TGM perfect?

Public Forum—Concepts in Advanced Ball Striking
81

Homer may have had that ideal, of getting the body into the shot… but the idea of throwing the arms off the body through impact would not support that ideal… neither would driving the right arm actively because this promotes stalling the pivot.
The fact that Homer completely “struck out” on the best way to do this… if this was in fact his high idealism… I can only guess that he was blinded by his own inability to strike a golf ball properly.

Swinging vs Hitting…
Timing the straightening of the shaft vs holding shaft flex…

This concept continues to be overlooked in golf instruction… and why so many golfers find it difficult to improve… because they are very often getting incompatible advice from the wrong site of the fence. I see it as clear as blue sky.

The problem between the science and feeling is more in understanding the golf swing. Getting the pivot involved through the strike zone, has more to do with supporting active hand participation… hands as motors, not passive hinges.

If the hands are passive, then of course… the body being involved in supporting pressures through impact becomes questionable.

TGM seems to pound home the idea of right arm straightening, driving, but if you look at what Hogan described, he talked about the right hand, not the right arm… THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

If you bring into P3 close to a 90 degree angle of the clubshaft and left arm… as Hogan did, and many other fine strikers…
then you can understand why Hogan would wish he had three right hands… not three right arms!

The hands through active uncocking of the wrists, and forearm rotation, offer the best hope at keeping pressure on the shaft and holding shaft flex.

Passive hands are not going to get you there. And this really is the core of what Hogan was saying about impact dynamics.
Hogan was correct. He may not have explained this in proper scientific jargon, but it’s certainly clear to me what he was getting at. And I don’t see in anyway that TGM is embracing such a method. And this is what I see as causing a lot of the conflict within TGM discussions… because people are arguing about a concept that they believe to be true, but does not exist within their framework, cataloging, or terminology… and as long as people believe that TGM is a complete work encompassing all creditible patterns, then this debate will rage on and on…

So the way I see it… is that TGM is fine for swingers… but horrific for hitters. But I also believe that swinging has very serious disadvantages for both pros, and amateurs.

Can swinging work? YES! so it does have validity… but I no supporting argument that it is the best way to strike a golf ball.

TGM can teach a high ideal of swinging… not hitting… so at best, mastering TGM, you will be subject to the inherent downfalls of a swinging methodology.

As long as you understand that… then TGM is a viable option to follow… I believe.

However, you will not master as hitting method put forth by greats like Hogan and others… going the TGM route… because the protocols to follow to get there, don’t exist within the TGM framework.

82

Lag, are you so far out of touch that you actually believe he is giving lessons to the competitors? :confused:

Whilst he does coach Brian Gay (by the way BG is 3rd in driving accuracy on the PGA tour year to date hitting 73.96% of fairways from 80 rounds :wink: ) Lynn is spending the week with a team of instructors giving lessons to Barclay’s private clients and guests. This is the 5th straight year that LBG have hosted a clinic at the Barclays and they have given in excess of 1600 individual lessons.

Lag, you spoke about your experiences in trying to qualify for the US Open, you have played on the ‘modern’ PGA tour so you should know what is most important to work on. Still we are as far away from discussing the original topic as I reckon we can get. As per usual, every topic becomes an attack on the modern game followed by criticism of modern players.

83

That’s not quite the full picture about Brian Gay; I don’t think his ball striking is anything to be admired.

Driving Accuracy: 73.96% (3rd)
Driving Distance: 266 yards (193rd)
GIR %: 63.06% (168th)

He’s damned good with the putter though.

For me Homer Kelley has surely made a magnificent effort for a high-handicap golfer. However, on the LBG forum they do seem very much literalists to the book and it’s certainly off-putting for many.

84

But isn’t this the case with all the winners on TV now?

Doesn’t seem to matter if it’s the PGA, the LPGA, or the US Amateur (or the biggest mis-labelled Amateur event in golf… the US Publinx)… it’s very much a putting contest. Why is the Tour or the USGA so afraid of giving these guys a putting surface that’s less than smooth as granite? For all the crys about putting on a surface that’s akin to “putting in your bathtub” I’ll bet the pro’s and pseudo-amateurs will take that over any putting surface that I putt on day in and day out (i.e. 7 on the stimp and recently punched). You don’t hit inside 8 feet you don’t make birdie unless the stars are perfectly aligned.

Some on here understand that… many don’t.

Whoops… may be off-topic, I couldn’t resist.

robbo

85

And I will continue to do so until admin throws me off this forum for making such proposterous claims… that modern ball strikers who are winning the biggest events in the world are hitting less than 50% of their fairways, and are often seen missing greens with short irons… pulling wedge shots 40 feet left of the pin due to gear that is too upright, and swinging as hard as they possibly can… with often a 46 inch 10 ounce frying pan… completely out of progression and swing balance, and with such a lack of precision that only such a club could be created in the true spirit of a tricycle… all this with still mediocre results.

And the golf courses that allow this? I take that up on the Architecture thread.

86

That is one of the most shocking things that I see on The Tour. One that Nick Faldo rails against constantly (and I agree). A guy is out 105 and swings like he’s hitting his drive! What?! Don’t get me wrong…the top 20 for the week are still sticking many of their shots, but often I’m seeing horrible results. You used to see feathered 9 irons and controlled low trajectories. The operative word is controlled. Why swing so hard all the time? Completely counter-intuitive. It thought it was closest to the pin, not who can hit their 64* mega flop wedge 130 yards. :confused:

Captain Chaos

87

On tour, there simply is not the emphasis on top tier ball striking because the courses are just not very tight… even off the fairway, the little rough that is there is either trampled down from the gallery, or isn’t a factor when the players have milled clubface and u grooves and so forth. The tour doesn’t play the tight tree lined courses they used to because they simply are not gallery friendly. With the ball going an extra 50 yards, they don’t have to worry about hitting long irons from the rough… so why do modern tour players swing as hard as they can? Because they can! The modern frying pan drivers require so little precision to make contact that swinging as hard as you can is perfectly viable. And where it goes has very little effect on scoring. We know this to be true when we see Laird last week hitting only 30 something percent of his fairways on what the tour promoted as an “old school” classic layout “Ridgewood” and he still shoots 65 in the third round. That simply doesn’t happen if the golf course is set up properly. I will say this again and again…

ACCURATE DRIVING OF THE GOLF BALL SHOULD BE REWARDED. WILD DRIVING SHOULD NOT!

Tiger, Phil, VJ to name a few … have been getting away with this for years. We are seeing watered down quality ball striking and inferior golf swings compared to the greats from the persimmon era.

For those new to the game or this site:

Check out my youtube post of George Knudson

youtube.com/watch?v=6toafC7Um5k

Do we see this level of ball striking mastery anymore?

No

88

6-B-0 GENERAL
Force is applied to the Ball through the Lever Assemblies. Power is applied to the Lever Assemblies through Pressure Points. Power is applied to the pressure points by the Power Accumulators. Power Accumulators are out-of-line conditions of the Power Package Components. Out-of-line simply means “not in a straight line from end to end.” Releasing them to seek their in-line condition releases their stored potential. Varying the amount of out-of-line and/or the amount of muscular effort will vary the accumulation of Power that can be released by the selected Triggering action.

In the glossary we have definitions of various terms -

[i]POTENTIAL AND KINETIC ENERGY
Golf - Loaded Accumulators are Potential Energy – the Orbiting Clubhead is Kinetic Energy

POWER ACCUMULATION
Golf - The process of Loading Power Accumulators during their Out-of Line Configuration
[/i]
Homer Kelley in TGM seems to use concepts such a power and potential energy very unlike the standard scientific way. I am curious what people feel is being accumulated in the back swing to be released in the downswing. :question:

89

Too easy Mandrin…

Angular Space. Just like that rat trap over on the right…however spring loaded angles aren’t really fair. Ouch… :laughing: RR

90

I think he could have chosen a better term than accumulation. The TGM accumulators doesn’t have much in common with a battery or a capacitor or any other energy storage device as far as I can see. There may be some potential energy in them but I believe it is the leverage they gives to the pivot that really makes the pivot effective. The levers and the right arm gives the pivot leverage to work in 5th gear.

To the extent that energy is accumulated and spent later in the stroke, it is the mv2 related to the rotating body etc. Part of this will be transmitted from the pivot to the club as the swing radius increases - as long as there is some structural integrity in the power package that secures that the club will travel with (more or less) the same angular velocity as the pivot.

And perhaps if we look very close also short term plyometric like motion where you get an elastic stretch - unstretch effects in various parts of the body at various times. Something similer is perhaps possible to create in the torso as well. But I believe those kinds of energy storage and release sequences are very short lived (like a runner’s landing and takeoff during one footstep) and that you have only one to spend for the right foot, one for the left foot and perhaps one for the spine and perhaps one for the right pitch elbow and maybe others that I’m not aware of.

But energy storage in homer’s accumulators? No.

But the description of the out of line vs in line conditions still makes a lot of sense IMO. Just keeping the hands and the clubhead as far away from the swing center as possible would still give a lot of leverage to the pivot. But the out of line conditions are true leverage multipliers.

91

Mandrin,
Are those really quotes from TGM, or exerpts from an unpublished and heretofore unknown verse of Jabberwoky?

BTW, I’m not joshin’ ya, those are no doubt accurate quotes. Just makin’ a point.

Those words are very much an ad hoc extravaganza. Which is somewhat of a headscratcher, since HK did wear a 40-beer ring when he went to work at Boeing, didn’t he?

Seriously, your point is spot on. One wonders why HK used this form of verbage, rather than following the established conventions of physics / engineering.

Saying something has stored energy because it has an angle might be ok when discussing particle physics ( who’s to say? perhaps charm has an element of angle: charm with down angle might equall strange with up angle) but tells us nothing in the Newtonian world.

Saying something has stored potential energy in the increased tension measured in tendons X and Y generated by the contraction of muscles A and B while increasing the deflection of joint R by theta degrees tells us SO MUCH more.

And the concept of the general public not understanding is baloney. Most of physics can be explained in real world terms, drawing on metaphors that real people use, without sacrificing precison (the afforemention world of quantum mechanics being the exeption).

Power accumulators? Maybe Commander Data has these, but not us mere sacs of meat. Muscle tension, that’s our bag.

Just my $0.02

hawg1

92

All of golf is permeated with the idea that power/potential energy is generated in the back swing and released in the down swing. Some go as far as illustrating this with an elastic band being wound up on the back swing. Homer Kelley seems to follow the same traditional pattern of thinking.

Well, it is simply wrong. It looks maybe impressive and scientific to mention power accumulators and out-of line conditions but is simply doesn’t fit reality. Strangely enough it is at the very heart of TGM and nobody seems to be bothered by this rather esoteric concoction of Homer Kelley. The TGM book literalists will just keep repeating it all as being eminently scientific. :unamused:

There is simply no potential energy in the back swing. The small amount due to gravity and some due to a somewhat elastic property of stretched muscles can be ignored, being minor contributors.
Hence Kelley’s ideas considering potential energy in the back swing as accumulating out-of line conditions in power accumulators hence don’t hold any water.

The action of the golf swing is very different indeed.

The back swing does not generate any form of useful power or any significant type of potential energy. The purpose of the back swing simply is to create enough space/time to allow the golfer using muscles, creating torques, to generate adequate clubhead speed. It takes time to accelerate the clubhead mass to a given speed. The back swing is just there for that simple reason.

The down swing is were all the action takes place. There are three distinct phases. In the first part kinetic energy is generated using muscles, generating torques. During the second part up to impact - kinetic energy still being generated but there is also re-distribution of part of it towards the club and clubhead. Past impact the kinetic energy of the club is reabsorbed by the golfer.

Some time ago (2003) I posted this article which treats the same subject but is a bit more technical in nature – [size=125]TGM power accumulators - science or metaphor?[/size]

93

Well said, Mandrin,

It seems to be a quite widespread believe that, if you have the right technique, the clubhead speed increases by itself in some mysterious way. While the truth is that you basically have to work for every mph you put in there.

94

We don’t hit the ball with the backswing…

95

In TGM, the plane is regarded to be equal to the clubshaft plane. I’d go as far as to say that hands and clubhead on the same plane is an unwritten fundamental in TGM. And possibly a hidden assumption in most golf teaching.

If your club shaft points on your target line you’re supposed to be on plane. If it ain, you’re supposed to be off plane. However, if there’s some drive loading, some hitting involved, the clubhead doesn’t have chase the plane of the hands, does it? You can move your hands down and your club out - or your hands forward and your club down. And towards impact: Move your hands right and your club left. I don’t think that is possible to do if the hands and the club are on the same plane.

I am almost certain that the hands doesn’t need to be on the sam plane as the clubhead but I haven’t figured out the rest of the story.

Has anyone else been thinking about this plane stuff?

96

Anyone thinking the clubshaft needs to be on plane on the backswing does not understand the golf swing. History has shown us this over and over.
At the top of the swing, the shaft again does not need to be on plane… as we have seen great players both laid off and crossed over significantly.
On the way down, the shaft still does not need to be on plane prior to P3 entry.

There are only two things you can do coming down… either you guide it down passively, trying to aim the butt end as if walking a tight rope that would take extreme precision, that you don’t error in either direction… too steep or too flat…

OR

You pressure the shaft INTO an on plane situation at P3 then right through impact.

Now are you going to pressure the shaft from steep to on plane? If so, with what? Not going to happen.
The only way to do this is from flat to square… laid off then rotated into the back of the ball with hand speed and pressure,
and this is what the greats do.

Hogan had it right… Snead, Trevino, and all the great hitters.

I heard an interview last night with a famous TGM instructor and it was all about swinging on plane. From start to finish.
He said the very first thing he does is check a players swing plane on the backswing so that they can be on plane at the top, which
logically would then put them on plane into the downswing.

The problem with that method is that if the shaft enters the impact zone void of proper rotation pressure and torque… that leaves
the player open to BOTH pushes and pulls… if something goes wrong even slightly at any point in the swing. Things have to feel much too
careful and precise. Any slight deviation from day to day throws things off, then people wonder why they hit it decent one day and horrible the next. The other problem is that it simply isn’t supported historically by the great strikers. Show me a great striker, and I will show you an off plane golf swing and for good reason. But of course this has to be done properly. It is not “anything” off plane goes.

The great strikers learned or instinctively felt the need to come from somewhere else… that then pressures the shaft into impact from an off plane position so that force and torque can be applied where they need it… right into impact. This feel is the lifeblood of a consistent ball striker.
The feel then becomes HUGE and VERY tangible, you can feel it everyday, because it is a very real sensation filled with pressure right into your hands. And this is how the greats hit it good everyday.

Swing plane is a very over rated concept generally speaking… but not through impact…

1 Like
97

Lag,
I think your statement above may well be the best thing written so far on this forum…everyone should read it and understand the logic… it makes perfect sense

98

lag,

I wonder if it has something to do with how concepts/images, once created, take on a live of themselves if repeated often enough, and from thereon almost dictate how future thinking takes place.

The image of a spring associated with the back swing and the image of a 2D plane to position the club in 3D space are very powerful, once firmly established. Another image, specific to TGM, is that of gyroscopic action. It just does not fit with reality. Often the image of a whirling weight on the end of a string is used. It just also does not represent how a club acts as a segment in a multibody system.

Critical thinking is seemingly not very prevalent in golf; it just is so much easier to use the attractive simple images/concepts everyone else seems to use. This tendency to over simplification, using simple images, dampens the possibility for new ideas to bubble up to the surface.

99

Above implies that Homer Kelley’s elaborate theory of power accumulators is really…

‘Much Ado About Nothing’

How come that HK, considered to be a scientific golf genius, did not realize that the ball is not struck in the backswing ? :wink:

100

yes, this should be obvious as we do much, much more mechanical work in the downswing than we do in the backswing over roughly the same amount of distance.

if the backswing were all about loading up potential energy to merely unload it in the downswing, then we would have to be expending at least an equal amount of energy to load it up. this is due to the conservation of energy. furthermore, if this supposed potential energy is merely unleashed in the downswing, it again would be the same amount of energy being unleashed as was stored. therefore, the energy expended from address to the top of the backswing would be the same as the energy expended from the top of the backswing to impact. if the distance the club head travels is the same (let’s for this argument assume it is), then the work done going back and coming forward would be the same. and since work is the energy transferred by a force over a distance, the force used to take the club from address to the top of the backswing would be equal to the force used to take the club to impact from the top. and i just can’t see how that’s true.