Being a golfer that focuses on pure right sided thoughts (just like my tennis swing and just like my baseball swing) I found Azingers comments quite refreshing.
But let's keep a few things in mind. This wasn't a few mindless wannabes like Kostis making these comments, these are two legends of the game making these comments. They both made millions from this game before you could be a player in the bottom third of the world rankings and make a million dollars a year. They both have probably dug more balls out of the dirt than any of us could ever hope to. They both have probably run every swing theory up and down the flag pole based on their association with the rest of the games greats..yet we have the nerve to rely on quoting the book by verse when we have two CHAMPIONS giving us their views based on real world experience?!
If this is making lesson books overflow with gold...then more power to ya. It just seems like sometimes people act like Homer is the only person in the world who can describe anything related to the golfswing.
Although I have found TGM invaluable in my continuing study of the game of golf, and I believe it is an important piece in the overall picture, I also believe it is only a piece.
I think there are many ways to make a golf stroke. I think there are many ways to describe these strokes and teach them. While I may disagree with many teachers, methods and theories, and I may be partial to others, I do acknowledge that some people have gotten extraordinary results with methods or theories that I find lacking. I think there is always something new to learn about the game of golf, and sometimes ideas different from our own can be the most illuminating.
I also think this is an exciting time for the study of the golf swing, as technological advances are allowing insights into golf swing mechanics like never before and many bright minds are doggedly studying these mechanics with real world data in hand.
I have learned a lot from you and this site's members, and for that I thank you. However, I find this site's intolerance to any ideas other than it's own particular TGM interpretation to be limiting.
I don't think I am the type of disruptive element you want for your little Yellow colored world, where there is a hitter lurking under ever rock. To be safe, you had better ban me as well.
Jim flick (in GD article, I think) mentioned that the great Jack Nicklaus maintained that he (Nicklaus) had never observed a good player address the ball with a closed clubface (what most people think is square.) Nicklaus angled the clubface open himself (although he advocates in his instructional volumes that we the golfing public keep it square - but in reality closed etc. Obviously he (JN) is referring to what HK articulated in 2-J-1 when discussing Impact Alignments. My point? As great as Jack Nicklaus is he failed "us" in his explanation. Paul Azinger and Tom Watson were discussing the use of the "right side" in a very generalized, and perhaps personal way. Some can derive benefit from it, most will misinterpret because it was not well articulated in the first place. The teacher by definition has the gift of communication, with a vernacular that comes as close as possible in describing reality. Zinger was dealing in "seems as if", a very subjective approach. If you do not understand that then you are not seeking the truth as it relates to golf. TGM does not support The Way, but it does teach you to correctly identify, quantify and communicate with undeniable precision My Way. In my estimation nobody did a better job at describing "what is" as it relates to the golf stroke. It seems as if some people bristle at the hint of objectivity and absolutes. In reality, most people are just too bone idle lazy to learn the vocab, and just think Homer used an english dictionary.
I for one am very happy that Yoda stays true to Homer's intention. If you really want to "understand" and appreciate snow...speak to an eskimo! If you want to understand the golf stroke...listen to Lynn.
Although I have found TGM invaluable in my continuing study of the game of golf, and I believe it is an important piece in the overall picture, I also believe it is only a piece.
I think there are many ways to make a golf stroke. I think there are many ways to describe these strokes and teach them. While I may disagree with many teachers, methods and theories, and I may be partial to others, I do acknowledge that some people have gotten extraordinary results with methods or theories that I find lacking. I think there is always something new to learn about the game of golf, and sometimes ideas different from our own can be the most illuminating.
I also think this is an exciting time for the study of the golf swing, as technological advances are allowing insights into golf swing mechanics like never before and many bright minds are doggedly studying these mechanics with real world data in hand.
I have learned a lot from you and this site's members, and for that I thank you. However, I find this site's intolerance to any ideas other than it's own particular TGM interpretation to be limiting.
I don't think I am the type of disruptive element you want for your little Yellow colored world, where there is a hitter lurking under ever rock. To be safe, you had better ban me as well.
Hit 'em long and straight,
Clay
In the 3 1/2 years since the founding of LynnBlakeGolf.com, we have published more than 50,000 posts in more than 5,500 threads. The subject matter and opinion contained therein is widely diverse and encompasses virtually every facet of the game. We even have an entire forum -- The Lab -- devoted to the exploration of new frontiers in golf. Except on rare occasion to remove profanity, vulgarity, vicious personal attacks or unacceptable links, not a word has been deleted from these tens of thousands of posts, nor has a dime been charged to read them.
So, there is substantial evidence that, not only am I tolerant of divergent views, I actually encourage their expression and personally finance their distribution. At the same time, I am growing increasingly intolerant of those who belittle the work and opinions of others. And when that derision is directed at this site and the work we do, my tolerance now approaches zero.
This was the mistake DukeNasty made. My beef with him had absolutely nothing to do with his opinions or views. It had everything to do with his blatant disrespect of ours.
What I find amusing in your post -- and his, too -- is that, before I came along, nobody talked about Hitting, certainly not as a viable alternative to Swinging. It seemed that the concept had died with Homer Kelley. In fact, I was accused and criticized in some quarters as "selling hitting". It is a fact that I have written hundreds of posts examining and explaining the hitting concept in its many dimensions. This is not 'selling'; this is educating.
Now, you accuse me of exactly the opposite, that I would find "disruptive" the contributions of all those hitters "lurking under every rock" of my "little yellow colored world" (still yellow, but not quite so "little" anymore: 5,677 registered members, 52 countries, etc.). This is ludicrous on its face. Besides, why would hitters lurk under rocks when we have an entire Forum devoted to Hitting and a moderator who is perhaps its most widely professed proponent?
We do agree on one thing: The Golfing Machine is only a piece in golf's fascinating puzzle. There are countless websites devoted to the various other pieces. We are devoted to this one.
Being a golfer that focuses on pure right sided thoughts (just like my tennis swing and just like my baseball swing) I found Azingers comments quite refreshing.
But let's keep a few things in mind. This wasn't a few mindless wannabes like Kostis making these comments, these are two legends of the game making these comments. They both made millions from this game before you could be a player in the bottom third of the world rankings and make a million dollars a year. They both have probably dug more balls out of the dirt than any of us could ever hope to. They both have probably run every swing theory up and down the flag pole based on their association with the rest of the games greats..yet we have the nerve to rely on quoting the book by verse when we have two CHAMPIONS giving us their views based on real world experience?!
If this is making lesson books overflow with gold...then more power to ya. It just seems like sometimes people act like Homer is the only person in the world who can describe anything related to the golfswing.
E.
Homer’s book wasn’t supported by false instinct. Homer methodically observed and reproduced the motion and action of the golf stroke and was able to coordinate an explanation. It is hard to contradict his research because right or wrong, it is a compelling argument.
Tour golfers are blessed and gifted. Few are golf stroke engineers that can whittle away the vast “seems reasonableness” of how their stroke feels to them. Nor should they.
Im sorry that this thread got out of hand. I don’t think anyone thought it would. You have always been a supported of TGM and a Ted's friend.
Hybrid Mode
