You say Yin and I say Yang - or was it the other way around
Originally Posted by Yoda
Golf -- The effort of the Swinging Clubhead to pull the Primary Lever Assembly (Left Arm and Club) into a straight line.
That's a very clever definition. One of my favourites. Makes those who criticise TGM for refering to CF easy targets.
I don't know whether my point went through, but my point was that we don't want the Left Arm and Club to be pulled into a straight line. We want it to be pulled, We want it to straighten. But not all the way. And perhaps not with the rhythm that throwout will impose if you just let it rip without a power package structure that keeps it under control. Cause the inclined plane would also shift upwards if we let it happen and right afterwards the straightening we would have a bent left wrist.
We do want to sustain the line of compression and we want to sustain the inclined plane, don't we?
We do want to sustain the line of compression and we want to sustain the inclined plane, don't we?
In the conversation we're having now, Bernt, I first want to make sure we have our principles right. It's important we understand the underlying laws our procedures must avoid, harness, or overpower (2-L). It's also important that we "get it right" as we present TGM to others.
TGM has been under attack since Homer Kelley published the first edition in 1969. In the 41 years since, most assaults were bred of a distrust in its scientific approach to the game. Lately, a handful of detractors say it's not scientific enough. And yet they still quote from it.
Go figure.
Meanwhile, BG shot 64 yesterday in the final round of The Sony. He averaged 274 yards off the tee and averaged 100 percent Driving Accuracy. (I like 100 percent averages: they're easy to figure. ) It was the low round of the day, and trust me, he ain't givin' a dime back.
I believe the point I was trying to make is in the book. You refer to 2-L so I get the impression that you believe I'm talking about steering. But that's not what I'm talking about.
I don't see my line of reasoning here as an attack on TGM but if that's how it appears I'll step back from the discussion.
I believe the point I was trying to make is in the book. You refer to 2-L so I get the impression that you believe I'm talking about steering. But that's not what I'm talking about.
I don't see my line of reasoning here as an attack on TGM but if that's how it appears I'll step back from the discussion.
PS: Congrats on your student.
It's not my place to say, but it sounds like "mentoring", not "criticism".
I don't see my line of reasoning here as an attack on TGM but if that's how it appears I'll step back from the discussion.
I wasn't referring to you, Bernt.
It's one thing to seek a deeper understanding of TGM and even to question its core principles. I welcome questions of all kinds and have almost 9,000 posts over the past seven years to prove it. Whatever conclusions one draws from those earnest pursuits are fine with me. That has been your approach, and I respect it.
But, it's quite another to insult Homer Kelley and deride his monumental work as "junk science", all the while proclaiming yourself to be the "greatest" golf instructor of our time and of all time. Particularly when the work served well as you awaited enlightened nirvana. As did the helping hands of the many whose knowledge you sought along the way and who now have been discarded as so much bilge water in your own personal destroyer. That is happening now in another quarter, and quite frankly, it stinks.
"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child!"
-- Shakespeare / King Lear
Meanwhile, we best serve ourselves and others by getting our facts right -- those in the book and those in its underlying science. I noticed in your post that you had your "centrifugals" and "centripetals" mixed up. That's why I gave you the information you needed to straighten them out.
) It was the low round of the day, and trust me, he ain't givin' a dime back.
Hybrid Mode
