Much of the "forearm obsession" may stem from the emphasis that the book and websites places on this relative to other teaching methods. For me, there are not many other teachers / books which comment on the right forearm position as much as TGM. So for somebone brand new to TGM this is an exciting area of thought - even a glimpse of some "secret" to a desperate hacker , whilst for experienced TGM readers it is merely one piece of the familiar jigsaw.
Remember that the patterns set out in 12-1-0 amd 12-2-0 both describe turned shoulder plane and zero axis shift - i presume these require forearm aligment in line with turned shoulder at impact and at address in order to be classified as "zero shift". These create a swing which is unfamiliar to non TGM people, so when i first read this section i was naturally intrigued but suspicious. If this is mechanically simple why is it not used more often ? I still have not read any answer which explains this other than "TGM does not require ...only advise" type reply.
I understand that TGM is not just about teaching one swing method but allowing mutually compatible components to be mixed BUT if Homer went to the trouble of setting out these examples and saying "avoid 'customising' it with other variations until it approaches the 'expert' stage" then he must have considered them important. There are either alot of 'experts' or it is an uncomfortable way to swing for a human being because it is rarely seen on the course!
These are not 'absolute' critisisms of the book just a frustrated learner trying to understand. My mind is still open but has a sceptical, questioning nature.
PS CHris NZ i think you make very valid points - nice and simple to understand - thanks.
- thanks.
Threaded Mode
