Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

REVIEW of George Hibbard's Perfect Impact material

56 views
Skip to first unread message

KPH

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
Well, I just walked over to my bookshelf and counted 24 golf books and
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

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
How much have your scores dropped?

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

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
KPH wrote:

...snip....


He's still not going to give you his Bud Light! ;^)

Rob
--
RSG Rollcall: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/hamiltonr.htm

KPH

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 07:14:48 -0500, Mike Dalecki
<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

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
In article <5qp2vsc6qvoph92h1...@4ax.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

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
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???


"Mike Dalecki" <mikeR...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:39F188B8...@dalecki.net...


> How much have your scores dropped?
>
> Mike
>
>

George Hibbard

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
Not putting down Harmon, or others of quality. I have allowed for them. I
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

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 9:30:22 PM10/21/00
to
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:05:41 -0400, "rds" <rdsa...@xmindxspringx.com>
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"

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
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.

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

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
I'd like to reply par. by par, Randy. I am on the same page as you for the
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.
> GH says he 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, 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

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
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

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
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.
>
>
>

Harlan Davis

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
The light just went on, George! Wish you would have said that earlier!

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

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 11:19:50 AM10/24/00
to

David Laville

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 11:44:07 PM10/24/00
to
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:49:15 -0400, "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 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

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
In article <svbtf01...@corp.supernews.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

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
Bill, David Lee's word and image is of a single hinge door (the piano hinge
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

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
George Hibbard wrote:
>
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

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
F: No issue whatsoever with your comment here. I have made it emphatic in
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...

Message has been deleted

"R&B"

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
For the sake of brevity, I'm snipping everything except the areas where we
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

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
Totally agree, and well said R&B. George

"R&B" <RandB_HA...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8t6u5i$dva$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...

George Hibbard

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
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.

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"

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
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.
>

George Hibbard

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
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.

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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 2:25:13 AM10/26/00
to
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:46:17 GMT, bigho...@my-deja.com wrote:


>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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 2:25:14 AM10/26/00
to
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:36:01 -0400, "George Hibbard"
<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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 8:05:57 AM10/26/00
to
Take a traditional blade iron...strike a balata-covered ball firmly at the
center of curvature.

Dick Weld

George Hibbard wrote:

> How do you make a smiley?s

"R&B"

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 1:22:07 PM10/26/00
to
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. 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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 4:18:16 PM10/26/00
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:22:07 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 5:34:56 PM10/26/00
to
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. 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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 6:21:53 PM10/26/00
to
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).

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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 8:09:42 PM10/26/00
to

> 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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 8:35:46 PM10/26/00
to
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. 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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 9:14:51 PM10/26/00
to
In article <benewman-ya0240800...@allnews.nbnet.nb.ca>,

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"

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 9:20:11 PM10/26/00
to
"Bruce Newman" <bene...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote

>
> 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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 9:58:33 PM10/26/00
to
In article <8taku8$gtq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, 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. 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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:39:13 PM10/26/00
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:20:11 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 11:14:02 PM10/26/00
to
> In article <8taku8$gtq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, 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

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 11:40:10 PM10/26/00
to
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

<bigho...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tartm$mg4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

Bruce Newman

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 12:09:10 AM10/27/00