A true teacher/coach must be able to figure out the pupil's intent, based on the pupil's move, and work around it.

quantumgolf
 

once you have done that, your input needs to be understood by the pupil in order to improve. How they filter your input will have a direct effect/cause on what they do and the outcome.

My perspective
 

Two excellent posts, one by Martee and one by 6BMike's that followed- Two posters that over the last couple of years have earned my respect. Just to throw my perspective and/or "my nitpicking"- not to take away from the overall post.

For Martee's post- Regardless of the number of drills/excercises real or implied- I'm pretty sure that Homer felt that the closest thing to a drill or excercise would be in 6-B-3- where he suggests that you use a flat surface and see that the release motions happen on plane- he really saw himself laying out the principles/groundwork and letting the AI's with their imagination come up with drills/excercises-"you guys are alot better at coming up with that kind of stuff than I am". He was anti drill in that regard in relation to how the book was written- certainly not anti drill in regards to learning the concepts. Just a little refinement to your post- in regards to how I would think Homer would interpret it.

6BMike- The "classic" patterns 12-1/12-2- touches on another pet peave of mine- that those sample patterns are somehow ideal, or hold a higher value than the other trillion patterns available. Much like the section of Martee's post that I commented on - your comment isn't wrong- you could easily call them classic- but just given the history of people's perception of the stroke patterns- and my perspective of how Homer would view them- just touches a nerve ending - and for those people that are "into" getting it right- I think it's an important clarification to make. It wasn't really until 1969 just before the book was published that he thought of putting stroke patterns in the book- Ben Doyle brought over a number (6 or so) PGA members for a week long class- Ben: "I'll have a group here next week!", that included Don Shaw. Only Ben and Don lasted the week- but as Homer told them all that there was millions or trillions of workable patterns- all the pros kept on wanting to just know "one"- you can imagine that many didn't want to understand all the theory- "Just tell us what to do"- or "Just tell us which one is better- i.e. horizontal hinging or angled hinging?"-out of that class came the concept of the stroke pattern- not the best one, nor the most classic, but just a stroke pattern- one of many possible ones. In fact in that regard- most if not all of Chapter 12 was the result of feedback from people Homer was working with- to put something in the book that isolated and pinpointed what he was trying to say- something specific. It wasn't his approach or wouldn't be his method of operation- for he was always looking at the principle and thought that the reader could apply it- in any number of situations- and certainly his fear of listing anything specific- or anything as an example that may too narrowly define or lead the reader into a implied specific location was warranted because that's what alot of people think when they look at the stroke patterns.

Thanks guys for letting me input the seemingly trivial stuff- You've allowed me to sleep peacefully now- off to bed!

Great post! I was waiting for you to make your presence felt in this thread. Thanks for the insight on Ch. 12.

Hope you don't wake up with bed head . . . or better yet a head in the bed.

Great post Mr. O! (Mike O)

Truly.

I like it. Very much in the "true spirit of The Golfing Machine" I think. (was that corny?)

Out of the trillions of Patterns one could theoretically assemble, how many of those give an Uncompensated Stroke?

The "classic" patterns 12-1/12-2- touches on another pet peave of mine- that those sample patterns are somehow ideal, or hold a higher value than the other trillion patterns available.


Not sure I agree Mike O. The further down the TGM path I venture the more I see the those patterns as uncompensated. Which would make them ideal for anyone physically able to perform them.

On Learning Golf...And Other Things Dexterious
 

With a little instruction, a Broadway dancer could, in a very few minutes, produce a "golf swing" that to the untrained eye looks very much like the "real deal." It would be a thing of grace and beauty and would serve its purpose admirably: namely, to delight and entertain those beyond the footlights. But would it produce expert results on the playing field? Of course not.

Yet, it is this "dynamic whole" that constitutes the Golf Stroke's Basic Motion. It is the framework upon which the Golfer builds his entire Game. The only real difference between the Stroke of the Duffer and the Stroke of the Champion -- or any skill level between the two -- is the precision of the Component Relationships within that Basic Motion.

It is true that some people -- and golf players are people, too -- are more analytical than others. However, you simply cannot become a good player without paying at least some attention to Stroke Mechanics. No one can read the works of Bobby Jones and watch his films without knowing that he paid a great deal of attention to 'cause and effect.' Ben Hogan was the supreme Golf Stroke Mechanic of his time...perhaps of all time.

And Jack Nicklaus? He made modifications to his Grip throughout his entire career. He paid attention to both ends of his Pivot, from its bottom with his Rolling Ankles to its Top with his Stationary Head. He began each new year with his instructor, Jack Grout, and the request to "Teach me golf." They focused on the fundamentals, and as Jack grew older, they worked diligently on Flattening his Swing Plane and making his Stroke more rotary.

Players who choose to learn Feel from Mechanics (as opposed to the other way around) can enjoy continuous progress and a lifetime of better Golf. Homer Kelley wrote: "Is the player benefited by this fragmentation of the Stroke? Undoubtedly. Not only eventually, but immediately." [1-J]

As an example of the true learning process, think of tying your shoelaces. Could you have learned this very complex act as a "dynamic whole?" No. From the first attempt, you brought every bit of mental and manual dexterity you could to bear on the problem, but in the end, the only way you got the job done was to take it one segment at a time. But does that mean that you now must laboriously think through each of these steps each time you tie your shoelaces? Of course not. In fact, if you do, you will not tie your shoelaces nearly as well as you know how to tie them. The glorious news is that you have 'paid the price' and have integrated the independently learned segments into a unified, efficient motion. In other words, a "dynamic whole." You've done the work required and now can tie them with ease and with little, if any, conscious thought.

It is the same process we use learning to drive a stick-shift automobile.

Or learning to write...first in crude block letters...later in flowing, cursive script.

And so it is with Golf.

As usual, spot on... A week or so ago there was a long debate over at the GEA about where all the TGM'ers had gone. Not to bring that up again, but the thread evolved to a discussion of learning/teaching methodologies, the "whole" swing vs the "fragmented" approach, how golf instruction had been backwards for 500 years and other "Broadway Dancer" approaches to teaching the golf swing. I asked, and am still waiting for an answer to the question: Name one activity that a human does/learns(except neurological functions) that is not an incremental learning activity? I'm still waiting for Mr. Instruction has been Backwards for 500 years to respond with an answer.
G2M

Sounds Of Silence
 

Don't hold your breath, golf2much.

Homer Kelley invited critical dissent. In fact, he "thrived" on questions. All he asked of his detractors was to do what he had already done...

Prove your case.

In the 37 years since the first edition of The Golfing Machine (1969), many have been called.

To date...

None have been chosen.