Validity of The Golfing Machine

[mchepp]

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.

[iacas]

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. :-)

[mchepp]

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.

[mvmac]

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.

[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.)

[iacas]

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).

[Taggsy]

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!

[iacas]

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.

[mchepp]

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.

[mchepp]

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.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by mchepp

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

Embarking.

[iacas]

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."

[The_Pharaoh]

Damn! I thought I had it.

Would be one helluva read.

[Taggsy]

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!

[nevets88]

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.

[scopek]

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!

[iacas]

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.

[scopek]

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?