REVIEW of George Hibbard's Perfect Impact material
KPH
14 golf videos. I have never met George Hibbard and had never heard
of him or of "Perfect Impact" until he began posting on this news
group. His postings caught my attention so I called George at
PerfectImpact.com and placed an order.
As for me, after a seven year layoff I began golfing again in June and
currently play to a 12 index. Frustrated with my full swing
mechanics, I took six lessons in August and September, five by a
former PGA teacher of the year in my state. I've been to golf schools
and had lessons by a variety of instructors, some of whom were very
highly regarded but rarely anyone with a great gift for communicating
what I needed to know.
Recently I posted that my three favorite books were Pelz's putting,
Pelz's short game, and Swing Llike a Pro by Compusport. I like the
fact that Pelz supports his recommendations with rational reasons.
And "Swing Like a Pro", although lacking in the reason department, at
least factually lays out what the typical pro actually does.
I received the Perfect Impact book ( 2nd edition), the videos that
compliment the book, and the "5 Minutes to a Perfect Swing" video on
Wednesday.
After watching the "5-Minutes" video ( it's actually quite a bit
longer than that) I felt that I actually caught a glimpse of the light
at the end of the tunnel. George actually communicated the
fundamental golf swing in such a simple manner that I finally grasped
it, something all those lessons had failed to do.
After watching the four hours of video that accompany the book, I
realized that George possesses a rare gift for teaching, i.e. someone
who communicates the fundamental message very very well, by making the
difficult easy to grasp. George seems to carve away mounds of
superficial and confusing points to hone in on what really matters.
And he almost invariably starts at the beginning. He doesn't say "put
your big toes 15" apart when you set up for the driver." George says
that a goal of the stance is to allow you to complete your turn
toward the target with your arms still being pulled by your body
(torso turn), not by having the turn stop and your arm muscles
therefore being forced to complete the turn (and probably throw the
swing off line). So you must play at a stance-width that allows you
to comfortably complete the turn. That width may be 4 inches or it
may be shoulder width plus 2 inches depending on your body style,
flexibility, etc.
George offers similar insight as to grip, the back swing, where
distance comes from and how to get more, and on-and-on through most
everything that's important--all with the goal in mind, the
explanation of what you are trying to accomplish. The logic of Perfect
Impact has given me the impetus to begin to make some individual
changes to the stock suggestions offered by my most of books and
videos. In other words, George's rational explanations have allowed
me to already begin to change my swing from an off-the-rack swing to a
custom-made swing: custom made to my own body idiosyncracies. Just
as the standard golf clubs don't fit everyone, neither does the
off-the-shelf swing advice.
In brief, this material has been a revelation to me. Your mileage may
vary but I would be extremely surprised if even a touring pro didn't
rate this information as among the cream of the crop, if not the
absolute best.
KPH
Mike Dalecki
Mike
--
Mike Dalecki
I do not patronize spammers! Help keep R.S.G clean.
You can expect the same etiquette from me here on R.S.G as you'd expect
from me on the golf course.
RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/daleckim.htm
Frostback
...snip....
He's still not going to give you his Bud Light! ;^)
Rob
--
RSG Rollcall: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/hamiltonr.htm
KPH
<mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote:
>How much have your scores dropped?
>
>Mike
Mike,
I'll try and report on that after I've had a chance to play a half
dozen rounds or so. Whenever I make changes it requires thought and
time to integrate the alterations into my game.
KPH
bigho...@my-deja.com
KPH <spam...@mediaone.net> wrote:
<snip>
KPH? Is that last name Hibbard? :-)
Just kidding, hopefully. But I want to know what Scott thinks!
Actually, I think George is one of the better "medicine men" that
have come through town. Whether the snake oil cures you, or just
gets you drunk has yet to be proven. I find it disturbing that
he spends so much time putting down real doctors, though.
As if Harmon had anything to prove???
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rds
short term scores will rise not drop. So, how have your scores increased???
"Mike Dalecki" <mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:39F188B8...@dalecki.net...
> How much have your scores dropped?
>
> Mike
>
>
George Hibbard
do take issue with the way they COMMUNICATE and BROAD BRUSH their advice.
Feet shoulder-width apart is for 10% of the golfing world, but it is the
first directive of his book. If you read my previous contributions on this
subject, I mention the many unknown teachers who have produced incredibly
good young golfers all over the world.
My problem is with the "company line", the miscommunication, and the fact
that the PGA has not publically corrrected the errors of their "basics" that
people believe to their detriment.
The struggle of the vast majority of golfers is not due to the difficulties
of the game, but to the positions and details they attempt to obey which
MAKE difficult what would be easy if the flaws in the basics were revealed
and eliminated, and if basic procedures were communicated and demonstrated
more easily (as I am able to do, and as are many others are who are unknown
to most golfers).
My experience with "PGA Teacher of the Year" types is not a bit atypical or
unique. There are literally hundreds of golfers I know of with similar
experiences of confusion, etc. And it is NOT because of failure to put into
practice their tips. It's that the tips have no context into which the
golfer can take them home to integrate them into his total procedure.
George
<bigho...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8st0fv$nl2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
KPH
wrote:
>normally if you incorporate a change that is long term good for your game,
>short term scores will rise not drop. So, how have your scores increased???
This has generally been my experience as well: until I get changes
into my subconscious I have to think about them which detracts from my
rhythm.
The materials just arrived on Wednesday and I didn't get through them
the first time until last night. The videos that accompany the book
run 4 hours and the "5-minutes to a perfect swing" video runs another
45 minutes. I'm going through them again now and I'll need to
practice quite a bit to make use of some of what I'm learning. Then
there's the Perfect Impact book which takes some time to read and
study as well.
I did play a practice round yesterday before I finished my first run
through all the material, hitting many balls and experimenting with my
swing, stance, and ball position. The result was my longest average
drives of the year plus a few irons hit over the green. As you
suggest, that'll probably hurt my scores until I gain some
consistency.
Give me some time and I'll try and report back..
KPH
"R&B"
of the Year" types for making broad brush statements, he makes the same
mistake by painting a large number of them with a similarly broad brush.
The fact of the matter is, it's virtually impossible to make cogent comments
about the golf swing without taking *a* position, which inherantly puts you
in a position of making broad statements. And while it's fair to assume
that whatever position a teacher takes is *his* (or her) position on an
issue, it's also a fact that one size does not fit all. And though that is
implicit in any instruction, it is not always evident to the unwashed
attempting to learn. Much of what they hear from "qualified" instructors is
taken as gospel and is taken quite literally. That's why you so often see
students take information they've learned and overcook it.
They would do well to remember that all teachers have a perspective on the
mechanics of the golf swing, and that their teaching paradigm is based on
the swings and pupils they've coached, and upon the principles in which they
believe. Chances are, most teachers are extremely knowledgable about the
golf swing, and some are better than others at adapting their knowledge and
applying it to the unique circumstances brought forth in each teaching
situation given the peculiarities of each pupil.
One must bear in mind that most "Teacher of the Year" types whose names have
become familiar to all of us tend to have a system or a method they use
which has been successful for them. That many also have one or more star
pupils helps to validate their methods. Naturally, they believe in it. So,
too, do many of the rest of us. We've found some success with it, whatever
our method has been in learning (or teaching). But to think that Butch
Harmon, for instance, would have similar success teaching the swing of Tiger
Woods to someone else would be foolish. I'm certain that Mr. Harmon knows
this quite well, and would adapt what he tried to convey to the individual
(as if he had time to teach someone other than the top pros for whom he
works). Still, he and Leadbetter and Flick and all the rest have their
methods and key ingredients they stress. There is validity to all of them,
but it's hard for an amateur pupil to know if the method employed by one
particular swing guru is the right one for them. Maybe it is, maybe it
isn't. For instance, would a "feel player" do better going to someone like
Flick who stresses feeling the clubhead? Or would he be better off going to
someone from the Leadbetter school of teaching who stresses positions and
might round out his knowledge of the swing? There is no right answer, just
a guess. The proof is in the results, but by then, you've already committed
a fair amount of time. For most of us, it's better to choose *a* path and
stick to it and see where it leads. Chances are it will produce an improved
swing. Only those at the highest levels are likely to suffer from
instruction not suited to their games.
What has become clear to me in recent years is that there are many paths
that lead to a good golf swing. In fact, there are obviously different golf
swings that could fall under the heading of "good," depending on the varying
skill levels of different players. At some of the courses I play, some
might view mine as a "good" golf swing, but I suck and I know it. At
certain RSG events, there are some in this group who would clearly stand out
as "good" players with "good" swings, but they would get dusted by the
lowest-ranked player on the PGA TOUR (or, for that matter, by any player on
the Hooter's Tour). So who's to say what's "good?"
I dare say that 99.999% of amateur golfers would be quite satisfied with a
swing that's simply "better" than the one they have, even if it isn't quite
what you'd call "good." Most amateurs gain satisfaction from playing the
game if they simply perceive a process of improvement unfolding in their
game. They like to feel they're getting better, even if they know full well
they'll never be "good." And the path to a "better" swing is much easier to
find than the path to a "good" swing. To travel the first path, you need
only pack a lunch. To travel the second, you'd better plan on being away
for a while. There are no shortcuts to "good."
Randy
============================================================
Golf help for newbies: http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com
My RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm
RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services: www.randybrownproductions.com
============================================================
"George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote in message
news:sv4hc28...@corp.supernews.com...
George Hibbard
most part, but there are some things I'd like to add: my comments will be
preceded by GH says George
"R&B" <RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8t47ns$t35$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Much truth to what George says here. However, as he berates some "Teacher
> of the Year" types for making broad brush statements, he makes the same
> mistake by painting a large number of them with a similarly broad brush.
be thought of as a teacher of the year type might get some to invest gospel
into their SPOKEN instruction, when to do so will actually introduce
ERRONEOUS AND DESTRUCTIVE elements into a technique, the retention of which
will FOREVER impinge on an easy and reliable technique. I have a list of 13
of these "basics" on my website and the reasons why they cripple ANY
procedure. Not because I have a different opinion, but because simple
common sense applied by the reader makes their errors self-evident. 2 + 2
is not 4 because my teacher told me, but because it is the reality of 2 + 2.
> The fact of the matter is, it's virtually impossible to make cogent
comments
> about the golf swing without taking *a* position, which inherantly puts
you
> in a position of making broad statements. And while it's fair to assume
> that whatever position a teacher takes is *his* (or her) position on an
> issue, it's also a fact that one size does not fit all. And though that
is
> implicit in any instruction, it is not always evident to the unwashed
> attempting to learn. Much of what they hear from "qualified" instructors
is
> taken as gospel and is taken quite literally. That's why you so often see
> students take information they've learned and overcook it.
> GH agrees.
> They would do well to remember that all teachers have a perspective on the
> mechanics of the golf swing, and that their teaching paradigm is based on
> the swings and pupils they've coached, and upon the principles in which
they
> believe. Chances are, most teachers are extremely knowledgable about the
> golf swing, and some are better than others at adapting their knowledge
and
> applying it to the unique circumstances brought forth in each teaching
> situation given the peculiarities of each pupil.
GH agrees
GH disagrees. A lot of the stuff is enlightened common sense, so I don't
think choosing instruction requires you to "stick to" a path. Again, 2 + 2
is 4, regardless of the style of the teacher. And unfortunately those at
the lowest levels suffer from erroneous instruction (how many times do you
see less flexible people at the range with their feet far apart in obedience
to a virtually "universal" precept who are obviously prevented by that
imperative.) The problem is that there are no caveats in those teacher's
protocols, or explanations of WHY. Most are "do this" teachers, and I
consider that to be patronizing, sometimes. My pupil is intelligent. He is
entitled to reason and logic for him to build his swing, not just
"authority".
>
> What has become clear to me in recent years is that there are many paths
> that lead to a good golf swing. In fact, there are obviously different
golf
> swings that could fall under the heading of "good," depending on the
varying
> skill levels of different players. At some of the courses I play, some
> might view mine as a "good" golf swing, but I suck and I know it. At
> certain RSG events, there are some in this group who would clearly stand
out
> as "good" players with "good" swings, but they would get dusted by the
> lowest-ranked player on the PGA TOUR (or, for that matter, by any player
on
> the Hooter's Tour). So who's to say what's "good?"
> George disagrees in one regard: everyone has "a good swing" in him, but
many have come to believe that they don't because after years they still
haven't found it. But when alignments are correct from a physics point of
view, whether achieved through "feel" and the help of a guiding teacher with
an instinct to correct and adjust, or from your own enlightened
understanding and practice to put these alignments into you procedure, his
swing WILL be "GOOD", and whether he has the dedication, talent, eyesight,
energy, money, and physical condition and strength to play on a tour is a
whole 'nother ballgame. I could not possibly, due to innate clumsiness (I
was called "fleetfoot" as a kid -- 6'4" tall at age 14, 135 lbs., obviously
not athletic ...) and to eyesight that absolutely cannot see what good
putters do see. But I swing "good".
> I dare say that 99.999% of amateur golfers would be quite satisfied with a
> swing that's simply "better" than the one they have, even if it isn't
quite
> what you'd call "good." Most amateurs gain satisfaction from playing the
> game if they simply perceive a process of improvement unfolding in their
> game. They like to feel they're getting better, even if they know full
well
> they'll never be "good." And the path to a "better" swing is much easier
to
> find than the path to a "good" swing. To travel the first path, you need
> only pack a lunch. To travel the second, you'd better plan on being away
> for a while. There are no shortcuts to "good."
> George agrees: I'll grant that, Randy. But they are not on the other side
of the Alps. Thank you for your balanced reply, too. Of course the tenor
and depth of your answer gives appropriate credit where due, and I support
all sincere and thoughtful teachers. I do wish, however, that the reasons
for stuff be posited, allowing for the correct application of the stuff to
the individual golfer. I like to say that 42 Regular is the average man's
suit size, but a store selling only 42 Regular would not sell many. A
re-read of my previous post on this leaves me without anything to change in
what I said... George
bigho...@my-deja.com
"George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
> Again, 2 + 2
> is 4, regardless of the style of the teacher. And unfortunately those
at
> the lowest levels suffer from erroneous instruction ...
That's why I found your statement that the spine rotates around the
left shoulder so obnoxious. Quacks shouldn't be practicing medicine.
George Hibbard
your objection to that point, Bill. Start with David Lee and by now he has
a legion of believers --. I didn't author the notion, as queer as it sounds
at first impression. I discovered it after studying with him. Nicklaus,
Trevino, Chi Chil, Rocky Thompson, and a heck of a lot of others know the
depth of his knowledge and respect him. He is a top 100 teacher, been on
TGChannel and featured in Golf Mag.
Some day when machines and videos have clarified this element better, you
will see how the pivot over the left foot, knee, and hip, DOES proceed
pretty much up the body to the left of the head. I have a hard time seeing
how the line of the pivot I KNOW IS OCCURING OVER MY LEFT FOOT can take a
serious bend to the right when it gets past my left hip on the way up in
order to subsume my spine.
By standing on your left foot ALONE with your right off the ground and then
pivoting, I believe you will see how it is impossible for the base of your
spine to remain the center of the pivot..... the base of MY spine is about
6" to the right of my left hip.
George
<bigho...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8t4ibt$gjg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <svbbi5o...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>
> > Again, 2 + 2
> > is 4, regardless of the style of the teacher. And unfortunately those
> at
> > the lowest levels suffer from erroneous instruction ...
>
> That's why I found your statement that the spine rotates around the
> left shoulder so obnoxious. Quacks shouldn't be practicing medicine.
>
>
>
Harlan Davis
Harlan
George Hibbard wrote:
> You'll have to take issue with a heck of a lot of others besides me with
> your objection to that point, Bill. Start with David Lee and by now he has
> a legion of believers --. I didn't author the notion, as queer as it sounds
> at first impression. I discovered it after studying with him. Nicklaus,
> Trevino, Chi Chil, Rocky Thompson, and a heck of a lot of others know the
> depth of his knowledge and respect him. He is a top 100 teacher, been on
> TGChannel and featured in Golf Mag.
>
> Some day when machines and videos have clarified this element better, you
> will see how the pivot over the left foot, knee, and hip, DOES proceed
> pretty much up the body to the left of the head. I have a hard time seeing
> how the line of the pivot I KNOW IS OCCURING OVER MY LEFT FOOT can take a
> serious bend to the right when it gets past my left hip on the way up in
> order to subsume my spine.
>
> By standing on your left foot ALONE with your right off the ground and then
> pivoting, I believe you will see how it is impossible for the base of your
> spine to remain the center of the pivot..... the base of MY spine is about
> 6" to the right of my left hip.
>
> George
>
> <bigho...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8t4ibt$gjg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <svbbi5o...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Again, 2 + 2
> > > is 4, regardless of the style of the teacher. And unfortunately those
> > at
> > > the lowest levels suffer from erroneous instruction ...
> >
> > That's why I found your statement that the spine rotates around the
> > left shoulder so obnoxious. Quacks shouldn't be practicing medicine.
> >
> >
> >
George Hibbard
David Laville
<g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>You'll have to take issue with a heck of a lot of others besides me with
>your objection to that point, Bill. Start with David Lee and by now he has
>a legion of believers --.
So does Natural Golf which you too don't speak too highly of.
>I didn't author the notion, as queer as it sounds
>at first impression. I discovered it after studying with him. Nicklaus,
>Trevino, Chi Chil, Rocky Thompson, and a heck of a lot of others know the
>depth of his knowledge and respect him.
And the list of other instructors known for their knowledge and
respect they earn is as long as my arm.
>He is a top 100 teacher, been on
>TGChannel and featured in Golf Mag.
So is Jack Kuykendall, shows how flawed the rating system is.
bigho...@my-deja.com
"George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
> You'll have to take issue with a heck of a lot of others besides me
with
> your objection to that point, Bill. Start with David Lee
I asked you before, and you didn't answer. So this is a Gravity Golf
concept? Did David Lee use the same words? Did he call it
a piano hinge running from your left foot to your left shoulder,
and that your body rotates around this axis on the downswing?
And specifically, the spine, and therefore the head, rotates around
the left shoulder, (but the head ends up not actually moving because
the back is falling back, and the arms are reaching out)?
Let me get this straight. At the top of my backswing, my left
shoulder is under my chin. At impact, my left shoulder has moved
forward and up. Most observers on earth would say that my shoulder
has rotated around my head. So how did my spine move around my
shoulder?
Maybe it is just me, you say? Maybe pros actually swing the way
you describe? Then wouldn't their heads be moving forward at impact?
Pros don't do that. But your students heads would if they tried
this.
Is the body really rigid, and capable only of spinning around one
axis? Or is it a collection of parts that can each rotate individually
on their own axis, and connected by joints that flex?
George Hibbard
is my word for the same type of action) -- i.e., where the body behaves like
a regular closet door hung vertically exactly like in your house, and the
bottom of the jamb is where the left foot is situated. On the downswing.
The hinge moves from the right foot of the backswing over to the left foot,
FOR the rotary turn on the left foot.
As I said before, if I stand on my left foot alone, I am also supported on,
and pivot around, my left HIP. But the bottom of the spine is to the right
of my left hip. So at least that part of my spine MUST pivot around, hinge
around, the hip. I haven't calculated or inspected with a microscope
exactly where that pivot originating in the left foot proceeds up the body
after it has passed through the hip, but by using the piano hinge (a piece
of hardware I am familiar with) I thought it might help golfers to
conceptualize their pivot as a free right to left turn of the whole body
around the left foot.
When golfers talk of "firing the right side" they are throwing the whole
body around right to left, and their weight is, or should be, virtually all
on the left foot for that powerful action. Firing the right side does not
convey to everyone with the same clarity what it is that they are to do:
communication with different people requires finding some way to find a
concept so that each person CAN translate the message into his own "this is
what I must do".
David uses the revolving door (trying to pivot around the center of the body
or the spine) to describe the inferior mechanics of many golfers, as a
contrast to the "single hinge" door arrangement.
Of course the image is not an absolutely perfect one: its use is for the
purpose of making an extremely important point.
I do not myself "try" to do things that are not part of a natural athletic
motion in my swing. I simply point out that the forward rotary motion is a
pivot on the left foot, and that you will experience your whole body going
pretty much around that left foot and hip. An attempt to center your weight
equally between your feet and pivot in the manner of a revolving door around
your spine is obviously extremely weak, contrary to the action of good
swings, and funny to watch. And with a little trial and error I think you
will agree that "wherever you put your weight, that is where you will pivot
from..." Try it. Stand with weight equally distributed and pivot. You
will pivot like a revolving door. Put your weight on your right foot. Now
your pivot is on the right side of your body. A "reverse weight shift" is
not so much a shift, I think, as it is a failure to take your weight OFF
your right foot and get it over to the left, causing the extremely right to
left downswing PERFORCE -- and that is because, with the pivot on the right
side of the body, the ball is very far to the left of THAT "swing center"
(the hinge position), and there is no way to prevent the natural behavior of
the club path way to left of the originally intended target!
I am not able to draw Jurgensenian models of every bone and joint of the
body to see exactly where the hinge wobbles, how many millimeters the center
of the head is to the right of where I think it "comes out at the top", or
whatever.
The business of communicating essential realities uses imagery (one of my
favorites is the child playground swing to convey certain properties of
pendulums), but it is not appropriate to drag in all the other things about
the images that have nothing to do with the point being illustrated (such as
whether the chain on the swing is made of rope or chain) for teaching or
explaining.
George
<bigho...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8t5vjo$l9b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Frostback
>
snip...and snip....and snip....and snip......
How about an easy answer to this. You may think that firing the right
side means pushing off with the right foot. Pushing off with the right
foot is bad. You simply move your center of balance from your right foot
to your left foot. It is a very subtle move that I for one tend to
exaggerate, leading to topped shots.
Dancing a jig on one foot twirling the club in the air will not help
with this move (although it could help your balance, which would help, I
guess, it looks real goofy on the driving range, however!). Simple
balance excercises, like strengthening the ankles, and balancing on one
foot with your arms outrstreched will help, as well as simply
transferring weight from one foot to the other and getting an idea what
that feels like.
Incorporating it into your swing, however, is a different thing, and
takes some work.
George Hibbard
my stuff that the right foot is PULLED off the ground by the momentum of the
midsection, and that the right foot does NOT push off.
As for your thin shots, please consider again that, the more lusty your
rotary turn, the more your left shoulder has pulled away from the ball than
where you were at setup. It is usually NOT lifting the head in a good
golfer. It is the NATURE of the fact that an exuberant rotary turn DOES
change where the downswing orbit will pass when it gets back to the ball.
I've mentioned Zoeller, Daly and those others he refers to, making an
adjustment for this reality AT SETUP (as contrasted with Tiger's drop of his
head about 3" during the swing, and Tom Lehman's signature drop of maybe
6"), OR ELSE EITHER ONE OF THEM WOULD ALSO TOP THE BALL.
I prefer to make the adjustment in the Daly/Zoeller fashion than
"guess-timate" during the swing just how much I need to "dip" so as NOT to
top it...
George
Frostback <Janel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39F6E21C...@worldnet.att.net...
"R&B"
seem to disagree. In fact, I think our differences are more in degree than
in kind...
I wrote:
> > Much truth to what George says here. However, as he
> > berates some "Teacher of the Year" types for making
> > broad brush statements, he makes the same
> > mistake by painting a large number of them
> > with a similarly broad brush.
GH says
> [ I ] had no intention of painting them all harshly.
> Simply that to be thought of as a teacher of the
> year type might get some to invest gospel
> into their SPOKEN instruction, when to do so
> will actually introduce ERRONEOUS AND
> DESTRUCTIVE elements into a technique
I'll even go a step further here. I dare say that instructors whose words
are published in printed form run the risk of doing even more damage. Once
a thought is put down on paper, to some, it becomes gospel, without regard
to the possibility of variances from one player to the next.
But in fairness, what's the author's alternative? It seems far-fetched to
think any golf instructor would pen their teachings and then offer all the
myriad alternatives that *might* work given unique circumstances of all
potential readers. You could easily see how this would turn a 200-page book
into about 10,000 pages. No one would ever get through it. And as history
has proven, no one would want to write it. The closest thing I can think of
to this idea is The Golfing Machine. And while we do have a few TGM
advocates in this group, I know of at least one (me) who's tried to read it
and just can't get through it.
Too much information.
I'm not disgreeing with you here, George. Merely emphasizing the truth that
whenever someone takes *a* position, that inherantly makes them an easy
target for criticism.
Let's just agree that, indeed, one size does not fit all, and that *some*
common sense must be applied to any instruction, both by the teacher and the
student. The problem is, since most high-handicappers view instruction
that's supposed to lead to a better swing as something of a "holy grail,"
they often don't apply the common sense with which they're blessed to the
learning process. Or they don't know enough about the physics involved in
the golf swing to know *how* to apply their common sense. After all, a good
golf swing *is* magic, isn't it? <g> Either way, the result is they take
the instruction quite literally and without regard to possible variances
that might apply to them.
But remember, such is the nature of instruction -- especially when it's read
from a book. You have to have a starting point from which to tweak. I
think what you're saying is that too many teacher never get to the tweaking
phase. That's correct, but it's also true that many students don't stay
with a teacher long enough to get there. They'll take a lesson or two every
year, or once every two years. That's hardly the commitment necessary to
get very far.
I wrote:
>
> > There is validity to all of them [referring to big-name instructors],
> > but it's hard for an amateur pupil to know if the method employed
> > by one particular swing guru is the right for them. [snip]
> > The proof is in the results, but by then, you've already
> > committed a fair amount of time. For most of us, it's better
> > to choose *a* path and stick to it and see where it leads.
> > Chances are it will produce an improved swing. Only those
> > at the highest levels are likely to suffer from instruction
> > not suited to their games.
GH disagrees:
>
> A lot of the stuff is enlightened common sense, so I don't
> think choosing instruction requires you to "stick to" a path.
> Again, 2 + 2 is 4, regardless of the style of the teacher.
> And unfortunately those at the lowest levels suffer from
> erroneous instruction (how many times do you see less
> flexible people at the range with their feet far apart
> in obedience to a virtually "universal" precept who are
> obviously prevented by that imperative.) The problem is
> that there are no caveats in those teacher's protocols,
> or explanations of WHY. Most are "do this" teachers,
> and I consider that to be patronizing, sometimes.
> My pupil is intelligent. He is entitled to reason and logic
> for him to build his swing, not just "authority".
We don't disagree at all here, George. I think you've merely misinterpreted
the meaning of what I wrote. Or maybe I just didn't express it as clearly
as I could have. Allow me to attempt some clarification here:
When I mentioned "finding *a* path and sticking to it," I was referring
mainly to pupils who have no path at all, such as with the example I cited
above of students who only take the occasional lesson. So many amateur
golfers use a patchwork of swing tips, band-aids and other assorted pieces
of information gleened from golf periodicals, instruction books, things
their buddies tell them, and yes, the rare lesson, etc., and never get any
cohesive instructional "curriculum." My advise to them is to find *a* path.
Find *an* instructor. Stick to *a* curriculum. Don't just try a mish-mosh
of ideas and think it will lead you to the promised land. It won't.
But you're quite right in saying that not every instructor is as willing to
make room for the possibility that an individual student is legitimately
interested in *UNDERSTANDING* the swing. And therein, I think, lies the
difference between "taking lessons" and "learning."
I can relate quite well to what you've described as the teaching connundrum
("do as I say, and don't ask questions"), as I experienced it myself.
Finally, I met a teacher who took me under his wing and got me to understand
things about the swing that I never processed before. But in fairness to
teachers, let it be said that I made it clear to this instructor that I was
willing to completely start over and re-learn everything I knew (or thought
I knew) about the golf swing. Not everyone shows that kind of willingness
or dedication to the game. And the fact that my instructor and I were both
working within the pro golf arena (as broadcasters) and would travel each
week gave each of us a captive audience with the other. He had plenty of
time to explain things to me, and I had plenty of time to ask questions.
Since we were both far, far from home, each of us were willing to spend the
time. Not every student has that kind of access to their teacher, even if
they do have questions. And not every teacher has that kind of time
available to devote to an individual student (without charging an arm and a
leg for it). I was very, very lucky.
I think we agree on this: The key to improving is to UNDERSTAND what's
going on and WHY. An amateur would do well to find an instructor who's
willing to EXPLAIN the aspects of the swing so that the pupil does more than
mimic the motion; he must UNDERSTAND the motion -- how it works, and why.
I wrote:
>
> > What has become clear to me in recent years is that
> > there are many paths that lead to a good golf swing.
[snip]
George disagrees in one regard:
>
> everyone has "a good swing" in him, but
> many have come to believe that they don't
> because after years they still haven't found it.
[snip]
Again, our disagreement here is in degree, and is not a disagreement in
kind...
Like I said, my swing would be good to some, but I recognize my limitations.
And I've long believed that there are low-handicappers, indeed some
mini-tour pros, who don't fully appreciate that there's "another shelf of
good" on display by the world's best players.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
So it gets down to a question of whether your swing is "good ENOUGH" for you
to enjoy whatever level you play at.
And as we all know, that can change from day to day. The trick is to have
absorbed enough knowledge about your own swing that you can make some
adjustments on the fly and get the most out of your game on days when you're
not hitting on all cylanders. To do that, it's helpful to have an
instructor who knows that his role *should* be to make himself obsolete.
Not all are willing to do that.
That's why it's important to be very careful in selecting an instructor.
Randy
George Hibbard
George Hibbard
cannot mislead, and that is the secret of commmucation. By showing the
reason behind a procedure, rather than "copy this", the golfer can HIMSELF
adapt his effort and procedure to the intended result, rather than fumble
and be confused with the "copy" procedure.
It have found it successful. George
"R&B" <RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8t6u5i$dva$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
snip to: I'll even go a step further here. I dare say that instructors
whose words
> are published in printed form run the risk of doing even more damage.
Once
> a thought is put down on paper, to some, it becomes gospel, without regard
> to the possibility of variances from one player to the next.
>
> But in fairness, what's the author's alternative? It seems far-fetched to
> think any golf instructor would pen their teachings and then offer all the
> myriad alternatives that *might* work given unique circumstances of all
> potential readers,> I'm not disgreeing with you here, George. Merely
emphasizing the truth that whenever someone takes *a* position, that
inherantly makes them an easy target for criticism.
> (Geo answ. A "position" is not necessarily a "do it my way". A
"position" can be simply a logical explanation of cause and effect whereby
the PUPIL discovers how his a exertion produces his b motion, or his a
direction produces a "b" reaction, and then come to make the adjustments he
needs from LOGIC, not from imitation of what the TEACHER does... This is
the essential difference between my approach vs. what I call conventional
didactics.. G
>
Randy's text: But remember, such is the nature of instruction -- especially
when it's read from a book. You have to have a starting point from which to
tweak.
G says: not necessarily; a concept understood can be immediately applied,
and adjusted as need be from some trial and error. The book can be
extremely specific and lucid. So a starting point can be EXACTLY THE SAME
AS THE ENDING POINT. But if the "way someone is going about moving the club
to begin with" is flawed, tweaking is meaningless.>
And right on Randy about the expectations of many/most(?) golfers: "I want
it fixed yesterday, but don't ask me to think."
(As a pianist, it's comparable to giving him a Beethoven Sonata to play
after a couple lessons, (although the metaphor really doesn't fit: 5 weeks
to a good swing is A VERY LONG TIME when well presented HOW to produce it
while 5 years for most 'pianists' is not enough..).
For some reason the fact that a person can make a club move somehow induces
a kind of sense that he can play golf with that motion.... Oh Tempora, Oh
Mores.)
Great reply, Randy>
>
"R&B"
terms to your students. I didn't exactly fall off the turnip truck
yesterday, but if I were on the lesson tee with you and you started rambling
like you've done in this thread, my eyes would glaze over about 1/4 of the
way thru the first small bucket of balls.
You're rather esoteric in your thought process, and that shows up vividly in
your writing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, only that you, too, would
need to adapt your style in order to connect with a number of students. I
haven't read this whole thread, but I'd be surprised if there weren't a few
in this group who've questioned your tactics.
Bring that style down here to Chattanooga, where the cumulative IQ of the
population is such that all the knowledge could easily fit into a thimble
with room left over for a Buick, and my hunch is they'd hang you up by your
tongue to a tree.
Randy
============================================================
Golf instruction for newbies: http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com
My RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm
RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services: www.randybrownproductions.com
============================================================
"George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote in message
news:sve1l4h...@corp.supernews.com...
> One other point, R&B: I believe it IS possible to write stuff in a way
that
> cannot mislead, and that is the secret of commmucation. By showing the
> reason behind a procedure, rather than "copy this", the golfer can HIMSELF
> adapt his effort and procedure to the intended result, rather than fumble
> and be confused with the "copy" procedure.
>
> It have found it successful. George
>
> "R&B" <RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8t6u5i$dva$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> snip to: I'll even go a step further here. I dare say that instructors
> whose words
> > are published in printed form run the risk of doing even more damage.
> Once
> > a thought is put down on paper, to some, it becomes gospel, without
regard
> > to the possibility of variances from one player to the next.
> >
> > But in fairness, what's the author's alternative? It seems far-fetched
to
> > think any golf instructor would pen their teachings and then offer all
the
> > myriad alternatives that *might* work given unique circumstances of all
> > potential readers,> I'm not disgreeing with you here, George. Merely
> emphasizing the truth that whenever someone takes *a* position, that
> inherantly makes them an easy target for criticism.
>
> > (Geo answ. A "position" is not necessarily a "do it my way". A
> "position" can be simply a logical explanation of cause and effect whereby
> the PUPIL discovers how his a exertion produces his b motion, or his a
> direction produces a "b" reaction, and then come to make the adjustments
he
> needs from LOGIC, not from imitation of what the TEACHER does... This is
> the essential difference between my approach vs. what I call conventional
> didactics.. G
>
> >
> Randy's text: But remember, such is the nature of instruction --
especially
> when it's read from a book. You have to have a starting point from which
to
> tweak.
>
George Hibbard
convoluted. I mention in my book that without my wife's editing, it would
have been unreadable.
I just don't get her iron hand on me when I ramble in this forum.
Eventually the convolutions touch down, and I think, when distilled, I
finally arrive at some straightforward lingo.
Well taken, Randy.
If anyone has any of my material and would report in about that point, it
would add to the info on that point. Meanwhile I will try to be more
careful. And that's hard sometimes for a brain with my genetic wiring...
How do you make a smiley? George
"R&B" <RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8t80mf$2o3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> All I can say, George, is I sure hope you speak in simpler, more direct
> terms to your students. I didn't exactly fall off the turnip truck
> yesterday, but if I were on the lesson tee with you and you started
rambling
> like you've done in this thread, my eyes would glaze over about 1/4 of the
> way thru the first small bucket of balls.
>
> You're rather esoteric in your thought process, and that shows up vividly
in
> your writing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, only that you, too,
would
> need to adapt your style in order to connect with a number of students. I
> haven't read this whole thread, but I'd be surprised if there weren't a
few
> in this group who've questioned your tactics.
>
> Bring that style down here to Chattanooga, where the cumulative IQ of the
> population is such that all the knowledge could easily fit into a thimble
> with room left over for a Buick, and my hunch is they'd hang you up by
your
> tongue to a tree.
>
> Randy
> ============================================================
> Golf instruction for newbies: http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com
> My RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm
> RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
> Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services: www.randybrownproductions.com
> ============================================================
>
>
> "George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote in message
> news:sve1l4h...@corp.supernews.com...
> > One other point, R&B: I believe it IS possible to write stuff in a way
> that
> > cannot mislead, and that is the secret of commmucation. By showing the
> > reason behind a procedure, rather than "copy this", the golfer can
HIMSELF
> > adapt his effort and procedure to the intended result, rather than
fumble
> > and be confused with the "copy" procedure.
> >
> > It have found it successful. George
> >
> > "R&B" <RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:8t6u5i$dva$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > snip to: I'll even go a step further here. I dare say that instructors
> > whose words
> > > are published in printed form run the risk of doing even more damage.
> > Once
> > > a thought is put down on paper, to some, it becomes gospel, without
> regard
> > > to the possibility of variances from one player to the next.
> > >
> > > But in fairness, what's the author's alternative? It seems
far-fetched
> to
> > > think any golf instructor would pen their teachings and then offer all
> the
> > > myriad alternatives that *might* work given unique circumstances of
all
> > > potential readers,> I'm not disgreeing with you here, George. Merely
> > emphasizing the truth that whenever someone takes *a* position, that
> > inherantly makes them an easy target for criticism.
> >
> > > (Geo answ. A "position" is not necessarily a "do it my way". A
> > "position" can be simply a logical explanation of cause and effect
whereby
> > the PUPIL discovers how his a exertion produces his b motion, or his a
> > direction produces a "b" reaction, and then come to make the adjustments
> he
> > needs from LOGIC, not from imitation of what the TEACHER does... This
is
> > the essential difference between my approach vs. what I call
conventional
> > didactics.. G
> >
> > >
> > Randy's text: But remember, such is the nature of instruction --
> especially
> > when it's read from a book. You have to have a starting point from
which
> to
> > tweak.
> >
David Laville
>Let me get this straight. At the top of my backswing, my left
>shoulder is under my chin. At impact, my left shoulder has moved
>forward and up. Most observers on earth would say that my shoulder
>has rotated around my head. So how did my spine move around my
>shoulder?
ROTFLMAO!!! There you go, putting logic to his claims......
In another post he told me to stand parallel to a wall with the
fingers of my left hand touching it. Without moving my head when I
pull my left shoulder back it pulls the finger tips from the wall
proving the swing arc (excuse me, orbit) is closer in the downswing.
Didn't he contradict himself about the spine rotating around the left
shoulder with this drill????????
David Laville
<g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>R&B: You got me good. The beauty is that in person I somehow am less
>convoluted. I mention in my book that without my wife's editing, it would
>have been unreadable.
Than get her to start editing your post.
Dick Weld
center of curvature.
Dick Weld
George Hibbard wrote:
> How do you make a smiley?s
"R&B"
instructor, they need to make a bee line for an orthopedic surgeon. Does
this really need further explanation? It is anatomically and
biomechanically impossible, and any 2nd grader can see it.
Therefore, one can only assume that what George is suggesting here is "the
FEELING" of this happening (since it is physically impossible for it to
ACTUALLY happen). Teaching feelings is a tricky thing, as not all students
respond the same to the same thoughts and swing cues.
We see this all the time in golf instruction. "It'll feel like you're doing
this," when in fact you're doing something else. How many of us FEEL like
we're taking the club to parallel at the top and then see our swing on video
and discover that we're getting past parallel, or somesuch? Thisn type of
disconnect in teaching/learning happens all the time.
Teaching the swing by feel is not necessarily a bad thing. But once again,
George, in his attempts to be all things to all people fails to recognize
that by taking *a* position and insisting he's right, he becomes like all
other golf instructors who he criticizes for not adapting their principles
to individuals. George says his teaching method takes this individualism
into consideration, yet when thoughts get recorded into words, it commits
the teacher to one principle.
Plain and simple, it's just impossible to have it both ways, especially as
long as you're committing ideas to black and white. Golf instruction, like
all learning, is constantly a work in progress, as is the process of
understanding. It is fluid, and as such, offering "snapshots" can be as
misleading as viewing snapshots of a golf swing. It's only a position
through which one passes for an instant.
I give George the benefit of the doubt for trying to share something he's
found that works...for some.
But as I've discovered, trying to impose a specific "swing thought" to
others won't always produce the same result for everyone. To illustrate
this, let me cite an example:
The now infamous "turn your belt buckle to the target to initiate the
downswing" move. For me, this key is essential. Yet others appropriately
make the point that the hips must actually shift to the left to begin the
downswing. Of course they're right, but what they fail to recognize (and
they couldn't possibly know without seeing my swing) is that my tendency is
to shift laterally with my hips and then stop, causing the hands and arms to
pass my hips, leading to hooks. By having the swing key in my head to turn
my belt buckle to the target, I'm more likely to clear my hips and keep the
swing in better sync. There are other players whose tendency is to spin
out. For them, the "belt buckle to target" cue would probably be the
exactly wrong thing to tell them, since they're already overcooking that
move. They'd need a swing thought to get them to shift their hips laterally
first. Identifying the starting point and bringing a pupil along to the
next step is what good teachers do.
To summarize, let me just say it appears George is a good chap whose
enthusiasm for sharing information seems sincere. In that way, I can relate
to him. But at the same time, he falls into the same trap for which he
berates more notable swing gurus by taking a position and standing by it.
George has said (and, in theory, I agree) that "one size does not fit all."
But consider this: one size may not look good on all, but everyone's trying
to put on the jacket. They may not all squeeze into a 42R, but they're all
trying on jackets with buttons and sleeves. The difference teachers must
recognize is that some students put their right arm through the right sleeve
first, while others prefer putting their left sleeve on first. Some like to
pull the darn jacket over their head. And a small number might feel more
comfortable wearing it backwards. In the end, the only thing that matters
is whether they can walk with it on.
Golf instruction -- *any* instruction for that matter -- is about taking a
student from point A to point B. Their perspective MUST be taken into
consideration. That certain instructors do not factor in the beliefs
already in play with a student is at the center of why some students don't
learn, and it's certainly at the center of why we have these debates in RSG.
"I'm right." "No, I'm right." Truth is, you both may be right, under
certain circumstances. But nobody's right in all circumstances.
Since George's statements (and the teachings of all instructors) assume a
certain perspective, they inherently are out of step with certain students
whose perspectives are different than the one assumed. That doesn't make
them wrong, it just makes them inappropriate when applied to certain pupils.
Randy
============================================================
Golf instruction for newbies: http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com
My RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm
RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services: www.randybrownproductions.com
============================================================
"George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote in message
news:svdj7a8...@corp.supernews.com...
KPH
<RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>ut once again,
>George, in his attempts to be all things to all people fails to recognize
>that by taking *a* position and insisting he's right, he becomes like all
>other golf instructors who he criticizes for not adapting their principles
>to individuals. George says his teaching method takes this individualism
>into consideration, yet when thoughts get recorded into words, it commits
>the teacher to one principle.
I started this thread and can only emphasize that what makes George's
work a classic, in my opinion, is precisely that he made it very easy
for me to grasp the principles of golf and to encourage me to get in
tune with my own body to customize my swing. For the first time I
feel that somebody finally enabled me to stop driving around in
circles and allowed me to head toward the destination of a better and
more consistent swing.
I have learned more from George's materials than the pile of other
works that I have, including the SLAP cd and book, which I consider
very good. Opinions certainly vary, but I believe tht George comes
across as having a scienfic attitude of seeking the truth, finding the
principles, and a good enough heart to share some ideas.
How many other authors show enough interest in this group to post on a
regular basis? From the treatment George has received, I wonder if
any others would bother to post at all.
KPH
Bruce Newman
<trini...@mediaone.net> wrote:
[...]
> How many other authors show enough interest in this group to post on a
> regular basis? From the treatment George has received, I wonder if
> any others would bother to post at all.
I haven't followed much of this thread, but I agree 100% with this
statement. On the whole, RSGers are very quick to condemn any poster
showing even a hint of commercialism, and frequently in a rude manner.
Perhaps that comes from our anti-spam efforts. By being overly cautious,
agrumentative (and maybe cynical?) we can lose some good contributors.
Maybe it would be better to back off a bit or even just ignore them if you
don't agree. Others could benefit, at least.
George seems like a decent enough guy to me although, as I said, I haven't
followed all this.
Bruce
Bruce Newman * Fredericton, NB, Canada * bene...@nbnet.nb.ca
RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm
http://go.to/bruce_newman
Mike Dalecki
decent-enough guy. Where I tend to be skeptical about all of this is
when I compare what George tells us versus somebody like, say, John
Baima (custom clubmaker).
I wish that you, or somebody, would boil everything that George has said
down to the meat, so I could understand it. I have tried to follow the
threads, and frankly, haven't been able to put my finger on a single
thing he's said that I'd find useful for my own game.
I had corresponded privately with George, asking him for more
information about his program as he offered me in responding to the "I
found my swing" thread I initiated a couple of weeks ago. His
reply--which I won't reproduce here--boiled down to this theory of the
golf swing:
Learn to make a repeatable swing
Learn to set up to the ball properly
Learn how to get direction and distance
Learn how to do these things on the golf course
Well. Pretty heady stuff there. Nothing I couldn't have found in any
reputable golf instruction book. And so I don't really know what I
should be getting out of what he's written here.
Now, I have no problem with the idea he may have found a better way to
teach the swing to some people. Maybe he has. No one teacher is right
for everyone.
But where I part ways with George's approach here is that I can't see
him giving us much of anything but teasers regarding the golf swing. I
have this feeling we're only getting part of the story, and I can't tell
which part.
Now, in George's defense, he's also contributed mightily to a variety of
threads (the eyeglasses thread sticks out in my mind, but there have
been many others). And I don't see any attempt in those threads to push
perfectimpact on us.
But I have this funny feeling that many of those "swing theory" threads
he's involved in are nothing more than a subtle, or not-so-subtle,
attempt to suck us in to buying his program. And that, you know, starts
to be you-know-what.
Contrast this with John Baima. John gives away his Java swingweight
calculator; he's answered questions about a whole variety of things
related to clubbuilding; he gives away what he knows, and I don't notice
in any way that he is holding back. George is obviously holding back;
if he gives it away, what would he sell?
Oddly, I suspect that he'd have far more success giving it away; people
who found it successful would, IMO, be much more inclined to buy the
whole package, already having seen the validity of the method.
But's that not what I sense in all of it.
So, Bruce, I'll ask again (and I'll understand if you pass): Could you,
or anyone, boil George's "methods" such as he's posted them here to
something that's fairly concise, and in a single post, so I could
evaluate it?
Thanks! And don't let that darned weather get in the way of your
continuing to post here over the winter, Bruce.
Mike
--
Mike Dalecki
I do not patronize spammers! Help keep R.S.G clean.
You can expect the same etiquette from me here on R.S.G as you'd expect
from me on the golf course.
RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/daleckim.htm
Bruce Newman
> You know, Bruce, I agree with you that George sounds like a
> decent-enough guy. Where I tend to be skeptical about all of this is
> when I compare what George tells us versus somebody like, say, John
> Baima (custom clubmaker).
[...]
> So, Bruce, I'll ask again (and I'll understand if you pass): Could you,
> or anyone, boil George's "methods" such as he's posted them here to
> something that's fairly concise, and in a single post, so I could
> evaluate it?
>
> Thanks! And don't let that darned weather get in the way of your
> continuing to post here over the winter, Bruce.
I'm not a good candidate to condense George's methods because I haven't
read most of them. I know this isn't probably just, but I don't tend to
wade through long posts. Call me lazy, but I skim a lot and if I see a lot
of banter a la David Laville versus Scott Burr, I fold it up in a hurry.
Instructional threads just don't interest me a lot and the long ones full
of disrespect, even less.
Maybe George is pushing his product; I don't really care. I see he notes it
in his .sig sometimes, but sometimes not. Perhaps--likely, even--it is a
subliminal advertising form. I don't really care about that either, as long
as he is on topic and contributing. My only beef, and a very small one at
that, is that people jump on him and others like him for what they suspect.
I doubt they would act that way in real life so it seems, well, not
necessarliy wrong but, at least, unfriendly. Know what I mean?
I might only play golf six months a year, Mike, but I think it all twelve.
;-) I'll be here and posting as usual. I read more than I write though and
when I post, it is spontaneous and right off the top.
George Hibbard
response is not short either.
So I'll answer point by point.
1) You mis-stated my comments to you about my instruction: I stated that
the process of learning golf was often frustrated by a pupil expecting to do
everything at once. I stated that I found it necessary to keep separate the
4 distinct steps of learning golf, to wit: 1) learn to make an efficient,
good athletic motion -- the swing motion. 2) Learn to hit a ball with it.
3) Learn to aim it and control distance. and 4) THEN use it on a golf
course for pleasure. I stated that when students expect, on the basis of a
tip or two, or a lesson or two, to be able to be immediately successful at
no. 4 that they were totally unrealistic and that they would be putting
themselves on overload, hence preventing learning.
This introductory comment is not my "theory of the golf swing" by any
stretch. A computer crashes when it has too many functions to do at once.
The teacher who was working with Albert Einstein dropped all 4 golf balls
the great man threw at him in the middle of his lesson. Einstein scolded
him: "When I throw you 4 balls, you catch nothing.! So when you teach, make
only one point at a time!" [p. 108, Golf Magazine, October 2000] So I teach
each one of these things one at a time.
It takes 200 pages of my book to do it all. Is it your suggestion that I
start posting the book on the RSG? Didn't know it was appropriate.
2) It takes either the visual (video) to SHOW someone a simple procedure
for how to move the club, which gives rise to how to hold it, which then
gives rise to WHERE to put it and where to move it, and the consequences of
motions, using some exertions, intentions, and not using others. This is
not transmittable by words of less than about 100 pages of the 200. If golf
were so simple or simplistic, this forum would not exist because we would
all be scratch golfers and have no need for such insignificant stuff. The
truth is that many/most golfers do NOT know WHERE to put the club, how to
hold it so that you CAN move it where it needs to go, and what to exert
(arms? body? legs? weight? and a whole litany of details) so that it makes
an efficient and easily repeatable motion OR THEY WOULD ALREADY BE NEAR
SCRATCH GOLFERS. The awkwardness of so many swings is evidence of this.
Does the group prefer "words" or "pictures" (video) for this contribution?
So THAT is the first "golf swing instruction" as such.
If it is "teasing" not to get into about 20 minutes of the video to show
this, or many pages of the book, I am guilty.
3) After this information is imparted and correctly understood and executed
(after the video, anyone executes it in the first few minutes! -- the more
advanced the golfer, the more enthusiasm he states for its clearing up
problems he has encountered -- the newbies are not aware of what they do not
have to struggle with) THEN the next step is to "exuberate" it into full
athletic motion, gently enough to keep it from admitting viruses, but
exuberant enough to tap into natural athleticism -- the same natural and
exuberant kind of thing they do when they skip rocks on a pond or try to
throw a baseball in from center field --- exuberance and the body's natural
reactions to "the task at hand" bring in all kinds of unteachable but
ingenious inborn mechanisms (as for walking), the "brains" of which they are
not aware.
4) After this, we address the business of how to make that swinging machine
hit a golf ball dead center. And I know that you all know how hard that is,
and as far as I can see, it is NEVER addressed in and of itself, as though
it was irrelevant, or as if "you will get it if you just try". But if you
are laboring under a "don't move your head down" and whiff the ball all the
time, or bad vision and you toe the ball all the time, or the lack of any
other salient information, you are not well served by a teacher who doesn't
enable your success.
If I set a ball for the Iron Byron somewhere else than where the path of the
center of the clubhead will hit it, the perfect swinging machine is useless.
Not because the machine is flawed, but because the person who put the ball
there didn't know where to put it. So, golf being backwards, a perfect
swing is useless unless the golfer knows HOW TO PUT THE MACHINE SO THAT THE
ORBITING CLUBHEAD MAKES center of percussion impact ("perfect impact"). So
what good is a good swing that can't hit the ball?
5) After ALL these details have been explained and clarified AND MANAGED TO
A POINT OF REASONABLE GOOD IMPACT (as regards fat, thin, toe, heel, swing
path, appropriate vs. inappropriate exertions, when, weight shift to
facilitate it all, etc.) THEN we go about "how to aim". And that is not
about how to aim THE SETUP, but how to aim THE SWING SO THAT IT WILL PROPEL
THE BALL IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
(If I unknowingly set Iron Byron to the right of the target line and set the
club in the clamp so that at impact it is either open or closed, the ball
WILL NOT GO in the direction "hoped".) So when we find out HOW CORRECTLY TO
SET AND AIM THE SWINGING CLUB, THEN AND ONLY THEN will we know how to take
the stance that EACH ONE OF US INDIVIDUALLY needs to take, instead of using
Trevino's, Tiger's, Daly's, Player's, Colin's, OR ANYONE ELSE BESIDE
YOURSELF! So finding your stance etc. is a RESULT, not a PRECONDITION, and
it is based on the OBJECTIVE of the setup, which is not to conform to a
model, but to swing the club on line with precision.
3) After this, we find out how to control distance, and that section on
pendulum behavior and calibration is about 3 chapters.
4) We also talk about things like controlling the distance for less than
full shots, putting, optics, chipping, sand play principles, and achieving
one's maximum distance.
Well, maybe that addresses THIS particular post of Mike's. ANYTHING ELSE?
ANYONE?
I DO invite inquiries about any kind of swing problems you may be having and
I will give you what I can of insight or clarification... FWIW
NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE GROUP:
In the issue of Golf Magazine just arrived (Nov. 2000) in the section near
the end (page 116 of my edition) the heading is big and bold 'THE FIVE
FUNDAMENTALS" under the banner: "kids' golf".
Listed as no. 1 is "the grip" and I quote: "Place the pad of your left hand
on top of the shaft of the golf club...."
On page 46 of the same issue the pictures of Jasper clearly show his thumb
to the right of the top. On Page 39 it's Mike Hebron's. Page 85, Tom
Lehman. Pictures of Daly, Couples, Azinger, Langer, Duval, Hogan, etc;
available anywhere clearly show their thumbs (some well) to the right of the
top of the shaft. Tell me that the child for whom such a weak grip will not
work is well served by that teaching (they do not call it "advice, subject
to adjustment or the realities of YOUR body -- something a young player is
absolutely incapable of judging anyway -- he believes what he reads......)
Will anyone pretend that an adult, say nothing of a child, is going to pick
up that subtlety and incorporate the stronger grip in the face of the
specific direction of the written word on page 116?
One of the points of the preface to my book and exclamations on my website
indicate that THESE THINGS ARE SUBTLE! (referring to many many more than
those addressed in this message...)
So the child is taught a slice grip, is clueless why his balls all banana
off to the right ("I am a klutz..."), and then struggles to close the club
through the hitting area to make a passable result. Of course what he is
doing is coming to believe that such unnatural contriving IS PART OF A
NORMAL GOLF TECHNIQUE. I WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS THE RIGHT GRIP? (by that
PGA vehicle called "Golf Magazine")? Of course, he never questions it... 40
years later he may have been humbled enough to question it, but even then he
may well be so invested in giving tips to his buddies how not to banana the
ball that even then he may still be clueless but believe he is an expert,
and be scoring in the low 90s on a good day.
Talk to me, guys. Please bring your problems and I'll gladly address them
seriously. I love this game, and I love sharing info.
George
Mike Dalecki <mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:39F8AE81...@dalecki.net...
clip
bigho...@my-deja.com
bene...@nbnet.nb.ca (Bruce Newman) wrote:
> In article <f33hvs8vd1vl2qpov...@4ax.com>, KPH
> <trini...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > How many other authors show enough interest in this group to post on
a
> > regular basis? From the treatment George has received, I wonder if
> > any others would bother to post at all.
>
> I haven't followed much of this thread, but I agree 100% with this
> statement.
I was willing to cut George some slack until he started blasting
his competition.
Let's see:
He put down Homer Kelly, Jim McLean ("it makes me gag..."), Butch
Harmon ("Harmon, go figure.."), and all teaching pros ("DON'T
TAKE LESSONS").
The implication, of course, is that only George has the answers
to your swing problems, if you'll just mosey over here to this
url and pony up a few bucks. He even said this, but then quip'ed
that he was being ironical. I wonder.
He complains about pros ruining students with incorrect instruction
while at the same time making some huge errors in his own posts.
Well, if he can dish it out, he ought to be able to take it. And
it looks like he can, so what's the problem?
"R&B"
>
> RSGers are very quick to condemn any poster
> showing even a hint of commercialism, and
> frequently in a rude manner. Perhaps that comes
> from our anti-spam efforts. By being overly cautious,
> agrumentative (and maybe cynical?) we can lose
> some good contributors.
I agree, and for my own part, I've tried to stop short of being overly
critical of George. FWIW, I have exchanged a series of private e-mails with
the man in an effort to learn a bit more about him. I don't think George
would take offense to my sharing a few observations:
1. His enthusiasm seems genuinely sincere. And while he may lack certain
credentials that some might consider a prerequisite to teaching, I side with
him that a PGA card does not necessarily make someone a good teacher. It's
not exactly the same as having a medical license to practice medicine. One
can have a thorough understanding of the game and not be an especially adept
performer. As long as they have the communication skills to convey the
necessary information, indeed, they seem to have the prerequisite skills to
teach.
2. George seems to be a likable enough chap. Not that he needs my stamp of
approval by any means, but I think we've all seen a few fly-by-night
wannabes come through here who took a more boastful approach to stating
their case. You gotta like a guy who's willing to accept criticism and keep
a light-hearted attitude about it all. This ain't nuclear science here,
folks.
3. I've found him quite willing to take what gentle criticism I've leveled
in the spirit with which it was intended. How many times have we seen
others that have come before him bristle at the first sign of criticism?
Most of them are gone, and good riddance. George doesn't seem to be of the
same ilk, and for that alone, I welcome him.
4. While he does have a book and a video, I haven't seen much in his posts
to indicate that he's using this forum as part of an all-out marketing
effort. I suspect our resident spam bloodhounds would have sniffed him out
by now if he were violating our sternly held custom in that regard. Is he
setting us up? Well, if you're cynical enough, you could conclude that he
might be. But I prefer not to assume the worst. To now, he's certainly
conducted himself in a manner I think most would agree is appropriate. And
he certainly hasn't come on as strong as some that preceeded him. (Remember
Andy?)
I would echo Bruce's sentiments that some in RSG would tend to run off many
thin-skinned contributors who are not accustomed to our culture. It's good
to know that once in a while, someone comes along who's willing to stake out
a position and defend it without resorting to certain tactics of which we've
all grown weary.
RSG can use more of that. It wasn't that long ago that folks were asking
for more posts about golf and less about this and that. Well, here's
somebody who posts about golf. So who's got a problem with that now?
Randy
Bruce Newman
> He put down Homer Kelly, Jim McLean ("it makes me gag..."), Butch
> Harmon ("Harmon, go figure.."), and all teaching pros ("DON'T
> TAKE LESSONS").
>
> The implication, of course, is that only George has the answers
> to your swing problems, if you'll just mosey over here to this
> url and pony up a few bucks. He even said this, but then quip'ed
> that he was being ironical. I wonder.
>
> He complains about pros ruining students with incorrect instruction
> while at the same time making some huge errors in his own posts.
>
> Well, if he can dish it out, he ought to be able to take it. And
> it looks like he can, so what's the problem?
I just say that the man's talking about golf, the entire purpose of this
newsgroup. If you don't buy into what he is saying, just skip his posts
maybe. But even better, read them and you might learn something. It's free!
At least you can weigh what he says and either accept it or toss it away.
But why heckle simply because he sells a product for money? That is my only
point.
Dave Clary
<RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>RSG can use more of that. It wasn't that long ago that folks were asking
>for more posts about golf and less about this and that. Well, here's
>somebody who posts about golf. So who's got a problem with that now?
AMEN!!! And I have no problem with taking him to task on his _ideas_
if you have a different opinion. I just don't understand why it has
to be done as a personal attack. Golf is supposed to be a gentleman's
(woman's) game--sure could fool me reading some of the posts here.
And when Laville agreed with Scottburr in a post, I figure Satan is
looking for his parka! :-)
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX
http://www.geocities.com/~texasp38
RSG Roll Call
http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/claryd.htm
bigho...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
> > He put down Homer Kelly, Jim McLean ("it makes me gag..."), Butch
> > Harmon ("Harmon, go figure.."), and all teaching pros ("DON'T
> > TAKE LESSONS").
> >
> > The implication, of course, is that only George has the answers
> > to your swing problems, if you'll just mosey over here to this
> > url and pony up a few bucks. He even said this, but then quip'ed
> > that he was being ironical. I wonder.
> >
> > He complains about pros ruining students with incorrect instruction
> > while at the same time making some huge errors in his own posts.
> >
> > Well, if he can dish it out, he ought to be able to take it. And
> > it looks like he can, so what's the problem?
>
> I just say that the man's talking about golf, the entire purpose of
this
> newsgroup.
He's also ridiculing teaching pro's, and top instructors.
If he would just stick to the golf talk, I would have no
problems.
> If you don't buy into what he is saying, just skip his posts
> maybe. But even better, read them and you might learn something.
Hmmm, I don't know quite what to make of this comment. It
sounds like a personal insult. Is that how you meant it?
>It's free!
> At least you can weigh what he says and either accept it or toss it
away.
> But why heckle simply because he sells a product for money? That is my
only
> point.
And my points are:
1. I'm not heckling him. Pointing out fallacies is not heckling. Are
other people not entitled to opinions, too?
2. George does plenty of heckling of his own. If he'd just stick with
the golf talk, and not slam his competition every chance he got, I
wouldn't bother with him.
3. I don't care if he sells a product. But I do object when he puts
down people who sell a better product than he has. He comes across
like a quack, who stays in business only by disparaging doctors.
George Hibbard
THAT is what puts them down.
For any point I have stated, I will give you proof.
Just posted one. George
<bigho...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tartm$mg4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Bruce Newman
> In article <benewman-ya0240800...@allnews.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> bene...@nbnet.nb.ca (Bruce Newman) wrote:
[...]
> > If you don't buy into what he is saying, just skip his posts
> > maybe. But even better, read them and you might learn something.
>
> Hmmm, I don't know quite what to make of this comment. It
> sounds like a personal insult. Is that how you meant it?
No, not at all. I'm just saying that it is all information. I've been less
than a 5 handicap for 38 years, much less for most of it, and I learn lots
of things in RSG. With George, for example, he could ridicule pros all he
wants if that is his personal style. It wouldn't bother me--well, maybe rub
me the wrong way a bit--if I was getting something from what he preaches.
> >It's free!
> > At least you can weigh what he says and either accept it or toss it
> away.
> > But why heckle simply because he sells a product for money? That is my
> only
> > point.
>
> And my points are:
>
> 1. I'm not heckling him. Pointing out fallacies is not heckling. Are
> other people not entitled to opinions, too?
I'm not singling you out, bighornbill, and I only wrote originally that it
didn't make much sense to me to be rude to a guy who is posting on topic
and without blatantly spamming, simply because he is suspected of flogging
his wares. In fact, I have not read any of your posts that have anything to
do with George. I have read others though that seem rude and unfriendly.
That only bothers me because it is a form of censorship, i.e., people with
a lot to contribute may be chased away by a couple of rude and overzealous
individuals. We all lose then.
> 2. George does plenty of heckling of his own. If he'd just stick with
> the golf talk, and not slam his competition every chance he got, I
> wouldn't bother with him.
I can only suggest you don't read him then.
> 3. I don't care if he sells a product. But I do object when he puts
> down people who sell a better product than he has. He comes across
> like a quack, who stays in business only by disparaging doctors.
Again, don't read him. Why is he pushing your buttons? I would be upset if
he put me down, but I couldn't care less if he put another golf pro down.
His style is his style. We each have our own.
bkn...@verio.net
<g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>I do not put down the people. I point out the errors in their teaching.
>THAT is what puts them down.
>
>For any point I have stated, I will give you proof.
This statement is very self-serving. You seem to feel that your
opinions are sacrosanct. This, plus your post answering the
"esoteria" of your messages, imparts the idea that you just flat-out
think you're smarter than others. I'll bet that this is not the
first time this has been suggested to you.
I, like some others, haven't gotten into most of your posts. I find
them boring. Incidentally, I feel the same about LaVille's (who I
know and a great fondness for) and Scottburr's treatises on mechanics.
That's just not my bag.
For those that have garnered something from them, I say great!
Different ideas from different people sometimes turn on a light. But
that is just my point; you can't be right about everything, and all
others wrong about everything. <That's only reserved for Trubbelsum
:-) >
Any proof that you offer will just be opinion, and like a specific
body part... everyone has one. If your methods work for some, fine.
They won't work for all.
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
bigho...@my-deja.com
"George Hibbard" <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
> I do not put down the people. I point out the errors in their
teaching.
> THAT is what puts them down.
>
> For any point I have stated, I will give you proof.
>
> Just posted one. George
>
See, he's a big boy. He can take it.
Zamuel
> Anyone whose spine "hinges around their hip" need not consult with a golf
> instructor, they need to make a bee line for an orthopedic surgeon.
Really!...I tried it today...something went "Snap" and I'm now standing sort of
lopsided and can't walk without leaning on my 2I...Got any insurance
George...???
]]]Z[[[
Mike Dalecki
>
> Mike: read your post. It deserves a reply. It's pretty long, so my
> response is not short either.
>
> So I'll answer point by point.
>
> 1) You mis-stated my comments to you about my instruction: I stated that
> the process of learning golf was often frustrated by a pupil expecting to do
> everything at once.
George, you did say that, but it wasn't the first thing you said. The
first was the four steps. Yes, you did say that people often expect
rapid, excellent improvement (my paraphrasing of what you said, but I
think it's fair), when that's not likely.
>I stated that I found it necessary to keep separate the
> 4 distinct steps of learning golf, to wit: 1) learn to make an efficient,
> good athletic motion -- the swing motion. 2) Learn to hit a ball with it.
> 3) Learn to aim it and control distance. and 4) THEN use it on a golf
> course for pleasure. I stated that when students expect, on the basis of a
> tip or two, or a lesson or two, to be able to be immediately successful at
> no. 4 that they were totally unrealistic and that they would be putting
> themselves on overload, hence preventing learning.
Well, I must confess--I don't find this to be new.
> This introductory comment is not my "theory of the golf swing" by any
> stretch.
Call it your theory of teaching the golf swing, then. Maybe more fair
to label it that way. Doesn't matter, though, as I'm still left with
the sense of, well, being underwhelmed by it.
> A computer crashes when it has too many functions to do at once.
Sure. This is analogous to having too many swing thoughts.
> The teacher who was working with Albert Einstein dropped all 4 golf balls
> the great man threw at him in the middle of his lesson. Einstein scolded
> him: "When I throw you 4 balls, you catch nothing.! So when you teach, make
> only one point at a time!" [p. 108, Golf Magazine, October 2000] So I teach
> each one of these things one at a time.
A great story. But again, I'm not sure it's revelatory.
> It takes 200 pages of my book to do it all. Is it your suggestion that I
> start posting the book on the RSG? Didn't know it was appropriate.
But what of that book are we getting here, George? It seems very
little, to me. Of course, I haven't read it, but I also haven't been
able to translate what you're saying here to something useful for my
game (I'm a 13.6 handicap, so there's plenty of room for improvement).
> 2) It takes either the visual (video) to SHOW someone a simple procedure
> for how to move the club, which gives rise to how to hold it, which then
> gives rise to WHERE to put it and where to move it, and the consequences of
> motions, using some exertions, intentions, and not using others.
Is this done in your book? Or do I need the video too?
> This is
> not transmittable by words of less than about 100 pages of the 200.
I guess I'm not understanding something. If, as I think you are saying,
each golfer has his/her own individual swing that's optimal, what if
anything would need to be shown by video? Wouldn't that necessarily
force everyone into the same model (the one shown)?
> If golf
> were so simple or simplistic, this forum would not exist because we would
> all be scratch golfers and have no need for such insignificant stuff.
No argument there.
> The
> truth is that many/most golfers do NOT know WHERE to put the club, how to
> hold it so that you CAN move it where it needs to go, and what to exert
> (arms? body? legs? weight? and a whole litany of details) so that it makes
> an efficient and easily repeatable motion OR THEY WOULD ALREADY BE NEAR
> SCRATCH GOLFERS.
Well, George, how do I do that? Let's assume that I don't know where to
put the club, or how to hold it, or what to exert. How do I do that?
> The awkwardness of so many swings is evidence of this.
> Does the group prefer "words" or "pictures" (video) for this contribution?
> So THAT is the first "golf swing instruction" as such.
Again, I'm confused. I seem to recall your discussion revolving around,
in part, the idea that individual golfers have individual swings, and
that an optimal (individual) swing can be found for each golfer, taking
into account his/her idiosyncracies (if I've misstated this, please
correct). It sounds like you have a model, which doesn't to me sound
like something that would vary from golfer to golfer. And if you have a
model, how does it allow for those idiosyncratic differences?
> If it is "teasing" not to get into about 20 minutes of the video to show
> this, or many pages of the book, I am guilty.
Then I'd be hard pressed not to call it spam. If you cannot tell us
here (or won't, whichever it is), and the only way we can learn about it
is to buy your package, then it sounds suspiciously like advertising
that's going on here. And we know what we call that here.
> 3) After this information is imparted and correctly understood and executed
> (after the video, anyone executes it in the first few minutes! -- the more
> advanced the golfer, the more enthusiasm he states for its clearing up
> problems he has encountered -- the newbies are not aware of what they do not
> have to struggle with) THEN the next step is to "exuberate" it into full
> athletic motion, gently enough to keep it from admitting viruses, but
> exuberant enough to tap into natural athleticism -- the same natural and
> exuberant kind of thing they do when they skip rocks on a pond or try to
> throw a baseball in from center field --- exuberance and the body's natural
> reactions to "the task at hand" bring in all kinds of unteachable but
> ingenious inborn mechanisms (as for walking), the "brains" of which they are
> not aware.
This sounds to me, George, like something from an advertising brochure.
> 4) After this, we address the business of how to make that swinging machine
> hit a golf ball dead center. And I know that you all know how hard that is,
> and as far as I can see, it is NEVER addressed in and of itself, as though
> it was irrelevant, or as if "you will get it if you just try".
I would have thought this was what most golf instructors are discussing
when they talk about setup, i.e., getting the ball in the way of the
swing.
> But if you
> are laboring under a "don't move your head down" and whiff the ball all the
> time, or bad vision and you toe the ball all the time, or the lack of any
> other salient information, you are not well served by a teacher who doesn't
> enable your success.
Well, sure, I buy that. But that's just a bad teacher. I learned--on
my own--the need to flex my knees, and the need to narrow my stance. I
wasn't happy that I'd paid for lessons only to learn this outside the
context of those lessons. But that's not an indictment of golf
instruction in general, only of the ability of one golf instructor in
particular.
> If I set a ball for the Iron Byron somewhere else than where the path of the
> center of the clubhead will hit it, the perfect swinging machine is useless.
?? It's useless for hitting shots down the line. Maybe it's not
useless for learning about swing dynamics.
> Not because the machine is flawed, but because the person who put the ball
> there didn't know where to put it. So, golf being backwards, a perfect
> swing is useless unless the golfer knows HOW TO PUT THE MACHINE SO THAT THE
> ORBITING CLUBHEAD MAKES center of percussion impact ("perfect impact"). So
> what good is a good swing that can't hit the ball?
Again, I'm nonplussed by this. What you're telling us is to hit the
ball in the center of the clubhead. I can find any number of references
where this is noted as desirable.
> 5) After ALL these details have been explained and clarified AND MANAGED TO
> A POINT OF REASONABLE GOOD IMPACT (as regards fat, thin, toe, heel, swing
> path, appropriate vs. inappropriate exertions, when, weight shift to
> facilitate it all, etc.) THEN we go about "how to aim". And that is not
> about how to aim THE SETUP, but how to aim THE SWING SO THAT IT WILL PROPEL
> THE BALL IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
We're back to the words from the brochure here.
> (If I unknowingly set Iron Byron to the right of the target line and set the
> club in the clamp so that at impact it is either open or closed, the ball
> WILL NOT GO in the direction "hoped".) So when we find out HOW CORRECTLY TO
> SET AND AIM THE SWINGING CLUB, THEN AND ONLY THEN will we know how to take
> the stance that EACH ONE OF US INDIVIDUALLY needs to take, instead of using
> Trevino's, Tiger's, Daly's, Player's, Colin's, OR ANYONE ELSE BESIDE
> YOURSELF! So finding your stance etc. is a RESULT, not a PRECONDITION, and
> it is based on the OBJECTIVE of the setup, which is not to conform to a
> model, but to swing the club on line with precision.
I don't disagree with anything you've said above. You're just not the
first to say it, or note it, or teach it.
> 3) After this, we find out how to control distance, and that section on
> pendulum behavior and calibration is about 3 chapters.
Back to the brochure again.
> 4) We also talk about things like controlling the distance for less than
> full shots, putting, optics, chipping, sand play principles, and achieving
> one's maximum distance.
So does Dave Pelz. What would make your methods superior?
> Well, maybe that addresses THIS particular post of Mike's. ANYTHING ELSE?
> ANYONE?
Perhaps it does, perhaps not. Still haven't learned anything about the
golf swing here.
> I DO invite inquiries about any kind of swing problems you may be having and
> I will give you what I can of insight or clarification... FWIW
>
> NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE GROUP:
>
> In the issue of Golf Magazine just arrived (Nov. 2000) in the section near
> the end (page 116 of my edition) the heading is big and bold 'THE FIVE
> FUNDAMENTALS" under the banner: "kids' golf".
>
> Listed as no. 1 is "the grip" and I quote: "Place the pad of your left hand
> on top of the shaft of the golf club...."
>
> On page 46 of the same issue the pictures of Jasper clearly show his thumb
> to the right of the top. On Page 39 it's Mike Hebron's. Page 85, Tom
> Lehman. Pictures of Daly, Couples, Azinger, Langer, Duval, Hogan, etc;
> available anywhere clearly show their thumbs (some well) to the right of the
> top of the shaft. Tell me that the child for whom such a weak grip will not
> work is well served by that teaching (they do not call it "advice, subject
> to adjustment or the realities of YOUR body -- something a young player is
> absolutely incapable of judging anyway -- he believes what he reads......)
> Will anyone pretend that an adult, say nothing of a child, is going to pick
> up that subtlety and incorporate the stronger grip in the face of the
> specific direction of the written word on page 116?
Is there no one who's ever succeeded with such a grip? Further, when
you have a child who has never swung a club, you have to start them out
with SOMETHING as their basic grip. You certainly can't adjust it to
their swing since they haven't swung yet. So as a place to start,
what's wrong with it, what would you suggest instead, and why is your
suggestion superior to the other?
> One of the points of the preface to my book and exclamations on my website
> indicate that THESE THINGS ARE SUBTLE! (referring to many many more than
> those addressed in this message...)
A friend (hdcp about 8) recently had a lesson from the pro I haven't had
much luck with. He had been having trouble with pushes, and the pro
noticed he wasn't finishing his swing with the club "toe-up." Upon
learning this, and after a bucket of balls, he's fixed his problem.
Sounds like a subtle change to me, and one that was picked up on by this
same pro.
> So the child is taught a slice grip, is clueless why his balls all banana
> off to the right ("I am a klutz..."), and then struggles to close the club
> through the hitting area to make a passable result. Of course what he is
> doing is coming to believe that such unnatural contriving IS PART OF A
> NORMAL GOLF TECHNIQUE. I WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS THE RIGHT GRIP? (by that
> PGA vehicle called "Golf Magazine")? Of course, he never questions it... 40
> years later he may have been humbled enough to question it, but even then he
> may well be so invested in giving tips to his buddies how not to banana the
> ball that even then he may still be clueless but believe he is an expert,
> and be scoring in the low 90s on a good day.
??
> Talk to me, guys. Please bring your problems and I'll gladly address them
> seriously. I love this game, and I love sharing info.
How can I swing better, George? How can I make perfect impact?
Zamuel
> I do not put down the people. I point out the errors in their teaching.
> THAT is what puts them down.
>
> For any point I have stated, I will give you proof.
George you're entitled to your opinions...But when you start "Proving" that
*the best in the buisness* aren't really any good...You're making yourself
look bad, not them...People like Butch Harmon and Harvey Penick are respected
for their accomplishments.
]]]Z[[[
David Laville
<g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>I do not put down the people. I point out the errors in their teaching.
>THAT is what puts them down.
And I point out your day to day contradictions. THAT is what puts you
down.
George Hibbard
summarize.
I have pointed out two things that occur during a golf swing:
1) one is the fact that elasticity of the left arm, shoulder blade, and
left wrist, all contribute to the "stretching" of the left arm/club assembly
during the swing. This "stretching" makes the assembly "get longer" during
the swing than it was at setup. I pointed out that Juli and Nancy Lopez
both use a very pronounced pre-takaway stretch wherein they raise their left
shoulder, and that this is their way of positioning the height of their
sternum just before the swing, to prevent slamming the ground on the way
back. If they didn't lift up high enough, they would hit the ball fat.
2) I have pointed out that during a good swing the amount of left side
rotation away from the ball pulls the left shoulder further from the ball
than its position at setup. So this is a reality that must be dealt with. I
pointed out that Tiger and Tom Lehman (and apparently many others mentioned
in the Bob Mann study) make some of this accommodation by dipping down
during the swing. I call that "guess-timating" and I believe it to be
inferior to a procedure wherein you figure out ahead of time how much that
change amounts to and then make the accommodation at setup, in the style of
Zoeller and Daly. Because I can't guess the correct amount I need to dip as
easily as I can control the height of my sternum during the swing.
3) I quoted Craig Shankland's most excellent piece wherein the Headline for
a section is "MAINTAIN HEIGHT AND RADIUS" . I find it hard to see how a 2"
dip fits in with Shankland's advice. I have no problem with golfer's doing
it, at all. I am all in favor of it. But not all golfers can or do do that
particular thing. And the reason for the dip in some will show itself as
you continue to read what follows below.
Am I missing something in Craig's use of language? I won't quote the whole
section again, but those words convey a meaning to me similar to Nicklaus's
about head movement, and a theme which is nigh universally taught....
4) I have mentioned how different golfers handle the "measurement" problems
just mentioned in various ways: some by leaving the left arm bent a hair at
setup, so that the amount of stretch that occurs during the swing equals out
to the amount of turnaway change-of-position of the left shoulder,
equalizing it out for perfect impact. Some by dipping, some by leaving the
angle between the left forearm and club VERY sharp at address [Azinger], and
it straightens at impact to compensate the exact total amount.
I stated how everyone that has succeeded at golf has HAD to work it out
somehow, and the subtlety of the adjustments (an inch or two for most) is
not always obvious to an observer. An inch or two mishit is, of course,
TOTALLY DISASTROUS for the shot. I have stated that the instinctive gifted
athlete does the necessary accommodations of "measurement" subconsciously
and that many of us do not, creating a struggle. (Ever notice how beginners
all whiff it? It takes a while for them to sense "something is wrong with
this picture". Some figure it out sooner or later. Some need help. But
conventional instruction I have seen never points out these realities so
that the pupil CAN address those personal differences in his own body
intelligently and cognitively IN ORDER TO learn how to allow for them.)
I make the points about these very important aspects of measurement for
impact because the majority of golfers struggle to "get the ball in the
air", top a drive or a tee shot frequently, hit a lot of thins, chili dip
their chips, and otherwise struggle with "depth control" -- my way of
describing controlling how high or low the low point of their swing arc so
that they get the best height of impact of the ball on their clubface.
I have tried to point out to a golfer who hits his 7 iron as far as he hits
his driver that he is probably hitting his driver on the toe, and a possible
reason for it. The remedy I suggested has worked almost universally for
every pupil have worked with that had a similar problem. And it has not
worked because it is opinion. It has worked because of the physical reality
of the things discussed here.
I have pointed out that most of us place the ball to be driven onto a tee,
and that at the same time the sole of the club is laid on the ground. No
one has challenged me that this is inappropriate (nor is it). So I ask
again: if the center of the face of your club returns at the moment of
impact the same distance from your head that it was at address, how come you
do not sky your drives EVERY TIME? Since the irony of the unanswered
question remains in the air, the answer is that SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT
DURING THE SWING THAN WHEN YOU SET UP.
I want to quote John Daly's words about the phenomenon of left side
turnaway: p. 23 of Grip It and Rip It: [first a note: John won the British
Open, and is currently the leading driver for distance on the PGA Tour where
driving is longer now than ever before, routinely. So he has a lot of
competition that he continues to outdrive. If anyone wishes to say he
doesn't know what he's talking about in this section of his book, you are
entitled to your opinion. So I will let his words speak for themselves.]
here's the quote: "There is one other somewhat individual adjustment I make
as I place the clubhead behind the ball which might be helpful to you too.
As I carefully place the clubhead square to the target line, I also address
the ball a little bit toward the heel of the club -- say, one inch inside
the center of the clubface. [my additional note here: he also places the
ball on a tee and the sole of his club on the ground] This is a little
idiosyncrasy that is actually quite common among players on the PGA Tour.
In fact, Fuzzy Zoeller actually pushes the entire driver head beyond or
outside the ball just before he draws the club back. I don't recommend that
extreme but [I am going to capitalize for emphasis the core words of this
quote] THERE IS A REASON I DO ADDRESS THE BALL TOWARD THE HEEL. As we'll
see in later chapters, my hip turn on the downswing is very active [as it is
in all superior golfers], with a big "clearing" move through the impact
zone. Because this turn of the hip is so pronounced, MY HANDS ARE PULLED A
TOUCH TO THE INSIDE OF THE POSITION THEY WERE IN AT ADDRESS. BECAUSE I
STARTED WITH THE HEEL OF THE CLUB BEHIND THE BALL, I ACTUALLY RETURN THE
CENTER OR "SWEET SPOT" OF THE CLUBFACE TO THE BALL AT IMPACT.
"THIS IS AN ADJUSTMENT THAT I LEARNED MORE OR LESS BY INTUITION [my problem
is that great athletes all do this and that they do not teach it to the
majority of golfers who are less gifted, leaving that majority struggling to
make good impact and now knowing why they don't] as I was developing my game
in my teens. As I said, IT'S FAIRLY COMMON ON THE PGA TOUR and I think it's
because most of the pros have such a good hip pivot on the downswing.... I
hope after reading this book you may notice your hands getting whipped
through the ball a little more inside their original address position. If
so JUST MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT." END OF JOHN'S QUOTE.
Now, would you prefer to bash George or John.
I will address other issues when I can get my breath and re-read the
comments of the last postings.
George Hibbard
Pendulum Press
800 226 9326
www.perfectimpact.com
George Hibbard
foot alone, so that, in effect your body is supported on your left hip as
well, and then pivot or turn?
If you can, do you suppose that the base of your spine is on the center line
of that rotation? I don't believe so. I believe that the center line of
that axis is to the left of the base of your spine. I am not a body/bone
specialist or a chiropractor, but as one experiencing the exuberance of a
lusty left rotary turn with my weight forward onto my left hip (the right
foot has been virtually pulled off the ground), my experience is that the
base of my spine has to rotate around the axis running from my left heel
through my left hip and up somewhere.
I would love to get the feedback from a soccer-type NFL placekicker for HIS
analysis of his technique..
George
BK
I'm not sure how to look at this, but it would seem to me that if the left
arm/club
assembly stretches during the swing, then you shouldn't need to address the ball
closer to the heel of the club (as you recommend later in this post), but
rather closer to the toe.
When you address the ball, there is an angle between the arm and the clubshaft
(especially with the longer clubs). But if at impact the arm/club assembly
becomes
a straight line (as you say) then it is going to be effectively longer
anyway...and especially as the weight moves to the balls of the feet through
impact.
BK
George Hibbard
message for brevity
:
Mike Dalecki <mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote in response to stuff George
wrote
G 1) You mis-stated my comments to you about my instruction: I stated that
> > the process of learning golf was often frustrated by a pupil expecting
to do
> > everything at once.
>
> M: George, you did say that, but it wasn't the first thing you said. Clip
G repeats that THIS is what he said --I stated that I found it necessary to
keep separate the
> > 4 distinct steps of learning golf, to wit: 1) learn to make an
efficient,
> > good athletic motion -- the swing motion. 2) Learn to hit a ball with
it.
> > 3) Learn to aim it and control distance. and 4) THEN use it on a golf
> > course for pleasure. I stated that when students expect, on the basis
of a
> > tip or two, or a lesson or two, to be able to be immediately successful
at
> > no. 4 that they were totally unrealistic and that they would be putting
> > themselves on overload, hence preventing learning.
>
> M Well, I must confess--I don't find this to be new.
G: This was not said in an attempt to describe my whole teaching protocol.
It was mentioned in your inquiry what I was about. So in explaining the
overall approach I used, I mentioned that I broke my instruction up so that
pupils would not bring unrealistic expectations to their training.
>
G> > This introductory comment is not my "theory of the golf swing" by any
> > stretch.
>
M> Call it your theory of teaching the golf swing, then. Maybe more fair
> to label it that way. Doesn't matter, though, as I'm still left with
> the sense of, well, being underwhelmed by it.
G reply: Give me a break, Mike! It is not a theory of teaching. It is
just plain common sense and good teaching, as illustrated by the Einstein
quote of the next par.Your ability to take a comment out of context and
ridicule it is inappropriate, and not very bright, actually. Mature
communication recognizes complexity, especially when such subtle details as
golf mechanics etc. get discussed. I have heard it said that unless someone
listens, he does not hear....
>
G> > The teacher who was working with Albert Einstein dropped all 4 golf
balls
> > the great man threw at him in the middle of his lesson. Einstein
scolded
> > him: "When I throw you 4 balls, you catch nothing.! So when you teach,
make
> > only one point at a time!" [p. 108, Golf Magazine, October 2000] So I
teach
> > each one of these things one at a time.
>
M> A great story. But again, I'm not sure it's revelatory.
> G: IT IS PRECISELY ON POINT; IT IS TO CONFIRM THAT A SENSIBLE TEACHING
PROTOCOL REQUIRES KEEPING DETAILS SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATE TO ALLOW TIME FOR
ABSORPTION BEFORE PUTTING THE PUPIL ON OVERLOAD. IF EINSTEIN HAD TO TAKE
THINGS ONE AT A TIME, I GUESS MOST PUPILS DO TOO.
G> > It takes 200 pages of my book to do it all. Is it your suggestion that
I
> > start posting the book on the RSG? Didn't know it was appropriate.
>
>M But what of that book are we getting here, George? It seems very
> little, to me. Of course, I haven't read it, but I also haven't been
> able to translate what you're saying here to something useful for my
> game (I'm a 13.6 handicap, so there's plenty of room for improvement).
> G Stay tuned. Been here only a while. Start with my new posting,
"Clearing up..." Better yet, ask me specific questions of concern to you or
others. The whole subject is pretty involved, and to use a fair comparison,
I can't give a whole semester of classes in one message...
G> > 2) It takes either the visual (video) to SHOW someone a simple
procedure
> > for how to move the club, which gives rise to how to hold it, which then
> > gives rise to WHERE to put it and where to move it, and the consequences
of
> > motions, using some exertions, intentions, and not using others.
>
> M: Is this done in your book? Or do I need the video too?
G It's done in either or both. My message here is about the impossibility
of doing it all at once in this forum.
>
G This is not transmittable by words of less than about 100 pages of the
200.
>
M> I guess I'm not understanding something. If, as I think you are saying,
> each golfer has his/her own individual swing that's optimal, what if
> anything would need to be shown by video? Wouldn't that necessarily
> force everyone into the same model (the one shown)?
>
G: YES, Mike, you ARE missing something. It is that the principles and
certain specific motions produce different LOOKING things from different
golfers. I can't do pictures in an email message.
Without the video to help make my points, this forum is a bit like a 500
word jigsaw puzzle: there are many pieces. With the video you'd see THE
WHOLE PICTURE AT ONCE, and no longer have to deal with individual pieces.
So that is the limitation of trying to "take lessons on the internet". this
is a discussion forum, so pieces is the best available.
> > >
> >G: The truth is that many/most golfers do NOT know WHERE to put the
club, how to
> > hold it so that you CAN move it where it needs to go, and what to exert
> > (arms? body? legs? weight? and a whole litany of details) so that it
makes
> > an efficient and easily repeatable motion OR THEY WOULD ALREADY BE NEAR
> > SCRATCH GOLFERS.
>
> M: Well, George, how do I do that? Let's assume that I don't know where
to
> put the club, or how to hold it, or what to exert. How do I do that?
G: where would you like to start: be glad to talk about grip first, since
you can't put the club anywhere until you get a hold of it. But I take the
risk of premature/immature pre-judgement, because if one word comes out of
my mouth there will be 3 or 4 naysayers who want to refute it. People have
a way of listening to a few words, shutting down before the entire picture
has been displayed, and then criticizing the partial picture because OUT OF
CONTEXT LIKE THAT IT IS NONSENSE. the problem is not the error in the whole
picture but in the use of a portion of it on which to base their
criticism...
Is this the forum for a complete golf instruction program?
>
M> Again, I'm confused. I seem to recall your discussion revolving around,
> in part, the idea that individual golfers have individual swings, and
> that an optimal (individual) swing can be found for each golfer, taking
> into account his/her idiosyncracies (if I've misstated this, please
> correct). It sounds like you have a model, which doesn't to me sound
> like something that would vary from golfer to golfer. And if you have a
> model, how does it allow for those idiosyncratic differences?
>G's answer: my model is not a static posed one. My communication of the
principles and places that are involved in how to hold, where to hold, where
to move, exist in a visual medium that is difficult to put into words ONLY
(the book has pictures, and all magazine instruction uses pictures too)
which are not permitted here. Again, ask where you would like to begin, or
pose to me any difficulties you desire. But do not set me up with your
snipers ready to grab the first thought, wrench it out of context, and then
beat it into the ground.
G > If it is "teasing" not to get into about 20 minutes of the video to
show
> > this, or many pages of the book, I am guilty.
>
>M Then I'd be hard pressed not to call it spam. If you cannot tell us
> here (or won't, whichever it is), and the only way we can learn about it
> is to buy your package, then it sounds suspiciously like advertising
> that's going on here. And we know what we call that here.
G's answer: would you rather have postings here from people who are not
competent enough to also earn money professionally from their achievements?
There are clubmakers here that I LOVE to hear from when they contribute, but
not for a moment would I ask them to design / calculate the optimum club
specs for me without paying them for it. Their tips are helpful for me to
work stuff out now and then, but it is an insult to ask a professional for
his services without paying him. I will not be stingy. Anyone want any
ideas? Please submit.
>
>G's original post continues > 3) After this information is imparted and
correctly understood and executed
> > (after the video, anyone executes it in the first few minutes! -- the
more
> > advanced the golfer, the more enthusiasm he states for its clearing up
> > problems he has encountered -- the newbies are not aware of what they do
not
> > have to struggle with) THEN the next step is to "exuberate" it into full
> > athletic motion, gently enough to keep it from admitting viruses, but
> > exuberant enough to tap into natural athleticism -- the same natural and
> > exuberant kind of thing they do when they skip rocks on a pond or try to
> > throw a baseball in from center field --- exuberance and the body's
natural
> > reactions to "the task at hand" bring in all kinds of unteachable but
> > ingenious inborn mechanisms (as for walking), the "brains" of which they
are
> > not aware.
>
> M This sounds to me, George, like something from an advertising brochure.
> G: No, Mike. Put your own spin on it. I am simply describing the
process of how my instruction proceeds from its "seeds" into "adulthood".
The spin is your agenda, not mine.
>G > 4) After this, we address the business of how to make that swinging
machine
> > hit a golf ball dead center. And I know that you all know how hard that
is,
> > and as far as I can see, it is NEVER addressed in and of itself, as
though
> > it was irrelevant, or as if "you will get it if you just try".
>
>M I would have thought this was what most golf instructors are discussing
> when they talk about setup, i.e., getting the ball in the way of the
> swing.
> G's answer: I wish that were so, but too much is left out. If that were
not the case, everyone would be able to make great contact after a couple
lessons.
> >G's post continues: But if you are laboring under a "don't move your head
down" and whiff the ball all the
> > time, or bad vision and you toe the ball all the time, or the lack of
any
> > other salient information, you are not well served by a teacher who
doesn't
> > enable your success.
>
>M: Well, sure, I buy that. But that's just a bad teacher. I learned--on
> my own--the need to flex my knees, and the need to narrow my stance. I
> wasn't happy that I'd paid for lessons only to learn this outside the
> context of those lessons. G: YOU MAKE MY POINT, Mike! But that's not an
indictment of golf
> instruction in general, only of the ability of one golf instructor in
> particular.
>
G's post continues> > If I set a ball for the Iron Byron somewhere else than
where the path of the
> > center of the clubhead will hit it, the perfect swinging machine is
useless.
>
> M?? It's useless for hitting shots down the line. Maybe it's not
> useless for learning about swing dynamics.
> G: you take the point made and twist it, Mike. the illustration was to
make the point that even if you DO have perfect mechanics it won't do you
any good unless you can hit a ball with it: i.e., continue to read before
you interrupt:
G:> > Not because the machine is flawed, but because the person who put the
ball
> > there didn't know where to put it. So, golf being backwards, a perfect
> > swing is useless unless the golfer knows HOW TO PUT THE MACHINE SO THAT
THE
> > ORBITING CLUBHEAD MAKES center of percussion impact ("perfect impact").
So
> > what good is a good swing that can't hit the ball?
>
> M Again, I'm nonplussed by this. What you're telling us is to hit the
> ball in the center of the clubhead. I can find any number of references
> where this is noted as desirable.
G; you miss the point again. the point is that WHAT NEEDS TO BE LEARNED is
HOW to hit the ball dead center, AND THAT IS NOT SO EASY. It is not just
"try" that makes it work (just go to the first tee of any golf course on any
day at any hour and bring a sandwich and a note pad. Like traffic counters
do at intersections. And just count...)
(This week the Q school is in town so that would not be the tee to use for
this experiment.)
G contiued:> > 5) After ALL these details have been explained and clarified
AND MANAGED TO
> > A POINT OF REASONABLE GOOD IMPACT (as regards fat, thin, toe, heel,
swing
> > path, appropriate vs. inappropriate exertions, when, weight shift to
> > facilitate it all, etc.) THEN we go about "how to aim". And that is not
> > about how to aim THE SETUP, but how to aim THE SWING SO THAT IT WILL
PROPEL
> > THE BALL IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
>
> M We're back to the words from the brochure here.
>
> >G: wow, you do have an agenda. Who is talking about brochure. I'm
talking reality.
> > 4) We also talk about things like controlling the distance for less
than
> > full shots, putting, optics, chipping, sand play principles, and
achieving
> > one's maximum distance.
>
>M So does Dave Pelz. What would make your methods superior?
> G: who says I said my methods are superior to Pelz. I happen to think
he's terrific, though on a couple points I have different opinions than he.
But they are minimal. I'd be happy as a lark to compare notes with him. And
I think he'd approve. (He's from my area and I developed a lot of my ideas
about the same time he was developing his...)
> > Well, maybe that addresses THIS particular post of Mike's. ANYTHING
ELSE?
> > ANYONE?
>
> Perhaps it does, perhaps not. Still haven't learned anything about the
> golf swing here.
> G: haven't you listened to ANYTHING? Further, what do you expect to
"learn" if your agenda is to argue?
G:> > I DO invite inquiries about any kind of swing problems you may be
>M: Is there no one who's ever succeeded with such a grip? Further, when
> you have a child who has never swung a club, you have to start them out
> with SOMETHING as their basic grip. You certainly can't adjust it to
> their swing since they haven't swung yet. So as a place to start,
> what's wrong with it, what would you suggest instead, and why is your
> suggestion superior to the other?
G answers this point: IT IS BECAUSE THE KID BELIEVES THE BOOK, STARTS TO
DEVELOP SWING COMPENSATIONS THAT HE BELIEVES ARE PART OF NORMAL TECHNIQUE.
SO THAT IF HE WERE SET STRAIGHT BY A KNOWLEDGABLE TEACHER, HIS USE OF A
STRONGER GRIP WOULD PRODUCE DUCK HOOKS (since he has programmed the
compensations into his procedure and believes they belong there) AND REJECT
THE CORRECT INSTRUCTION BECAUSE IT PRODUCED DUCK HOOKS. SO IT MUST BE
WRONG, RIGHT?
>
>G > One of the points of the preface to my book and exclamations on my
website
> > indicate that THESE THINGS ARE SUBTLE! (referring to many many more
than
> > those addressed in this message...)
>
> M: A friend (hdcp about 8) recently had a lesson from the pro I haven't
had
> much luck with. He had been having trouble with pushes, and the pro
> noticed he wasn't finishing his swing with the club "toe-up." Upon
> learning this, and after a bucket of balls, he's fixed his problem.
> Sounds like a subtle change to me, and one that was picked up on by this
> same pro.
>G: GREAT. THAT OUGHT TO BE THE ROUTINE CASE. BUT FOR MANY GOLFERS, MAYBE
MOST, IT IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH.
>G's string continued > So the child is taught a slice grip, is clueless why
his balls all banana
> > off to the right ("I am a klutz..."), and then struggles to close the
club
> > through the hitting area to make a passable result. Of course what he
is
> > doing is coming to believe that such unnatural contriving IS PART OF A
> > NORMAL GOLF TECHNIQUE. I WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS THE RIGHT GRIP? (by
that
> > PGA vehicle called "Golf Magazine")? Of course, he never questions it...
40
> > years later he may have been humbled enough to question it, but even
then he
> > may well be so invested in giving tips to his buddies how not to banana
the
> > ball that even then he may still be clueless but believe he is an
expert,
> > and be scoring in the low 90s on a good day.
>
> G: GET IT, MIKE? instruction containing contaminants is far reaching,
and I have a passion to help people struggling. Is that a bad thing? >
> > Talk to me, guys. Please bring your problems and I'll gladly address
them
> > seriously. I love this game, and I love sharing info.
>
>M How can I swing better, George? How can I make perfect impact?
>
> G: be specific, Mike, and I'll tell you my take on it, hopefully with
enough info for you to be improved by it. But damn it don't set me up!
George Hibbard
Pendulum Press
800 226-9326
www.perfectimpact.com
George Hibbard
correct measurement for impact is the NET DIFFERENCE between the turnaway
and the stretch. Everyone needs to find out his own accommodation, stretch
amount, bend amount, etc.
Floyd does this, I think, when he "bounces" his club before during the
waggle. Fredddie GOES TO THE BALL with his left arm/club assembly nearly
straight and it straightens even more (ALMOST INTO A STRAIGHT LINE) at
impact. Zinger has a VERY large wrist angle at setup and then has good
impact with that, apparently and necessarily because his position at impact
is exactly the right shoulder/sternum height so he doesn't top or thin it..
Each must find out for himself (people criticized Nancy's stretch, but they
didn't know why she was doing it.)
George
BK <fs...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:39F966FD...@btinternet.com...
George Hibbard
have the pupil take a grip in the same manner as the article in Golf says to
do, that I just quoted, and with which I take serious issue for the harm I
am totally convinced that it creates.
I have the pupil take a club and swing it WITH ANY OLD GRIP orientation of
the back of the left hand as compared to the direction of the clubface.
Then, in the process of swinging it like a baseball bat, or with a halfway
decent motion for golf, he will discover how the back of his left wrist is
oriented when it gets back to impact postion. For most people it points to
the right of the target or up towards the sky a bit -- NOT square to the
target line.
When this is established within reasonable consistency, THEN I take and ask
him to hold his arm without turning it, and then orient the clubface to
"square to the target" without changing the amount of strong or weak
orientation of his left wristbone.
so that now, when he gets to the ball the clubface is square, not because he
did something in-swing to turn it to square, but because the orientation of
"weak", "strong,", or "netural" TAKEN AT SETUP WAS CORRECT FOR IMPACT
WITHOUT ANY IN-SWING TWISTING.
Over time, the development of the swing may require adjusting the strength
of the grip to perfect this alignment, the ideal of which is that a good and
powerful swing should have NO NECESSITY FOR IN-SWING TWISTING OR EFFORT TO
HAVE THE CLUBFACE ARRIVE SQUARE TO THE BALL. IT SHOULD BE THE AUTOMATIC
RESULT OF YOUR SETUP, hence a matter for zero thought or worry once learned
for yourself.
Mike, you asked for instruction. This is a start. Would you like to argue
with it, or do you have an opinion of another procedure you like to use.
[As my wife says to me, "If I want your opinion I will give it to you." And
my retort is, "Honey, we have just had a disagreement. I am entitled to my
opinion, and you are entitled to your wrong opinion."]
Keep the faith, Mike
KPH
wrote:
>>RSG can use more of that. It wasn't that long ago that folks were asking
>>for more posts about golf and less about this and that. Well, here's
>>somebody who posts about golf. So who's got a problem with that now?
>
>AMEN!!! And I have no problem with taking him to task on his _ideas_
>if you have a different opinion. I just don't understand why it has
>to be done as a personal attack.
As a student of human nature I have been thinking about this myself.
I, could care less whether or not any instructor claims another
instructor is a moron. But other posters seem to view any instructor
of a method other than the one they believe in as blasphemy against
their own "religion." Thus they must tear down any one else with
different beliefs.
Watch the threads and see who delivers the strongest kicks.....that
person is the true believer who in times past would have enlisted in
the nearest holy war.
I suppose indulging in personal attacts stems from the primary reason
that you come to this group: to socialize, to learn, to preach, to
show off, etc.
I come here to learn and thus spend most of my time filtering through
the religious wars, the groupies following their idols, and
nationalism posts.
Thank god for those gems of knowledge about golf that show up now and
then.
KPH
"R&B"
It's fair to say George is enthusiastic, and like the rest of us, he tends
to be opinionated. But whenever someone's opinion is at odds with
conventional wisdom, they are forced to find ways to lend credibility to
their position, or else their teachings tend to be dismissed as quackery by
the peanut gallery.
Unfortunately, one of the methods of defense frequently employed is to
disparage the ideas and teachings expressed by some who have nothing to
prove. I dare say George and others can say what they will to discredit the
ideas expressed by the Butch Harmons and Harvey Penicks of the world, and it
will only serve to paint the accuser as one who is desperate to be heard.
It does nothing to shed light on his own ideas.
My advice to George would be to refrain from taking issue with some of the
ideals of teachers whose successes speak for themselves. You can't change
history. Their students have done quite well, thankyouverymuch, employing
the fundamentals as they were taught be these gentlemen. So maybe their
methods do work.
Getting someone to see your point of view is nothing more than "selling."
And a good salesperson knows that his pitch is better received when he
devotes his effort on the positives and customer benefits of his own
product, rather than negative selling against someone else. Haven't we
learned this from the political campaign ads? Everybody's sick and tired of
hearing negative ads. Do negative ads work? Unfortunately, they do with
some people. But not as well overall as they used to. And their real
effect is to make the whole electorate more cynical. To apply this principle
to George and his arguing against the teachings of others, I would suggest
he let it go, as negative selling only tends to cause more confusion among
the "electorate." Focus instead on the benefits to pupils that his own
methods will yield. He can talk until he's blue in the face about how wrong
Mr. Harmon is about thus and such, but one need only look at Butch's prize
pupil to see that whatever it is he's doing seems to be working. That's
just not a strong position to advance your point of view.
Lose it.
Randy
============================================================
Golf instruction for newbies: http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com
My RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm
RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services: www.randybrownproductions.com
============================================================
"Zamuel" <Zam...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39F920C4...@worldnet.att.net...
Bruce Newman
<trini...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> As a student of human nature I have been thinking about this myself.
> I, could care less whether or not any instructor claims another
> instructor is a moron. But other posters seem to view any instructor
> of a method other than the one they believe in as blasphemy against
> their own "religion." Thus they must tear down any one else with
> different beliefs.
>
> Watch the threads and see who delivers the strongest kicks.....that
> person is the true believer who in times past would have enlisted in
> the nearest holy war.
>
> I suppose indulging in personal attacts stems from the primary reason
> that you come to this group: to socialize, to learn, to preach, to
> show off, etc.
>
> I come here to learn and thus spend most of my time filtering through
> the religious wars, the groupies following their idols, and
> nationalism posts.
>
> Thank god for those gems of knowledge about golf that show up now and
> then.
You are right on the money in my books. If the info helps you, take it and
run. If not, perhaps just ignore it. But to begin with disagreement,
immediately turning to personal attacks, and ending with "you right wing so
and so" is beyond me and speaks to something way beyond golf instruction.
It's pretty simple, really. If we stick to golf and disuss it in a positive
and encouraging way, we will attract golfers, many of whom will contribute
to this newsgroup. If we disrespect people because of their opinions, we
all lose in the end.
[end of sermon :-)]
Dick Weld
DW
Bruce Newman wrote:
On the whole, RSGers are very quick to condemn any poster
> showing even a hint of commercialism, and frequently in a rude manner.
> George seems like a decent enough guy to me although, as I said, I haven't
> followed all this.
scott
wrote:
<snippage>
>Maybe George is pushing his product; I don't really care. I see he notes it
>in his .sig sometimes, but sometimes not. Perhaps--likely, even--it is a
>subliminal advertising form. I don't really care about that either, as long
>as he is on topic and contributing. My only beef, and a very small one at
>that, is that people jump on him and others like him for what they suspect.
>I doubt they would act that way in real life so it seems, well, not
>necessarliy wrong but, at least, unfriendly. Know what I mean?
I couldn't agree more with Bruce on this one. Very few times do we
get someone who is at a level of golf instruction (good or bad) that
you can have a one-on-one discussion with. Gerry Hogan also springs
to my mind. I had to take that to private e-mail because of the
attacks and we've been bantering back and forth for nearly 4 years.
The opportunity to learn is huge in instances that come along very
infrequently. Can you damage your swing by listening to poor advice?
Absolutely! Put a damned filter on your brain and learn then.
Knowing the bad in teaching is just as important as the good stuff.
Lets stop making this a flipping religious battle!
Scott
"R&B"
>
> ll try to clip from the threads what is not the subject
> of THIS particular message for brevity
I got nailed for this same thing, and rightfully so. Any time someone opens
with "I've snipped for brevity" and the post is still 19kb, there's
something wrong with this picture.
But I digress...
> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
> > Call it your theory of teaching the golf swing, then.
> > Maybe more fair to label it that way. Doesn't matter,
> > though, as I'm still left with the sense of, well,
> > being underwhelmed by it.
To which Sir George huffed and puffed:
>
> Give me a break, Mike! It is not a theory of teaching. It is
> just plain common sense and good teaching, as illustrated
> by the Einstein quote of the next par. Your ability to take
> a comment out of context and ridicule it is inappropriate,
> and not very bright, actually. Mature communication
> recognizes complexity,
[snipped, this time *really* for brevity's sake]
George:
If, as you say, "mature communication recognizes complexity," then so, too,
a skilled communicator must recognize that if what he's trying to convey is
not getting through to someone, then maybe, just maybe, the fault is not
with the recipient of the communication, but rather, the fault lies with how
the teacher has framed his ideas.
You do yourself no favor, by the way, of trying to invoke Albert Einstein to
advance your argument, as if he's somehow endorsed your method of teaching.
It would be closer to the truth to suggest that one must be an Einstein to
understand some of your esoteric ramblings. (Did the wife go grocery
shopping again and leave you without an editor?)
Mike is one of the most level-headed and thoughtful contributors in the
group. He's not always right, as none of us are. But he's also not one to
lightly dismiss someone when they come armed with thoughtful discussion.
Your remark implying that he's "not very bright" is out of line and
categorically incorrect.
Two stroke penalty, sir, or loss of hole.
Mike, it's your honor.
Randy
bigho...@my-deja.com
Greenbud
guy the RSG members rode out of town on a rail. I think his name was
Mangum, a "putting master". The fact of the matter is that in a
semi-anonymous forum like Usenet, anyone who voices an opinion is going to
get hammered. If the original poster can keep tabs on defensive reactions
(what readers perceive as arrogance, etc) the threads can remain
interesting and informative.
The mixture of thought and sport is rarely thorough. Salad
dressings have lasted longer.
I'll never know personally about his stuff because it is just way too
expensive to buy.
CC
""R&B"" <RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8tc0g7$o63$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
: I guess this is the point I'd want to emphasize most.
: >
:
:
Mike Dalecki
> G 1) You mis-stated my comments to you about my instruction: I stated that
> > > the process of learning golf was often frustrated by a pupil expecting
> to do
> > > everything at once.
> >
> > M: George, you did say that, but it wasn't the first thing you said. Clip
>
> G repeats that THIS is what he said --I stated that I found it necessary to
> keep separate the
> > > 4 distinct steps of learning golf, to wit: 1) learn to make an
> efficient,
> > > good athletic motion -- the swing motion. 2) Learn to hit a ball with
> it.
> > > 3) Learn to aim it and control distance. and 4) THEN use it on a golf
> > > course for pleasure. I stated that when students expect, on the basis
> of a
> > > tip or two, or a lesson or two, to be able to be immediately successful
> at
> > > no. 4 that they were totally unrealistic and that they would be putting
> > > themselves on overload, hence preventing learning.
This, of course, is a theory about how to teach the golf swing. But
below, just shortly now, you'll tell me it's not.
> > M Well, I must confess--I don't find this to be new.
>
> G: This was not said in an attempt to describe my whole teaching protocol.
> It was mentioned in your inquiry what I was about. So in explaining the
> overall approach I used, I mentioned that I broke my instruction up so that
> pupils would not bring unrealistic expectations to their training.
> >
> G> > This introductory comment is not my "theory of the golf swing" by any
> > > stretch.
> >
> M> Call it your theory of teaching the golf swing, then. Maybe more fair
> > to label it that way. Doesn't matter, though, as I'm still left with
> > the sense of, well, being underwhelmed by it.
>
> G reply: Give me a break, Mike! It is not a theory of teaching.
Of course it is. What else would it be? George, you're so busy trying
to defend your point of view that you don't even seem to be thinking
about what I've written.
> It is
> just plain common sense and good teaching,
Which is your view--your theory--about what constitutes good swing
teaching. It's nothing more than that.
> as illustrated by the Einstein
> quote of the next par.Your ability to take a comment out of context and
> ridicule it is inappropriate, and not very bright, actually.
Out of context? I made very clear above--when I first identified your
theory of teaching the swing--what it was. I'm not out of context at
all, George.
Further, if you want to promote your ideas here, you must certainly
expect that they are open to criticism. I find nothing new in what you
said; it cannot, I don't believe, be anything like a revolutionary new
swing teaching technique when you simply repeat what 90 percent of the
people here already know, i.e., learn a repeatable swing, learn to hit a
ball with it, learn how to aim it and control distance, use is on a golf
course. Is there ANYONE here who doesn't understand that this is the
essence of golf?
And as to your comment about my brightness, I shall below give people
more than your opinion about me on which to evaluate my brightness.
> Mature
> communication recognizes complexity, especially when such subtle details as
> golf mechanics etc. get discussed. I have heard it said that unless someone
> listens, he does not hear....
I've been listening hard; I think I'm hearing snake oil. I'm giving you
the benefit of the doubt to tell us here, in this forum, what makes your
new system so good. Give us the steak, George, not just the sizzle.
Otherwise, it's just processed meat product your pushing on us.
> G> > The teacher who was working with Albert Einstein dropped all 4 golf
> balls
> > > the great man threw at him in the middle of his lesson. Einstein
> scolded
> > > him: "When I throw you 4 balls, you catch nothing.! So when you teach,
> make
> > > only one point at a time!" [p. 108, Golf Magazine, October 2000] So I
> teach
> > > each one of these things one at a time.
> M> A great story. But again, I'm not sure it's revelatory.
> > G: IT IS PRECISELY ON POINT; IT IS TO CONFIRM THAT A SENSIBLE TEACHING
> PROTOCOL REQUIRES KEEPING DETAILS SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATE TO ALLOW TIME FOR
> ABSORPTION BEFORE PUTTING THE PUPIL ON OVERLOAD. IF EINSTEIN HAD TO TAKE
> THINGS ONE AT A TIME, I GUESS MOST PUPILS DO TOO.
But you'll recall my comment about swing thoughts. It may be true,
George, but it doesn't really move us toward understanding your theory
of the swing, does it? All it does is deflect attention away from the
real question here, which is what is this thing you are promoting?
> G> > It takes 200 pages of my book to do it all. Is it your suggestion that
> I
> > > start posting the book on the RSG? Didn't know it was appropriate.
Are you suggesting it's TOO LONG? Perhaps just a portion of it, then.
Lord knows, we haven't had too many brief posts here. I'm sure one more
long one would not be noticed.
> >M But what of that book are we getting here, George? It seems very
> > little, to me. Of course, I haven't read it, but I also haven't been
> > able to translate what you're saying here to something useful for my
> > game (I'm a 13.6 handicap, so there's plenty of room for improvement).
>
> > G Stay tuned. Been here only a while. Start with my new posting,
> "Clearing up..." Better yet, ask me specific questions of concern to you or
> others. The whole subject is pretty involved, and to use a fair comparison,
> I can't give a whole semester of classes in one message...
OK, that's somewhat more like it, although I have a comment on your GRIP
post.
> G> > 2) It takes either the visual (video) to SHOW someone a simple
> procedure
> > > for how to move the club, which gives rise to how to hold it, which then
> > > gives rise to WHERE to put it and where to move it, and the consequences
> of
> > > motions, using some exertions, intentions, and not using others.
> >
> > M: Is this done in your book? Or do I need the video too?
>
> G It's done in either or both. My message here is about the impossibility
> of doing it all at once in this forum.
> >
> G This is not transmittable by words of less than about 100 pages of the
> 200.
So transmit part of it then.
> M> I guess I'm not understanding something. If, as I think you are saying,
> > each golfer has his/her own individual swing that's optimal, what if
> > anything would need to be shown by video? Wouldn't that necessarily
> > force everyone into the same model (the one shown)?
> >
> G: YES, Mike, you ARE missing something. It is that the principles and
> certain specific motions produce different LOOKING things from different
> golfers. I can't do pictures in an email message.
George, I missed the answer to my question: Aren't you using a SINGLE
MODEL to teach people IDIOSYNCRATIC swings?
> Without the video to help make my points, this forum is a bit like a 500
> word jigsaw puzzle: there are many pieces. With the video you'd see THE
> WHOLE PICTURE AT ONCE, and no longer have to deal with individual pieces.
> So that is the limitation of trying to "take lessons on the internet". this
> is a discussion forum, so pieces is the best available.
Still looking for the answer. Are you promoting a SINGLE MODEL as
embodied in a video from which golfers will produce their own
IDIOSYNCRATIC swing?
> > >G: The truth is that many/most golfers do NOT know WHERE to put the
> club, how to
> > > hold it so that you CAN move it where it needs to go, and what to exert
> > > (arms? body? legs? weight? and a whole litany of details) so that it
> makes
> > > an efficient and easily repeatable motion OR THEY WOULD ALREADY BE NEAR
> > > SCRATCH GOLFERS.
> > M: Well, George, how do I do that? Let's assume that I don't know where
> to
> > put the club, or how to hold it, or what to exert. How do I do that?
>
> G: where would you like to start: be glad to talk about grip first, since
> you can't put the club anywhere until you get a hold of it. But I take the
> risk of premature/immature pre-judgement, because if one word comes out of
> my mouth there will be 3 or 4 naysayers who want to refute it.
You know, George, I think you're pushing processed meat product, pure
and simple. But as a scientist, I was trained to always test my
theories, to never take them for granted as true. Thus, here I am,
trying like the devil to get you to prove me wrong, i.e., that you are
actually going to tell us what, about your method, makes it superior to
the others.
Further, there's no pre-judgement here. It's judgement at exactly the
right time and place, i.e., I'm judging what you're writing, or more
properly, what you're NOT writing. I want the details, George; I want
to see something that is very clear to me (and everyone else) that
explains how they can golf better.
> People have
> a way of listening to a few words, shutting down before the entire picture
> has been displayed, and then criticizing the partial picture because OUT OF
> CONTEXT LIKE THAT IT IS NONSENSE. the problem is not the error in the whole
> picture but in the use of a portion of it on which to base their
> criticism...
Maybe they do, or perhaps this impression is formed as a result of
having one's ideas challenged.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, George.
> Is this the forum for a complete golf instruction program?
Why not? This sounds suspiciously to me like an attempt to keep from
telling us anything.
> M> Again, I'm confused. I seem to recall your discussion revolving around,
> > in part, the idea that individual golfers have individual swings, and
> > that an optimal (individual) swing can be found for each golfer, taking
> > into account his/her idiosyncracies (if I've misstated this, please
> > correct). It sounds like you have a model, which doesn't to me sound
> > like something that would vary from golfer to golfer. And if you have a
> > model, how does it allow for those idiosyncratic differences?
>
> >G's answer: my model is not a static posed one. My communication of the
> principles and places that are involved in how to hold, where to hold, where
> to move, exist in a visual medium that is difficult to put into words ONLY
> (the book has pictures, and all magazine instruction uses pictures too)
> which are not permitted here. Again, ask where you would like to begin, or
> pose to me any difficulties you desire. But do not set me up with your
> snipers ready to grab the first thought, wrench it out of context, and then
> beat it into the ground.
Wow, this is starting to get tedious. I asked a very clear question, to
wit: "It sounds like you have a model, which doesn't to me sound like
something that would vary from golfer to golfer. And if you have a
model, how does it allow for those idiosyncratic differences?"
I don't see anything in your response to me that remotely resembles an
answer to my question.
> G > If it is "teasing" not to get into about 20 minutes of the video to
> show
> > > this, or many pages of the book, I am guilty.
> >
> >M Then I'd be hard pressed not to call it spam. If you cannot tell us
> > here (or won't, whichever it is), and the only way we can learn about it
> > is to buy your package, then it sounds suspiciously like advertising
> > that's going on here. And we know what we call that here.
>
> G's answer: would you rather have postings here from people who are not
> competent enough to also earn money professionally from their achievements?
It's a free forum, George. We have postings from people here all the
time who do not make a living from golf. Or earn money professionally
from their golf achievements. The value and worth of people's
commentary here is ultimately judged in the crucible of public
commentary by others.
> There are clubmakers here that I LOVE to hear from when they contribute, but
> not for a moment would I ask them to design / calculate the optimum club
> specs for me without paying them for it.
Fine. This sounds suspiciously like you won't tell us what you have in
your program unless we pay for it. I don't have a problem with that,
George. I do have a problem with your advertising it here under the
guise of "commentary," the bulk of which tapdances around legitimate
questions from people like me.
> Their tips are helpful for me to
> work stuff out now and then, but it is an insult to ask a professional for
> his services without paying him. I will not be stingy. Anyone want any
> ideas? Please submit.
Tell us how your program works. What's the essence of it? C'mon,
George, this isn't the first time I've asked. You said ask, I'm asking.
> >G's original post continues > 3) After this information is imparted and
> correctly understood and executed
> > > (after the video, anyone executes it in the first few minutes! -- the
> more
> > > advanced the golfer, the more enthusiasm he states for its clearing up
> > > problems he has encountered -- the newbies are not aware of what they do
> not
> > > have to struggle with) THEN the next step is to "exuberate" it into full
> > > athletic motion, gently enough to keep it from admitting viruses, but
> > > exuberant enough to tap into natural athleticism -- the same natural and
> > > exuberant kind of thing they do when they skip rocks on a pond or try to
> > > throw a baseball in from center field --- exuberance and the body's
> natural
> > > reactions to "the task at hand" bring in all kinds of unteachable but
> > > ingenious inborn mechanisms (as for walking), the "brains" of which they
> are
> > > not aware.
> >
> > M This sounds to me, George, like something from an advertising brochure.
>
> > G: No, Mike. Put your own spin on it. I am simply describing the
> process of how my instruction proceeds from its "seeds" into "adulthood".
> The spin is your agenda, not mine.
"Exuberate into full athletic motion?" What, pray tell, has anyone
learned from that?
> >G > 4) After this, we address the business of how to make that swinging
> machine
> > > hit a golf ball dead center. And I know that you all know how hard that
> is,
> > > and as far as I can see, it is NEVER addressed in and of itself, as
> though
> > > it was irrelevant, or as if "you will get it if you just try".
> >
> >M I would have thought this was what most golf instructors are discussing
> > when they talk about setup, i.e., getting the ball in the way of the
> > swing.
>
> > G's answer: I wish that were so, but too much is left out.
Like what, George? Again, you tease us. You tell us you have the
secret, but you are not forthcoming with it. You're just spamming us
for people to buy your program.
> If that were
> not the case, everyone would be able to make great contact after a couple
> lessons.
>
> > >G's post continues: But if you are laboring under a "don't move your head
> down" and whiff the ball all the
> > > time, or bad vision and you toe the ball all the time, or the lack of
> any
> > > other salient information, you are not well served by a teacher who
> doesn't
> > > enable your success.
> >
> >M: Well, sure, I buy that. But that's just a bad teacher. I learned--on
> > my own--the need to flex my knees, and the need to narrow my stance. I
> > wasn't happy that I'd paid for lessons only to learn this outside the
> > context of those lessons.
G: YOU MAKE MY POINT, Mike! But that's not an
> indictment of golf
> > instruction in general, only of the ability of one golf instructor in
> > particular.
That was, I thought, what *I* said.
> G's post continues> > If I set a ball for the Iron Byron somewhere else than
> where the path of the
> > > center of the clubhead will hit it, the perfect swinging machine is
> useless.
> >
> > M?? It's useless for hitting shots down the line. Maybe it's not
> > useless for learning about swing dynamics.
>
> > G: you take the point made and twist it, Mike. the illustration was to
> make the point that even if you DO have perfect mechanics it won't do you
> any good unless you can hit a ball with it: i.e., continue to read before
> you interrupt:
Say what? You offer us this startling insight: If you have perfect
mechanics it won't do any good unless you can hit a ball with it?
You're kidding, right?
> G:> > Not because the machine is flawed, but because the person who put the
> ball
> > > there didn't know where to put it. So, golf being backwards, a perfect
> > > swing is useless unless the golfer knows HOW TO PUT THE MACHINE SO THAT
> THE
> > > ORBITING CLUBHEAD MAKES center of percussion impact ("perfect impact").
> So
> > > what good is a good swing that can't hit the ball?
Is this revelatory? No. Do you explain how someone might accomplish
this, given your argument that people are mistaught how to do it? No.
Purpose of comment: To make people pony up money because it looks like
you have the secret.
> > M Again, I'm nonplussed by this. What you're telling us is to hit the
> > ball in the center of the clubhead. I can find any number of references
> > where this is noted as desirable.
>
> G; you miss the point again. the point is that WHAT NEEDS TO BE LEARNED is
> HOW to hit the ball dead center, AND THAT IS NOT SO EASY. It is not just
> "try" that makes it work (just go to the first tee of any golf course on any
> day at any hour and bring a sandwich and a note pad. Like traffic counters
> do at intersections. And just count...)
Well, what is it that needs to be learned? I got the point exactly:
You're telling us things that are beyond obvious, that any brand-new
golfer knows as a matter of course. And that's all you're telling us,
George. Flowery language, yes, but when you boil it down, that's all
that's in there.
> (This week the Q school is in town so that would not be the tee to use for
> this experiment.)
>
> G contiued:> > 5) After ALL these details have been explained and clarified
> AND MANAGED TO
> > > A POINT OF REASONABLE GOOD IMPACT (as regards fat, thin, toe, heel,
> swing
> > > path, appropriate vs. inappropriate exertions, when, weight shift to
> > > facilitate it all, etc.) THEN we go about "how to aim". And that is not
> > > about how to aim THE SETUP, but how to aim THE SWING SO THAT IT WILL
> PROPEL
> > > THE BALL IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
> >
> > M We're back to the words from the brochure here.
> >
> > >G: wow, you do have an agenda. Who is talking about brochure. I'm
> talking reality.
You aren't saying ANYTHING above, George, except to promote your system,
for which you want people to pay you money.
> > > 4) We also talk about things like controlling the distance for less
> than
> > > full shots, putting, optics, chipping, sand play principles, and
> achieving
> > > one's maximum distance.
> >
> >M So does Dave Pelz. What would make your methods superior?
>
> > G: who says I said my methods are superior to Pelz. I happen to think
> he's terrific, though on a couple points I have different opinions than he.
> But they are minimal. I'd be happy as a lark to compare notes with him. And
> I think he'd approve. (He's from my area and I developed a lot of my ideas
> about the same time he was developing his...)
You made it sound like you were giving us something we couldn't get
elsewhere. I guess not.
> > > Well, maybe that addresses THIS particular post of Mike's. ANYTHING
> ELSE?
> > > ANYONE?
> >
> > Perhaps it does, perhaps not. Still haven't learned anything about the
> > golf swing here.
> > G: haven't you listened to ANYTHING? Further, what do you expect to
> "learn" if your agenda is to argue?
Go back and tell me what you have taught ANYONE about the golf swing in
what you've written above. That they need to get the swing to hit the
ball, and that they want to hit the ball in the center of the clubface?
Puhleeze!
> G:> > I DO invite inquiries about any kind of swing problems you may be
> having and
> > I will give you what I can of insight or clarification... FWIW
I'll give you one, George: I have a tendency to come over the top, hit
across the ball, and slice. What do I do about it?
I'm not going to deal with the rest of your post. The remainder of my
original questions to you still stand, and I've proven my point above.
No reason to gild the lily.
Mike
George Hibbard
the whole previous message, so readers will have to go back "one turn" to
find the thread that has lead to this.) -- got criticized for too many kbs,
so need to be brief.
The gauntlet.
Mike, when I have a pupil take the club initially, I do not do it in address
position. I have him hold the club horizontal to the ground, and pointing
directly at the target, directly under his chin. The left hand holds the
grip in the fingers of the hand, as far from the palm as is holdable. The
left wrist and the fingers are perpendicular to the clubshaft, not diagonal.
One finger of the right hand supports the shaft from falling down -- it
holds it in the position described.
The orientation of the clubface is not taken into account at all at this
point. The grip is taken this way because the top of the backswing will
require a full 90 degree angle between the left forearm and the clubshaft --
what we call the wristcock.
Many grips that are taken diagonally across the palm or close to it actually
prevent a full wristcock. My way of making the point is to say that :
"this is where you want to be able to get (top position, loaded --
i.e.,cocked clubshaft). But if you can't get there before you swing, you
certainly can't get there DURING the swing." So the grip is taken,
adjusted, and tested to see that it is firm enough but not a death grip, and
I prefer equal 4- finger pressure, and that it can "get there".
The left thumb is placed pointed straight down the shaft with the tip of the
thumb pointed at the clubhead and the pad of the thumb, under the first
knuckle, perfectly centered on the curvature of the shaft (i.e, not "across"
the shaft). Usually it's a "medium" thumb extension down the shaft, not a
very short one nor a fully pressed down "long thumb."
The back of the left wrist retains the natural "dish angle" that exists when
his arm hangs down from his side, or that would be there if he were standing
on a porch and was letting his hand sit on the porch railing: to wit, the
large knuckle of the hand is neither bowed over nor pulled back.
Now, that is the left hand grip. It is not the end of the story, because as
things begin to happen and motion will be generated, and the ball addressed,
many more things need to be said and considered, for the pupil to retain all
the elements of the grip that are salient: firm enough to prevent slippage,
light enough to keep from locking the wrist; correct position and make
adjustments as indicated in the pictures of the book or the video if this
explanation leaves any doubt about anything; and bottom line, SO THAT THE
FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED DURING THE SWING CAN be performed without
hindrance.
Here I wish to object to the word "system". I do not have a system. I do
not have what I hear when you use the word "model". I have logic applied to
the requirements that I bring out that are inherent in the swing (as I used
the fact that "if you can't put the club there before your swing, you won't
be able to GET there during the swing." So use a grip/stance/posture that
is adjusted so that you CAN get there.
Later the pupil will move his arm(s), his body, his weight, his torso turn,
and other things, to move the club.
Now Mike, I am not going to sit like a pigeon for you to pick at details
that are easily explainable but that you might not fully grasp here, which
you therefore might condemn for reasons I can't begin to anticipate. I do
not sense any patience whatsoever for that unfolding to be allowed to occur.
I do sense a hostile challenge, and I will not submit myself to such an
"unfair" premise of how this might play out.
For example, if you attack me for not putting the club into address position
at this stage of the lesson, you interfere with the process whereby I help
the golfer to realize things that will free him up to be able to do the
swinging part. Much salient info follows later and a judgment is not
appropriate until all the details are in. But this is a picture of my
start! Anything not said here is said later. As I said, the book is 200 pp
and the video is 45 minutes of PICTURES (that are indescribably more
informative). (On that point, would you please describe to me the sunset
you see out your window...)
In a word, the 45 minute video is equivalent to a couple of full lessons.
Could or would you try to write words, vs. pictures, to give golf lessons,
and if so, how many words do you think it would take, and how much of a word
expert would you have to be to please everyone and not to be partially
misunderstood by someone. There is absolutely NO WAY to intercept every
possible misperception...
For now. You asked, nay, you DEMANDED, a bunch of things. One at a time.
Is your microscope loaded?
This is a test drive. If your response is appropriate, I will continue with
more stuff. If you show disdain and cut me to ribbons out of failure to
hear what I say or leap to implications that YOU add to what I say, I will
not respond to you. The insistency of your last thread has me wondering...
George
George Hibbard
The process of delivering information for the fairly involved procedure of
enabling someone you've never seen to execute good golf mechanics, etc. is
not a 15 minute course. College courses require hundreds of pages of books,
many lab hours, cramming, tests, in class discussions, and so on.
I guess I could equate getting good and "sufficient" golf instruction for a
"good beginning" could be WRITTEN only (no pictures), but I pity the man who
would have to do this without anything but cold printed words, to an
audience of varying backgrounds, smatterings of info, and expectations that
demand reconciliation with what is being said, especially before the end of
the message being sent. (Lecturers often say: please hold your questions
until the end, because it will probably GET answered somewhere during this
class or another one...) And I don't know how many kilobytes it might
take..., to say nothing of sheer ESP to get there ahead of the detectives.
So I will indulge this protocol for a while to establish whatever
credibility or lack thereof you come to impute.
Let's see how it plays out.
George
Zamuel
> Fine. This sounds suspiciously like you won't tell us what you have in
> your program unless we pay for it. I don't have a problem with that,
> George. I do have a problem with your advertising it here under the
> guise of "commentary," the bulk of which tapdances around legitimate
> questions from people like me.
This really says it all mike...(will there be a hardback edition of this thread?)
(g)...
To a certain extent I agree with you...
Many of George's posts are simply *Pitchs*...
The closer comes by private e-mail (MONEY BACK GUARANTEE!).
I do give George some credit tho for trying to respect the rules and avoiding
blatant spamming....You have to appreciate that he's kind of STUCK now...If he
dosen't respond to the challenges that have arisen, he looses whatever credibility
he has left...AND prolonging the agony with highbandwith in depth examinations of
minute inconsistancys, in actuality, only prolongs any spam/abuse that is taking
place.
I doubt he'll catch many fish in this pond. The disappointing quasi-answers he's
provided thus far to direct questions about his technique are not very confidence
inspiring.
]]]Z[[[
Dave Clary
<g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>
>Now Mike, I am not going to sit like a pigeon for you to pick at details
>that are easily explainable but that you might not fully grasp here, which
>you therefore might condemn for reasons I can't begin to anticipate. I do
>not sense any patience whatsoever for that unfolding to be allowed to occur.
>I do sense a hostile challenge, and I will not submit myself to such an
>"unfair" premise of how this might play out.
Something's not right here. You HAVE been the target of some rather
hostile challenges here for which I and others have come to your
defense. I think you earned a little respect from some here by the
way you handled that. But like Randy said, I think your off-base with
Mike. You've basically said that you have the "answer" and Mike is
asking what it is.
I can understand that trying to make points without illustrations can
be difficult. I can also understand that if it were possible to do
so, you might be "giving away" something you would like to sell. A
lot of people participate in this newsgroup hoping to pick up a
pointer or two that may help their game. Perhaps your best route at
this point is to continue to contribute to the newsgroup, offer a
SPECIFIC point or two when appropriate, and keep participating in
other threads. By doing that, and putting your website URL in your
signature file, you can kill the proverbial two birds....
That's my opinion, I could be wrong (apologies to that guy on Monday
Night Football). :-)
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX
http://www.geocities.com/~texasp38
RSG Roll Call
http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/claryd.htm
David Laville
wrote:
>It's pretty simple, really. If we stick to golf and disuss it in a positive
>and encouraging way, we will attract golfers, many of whom will contribute
>to this newsgroup. If we disrespect people because of their opinions, we
>all lose in the end.
So I guess when you told Joseph Hall to "go f*ck himself" for his
opinion you were being respectful.
As long has you keep posting as Mr. Self Righteous I will keep
reminding people of this event.
David Laville
I was a nationally ranked high school soccer-type place kicker, does
my feedback qualify?
David Laville
<g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>I have pointed out two things that occur during a golf swing:
>
>1) one is the fact that elasticity of the left arm, shoulder blade, and
>left wrist, all contribute to the "stretching" of the left arm/club assembly
>during the swing. This "stretching" makes the assembly "get longer" during
>the swing than it was at setup. I pointed out that Juli and Nancy Lopez
>both use a very pronounced pre-takaway stretch wherein they raise their left
>shoulder, and that this is their way of positioning the height of their
>sternum just before the swing, to prevent slamming the ground on the way
>back. If they didn't lift up high enough, they would hit the ball fat.
So you established the fact the left shoulder to ball radius gets
longer in the swing so the player has to adjust by lifting at address.
>2) I have pointed out that during a good swing the amount of left side
>rotation away from the ball pulls the left shoulder further from the ball
>than its position at setup.
If rotation pulls the left shoulder further from the ball doesn't this
mean the left shoulder is rotating around the spine, a complete
contradiction to your other claim the spine rotates around the left
shoulder?
>So this is a reality that must be dealt with. I
>pointed out that Tiger and Tom Lehman (and apparently many others mentioned
>in the Bob Mann study) make some of this accommodation by dipping down
>during the swing.
So they accommodate the increased left shoulder to ball radius by
dipping down (geometrically illogical) , errr wait, above you said
players have to lift up. Can you make up your mind?
> I call that "guess-timating" and I believe it to be
>inferior to a procedure wherein you figure out ahead of time how much that
>change amounts to and then make the accommodation at setup, in the style of
>Zoeller and Daly.
Isn't setting up to an imaginary outside the real one a "guess-timate"
also?
>3) I quoted Craig Shankland's most excellent piece wherein the Headline for
>a section is "MAINTAIN HEIGHT AND RADIUS" . I find it hard to see how a 2"
>dip fits in with Shankland's advice. I have no problem with golfer's doing
>it, at all. I am all in favor of it.
So you're all in favor of something that's contrary to what you
considered "the finest and most thorough and correct instruction you
ever saw"?
>Am I missing something in Craig's use of language?
I don't know but we're missing something in yours.
KPH
<mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote:
> I have a tendency to come over the top, hit
>across the ball, and slice. What do I do about it?
(snip)
>Mike
Mike,
You might want to pick up a copy of Swing Like a Pro. It includes
several drills to solve your specific problem.
KPH
Mark Blake
>There is a lot of comment about my postings and what I have said. So I will
>summarize.
and that was the summary?
mate, if you cant fit the whole message on a single screen then that
aint a summary
regards
Mark Blake
Fairway: [faer-wai] "An unfamiliar tract of mown grass running directly from tee to the green. Your ball can usually be found immediately to the left or right of it."
RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/blakem.htm
Bruce Newman
<dlav...@att.net> wrote:
See what I mean? David Laville is one of the most unfriendly and negative
people in RSG and with this negative approach, he hurts all of us. He
detracts from the conversation here.
I'm not at all self-righteous; you don't know me. We have barely ever
communicated in fact. As soon as I saw you display your character by
attacking people and calling names, I have just stayed away from you.
In that one incident, Joseph Hall had it coming and, if you were fair at
all, you would explain both sides of it. You are not a fair type though and
you only thrive on sh*t disturbing, don't you?
I am far from perfect, but I do generally try to be helpful and
encouraging. What is your excuse, David?
bkn...@verio.net
<clip>
>> As long has you keep posting as Mr. Self Righteous I will keep
>> reminding people of this event.
bene...@nbnet.nb.ca (Bruce Newman) wrote:
>I am far from perfect, but I do generally try to be helpful and
>encouraging. What is your excuse, David?
C'mon guys. You're both in the clique, and we can't have clique
members at each other's throat. What will the newbies think? :-)
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
George Hibbard
David Laville <dlav...@att.net> wrote in message
news:34ikvs4afgs4gj104...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:18:23 -0400, "George Hibbard"
> <g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>
> >Zamuel and others struggling with this point: can you stand on your left
> >foot alone, so that, in effect your body is supported on your left hip as
> >well, and then pivot or turn?
> >I would love to get the feedback from a soccer-type NFL placekicker for
HIS
> >analysis of his technique..
>
> I was a nationally ranked high school soccer-type place kicker, does
> my feedback qualify?
specialists, sports' doctors or those knowing bone structure as it relates
to sports? If the weight is on the left foot and hip, is the spine on the
spin axis? This is a serious question.
HOWEVER, the IMAGE of the body rotating "around the left side" is far more
utile than "around the center of the body!"
George
George Hibbard
LEFT SHOULDER TURNING AWAY (reread the Daly thing).
So any PARTICULAR golfer's procedure for handling perfect impact is to
discover what accommodation he wishes to make FOR THE NET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE TWO THINGS. That's why it appears contradictory and that is why
different golfers' swings have the different characteristics we're talking
about here. MY point is that everyone has to deal with it, either
consciously by cognitive decision arrived at by trial and error (which
eliminates "guesstimating DURING the swing) by a preswing adjustment (Daly),
OR by doing some dipping DURING the swing. Juli and Nancy stretch as needed
for their OWN accommodation; Lehman drops deeply during the swing for his.
Many pros dip a bit, like Tiger. But many golfers struggle with depth
control AND NEVER HAVE A CLUE as to the factors that affect it -- those
subtleties.
It's been said, David. Let's go on to something else. George
clip a lot...
> >I have pointed out two things that occur during a golf swing:
> >
> > So you established the fact the left shoulder to ball radius gets
> longer in the swing so the player has to adjust by lifting at address.
>
>
> If rotation pulls the left shoulder further from the ball doesn't this
> mean the left shoulder is rotating around the spine, a complete
> contradiction to your other claim the spine rotates around the left
> shoulder?
>
> >>
Kurt Klein
No excuse for his behavior.
It does takes away from his golf tips. Even though I dislike him I still read his
posts as some are helpful to me.
Why bother asking? It's probably something in the Louisiana water system that
can't be filtered out.
Kurt
Bruce Newman wrote in part:
Bruce Newman
<heavy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bruce,
> No excuse for his behavior.
> It does takes away from his golf tips. Even though I dislike him I still
read his
> posts as some are helpful to me.
>
> Why bother asking? It's probably something in the Louisiana water system that
> can't be filtered out.
:-) I don't have anything against David Laville, but I am puzzled by his
recent series of attacks against me--I think 4-5 posts just this morning.
You just can't win with this guy. On one hand, he calls me self-righteous.
On the other, he tries to portray me as vulgar. I happen to be neither; I'm
just a guy.
FWIW, I don't have a lot of time for these unfriendly, blunt, insensitive,
arrogant, and generally negative types and have, at times, been tempted to
just filter them out. Despite their, in my view, poor social qualities, it
would be a loss to me as I far prefer diversity.
You might be onto something with that water though. ;-)
Mike Dalecki
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:00:45 -0500, Mike Dalecki
> >across the ball, and slice. What do I do about it?
> (snip)
>
> Mike,
>
> You might want to pick up a copy of Swing Like a Pro. It includes
> several drills to solve your specific problem.
>
> KPH
Au contraire. He asked for people to post specific problems or
questions. If I understand his program correctly (and that's certainly
open to debate), I should be able to adopt an approach that uses my
idiosyncratic swing style yet still make perfect impact on the ball.
I know of the drills in the SLAP book. I'm asking George what HE thinks
I should do about it so that I might achieve perfect impact. After all,
it sounds like his system should enable me to ameliorate the problem of
slicing via an over-the-top type of swing without my having to change
swinging over the top.
I'll respond to George's reply later today or tomorrow morning. I want
them, as always, to be measured, thoughtful, meaningful comments, and
I'm not able to do that just dashing off something quickly.
Mike
--
bkn...@verio.net
<mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote:
<clip>
>I'll respond to George's reply later today or tomorrow morning. I want
>them, as always, to be measured, thoughtful, meaningful comments, and
>I'm not able to do that just dashing off something quickly.
Damn, I'm going to have to try that. :-0
KPH
<mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote:
>I know of the drills in the SLAP book.
That's odd. I have the book and the CD and they didn't solve my
over-the-top move either, but I thought that maybe it was just me.
I wonder if Dr. Mann will give me my money back?
KPH
Jeff Hoppe
<bkn...@verio.net> wrote in message
>
> C'mon guys. You're both in the clique, and we can't have clique
> members at each other's throat. What will the newbies think? :-)
>
Bobby? I never received my "clique" T-shirt and bag tag, did they get lost
in the mail?
Jeff
bkn...@verio.net
Must have, I sure sent them.
>
>
>
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
Charter Member RSG clique
"R&B"
Randy
============================================================
Charter Member, RSG Clique
Golf instruction for newbies: http://wwwgolfer.home.mindspring.com
My RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm
RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
Voiceovers/Narration/Production Services: www.randybrownproductions.com
============================================================
"Bruce Newman" <bene...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:benewman-ya0240800...@allnews.nbnet.nb.ca...
Bruce Newman
<RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Are you talking about the same creampuff David Laville that I know?
Creampuff? Hmmmm, I can think of other words. ;-)
Bruce
Bruce Newman * Fredericton, NB, Canada * bene...@nbnet.nb.ca
Charter Member, RSG Clique
George Hibbard
Mike Dalecki <mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:39FADC8D...@dalecki.net...
. I'm asking George what HE thinks I should do about it so that I might
achieve perfect impact. After all,
> it sounds like his system should enable me to ameliorate the problem of
> slicing via an over-the-top type of swing without my having to change
> swinging over the top.
>
George: sorry folks, there are so many over-writes in this string I don't
know who to credit for the above comment. But this is to address the
comment, not the person.
The comment poses an oxymoron. The writer asks how to "fix a problem" when
he also states that he has no intention of making the adjustment that will.
If he wants a bandaid to Lessen its effects, I have some of those in my back
pocket. But to say that the rules of this game are "I'll listen to you
doctor and even take home the pills you gave me, but I won't take them.
I'll see you next Friday when I am not better and wait until then to accuse
you of an inability to cure me.
Again, the writer of the comment refers to George's system. It is a bit
like calling math "george's system", because 2+2 is 4, I told it to my
children, and now they use George's system to do their arithmetic.
If in working with me you DISCOVER (when I point it out to you ) some facts
about your body, your height at impact, your open grip, your left wrist, or
any other physical feature that gets used in your procedure that you can
change and it improves your shotmaking, and you'd like to credit me with a
"System" of golf instruction, Great, I'll package it and do an infomercial.
But if discoveries reveal to you YOUR OWN motions, positions, exertions,
etc. to clarify what works and what doesn't, I Still Want You To Name a
Museum After Me and call it George's System. (that's irony, folks: irony is
a figure of speech; figures of speech are for effect; effect is part of
communication; communication is the delivery of all kinds of information
from one person to another; deaf people cannot hear.)
The whole point is: when things are pointed out to people that gives them
to REALIZE stuff they didn't see before, and then they go and make some
change or adjustment, they have been taught and helped. And I do not do it
with "tips" (a fish). I help people by drawing their attention to a detail
or two or three, showing them the logic of what they are doing, the logic of
why the adjustment makes sense, and then THEY CHOOSE to apply an adjustment
because it is obviously a better procedure. Then they go home and have
learned how to fish.
I use the illustration of the jigsaw puzzle -- and it would help to picture
the simple ones that children use for starters, maybe 30 or 40 pieces; for
the child who is struggling without an overall view of the picture, he
labors with the individual pieces in an attempt to fit everything together.
But if the kid at the next table has already seen the whole picture, he puts
the puzzle together almost immediately. Such is the difference between golf
tips (pieces, parts, thises and thats) and golf instruction (revealing the
whole picture).
So George's system is not a model and a do this or a litany of tips. It is
a revelation of the whole picture, wherein it becomes clear how the parts
fit.
thank you for your belief that I might have a system.
George
Pendulum Press
800-226-9326
www.perfectimpact.com
Mike Dalecki
> achieve perfect impact. After all,
> > it sounds like his system should enable me to ameliorate the problem of
> > slicing via an over-the-top type of swing without my having to change
> > swinging over the top.
> >
> George: sorry folks, there are so many over-writes in this string I don't
> know who to credit for the above comment. But this is to address the
> comment, not the person.
The person was me, Mike Dalecki. It's easy to determine that from the
original post--just look who the poster was.
> The comment poses an oxymoron.
Oh it does? Then perhaps you might explain your approach here so
everyone can understand it. Lord knows, I've asked.
The writer asks how to "fix a problem" when
> he also states that he has no intention of making the adjustment that will.
Now really, George. Where did I state that? Do you really think you
add to your credibility when you claim I said things I never said? A
casual reader might take your words at face value, a read who hasn't
memorized the entire thread, but I don't take kindly to you attributing
things to me that I've never said, nor even intimated.
Do you think I don't want to get rid of that over-the-top tendency that
manifests itself in a slice? You give me an adjustment that will
eliminate it, George, and I'll sing your praises from the heights. I'm
a very honest person, George, and one who has no difficulty in accepting
when I've been wrong. So what's the adjustment, George?
Further, this is a direct quote from you in an earlier post in this
thread:
> G:> > I DO invite inquiries about any kind of swing problems you may be
> having and
> > I will give you what I can of insight or clarification... FWIW
And then this from another post:
> Talk to me, guys. Please bring your problems and I'll gladly address them
> seriously. I love this game, and I love sharing info.
So there you are, George: Your invitation to do what I just did, i.e.,
ask for help with a swing tendency of mine that I'd like to eliminate.
Your response is, well, underwhelming.
Why won't you answer the question?
> If he wants a bandaid to Lessen its effects, I have some of those in my back
> pocket. But to say that the rules of this game are "I'll listen to you
> doctor and even take home the pills you gave me, but I won't take them.
> I'll see you next Friday when I am not better and wait until then to accuse
> you of an inability to cure me.
The pills, George, the pills--where are they? You invited the kind of
question I asked above; where's the answer? Or is this just another
teaser, such that the only way to get the pills is to buy your stuff?
> Again, the writer of the comment refers to George's system. It is a bit
> like calling math "george's system", because 2+2 is 4, I told it to my
> children, and now they use George's system to do their arithmetic.
If it is not a system, or a model, then you might correct my
misunderstanding of it as I asked you to do in an earlier post, to wit:
"Again, I'm confused. I seem to recall your discussion revolving
around,
in part, the idea that individual golfers have individual swings, and
that an optimal (individual) swing can be found for each golfer, taking
into account his/her idiosyncracies (if I've misstated this, please
correct). It sounds like you have a model, which doesn't to me sound
like something that would vary from golfer to golfer. And if you have a
model, how does it allow for those idiosyncratic differences?"
So now you don't have a system. I asked earlier for clarification on
that, used the same term here, and now you denigrate my terminology when
you chose not to reply to my question, i.e., "if I've misstated this,
please correct."
The fact that you answer so few of my questions directly, George,
suggests to me that you want to give no more away than you can, to
ensure people are enticed into buying your system.
It also suggests something else.
> If in working with me you DISCOVER (when I point it out to you ) some facts
> about your body, your height at impact, your open grip, your left wrist, or
> any other physical feature that gets used in your procedure that you can
> change and it improves your shotmaking, and you'd like to credit me with a
> "System" of golf instruction, Great, I'll package it and do an infomercial.
Sounds like you're on your way.
> But if discoveries reveal to you YOUR OWN motions, positions, exertions,
> etc. to clarify what works and what doesn't, I Still Want You To Name a
> Museum After Me and call it George's System. (that's irony, folks: irony is
> a figure of speech; figures of speech are for effect; effect is part of
> communication; communication is the delivery of all kinds of information
> from one person to another; deaf people cannot hear.)
This is all very nice, but doesn't address my original question about
what to do about my over-the-top swing. Which question, I might
re-iterate, you solicited.
> The whole point is: when things are pointed out to people that gives them
> to REALIZE stuff they didn't see before, and then they go and make some
> change or adjustment, they have been taught and helped. And I do not do it
> with "tips" (a fish). I help people by drawing their attention to a detail
> or two or three, showing them the logic of what they are doing, the logic of
> why the adjustment makes sense, and then THEY CHOOSE to apply an adjustment
> because it is obviously a better procedure. Then they go home and have
> learned how to fish.
Very nice. Irrelevant, but very nice. I'm asking you to teach me how
to fish, George; you're the one who solicited questions, and I posed
one. You're tap-dancing around it pretty well here, but I didn't fall
off the turnip truck on the way into town.
Why don't you answer my question, George? And if you *can't* answer it,
why did you ask for people to pose questions for you?
> I use the illustration of the jigsaw puzzle -- and it would help to picture
> the simple ones that children use for starters, maybe 30 or 40 pieces; for
> the child who is struggling without an overall view of the picture, he
> labors with the individual pieces in an attempt to fit everything together.
> But if the kid at the next table has already seen the whole picture, he puts
> the puzzle together almost immediately. Such is the difference between golf
> tips (pieces, parts, thises and thats) and golf instruction (revealing the
> whole picture).
So it sounds to me like you cannot tell us your "approach" here, for
whatever reason. Thus, the purpose of these posts must be something
else.
Why don't you answer my question, George?
> So George's system is not a model and a do this or a litany of tips. It is
> a revelation of the whole picture, wherein it becomes clear how the parts
> fit.
It also is not something that can be used to answer a question such as I
posed, apparently.
> thank you for your belief that I might have a system.
George, you are a fakir of the highest order; I take my hat off to you.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki--Charter Member, RSG Clique
I do not patronize spammers! Help keep RSG clean.
Expect the same etiquette from me on RSG as on the golf course.
RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/daleckim.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Laville
wrote:
>> So I guess when you told Joseph Hall to "go f*ck himself" for his
>> opinion you were being respectful.
>>
>> As long has you keep posting as Mr. Self Righteous I will keep
>> reminding people of this event.
>
>See what I mean? David Laville is one of the most unfriendly and negative
>people in RSG and with this negative approach, he hurts all of us. He
>detracts from the conversation here.
So bringing up your past personal attacks makes someone unfriendly and
negative? Get a life.
>I'm not at all self-righteous;
You could've fooled me.
> you don't know me.
And I'm glad I don't.
>We have barely ever communicated in fact. As soon as I saw you display your character by
>attacking people and calling names, I have just stayed away from you.
Just like when I saw you display your character when Joseph Hall made
a innocent suggestion I decided you were a loon and kept my distance.
>In that one incident, Joseph Hall had it coming,
So when you throw insults it's justified?
> if you were fair at all, you would explain both sides of it.
I did.
>You are not a fair type though and
>you only thrive on sh*t disturbing, don't you?
Only in your world would you consider telling the truth unfair.
>I am far from perfect, but I do generally try to be helpful and
>encouraging. What is your excuse, David?
I am helpful and encouraging, I try to warn people to the hypocrite
you are.
David Laville
<g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>DAVID: ON THIS ISSUE, THERE ARE TWO PARTS: ONE - STRETCHING. TWO -- THE
>LEFT SHOULDER TURNING AWAY (reread the Daly thing).
>
>So any PARTICULAR golfer's procedure for handling perfect impact is to
>discover what accommodation he wishes to make FOR THE NET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
>THE TWO THINGS. That's why it appears contradictory and that is why
>different golfers' swings have the different characteristics we're talking
>about here. MY point is that everyone has to deal with it, either
>consciously by cognitive decision arrived at by trial and error (which
>eliminates "guesstimating DURING the swing) by a preswing adjustment (Daly),
>OR by doing some dipping DURING the swing.
Than why should anyone buy your video or book if your attitude is
"accommodation by trial and error"? They don't need your material for
this and I see it every week on the golf course.
>It's been said, David. Let's go on to something else.
So we're not to discuss anything you say, but accept it?
David Laville
Charter Member, RSG Clique
David Laville
wrote:
> I don't have anything against David Laville, but I am puzzled by his
>recent series of attacks against me--I think 4-5 posts just this morning.
So now telling the truth is an attack against you. Please, get a
life.
>You just can't win with this guy. On one hand, he calls me self-righteous.
>On the other, he tries to portray me as vulgar.
I don't have to portray you as vulgar, you did a fine job all by
yourself last year.
>FWIW, I don't have a lot of time for these unfriendly, blunt, insensitive,
>arrogant, and generally negative types and have, at times, been tempted to
>just filter them out. Despite their, in my view, poor social qualities,
This coming from the buffoon who turns down rounds with fellow RSG'ers
and he talks about the poor social qualities of others.
David Laville
<g...@bestnetpc.com> wrote:
>> I was a nationally ranked high school soccer-type place kicker, does
>> my feedback qualify?
>> You betcha. What is your "felt" experience?
I don't base my swing on feel nor did I kick by feel, it's always been
technique. I was a high school kicker, my technique was not as
refined as today's college and NFL kickers. For a right footed kicker
you plant with the left and basically fire the right hip through, the
leg and foot will follow. So for kicking what you're saying is
correct, you're rotating is around the left hip.
But the golf swing is a whole different matter. We're not hitting the
ball with our right foot, we're hitting it with our left arm that
rotates around the left shoulder that rotates around the spine.
David Laville
<heavy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Bruce,
>No excuse for his behavior.
>It does takes away from his golf tips. Even though I dislike him I still read his
>posts as some are helpful to me.
Why do you dislike me Mr. Klein, because YOU were the one who said you
bought over priced clubs? That makes lots of sense. Than again you
Natural Golfers do have a history of dislike and personal threats.
David Laville
<RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Are you talking about the same creampuff David Laville that I know?
Didn't I tell you guys to watch that, you're ruining my bad boy image.
rds
I like your signature line, at least you're honest.
"David Laville" <dlav...@att.net> wrote in message
news:6nkovsssn2a4p8r95...@4ax.com...
George Hibbard
top" answer earlier than that. PLEASE RECOGNIZE THAT BEFORE THIS EXCORIATION
BELOW, MY POST PREDATES YOURS THAT I ANSWER HEREIN. Why do you attack me for
losing track of who asked for the over the top cure. Names on this rsg are
new to me, and every repeated post has so darn many ''''''''wrote in
message'''' overwrites that it is easy for ME to be confused as to who the
original author of a phrase is. So I answered the request to whoever wanted
to hear it, and if I didn't realize it was you, I don't think I should be
sent to prison. Just now in scrolling I fished for your post and after
going through maybe150 message headings, still didn't find it. So forgive
me for not remembering it was you. George. Now continue and I'll comment
on your reply:
Mike Dalecki <mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:39FC37A7...@dalecki.net...
> George Hibbard wrote:
> > Mike Dalecki <mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
> > . I'm asking George what HE thinks I should do about it so that I might
> > achieve perfect impact. After all,
> > > it sounds like his system should enable me to ameliorate the problem
of
> > > slicing via an over-the-top type of swing without my having to change
> > > swinging over the top.
> > >
> > George: sorry folks, there are so many over-writes in this string I
don't
> > know who to credit for the above comment. But this is to address the
> > comment, not the person.
>
> The person was me, Mike Dalecki. It's easy to determine that from the
> original post--just look who the poster was.[JUST REPLIED TO THIS]
>
> > The comment poses an oxymoron.
>
> Oh it does? Then perhaps you might explain your approach here so
> everyone can understand it. Lord knows, I've asked.
> THE OXYMORON IS THAT THE REQUEST TO FIX THE OVER THE TOP MOVEMENT WAS
ACCOMPANIED by words similar to or conveying the same meaning as: "WHILE
CONTINUIING IN MY PRESENT PROCEDURE" Then in the playout of the
instruction on over the top, it becomes obvious that you can't continue to
come over the top and get away with it.
That is the meaning of the following words: (If this answer is going to the
wrong person, I apologize. SOMEwhere the request for help about coming over
the top was accompanied by the implication of retaining a swing preference
that made fixing the problem impossible. Perhaps it was another. The names
of persons in this group do not register with me yet as to particular swing
problems or personal histories. I have a "name remember" problem, and there
are a LOT of new names here.
> The writer asks how to "fix a problem" when
> > he also states that he has no intention of making the adjustment that
will.
>
> Now really, George. Where did I state that? [I DIDN'T SAY MIKE SAID IT.
I WAS ADDRESSING THE ONE WHO DID -- I DIDN'T REFER TO YOUR REQUEST FOR HELP;
I REFERRED TO A REQUEST FOR HELP IN THAT POST.]
Do you really think you
> add to your credibility when you claim I said things I never said? A
> casual reader might take your words at face value, a read who hasn't
> memorized the entire thread, but I don't take kindly to you attributing
> things to me that I've never said, nor even intimated. [YOU LEAPED TO THE
ASSUMPTION I WAS TALKING ABOUT YOUR POST. I DIDN'T USE A NAME BECAUSE I
DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE COMMENT CAME FROM WHEN I WROTE THE POST.]
>
> Do you think I don't want to get rid of that over-the-top tendency that
> manifests itself in a slice? You give me an adjustment that will
> eliminate it, George, and I'll sing your praises from the heights. STUDY
THE POST ON OVER THE TOP]
I'm
> a very honest person, George, and one who has no difficulty in accepting
> when I've been wrong. So what's the adjustment, George?
>
> Further, this is a direct quote from you in an earlier post in this
> thread:
>
> > G:> > I DO invite inquiries about any kind of swing problems you may be
> > having and
> > > I will give you what I can of insight or clarification... FWIW
> [DONE, AND I'M RUNNING AS FAST AS I CAN.]
> And then this from another post:
>
> > Talk to me, guys. Please bring your problems and I'll gladly address
them
> > seriously. I love this game, and I love sharing info.
> [DITTO]
> So there you are, George: Your invitation to do what I just did, i.e.,
> ask for help with a swing tendency of mine that I'd like to eliminate.
> Your response is, well, underwhelming.
>
> Why won't you answer the question?
>
> > If he wants a bandaid to Lessen its effects, I have some of those in my
back
> > pocket. But to say that the rules of this game are "I'll listen to you
> > doctor and even take home the pills you gave me, but I won't take them.
> > I'll see you next Friday when I am not better and wait until then to
accuse
> > you of an inability to cure me. [THIS CHARACTERIZATION FITS EXACTLY THE
QUESTION ABOUT FIXING THE PROBLEM WHILE STATING APPARENTLY NO INTENTION OF
CHANGING THE PROCEDURE]
>
> The pills, George, the pills--where are they? You invited the kind of
> question I asked above; where's the answer? Or is this just another
> teaser, such that the only way to get the pills is to buy your stuff?
>
> > Again, the writer of the comment refers to George's system. It is a bit
> > like calling math "george's system", because 2+2 is 4, I told it to my
> > children, and now they use George's system to do their arithmetic.
>
> If it is not a system, or a model, then you might correct my
> misunderstanding of it as I asked you to do in an earlier post, to wit:
> [ALSO ADDRESSED ON A POST EARLIER TODAY]
> [ALAS, MIKE. YOUR REPEATED LITANY DOESN'T LET UP, DOES IT. AGAIN, PLEASE
KEEP TRACK OF POSTS; IF YOU HAVE ASKED FOR AN ANSWER, AND IT HAS BEEN GIVEN,
DON'T BEAT THE INTERNET WITH INCESSANT COMPLAINTS THAT THE ANSWER WASN'T
GIVEN.
MY POST ENTITLED "SPINNING OUT/COMING ACROSS THE BALL" was posted on the RSG
newgroup site at 11:38 am, 10/28/2000.
Zamuel
> Do you think I don't want to get rid of that over-the-top tendency that
> manifests itself in a slice? You give me an adjustment that will
> eliminate it, George, and I'll sing your praises from the heights.
Oh Hell Mike...I can do that...Just spread your feet apart until it stops...
(g)...Got a bell tower on that campus?
> I'm a very honest person, George, and one who has no difficulty in accepting
> when I've been wrong.
Unfortunately I don't think George can relate to that...I apologise for the
excuses I was making for this guy...Anybody with a Cam corder and a Word Processor
can rephrase a few of the Classic Texts, throw in some irrelevant mumbo jumbo,
hang a catchy title on it, start calling names to get some attention, and pretend
they KNOW what they're talking about...all it takes is balls...
> >Talk to me, guys. Please bring your problems and I'll gladly address >them
> seriously. I love this game, and I love sharing info.
Did you see the response to the fella with the PUSHING problem...?
Maybe George is using some sort of CODE and we just don't have the right secret
decoder rings...
]]]Z[[[
Kurt Klein
Bruce bought this issue up in his post.
>FWIW, I don't have a lot of time for these unfriendly, blunt, insensitive,
>arrogant, and generally negative types and have, at times, been tempted to
>just filter them out. Despite their, in my view, poor social qualities,
This statement pretty much describes my view on you.
Your "enthusiasm" for the golf swing comes across as my way or the highway.
David Laville wrote:
> Why do you dislike me Mr. Klein, because YOU were the one who said you
> bought over priced clubs? That makes lots of sense.
Right here you come across as a jackass. Paying too much for Natural Golf has nothing
to do with it. It is not ONE thing but a conglomerate of things. I dislike you because
you are a conglomerate asshole, plain and simple. ( hint-See the above quote as it
sums up my definition of an asshole.)
Please do not address me as Mr. Klein, I wouldn't want to take that as a sign of
respect ;' )
> Than again you Natural Golfers do have a history of dislike and personal threats.
Okay I admit it "we" Natural Golfers get together once a week, go to the Zoo and tell
the animals they're all adopted. Then we distract the guys at the drink stand and poke
holes in the bottom of the drink cups. When you see a golfer wearing a black leather
jacket with "Hells Natural Golfers" on it stand clear. There are some wannabees out
there so look for the jackets with our motto on them. " I'll only give up my driver
when they pry my cold dead fingers from its grip". This has been patented just like
"three peat".
I get the feeling you are trying to be clever and can't. Attention: Golf related
statement- Similar to when Palmer and Nicklaus refer to each other when they have to
go to the bathroom. Nicklaus comes across mean spirited.
Or maybe it is because you like to group people, or ideas like you do the golf
swing.(pretty deep stuff, huh)
> David Laville
> Charter Member, RSG Clique
Kurt
George Hibbard
to describe it, relate to A GREAT MANY ATHLETIC ACTIONS --baseball pitching,
hitting, soccer kicking, Jai Alai, golf, etc. on and on. It is an
instinctive thing to stand "on your dominant leg" (left leg for a right
hander) and position your weight for the activity at hand. So the rotation
is certainly around the left side. Again I won't quantify the precise point
or postion of the whole axis as it runs through the body up, but if it's on
the left foot, it would seem to me it couldn't also be a "revolving door"
type of motion but a "single hinge door" type of motion. (See Gravity
Golf...) George
David Laville <dlav...@att.net> wrote in message
news:6nkovsssn2a4p8r95...@4ax.com...
Bruce Newman
<dlav...@att.net> wrote:
At the risk of falling into your trap, David, you asked for examples. Well,
what you have written above is nothing more than being argumentative. Don't
you agree? George clearly wants to move onto something more constructive.
You seem to want to wallow in the mud.
I think I have finally figured out why you dislike me. I say what I think
and you can't seem to take that.
Bruce
P.S. Your "Get a life." statement was quite original, David. I'll see what
I can do about that. :-)
Bruce E. Newman * Fredericton, NB, Canada * bene...@nbnet.nb.ca
George Hibbard
Yes my book explicity directs and helps people to find the accommodations
they need for their own body structure. Happy now? And no, there is no way
that, having told you what you or anyone might need to do, and you having
missed the point, that I can help you to understand what I'm saying. I have
also said it here and will again, this one last time.
Limitations of language...
Let me try this one last time.
There are two realities: our bodies stretch, and natural swing mechanics
move our left shoulders further from the ball at impact than it was at
setup.
It is necessary for everyone to experiment with the distance he sets himself
at setup from the ball. This is done by trial and error golf shots to find
the best pre-swing accommodation HE can make that will take care of the net
difference in the two opposing "lengths". Should he stand taller? shorter?
further? closer? It is so that he can handle the problem of getting the
center of the clubface onto the ball during his actual swing, in terms of
how far to stand from the ball and how tall. I prefer to do the
accommodating at setup instead of during the swing. Once someone has a
system for finding how to find the height and distance he needs (by
extending the club down to something near or at the ball), that becomes his
system for establishing his setup measurement that will work when he wants
to hit a ball pure.
[If that is obvious, then of course, everyone hits the ball pure.]
If you need help with that statement, I am not the one to speak to. Try an
English teacher.
George
David Laville <dlav...@att.net> wrote in message
news:7okovsojb972ok8p3...@4ax.com...
Bruce Newman
<dlav...@att.net> wrote:
> >FWIW, I don't have a lot of time for these unfriendly, blunt, insensitive,
> >arrogant, and generally negative types and have, at times, been tempted to
> >just filter them out. Despite their, in my view, poor social qualities,
>
> This coming from the buffoon who turns down rounds with fellow RSG'ers
> and he talks about the poor social qualities of others.
Why do you call me a buffoon? Please show me where I play the fool.
I turned down a round with Rob Hamilton after a long period of sparring
with him. At the time, he exhibited most of the qualities above. Why would
I take time to play with someone I disliked, at least from the limited
perspective I had of him. That was the only round I have turned down. Are
you going to be in the area? Let's play! Wouldn't it be a fun day?
I have no idea what has gotten up your butt, David, and if you want to
dislike me, fine. Please just be accurate with quotes that you attribute to
me. So far, you are just about 0 for 6.
Bruce
P.S. *whispering* ...and you are also looking foolish. Clean it up.
Bruce E. Newman * Fredericton, NB, Canada * bene...@nbnet.nb.ca
Charter Member, RSG Clique