Courtesy of Justin Tang:
[youtube]Lynn Blake - YouTube
[youtube]Lynn Blake - YouTube
I’ve never met Lynn nor studied with him… I know some of you have … so apparently this is fairly rare footage of Lynn.
Looks very much along the lines of what I was taught as a youngster studying under Ben Doyle and Gregg McHatton.
This is TGM swinging pattern, dead hands, automatic release stuff moving into a full roll hinge action post impact that requires
a lot of timing and finesse to make it work well consistently. Some people can do it… some great ones like Nicklaus, and Colin Montgomery come to mind quickly.
Personally I find activity easier to teach than passivity. Ironically it’s not easy to teach nothing. Getting the hands to passively move through impact, not only takes a great deal of timing, but also takes a lot of trust. If any tension exists in the hinges (hands) things can go haywire quickly. However, it is
fun stuff to watch, and I admire the players that can do it successfully. I always loved watching Gregg McHatton’s hypnotic move that just makes it look so desirable.
As a young TGM student myself, I was an early poster child of this kind of action. It does work… but I found it basically quite difficult to execute under pressure… then again, have never had the mind of a Nicklaus either. I always wanted golf to look and feel easy, like Trevino did so well.
Would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on what they love or dislike about a pure CF dead hand protocol for hitting a golf ball.
Lag,
I wonder whether you could tell us your view about whether swinging and hitting are two entirely different species and if not, what are the areas of overlap…for example could you describe Hogan’s swing in terms of the two protocols? For that matter, what do you think of Lynn Blake’s swing in that regard, does he display any hitting characteristics?
The pivot actions can be quite similar to even a trained eye. The basic difference is the protocol for the hands. Swingers use the hands as passive hinges, while hitters use the hands as active motors.
I disagree with TGM’s version of hitting being only right arm thrust. You can hit with the hands… or you can use the hands completely passively.
Trying to discriminate between hitting and swinging by right elbow participation is challenging to see even for an instructor, because only the player can actually know if their right arm is being pulled straight or if it is being actively driven or simply the disposal of “extensor action”
Hogan was very clear about how the hands “hit” saying “I wish I had three right hands” and also “I hit just as hard with the left hand”
Hogan didn’t say three right elbows. Hogan limited right elbow activity through the impact area, for the very reason that Homer quotes in his book,
1-F "Variations in elbow bend or location during release will disturb clubface control by the right arm making it an inferior procedure."
So Homer got it… but his instructors didn’t from what I can tell. Because I see a lot of actively driving right arms through the release and impact arenas.
What TGM fails to cover, tragically so in my opinion, is a passive application of the right arm through impact. It’s acknowledged to some degree, but not included in any kind of component cataloging which is a massive over sight. This also ties directly into the absence of a form 1 pivot driven lever to handle the workings of the pivot in all things post impact.
Any inclination that the golf swing is over and done once the ball leaves the clubface severely limits the potential of the golfers ball striking.
I’ll go with Hogan’s idea here any day, not just because Hogan says it… but because it works.
In the defense of both Doyle and McHatton, they did encourage a gutty feeling torso rotation through impact, but this was then polarized by an insistence to throwing the arms off the body which disconnects even what Homer would call the master accumulator. Homer failed to assign a lever assembly to it unfortunately, and this is what I feel has created a lot of confusion in those circles, and probably why Mac O’Grady jumped ship when he did.
Only TGM’s 2-M-3 casually suggests that the pivot could drive the primary lever assembly, but then it is never again mentioned in the book, which it clearly should have been. The reality, is that for any top tier ball striker, the pivot IS the primary lever assembly, but I can forgive Homer because he was not a top tier ball striker, and you simply sometimes can’t “get what you don’t know” or don’t have direct and personal knowledge of. Observation based only instruction, has it’s limitations.
Homer was wise enough to make note in 1-K: Omissions may occur in some categories.
I have a silly question:-
What is the source of strength when Captin Hook throws a punch hook? He must be fighting with swinging procedure only.
Daryll,
Welcome to ABS…
Is this the same concept that you can’t push and pull at the same time as is often described in TGM?
Second question…
How can the right forearm do anything? Isn’t the forearm simply a bone that connects two joints, the wrists and elbow?
Are we talking about the right elbow straightening therefore moving the forearm? Certainly the forearm can rotate, but driving? What’s driving it? The elbow? or the pivot?.. right shoulder?..
just for clarity…
Passive:
From Webster’s dictionary… not agreeing that Webster’s is the end of an end here… just I don’t see your definition with the word of non-accelerated mentioned… just seeking clarity… so we can discuss things as good scientist would…
1 a (1) : acted upon by an external agency (2) : receptive to outside impressions or influences b (1) : asserting that the grammatical subject of a verb is subjected to or affected by the action represented by that verb (2) : containing or yielding a passive verb form c (1) : lacking in energy or will : lethargic (2) : tending not to take an active or dominant part d : induced by an outside agency
2 a : not active or operating : inert b : of, relating to, or making direct use of the sun’s heat usually without the intervention of mechanical devices c : latent d (1) : of, relating to, or characterized by a state of chemical inactivity; especially : resistant to corrosion (2) : not involving expenditure of chemical energy e of an electronic element : exhibiting no gain or control f : relating to the detection of an object through its emission of energy or sound
3 a : receiving or enduring without resistance : submissive b : existing or occurring without being active, open, or direct
I was born in a TGM clamshell in 1979… no stranger here believe me…
Here’s the problem I have…
I can hit the ball equally straight and long using only the right arm or using only the left arm. So this theory of HK to me remains just that… a HK theory. Also, even on the shortest of strokes… putting, Twomasters and I watched Tiger practicing putting with just his right hand only.
Our dominant hand is the one we use for most things dealing with sensitivity and control, such as shooting pool, throwing darts, or even picking a coin out of our pocket. How about threading a needle or performing heart surgery?
This is the actual quote from TGM beginning with a capital letter and ending with a period. I only like to use Homer’s exact quotes to best clarify what I hope he said without adding extra filters. His quote is clearly referring to release… which your altered definition seems to drift from. In this context I completely agree with Homer… Straightening the ELBOW which would lead me to believe this is referring to DRIVING THE RIGHT FOREARM through release… IS NOT AN IDEAL METHODOLOGY. I base this not on Homer’s suggestion but from my own experiences as a tour player, and also based upon the golf swings of some of the straightest hitters in the history of the game.
Not trying to be overly argumentative, just my observations.
With only the intent to keep this thread somewhat readable, I’ll insert in RED what Daryl said from what I can most honestly recall, obviously not word for word but just the basic overall subject of the posting.
Hi, I’m here to learn about ABS
Part 1 of two lengthy posts, very broad in nature with all kinds of possible topics to discuss about TGM
Part two, very general TGM post offering multiple topics for conversation.
I get concerned when everyone starts posting numbers from a book.
Real life experience tells me I can read a manual about how to fly a 747 jumbo jet- BUT- can I actually fly the thing how it is meant to be flown ?
So real life experience says I can read a book about golf- but what is written and what is actually happening can be 2 different things.
TGM was written by a scientist - Not a golfer…NOT a golfer
Iron Byron is a big hunk of metal- not flesh and blood. that’s why what may work well for him on the range beating balls for the USGA and manufacturers doesn’t work a lick sometimes for you or me
For the scientist in us all - quote away
For the golfer in us all - real life understanding and measurements are needed.
Here are a few examples below:
Mickelson and Tiger --undoubtably great golfers. Victories and rankings prove it- BUT are they great ballstrikers who we should learn from? I say No as they are lucky to hit 50% of fairways between them for an entire season. They are exceptional with the short game and recovery and somehow that makes them the best golfers in the world.
Yet- the best strikers of the ball consistently . I will use Hogan from yesteryear.Trevino and Johnny Miller in his prime- probably Furyk from today do something entirely different to TGM numbers and TGM teachings. Furyk hits more fairways in a month than Tiger does in a year
That’s the nuts and bolts of the Advanced Ball Striking program- A consistent fact based swing- based on reality of ALL the great ballstrikers of the past 60 years or since we had access to photos and videos of them.- Sure the other TGM yellow book quoting way can work- as it attempts to cover just about everything and if you are joe schmo playing for fun then be my guest to go that route. But if you want to get the absolute most from your ability what Lag teaches cannot be ignored.Why do the best most consistent quality ballstrikers do it in an entirely different manner to what is preached in TGM? because some things were left out.
O’Grady- Clampett- and Lag were all TGM disciples. ALL left the program because there was something missing. Some flaw that couldn’t get them around tournament golf on a consistent basis. It was always a fight and they ALL left and have all now come out with their own ideas based on trial and observation and experience- MORAD- The Impact Zone and Advanced Ball striking. So should we really be concerned about what the yellow book tells us and be quoting it like scripture?
The photo below of Johnny Miller shows 100% total opposite to the dump right arm- stop body rotation- clubface closing down etc that TGM seems to exhibit on all vids I ever see
Miller has the clubface perfectly square to his hands as if he could drop it back down to address and have it square- no maniupulation whatsoever- His arms are bent, even the right arm slightly as it is fighting CF and powering the club through and beyond. This one photo tells me more about a golf swing and what the ideals of flushing a ball are than any other you can come up with.
You can float, flat, drop load whatever you want.
But if you forget to apply the correct after impact physics then the ball is not going to be under your control for long or on a daily basis. That’s where today’s teaching and from all the TGM examples I have witnessed are off the mark a little
Tiger and Phil straighten the arm right at impact and have to snap time that release which is nigh impossible hence they drive it everywhere. Tiger does this better with his irons and is a much better iron player- one of the best out there. Furyk preserves his right arm longer than anyone.
I watched a LB video of him talking at a seminar about the difference between hitting and swinging- you can find it on youtube- it made no sense to me and both ways looks the same when he demonstrated in a full swing in a latter video. I am not here to bash TGm or LB (don’t know him), but I will say quoting chapters isn’t the same as being in the hunt on a sunday at a big pro event or even reaching the final of the club championship.
At ABS we know the difference between hitting and swinging- it really is pure and simple and not a guesswork or a personal feeling
because in either case the Left Arm is ALWAYS SWINGING and the Right Forearm is ALWAYS DRIVING.
HK thought that controlling the Clubface with the Right Hand/Arm was an inferior procedure because any change in Right Elbow Bend and/or Location will change Clubface Alignment.
I think what Homer wrote is great stuff. It is certainly a difficult read for a layman and if I went for a lesson and they started throwing 6a-2b at me whilst I was swinging and having a lesson I would probably run for the nearest exit.
And I think most of what he said is fantastic information for a beginner or average golfer to jump up the learning curve swiftly if they can comprehend it. HK explains the physics and what a golf ball likes to feel when hit very well.
He just missed out on a few things because 1) he wasn’t a terrific golfer he was more a mystified golfer and 2) he never hit shots under tournament pressure-- that’s why once the OGrady’s and Clampett’s and Lag’s of the world got to the top level and their game suddenly fell apart for no apparent reason, they realized there was something more. Some other component.
I wish half the world’s golfers or more could get a grasp on TGM and be able to apply it’s ideals because the planet’s handicap would drop in half. There is some great stuff and it gives everyone a chance because he doesn’t classify one way to load or takeaway or set. It all becomes personal preference to find your own dynamics into impact to make you a better golfer. Unfortunately like I said, it is a book from hell to read and understand for the regular person. So they need guidance and they need assistance from a coach.
So off they go to mr golf coach who gives them the generic - ‘keep your head still’- ‘finish on your right toe’- ‘set the club here’ etc etc and no-one gets any better. Because you can’t actually place the club in a position.
The club gets into positions because of previous actions of the body- which Lag likes to call ‘vapor trails’- it is 100% correct, because most people read about a FLW and what do they do?- dump the hands into the ball and stop rotating- but hey I got the FLW so that should mean something shouldn’t it- well heck NO- Just because you dumped into a FLW at impact doesn’t do you any good if all the rest of the body motion went by the wayside.
Anyhow- I am not a TGM expert. I have read the book out of curiosity. I have had success as a golfer so I understand all the principles. I just know that at the higher tier of golf level that there is more needed and required and I really honestly think Lag hits the nail on the head- because of my own experience’s as a player- I GET what he says and the path to getting there. And that’s what Lag’s students are trying to achieve- a higher standard so they are working on the ideas and not just the generic stuff that can only get you so far.
I can’t debate you or anyone on TGM numbers or quotes but I can give my own insights from the playing perspective, which hopefully ties into some things in the discussion.
Great to have you here Daryl.
We are all about sharing and discussing golf, swing theory, TGM, Hoganomics, Sneadisms, MORAD, Balance Point, ABS, or any other path that promises golfing divinity! 
I’ll get back to this later today as Al Barkow is coming over to work on putting pics for his new book on my laptop 'Macs Rule!" lol
great posts…
Lag
Daryl,
Before I address the above epic posts… let me ask you this…
can you make a distinction between using the hands actively with muscular thrust and hands that are passive in a more traditional definition of the word?
Hinges vs motors?
Limp dead hands going along for the ride vs wrists that firmly strike with fully contracted muscular involvement?
The more I read TGM swing theory, especially on internet golf forums, the more I become convinced that the book is deeply flawed. Mainly as a platform for self-directed learning or even for teaching, similar to the ideas that Two expressed. I can’t tell you how much my long experience as a teacher, coaching thousands of golf students, tells me that one of THE most important issues in mastering ballstriking is what we at Balance Point call “Contamination” - or conscious mind interference in the golf swing, mainly through over-analysis and over-thinking. I am halfway through the Homer Kelley bio right now and it is clear to me that Homer himself suffered from a massive case of Contamination. He clearly had a deep unconscious emotional/mental need to analyze the golf swing to death and he did so in his book.
My take is that Kelley suffered from a mild form of autism called Asperger’s Syndrome - an overwhelming obsession with a single topic. He exhibits many of the signs. The end result is a book that resembles very much medieval theologians arguing about how many angels can fit onto the head of a pin. It might be interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint, kind of like golf swing Metaphysics, but is it really helpful to the golfer struggling to get better? Compared to other sources on the open market that could have been used instead of TGM, ie other books?
The book should have been subtitled “How My Intellect Can View the Golf Swing in Any and Every Conceivable Way”. Classic Asperger’s. What matters to me as both a player and teacher - how can I best execute this golf shot, right here, right now and how can help Joe Hacker learn best how to master one or more ballstriking skills so that he can better execute. Not how many different ways can I intellectually think about the golf swing.
Ironically, the book actually attracts fellow Asperger types like a magnet. Just check out the TGM forums if you doubt me on this. The promise of absolute control is a seductive one and HK was a master marketer of that message, as the bio shows. The author actually reprints some of the flyers HK used back in the early days to promote his book, and some of the slogans he used remind me of late night Vegimatic commercials - “…it slices. it dices!”. HK believed he had found the Holy Grail, the Answer and he never shied away from saying so to the golfing public, the PGA and the golf media. He was dead wrong on that one, as recent research has shown. He missed a lot of key issues, and got many of his concepts wrong. But mainly he encouraged a golfing public already deeply Contaminated by the golf media and traditional instruction to become even more Contaminated.
There are two types of golf and two types of golfers- the game where the subconscious is left in charge of the shot execution, which is a game of letting go of control and is also based on gradual acquisition of skill over time, and the game of “hit and hope”, relying on luck for the occassional good shot, and one where the golfer’s ego is constantly holding onto and pursuing control, a game I call Flog - or golf on Bizzaro World. (Flog is golf spelled backwards and also has intended masochistic implications!). Homer Kelley was the High Priest of Flogging, which is why his own game never got better than a 15 handicap. Probably 90% or more of folks who play the game are Floggers. To them I say - there is indeed another way to understand and to play the game.
Those are two very opposite ways of playing the game. Two different languages really. So if you want to see some really interesting inter-cultural conflict and linguistic confusion, try having a debate between a real golfer and a flogger. It may be entertaining - but I don’t know how much it will help the casual reader improve their golf game.
You would be amazed at the almost complete lack of golfing skill that I have witnessed in the TGM fanatics and non-TGM contaminated golfers who think that the Answer lies in discovering some kind of intellectual insight that will unlock the key to better ballstriking. To a man, the students I have worked with who fit that description have poor mental focus or wandering “monkey minds”, worse than the average person, for some a kind of Attention Deficit Disorder, and very poor body awareness and very weak mind/body connection. Those three things are FAR more important than ANY purely intellectual swing theory that one may have studied.
I am only interested in playing, teaching, learning about, and practicing Golf - never Flog. The golf swing is dynamic, reactive to a Target, athletic motion governed by the subconscious mind, and works best when the conscious mind is focused on only One Thing that has proven to not cause ANY interference with the flow of information from the subconscious mind to the muscles.
Daryl defends TGM as a scientific work by a brilliant man.
…