Posted by mvmac

Yes I also agree with everything said.  Not necessarily the "best" instruction book but will probably become the most important.  All the language should be standard in golf instruction so we can all talk to each other and know what we all mean.  Instead of saying I "overswing" you would say i overload power accumulator #4 or #2.  May sound a little complicated but it actually simplifies things.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, though. We've had to invent new things like the positions (Ps), TGM talks very little about the feet or knees or legs, the way other parts of the body actually work, etc. I agree that the book is good for vocabulary but it doesn't provide enough vocabulary, and some of it is useless. We'd never say the word "flail" to a student, for example.

Originally Posted by sk golf

There definitely needs to be a standard language for golf instruction.  It would make it easier for instructors to communicate, but also make it easier for students to learn.  That way they don't need to learn new terminology every time they get a lesson from a different instructor.  One word to on teacher may mean something different to another and that could really confuse the student, especially some of the vocab used in (Golf Digest, Golf Magazine, on Golf Channel, etc.)


Yeah.

Heck, we can't even get people to define what a clubface being "closed" is closed to. (That's why myself and the others at Golf Evolution, and here on this site, are trying to say "right" of the target, closed to the path" - closed/open refers to path, right/left refers to target - it's clear that way).

1

Share this post


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



Originally Posted by mchepp

Taggsy,

Question for you. Do you think the yellow book is 100% correct? Honest question.


Honest answer; I don't know, because I don't 100% understand 100% of TGM. If I did, I'd more likely be teaching tour professionals than answering your question on this forum

I'll give you a more thorough answer though;

There are a couple of different sections to the book. For the most part, TGM is a catalogue simply giving names to different motions you can make during the swing. Kelley divided the swing into 12 sections, the body into 3 zones, different motions into 24 components, each component had it's own variations, then he'd listed 4 motions you could make with your hands and arms to power the swing, then the different hand / wrist positions... etc.

Is any of this wrong? Well no, how could it be? Kelley's simply identified a motion or position in the golf swing and given it a name.

Well, what are the other parts of TGM?

Some simple geometry, simple physics, a few characteristics every decent swing should have, advice on how to practice, how to change your swing... Not too much to argue with there.

Seeing as there's a thread on this, could I ask another question?

Could anyone provide links to specific studies on TGM concepts? Or even where someone has taken a passage / idea verbatim from TGM, and then proven it to be wrong using trackman / high speed cameras for example? I'd be genuinely interested in studying them!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Taggsy

Honest answer; I don't know, because I don't 100% understand 100% of TGM. If I did, I'd more likely be teaching tour professionals than answering your question on this forum

Look, Taggsy, I mean no offense at all by this: no way you would be teaching Tour professionals, and it's a slight to those who can and do to say something like that. There's a HUUUUUUUGE gap between "understanding" TGM and "applying" TGM, and that's assuming TGM is 100% accurate and all you need to teach (it's not).


Originally Posted by Taggsy

Some simple geometry, simple physics, a few characteristics every decent swing should have, advice on how to practice, how to change your swing... Not too much to argue with there.

Actually, I think you'll find that there's plenty to argue with there. Does hinging action, given the exact same impact alignments, affect ball flight? Nope. Does the ball leave perpendicular to the face angle? Nope. There are things you can disagree with elsewhere, too, for example, in terms of how the body works, what the wrists do, etc.

I won't get into them all (it'd take waaaaay too long), but they're out there. Open your eyes, man. TGM was a great book given the tools Homer had at his disposal. It's outdated. Homer, if he were alive today, would have undoubtedly made changes to entire sections of the book given the new tools, new science, and new studies at his disposal.

Originally Posted by Taggsy

Could anyone provide links to specific studies on TGM concepts? Or even where someone has taken a passage / idea verbatim from TGM, and then proven it to be wrong using trackman / high speed cameras for example? I'd be genuinely interested in studying them!


I gave you some freebies above. Others may be more generous with their time and I welcome them to post some more things you can study, because you seem like a good guy and I just want to encourage you to open your eyes and see the bigger picture.

0

Share this post


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



Originally Posted by mvmac

I think Erik should write the updated version, and I'm not joking.



I told Erik the EXACT same thing 2 or 3 months ago, and I was not joking.

0

Share this post


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



Originally Posted by Taggsy

Honest answer; I don't know, because I don't 100% understand 100% of TGM. If I did, I'd more likely be teaching tour professionals than answering your question on this forum

I'll give you a more thorough answer though;

There are a couple of different sections to the book. For the most part, TGM is a catalogue simply giving names to different motions you can make during the swing. Kelley divided the swing into 12 sections, the body into 3 zones, different motions into 24 components, each component had it's own variations, then he'd listed 4 motions you could make with your hands and arms to power the swing, then the different hand / wrist positions... etc.

Is any of this wrong? Well no, how could it be? Kelley's simply identified a motion or position in the golf swing and given it a name.

Well, what are the other parts of TGM?

Some simple geometry, simple physics, a few characteristics every decent swing should have, advice on how to practice, how to change your swing... Not too much to argue with there.

Seeing as there's a thread on this, could I ask another question?

Could anyone provide links to specific studies on TGM concepts? Or even where someone has taken a passage / idea verbatim from TGM, and then proven it to be wrong using trackman / high speed cameras for example? I'd be genuinely interested in studying them!

Taggsy,

Have you read anything from John Erickson? That would be a great place to start if I were you. He has his own site and a MONSTER thread called Lag's Golf Machine where he outlines his disagreement with the yellow book. He like many agrees with most of it, but for example he disagrees with the hitting procedure. He also thinks Homer left out footwork.

Just a good place to start.

0

Share this post


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



Originally Posted by mchepp

I told Erik the EXACT same thing 2 or 3 months ago, and I was not joking.


Embarking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Embarking.


Nah. My wife already nixed the idea of taking over the garage, building a wooden plane board, and bringing some cute girl over in a skirt to pose for photos in all sorts of "positions."

0

Share this post


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



Originally Posted by mchepp

Taggsy,

Have you read anything from John Erickson? That would be a great place to start if I were you. He has his own site and a MONSTER thread called Lag's Golf Machine where he outlines his disagreement with the yellow book. He like many agrees with most of it, but for example he disagrees with the hitting procedure. He also thinks Homer left out footwork.

Just a good place to start.


Thanks for the suggestion mchepp, I'll give it a read!

I've managed to get hold a copy of "Science & Golf 1", I've heard there's plenty of interesting jazz in there.

Erik, I was only joking about the tour instructor thing - besides, you know Sean Foley's teaching tour pros now too? ;)

Have a great Christmas gents, I'm off back to work!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richie3Jack wrote an informal "translation" of TGM here

Would love to see Erik's version though. Or definitely a soup to nuts dive in make it readable for the masses yet retain all the nuances version.

0

Share this post


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

Hi,

I was wondering if any of the 5SK instructors could share some of their comments on TGM. Specifically, what are the things that are considered outdated? Based on previous posts, it looks like that might be a long discussion. I'd be interested in just reading about some of the larger issues that are considered outdated that are still being taught by TGM instructors.

Thanks!

0

Share this post


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

I was wondering if any of the 5SK instructors could share some of their comments on TGM. Specifically, what are the things that are considered outdated? Based on previous posts, it looks like that might be a long discussion. I'd be interested in just reading about some of the larger issues that are considered outdated that are still being taught by TGM instructors.

Virtually all of it. I use a few of the terms - the accumulators and pressure points, mostly - and only then with other instructors.

TGM was the bee's knees… in the 1960s. Homer would have kept adapting it. It hasn't changed in decades, so it's fallen behind as we've gotten better equipment that can make better measurements.

That's the general "issue" with it.

0

Share this post


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

Virtually all of it. I use a few of the terms - the accumulators and pressure points, mostly - and only then with other instructors.

TGM was the bee's knees… in the 1960s. Homer would have kept adapting it. It hasn't changed in decades, so it's fallen behind as we've gotten better equipment that can make better measurements.

That's the general "issue" with it.

Thanks, Erik. Would you advice against trying a TGM authorized instructor?

0

Share this post


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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • I like it. Especially compared to nearly all past US Ryder Cup kits. Actually before I dish out too much praise, do they have a huge Stars and Stripes flag emblazoned on the back?
    • I would say it depends on what club you're talking about. For drivers I would say that the best performing drivers of all time have been made within the last five years. Aerodynamics, material science, and the proliferation of launch monitors and data driven design have resulted in improvements across the board in distance and forgiveness as of late. I know that I personally saw a decent improvement on my G10 when I switched to a G30, in that I gained between 10 and 15 yards without sacrificing accuracy. This is on the high end of what aerodynamics can provide though, simply because higher swing speeds receive a greater benefit from decreased drag. Depending on the individual you may not see much difference so long as the driver itself was made within the last ten years or so. For irons I would be inclined to say that the main difference in the irons of yesteryear and the irons of today is forgiveness. The irons made today are much easier to hit than previous irons, simply because they aren't as drastically punishing on mis-hits as the old blades. The PING Eye2 irons seemed to be the first "widespread" GI iron that sparked the trend towards irons that were easier for the layman to hit. That being said, I found my s55 irons (their "blade" from several years ago) to be more forgiving than the Eye2's. Based on that and observations from other clubs I have hit I would say the average golfer would be best suited by irons made within the last 10 to 15 years that are in good condition with sharp grooves. If you play muscleback irons though, there's pretty much zero difference between modern "true" musclebacks and those of yore, though the current muscle-cavity irons (like the iBlade and MP-15) will likely be at least a bit easier to hit than the older blades while maintaining a similar style.  Wedges are the only thing that I would argue the "latest and greatest" provides a tangible benefit for. The reasoning for this is entirely different however, in that it's based solely off the condition of the grooves in older wedges. As wedges grow old, and get used, the grooves wear to the point that there becomes a noticeable performance difference - especially when playing out of the rough. For this reason alone do I say that the average golfer (assuming they golf at least once a week during the golfing season) is best suited by wedges no older than two or three years old.  Putters are the odd man out here. I don't think it matters in the slightest when your putter was manufactured, so long as you keep a reasonable grip on it so that it doesn't slip out of your hands. I personally am a fan of the newer milled putters for the feel they provide, but it doesn't mean I couldn't probably putt nearly as well with an original Anser putter in the same style. I think the average golfer is best suited by whatever putter style and features allow them to consistently roll the ball along their target line, with no age requirement. In summary, considering the advancement of technology, I would feel comfortable putting these "maximum age caps" on equipment for the average weekend golfer to get the most out of his/her game: Drivers: ~10 years old or newer Irons: ~15 years old or newer Wedges: ~3 years old or newer Putter: Whatever works best for you That being said, you may still enjoy the game with any kind of equipment out there. I just think that equipment that follows these guidelines will let the average weekend golfer get about as much as they can out of their game without necessarily breaking the bank. Like @iacas said, you may find incremental improvements by purchasing the R1 over an old G5 but the question then becomes whether or not this improvement is worth the price difference. This question can only be answered by the person buying the club. It can't be denied, however, that a driver from the 1960's will be severely outclassed by the G5 and the R1, making either of them a much better choice than the 1960's driver. Interestingly enough, I have had the desire to go the opposite way for a while now. I bought the s55's my last go around, and I'm thinking that my next set of irons will be a more "traditional" muscleback iron (since the s55 is mostly a CB), along the likes of the MP-4 irons by Mizuno. I hit the ball consistently enough that I don't care about the lack of forgiveness, and I believe that the wonderful look and feel of those irons, along with the little bit of extra vertical control (can thin it slightly to make punch shots even easier) would offset whatever I lose in forgiveness. I know that I would most certainly never go to an iron like the AP2, the G, or the M2. The chunky look of the club (along with the offset) gets into my head nowadays and makes me feel uncomfortable standing over the ball in a manner similar to how I used to be intimidated by the look of blades at address. I would gain forgiveness, but at the price of distance and trajectory control - an unacceptable trade for me considering I value distance and trajectory control much more highly than forgiveness.
    • My newest clubs are pretty old. Maybe 2006? I don't really remember. The other day, just for the heck of it,  I played using my old Bazooka Iron Woods. (2i-LW) Shot my normal score. Those Ironwoods are probably 15-16 years old. I don't think at this stage of my life, that a new set would make that much difference. 
    • My irons are from 1978, driver and woods from 2004 (same G5 as you)....at my current playing level, I don't feel like my clubs are holding my scores back. I will be updating my wedges to something designed this century in the near future but I'll probably regrip and keep playing my grandfather's old Eye irons a couple more years. There's something to be said about being familiar with your equipment too. The control you talk about with your driver comes from hitting a lot of balls with it and getting to know how it responds to different things. That's tough to give up considering that it could take weeks to develop that relationship with a new driver...at least that helps me cure the new toy bug and keep the wallet closed. :)
    • Hah, I was thinking the same thing when I saw that pic go up on the landing page.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. mahariji_slice
      mahariji_slice
      (35 years old)
  • Blog Entries