Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 03 Jan 2007 08:24:02
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?

Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?

http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf

And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
an accomplishment in golf.

I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
a bare minimum?

-PA

Date: 10 Jan 2007 16:59:21
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2007 13:16:22 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >David Laville wrote:
> >> "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I never said my game was "all that impressive".
> >>
> >> Oh yes you did. We had to hear how you could shoot in the 60's at
> >> your home course and after every shot how much of a better golfer you
> >> really were.
> >>
> >> >What I said is that your game ain't shit.
> >>
> >> And if you could hit 12/14 fairways and only beat a guy who was in the
> >> woods all day by 0.6 strokes a hole, well you're right, you're game
> >> isn't all that impressive.
> >
> >
> >Da Rainger, using a driver from Wal-t, beat you by 13 strokes?
> >
> >-PA
> And would probably beat you by that gin, using the same club.

If you give me 13 shots you might as well hand me your wallet too.

-PA

Date: 10 Jan 2007 13:16:22
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >I never said my game was "all that impressive".
>
> Oh yes you did. We had to hear how you could shoot in the 60's at
> your home course and after every shot how much of a better golfer you
> really were.
>
> >What I said is that your game ain't shit.
>
> And if you could hit 12/14 fairways and only beat a guy who was in the
> woods all day by 0.6 strokes a hole, well you're right, you're game
> isn't all that impressive.

Da Rainger, using a driver from Wal-t, beat you by 13 strokes?

-PA

Date: 11 Jan 2007 03:00:10
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 10 Jan 2007 13:16:22 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>Da Rainger, using a driver from Wal-t, beat you by 13 strokes?

No he did not, that's what he wants you to think. If he beat me by 12
(not 13) shots he would have shot in the 70's. He didn't. It's all
about creating an image of what kind of golfer he must be. Like you
he talks a good game.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 11 Jan 2007 00:43:18
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Not only are you a pathetic arrogant prick, you are also a bald faced liar.

RSG-ATLANTA II you shot a "spectacular" 96 in the tournament round where you
couldn't hit the side of a barn. I shot 84.

It doesn't take a math major to figure out that is a difference of 12 shots.

I guess your dyslexic retarded ass can't do simple math?

If I hadn't missed 7 putts from less than 2 feet, I would have shot in the
70's and beaten you by 19 shots.

Just like everything else you post, you are totally full of shit.

Da Ringer

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:7u9bq2t4rocgi1mbhp2e1aee3h622v45nq@4ax.com...
> On 10 Jan 2007 13:16:22 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Da Rainger, using a driver from Wal-t, beat you by 13 strokes?
>
> No he did not, that's what he wants you to think. If he beat me by 12
> (not 13) shots he would have shot in the 70's. He didn't. It's all
> about creating an image of what kind of golfer he must be. Like you
> he talks a good game.
>
>
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

Date: 10 Jan 2007 15:17:49
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 10 Jan 2007 13:16:22 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>David Laville wrote:
>> "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I never said my game was "all that impressive".
>>
>> Oh yes you did. We had to hear how you could shoot in the 60's at
>> your home course and after every shot how much of a better golfer you
>> really were.
>>
>> >What I said is that your game ain't shit.
>>
>> And if you could hit 12/14 fairways and only beat a guy who was in the
>> woods all day by 0.6 strokes a hole, well you're right, you're game
>> isn't all that impressive.
>
>
>Da Rainger, using a driver from Wal-t, beat you by 13 strokes?
>
>-PA
And would probably beat you by that gin, using the same club.
--
___,
\o

Date: 10 Jan 2007 23:10:04
From: Rog
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:uulaq2p2ll38us1179553oso5fj65p843j@4ax.com...
> On 10 Jan 2007 13:16:22 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>David Laville wrote:
>>> "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I never said my game was "all that impressive".
>>>
>>> Oh yes you did. We had to hear how you could shoot in the 60's at
>>> your home course and after every shot how much of a better golfer you
>>> really were.
>>>
>>> >What I said is that your game ain't shit.
>>>
>>> And if you could hit 12/14 fairways and only beat a guy who was in the
>>> woods all day by 0.6 strokes a hole, well you're right, you're game
>>> isn't all that impressive.
>>
>>
>>Da Rainger, using a driver from Wal-t, beat you by 13 strokes?
>>
>>-PA
> And would probably beat you by that gin, using the same club.
> --
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 10 Jan 2007 17:21:11
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:10:04 -0000, "Rog" <rog@repairman.com > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:uulaq2p2ll38us1179553oso5fj65p843j@4ax.com...
>> On 10 Jan 2007 13:16:22 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>David Laville wrote:
>>>> "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >I never said my game was "all that impressive".
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes you did. We had to hear how you could shoot in the 60's at
>>>> your home course and after every shot how much of a better golfer you
>>>> really were.
>>>>
>>>> >What I said is that your game ain't shit.
>>>>
>>>> And if you could hit 12/14 fairways and only beat a guy who was in the
>>>> woods all day by 0.6 strokes a hole, well you're right, you're game
>>>> isn't all that impressive.
>>>
>>>
>>>Da Rainger, using a driver from Wal-t, beat you by 13 strokes?
>>>
>>>-PA
>> And would probably beat you by that gin, using the same club.

>> "Someone likes every shot"
>> bk
>
>I'm sure Da Ringer would beat you using a putter only.
>What's with you BK? Look in the mirror, smile, watch an episode of the Simpsons, then come back
>to the keyboard.
>Rog

Da Ringer would beat me by 20.
I smile when I see posts that think that the Simpsons is fare for
adults.
I'm smiling now.
bk

Date: 11 Jan 2007 00:03:15
From: Rog
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:k2taq21fm56n6akice2r4nrsuvrnf8mf0g@4ax.com...
<snip >
> I'm smiling now.
> bk

No more bitter posts then??
Twas my good deed of the day, I feel better myself too.
Rog

Date: 11 Jan 2007 00:12:50
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:03:15 -0000, "Rog" <rog@repairman.com > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:k2taq21fm56n6akice2r4nrsuvrnf8mf0g@4ax.com...
><snip>
>> I'm smiling now.
>> bk
>
>No more bitter posts then??
>Twas my good deed of the day, I feel better myself too.
>Rog
>
What bitter? Just replied in kind to someone who made a derisive
post to a friend.

As long as you're happy Rog.
"-- "
___,
\o

Date: 08 Jan 2007 11:06:41
From: KnighT
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"G.O.L.F is a game for thinkers, and as detailed as this book is it is
still greatly dependent on thinking players"

"There is more information in this book than any golfer can use in many
lifetimes"

- TGM

TGM demands effort, and thought. In my opinion, attacking Homer Kelley
(and his masterpiece) without any knowledge of the contents of the book
is very ignorant.

The Golfing Machine is based on the laws of physics and motion. It is
based on scientific facts from 28 years of research by a true genius.

If the book is not for you, that is fine. I prefer to base my golf
swing on science and law. That is why I am into G.O.L.F for life.

Date: 06 Jan 2007 03:36:53
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:

>
>
> Any introduction of physics must, be necessity, be translated into
> a perceptual framework to be useful. If we deal directly in that
> framework, we avoid the translation. And the potential
> confusion. We can deal with the hips leading the
> downswing even though any change in rotational momentum
> must start at the feet because they are our only interface
> with terra firma. We can deal with
> striving to keep out arms on plane even though it is a
> physical impossibility. We can deal with striving to keep our heads
> still even though the best golfers move theirs several inches on each
> swing. And we can use the mental image of the back of our left
> hands lashing at the ball even though that too is an illusion.
>

The language of TGM is quite simple. How do you explain hinging to someone, or
pressure points? I can tell you from personal experience learning about hinging
and pressure points helps me make on course corrections to my swing.

IMHO, you cannot attack TGM on the facts, so you worry about how good a golfer
Homer Kelly was at some time in his life. Empirically bankrupt rhetoric.

BTW, in my experience, if you strive to keep your head still you will ploay
badly. If you try to keep your arms on plane, you will play badly. You need to
swing such that your head doesn't move any more than necessary and you need to
swing such that the club stays on plane. If you are swinging such that the club
goes off plane, all the forcing of it in the world won't help. Same for the
excess head movements. But then you would have to know how all the partsd are
connected...and that's apparently too much for you.

Date: 05 Jan 2007 23:34:51
From:
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Many, many years ago I bought a copy of TGM from golf professional Ben
Doyle of California. He inscribed the book with the phrase "Sustain the
Lag!" I read the book over and over, inside and out, backwards and
forwards, even upside down. I never could make any sense out of it. I
now think Kelley may have been insane.

Touring Professional Mac O'Grady, a disciple of Kelley, is coming out
with his own book analyzing the golf swing. O'Grady said that Kelley
had it about 70% right but missed some very important points. Maybe
that's why I couldn't make sense out of Kelley's book - he left out so
much critical stuff that his unified catalogue really didn't hold
together at all.

BTW, the woman who models for the photos in TGM looks to me like she
never swung a club in her life. But I guess that's still better than if
Kelley himself was the model. As the saying goes, "There's only two
kinds of golfers in the world - those who can beat Homer Kelley, and
Homer Kelley."

IMO, Larry's journey to better golf is worth more as a roadmap for the
novice than TGM plus Larry is way more interesting than Kelley.

Roverii

Date: 06 Jan 2007 09:53:59
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

<RoverII@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:9036-459F26EB-5@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...

>
> Touring Professional Mac O'Grady, a disciple of Kelley, is coming out
> with his own book analyzing the golf swing. O'Grady said that Kelley
> had it about 70% right but missed some very important points. Maybe
> that's why I couldn't make sense out of Kelley's book - he left out so
> much critical stuff that his unified catalogue really didn't hold
> together at all.
> Roverii
>

Mac has been coming out with a book for 15 years.

Date: 06 Jan 2007 13:58:15
From: Rog
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

<RoverII@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:9036-459F26EB-5@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
>
> Many, many years ago I bought a copy of TGM from golf professional Ben
> Doyle of California. He inscribed the book with the phrase "Sustain the
> Lag!" I read the book over and over, inside and out, backwards and
> forwards, even upside down. I never could make any sense out of it. I
> now think Kelley may have been insane.
>
> Touring Professional Mac O'Grady, a disciple of Kelley, is coming out
> with his own book analyzing the golf swing. O'Grady said that Kelley
> had it about 70% right but missed some very important points. Maybe
> that's why I couldn't make sense out of Kelley's book - he left out so
> much critical stuff that his unified catalogue really didn't hold
> together at all.
>
> BTW, the woman who models for the photos in TGM looks to me like she
> never swung a club in her life. But I guess that's still better than if
> Kelley himself was the model. As the saying goes, "There's only two
> kinds of golfers in the world - those who can beat Homer Kelley, and
> Homer Kelley."
>
> IMO, Larry's journey to better golf is worth more as a roadmap for the
> novice than TGM plus Larry is way more interesting than Kelley.
>
> Roverii
>
Damn you Roverii, this thread is getting more interesting by the post,
therefore chewing up more of my time following it.
Oh well, carry on.....
Rog

Date: 05 Jan 2007 19:24:35
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2007 06:47:45 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Your colleagues? You told us you were an engineer but the company
> >> that developed it is involved with neuroscience research of the brain.
> >
> >I am a PhD biomedical engineer who currently works in neuroscience
> >research of the brain.
>
> And with all that college education required to obtain such a degree
> you think physics is a mental illusion .

For all I know the world is entirely an illusion, all I know
of it could be coming through a manipulation of my senses
by an evil genius...I may be merely a mind trapped in a box.

to paraphrase Descartes

Anytime we take steps that are less direct in any goal oriented
behavior, there is necessarily risk that those less direct steps will
interfere with progress. In science we say that we must evaluate the
likelihood of each assumption upon which a study is based...too many
assumptions, and it is almost surely junk.

In golf, we know what we feel and where we sense our limbs to be and
the forces we sense. And we use that information to try to get a ball
into a hole in as few shots as possible.

Any introduction of physics must, be necessity, be translated into
a perceptual framework to be useful. If we deal directly in that
framework, we avoid the translation. And the potential
confusion. We can deal with the hips leading the
downswing even though any change in rotational momentum
must start at the feet because they are our only interface
with terra firma. We can deal with
striving to keep out arms on plane even though it is a
physical impossibility. We can deal with striving to keep our heads
still even though the best golfers move theirs several inches on each
swing. And we can use the mental image of the back of our left
hands lashing at the ball even though that too is an illusion.

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 10:55:20
From:
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:
> David Laville wrote:
> > On 4 Jan 2007 03:37:18 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> I got a simple question. I'm dyslexic.
> > >
> > >My colleagues developed
> >
> > Your colleagues? You told us you were an engineer but the company
> > that developed it is involved with neuroscience research of the brain.
>
> I am a PhD biomedical engineer who currently works in neuroscience
> research of the brain.
>
>
> > >> If the book is barely
> > >> comprehensible and gibberish why was I able to attain the level of
> > >> G.S.E.M. teaching it to myself?
> > >
> > >A self-fulfilling prophesy, one designed to sell more books.
> > >The book has an organization that certifies people's mastery
> > >of it. It sure sounds a lot like Scientology. Barely comprehensible
> > >to outsiders. Secretive and elitist towards others. And harshly
> > >derogatory ad hominem attacks at all who disagree.
> >
> > So in other words you prefer to dodge the question.
>
> It sure looks like it is designed to draw several thousand dollars
> from avid readers who want to attain GSEM.
>
> -PA

I generally feel that way about golf instruction in general. While
maybe having to go through much time to research what one might think
to be a great doable swing, why does it take a lot of time and theory
to explain what a fairly basic set of motion in the taking a club back,
and having it come through? While I have no opinion whatsoever on HK,
I have seen instructors that have great consistency in a pretty good
swing they have, that have even accomplished a lot as a player....take
way too much time in getting points across.

Personally if I heard the words 'gradient steps' in a beginning spiel,
I would tend to look elsewhere.

CJ

Date: 05 Jan 2007 10:06:56
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:

> Yes $35 is too much.
>
> When the instructional golf swing books from Jack Nicklaus,
> Tiger Woods, Ben Hogan, Ledbetter, and Hardy are all in the $10-15
> range,
> $35 is too much for a book of the same sort by Homer Kelley.

IIRC, I paid $10 for my used copy.

-Greg

Date: 06 Jan 2007 02:04:03
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 5 Jan 2007 10:06:56 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>
>SKIPPER wrote:
>
>> Yes $35 is too much.
>>
>> When the instructional golf swing books from Jack Nicklaus,
>> Tiger Woods, Ben Hogan, Ledbetter, and Hardy are all in the $10-15
>> range,
>> $35 is too much for a book of the same sort by Homer Kelley.
>
>IIRC, I paid $10 for my used copy.

I have every edition including the rare 3rd and I don't think I paid
more than $30.00 for any one and all look like they just came off the
printing press. Last year a 1st edition sold on eBay for $500. I
must be in possession of a fortune.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 05 Jan 2007 09:00:53
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm getting the sense you want to argue for the sake of arguing, not for
> >> the sake of finding out about The Golfing Machine.
> >
> >I'm curious where it falls in the grand scheme of things. It appears to
> >strive to be a parallel instructional path to the PGA professional
> >schools.
> >It is too expensive and not useful enough to the recreational golfer to
> >compete with a general instruction book on the swing.
>
> $35.00 is too expensive? My bet is that you're still in high school.

Yes $35 is too much.

When the instructional golf swing books from Jack Nicklaus,
Tiger Woods, Ben Hogan, Ledbetter, and Hardy are all in the $10-15
range,
$35 is too much for a book of the same sort by Homer Kelley.

The Golfing Machine is not fundamentally after the same ket, because
it was written by an avid bogey golfer and costs 2-3X as much as books
intending to instruct golfers on the swing.

You can also note that the instructional books from the others are not
directly affiliated with a certification program.

I thought this video got right to the heart of the matter.
http://www.mediamax.com/quantumgolfer/Hosted/golftip.wmv

-PA
TMFOG disciple for over 20 years

Date: 06 Jan 2007 02:04:04
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 5 Jan 2007 09:00:53 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> $35.00 is too expensive? My bet is that you're still in high school.
>
>
>Yes $35 is too much.

Yet I bet this same clown will spend $1200 for a set of irons, $800
for a driver, $130 for a golf shirt and $200 for a pair of golf shoes
so he can stand on the first tee hoping others think he must be a
really good golfer.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 05 Jan 2007 23:48:17
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Maybe....... but it only takes a $29 Wal-t driver to beat your hack ass.

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:9r0up2tpue4d9cs3t2nk33kabrr3aleh6t@4ax.com...
> On 5 Jan 2007 09:00:53 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> $35.00 is too expensive? My bet is that you're still in high school.
>>
>>
>>Yes $35 is too much.
>
> Yet I bet this same clown will spend $1200 for a set of irons, $800
> for a driver, $130 for a golf shirt and $200 for a pair of golf shoes
> so he can stand on the first tee hoping others think he must be a
> really good golfer.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

Date: 05 Jan 2007 07:01:11
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Date: 06 Jan 2007 02:04:04
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 5 Jan 2007 07:01:11 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Sure. Bobby Clampett won a U.S. Amateur using TGM.
>
>It is quite different to achieve at golf than to design instruction.
>
>And Bobby Clampett knew and knows far more about how to hit
>a golf ball well than Homer Kelley ever did.

Yaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Troll.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 05 Jan 2007 06:58:15
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 08:32:18 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Most sports have coaches coaching players who are considerably better
> >> than they are.
> >
> >Name one who never reached the upper 5% of the people competing at
> >his sport.
>
> Dave Pelz. Swoosh!

How did Dave Pelz pay for college?

Four year golf scholarship!

Think they give those out to 15 handicappers?

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 06:56:27
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Howard Brazee wrote:

> Mike Shanahan is one of the best NFL coaches - but he split a kidney
> in college and switched from playing to coaching. His kid is a NFL
> assistant coach without playing. You don't need to be able to make a
> NFL team as a player in order to coach. You don't need to be able
> to make the PGA Tour in order to coach Tour players.
>
> And virtually none of the former players turned coach - can still play
> at that level. Pat Riley's knees are so bad that he can't even
> stand on the side lines right now - much less run the court.

Even college football...demonstration of a high level of knowledge
of the game. Assistant coaches are not the same, they don't need
the level of integrative knowledge of a head coach - and that is still
a far cry from creating your own instructional methods.

And NOTHING would preclude someone who was a highly
accomplished player from getting older and still being able to
coach. Not all great players make good instructors. But every
great instructor was at one time a good player.

Except Homer Kelley.

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 06:47:45
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 03:37:18 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I got a simple question. I'm dyslexic.
> >
> >My colleagues developed
>
> Your colleagues? You told us you were an engineer but the company
> that developed it is involved with neuroscience research of the brain.

I am a PhD biomedical engineer who currently works in neuroscience
research of the brain.

> >> If the book is barely
> >> comprehensible and gibberish why was I able to attain the level of
> >> G.S.E.M. teaching it to myself?
> >
> >A self-fulfilling prophesy, one designed to sell more books.
> >The book has an organization that certifies people's mastery
> >of it. It sure sounds a lot like Scientology. Barely comprehensible
> >to outsiders. Secretive and elitist towards others. And harshly
> >derogatory ad hominem attacks at all who disagree.
>
> So in other words you prefer to dodge the question.

It sure looks like it is designed to draw several thousand dollars
from avid readers who want to attain GSEM.

-PA

Date: 06 Jan 2007 02:04:04
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 5 Jan 2007 06:47:45 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Your colleagues? You told us you were an engineer but the company
>> that developed it is involved with neuroscience research of the brain.
>
>I am a PhD biomedical engineer who currently works in neuroscience
>research of the brain.

And with all that college education required to obtain such a degree
you think physics is a mental illusion .

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 05 Jan 2007 15:35:31
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 5-Jan-2007, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

> > So in other words you prefer to dodge the question.
>
> It sure looks like it is designed to draw several thousand dollars
> from avid readers who want to attain GSEM.

Appearances can be deceiving. David does not "sell his golf services," now
if your looking for a new set of pearly whites....!

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 05 Jan 2007 06:42:12
From: Jim Barrett
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in
news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
>
> Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
>
> http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
>
> And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> an accomplishment in golf.
>
> I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> a bare minimum?
>
> -PA
>

Being able to thoroughly understand and analyze an activity doesn't
necessarily translate into being able to actually perform that activity.

Take the example of another "Kelly", Clarence "Kelly" Johnson... one of the
most brilliant aeronautical engineers who ever lived... head of the
Lockheed "Skunk Works", and designer of aircraft that were decades ahead of
their time, such as the U-2 and SR-71.

There was probably nothing that he didn't know about what makes an aircraft
fly - but he was not a pilot. He himself couldn't have actually *operated*
any of his own creations. Hell, he'd probably have crashed and burned if he
had tried to fly a simple Cessna 150 (without formal training), much less
one of his high-performance jets.

Another example: Andreas Silbermann, German designer/builder of some of the
greatest cathedral pipe organs in Europe, who was not a musician, and could
not actually play the instruments he created...

Even in the world of golf - take Harvey Penick. Yes, at one time he was an
accomplished player - but during his final two decades as a golf
instructor, he was so badly crippled that he couldn't even walk - much less
swing a golf club. Nevertheless, he was still able to verbally explain the
golf swing, and nurture the development of players such as Ben Crenshaw and
Tom Kite.

Lopez Gomez

Date: 04 Jan 2007 21:55:05
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote ...
>
> What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?

Doesn't mean he wasn't competent to instruct others.

Hank Haney would be the first to admit that he was not much of a golfer. At
one point, Hank actually got the yips with his full swing.

Today, he's Tiger Woods' coach.

Randy

Date: 04 Jan 2007 16:43:34
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 19:05:35 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I played with him twice. Ball striking was ok. Monster at putting.
> >He was in the high 70's but lost to Annika head to head.
>
> This Ringer character is a golfer wanna-be. When I played with him I
> had to hear after every shot how much of a better golfer he really
> was. Kind of got old really fast. He knew I was an authorized
> instructor and when I didn't report back how great of a player and
> ball striker he was he got insulted and has held a grudge against me
> ever since.
>
> Maybe if I saw something impressive I might have mentioned it. Oh, I
> was impressed that he had the courage to tell people he bought his
> clubs at Walt.
>

Hmmm....come to think of it, you didn't have anything nice to say about
my game either.

Dirtbag!!!!!

-Greg

Date: 05 Jan 2007 03:13:04
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 16:43:34 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>Hmmm....come to think of it, you didn't have anything nice to say about
>my game either.
>
>Dirtbag!!!!!

Gee, thanks!

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 16:40:29
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 03:40:47 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I think it boils down to:
> >
> >Can a person who is a perennial bogey golfer possibly know what makes a
> >
> >golf swing work as well as a good golfer?
>
> Sure. Bobby Clampett won a U.S. Amateur using TGM. He is now an
> authorized instructor. Mac O'Grady use to be an authorized
> instructor, played on tour, won a couple of tournaments and is one of
> the most sought after swing gurus. Ever heard of Steve Elkington?
> He's a Golfing Machine authorized tour player. Bob Tway, Bob May,
> Jody Mudd and Scott Verplank are just a few of the tour players who
> made it to the tour under the teachings of an authorized instructor.
> I would bring up Swing Like a Pro and how it validated the swingers
> stroke pattern but I think I've provided enough evidence to show how
> uninformed and clueless you are.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

I would add Brian Gay, a student of Lyn Blake.

-Greg

Date: 04 Jan 2007 10:15:00
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:

> I've tracked my GIRs for years. 12 is not unusual AT ALL for
> people playing to less than a 5 - especially when playing
> from the white tees.

I track my GIRs as well, and recently I have hit 12 GIRs many time, and
my last USGA index was 15. Counting *ALL* my strokes on those "other"
holes, and putting honestly has a significant impact on my handicap. I
am a much better golfer now than when I had an 8 handicap because then
I played with "the guys" in dogfights and wolf games quite a lot.

Those games have several aspects to them that reduce one's handicap
greatly, like you never take more than 3 putts. You can blow a 60
footer 10 feet by, "have" to make the 10 footer, blow it 5 feet by, but
the 5 footer is meaningless so you pick it up. You rarely to never get
a score higher than bogie put on your card. You never get a bad lie,
especially in the fairway, because they always roll the ball in the
fairway. If you just took the scores greater than bogie off my card it
would be at least 4 strokes per round. The putting would probably be a
couple of more strokes, easy.

Then there's the issue of playing the same course all the time, which I
do not do. That's gotta be worth at least 4 strokes per round. So I
fugure if I played the way I did 5 years ago, hitting the ball the way
I do now, I'd probably be about a 5 or 6 handicapper....who would go
into a club championship or play an event at another course and rarely
break 90...unless we rolled the ball and had all the other aspects of
rounds with "the guys".

OTOH, I know several players who don't hit 12 GIRs and could easily
defeat me in a match because of their short game. They birdie half
their GIRs and rarely miss up and downs. Making easy up and downs is
the main focus of my game at the moment. It's a matter of putting and
chipping, and IMHO, working on this is why I am getting a birdie or 2
every 9 holes, whereas I might get one birdie per 36 holes in the past.
I've even chippped in for birdies and eagles reasonbly frequently the
last 6-8 months or so.

The other aspect of playing well is missing on the proper side of the
green when you miss a GIR. You want uphill putts and chips, regardless,
for example.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 10:00:02
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> > You need to study the concept of begging the question. The issue you raised
> > here is if a person who is not a good golfer could know the mechanics of the
> > golf swing as well as a good golfer.
>
> I think it boils down to:
>
> Can a person who is a perennial bogey golfer possibly know what makes a
>
> golf swing work as well as a good golfer?
>
> -PA

The thing of it is that I see this entirely opposite to what you do. I
cannot see how someone who has never struggled with the limitations I
have can advise me on how to deal with those limitations. Telling me to
get the club to some position, like turn my shoulder until it is under
my chin. I cannot do this. I can turn my shoulder as far as I can and
then extend it until it is under my chin, but I know for a fact that
extending my shoulder hurts my swing. I also know that bending my left
arm hurts my swing as well, and I don't care what any instructor may
think of this. If I swing back to the point where I bend my left arm, I
will almost invariably hit a bad shot.

I can go on and on with this because I have totally overanalyzed my
swing for years; but I kno wit well. No instruction is going to make me
a better golfer. Staying within my limitations and cobbling together
the best game I can will produce my best golf.

I have used the services of several instructors, and many people whom
anyone would call very good instructors, and they all, absolutely
invariably, want my swing to conform to some model of what should be
what without regards to both my physical limitations and the
limitations in the time I have to spend on golf.

Knowing how Tiger Woods swings a golf club is of absolutely no value to
me in working on my golf game. I will never be able to swing like Tiger
Woods, and some disarticulated component of Tiger Woods' swing isn't
going to do much for me because I don't havew the rest of his swing.
Any correlations between my swing and that of Tiger Woods, other than
very basic things like the generalized grips and stance, are purely
spurrious, IMHO.

Finally, anyone who can't understand TGM is a dolt. People choose not
to "understand" it because it requires some learning effort, and people
don't want that. They want a 30 second byte of information. I can
assure you and anyone else that all such bytes are worthless. Anyone,
even a non golfer can learn the biomechanics of the golf swing; it just
takes the effort to learn. However, you don't have to know a single
thing about the biomechanics of the golf swing to have a good golf
swing.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 09:52:31
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> SKIPPER wrote:
> > Mike Dalecki wrote:
> >> SKIPPER wrote:
> >>> Mike Dalecki wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I would argue that Homer's supposed ability as a 15-handicapper (I don't
> >>>> know if he was or not, but assume he was) is irrelevant. Further, I'd
> >>>> argue that a good swing is the least important element of scoring in
> >>>> single digits. I made the mistake, early in my (serious) golfing
> >>>> career, of assuming that the swing was the key to scoring well. How
> >>>> wrong I was!
> >>>>
> >>>> Short game, putting, course management, mental game--I would argue that
> >>>> these things are what's necessary to reach single digits.
> >>> Anyone with a "good" swing is going to average 12 GIRs, placing him
> >>> easily in the single digits. A 15 handicapper is going to hit closer to
> >>> 5 or 6 GIRs.
> >
> >
> >> Even among PGA Tour pros in 2006, who one would presume would have
> >> "good" swings, only 35 of them even had 12 greens in regulation. The
> >> vast majority do not hit as many as 12 greens in regulation on average.
> >> So I would take issue with your comment above.
> >
> > Ahh, but PGA tour pros play 7000+ yard long courses with
> > high slope ratings, a far cry from the average course with a slope
> > of 100. I hit 12 on every good day, and some colleages with
> > handicaps under 3 hit that regularly - from the white tees on
> > average courses. Adding 3-4 clubs to each approach shot
> > has a substantial impact.

> Really? I'm surprised that you're not seeing the other elements to this
> equation, which is green size and distance of approach shot.
>
> The advantage to the numbers I quote above is that they come from a
> large population, over a significant period of time. You have only
> anecdotal evidence which is likely situation-specific.
>
> How large are those greens you're hitting in regulation?

Our course is not that long (~6800 yds from blues), and its greens
are pretty middle of the road in size.

> Further, the pros are playing longer courses, but they're hitting the
> ball longer. How many times on a par 4 does a pro need to hit even a
> 6-iron to get it to the green? They guys keep hitting short irons into
> the greens.

If you are 280 off the tee, a 440 yd par four is a 7 or 8 iron...

>From the white tees take 50 yards off the length, and 20 off
the drive, and you hit a wedge in.

Plus, the pro courses have narrower fairways (as they play them) and
rough not beaten down by carts, so the chances of hitting a green
when the fairway is missed is less. On many (most?) recreational
courses, a fairway miss that leaves a clear shot at the green
bears no penalty at all.

I've tracked my GIRs for years. 12 is not unusual AT ALL for
people playing to less than a 5 - especially when playing
from the white tees.

> I'm getting the sense you want to argue for the sake of arguing, not for
> the sake of finding out about The Golfing Machine.

I'm curious where it falls in the grand scheme of things. It appears to
strive to be a parallel instructional path to the PGA professional
schools.
It is too expensive and not useful enough to the recreational golfer to
compete with a general instruction book on the swing.

-PA

Date: 04 Jan 2007 18:58:38
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:
>> I'm getting the sense you want to argue for the sake of arguing, not for
>> the sake of finding out about The Golfing Machine.
>
> I'm curious where it falls in the grand scheme of things. It appears to
> strive to be a parallel instructional path to the PGA professional
> schools.
> It is too expensive and not useful enough to the recreational golfer to
> compete with a general instruction book on the swing.
>
> -PA

I sure don't understand where you're coming from. I've noted that it's
not a general instruction book on the swing. Others have said that as
well. Why do you persist in trying to characterize it as that?

It is a book that describes the elements of the swing. Many like to
understand it that way, and use the

And as far as it being too expensive, well, that's a matter of opinion.
For those whose interest is in learning about the golf swing, it can
be perceived as cheap at the price. And that is different than learning
how to swing.

Mike

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Report http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!

Date: 05 Jan 2007 03:12:56
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:58:38 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

>I sure don't understand where you're coming from.

You won't, he's a troll.

1) he never bothered going to the web site to inform himself.

2) he never read the book but wants to argue it's content and merits.

3) says things that are easily disproved

4) contradicts himself on a daily basis.

Whose playbook is he following?

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 05 Jan 2007 00:19:47
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 09:52:31 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> I'm getting the sense you want to argue for the sake of arguing, not for
>> the sake of finding out about The Golfing Machine.
>
>I'm curious where it falls in the grand scheme of things. It appears to
>strive to be a parallel instructional path to the PGA professional
>schools.
>It is too expensive and not useful enough to the recreational golfer to
>compete with a general instruction book on the swing.

$35.00 is too expensive? My bet is that you're still in high school.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 09:37:34
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

bill-o wrote:
> "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Most sports have coaches coaching players who are considerably better
> > > than they are.
> >
> > Name one who never reached the upper 5% of the people competing at
> > his sport.
>
> The annals of sport are repleat with exemples Bobby Cox, Joe McCarthy, John
> McGraw, David Ledbetter, Brad Greer :-) etc. The gift of a teacher is not
> his raw ability, but his capacity to transfer his knowledge to others.
> Conversely raw talent does not necessarily translate into knowledge much
> less the ability to comminicate it to others.

Top 5% of his sport. Any certified PGA pro has to pass the playing
test, which certainly makes them in the top 5%.

Bobby Cox played in the major leagues before coaching.

Joe McCarthy played minors for 15 years - nearly making the
majors - a real Crash Davis character. Still, of all those who play
baseball, easily in the top 5%.

John McGraw batted 0.334 lifetime over more than a decade in the
majors. Not just a good player, a GREAT player.

Brad Greer???

Familiarity with the nuances of the upper level of the sport
are a pre-requisite to being an effective teacher. Our PGA Golf
Professionals all must be playing in the low 70s or better to
certify, just to begin apprenticeship.

Yet there is an entire parallel certification process for the
Golfing Machine which was written and set up by a bogey
golfer???

I did a search of TGM certified instructors in my state. All
of the ones I found had web sites about their instruction, all
were already certified PGA pros (most fairly accomplished),
none of them mention TGM in their personal instructional keting.
I know there are those that do...just none of the ones in my state.

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 00:19:40
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 09:37:34 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> > Name one who never reached the upper 5% of the people competing at
>> > his sport.
>>
>> The annals of sport are repleat with exemples Bobby Cox, Joe McCarthy, John
>> McGraw, David Ledbetter, Brad Greer :-) etc. The gift of a teacher is not
>> his raw ability, but his capacity to transfer his knowledge to others.
>> Conversely raw talent does not necessarily translate into knowledge much
>> less the ability to comminicate it to others.
>
>Top 5% of his sport. Any certified PGA pro has to pass the playing
>test, which certainly makes them in the top 5%.
>
>Bobby Cox played in the major leagues before coaching.
>
>Joe McCarthy played minors for 15 years - nearly making the
>majors - a real Crash Davis character. Still, of all those who play
>baseball, easily in the top 5%.
>
>John McGraw batted 0.334 lifetime over more than a decade in the
>majors. Not just a good player, a GREAT player.
>
>Brad Greer???

Why did you skip David Leadbetter?

>Familiarity with the nuances of the upper level of the sport
>are a pre-requisite to being an effective teacher. Our PGA Golf
>Professionals all must be playing in the low 70s or better to
>certify, just to begin apprenticeship.

I can show you a PGA pro who can't break 90, on a good day, at his
home course.

>Yet there is an entire parallel certification process for the
>Golfing Machine which was written and set up by a bogey
>golfer???

And proven in worthiness by tour players.

>I did a search of TGM certified instructors in my state. All
>of the ones I found had web sites about their instruction, all
>were already certified PGA pros (most fairly accomplished),
>none of them mention TGM in their personal instructional keting.
>I know there are those that do...just none of the ones in my state.

Really, here's one for starters;

http://www.bendoylegolf.com/

He mentions it on the first page and in his "about Ben".

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 11:12:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 09:37:34 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> The annals of sport are repleat with exemples Bobby Cox, Joe McCarthy, John
>> McGraw, David Ledbetter, Brad Greer :-) etc. The gift of a teacher is not
>> his raw ability, but his capacity to transfer his knowledge to others.
>> Conversely raw talent does not necessarily translate into knowledge much
>> less the ability to comminicate it to others.
>
>Top 5% of his sport. Any certified PGA pro has to pass the playing
>test, which certainly makes them in the top 5%.

If we include little league (and its equivalents in other sports),
coaches are in the top 5%. But it makes more sense to only include
those at the level they are teaching.

Mike Shanahan is one of the best NFL coaches - but he split a kidney
in college and switched from playing to coaching. His kid is a NFL
assistant coach without playing. You don't need to be able to make a
NFL team as a player in order to coach. You don't need to be able
to make the PGA Tour in order to coach Tour players.

And virtually none of the former players turned coach - can still play
at that level. Pat Riley's knees are so bad that he can't even
stand on the side lines right now - much less run the court.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 08:32:18
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 03:40:47 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Can a person who is a perennial bogey golfer possibly know what makes a
> >golf swing work as well as a good golfer?
>
> Most sports have coaches coaching players who are considerably better
> than they are.

Name one who never reached the upper 5% of the people competing at
his sport.

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 00:19:06
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 08:32:18 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Most sports have coaches coaching players who are considerably better
>> than they are.
>
>Name one who never reached the upper 5% of the people competing at
>his sport.

Dave Pelz. Swoosh!

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 17:22:42
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4-Jan-2007, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

> > Most sports have coaches coaching players who are considerably better
> > than they are.
>
> Name one who never reached the upper 5% of the people competing at
> his sport.

The annals of sport are repleat with exemples Bobby Cox, Joe McCarthy, John
McGraw, David Ledbetter, Brad Greer :-) etc. The gift of a teacher is not
his raw ability, but his capacity to transfer his knowledge to others.
Conversely raw talent does not necessarily translate into knowledge much
less the ability to comminicate it to others.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 09:42:10
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

As a golfer, if you can wipe your own ass and dress yourself, you've
already accomplished more than society ever dreamed of for you.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:54:12
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> SKIPPER wrote:
> > Mike Dalecki wrote:
> >
> >> I would argue that Homer's supposed ability as a 15-handicapper (I don't
> >> know if he was or not, but assume he was) is irrelevant. Further, I'd
> >> argue that a good swing is the least important element of scoring in
> >> single digits. I made the mistake, early in my (serious) golfing
> >> career, of assuming that the swing was the key to scoring well. How
> >> wrong I was!
> >>
> >> Short game, putting, course management, mental game--I would argue that
> >> these things are what's necessary to reach single digits.
> >
> > Anyone with a "good" swing is going to average 12 GIRs, placing him
> > easily in the single digits. A 15 handicapper is going to hit closer to
> > 5 or 6 GIRs.

> Even among PGA Tour pros in 2006, who one would presume would have
> "good" swings, only 35 of them even had 12 greens in regulation. The
> vast majority do not hit as many as 12 greens in regulation on average.
> So I would take issue with your comment above.

Ahh, but PGA tour pros play 7000+ yard long courses with
high slope ratings, a far cry from the average course with a slope
of 100. I hit 12 on every good day, and some colleages with
handicaps under 3 hit that regularly - from the white tees on
average courses. Adding 3-4 clubs to each approach shot
has a substantial impact.

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 00:18:46
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 03:54:12 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> > Anyone with a "good" swing is going to average 12 GIRs, placing him
>> > easily in the single digits. A 15 handicapper is going to hit closer to
>> > 5 or 6 GIRs.
>
>
>> Even among PGA Tour pros in 2006, who one would presume would have
>> "good" swings, only 35 of them even had 12 greens in regulation. The
>> vast majority do not hit as many as 12 greens in regulation on average.
>> So I would take issue with your comment above.
>
>Ahh, but PGA tour pros play 7000+ yard long courses with
>high slope ratings, a far cry from the average course with a slope
>of 100. I hit 12 on every good day, and some colleages with
>handicaps under 3 hit that regularly - from the white tees on
>average courses. Adding 3-4 clubs to each approach shot
>has a substantial impact.

We should be selling tickets for this. It can't have too much of a
substantial impact because you said anyone with a good swing is going
to average 12 GIR. You're so clueless you can't even stand behind
what you said the day before.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 10:13:07
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:
> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>> SKIPPER wrote:
>>> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would argue that Homer's supposed ability as a 15-handicapper (I don't
>>>> know if he was or not, but assume he was) is irrelevant. Further, I'd
>>>> argue that a good swing is the least important element of scoring in
>>>> single digits. I made the mistake, early in my (serious) golfing
>>>> career, of assuming that the swing was the key to scoring well. How
>>>> wrong I was!
>>>>
>>>> Short game, putting, course management, mental game--I would argue that
>>>> these things are what's necessary to reach single digits.
>>> Anyone with a "good" swing is going to average 12 GIRs, placing him
>>> easily in the single digits. A 15 handicapper is going to hit closer to
>>> 5 or 6 GIRs.
>
>
>> Even among PGA Tour pros in 2006, who one would presume would have
>> "good" swings, only 35 of them even had 12 greens in regulation. The
>> vast majority do not hit as many as 12 greens in regulation on average.
>> So I would take issue with your comment above.
>
> Ahh, but PGA tour pros play 7000+ yard long courses with
> high slope ratings, a far cry from the average course with a slope
> of 100. I hit 12 on every good day, and some colleages with
> handicaps under 3 hit that regularly - from the white tees on
> average courses. Adding 3-4 clubs to each approach shot
> has a substantial impact.
>
> -PA
>

Really? I'm surprised that you're not seeing the other elements to this
equation, which is green size and distance of approach shot.

The advantage to the numbers I quote above is that they come from a
large population, over a significant period of time. You have only
anecdotal evidence which is likely situation-specific.

How large are those greens you're hitting in regulation?

Further, the pros are playing longer courses, but they're hitting the
ball longer. How many times on a par 4 does a pro need to hit even a
6-iron to get it to the green? They guys keep hitting short irons into
the greens.

I'm getting the sense you want to argue for the sake of arguing, not for
the sake of finding out about The Golfing Machine.

Mike

PS: David Laville doesn't sell anything. He's an authorized
instructor, but insofar as I know, he's never charged for a lesson.
Certainly he never has with me (and yes, I know him personally and have
golfed with him). He simply gives away what he knows. Interesting
concept there, don't you think?

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Report http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!

Date: 05 Jan 2007 23:45:57
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Good thing Laville gives it away for free.

Anything from that hack can't be worth much.

Shouldn't an "authorized instructor" be able to play worth a shit?

If I wanted to become a doctor, I sure as hell wouldn't want to learn from a
butcher.

"Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote in message
news:504nckF1ehih1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> PS: David Laville doesn't sell anything. He's an authorized instructor,
> but insofar as I know, he's never charged for a lesson. Certainly he never
> has with me (and yes, I know him personally and have golfed with him). He
> simply gives away what he knows. Interesting concept there, don't you
> think?
>
>
> --
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Report http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:40:47
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Robert Hamilton wrote:

> You need to study the concept of begging the question. The issue you raised
> here is if a person who is not a good golfer could know the mechanics of the
> golf swing as well as a good golfer.

I think it boils down to:

Can a person who is a perennial bogey golfer possibly know what makes a

golf swing work as well as a good golfer?

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 00:18:30
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 03:40:47 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>I think it boils down to:
>
>Can a person who is a perennial bogey golfer possibly know what makes a
>
>golf swing work as well as a good golfer?

Sure. Bobby Clampett won a U.S. Amateur using TGM. He is now an
authorized instructor. Mac O'Grady use to be an authorized
instructor, played on tour, won a couple of tournaments and is one of
the most sought after swing gurus. Ever heard of Steve Elkington?
He's a Golfing Machine authorized tour player. Bob Tway, Bob May,
Jody Mudd and Scott Verplank are just a few of the tour players who
made it to the tour under the teachings of an authorized instructor.
I would bring up Swing Like a Pro and how it validated the swingers
stroke pattern but I think I've provided enough evidence to show how
uninformed and clueless you are.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 12:52:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 03:40:47 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>Can a person who is a perennial bogey golfer possibly know what makes a
>golf swing work as well as a good golfer?

Most sports have coaches coaching players who are considerably better
than they are.

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:37:18
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Its always attack the messenger....
>
> If the messenger is a troll I will.
>
> >I am not on this newsgroup astroturfing for my livelihood.
>
> Neither am I. My livelihood is dentistry.
>
> >It was a simple question. If Homer Kelley was a bogey golfer
> >and wrote barely comprehensible out of order jibberish, why
> >is so much being made of it?
>
> I got a simple question. I'm dyslexic.

My colleagues developed
http://www.scilearn.com/
It cures dyslexia, if applied to people young enough.
Only started in 96, though, so it probably wasn't in time
for you.

> If the book is barely
> comprehensible and gibberish why was I able to attain the level of
> G.S.E.M. teaching it to myself?

A self-fulfilling prophesy, one designed to sell more books.
The book has an organization that certifies people's mastery
of it. It sure sounds a lot like Scientology. Barely comprehensible
to outsiders. Secretive and elitist towards others. And harshly
derogatory ad hominem attacks at all who disagree.

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 00:17:40
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 03:37:18 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> I got a simple question. I'm dyslexic.
>
>My colleagues developed

Your colleagues? You told us you were an engineer but the company
that developed it is involved with neuroscience research of the brain.

>> If the book is barely
>> comprehensible and gibberish why was I able to attain the level of
>> G.S.E.M. teaching it to myself?
>
>A self-fulfilling prophesy, one designed to sell more books.
>The book has an organization that certifies people's mastery
>of it. It sure sounds a lot like Scientology. Barely comprehensible
>to outsiders. Secretive and elitist towards others. And harshly
>derogatory ad hominem attacks at all who disagree.

So in other words you prefer to dodge the question.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:03:49
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 16:56:37 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Send me your copy, and I will read it and post a
> >sumy to the group.
>
> Why don't you buy a copy for yourself instead of looking for free
> handouts.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

Why don't you pimp your wares elsewhere?

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 00:17:09
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 4 Jan 2007 03:03:49 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Why don't you buy a copy for yourself instead of looking for free
>> handouts.

>Why don't you pimp your wares elsewhere?

That's the best you could come up with, troll?

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 05:43:59
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:

> The_Professor wrote:
> > SKIPPER wrote:
> > > What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
> > >
> > > Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
> > >
> > > http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
> > >
> > > And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> > > an accomplishment in golf.
> > >
> > > I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> > > of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> > > a bare minimum?
> > >
> > > -PA
> >
> > If one were to carry this argument to say engineeering, then I could
> > say if you have never actually constrcuted a bridge, you are not
> > qualified to design a bridge, nor are you qualified to advise someone
> > on how to design a bridge.
>
> No, that is incorrect. By most accounts, Kelley was an AVID golfer.
> He TRIED to play golf yet never rose above the median level of avid
> golfers. He would represent someone who tried to design a bridge
> and failed.

Fine, but I would suggest that someone who tried is more knolwledgeable than
someone who never tried.

>
>
> > Add in that golf requires a certain level of
> > athletic ability, and you have to look at an issue like: could a person
> > with an IQ of 80 design a bridge?
>
> I have not seen anyone claim Kelley was discoordinated or handicapped.
> And even if true, and that would preclude him from ever developing a
> sound repeating swing, WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE HE COULD
> UNDERSTAND SOMETHING HE COULD NEVER PERCEIVE?!

The issue is an understanding of the mechanics of the golf swing. I can
percieve the mechanics of a golf swing. You miss the point though; you can
know all you want, but it won't take you beyond your level of atheltic
ability...or you can't learn athletic ability. You can lern how to use it, but
wither you got it or you don't; same as intellectual ability, and an 80 IQ
doesn't have enough intellectual ability to design a bridge and a long time
mid capper doesn't have the atheltic ability to play on the PGA Tour.

>
>
> > A person can learn the biomechanics behind throwing a football and have
> > no arms at all.
>
> I do not think this is true. There are always issues that arise in
> practice
> that, no matter how vigilantly one may study, will not be clear and
> apparent
> without actual experience. You can NEVER put theory above practice in
> such a way...they are always intertwined. EVERY top pro knows a heck of
> a lot about the things that make a golf club work for him or her. Now,
> granted,
> there is more than one way to skin a cat, but every top pro knows at
> least
> one really good way. A bogey golfer does not demonstrably know any.

A lot of good golfers go out of their way to not know the mechanics of the
golf swing. I know one guy who was a hack like me until he stopped thinking
about those things and just played golf. I suspect a lot of pros go out of
ther way tp avoid learning a lot about the mechanics of the golf swing as
well.

>
>
> > Another person can know nothing of the biomechanics of
> > throwing a football and easily throw a football 60 yards.
>
> Ahhh, but no one can know how to throw a spiral 60 hards without
> understanding how to grab the ball, where the arm must be positioned
> during the throw, how the hips and shoulders need to move, etc. At
> the very worst he could derive ONE WAY in which all those happen
> from direct inspection.

I doubt that. A kid picks up a ball and throws it 60 yards and suddenly he is
an expert in biomechanics?

>
>
> > You cannot learn athletic ability. You can learn how to apply it if you
> > have it, but if you don't have it, you don't. Get over it and move on.
> > Otherwise you wind up forking out a lot of money and wasting a lot of
> > time with the plethora of snake oil salesmen in the golf instruction
> > industry...not to mention the snake oil offered in the golf club
> > industry!
>
> There's a lot of snake oil out there. Always has been. Good golfers
> know
> at least one way that works for them. Double digit handicappers or
> worse...
> how can you be certain they know of what they speak? You spot someone
> a shot a hole, and you are supposed to believe he has the authoritative
> word
> on the golf swing? Poppycock!
>
> -PA

You need to study the concept of begging the question. The issue you raised
here is if a person who is not a good golfer could know the mechanics of the
golf swing as well as a good golfer.

Date: 03 Jan 2007 19:05:35
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Da Ringer. wrote:
> All you have to do is look at Laville.
>
> He seems to know something about the golf swing, but he can't play worth a
> shit.
>
> Da Ringer
>

I played with him twice. Ball striking was ok. Monster at putting.
He was in the high 70's but lost to Annika head to head.

I was glad, being that I was on Anni's team.

-Greg

Date: 05 Jan 2007 00:15:14
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 3 Jan 2007 19:05:35 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>I played with him twice. Ball striking was ok. Monster at putting.
>He was in the high 70's but lost to Annika head to head.

This Ringer character is a golfer wanna-be. When I played with him I
had to hear after every shot how much of a better golfer he really
was. Kind of got old really fast. He knew I was an authorized
instructor and when I didn't report back how great of a player and
ball striker he was he got insulted and has held a grudge against me
ever since.

Maybe if I saw something impressive I might have mentioned it. Oh, I
was impressed that he had the courage to tell people he bought his
clubs at Walt.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 05 Jan 2007 13:01:32
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

You are one stupid fucking idiot.

I remember I beat you by 12 shots that day and you didn't play worth a shit.

If I needed you to make good comments about my swing I should just quit all
together.

I hit 12 of 14 fairways with that Wal-t driver. You were in the woods all
day.

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:6m5rp2962m7t13vm88rnf0gkaf951j06a2@4ax.com...
> On 3 Jan 2007 19:05:35 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I played with him twice. Ball striking was ok. Monster at putting.
>>He was in the high 70's but lost to Annika head to head.
>
> This Ringer character is a golfer wanna-be. When I played with him I
> had to hear after every shot how much of a better golfer he really
> was. Kind of got old really fast. He knew I was an authorized
> instructor and when I didn't report back how great of a player and
> ball striker he was he got insulted and has held a grudge against me
> ever since.
>
> Maybe if I saw something impressive I might have mentioned it. Oh, I
> was impressed that he had the courage to tell people he bought his
> clubs at Walt.
>
>
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

Date: 06 Jan 2007 02:04:03
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:01:32 -0500, "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net >
wrote:

>You are one stupid fucking idiot.

Thanks.

>I remember I beat you by 12 shots that day and you didn't play worth a shit.

Yea right. If it makes you feel better to remember it that way. But
what does it say about your game when you claim I played like shit and
you were only able to beat me by 0.6 strokes a hole?

>If I needed you to make good comments about my swing I should just quit all
>together.

That's good because the only comment you're getting from me is that
your swing wasn't nothing special. Neither was your ball striking.

>I hit 12 of 14 fairways with that Wal-t driver. You were in the woods all
>day.

If I was in the woods all day and you hit 12/14 fairways and was only
able to beat me by 0.6 strokes per hole, well your game can't be all
that impressive.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 05 Jan 2007 21:52:14
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

I never said my game was "all that impressive".

What I said is that your game ain't shit.

BTW.... I missed 7 putts inside 2 feet and still waxed your sorry ass by 12
shots.

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:bqvtp293u354glvd33san8pfedhaqf414h@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:01:32 -0500, "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You are one stupid fucking idiot.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>I remember I beat you by 12 shots that day and you didn't play worth a
>>shit.
>
> Yea right. If it makes you feel better to remember it that way. But
> what does it say about your game when you claim I played like shit and
> you were only able to beat me by 0.6 strokes a hole?
>
>>If I needed you to make good comments about my swing I should just quit
>>all
>>together.
>
> That's good because the only comment you're getting from me is that
> your swing wasn't nothing special. Neither was your ball striking.
>
>>I hit 12 of 14 fairways with that Wal-t driver. You were in the woods
>>all
>>day.
>
> If I was in the woods all day and you hit 12/14 fairways and was only
> able to beat me by 0.6 strokes per hole, well your game can't be all
> that impressive.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

Date: 10 Jan 2007 01:54:04
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 21:52:14 -0500, "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net >
wrote:

>I never said my game was "all that impressive".

Oh yes you did. We had to hear how you could shoot in the 60's at
your home course and after every shot how much of a better golfer you
really were.

>What I said is that your game ain't shit.

And if you could hit 12/14 fairways and only beat a guy who was in the
woods all day by 0.6 strokes a hole, well you're right, you're game
isn't all that impressive.

>BTW.... I missed 7 putts inside 2 feet and still waxed your sorry ass by 12
>shots.

But what you're not saying is I three putted the majority of the
greens so your game still doesn't sound that impressive.

I thought you were playing Frank in the match not me. I take it as a
compliment that you consider me the benchk.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 10 Jan 2007 12:49:47
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

You must be retarded.

>"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:2mh8q21t5i5l50nt1dch2k1vgagrrho8sc@4ax.com...

> I thought you were playing Frank in the match not me. I take it as a
> compliment that you consider me the benchk.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

Date: 11 Jan 2007 02:59:38
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:49:47 -0500, "Da Ringer."
<DaRinger@nowhere.net > wrote:

>You must be retarded.

What a come back. What next, I'm a racist? Homophobe? Sexist?

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 11 Jan 2007 00:31:07
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

I don't know anything about your racial motives, homosexual tendencies or
sexual orientation.

But, you have got to be the most egotistical son of a bitch I have ever
encountered.

My whole point in all this has been........

You are a "Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor" that can't play worth a
shit.

If the swing that you preach is so good then why don't you apply the
principles to yourself and improve your game. You should be totally
embarrassed that "a guy who has never had a lesson while playing with
Wal-t clubs beat your sorry ass by 12 shots".

You are a pathetic loser.

I hope (for your patient's sake) that you clean teeth better than you swing
a club.

Da Ringer

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:ot9bq2hjih7jm2ebuos6f0kps55b68mck1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:49:47 -0500, "Da Ringer."
> <DaRinger@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You must be retarded.
>
> What a come back. What next, I'm a racist? Homophobe? Sexist?
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 18:49:31
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

The_Professor wrote:
> SKIPPER wrote:
> > What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
> >
> > Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
> >
> > http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
> >
> > And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> > an accomplishment in golf.
> >
> > I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> > of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> > a bare minimum?
> >
> > -PA
>
> If one were to carry this argument to say engineeering, then I could
> say if you have never actually constrcuted a bridge, you are not
> qualified to design a bridge, nor are you qualified to advise someone
> on how to design a bridge.

No, that is incorrect. By most accounts, Kelley was an AVID golfer.
He TRIED to play golf yet never rose above the median level of avid
golfers. He would represent someone who tried to design a bridge
and failed.

> Add in that golf requires a certain level of
> athletic ability, and you have to look at an issue like: could a person
> with an IQ of 80 design a bridge?

I have not seen anyone claim Kelley was discoordinated or handicapped.
And even if true, and that would preclude him from ever developing a
sound repeating swing, WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE HE COULD
UNDERSTAND SOMETHING HE COULD NEVER PERCEIVE?!

> A person can learn the biomechanics behind throwing a football and have
> no arms at all.

I do not think this is true. There are always issues that arise in
practice
that, no matter how vigilantly one may study, will not be clear and
apparent
without actual experience. You can NEVER put theory above practice in
such a way...they are always intertwined. EVERY top pro knows a heck of
a lot about the things that make a golf club work for him or her. Now,
granted,
there is more than one way to skin a cat, but every top pro knows at
least
one really good way. A bogey golfer does not demonstrably know any.

> Another person can know nothing of the biomechanics of
> throwing a football and easily throw a football 60 yards.

Ahhh, but no one can know how to throw a spiral 60 hards without
understanding how to grab the ball, where the arm must be positioned
during the throw, how the hips and shoulders need to move, etc. At
the very worst he could derive ONE WAY in which all those happen
from direct inspection.

> You cannot learn athletic ability. You can learn how to apply it if you
> have it, but if you don't have it, you don't. Get over it and move on.
> Otherwise you wind up forking out a lot of money and wasting a lot of
> time with the plethora of snake oil salesmen in the golf instruction
> industry...not to mention the snake oil offered in the golf club
> industry!

There's a lot of snake oil out there. Always has been. Good golfers
know
at least one way that works for them. Double digit handicappers or
worse...
how can you be certain they know of what they speak? You spot someone
a shot a hole, and you are supposed to believe he has the authoritative
word
on the golf swing? Poppycock!

-PA

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:11:47
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 3 Jan 2007 18:49:31 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>No, that is incorrect. By most accounts, Kelley was an AVID golfer.
>He TRIED to play golf yet never rose above the median level of avid
>golfers. He would represent someone who tried to design a bridge
>and failed.

You are totally clueless. Kelley was not an avid golfer. His first
love was tennis. He wrote TGM because he was discovering answers
where there was none before and he felt the golf world needed his
research and findings.

> You spot someone a shot a hole, and you are supposed to believe he has the authoritative
>word on the golf swing? Poppycock!

Then please tell us what he says in TGM that is wrong and poppycock.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 04 Jan 2007 02:08:07
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:

> David Laville wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:38:26 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> > <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Playing to a 15 with his level of knowledge of the game is somewhat
> > >suprising, I would admit. OTOH, he might well have spent 20 hours/day
> > >tinkering with his book and not making progress on his own swing/game.
> >
> > Homer Kelley shot a 76 the first time he ever played golf. This was
> > the spark that started The Golfing Machine. He had been keeping notes
> > up to that point and one day decided to sit down and outline what he
> > was doing. What he thought would be a 3 day project turned out to be
> > a 28 year study of the golf swing he published in a book titled The
> > Golfing Machine. The reason he played to a 15 was because he was
> > always researching and experimenting with the swing.
> >
> > It's all there on the web site but trolls never bother to educate
> > themselves with the facts, just who will take their bate.
> >
> > BTW, know who this blakestah guy is? He used to post under
> > "blakestah" not "skipper" and posted his driving range theories as if
> > they were universal fact. They were so laughable I thought he was
> > LLLarry posting under a different moniker.
>
> Its always attack the messenger....
>
> I am not on this newsgroup astroturfing for my livelihood.
>
> It was a simple question. If Homer Kelley was a bogey golfer
> and wrote barely comprehensible out of order jibberish, why
> is so much being made of it?
>

I don't see how anyone can see this book as in any sense difficult to read.
One thing is doe snot have is "do ths" or "do that". It describes very
concisely a lot of basic golf moves, and as bluntly and simply as possible
puts together different combinations.

If you want to learn something from it, you need to learn all those different
moves, and undertsnad how they work together. Togh for this current
generation of golf dougheads who want someone to say something like "bend
over" and voila, a 15 handicapper is magically transformed into a scratch
golfer. Anin't gonna happen, and while "they" will ask you to bend over, they
are looking for something else. If you want as simple an analysis of how the
golf swing works, TGM is the only real publication out there that does that.

If you don't want to take the time to LEARN something, that's your problem,
not the problem of a teacher. Fact is that it is a rather simple,
straightforward book. NEither David Laville nor anyone else can make it
simpler.

Date: 03 Jan 2007 20:37:55
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

All you have to do is look at Laville.

He seems to know something about the golf swing, but he can't play worth a
shit.

Da Ringer

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
>
> Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
>
> http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
>
> And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> an accomplishment in golf.
>
> I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> a bare minimum?
>
> -PA
>

Date: 05 Jan 2007 13:05:05
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:37:55 -0500, "Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net >
wrote:

>All you have to do is look at Laville.
>
>He seems to know something about the golf swing, but he can't play worth a
>shit.
>
>Da Ringer

In the ten, or so, years that I've seen LaVille's posts here, and in
playing several rounds of golf with him, I never heard him brag about
his game.

--
___,
\o

Date: 03 Jan 2007 20:01:32
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

I've played with David and he's a great ball striker.
I believe he shot mid 70's the day we played.
He doesn't listen well when I tried to tell him that the hole was downhill /
downwind, but he's a fantastic ball striker.

"Da Ringer." <DaRinger@nowhere.net > wrote in message
news:bVYmh.1163$AO1.231@newsfe03.lga...
> All you have to do is look at Laville.
>
> He seems to know something about the golf swing, but he can't play worth a
> shit.
>
> Da Ringer

Date: 04 Jan 2007 00:59:36
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 3 Jan 2007 08:24:02 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
>of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
>a bare minimum?

Some people could - some people couldn't. All the theory of the
world won't overcome lack of coordination.

Date: 03 Jan 2007 16:56:37
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 09:49:49 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not claiming the best teachers are the best golfers, but in my
> >experience every reasonable teacher has been a low single digit
> >handicap equivalent golfer. So when I saw that Homer was a 15
> >handicapper in that Sports Illustrated article, and that his book is
> >widely regarded as barely comprehensible even to the most literate
> >engineers, I wondered why The Golfing Machine is held in such high
> >regard. Why isn't it simply viewed as snake oil of the month? Is
> >there something I am missing?
>
> Yes, a copy of the book so you can sound informed.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

Send me your copy, and I will read it and post a
sumy to the group.

Email blakestah AT gmail.com for
details. Or blakestah AT blakestah.com....Skipper is a
simple email foil.

-PA

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:11:21
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 3 Jan 2007 16:56:37 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>Send me your copy, and I will read it and post a
>sumy to the group.

Why don't you buy a copy for yourself instead of looking for free
handouts.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 19:06:36
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:
> David Laville wrote:
>> On 3 Jan 2007 09:49:49 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not claiming the best teachers are the best golfers, but in my
>>> experience every reasonable teacher has been a low single digit
>>> handicap equivalent golfer. So when I saw that Homer was a 15
>>> handicapper in that Sports Illustrated article, and that his book is
>>> widely regarded as barely comprehensible even to the most literate
>>> engineers, I wondered why The Golfing Machine is held in such high
>>> regard. Why isn't it simply viewed as snake oil of the month? Is
>>> there something I am missing?
>> Yes, a copy of the book so you can sound informed.
>>
>>
>>
>> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
>> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
>> TB-8982
>
> Send me your copy, and I will read it and post a
> sumy to the group.

I've read the book, more than once--studied it, in fact. I don't really
think it lends itself to a "sumy." But maybe you can.

But if you do get the book, let me suggest that you read it in the order
that Kelley suggests in the introduction. Remember, he was more or less
cataloging the elements of the swing, and for whatever reason he didn't
do it as a sequential kind of thing (though how one would sequence the
elements of a golf swing I don't know).

Mike

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Report http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!

Date: 03 Jan 2007 16:25:35
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Mike Dalecki wrote:

> I would argue that Homer's supposed ability as a 15-handicapper (I don't
> know if he was or not, but assume he was) is irrelevant. Further, I'd
> argue that a good swing is the least important element of scoring in
> single digits. I made the mistake, early in my (serious) golfing
> career, of assuming that the swing was the key to scoring well. How
> wrong I was!
>
> Short game, putting, course management, mental game--I would argue that
> these things are what's necessary to reach single digits.

Anyone with a "good" swing is going to average 12 GIRs, placing him
easily in the single digits. A 15 handicapper is going to hit closer to
5 or 6 GIRs.

-PA

Date: 03 Jan 2007 18:52:04
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:
> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
>> I would argue that Homer's supposed ability as a 15-handicapper (I don't
>> know if he was or not, but assume he was) is irrelevant. Further, I'd
>> argue that a good swing is the least important element of scoring in
>> single digits. I made the mistake, early in my (serious) golfing
>> career, of assuming that the swing was the key to scoring well. How
>> wrong I was!
>>
>> Short game, putting, course management, mental game--I would argue that
>> these things are what's necessary to reach single digits.
>
> Anyone with a "good" swing is going to average 12 GIRs, placing him
> easily in the single digits. A 15 handicapper is going to hit closer to
> 5 or 6 GIRs.
>
> -PA
>

Even among PGA Tour pros in 2006, who one would presume would have
"good" swings, only 35 of them even had 12 greens in regulation. The
vast majority do not hit as many as 12 greens in regulation on average.
So I would take issue with your comment above.

A 15 handicapper is a 15 because of bad choices and a poor short game,
more than anything else. I've seen tons of guys with "good" swings who,
when on the green, can't hardly get the ball down in less than 3 putts,
and if they miss the green, well, say goodnite Sadie.

I'm not arguing having a good swing is a detriment, just that if that's
all you've got, you haven't got much. At least in terms of scoring in
golf, that is. :)

Mike
--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Report http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:10:14
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:52:04 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

>Even among PGA Tour pros in 2006, who one would presume would have
>"good" swings, only 35 of them even had 12 greens in regulation. The
>vast majority do not hit as many as 12 greens in regulation on average.
> So I would take issue with your comment above.

Mike, I hope you soon realize you're trying to have a discussion with
someone who makes up facts to sound knowledgeable.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 15:58:06
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:38:26 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> >Playing to a 15 with his level of knowledge of the game is somewhat
> >suprising, I would admit. OTOH, he might well have spent 20 hours/day
> >tinkering with his book and not making progress on his own swing/game.
>
> Homer Kelley shot a 76 the first time he ever played golf. This was
> the spark that started The Golfing Machine. He had been keeping notes
> up to that point and one day decided to sit down and outline what he
> was doing. What he thought would be a 3 day project turned out to be
> a 28 year study of the golf swing he published in a book titled The
> Golfing Machine. The reason he played to a 15 was because he was
> always researching and experimenting with the swing.
>
> It's all there on the web site but trolls never bother to educate
> themselves with the facts, just who will take their bate.
>
> BTW, know who this blakestah guy is? He used to post under
> "blakestah" not "skipper" and posted his driving range theories as if
> they were universal fact. They were so laughable I thought he was
> LLLarry posting under a different moniker.

Its always attack the messenger....

I am not on this newsgroup astroturfing for my livelihood.

It was a simple question. If Homer Kelley was a bogey golfer
and wrote barely comprehensible out of order jibberish, why
is so much being made of it?

-PA

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:11:04
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 3 Jan 2007 15:58:06 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>Its always attack the messenger....

If the messenger is a troll I will.

>I am not on this newsgroup astroturfing for my livelihood.

Neither am I. My livelihood is dentistry.

>It was a simple question. If Homer Kelley was a bogey golfer
>and wrote barely comprehensible out of order jibberish, why
>is so much being made of it?

I got a simple question. I'm dyslexic. If the book is barely
comprehensible and gibberish why was I able to attain the level of
G.S.E.M. teaching it to myself? Why don't you buy a copy of the book,
read it and decide for yourself instead of relying on others to tell
you what to think and say?

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 23:15:33
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 3 Jan 2007 08:24:02 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
>
>Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
>
>http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
>
>And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
>an accomplishment in golf.

Ask Mac O'Grady, he was a student of Homer Kelley and credits him for
his knowledge of the golf swing.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 14:51:18
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Mike Dalecki wrote:

> It certainly can't be the snake oil of the month, given how long it's
> been around!
>
> I agree with you that the book is difficult, though I suspect a lot of
> people do not read it in the order Homer recommended (which is not
> sequential from the beginning). The book was designed to catalog the
> elements of the swing, and different swings. It is not a teaching tool,
> nor a particularly good learning tool. But if you want to understand
> what's going on, I think it's a terrific place to find out.
>
> I would argue that Homer's supposed ability as a 15-handicapper (I don't
> know if he was or not, but assume he was) is irrelevant. Further, I'd
> argue that a good swing is the least important element of scoring in
> single digits. I made the mistake, early in my (serious) golfing
> career, of assuming that the swing was the key to scoring well. How
> wrong I was!
>
> Short game, putting, course management, mental game--I would argue that
> these things are what's necessary to reach single digits.
>
> I doubt you'd be very impressed with my swing. I have an over-the-top
> tendency, and often get too quick with the swing. I'm not particularly
> long (a good day is hitting drives of 240-250). But I don't have any
> difficulty shooting in the 70s on a regular basis, and my current
> handicap is 7.3.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to find that Homer was more interested in
> describing the physics underlying the swing than he was in becoming an
> accomplished *golfer* (as opposed to an accomplished golf-club swinger).
> In that sense, it reminds me of Moe Norman. But that's a guess.
>
> And FWIW, I agree with you about low single digit handicappers
> understanding THEIR swing. While I'm not that good, I do have an
> understanding of how MY swing works (such as it is :), enough that I can
> make it perform for me. I can get the ball in the short grass mostly,
> get it on or near the green, mostly, and once there, get it in the hole.
>
> But it sure would be fun to have a great swing!
>
> And this leads to the inevitable question: If I've read TGM--which I
> have, with the help of David Laville to get through the tough
> parts--then why isn't my swing better?
>
> The answer is, I think, that the book isn't for learning a swing, or
> teaching one. It's for understanding it, but that won't tell you the
> proper drills to get rid of the over-the-top move, or the too-quick
> backswing. In the end (I believe), that largely has to come from
> somewhere else.
>
> Mike
>

Good post!

-Greg

Date: 03 Jan 2007 14:23:32
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Dave Lee wrote:

> There should be a TGM textbook, but the owners of TGM are unlikely to put
> one out. I believe that they benefit from the TGM code.
>
> dave

I always thought Laville should write it. He puts TGM into English
better than any other instructor I've read......(Evans, Blake,
Manzella....).

-Greg

Date: 03 Jan 2007 12:53:41
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:
> What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
>
> Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
>
> http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
>
> And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> an accomplishment in golf.
>
> I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> a bare minimum?
>
> -PA

If one were to carry this argument to say engineeering, then I could
say if you have never actually constrcuted a bridge, you are not
qualified to design a bridge, nor are you qualified to advise someone
on how to design a bridge. Add in that golf requires a certain level of
athletic ability, and you have to look at an issue like: could a person
with an IQ of 80 design a bridge?

A person can learn the biomechanics behind throwing a football and have
no arms at all. Another person can know nothing of the biomechanics of
throwing a football and easily throw a football 60 yards.

Many very good golfers know nothing of the biomechanics of the golf
swing. Many people who know the biomechanics of the golf swing very
well are lousy golfers. I know several very good golfers who
specifically don't want to know the biomechnaics of the golf swing
because, in their mind, such knowledge messes up their golf swing!

You cannot learn athletic ability. You can learn how to apply it if you
have it, but if you don't have it, you don't. Get over it and move on.
Otherwise you wind up forking out a lot of money and wasting a lot of
time with the plethora of snake oil salesmen in the golf instruction
industry...not to mention the snake oil offered in the golf club
industry!

Date: 03 Jan 2007 09:49:49
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Dave Lee wrote:
> "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
> >
> > Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
> >
> > http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
> >
> > And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> > an accomplishment in golf.
> >
> > I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> > of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> > a bare minimum?

> Just the opposite thought (that leads to the same place) just occurred to
> me. I think that your thought path was basically that his golfing results
> were kind of a proof that TGM isn't "the real thing".
>
> It occurs to me "is it conceivable that someone who never hit the ball
> well/consistently would ever recognize 'the real thing?' "
>
> Just a thought - I don't have a strongly held opinion on this.
>
> dave

I think ANYONE who consistently scores low single digit above
par across several years understands, by and large, the basic
principles upon which THEIR good swing is built. They may not
be able to communicate or teach it to others, but their golf game
is proof they "get it".

OTOH, someone who is avid and reasonably healthy and able-bodied
but is consistently playing no better than bogey golf across several
years, well, by and large, he doesn't "get it".

I'm not claiming the best teachers are the best golfers, but in my
experience every reasonable teacher has been a low single digit
handicap equivalent golfer. So when I saw that Homer was a 15
handicapper in that Sports Illustrated article, and that his book is
widely regarded as barely comprehensible even to the most literate
engineers, I wondered why The Golfing Machine is held in such high
regard. Why isn't it simply viewed as snake oil of the month? Is
there something I am missing?

-PA

Date: 05 Jan 2007 19:30:54
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2007 09:00:53 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> $35.00 is too expensive? My bet is that you're still in high school.
> >
> >
> >Yes $35 is too much.
>
> Yet I bet this same clown will spend $1200 for a set of irons, $800
> for a driver, $130 for a golf shirt and $200 for a pair of golf shoes
> so he can stand on the first tee hoping others think he must be a
> really good golfer.

I spend money on golf if it translates to an expected improvement
in scoring, increased comfort for me during play (just bought new
shoes), or increased enjoyment on the course. I've spent less
than $100 on clubs in the last 5 years, and less than $200 in attire.

I think that in the last 20 years, there has been
1) no improvement in putter design whatsoever that would improve
scoring
2) no improvement in iron or wedge design that would improve scoring
(5 iron and higher)
3) Metal woods and hybrids are a clear improvement, but it translates
to at most 1-2 strokes per round, since it does nothing to help
inside 150 yards where 75% of shotmaking occurs.
4) Golf balls are better, too, maybe a half shot per round.

I wonder what possesses people who get 6 new drivers in one
year to find one they like.

And I will NEVER spend $4000 to learn Homer Kelley's book better.

-PA

Date: 03 Jan 2007 23:15:46
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 3 Jan 2007 09:49:49 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>I'm not claiming the best teachers are the best golfers, but in my
>experience every reasonable teacher has been a low single digit
>handicap equivalent golfer. So when I saw that Homer was a 15
>handicapper in that Sports Illustrated article, and that his book is
>widely regarded as barely comprehensible even to the most literate
>engineers, I wondered why The Golfing Machine is held in such high
>regard. Why isn't it simply viewed as snake oil of the month? Is
>there something I am missing?

Yes, a copy of the book so you can sound informed.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 16:46:18
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

SKIPPER wrote:
> Dave Lee wrote:
>> "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
>>>
>>> Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
>>>
>>> http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
>>>
>>> And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
>>> an accomplishment in golf.
>>>
>>> I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
>>> of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
>>> a bare minimum?
>
>> Just the opposite thought (that leads to the same place) just occurred to
>> me. I think that your thought path was basically that his golfing results
>> were kind of a proof that TGM isn't "the real thing".
>>
>> It occurs to me "is it conceivable that someone who never hit the ball
>> well/consistently would ever recognize 'the real thing?' "
>>
>> Just a thought - I don't have a strongly held opinion on this.
>>
>> dave
>
>
> I think ANYONE who consistently scores low single digit above
> par across several years understands, by and large, the basic
> principles upon which THEIR good swing is built. They may not
> be able to communicate or teach it to others, but their golf game
> is proof they "get it".
>
> OTOH, someone who is avid and reasonably healthy and able-bodied
> but is consistently playing no better than bogey golf across several
> years, well, by and large, he doesn't "get it".
>
> I'm not claiming the best teachers are the best golfers, but in my
> experience every reasonable teacher has been a low single digit
> handicap equivalent golfer. So when I saw that Homer was a 15
> handicapper in that Sports Illustrated article, and that his book is
> widely regarded as barely comprehensible even to the most literate
> engineers, I wondered why The Golfing Machine is held in such high
> regard. Why isn't it simply viewed as snake oil of the month? Is
> there something I am missing?
>
> -PA
>

It certainly can't be the snake oil of the month, given how long it's
been around!

I agree with you that the book is difficult, though I suspect a lot of
people do not read it in the order Homer recommended (which is not
sequential from the beginning). The book was designed to catalog the
elements of the swing, and different swings. It is not a teaching tool,
nor a particularly good learning tool. But if you want to understand
what's going on, I think it's a terrific place to find out.

I would argue that Homer's supposed ability as a 15-handicapper (I don't
know if he was or not, but assume he was) is irrelevant. Further, I'd
argue that a good swing is the least important element of scoring in
single digits. I made the mistake, early in my (serious) golfing
career, of assuming that the swing was the key to scoring well. How
wrong I was!

Short game, putting, course management, mental game--I would argue that
these things are what's necessary to reach single digits.

I doubt you'd be very impressed with my swing. I have an over-the-top
tendency, and often get too quick with the swing. I'm not particularly
long (a good day is hitting drives of 240-250). But I don't have any
difficulty shooting in the 70s on a regular basis, and my current
handicap is 7.3.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Homer was more interested in
describing the physics underlying the swing than he was in becoming an
accomplished *golfer* (as opposed to an accomplished golf-club swinger).
In that sense, it reminds me of Moe Norman. But that's a guess.

And FWIW, I agree with you about low single digit handicappers
understanding THEIR swing. While I'm not that good, I do have an
understanding of how MY swing works (such as it is :), enough that I can
make it perform for me. I can get the ball in the short grass mostly,
get it on or near the green, mostly, and once there, get it in the hole.

But it sure would be fun to have a great swing!

And this leads to the inevitable question: If I've read TGM--which I
have, with the help of David Laville to get through the tough
parts--then why isn't my swing better?

The answer is, I think, that the book isn't for learning a swing, or
teaching one. It's for understanding it, but that won't tell you the
proper drills to get rid of the over-the-top move, or the too-quick
backswing. In the end (I believe), that largely has to come from
somewhere else.

Mike

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Report http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!

Date: 03 Jan 2007 23:16:03
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:46:18 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

>I agree with you that the book is difficult, though I suspect a lot of
>people do not read it in the order Homer recommended (which is not
>sequential from the beginning).

Some people don't even read it, such as this Skipper character, and
try to convince us how faulty it and it's author is. Remember I use
to have an article on my web site that said some of TGM's biggest
critics are people who have never read the book? Case in point.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 21:12:06
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1167846589.245286.197120@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Lee wrote:
> > "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
> > >
> > > Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
> > >
> > > http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
> > >
> > > And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> > > an accomplishment in golf.
> > >
> > > I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> > > of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> > > a bare minimum?
>
> > Just the opposite thought (that leads to the same place) just occurred
to
> > me. I think that your thought path was basically that his golfing
results
> > were kind of a proof that TGM isn't "the real thing".
> >
> > It occurs to me "is it conceivable that someone who never hit the ball
> > well/consistently would ever recognize 'the real thing?' "
> >
> > Just a thought - I don't have a strongly held opinion on this.
> >
> > dave
>
>
> I think ANYONE who consistently scores low single digit above
> par across several years understands, by and large, the basic
> principles upon which THEIR good swing is built. They may not
> be able to communicate or teach it to others, but their golf game
> is proof they "get it".
>
> OTOH, someone who is avid and reasonably healthy and able-bodied
> but is consistently playing no better than bogey golf across several
> years, well, by and large, he doesn't "get it".
>
> I'm not claiming the best teachers are the best golfers, but in my
> experience every reasonable teacher has been a low single digit
> handicap equivalent golfer. So when I saw that Homer was a 15
> handicapper in that Sports Illustrated article, and that his book is
> widely regarded as barely comprehensible even to the most literate
> engineers, I wondered why The Golfing Machine is held in such high
> regard. Why isn't it simply viewed as snake oil of the month? Is
> there something I am missing?
>
> -PA
>

TGM is unique in that it really isn't a 'how to do it' book, but a 'all the
ways it can possibly be done' book (good and bad ways) along with the
"imperatives" (things that are essential to the good ways.

It is hard to read in part because it really isn't particularly well
written. But the real problem is that it is a reference manual. Learning to
practice medicine would be close to impossible from an extremely high
quality and complete medical reference manual. Terms would be defined in
other terms that are defined in other terms - none of which you understand.
Kind of the essense of a reference manual.

I liken it to trying to learn the Lithuanian language from a Lithuanian
dictionary (written in Lithuanian). It would be very hard, but that doesn't
mean that it is a bad (or a good) dictionary.

There should be a TGM textbook, but the owners of TGM are unlikely to put
one out. I believe that they benefit from the TGM code.

dave

Date: 03 Jan 2007 17:28:55
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
>
> Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
>
> http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
>
> And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> an accomplishment in golf.
>
> I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> a bare minimum?
>
> -PA
>

Just the opposite thought (that leads to the same place) just occurred to
me. I think that your thought path was basically that his golfing results
were kind of a proof that TGM isn't "the real thing".

It occurs to me "is it conceivable that someone who never hit the ball
well/consistently would ever recognize 'the real thing?' "

Just a thought - I don't have a strongly held opinion on this.

dave

Date: 03 Jan 2007 08:46:34
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Dave Lee wrote:
> "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
> >
> > Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
> >
> > http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
> >
> > And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> > an accomplishment in golf.
> >
> > I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> > of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> > a bare minimum?
> >
> > -PA
> >
>
> IMHO, knowing and doing are very different - particularly in golf.
>
> Playing to a 15 with his level of knowledge of the game is somewhat
> suprising, I would admit. OTOH, he might well have spent 20 hours/day
> tinkering with his book and not making progress on his own swing/game.
>
> dave

Who has the authority to author a definitive book on the swing

Someone who can sound excessively complicated and cannot play
even to an average avid amateur level

or...

Someone who is a multiple world champion and sounds simple in
instruction..

before you answer, I am a PhD engineer with training in
biomechanics....and I
can tell you that an engineer who cannot communicate his points
effectively to
his target audience probably doesn't understand it himself (to
paraphrase Feynmann).

-PA

Date: 03 Jan 2007 23:15:41
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On 3 Jan 2007 08:46:34 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>before you answer, I am a PhD engineer with training in
>biomechanics....

Right. The closes you come to being an engineer is driving a train.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 17:25:02
From: Lag
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

Laville if you could only stop the personal attacks and engaged in this
discourse you could add so much :_(

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:59eop25atgj811gbjumi87dmuv5mveqb2o@4ax.com...
> On 3 Jan 2007 08:46:34 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>before you answer, I am a PhD engineer with training in
>>biomechanics....
>
> Right. The closes you come to being an engineer is driving a train.
>
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
>

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:10:06
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:25:02 -0800, "Lag" <lag@earthlink.net > wrote:

>Laville if you could only stop the personal attacks and engaged in this
>discourse you could add so much :_(

I have no mercy for trolls and I'm sorry you think we should.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 16:58:01
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1167842794.556909.227600@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Lee wrote:
> > "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
> > >
> > > Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
> > >
> > > http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
> > >
> > > And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> > > an accomplishment in golf.
> > >
> > > I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> > > of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> > > a bare minimum?
> > >
> > > -PA
> > >
> >
> > IMHO, knowing and doing are very different - particularly in golf.
> >
> > Playing to a 15 with his level of knowledge of the game is somewhat
> > suprising, I would admit. OTOH, he might well have spent 20 hours/day
> > tinkering with his book and not making progress on his own swing/game.
> >
> > dave
>
> Who has the authority to author a definitive book on the swing
>
> Someone who can sound excessively complicated and cannot play
> even to an average avid amateur level
>
> or...
>
> Someone who is a multiple world champion and sounds simple in
> instruction..
>
> before you answer, I am a PhD engineer with training in
> biomechanics....and I
> can tell you that an engineer who cannot communicate his points
> effectively to
> his target audience probably doesn't understand it himself (to
> paraphrase Feynmann).
>
> -PA
>

I agree 100% about engineers who cannot communicate solutions to executives
(I'm also an engineer). I ended up going back to school and finished my
career in the software business, but I remember the advice from "the world's
oldest programmer" (I worked for him - he was a tremendous software
manager). That advice was

Beware of programmers bearing complicated solutions.

I am equally suspicious of instruction that is incomprehensible and
instruction that comes from folks who appear to just 'take to the game
naturally' (as they will possibly have no insight at all regarding the
issues that an average person faces when learning the game). Either might
work out fine, but both are far from ideal, IMHO.

dave

Date: 04 Jan 2007 01:00:37
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:58:01 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

>I agree 100% about engineers who cannot communicate solutions to executives
>(I'm also an engineer). I ended up going back to school and finished my
>career in the software business, but I remember the advice from "the world's
>oldest programmer" (I worked for him - he was a tremendous software
>manager). That advice was
>
>Beware of programmers bearing complicated solutions.

Great line. Useful in many fields.

Date: 03 Jan 2007 16:38:26
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1167841442.251883.111530@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What did Homer Kelley accomplish as a golfer?
>
> Was he really about a 15 handicapper as indicated in SI in 2003?
>
> http://www.thegolfingmachine.com/docs/Sports_Illustrated_July_2003.pdf
>
> And if so, why would anyone take him seriously? I mean, that's hardly
> an accomplishment in golf.
>
> I mean, if you had REALLY discovered the physics and biomechanics
> of the golf swing, couldn't you make it to a single digit handicap at
> a bare minimum?
>
> -PA
>

IMHO, knowing and doing are very different - particularly in golf.

Playing to a 15 with his level of knowledge of the game is somewhat
suprising, I would admit. OTOH, he might well have spent 20 hours/day
tinkering with his book and not making progress on his own swing/game.

dave

Date: 04 Jan 2007 21:56:02
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote
>
> he might well have spent 20 hours/day
> tinkering with his book

It takes that kind of dedication just to read it and make sense of it.

Randy

Date: 03 Jan 2007 23:15:19
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:38:26 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

>Playing to a 15 with his level of knowledge of the game is somewhat
>suprising, I would admit. OTOH, he might well have spent 20 hours/day
>tinkering with his book and not making progress on his own swing/game.

Homer Kelley shot a 76 the first time he ever played golf. This was
the spark that started The Golfing Machine. He had been keeping notes
up to that point and one day decided to sit down and outline what he
was doing. What he thought would be a 3 day project turned out to be
a 28 year study of the golf swing he published in a book titled The
Golfing Machine. The reason he played to a 15 was because he was
always researching and experimenting with the swing.

It's all there on the web site but trolls never bother to educate
themselves with the facts, just who will take their bate.

BTW, know who this blakestah guy is? He used to post under
"blakestah" not "skipper" and posted his driving range theories as if
they were universal fact. They were so laughable I thought he was
LLLarry posting under a different moniker.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 18:25:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> Homer Kelley shot a 76 the first time he ever played golf.

On the front nine of a par three course?

Date: 04 Jan 2007 03:09:35
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:25:30 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:

>David Laville wrote:
>> Homer Kelley shot a 76 the first time he ever played golf.
>
>On the front nine of a par three course?

Regulation par 72. It was not the first time he picked up a club. He
had been practicing at a range.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Jan 2007 22:16:54
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Homer Kelley's accomplishments as a golfer

David Laville wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:25:30 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> David Laville wrote:
>>> Homer Kelley shot a 76 the first time he ever played golf.
>>
>> On the front nine of a par three course?
>
> Regulation par 72. It was not the first time he picked up a club. He
> had been practicing at a range.

Ah.