The Golfing Machine=Frustrated

[sniper]

I bought a copy of The Golfing Machine and it is apparently over my head. I'm a single digit handicap and I know what my major swing faults are. This does not however mean that I have an understanding of the golf swing. Right now this feels like the biggest waste of money I have ever had, luckily not an expensive one. I have tried to follow the order in the book, but that is not working either. Anyone else felt like this in trying to read this book?

[gmbtempe]

[quote name='sniper' post='1940337' date='Sep 8 2009, 07:32 PM']I bought a copy of The Golfing Machine and it is apparently over my head. I'm a single digit handicap and I know what my major swing faults are. This does not however mean that I have an understanding of the golf swing. Right now this feels like the biggest waste of money I have ever had, luckily not an expensive one. I have tried to follow the order in the book, but that is not working either. Anyone else felt like this in trying to read this book?[/quote]

I read it in this order

[url="http://www.golfswing.com.au/page.php?page=140"]http://www.golfswing.com.au/page.php?page=140[/url]

[KevCarter]

[quote name='sniper' post='1940337' date='Sep 8 2009, 09:32 PM']I bought a copy of The Golfing Machine and it is apparently over my head. I'm a single digit handicap and I know what my major swing faults are. This does not however mean that I have an understanding of the golf swing. Right now this feels like the biggest waste of money I have ever had, luckily not an expensive one. I have tried to follow the order in the book, but that is not working either. Anyone else felt like this in trying to read this book?[/quote]

Definitely not a quick study. It's the study of a lifetime for people who wish to teach G.O.L.F. You NEED to work with an authorized instructor to learn it.

Kevin

[glcoach]

I use the book as a reference. The stuff on pressure points and the power accumulators is gold!

However, using the book as a learning manual is hard. There are many websites devoted to unmasking the nuances of the text

[gmbtempe]

[quote name='sniper' post='1940337' date='Sep 8 2009, 07:32 PM']I bought a copy of The Golfing Machine and it is apparently over my head. I'm a single digit handicap and I know what my major swing faults are. This does not however mean that I have an understanding of the golf swing. Right now this feels like the biggest waste of money I have ever had, luckily not an expensive one. I have tried to follow the order in the book, but that is not working either. Anyone else felt like this in trying to read this book?[/quote]

also at lynn blakes site you can get a lot of information on the various chapters, I learned a lot from that site.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='gmbtempe' post='1940365' date='Sep 8 2009, 09:46 PM']also at lynn blakes site you can get a lot of information on the various chapters, I learned a lot from that site.[/quote]

Absolutely [b]THE[/b] site to learn textbook TGM!

If you want to learn the Star System Triad, learn it from the folks who believe in it, and who can explain the ideas you need to think twice about.

I'll stick with the 6th edition, thank you very much.

Kevin

[Mward2002]

It's a book written by an engineer.

No offense to those who use the little yellow devil book but you didn't think it'd be that simple did you?

[iteachgolf]

It is a manual written for the instructor and not the student. Read it in the order suggested and first ignoring reference numbers. There are plenty of places to get more info

Most of Chapter 2 will go over your head. Probably don't need to read 2a-2c.

[zmaz]

It just isn't that difficult to understand. Didn't we all use much more difficult texts in school?

[KOC]

A lil' bit more on The Golfing Machine...

[url="http://vimeo.com/2963948"]http://vimeo.com/2963948[/url]

[Lake]

its a treasure map----guided tours are more expensive----and good guides are hard to find

[Alefty]

Homer Kelly was not an engineer.
I had the same experience as the OP.
TGM purports to be scientific and rigorous but it is not. The use of capitalization is gratuitous. It makes extensive use of unnecessary jargon. It is a bad book, although it may be based on somewhat good principles, no doubt you can find better books.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Alefty' post='1940600' date='Sep 8 2009, 11:46 PM']Homer Kelly was not an engineer.
I had the same experience as the OP.
TGM purports to be scientific and rigorous but it is not. The use of capitalization is gratuitous. It makes extensive use of unnecessary jargon. It is a bad book, although it may be based on somewhat good principles, no doubt you can find better books.[/quote]

Opinions vary...

[Alefty]

Yes, but it is a fact he wasn't engineer and that the writing style defies any known standard of English. The pictures are laughable in the edition I had, barely can make out what is going on. With subtle variations you often can't make it out.

Unnecessary jargon: There is no reason to turn golf into G.O.L.F or swing into Swing.

Since it came about before slow motion video and advances in biomechanics it is somewhat outdated.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Alefty' post='1941103' date='Sep 9 2009, 10:12 AM']Yes, but it is a fact he wasn't engineer and that the writing style defies any known standard of English. The pictures are laughable in the edition I had, barely can make out what is going on. With subtle variations you often can't make it out.

Unnecessary jargon: There is no reason to turn golf into G.O.L.F or swing into Swing.

Since it came about before slow motion video and advances in biomechanics it is somewhat outdated.[/quote]

It is the best golf book ever written for teachers in my opinion.

Kevin

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='Alefty' post='1941103' date='Sep 9 2009, 10:12 AM']Yes, but it is a fact he wasn't engineer and that the writing style defies any known standard of English. The pictures are laughable in the edition I had, barely can make out what is going on. With subtle variations you often can't make it out.

Unnecessary jargon: There is no reason to turn golf into G.O.L.F or swing into Swing.

Since it came about before slow motion video and advances in biomechanics it is somewhat outdated.[/quote]
Other than some of the physics of impact please explain to me how it is outdated? The specific language makes sure there is no confusion among teachers when discussing swings. There are no vague terms only very descriptive and to the point ones. The pictures aren't laughable IMO. The room they were taken in isn't much larger than a hallway but I can see all the variations easily. I do believe updated pictures would help but won't happen. Please point me to a book that better explains what happens in the golf swing or a more complete book as a golf instructor I can read. It is far from perfect but so far the best I have ever read.

[birdieblair]

G.O.L.F= Geometrically Oriented Linear Force, that's why golf became G.O.L.F, not because he was fond of capital letters and random periods.

[quote name='Alefty' post='1941103' date='Sep 9 2009, 08:12 AM']Yes, but it is a fact he wasn't engineer and that the writing style defies any known standard of English. The pictures are laughable in the edition I had, barely can make out what is going on. With subtle variations you often can't make it out.

Unnecessary jargon: There is no reason to turn golf into G.O.L.F or swing into Swing.

Since it came about before slow motion video and advances in biomechanics it is somewhat outdated.[/quote]

[Alefty]

I sold my copy a few weeks after getting it so no specific examples, but I found many specific examples while trying to read it.

Just get one science or engineering Ph.D in here to say that it is written to science or engineering standards and that they can understand it. I know geniuses who can't understand this book. No offense to the teaching pros I have met, but they aren't geniuses, and it is clear from Kelly's writing that he wasn't one either.

Is there anyone who will claim to have understood TGM solely from reading the book? If portions of the book had been available online to sample I would never have bought it.

[mfm22]

OK I'll bite Who is /was Homer Kelley - Did he ever play golf??
Did he play with any skill ?

the physics involved in a golf swing could fill a text book is this the case?

Again I digress how technical would one need to be to understand and perform a good repeatable golf swing
Or is one better off being less technical and rely more on feel ...

Ok, I know its all the above and everything inbetween...

Thats why we torture ourselves

[zmaz]

[quote name='Alefty' post='1941166' date='Sep 9 2009, 10:42 AM']I sold my copy a few weeks after getting it so no specific examples, but I found many specific examples while trying to read it.

Just get one science or engineering Ph.D in here to say that it is written to science or engineering standards and that they can understand it. I know geniuses who can't understand this book. No offense to the teaching pros I have met, but they aren't geniuses, and it is clear from Kelly's writing that he wasn't one either.

Is there anyone who will claim to have understood TGM solely from reading the book? If portions of the book had been available online to sample I would never have bought it.[/quote]

Not a science Ph.D, but I have an advanced degree in math, so I am familiar with many scientific concepts. It is not rigorous in any way, and I think he uses physics terms without full understanding of them, and obviously doesn't include any proofs, which would be necessary in anything written to any "science standard," but the concepts of force application and fulcrums are not bad, and they are quite useful in understanding the concepts presented. I just don't think the book is that hard to understand. It isn't my favorite book, though it has helped me understand certain parts of my swing.

The difficulty, if there is one, comes not from the concepts but from the development of a new language. This is not particular to TGM. If you look at other fields, say the logic of Frege, Russell etc, or the literary Russian of Pushkin, you have a lot of examples of individuals developing a new language in order to express the heretofore inexpressible. Kelley is, obviously, no Pushkin, but it is not far fetched to think that the language of golf needed clarification. After all, our ability to express is often limited by our language.

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='Alefty' post='1941166' date='Sep 9 2009, 10:42 AM']I sold my copy a few weeks after getting it so no specific examples, but I found many specific examples while trying to read it.

Just get one science or engineering Ph.D in here to say that it is written to science or engineering standards and that they can understand it. I know geniuses who can't understand this book. No offense to the teaching pros I have met, but they aren't geniuses, and it is clear from Kelly's writing that he wasn't one either.

Is there anyone who will claim to have understood TGM solely from reading the book? If portions of the book had been available online to sample I would never have bought it.[/quote]
I did 3 years of undergrad as a double engineering major in mechanical and aerospace engineer and will say I think Homer was a genius. He figured out the kinematic sequence, face determines start direction, and many other things that are just now being "figured out". He did this without computers and without slow motion video and nailed it. He may have not been an engineer (was an engineering aid) but he did very well for himself and I believe did more for golf instruction than almost anyone.

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='mfm22' post='1941169' date='Sep 9 2009, 10:42 AM']OK I'll bite Who is /was Homer Kelley - Did he ever play golf??
Did he play with any skill ?

the physics involved in a golf swing could fill a text book is this the case?

Again I digress how technical would one need to be to understand and perform a good repeatable golf swing
Or is one better off being less technical and rely more on feel ...

Ok, I know its all the above and everything inbetween...

Thats why we torture ourselves[/quote]
He shot 116 his first round of golf
After practicing 6 months later he shot 77

When no teacher could explain why he set to figure out why which led to him writing the book.

[Twoironblade]

Just a few questions: Do any other sports have anything similar to the TGM (i.e. hitting a baseball, hitting a tennis ball, etc.)? What successful PGA tour pros have used TGM as the foundation for their swing? What highly recognized teachers use it as the foundation for their teaching?

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='Twoironblade' post='1941220' date='Sep 9 2009, 11:12 AM']Just a few questions: Do any other sports have anything similar to the TGM (i.e. hitting a baseball, hitting a tennis ball, etc.)? What successful PGA tour pros have used TGM as the foundation for their swing? What highly recognized teachers use it as the foundation for their teaching?[/quote]
Many many tour players and I'd say about 30% of the top 100 are either AIs or heavily influenced by TGM.

Current Tour players off the top of my head who work with or have worked with TGM influenced guys:
Boo Weekley
Heath Sloccum
Robert Karllson
Brian Gay
John Reigger
Steve Elkington
Zach Johnson
Lee Jansen
Jonathan Byrd
Mark Hensby
Robert Damron
Charlie Wi
Dean Wilson
JJ Henry
Aaron Baddeley
Mike Wier
Dustin Johnson
Harrison Frazar
Pat Perez
Jason Gore

I could go on. The list of teachers is way longer.

[Dariusz J.]

[quote name='Alefty' post='1941103' date='Sep 9 2009, 11:12 AM']Yes, but it is a fact he wasn't engineer and that the writing style defies any known standard of English. The pictures are laughable in the edition I had, barely can make out what is going on. With subtle variations you often can't make it out.

Unnecessary jargon: There is no reason to turn golf into G.O.L.F or swing into Swing.

Since it came about before slow motion video and advances in biomechanics it is somewhat outdated.[/quote]

Yep, I agree 100%. It is the most exaggerately idolized book in history of all golf publications.

Cheers

[Tiltswing]

[quote name='zmaz' post='1941191' date='Sep 9 2009, 11:52 AM'][quote name='Alefty' post='1941166' date='Sep 9 2009, 10:42 AM']I sold my copy a few weeks after getting it so no specific examples, but I found many specific examples while trying to read it.

Just get one science or engineering Ph.D in here to say that it is written to science or engineering standards and that they can understand it. I know geniuses who can't understand this book. No offense to the teaching pros I have met, but they aren't geniuses, and it is clear from Kelly's writing that he wasn't one either.

Is there anyone who will claim to have understood TGM solely from reading the book? If portions of the book had been available online to sample I would never have bought it.[/quote]

Not a science Ph.D, but I have an advanced degree in math, so I am familiar with many scientific concepts. It is not rigorous in any way, and I think he uses physics terms without full understanding of them, and obviously doesn't include any proofs, which would be necessary in anything written to any "science standard," but the concepts of force application and fulcrums are not bad, and they are quite useful in understanding the concepts presented. I just don't think the book is that hard to understand. It isn't my favorite book, though it has helped me understand certain parts of my swing.

The difficulty, if there is one, comes not from the concepts but from the development of a new language. This is not particular to TGM. If you look at other fields, say the logic of Frege, Russell etc, or the literary Russian of Pushkin, you have a lot of examples of individuals developing a new language in order to express the heretofore inexpressible. Kelley is, obviously, no Pushkin, but it is not far fetched to think that the language of golf needed clarification. After all, our ability to express is often limited by our language.
[/quote]

I agree with a lot of what you've written here, zmaz. Chapter 2 in the book definitely has errors, but I don't understand how Kelley could've truly understood the physics of impact without high speed cameras and other advanced equipment. Most of Chapter 2 is unnecessary with regards to what the student must understand to swing effectively, which is why most TGM instructors rarely reference the complex physics in Chapter 2. In my opinion, the true value of the book lies in its explanation of the different components, power accumulators, pressure points, plane angles, etc. The parts of the book that have been invalidated over time are the more advanced physics which had/have no place in the student's application. I agree with you that the purpose of the terminology is to allow easy communication between instructor and student (as well as other instructors) once a mutual understanding of the terminology is achieved. It is much easier to say "power package" than it is to say "the arms, hands, and club assembly." It is also very easy to misunderstand concepts of the book when attempting personal study, so there are most likely aspects of the book that you do not understand.

[xiaoxiong]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' post='1941530' date='Sep 9 2009, 02:43 PM'][quote name='Alefty' post='1941103' date='Sep 9 2009, 11:12 AM']Yes, but it is a fact he wasn't engineer and that the writing style defies any known standard of English. The pictures are laughable in the edition I had, barely can make out what is going on. With subtle variations you often can't make it out.

Unnecessary jargon: There is no reason to turn golf into G.O.L.F or swing into Swing.

Since it came about before slow motion video and advances in biomechanics it is somewhat outdated.[/quote]

Yep, I agree 100%. It is the most exaggerately idolized book in history of all golf publications.

Cheers
[/quote]


I tend to agree with you, Dariusz.

[quote name='Tiltswing' post='1942114' date='Sep 9 2009, 07:59 PM'][quote name='zmaz' post='1941191' date='Sep 9 2009, 11:52 AM'][quote name='Alefty' post='1941166' date='Sep 9 2009, 10:42 AM']I sold my copy a few weeks after getting it so no specific examples, but I found many specific examples while trying to read it.

Just get one science or engineering Ph.D in here to say that it is written to science or engineering standards and that they can understand it. I know geniuses who can't understand this book. No offense to the teaching pros I have met, but they aren't geniuses, and it is clear from Kelly's writing that he wasn't one either.

Is there anyone who will claim to have understood TGM solely from reading the book? If portions of the book had been available online to sample I would never have bought it.[/quote]

Not a science Ph.D, but I have an advanced degree in math, so I am familiar with many scientific concepts. It is not rigorous in any way, and I think he uses physics terms without full understanding of them, and obviously doesn't include any proofs, which would be necessary in anything written to any "science standard," but the concepts of force application and fulcrums are not bad, and they are quite useful in understanding the concepts presented. I just don't think the book is that hard to understand. It isn't my favorite book, though it has helped me understand certain parts of my swing.

The difficulty, if there is one, comes not from the concepts but from the development of a new language. This is not particular to TGM. If you look at other fields, say the logic of Frege, Russell etc, or the literary Russian of Pushkin, you have a lot of examples of individuals developing a new language in order to express the heretofore inexpressible. Kelley is, obviously, no Pushkin, but it is not far fetched to think that the language of golf needed clarification. After all, our ability to express is often limited by our language.
[/quote]

I agree with a lot of what you've written here, zmaz. Chapter 2 in the book definitely has errors, but I don't understand how Kelley could've truly understood the physics of impact without high speed cameras and other advanced equipment. Most of Chapter 2 is unnecessary with regards to what the student must understand to swing effectively, which is why most TGM instructors rarely reference the complex physics in Chapter 2. In my opinion, [b]the true value of the book lies in its explanation of the different components, power accumulators, pressure points, plane angles, etc.[/b] The parts of the book that have been invalidated over time are the more advanced physics which had/have no place in the student's application. [b]I agree with you that the purpose of the terminology is to allow easy communication between instructor and student (as well as other instructors) once a mutual understanding of the terminology is achieved. [/b][b]It is much easier to say "power package" than it is to say "the arms, hands, and club assembly." [/b]It is also very easy to misunderstand concepts of the book when attempting personal study, so there are most likely aspects of the book that you do not understand.
[/quote]

oh, well, i do have a Ph.D in physics. Let me say let's just forget physics part of the book.

I agree with you the true value lies in its explanation of PA, Pressure Points etc. However I doubt it make it easier for communication between instructor and students, maybe it is easier for communications among all TGMers. Also, For me it is much easier to say "the arms, hands, and club assembly" than "power package".

I truly believe in Albert Einstein's words:
[b]If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.[/b]

Cheers,

[ej002]

Lol.... I always debate reading it so I know what the hell is going on around here..., barrels, flying wedges, power packages, extensor action, throwaway, pressure points, tracing lines etc... but I am always worried that after I read it I will be stuck with a bunch of nonsense in my head and then forget how to hit a golf ball. I so I just stay away.

[Tiltswing]

[quote]oh, well, i do have a Ph.D in physics. Let me say let's just forget physics part of the book.

I agree with you the true value lies in its explanation of PA, Pressure Points etc. However I doubt it make it easier for communication between instructor and students, maybe it is easier for communications among all TGMers. Also, For me it is much easier to say "the arms, hands, and club assembly" than "power package".

I truly believe in Albert Einstein's words:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Cheers,[/quote]

XX,

Conceptions of the book's complexity are egregiously skewed. What I said was that the terms will make communication easier between student and teacher [b]"once a mutual understanding of the terminology is achieved."[/b] The book seems complex because it is written with unique terminology, just as a foreign language would appear to be infinitely complex to an individual with no understanding of the language. It will take time to fully understand the book and all the terms.

[UTGolf73]

[quote name='Tiltswing' post='1942293' date='Sep 9 2009, 07:37 PM'][quote]oh, well, i do have a Ph.D in physics. Let me say let's just forget physics part of the book.

I agree with you the true value lies in its explanation of PA, Pressure Points etc. However I doubt it make it easier for communication between instructor and students, maybe it is easier for communications among all TGMers. Also, For me it is much easier to say "the arms, hands, and club assembly" than "power package".

I truly believe in Albert Einstein's words:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Cheers,[/quote]

XX,

Conceptions of the book's complexity are egregiously skewed. [b]What I said was that the terms will make communication easier between student and teacher[/b] [b]"[/b]once a mutual understanding of the terminology is achieved." The book seems complex because it is written with unique terminology, just as a foreign language would appear to be infinitely complex to an individual with no understanding of the language. It will take time to fully understand the book and all the terms.
[/quote]

The strange thing that I see with TGM, is that as the respected TGM teachers have said on here, is that unless a student pushes for using the book and it's terminology, the don't even use it.. So how does it help foster communication if they don't use the terms? Also, as has been admitted at other times, the TGM instructors don't fully understand certain concepts of TGM(I believe it was something to do with the #3 something or other).