Sept 2005 Golf Digest

[6bmike]

Quote:

brianmanzella Homer Kelley was on record saying that he put the book together from many sources, Cotton's work propably among them.

So should Cotton's contributions to the Golfing Machine be examined and if found to be substantial and substantiated, be acknowledged in some meaningful way or not?

This was recently debated about a college professor who used a book as the foundation for an outline for a course he was teaching without given credit. Although the book was used more than any other source, additional material completed the outline. The result of the debate stated that no credit was needed for the outline as long as the material used from the book was not uniquely presented or researched by the original author.

Since Cotton, Hogan, Ernest and Bobby Jones, Boomer, Amour, etc all taught golf and each had different ideas about the golf stroke. Homer’s study is unique in its presentation and depth. Homer never claimed to discover a new way to swing the club- although I think the Hit stroke is close- but his approach and use of language is unconditionedly his.

Homer started the book with one problem to solve- how to get a solid impact on the ball. Everything else in the book radiated from that first “problem.”

Homer doesn’t need to credit anyone, nor does any other golf instructor with an original approach to the golf stroke. But there aren’t that many ‘original thinkers’ out there.

[Martee]

6bmike, that is interesting...

A long time ago on our technical papers we were required to list our reference sources, even if we didn't quote from that works.

So with some who continue to claim the TGM isn't given credit, is that misplaced? For example if a pro teaches the 'hands' are the key to a good golf stroke, it could have come from several sources, who if anyone needs to be given credit?

[6bmike]

6bmike, that is interesting...

A long time ago on our technical papers we were required to list our reference sources, even if we didn't quote from that works.

So with some who continue to claim the TGM isn't given credit, is that misplaced? For example if a pro teaches the 'hands' are the key to a good golf stroke, it could have come from several sources, who if anyone needs to be given credit?

If the instructor uses TGM terminology as a foundation of his instruction than I would say - YES.

If the instruction is based on just good information like a flat left wrist or pull into a CF release then fine, good for him and his students. If the language is not used and I will state again, Homers language- the bane for many- is his greatest contribution to the learning of the golf stroke- then at best, the instructor should recognize where he learned it. And he may have learned it second or third hand- who knows? I don’t think Homer would care that his work is seeping into the mainstream of golf instruction after so many years.

I do feel that anyone that studied TGM, became an AI or not, they should have the decently to pay at least homage to Mr. Kelley in some way.

Back to the college course outline. The course was written by a third party freelance writer who specializes selling college course outlines to instructors. All the materials and references were listed. It drew attention when the one book was used so heavily. The panel concluded that the writer did not illegally plagiarize original thought but did a less than stellar job writing the course outline.

[strav]

If a current golfing star won a British Open using acknowledged Golfing Machine principles, any promoter of the Golfing Machine worth his salt would be extolling his virtues from the rooftops. Henry Cotton won three British Opens with the interruption of World War 11. If he was successful using these same principles, (even if he expressed them in less arcane language) why then would you seek refuge in technicalities instead of welcoming him (or anyone one similar for that matter), with open arms? Would he or they not only be valuable assets to a promoter but a source of practical study and enlightenment to serious students of the Golfing Machine?

[Martee]

6bmike, thanks for the response.

Interesting that the references were included.

I still am in doubt on when credit should be given as demanded so often here. That is only because of the lack of reference sources in TGM.

Clearly some of the terms are unique to TGM, while others existed prior, maybe not as clear of description, but none the less existed. In fact some terms seemed to have existed that the only explanation avaiable was a photo or sketch, cause the text sure didn't make it clear or even attempt to define it. TGM for the most part didn't rely on implied meanings or understanding, a BIGGIE IMO.

I guess I just wonder if all the comments of being hung up on "Oh did you hear so and so mention the flat left wrist" using TGM again and not acknowledging it. My concern is that this approach may or has prevented TGM from taking its rightful place in the Golf Instruction World. I think it is more important for the information to be used, used properly than reminding everyone it is TGM. I think that those who seek will discover the source, TGM, that may be removed 2 or 3 times.

Still it is nice to see TGM mentioned in high profile.

[6bmike]

Martee,

I know many have cried for Homer to be recognized by every instructor that teaches a steady head or flat left wrist. We all are passionate about the book and when the light goes on and changes your golfing life we change it to obsession. After a few times around the book, we see that Homer presented all of us with a superior way to discover the mechanics of the golf swing. When Homer listed the Three Imperatives, he didn’t change anything that Armour, Cotton or Boomer ever knew was correct, but he did give us a marvelous index for it all.

But I will cry out for recognition from any AI, current or past, in good standing or not, anyone that ever studied TGM and uses solely what they learned and passes it off as there own. There are many big time instructors making a great living off of their little secret yellow book.

And Homer did develop his own unique ideas like 6-B1-D, Flying Wedges and the Hit Stroke Pattern to name a few. It isn’t all just a catalog book.

Lynn has reached out and taught many professionals this past year. I see TGM seeping into even GD articles that wasn’t there in the past. Even Flick was teaching Impact Fix the last time he was on TGC-AL. McLean now lists Homer as an influence.

[tongzilla]

Very interesting discussion...

Positions has no meaning and use unless you know the relations they are supposed to facitate. And that's what Homer did, he told use the whys.

Homer told us why we should have a Pivot Centre (and the Head is the recommended Pivot Centre) as per 1-L

What's the point of the Flat Left Wrist? Law of the Flail: 2-K

He worked from first priciples, using the universal Laws of Force and Motion.

[strav]

Golf is a discipline for which Homer gave us a nomenclature. Lynn, among others, has interpreted and popularized that nomenclature. Both have earned and deserve our gratitude, as do other pioneers in this field. Isn’t it that simple?