SEQUENTIAL LEARNING VS. DYNAMIC LEARNING
 

There seem to be two major schools of thought in learning golf.
#1 Sequential... Leadbetter's Links, TGM's Chapter 12-5, The Eight Step Swing, etc..

#2 Dynamic... The motion is not broken so much into segments, but is taught as a whole... Gravity Golf, AJ(Secret Revealed), DeLaTorre's teaching, I think is mostly as a whole swing concept, etc..

Payne Stewart would not think of positions, I am told. Couples, and I think Nicklaus are similar also.

Tiger and many others do use positions, or stages.

Do you think some people are better suited to one or the other, due to their learning style? Can TGM be taught as a dynamic whole from the start... with much success?

Re: SEQUENTIAL LEARNING VS. DYNAMIC LEARNING
 

There are no positions in TGM. Homer refers to geometry, when you read the prefix, as motion. Not fixed lines but MOTION.


The book as a guide has to make references the three zones and the 24 components. No other way to write a book but .... TGM is not a method to teach. AIs make decisions on teaching.
The geometry is motion, fixed positions could never work except one: hold the finish and smile.

For some time I have argued with myself regarding this statement, TGM is a catalog, not a method or style. It has been said many times in defense of the book, etc.

Granted the book first 11 chapters are in fact a catalog, a description, etc. but none really meat the definition of a style or method.

Now Chapter 12 provides two stroke patterns (Hitting/12-1 and Swinging/12-2) which define a golf stroke style. Take 12-5-3, the method defined, how to teach either of those patterns.

In addition, throughout chapters 2 - 10 there are a number of drills and exercises to support Chapter 12.

TGM would in fact meet the standard definition of method and style regarding the golf stroke.

The application of the method and style is the bare bones, it does need the flesh and approach added to make it a polished product as well as personalized to both the instructor and student learning style and method of instruction.

A lot of golfers often have trouble understanding the difference between 'position' and 'alignment'. Explain the bent right wrist or flat left wrist, they see that as a position. The understanding of alignments often lack relationships and appear to be positions.

How it is actually taught and learned, Tom Stickney wrote an article a while back regarding the kinds of teachers and to more less the extent how golfers learn.

http://web.archive.org/web/200303121...r/stik0302.htm

IMO TGM has more than some give it credit for....

I totally agree Martee.
I have always said that TGM is more than a catalog. Many claim the book is just a reference catalog. I think people who only see a catalog have narrow insight to the book. It is both a catalog and a system. Homer included two classics strokes- 12-1-1 and 12-2-0. Study TGM with Yoda and try to say you just learned the catalog portion of the book.

and...

Alignment golf sets the stroke in motion. The problem with (fixed) position golf is that it lacks the connection of the dots. There is so much between each position. It is like presenting a Broadway play using every third line of the script.

Learning
 

.................................................. .................................................. .......

Good posts by everyone!!

What about the learning styles? I think that the reason many are afraid of TGM is because in their mind it is something that is learned in segments, positions, alignments, or whatever term one might choose to call them. Some people simply want to think of their swing as an entire motion at all times. They are probably the so called non-mechanical, "FEEL" players.

Now... many things are usually learned in segments. Typing, dancing, musical instruments, etc.. Among these, there are those rare people that teach themselves to type, can dance from observation and mimicking, and can play musical instruments by ear(they don't even read music).

How would you handle this type of person if they wanted a little TGMizing?

Lagster....

I think stickney article in the frist four type of instructors provides how each teaching style would need to be handled.



I know that the following wont be popular or agreed with but I do think Mr. Kelly had it right. You need an AI. In fact if you want to argue that Mr Kelly was 100% right or 100% wrong in total regarding the book, this is a section area where I believe that he was wrong. He contradicts himself by saying that this is for all golfers, but yet to be successful he does state clearly that you should use an AI. It is the AI's job to be able translate so he can communicate in the best means for the student to get the information, be it terms, drills, etc. And each student may and will probably be different to degree, just as each golf stroke. At a minimum I beleive that Mr. Kelly caused a confusion factor in how some believe that the average joe golfer can build a golf stroke by him/herself, I strongly support the need for an AI guidance.

Learning Styles
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good information Martee!!

I agree that not many probably can get much from the book without seeing an A.I..

As far as teaching styles... there probably are not many Harvey Penick types left, I agree. He would try to give the student only one task to do during a lesson, if at all possible. The lessons were usually only 15 minutes. He did not use video.

If a teacher can take the TGM concepts, and incorporate them in such a way as to satisfy different learning styles... he should be successful.
If an "artist" goes to see a pure "mechanic", for example, he may have problems, and vice versa.

Say NO to Positions, and YES to Conditions... If i hear that on TV or a DVD my lawyers will be ALL over YOU:naughty: :naughty:

Teach, learn, practice, fix, do, study "cause", not "effect".
 

The Analytical Teacher, The Feel Teacher & The Model Swing Teacher are "effect" teachers.

The Psychological Teacher and The "Intention" Teacher are "cause" teachers.

The body does what the mind intends to.

quantumgolf
 

A good or great teacher/coach (assuming they have an understanding and knowlegde of their subject) must be able to help the pupil by using all senses (ie visual,verbal feel)when explaining or better still understand which sences the pupil uses when filtering the information. If they can't do this they will struggle to have any sort of success rate, they will only be good with those who filter information using the sences the teacher or coach uses.

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.

I just posted my answer at GEA. I have been banned from teaching on this forum. You may never see my reply here for that reason....

And I do respect that this site IS proprietary: I should have cleared my posts/comments first with the administrator.

George,

You should have cleared your desire to teach on this site with Lynn first, not me. This is his site and participation here is a privilege, not a right. You are welcome to learn here and to post here. But since you are a teaching professional you should at least intuitively know better than to express your own teaching on this, or any other teaching professionals site for that matter, without clearing it first.

We are discussing the possibility of setting up a special area for dissenting discussion. I'm far from being closed minded about other ways of teaching and learning the golf swing. But we need to get some ground rules established so that the area doesn't turn into a mud wrestling pit. So give us some time and maybe we'll come up with something.

Thanks,

Bagger

bertholy static approach
 

Paul bertholy teaching approach revolved a around a primary set of drills with the beginning ones static positions with a weighted pipe and no ball. Does anyone feel this approach can be effective since there really is no dynamics involved just posed positions.

Also he was trying to remove the right hand hitting impulse. Doesn;t that occur to happen more likely when you are hitting balls and trying to hit the ball hard and square up the club and use your right hand in the process.

My point is some of the learning has to be done in the real swing mode and even though it may have evolved from chipping and pitching there is a step in the getting to the full swing that can be difficult especially since the motions are faster and it is harder to feel what you are doing.

The question then is if you are trying to learn without a instructor watching you what means do you use to diagnose your problems.

For example at repeated impact your ball goes right. Is it the grip. Is it failure to swivel. Are you sliding past the ball etc etc etc.

Dave

Learning Through Aligned Positions
 

I trained under Paul Bertholy for three days in the summer of 1982 and can personally attest to the value of his work. His concepts are especially effective when coupled with TGM's Mechanical Checklist For All Strokes (12-3-0) and taken through all Twelve Sections of the Stroke (Chapter 8 ).

I personally have memorized the 45 items in the Checklist and go through at least a Section or two (in their entirety) every day. Also, I will go through the entire Stroke in slow motion -- as did Paul -- hitting key checkpoints along the way.

This training is not difficult, and it takes only a very few minutes each day. You don't need to be on the golf course or the practice tee. In fact, you don't even need a Club.

I say without reservation that the discipline of learning and practicing these mission-critical alignments is the 'open sesame' to a lifetime of better Golf.

Anyone want to tackle this??
 

from the other forum, rhetoric limited:

"And who introduce OTHER THINGS that while not in opposition (to TGM) are at least in addition. If he (HK) said them, they are too buried and obscurely refenced (the role of balance as concerns impact on heel or toe, the elasticity of the body, how impact position is SO different from address, how stretching occurring by virtue of centrifugal force lengthens the arms...for a couple - what I call Elephants in the Living Room. Which are universally applicable, but ignored or unknown by TGM disciples."

I have tried to explain TGM to this guy for many many years. He has selective cognizance on the subject. He rather battle and spin arguments then try to understand. There is a big difference between someone that has original opinions and can intellectually go beyond what Homer laid out and this guy that only wants to be irritating.
The fact that he has access to all the videos, a treasure chest of information is an insult. He has been one of the biggest TGM bashers on the internet since the last century and now can profit from it.
If you saw the youtube of him swinging a golf club- no more needs to be said.

Nuff Said
 

I saw the video, which he claims isn't real by the way, but he hasn't posted anything else. I know he is FOS, but sometimes just can't restrain myself from trying to correct someone so off base as he was with his "backwards" claims.
G2M

I understand- you and I can see what Homer and Lynn teach. Easy to understand- works great- so you want to share and explain. I tried for years- he only enjoys the agrument. He got me kicked off of 4gea and other tgmers over the years on fgi. He is bad news.

I tracked down the guy you made the clip and got in touch with the source- a Mike Austin follower- nice guy- that is George. That foot movement is GH's trigger.

I disagree.

There is no one golf swing...or two even.

They are a starting point. (and even then are debateable, apparently)

For an actual machine those would prolly be the most efficient strokes...

I hate when ppl generalize TGMers like that....

i.e. "we" don't accept any non TGM ideas...

...

The truth is....Homer has laid it all out pretty damn solidly....so if you have a case (most of these ppl it seems are trying to prove a point of theirs or have just been debated against) you'd better have a good one....

...but in relation to all that....you do have options....(this is TGM)