Yes it does! Just because a swing doesn't look like Ben Hogans doesn't mean it's wrong (I know you didn't say Ben Hogan) but that is what is implied.
That's the whole point and beauty of Homer Kelley's golfing machine, there are a zillion (I know it's not a zillion) different ways to 'Do It'. And, the most ideal way might not be possible for some (for whatever reason be it physical or mental) so they find another.
By the way,is there anyone out there who can give an example of where Mr Kelly went wrong? or ..give one instance (other than clarification)what he got wrong?( in terms of facts)AND PROVE IT!. (I am ve..ry skeptical by nature btw).
I think he picked Ben Hogan's name out of the sky or something, either that he didn't read my post that carefully... I said I don't care "what any tour player does for that matter".... his name was never said nor implied explicitly or implicitly. What I was talking about was the alignments of the golfing machine.
On a mechanical basis, the question is do you want that left forearm (swivel joint in 2-K) to roll through impact which will make the clubface control (in Homers words) 'extremely fleeting' to where the rapidly closing clubface is in its impact fix condition for the smallest duration.... or do you want to hold the impact fix alignment of the clubface for a sizeable period by holding the left wrist vertical whilst the motion of the left arm preforms a hinge action to precisely control the closing of the clubface just like a closing door. I know which one I strongly think is better. And he is yet to debate this fact except on the grounds that 'Ben plays well' and I'm sorry to tell this to them but that isn't really good enough a reason. Old Tom Morris played well for his time too, should we have stuck to his mechanics? I study the golfing machine because I want to understand and learn and nothing gets in the way of that and if they have a legitimate debate to give in responce thats based upon something solid I would be all ears and so far they are yet to come up with one...and as far as im concerned the mechanical simplicity and superiority of preforming a hinge action over a swivel is 100% undeniable and extremely obvious if you can visualise the machine concept.
There have been great players throughout history doing things that aren't correct and just because they were great doesn't mean its right. Just because one does well using inferior alignments doesn't mean it is the simpliest way. That is why I love the golfing machine. I know he hits the ball well but it doesn't change that fact.
We're talking about the advancement of a sport, to keep on inspiring, to improve and to make the next generation play better. Do you not see what Homers vision was about and why he spent 40+ years working out the simpliest way to do things. I couldn't care less what Ben does, Tiger Woods does or any tour player for that matter - its about the simplicity of a machine and it is that which is going to advance the next generation of golfers.
Amen to that Mathew...he that have ears to hear, let him hear.
And this isn't the USSR....you don't HAVE TO conform to anything....
...
And Ben's swing, for him, produces straight shots. I just don't see how anyone could say that that is FLAT-OUT WRONG! (BLASHPEMY!!! HOMER'S ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE!!! YARRRGH!)
...
I'm sure he's aware of, and has tried thouroughly, all methods of clubface control.....
...
For the record, I don't support one way solely.....
I support what works best for a person. Brian, for one, says he teaches all ways...
...
Also, for the record, I find Ben's Swivel a little strange, for me.....but I like Angled Hinges anyway....and any Horizontal Hinge is really not my specialty (starting to work on it more).
Then again, I haven't seen these guys teach slicers how not to slice (that seems to be a big part of this whole debate, and the usefulness of this move...i.e. as a tool to educate the hands).
....so I'm not gonna assume that they don't know what they're talking about.
Last edited by birdie_man : 05-09-2006 at 12:36 PM.
And Ben's swing, for him, produces straight shots. I just don't see how anyone could say that that is FLAT-OUT WRONG!
I heard from Brian Manzella that Ben's normal shot is a noticeable fade. That's pretty counter-intuitive given that over-roll isn't it? Obviously something going on at Impact that's different.
And Ben's swing, for him, produces straight shots. I just don't see how anyone could say that that is FLAT-OUT WRONG! (BLASHPEMY!!! HOMER'S ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE!!! YARRRGH!)
Then again, I haven't seen these guys teach slicers how not to slice (that seems to be a big part of this whole debate, and the usefulness of this move...i.e. as a tool to educate the hands).
No, Birdie, Homer Kelley was not God.
But he was the author of The Golfing Machine.
And my post dealt only with the Clubface Alignments detailed therein.
Further, no one -- certainly not me -- said Ben's swing was "FLAT OUT WRONG." In fact, I said in the introduction to my post that the (obviously extreme) Alignments "may have been intended and for a purpose."
And "teaching slicers how not to slice" was never an issue in "the debate." The issue was the Hinge Action and Swivel Alignments as defined in The Golfing Machine. And even if there was such an issue, are we to believe that Ben is a Slicer in need of help? Please.
In fact, there has been no debate -- on the issue -- at all. I stated emphatically that the alignments demonstrated in this particular Stroke were NOT those dictated in Paragraph 2-G of The Golfing Machine. The Clubface was not maintained Vertical to an Associated Plane (Horizontal, Angled or Vertical) for any meaningful time through Impact, and it was Swiveled well past the On Plane Alignment early into the Finish.
I supported my post with factual references to the text.
There has been no argument as to these alignments.
Hybrid Mode
