golf swing

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 08 Dec 2006 07:14:04
From: miki
Subject: golf swing

I have read almost everything written about the golf swing and tried
many pros over these long and short golf years, but the only course or
instruction that makes complete sense(once you re-read and practice to
find out you must open your mind) is http://golfswinger.com. Honestly,
just go there and read and practice you will be rewarded whether your a
beginner or a tour player! Hope this helps all as it helped me. the
other good course (don't know if its still on the web) is "Gravity
Golf"
miki

Date: 15 Dec 2006 05:38:16
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Dec 14, 1:37 am, "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 11, 12:48 pm, "GaryC_47" <garyc...@myrealbox.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "glfnaz" <glf...@qwesttrash.com> wrote in messagenews:457cd9a2$0$91106$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>
> > > "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > >news:h94fh.22017$aJ6.248187@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> > >> "glfnaz" <glf...@qwesttrash.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:457ccbf8$0$502$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>
> > >>> "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > >>>news:UN3fh.22011$aJ6.236952@wagner.videotron.net...
> > >>>> David Laville, no it's not my logic. It appears to be yours.
> > >>>> Try again.
>
> > >>>> tin Levac
>
> > >>> I saw your video too.
> > >>> It's rare to see a guy shank a driver off the hosel.
> > >>> Did you learn that by visual techniques?
>
> > >> If I ever meet you, please remind me to not trust your judgement.
> > >> Thank you.
>
> > >> tin Levac
>
> > > I know a hosel shot when someone is stupid enough to post one.
> > > Nice
> > > Did you practice that?If you're referring to this youtube swing video he posted:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62XKd0EIitg
>
> > It's NOT a shank. What you see going right is obviously the tee. You
> > both owe him an apology.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -I haven't figured out how to single-step through youtube videos, yet,
> but after watching it several times, I did see the ball. It heads up,
> at what seems like an abnormally high angle, and
> only slightly right, The stuff that flies off dead right is not the
> ball -
> most likely the tee.
>
> The ball was either skyed, or the wrists flipped, adding loft to
> the clubface. Maybe both. Unless that was a 9W.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

After looking at this some more, I have to wonder just what caused the
tee to head off so sharply to the right? The only answer that makes
any sense to me is that the clubface had to be extremely open,
and the wrists flipped (clubhead ahead of the hand at impact).
That would also add a lot of loft to the clubface and account for
the weak high "push" off to the right.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 09:39:37
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166189896.612432.262860@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Dec 14, 1:37 am, "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 12:48 pm, "GaryC_47" <garyc...@myrealbox.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "glfnaz" <glf...@qwesttrash.com> wrote in
>> > messagenews:457cd9a2$0$91106$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>
>> > > "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> > >news:h94fh.22017$aJ6.248187@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> > >> "glfnaz" <glf...@qwesttrash.com> wrote in message
>> > >>news:457ccbf8$0$502$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>
>> > >>> "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> > >>>news:UN3fh.22011$aJ6.236952@wagner.videotron.net...
>> > >>>> David Laville, no it's not my logic. It appears to be yours.
>> > >>>> Try again.
>>
>> > >>>> tin Levac
>>
>> > >>> I saw your video too.
>> > >>> It's rare to see a guy shank a driver off the hosel.
>> > >>> Did you learn that by visual techniques?
>>
>> > >> If I ever meet you, please remind me to not trust your judgement.
>> > >> Thank you.
>>
>> > >> tin Levac
>>
>> > > I know a hosel shot when someone is stupid enough to post one.
>> > > Nice
>> > > Did you practice that?If you're referring to this youtube swing video
>> > > he posted:
>>
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62XKd0EIitg
>>
>> > It's NOT a shank. What you see going right is obviously the tee. You
>> > both owe him an apology.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -I
>> > haven't figured out how to single-step through youtube videos, yet,
>> but after watching it several times, I did see the ball. It heads up,
>> at what seems like an abnormally high angle, and
>> only slightly right, The stuff that flies off dead right is not the
>> ball -
>> most likely the tee.
>>
>> The ball was either skyed, or the wrists flipped, adding loft to
>> the clubface. Maybe both. Unless that was a 9W.- Hide quoted text --
>> Show quoted text -
>
>
> After looking at this some more, I have to wonder just what caused the
> tee to head off so sharply to the right? The only answer that makes
> any sense to me is that the clubface had to be extremely open,
> and the wrists flipped (clubhead ahead of the hand at impact).
> That would also add a lot of loft to the clubface and account for
> the weak high "push" off to the right.
>

The flight of the ball could well have been right to left, and the apparency
of the starting line could easily have been exaggerated - much like on TV
when a shot seems to be wildly right or left, it ends up on the OTHER side
of the pin that what you expected.

It might have been struck toward the toe a bit, as well.

Date: 13 Dec 2006 23:37:09
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Dec 11, 12:48 pm, "GaryC_47" <garyc...@myrealbox.ca > wrote:
> "glfnaz" <glf...@qwesttrash.com> wrote in messagenews:457cd9a2$0$91106$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> >news:h94fh.22017$aJ6.248187@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> >> "glfnaz" <glf...@qwesttrash.com> wrote in message
> >>news:457ccbf8$0$502$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>
> >>> "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:UN3fh.22011$aJ6.236952@wagner.videotron.net...
> >>>> David Laville, no it's not my logic. It appears to be yours.
> >>>> Try again.
>
> >>>> tin Levac
>
> >>> I saw your video too.
> >>> It's rare to see a guy shank a driver off the hosel.
> >>> Did you learn that by visual techniques?
>
> >> If I ever meet you, please remind me to not trust your judgement.
> >> Thank you.
>
> >> tin Levac
>
> > I know a hosel shot when someone is stupid enough to post one.
> > Nice
> > Did you practice that?If you're referring to this youtube swing video he posted:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62XKd0EIitg
>
> It's NOT a shank. What you see going right is obviously the tee. You
> both owe him an apology.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

I haven't figured out how to single-step through youtube videos, yet,
but after watching it several times, I did see the ball. It heads up,
at what seems like an abnormally high angle, and
only slightly right, The stuff that flies off dead right is not the
ball -
most likely the tee.

The ball was either skyed, or the wrists flipped, adding loft to
the clubface. Maybe both. Unless that was a 9W.

Date: 14 Dec 2006 13:31:56
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166081828.967804.318950@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Dec 11, 12:48 pm, "GaryC_47" <garyc...@myrealbox.ca> wrote:
>> "glfnaz" <glf...@qwesttrash.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:457cd9a2$0$91106$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:h94fh.22017$aJ6.248187@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> >> "glfnaz" <glf...@qwesttrash.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:457ccbf8$0$502$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>
>> >>> "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> >>>news:UN3fh.22011$aJ6.236952@wagner.videotron.net...
>> >>>> David Laville, no it's not my logic. It appears to be yours.
>> >>>> Try again.
>>
>> >>>> tin Levac
>>
>> >>> I saw your video too.
>> >>> It's rare to see a guy shank a driver off the hosel.
>> >>> Did you learn that by visual techniques?
>>
>> >> If I ever meet you, please remind me to not trust your judgement.
>> >> Thank you.
>>
>> >> tin Levac
>>
>> > I know a hosel shot when someone is stupid enough to post one.
>> > Nice
>> > Did you practice that?If you're referring to this youtube swing video
>> > he posted:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62XKd0EIitg
>>
>> It's NOT a shank. What you see going right is obviously the tee. You
>> both owe him an apology.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> I haven't figured out how to single-step through youtube videos, yet,
> but after watching it several times, I did see the ball. It heads up,
> at what seems like an abnormally high angle, and
> only slightly right, The stuff that flies off dead right is not the
> ball -
> most likely the tee.
>
> The ball was either skyed, or the wrists flipped, adding loft to
> the clubface. Maybe both. Unless that was a 9W.
>

Use FireFox, the video clip downloader plugin and the FLV video player, this
will allow you to download and view YouTube videos offline. I don't know if
the FLV player allows frame by frame playback control but it's free and
worth a try.

As far as the content of the video clip is concerned, I have a biased
opinion on the subject: I am the player striking the ball. Therefore, I
should know what I did or did not do and what the ball did or did not do.
All you are doing is discussing your perception of an image on a computer
screen. Since you were not present at the filming of the video clip, you
have only half of the information. I, on the other hand, have all of the
information.

If you pay attention to the comment for the video clip for a moment, you
will notice that I have included some detail as to the content of the video
clip. Obviously, for what I wrote to have any value, you'd have to believe
me on my word.

But don't mind me, I'm only the guy in the video clip. Do go on, argue at
your leasure.

tin Levac

Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:47:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:31:56 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

>
>"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1166081828.967804.318950@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

>> I haven't figured out how to single-step through youtube videos, yet,
>> but after watching it several times, I did see the ball. It heads up,
>> at what seems like an abnormally high angle, and
>> only slightly right, The stuff that flies off dead right is not the
>> ball -
>> most likely the tee.
>>
>> The ball was either skyed, or the wrists flipped, adding loft to
>> the clubface. Maybe both. Unless that was a 9W.
>>
>
<clip >
>As far as the content of the video clip is concerned, I have a biased
>opinion on the subject: I am the player striking the ball. Therefore, I
>should know what I did or did not do and what the ball did or did not do.

You should, but since you've admitted having a biased opinion, there's
now a doubt about the content of the video.

>All you are doing is discussing your perception of an image on a computer
>screen. Since you were not present at the filming of the video clip, you
>have only half of the information. I, on the other hand, have all of the
>information.
>
But you've admitted bias.
>If you pay attention to the comment for the video clip for a moment, you
>will notice that I have included some detail as to the content of the video
>clip. Obviously, for what I wrote to have any value, you'd have to believe
>me on my word.
>
But you've admitted bias.
>But don't mind me, I'm only the guy in the video clip. Do go on, argue at
>your leasure.
>
Or even leisure.
bk

Date: 14 Dec 2006 14:47:13
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:5q63o21469te3covju59ppuhre2om4513j@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:31:56 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1166081828.967804.318950@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> I haven't figured out how to single-step through youtube videos, yet,
>>> but after watching it several times, I did see the ball. It heads up,
>>> at what seems like an abnormally high angle, and
>>> only slightly right, The stuff that flies off dead right is not the
>>> ball -
>>> most likely the tee.
>>>
>>> The ball was either skyed, or the wrists flipped, adding loft to
>>> the clubface. Maybe both. Unless that was a 9W.
>>>
>>
> <clip>
>>As far as the content of the video clip is concerned, I have a biased
>>opinion on the subject: I am the player striking the ball. Therefore, I
>>should know what I did or did not do and what the ball did or did not do.
>
> You should, but since you've admitted having a biased opinion, there's
> now a doubt about the content of the video.
>
>>All you are doing is discussing your perception of an image on a computer
>>screen. Since you were not present at the filming of the video clip, you
>>have only half of the information. I, on the other hand, have all of the
>>information.
>>
> But you've admitted bias.
>>If you pay attention to the comment for the video clip for a moment, you
>>will notice that I have included some detail as to the content of the
>>video
>>clip. Obviously, for what I wrote to have any value, you'd have to believe
>>me on my word.
>>
> But you've admitted bias.
>>But don't mind me, I'm only the guy in the video clip. Do go on, argue at
>>your leasure.
>>
> Or even leisure.
> bk

Thank you for the correction.

Admitting bias is only fair. Explaning the bias was the second step, the
content of which you missed entirely.

I am the player striking the ball. That is where my bias comes from. It
comes not from a petty desire at humiliating someone else. My bias comes
from knowing the facts first hand. I also have three others whom will swear
at the facts depicted in the video clip since they were present during the
filming of this same video clip.

Now, if you wish to pursue the bias angle further, please be advised that
you have been shown the facts. If your opinion, or anyone else's for that
matter, of the video clip in question differs from my personal experience,
my personal experience and my memory of it will override your opinion by
default. Would you rather it was you in that video clip? If that was the
case, you'd go by the same logic, were you to know what you were doing, of
course.

Wait a minute, is that what's in question, here? Whether I know what I'm
doing or not? Well now, that's also a matter of personal experience versus
second hand viewing. I have the upper hand in either case.

By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.

Sorry.

Let's get back to the first post I made here, shall we? Would you care to
reply?

---
"miki" <parpluseagle@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165590844.746710.228750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have read almost everything written about the golf swing and tried
> many pros over these long and short golf years, but the only course or
> instruction that makes complete sense(once you re-read and practice to
> find out you must open your mind) is http://golfswinger.com. Honestly,
> just go there and read and practice you will be rewarded whether your a
> beginner or a tour player! Hope this helps all as it helped me. the
> other good course (don't know if its still on the web) is "Gravity
> Golf"
> miki
>

"You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."

The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've been
learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different now?
---

tin Levac

Date: 14 Dec 2006 15:37:24
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: golf swing

"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:RShgh.525$br3.43948@weber.videotron.net...
>
> By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
> Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
> that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
> together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>
>
tin: I have observed thousands of golf shots like that one over decades
of teaching, and am responsible for my own share!: the ball is caromed off
the toe of the club. No conspiracy here: I did not consult anyone else: I
am the only one who saw it correctly.

Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:38:44
From: GaryC_47
Subject: Re: golf swing

Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:18:01
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:8Aigh.409$Iz.5@bigfe9...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:RShgh.525$br3.43948@weber.videotron.net...
>>
>> By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
>> Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
>> that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
>> together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>>
>>
> tin: I have observed thousands of golf shots like that one over decades
> of teaching, and am responsible for my own share!: the ball is caromed off
> the toe of the club. No conspiracy here: I did not consult anyone else: I
> am the only one who saw it correctly.
>

No amount of experience will put you inside the video clip in question. I
know that for a fact. Unless we speak of personal experience: Mine. I assure
you, I was there when I was filmed striking that ball. Either you believe me
or you don't. Read the comments I made for this video clip. You believe
those comments or you don't. It's a matter of trust. You either trust my
judgement as it concerns my personal experience or you don't. If you don't
then I am forced to disregard your opinon on the matter. If you do believe
me then your opinion on the matter must include my comments as is. If your
opinion and my comments somehow differ fundamentally, my personal experience
thus my comments override your opinion by default.

As I wrote in another post, you do not need to consult with others to agree
with them, you just have to see the same thing and react the same way. In
doing so, you agree with them whether you want to or not. Just like going to
the polls. In fact, as you teach, you use a related mechanism in which you
expect the student to learn by watching something you do. Something you do
exactly the same way for every student that sees you. You count on this
mechanism to transmit your knowledge. This method is watch and learn. It's
been used for thousands of years.

tin Levac

Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:51:47
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: golf swing

"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:Zbjgh.672$br3.52040@weber.videotron.net...
>
> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
> news:8Aigh.409$Iz.5@bigfe9...
>>
>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:RShgh.525$br3.43948@weber.videotron.net...
>>>
>>> By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
>>> Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
>>> that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
>>> together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>>>
>>>
>> tin: I have observed thousands of golf shots like that one over
>> decades of teaching, and am responsible for my own share!: the ball is
>> caromed off the toe of the club. No conspiracy here: I did not consult
>> anyone else: I am the only one who saw it correctly.
>>
>
> No amount of experience will put you inside the video clip in question. I
> know that for a fact. Unless we speak of personal experience: Mine. I
> assure you, I was there when I was filmed striking that ball. Either you
> believe me or you don't. Read the comments I made for this video clip. You
> believe those comments or you don't. It's a matter of trust. You either
> trust my judgement as it concerns my personal experience or you don't. If
> you don't then I am forced to disregard your opinon on the matter. If you
> do believe me then your opinion on the matter must include my comments as
> is. If your opinion and my comments somehow differ fundamentally, my
> personal experience thus my comments override your opinion by default.
>
> As I wrote in another post, you do not need to consult with others to
> agree with them, you just have to see the same thing and react the same
> way. In doing so, you agree with them whether you want to or not. Just
> like going to the polls. In fact, as you teach, you use a related
> mechanism in which you expect the student to learn by watching something
> you do. Something you do exactly the same way for every student that sees
> you. You count on this mechanism to transmit your knowledge. This method
> is watch and learn. It's been used for thousands of years.
>
>
> tin Levac
>
>

tin, my apology: someone sent me a different version of that clip that
enabled me to see that indeed the ball went pretty much straight out there
and that what I saw was the tee flying off to the right.

My bad. And at the time of my post I had not read YOUR version of what
happened to the ball. I was just commenting on what appeared in the vid,
since posts about it were different in conclusion: again, I apologize for
the short-sighted misjudgment.

George

Date: 14 Dec 2006 23:02:48
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:51:47 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:

>tin, my apology: someone sent me a different version of that clip that
>enabled me to see that indeed the ball went pretty much straight out there
>and that what I saw was the tee flying off to the right.
>
>My bad. And at the time of my post I had not read YOUR version of what
>happened to the ball. I was just commenting on what appeared in the vid,
>since posts about it were different in conclusion: again, I apologize for
>the short-sighted misjudgment.

Don't apologize to this guy, he's a troll. Who would post a link to a
video clip of themselves hitting the ball way right unless they wanted
to get attention out of it? I'm sending you a picture of the ball in
flight and you can see how far right he hits it.

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

Date: 14 Dec 2006 23:25:56
From: Rog
Subject: Re: golf swing

Out of ten:

Levac 10
Hibbard 7 and climbing
Laville 4 very disappointing
Brazee 0 Usual drivel

Rog

Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:13:23
From: Rog
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Rog" <rog@repairman.com > wrote in message news:elsmhs$dbs$1@aioe.org...
> Out of ten:
>
>
> Levac 10
> Hibbard 7 and climbing
> Laville 4 very disappointing
> Brazee 0 Usual drivel
>
> Rog
>

Apologies to Mr Brazee, I meant that bitter and twisted poster Bobby Knight.
Rog

Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:24:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:13:23 -0000, "Rog" <rog@repairman.com > wrote:

>
>"Rog" <rog@repairman.com> wrote in message news:elsmhs$dbs$1@aioe.org...
>> Out of ten:
>>
>>
>> Levac 10
>> Hibbard 7 and climbing
>> Laville 4 very disappointing
>> Brazee 0 Usual drivel
>>
>> Rog
>>
>
>Apologies to Mr Brazee, I meant that bitter and twisted poster Bobby Knight.
>Rog
>
Thanks. I felt left out by the poster, Rob, who is obviously
retarded.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:28:10
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:24:51 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:13:23 -0000, "Rog" <rog@repairman.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rog" <rog@repairman.com> wrote in message news:elsmhs$dbs$1@aioe.org...
>>> Out of ten:
>>>
>>>
>>> Levac 10
>>> Hibbard 7 and climbing
>>> Laville 4 very disappointing
>>> Brazee 0 Usual drivel
>>>
>>> Rog
>>>
>>
>>Apologies to Mr Brazee, I meant that bitter and twisted poster Bobby Knight.
>>Rog
>>
>Thanks. I felt left out by the poster, Rob, who is obviously
>retarded.

Oops... apologies to Rob. That should be Rog, who obviously is a
close butt buddy of the biased one, who shall remain anonymous.
--
___,
\o

Date: 15 Dec 2006 00:02:55
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:25:56 -0000, "Rog" <rog@repairman.com > wrote:

>Out of ten:
>
>
>Levac 10
>Hibbard 7 and climbing
>Laville 4 very disappointing
>Brazee 0 Usual drivel

I'm sorry you consider my pointing out a troll to be very
disappointing.

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

Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:26:24
From: Rog
Subject: Re: golf swing

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:pdp3o2tvmrh21mvia3gt9f03b20rnbv6jb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:25:56 -0000, "Rog" <rog@repairman.com> wrote:
>
>>Out of ten:
>>
>>
>>Levac 10
>>Hibbard 7 and climbing
>>Laville 4 very disappointing
>>Brazee 0 Usual drivel
>
> I'm sorry you consider my pointing out a troll to be very
> disappointing.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

The reason being is that I follow your posting re TGM and prefer to not see
you in the 'personal attack' mode
Rog
Trying to overcome 6-D-2

Date: 14 Dec 2006 18:27:43
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

Date: 14 Dec 2006 18:18:24
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:dkl3o2h3n0pqrb0ib9eclla54rdlqjrco2@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:51:47 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>>tin, my apology: someone sent me a different version of that clip that
>>enabled me to see that indeed the ball went pretty much straight out there
>>and that what I saw was the tee flying off to the right.
>>
>>My bad. And at the time of my post I had not read YOUR version of what
>>happened to the ball. I was just commenting on what appeared in the vid,
>>since posts about it were different in conclusion: again, I apologize for
>>the short-sighted misjudgment.
>
> Don't apologize to this guy, he's a troll. Who would post a link to a
> video clip of themselves hitting the ball way right unless they wanted
> to get attention out of it? I'm sending you a picture of the ball in
> flight and you can see how far right he hits it.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

David Laville, if you read the video clip comments, you will know exactly
how far right of my target I sent the ball as well as overall distance and
nature of contact with the ball. I say again, I must know what I did in the
video clip in question because I am the man that strikes the ball in the
video clip.

tin Levac

Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:55:24
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:Ptkgh.1491$LW4.1400@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:Zbjgh.672$br3.52040@weber.videotron.net...
>>
>> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
>> news:8Aigh.409$Iz.5@bigfe9...
>>>
>>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:RShgh.525$br3.43948@weber.videotron.net...
>>>>
>>>> By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
>>>> Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
>>>> that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
>>>> together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> tin: I have observed thousands of golf shots like that one over
>>> decades of teaching, and am responsible for my own share!: the ball is
>>> caromed off the toe of the club. No conspiracy here: I did not consult
>>> anyone else: I am the only one who saw it correctly.
>>>
>>
>> No amount of experience will put you inside the video clip in question. I
>> know that for a fact. Unless we speak of personal experience: Mine. I
>> assure you, I was there when I was filmed striking that ball. Either you
>> believe me or you don't. Read the comments I made for this video clip.
>> You believe those comments or you don't. It's a matter of trust. You
>> either trust my judgement as it concerns my personal experience or you
>> don't. If you don't then I am forced to disregard your opinon on the
>> matter. If you do believe me then your opinion on the matter must include
>> my comments as is. If your opinion and my comments somehow differ
>> fundamentally, my personal experience thus my comments override your
>> opinion by default.
>>
>> As I wrote in another post, you do not need to consult with others to
>> agree with them, you just have to see the same thing and react the same
>> way. In doing so, you agree with them whether you want to or not. Just
>> like going to the polls. In fact, as you teach, you use a related
>> mechanism in which you expect the student to learn by watching something
>> you do. Something you do exactly the same way for every student that sees
>> you. You count on this mechanism to transmit your knowledge. This method
>> is watch and learn. It's been used for thousands of years.
>>
>>
>> tin Levac
>>
>>
>
>
> tin, my apology: someone sent me a different version of that clip that
> enabled me to see that indeed the ball went pretty much straight out there
> and that what I saw was the tee flying off to the right.
>
> My bad. And at the time of my post I had not read YOUR version of what
> happened to the ball. I was just commenting on what appeared in the vid,
> since posts about it were different in conclusion: again, I apologize for
> the short-sighted misjudgment.
>
> George
>
>

Accepted.

tin Levac

Date: 14 Dec 2006 14:16:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:47:13 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

>By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
>Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
>that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
>together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>
>Sorry.

You're either very new here, or seriously mentally challenged . To
look at the list of posters above and think that this group would be
ganging up in unison is preposterous. Hell, I can't imagine that
bunch agreeing, in advance, to agree on anything.
___,
\o

Date: 14 Dec 2006 23:02:47
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:16:17 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:47:13 -0500, "tin Levac"
><vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
>>Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
>>that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
>>together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>>
>>Sorry.
>
>You're either very new here, or seriously mentally challenged . To
>look at the list of posters above and think that this group would be
>ganging up in unison is preposterous. Hell, I can't imagine that
>bunch agreeing, in advance, to agree on anything.

He's a troll. I showed how he's mimicking 3 of LLLarry's tactics and
when I referred to him as a troll he relied "I don't deny it". This
is the 4th LLLarry tactic he mimicking; Make the innuendo there's a
click in RSG and he's the innocent target of their wrath.

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

Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:13:23
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:02:47 GMT, David Laville
<dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:16:17 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:47:13 -0500, "tin Levac"
>><vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
>>>Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
>>>that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
>>>together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>>>
>>>Sorry.
>>
>>You're either very new here, or seriously mentally challenged . To
>>look at the list of posters above and think that this group would be
>>ganging up in unison is preposterous. Hell, I can't imagine that
>>bunch agreeing, in advance, to agree on anything.
>
>He's a troll. I showed how he's mimicking 3 of LLLarry's tactics and
>when I referred to him as a troll he relied "I don't deny it". This
>is the 4th LLLarry tactic he mimicking; Make the innuendo there's a
>click in RSG and he's the innocent target of their wrath.

>David Laville, G.S.E.M.

Yep. I'm through with him. LLLLLarrrry is enough on one's plate. :-)
bk

Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:01:51
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:01c3o29c5gtrbbj89kuovolb822h67arqi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:47:13 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
>>Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
>>that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
>>together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>>
>>Sorry.
>
> You're either very new here, or seriously mentally challenged . To
> look at the list of posters above and think that this group would be
> ganging up in unison is preposterous. Hell, I can't imagine that
> bunch agreeing, in advance, to agree on anything.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 14 Dec 2006 15:25:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:51 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

>Well, it is through this mentally challenged condition that I have achieved
>such a high degree of intelligence.

Sorry, but it doesn't seem to show.

>Yet I survived unscathed. I survived the confusion, the personal attacks and
>the outright lies. The solution to the personal attacks is to simply agree
>to them. Then, call those admissions of guilt irrelevant and stick to the
>subject. Because they are irrelevant to the subject of the discussion. Don't
>you agree, Bobby Knight, that being "very new here" or "seriously mentally
>challenged" has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the subject being
>discussed?
>
You "survived"? You gotta be kidding. In the over a decade here on
RSG I have yet to see death by posting.

The subject was "ganging up" The fact that a half-dozen people
disagreed with you isn't ganging up, it's a half-dozen people saying
that they think that your video shows something other than what you
stated. That is valid. Period.

>If, on the other hand, you were out to get me, that would be an entirely
>different subject, don't you think?
>
Now you're paranoid. What would anyone have if the got you?

If you are as brilliant as you suggest, you'd know that I never made a
definitive statement as to where your fucking ball went. My post
just pointed out that you have a problem with reality. If you admit
that you're biased then your word can be questioned.

You are, however, a master at verbal diahrhea.
--
___,
\o

Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:43:28
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:rbf3o2lpgbhlkg5tuopjjafu22eh11kl8q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:51 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, it is through this mentally challenged condition that I have
>>achieved
>>such a high degree of intelligence.
>
> Sorry, but it doesn't seem to show.
>
>>Yet I survived unscathed. I survived the confusion, the personal attacks
>>and
>>the outright lies. The solution to the personal attacks is to simply agree
>>to them. Then, call those admissions of guilt irrelevant and stick to the
>>subject. Because they are irrelevant to the subject of the discussion.
>>Don't
>>you agree, Bobby Knight, that being "very new here" or "seriously mentally
>>challenged" has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the subject being
>>discussed?
>>
> You "survived"? You gotta be kidding. In the over a decade here on
> RSG I have yet to see death by posting.
>
> The subject was "ganging up" The fact that a half-dozen people
> disagreed with you isn't ganging up, it's a half-dozen people saying
> that they think that your video shows something other than what you
> stated. That is valid. Period.
>
>>If, on the other hand, you were out to get me, that would be an entirely
>>different subject, don't you think?
>>
> Now you're paranoid. What would anyone have if the got you?
>
> If you are as brilliant as you suggest, you'd know that I never made a
> definitive statement as to where your fucking ball went. My post
> just pointed out that you have a problem with reality. If you admit
> that you're biased then your word can be questioned.
>
> You are, however, a master at verbal diahrhea.
> --
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:37:42
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:47:11
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:37:42 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:rbf3o2lpgbhlkg5tuopjjafu22eh11kl8q@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:51 -0500, "tin Levac"
>> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:

>Well, Bobby Knight, we now know that you are not averse to make personal
>attacks. What does that make you, I wonder?
>
Someone who sees through you like you were glass. tin Levac.
>Let's examine what bias means. I am biased because I am the player who is
>striking the ball in the video clip in question. What other bias can there
>be? Personal gain is one. To harm someone else is another. Ulterior motive.
>I have no ulterior motive in stating my bias, I am the man in the video
>clip. My bias ends there. If I were to comment on the video clip in
>question, I would have to consider my personal experience of having struck
>the ball. Otherwise, my opinion would be incomplete. Which brings me to the
>opinion of others, theirs is incomplete as well when compared to mine.
>
Sheer bullshit. tin Levac

>In your posts to date, you have failed to address the subject of my first
>post in this thread even after I have asked you directly what your opinion
>was on the matter

My opinion is that you're a full-blown snake oil salesman. I don't
give a crap about your video, but all of this crap that you've posted
lately convinces me that I wouldn't believe you in any event, ever.
tin Levac.

> Perhaps you'd like to review what I wrote about gang
>banging and the method that brings individuals to such behavior? I'm certain
>that it applies here. To your posts, Bobby Knight. It appears that you are
>quite willing to argue anything that doesn't relate to the original subject
>matter. What does that make you, Bobby Knight? I will leave the expression
>of opinions to you, Bobby Knight, you appear to be well versed in the
>method.
>
It makes me someone who pointed out that you have an unbelievable
ability to reverse field in a nanosecond. tin Levac. I now place
you where you belong...in the past.
>
bk

Date: 14 Dec 2006 18:01:13
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:9qk3o2d6si2pm19eoqefgfk3nerotdjmnh@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:37:42 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:rbf3o2lpgbhlkg5tuopjjafu22eh11kl8q@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:51 -0500, "tin Levac"
>>> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Well, Bobby Knight, we now know that you are not averse to make personal
>>attacks. What does that make you, I wonder?
>>
> Someone who sees through you like you were glass. tin Levac.
>>Let's examine what bias means. I am biased because I am the player who is
>>striking the ball in the video clip in question. What other bias can there
>>be? Personal gain is one. To harm someone else is another. Ulterior
>>motive.
>>I have no ulterior motive in stating my bias, I am the man in the video
>>clip. My bias ends there. If I were to comment on the video clip in
>>question, I would have to consider my personal experience of having struck
>>the ball. Otherwise, my opinion would be incomplete. Which brings me to
>>the
>>opinion of others, theirs is incomplete as well when compared to mine.
>>
> Sheer bullshit. tin Levac
>
>>In your posts to date, you have failed to address the subject of my first
>>post in this thread even after I have asked you directly what your opinion
>>was on the matter
>
> My opinion is that you're a full-blown snake oil salesman. I don't
> give a crap about your video, but all of this crap that you've posted
> lately convinces me that I wouldn't believe you in any event, ever.
> tin Levac.
>
>
>> Perhaps you'd like to review what I wrote about gang
>>banging and the method that brings individuals to such behavior? I'm
>>certain
>>that it applies here. To your posts, Bobby Knight. It appears that you are
>>quite willing to argue anything that doesn't relate to the original
>>subject
>>matter. What does that make you, Bobby Knight? I will leave the expression
>>of opinions to you, Bobby Knight, you appear to be well versed in the
>>method.
>>
> It makes me someone who pointed out that you have an unbelievable
> ability to reverse field in a nanosecond. tin Levac. I now place
> you where you belong...in the past.
>>
> bk

I don't know you, Bobby Knight. I'm certain that you don't know me either.
Please consider that what you write allows us to get to know you. And right
now, I don't like the prospect of meeting you one bit. I'm sure you feel the
same about me even though I haven't given you reason to. You, on the other
hand, have given me plenty of reasons to avoid you. Do you wish to pursue
the matter or would you rather write about the original post's subject
matter? It's entirely up to you at this point.

tin Levac

Date: 09 Dec 2006 20:59:52
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"miki" <parpluseagle@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165590844.746710.228750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have read almost everything written about the golf swing and tried
> many pros over these long and short golf years, but the only course or
> instruction that makes complete sense(once you re-read and practice to
> find out you must open your mind) is http://golfswinger.com. Honestly,
> just go there and read and practice you will be rewarded whether your a
> beginner or a tour player! Hope this helps all as it helped me. the
> other good course (don't know if its still on the web) is "Gravity
> Golf"
> miki
>

"You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."

The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've been
learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different now?

tin Levac

Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:43:55
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:59:52 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

>"You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."
>
>The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've been
>learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different now?

So what you're saying is we can teach people to swim by showing them
video of people swimming?

Based on your past post and the video clip of you shanking a ball off
the tee I have no doubts you're a LLLarry the Troll wanna-be.

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

Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:14:35
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:0fhpn2h1s53chbc98uhr573est1o0uqcvq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:59:52 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>"You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."
>>
>>The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've been
>>learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different
>>now?
>
> So what you're saying is we can teach people to swim by showing them
> video of people swimming?
>
> Based on your past post and the video clip of you shanking a ball off
> the tee I have no doubts you're a LLLarry the Troll wanna-be.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

No, that is not what I'm saying, that is what you're saying. I wrote
something else.

The subject is not "teach people to swim by showing them video or people
swimming", the subject is "You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking
at anyone.". Do you have an opinion on the subject or do you prefer to make
personal attacks, deviate from the subject, attribute your own words to
others and make deprecating statements about persons you do not know?

If you have a problem with me, David Laville, it is, by definition, your
problem.

tin Levac

Date: 12 Dec 2006 02:58:51
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:14:35 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

>If you have a problem with me, David Laville, it is, by definition, your
>problem.

Yyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

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

Date: 11 Dec 2006 23:39:22
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:lm6sn2prmrgel1bkapkqj9ce5uh64r1sro@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:14:35 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>If you have a problem with me, David Laville, it is, by definition, your
>>problem.
>
> Yyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

No, don't thank me, you deserve the praise you get, David Laville.

tin Levac

Date: 11 Dec 2006 00:44:04
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: golf swing

On 9-Dec-2006, "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

> "You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."
>
> The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've been
>
> learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different
> now?

I agree with tin, however, this is not for everyone, especially some
adults who have either lost the capacity to do this or lost the faith. I
believe most kids and adolescents are able to up to a certain level (each
idividual varying of course).

--
bill-o

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

Date: 09 Dec 2006 22:52:16
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: golf swing

"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:wSJeh.57987$4A.1018898@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "miki" <parpluseagle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165590844.746710.228750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I have read almost everything written about the golf swing and tried
>> many pros over these long and short golf years, but the only course or
>> instruction that makes complete sense(once you re-read and practice to
>> find out you must open your mind) is http://golfswinger.com. Honestly,
>> just go there and read and practice you will be rewarded whether your a
>> beginner or a tour player! Hope this helps all as it helped me. the
>> other good course (don't know if its still on the web) is "Gravity
>> Golf"
>> miki
>>
>
> "You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."
>
> The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've been
> learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different
> now?
>
>
> tin Levac
>

Do you think you could learn to do a double axel by watching Katerina Witt
do it 1000 times replay?

>

Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:43:40
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:52:16 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:

>> The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've been
>> learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different
>> now?

>Do you think you could learn to do a double axel by watching Katerina Witt
>do it 1000 times replay?

Ditto.

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

Date: 10 Dec 2006 09:04:31
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: golf swing

"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:OvLeh.4370$SV1.621@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:wSJeh.57987$4A.1018898@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> "miki" <parpluseagle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165590844.746710.228750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>I have read almost everything written about the golf swing and tried
>>> many pros over these long and short golf years, but the only course or
>>> instruction that makes complete sense(once you re-read and practice to
>>> find out you must open your mind) is http://golfswinger.com. Honestly,
>>> just go there and read and practice you will be rewarded whether your a
>>> beginner or a tour player! Hope this helps all as it helped me. the
>>> other good course (don't know if its still on the web) is "Gravity
>>> Golf"
>>> miki
>>>
>>
>> "You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."
>>
>> The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've
>> been learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be
>> different now?
>>
>>
>> tin Levac
>>
>
> Do you think you could learn to do a double axel by watching Katerina Witt
> do it 1000 times replay?
>
>
>>
>
>

When we were kids we would learn by watching various baseball players. I
remember our coach telling us to watch Mickey Mantle bat right-handed and
to try to emulate that swing. We would all do that and at practice the coach
would watch us and tell us what we were doing wrong. I remember having the
right elbow up parallel to the ground and not down by your side. Pitching
motions were the same way. A friend emulated Ewell Blackwell and he pitched
that way all the way through American Legion ball. Sort of what they called
a 'buggy whip' delivery. You'd have to see it to appreciate it. I think that
this method made us improve faster. Hard to tell though. I know we felt
better.

To this day I watch the golfers on TV and try to emulate the smooth easy
swing. The ones on the course, not so much.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike

Date: 10 Dec 2006 12:15:34
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Michael Anselmo" <manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net > wrote in message
news:7sOdnZtsabJzjuHYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
> news:OvLeh.4370$SV1.621@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:wSJeh.57987$4A.1018898@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>
>>> "miki" <parpluseagle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1165590844.746710.228750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I have read almost everything written about the golf swing and tried
>>>> many pros over these long and short golf years, but the only course or
>>>> instruction that makes complete sense(once you re-read and practice to
>>>> find out you must open your mind) is http://golfswinger.com. Honestly,
>>>> just go there and read and practice you will be rewarded whether your a
>>>> beginner or a tour player! Hope this helps all as it helped me. the
>>>> other good course (don't know if its still on the web) is "Gravity
>>>> Golf"
>>>> miki
>>>>
>>>
>>> "You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."
>>>
>>> The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've
>>> been learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be
>>> different now?
>>>
>>>
>>> tin Levac
>>>
>>
>> Do you think you could learn to do a double axel by watching Katerina
>> Witt do it 1000 times replay?
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> When we were kids we would learn by watching various baseball players. I
> remember our coach telling us to watch Mickey Mantle bat right-handed and
> to try to emulate that swing. We would all do that and at practice the
> coach would watch us and tell us what we were doing wrong. I remember
> having the right elbow up parallel to the ground and not down by your
> side. Pitching motions were the same way. A friend emulated Ewell
> Blackwell and he pitched that way all the way through American Legion
> ball. Sort of what they called a 'buggy whip' delivery. You'd have to see
> it to appreciate it. I think that this method made us improve faster. Hard
> to tell though. I know we felt better.
>
> To this day I watch the golfers on TV and try to emulate the smooth easy
> swing. The ones on the course, not so much.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Mike
>
>

No question that watching informs us of a ton. But it isn't sufficient,
IMO.

>
>

Date: 10 Dec 2006 13:50:36
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:UgXeh.4768$Zz2.4731@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Michael Anselmo" <manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:7sOdnZtsabJzjuHYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
>> news:OvLeh.4370$SV1.621@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:wSJeh.57987$4A.1018898@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>>
>>>> "miki" <parpluseagle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1165590844.746710.228750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>I have read almost everything written about the golf swing and tried
>>>>> many pros over these long and short golf years, but the only course or
>>>>> instruction that makes complete sense(once you re-read and practice to
>>>>> find out you must open your mind) is http://golfswinger.com. Honestly,
>>>>> just go there and read and practice you will be rewarded whether your
>>>>> a
>>>>> beginner or a tour player! Hope this helps all as it helped me. the
>>>>> other good course (don't know if its still on the web) is "Gravity
>>>>> Golf"
>>>>> miki
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."
>>>>
>>>> The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've
>>>> been learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be
>>>> different now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tin Levac
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think you could learn to do a double axel by watching Katerina
>>> Witt do it 1000 times replay?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> When we were kids we would learn by watching various baseball players. I
>> remember our coach telling us to watch Mickey Mantle bat right-handed
>> and to try to emulate that swing. We would all do that and at practice
>> the coach would watch us and tell us what we were doing wrong. I remember
>> having the right elbow up parallel to the ground and not down by your
>> side. Pitching motions were the same way. A friend emulated Ewell
>> Blackwell and he pitched that way all the way through American Legion
>> ball. Sort of what they called a 'buggy whip' delivery. You'd have to see
>> it to appreciate it. I think that this method made us improve faster.
>> Hard to tell though. I know we felt better.
>>
>> To this day I watch the golfers on TV and try to emulate the smooth easy
>> swing. The ones on the course, not so much.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
> No question that watching informs us of a ton. But it isn't sufficient,
> IMO.
>

In my opinion as well: We must practice what we learn. Reminds me of an old
sports study where there was one group practicing and another watching the
first and a third one doing neither (all groups were players of the same
league to begin with). Well, the first group obviously made the greatest
improvement. The third group made none. The surprise was the second group,
it made almost as much improvement as the first group simply by watching.
Isn't that strange. No it isn't strange, we've been learning by watching for
thousands of years, why should it be different now?

Do you question the ability of somebody to learn or do you question the
method? The method works. Why is football (soccer) the most popular sport on
the planet? Because it's the easiest to learn. By watching.

tin Levac

Date: 10 Dec 2006 17:14:02
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: golf swing

"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:XFYeh.18575$aJ6.102463@wagner.videotron.net...

>> No question that watching informs us of a ton. But it isn't sufficient,
>> IMO.
>>
>
> In my opinion as well: We must practice what we learn. Reminds me of an
> old sports study where there was one group practicing and another watching
> the first and a third one doing neither (all groups were players of the
> same league to begin with). Well, the first group obviously made the
> greatest improvement. The third group made none. The surprise was the
> second group, it made almost as much improvement as the first group simply
> by watching. Isn't that strange. No it isn't strange, we've been learning
> by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different now?
>
> Do you question the ability of somebody to learn or do you question the
> method? The method works. Why is football (soccer) the most popular sport
> on the planet? Because it's the easiest to learn. By watching.
>
>
> tin Levac
>
Golf swing is a really intriguing activity. Some kids pick up a club and
within a short time hit the ball great and never look back. Some very
intelligent and capable OTHER kids, teeners, young adults, and full grown
geniuses take it up at the same time, practice and study for decades, and 50
years later can't do what the first kid next to them in HS math class did in
their 4th month.

Both watch; both have the same exposure, but for some reason having to do
with intuition and insight, one "gets it" while the other struggles and
maybe never can do it effectively.

I had piano pupils who from day 1 were clearly intuitively aware. Others
who studied for 20 years and remained at the intermediate level despite hard
work and application.

On Natl Geographic special a couple weeks ago they featured a few of the
savant people (some 50 in the world, they said). One of them sat and
solved the value of "pi" in his head and over a 5 1/2 hour period read off
the first 22,500 digits of the solution after the decimal point
(3.14159....) without a mistake or repeating himself: not from memorizing it
from a computer printout: by from SOLVING it in his head.

The outside of the human package can look ordinary or even as in the above
cases look impaired (savants are usually emotionally
handicapped/undeveloped - with no social skills = often needing help
walking, bathing, eating, clothing...).

There's not only more in heaven and earth Horatio....the "more" is
inexpressible, and that's to the 100th power.

When someone says "it's easy," they are speaking for their kind, for those
of their gifts. The savant could instantly multiply 321 x 4578 x 396 in his
head in a few seconds: "It's easy!"

"Toss me that ball" would, however, tax his capabilities. Not possible.

Date: 14 Dec 2006 22:25:53
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Dec 14, 1:47 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
> Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
> that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
> together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.

Uh, gee, actually I was disagreeing with David & Brad. I saw the ball
going up, not off to the side. A bit higher trajectory than a good
drive,
but not a shank.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 04:34:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On 14 Dec 2006 22:25:53 -0800, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>
>On Dec 14, 1:47 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> By the way, is this some sort of gang bang with George Hibbard, David
>> Laville, golfnaz, Birdie Bill and Bobby Knight all ganging up on me? If
>> that's the case, what a pitiful bunch you make. With all your heads
>> together, you can't even put a dent in my arguments.
>
>Uh, gee, actually I was disagreeing with David & Brad. I saw the ball
>going up, not off to the side. A bit higher trajectory than a good
>drive, but not a shank.

Don't sweat it BB. This guy can't get anything straight.
___,
\o

Date: 11 Dec 2006 03:33:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:14:02 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:

>On Natl Geographic special a couple weeks ago they featured a few of the
>savant people (some 50 in the world, they said). One of them sat and
>solved the value of "pi" in his head and over a 5 1/2 hour period read off
>the first 22,500 digits of the solution after the decimal point
>(3.14159....) without a mistake or repeating himself: not from memorizing it
>from a computer printout: by from SOLVING it in his head.

I've heard about people who memorize it - using various tricks to help
their memory. Your post is the first I've ever heard of someone
solving it. The Net being what it is, could you provide a citation
which explains how they knew it was solving instead of memorizing?

Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:24:34
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: golf swing

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:4akpn29o0uotqjlueld8fc3popi5g9s09c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:14:02 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>>On Natl Geographic special a couple weeks ago they featured a few of the
>>savant people (some 50 in the world, they said). One of them sat and
>>solved the value of "pi" in his head and over a 5 1/2 hour period read off
>>the first 22,500 digits of the solution after the decimal point
>>(3.14159....) without a mistake or repeating himself: not from memorizing
>>it
>>from a computer printout: by from SOLVING it in his head.
>
> I've heard about people who memorize it - using various tricks to help
> their memory. Your post is the first I've ever heard of someone
> solving it. The Net being what it is, could you provide a citation
> which explains how they knew it was solving instead of memorizing?

The show was produced by National Geographic. It was most clearly thorough
in its scope of the subject, deadly honest in what they told the audience,
obvious as possible in that probably 100 graduate students and professors at
Oxford were in the room during the demonstrations checking against massive
computer printouts, etc. In addition to solving for pi, they had him
multiply numbers, cube them, and similar things where memorization was out
of the question. Suppose he DID try to memorize 22,500 digits in order?
How many could you or anyone you know recite before running out or making a
mistake? There are, you realize, only 10 possible digits, so that recurring
patterns and randomness would suggest the sheer impossibility of not getting
screwed up when a pattern resurfaced.

I looked just now in the net for a reference to that show and couldn't find
it. Might have been shown on a different channel..

That man was one of several featured: another, whom they claimed to be the
"stest" savant in the world, was questioned on point after point in many
subjects by others who had original texts and other references to check
against the random questioning that they put him through. The way he
learned was to read books, two glassy looking eyes, one scanning the left
page while his right eye simultaneously scanned the right page; after a
couple seconds he flipped to the next page, and finished entire books in
minutes. After that, for "the rest of his life," he could then recall
everything in those books. When asked about some obscure king or public
figure's relative's wedding or death or historical event, he would cite,
when known, the hour, the day, the day of the week, the details of the
event, and lots of colorful facts. A walking Library of Congress.... My
guess is that he calculated the day of the week every time rather than
recalling it from its source.

It is no surprise to have people question and disbelieve these
phenomena--someone TELLING you of it obviously is going to reply, "Yeah,
Sure!"

Since it was all recorded, and what was not shown is in archives somewhere
(before editing), the story will certainly resurface regularly, in replays,
other specials, etc., I feel sure.

Even Shakespeare would have lost a few teeth watching it!

Date: 10 Dec 2006 18:00:11
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:oA%eh.2160$V07.1099@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:XFYeh.18575$aJ6.102463@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>>> No question that watching informs us of a ton. But it isn't sufficient,
>>> IMO.
>>>
>>
>> In my opinion as well: We must practice what we learn. Reminds me of an
>> old sports study where there was one group practicing and another
>> watching the first and a third one doing neither (all groups were players
>> of the same league to begin with). Well, the first group obviously made
>> the greatest improvement. The third group made none. The surprise was the
>> second group, it made almost as much improvement as the first group
>> simply by watching. Isn't that strange. No it isn't strange, we've been
>> learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be different
>> now?
>>
>> Do you question the ability of somebody to learn or do you question the
>> method? The method works. Why is football (soccer) the most popular sport
>> on the planet? Because it's the easiest to learn. By watching.
>>
>>
>> tin Levac
>>
> Golf swing is a really intriguing activity. Some kids pick up a club and
> within a short time hit the ball great and never look back. Some very
> intelligent and capable OTHER kids, teeners, young adults, and full grown
> geniuses take it up at the same time, practice and study for decades, and
> 50 years later can't do what the first kid next to them in HS math class
> did in their 4th month.
>
> Both watch; both have the same exposure, but for some reason having to do
> with intuition and insight, one "gets it" while the other struggles and
> maybe never can do it effectively.
>
> I had piano pupils who from day 1 were clearly intuitively aware. Others
> who studied for 20 years and remained at the intermediate level despite
> hard work and application.
>
> On Natl Geographic special a couple weeks ago they featured a few of the
> savant people (some 50 in the world, they said). One of them sat and
> solved the value of "pi" in his head and over a 5 1/2 hour period read off
> the first 22,500 digits of the solution after the decimal point
> (3.14159....) without a mistake or repeating himself: not from memorizing
> it from a computer printout: by from SOLVING it in his head.
>
> The outside of the human package can look ordinary or even as in the above
> cases look impaired (savants are usually emotionally
> handicapped/undeveloped - with no social skills = often needing help
> walking, bathing, eating, clothing...).
>
> There's not only more in heaven and earth Horatio....the "more" is
> inexpressible, and that's to the 100th power.
>
> When someone says "it's easy," they are speaking for their kind, for those
> of their gifts. The savant could instantly multiply 321 x 4578 x 396 in
> his head in a few seconds: "It's easy!"
>
> "Toss me that ball" would, however, tax his capabilities. Not possible.
>
>
>

How is this relevant to the method of learning by watching or the validity
of said method? The method works regardless.

tin Levac

Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:44:13
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:00:11 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

>How is this relevant to the method of learning by watching or the validity
>of said method? The method works regardless.

Okay,so your logic is that if you or a loved one ever needed serious
life saving surgery a person who took a correspondence course at home
and watched the surgery procedure over and over on a DVD is good
enough for you.

Idiot troll.

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

Date: 10 Dec 2006 21:56:58
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:ffhpn2dj4fm2os2ofsc4u075p6bi65urje@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:00:11 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>How is this relevant to the method of learning by watching or the validity
>>of said method? The method works regardless.
>
> Okay,so your logic is that if you or a loved one ever needed serious
> life saving surgery a person who took a correspondence course at home
> and watched the surgery procedure over and over on a DVD is good
> enough for you.
>
> Idiot troll.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

David Laville, no it's not my logic. It appears to be yours. Try again.

tin Levac

Date: 10 Dec 2006 20:09:34
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: golf swing

"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:UN3fh.22011$aJ6.236952@wagner.videotron.net...
> David Laville, no it's not my logic. It appears to be yours. Try again.
>
>
> tin Levac

I saw your video too.
It's rare to see a guy shank a driver off the hosel.
Did you learn that by visual techniques?

Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:21:55
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote in message
news:457ccbf8$0$502$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:UN3fh.22011$aJ6.236952@wagner.videotron.net...
>> David Laville, no it's not my logic. It appears to be yours. Try again.
>>
>>
>> tin Levac
>
> I saw your video too.
> It's rare to see a guy shank a driver off the hosel.
> Did you learn that by visual techniques?
>

If I ever meet you, please remind me to not trust your judgement. Thank you.

tin Levac

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 10 Dec 2006 20:57:08
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: golf swing

"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:Wj0fh.20979$aJ6.152623@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
> news:oA%eh.2160$V07.1099@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:XFYeh.18575$aJ6.102463@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>>>> No question that watching informs us of a ton. But it isn't
>>>> sufficient, IMO.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion as well: We must practice what we learn. Reminds me of an
>>> old sports study where there was one group practicing and another
>>> watching the first and a third one doing neither (all groups were
>>> players of the same league to begin with). Well, the first group
>>> obviously made the greatest improvement. The third group made none. The
>>> surprise was the second group, it made almost as much improvement as the
>>> first group simply by watching. Isn't that strange. No it isn't strange,
>>> we've been learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be
>>> different now?
>>>
>>> Do you question the ability of somebody to learn or do you question the
>>> method? The method works. Why is football (soccer) the most popular
>>> sport on the planet? Because it's the easiest to learn. By watching.
>>>
>>>
>>> tin Levac
>>>
>> Golf swing is a really intriguing activity. Some kids pick up a club and
>> within a short time hit the ball great and never look back. Some very
>> intelligent and capable OTHER kids, teeners, young adults, and full grown
>> geniuses take it up at the same time, practice and study for decades, and
>> 50 years later can't do what the first kid next to them in HS math class
>> did in their 4th month.
>>
>> Both watch; both have the same exposure, but for some reason having to do
>> with intuition and insight, one "gets it" while the other struggles and
>> maybe never can do it effectively.
>>
>> I had piano pupils who from day 1 were clearly intuitively aware. Others
>> who studied for 20 years and remained at the intermediate level despite
>> hard work and application.
>>
>> On Natl Geographic special a couple weeks ago they featured a few of the
>> savant people (some 50 in the world, they said). One of them sat and
>> solved the value of "pi" in his head and over a 5 1/2 hour period read
>> off the first 22,500 digits of the solution after the decimal point
>> (3.14159....) without a mistake or repeating himself: not from memorizing
>> it from a computer printout: by from SOLVING it in his head.
>>
>> The outside of the human package can look ordinary or even as in the
>> above cases look impaired (savants are usually emotionally
>> handicapped/undeveloped - with no social skills = often needing help
>> walking, bathing, eating, clothing...).
>>
>> There's not only more in heaven and earth Horatio....the "more" is
>> inexpressible, and that's to the 100th power.
>>
>> When someone says "it's easy," they are speaking for their kind, for
>> those of their gifts. The savant could instantly multiply 321 x 4578 x
>> 396 in his head in a few seconds: "It's easy!"
>>
>> "Toss me that ball" would, however, tax his capabilities. Not possible.
>>
>>
>>
>
> How is this relevant to the method of learning by watching or the validity
> of said method? The method works regardless.
>
>
> tin Levac

You miss my point? DIFFERENT PEOPLE have different intuitive abilities,
understanding, mental and physical gifts. Some can learn from watching:
others cannot. Thank your lucky stars if you can: don't assume because YOU
have such a gift that others do. I SAID that you learn SOME things from
watching: It is not enough for the majority.

>

Date: 11 Dec 2006 03:35:12
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:57:08 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:

>You miss my point? DIFFERENT PEOPLE have different intuitive abilities,
>understanding, mental and physical gifts.

Agreed.

>Some can learn from watching: others cannot.

Everybody learns some by watching or otherwise observing. But some
do it better than others.

>Thank your lucky stars if you can: don't assume because YOU
>have such a gift that others do. I SAID that you learn SOME things from
>watching: It is not enough for the majority.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 21:32:22
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:SV2fh.1148$U6.511@bigfe9...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:Wj0fh.20979$aJ6.152623@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
>> news:oA%eh.2160$V07.1099@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:XFYeh.18575$aJ6.102463@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>
>>>>> No question that watching informs us of a ton. But it isn't
>>>>> sufficient, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion as well: We must practice what we learn. Reminds me of an
>>>> old sports study where there was one group practicing and another
>>>> watching the first and a third one doing neither (all groups were
>>>> players of the same league to begin with). Well, the first group
>>>> obviously made the greatest improvement. The third group made none. The
>>>> surprise was the second group, it made almost as much improvement as
>>>> the first group simply by watching. Isn't that strange. No it isn't
>>>> strange, we've been learning by watching for thousands of years, why
>>>> should it be different now?
>>>>
>>>> Do you question the ability of somebody to learn or do you question the
>>>> method? The method works. Why is football (soccer) the most popular
>>>> sport on the planet? Because it's the easiest to learn. By watching.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tin Levac
>>>>
>>> Golf swing is a really intriguing activity. Some kids pick up a club
>>> and within a short time hit the ball great and never look back. Some
>>> very intelligent and capable OTHER kids, teeners, young adults, and full
>>> grown geniuses take it up at the same time, practice and study for
>>> decades, and 50 years later can't do what the first kid next to them in
>>> HS math class did in their 4th month.
>>>
>>> Both watch; both have the same exposure, but for some reason having to
>>> do with intuition and insight, one "gets it" while the other struggles
>>> and maybe never can do it effectively.
>>>
>>> I had piano pupils who from day 1 were clearly intuitively aware.
>>> Others who studied for 20 years and remained at the intermediate level
>>> despite hard work and application.
>>>
>>> On Natl Geographic special a couple weeks ago they featured a few of the
>>> savant people (some 50 in the world, they said). One of them sat and
>>> solved the value of "pi" in his head and over a 5 1/2 hour period read
>>> off the first 22,500 digits of the solution after the decimal point
>>> (3.14159....) without a mistake or repeating himself: not from
>>> memorizing it from a computer printout: by from SOLVING it in his head.
>>>
>>> The outside of the human package can look ordinary or even as in the
>>> above cases look impaired (savants are usually emotionally
>>> handicapped/undeveloped - with no social skills = often needing help
>>> walking, bathing, eating, clothing...).
>>>
>>> There's not only more in heaven and earth Horatio....the "more" is
>>> inexpressible, and that's to the 100th power.
>>>
>>> When someone says "it's easy," they are speaking for their kind, for
>>> those of their gifts. The savant could instantly multiply 321 x 4578 x
>>> 396 in his head in a few seconds: "It's easy!"
>>>
>>> "Toss me that ball" would, however, tax his capabilities. Not possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How is this relevant to the method of learning by watching or the
>> validity of said method? The method works regardless.
>>
>>
>> tin Levac
>
> You miss my point? DIFFERENT PEOPLE have different intuitive abilities,
> understanding, mental and physical gifts. Some can learn from watching:
> others cannot. Thank your lucky stars if you can: don't assume because
> YOU have such a gift that others do. I SAID that you learn SOME things
> from watching: It is not enough for the majority.
>

From your perspective, there was a point to miss. From mine, there wasn't.
Sorry.

It is enough for the majority. It is a minority that cannot learn by
watching. This minority requires special care by definition. Perhaps you
think that the majority of your students come from the majority of players?
You'd be wrong in that line of thought. Those who can learn by watching
don't require special care, they don't require a teacher that explains to
them in detail what it is that they must do. Those who can learn quickly
don't come back, they don't need to have it repeated to them multiple times
in order for them to understand and put in practice. Those who can learn by
watching can simply sit and watch and learn.

tin Levac

Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:45:29
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Hillary's too vane to be president

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:16:05 -0800, John B. wrote:
> Carbon wrote:

>> I'm thinking that as the disaster deepens the thirst for revenge will
>> be driven more by bi-partisan rage. If it was just some cynical
>> Democrat ploy it would never get off the ground. But as more
>> Administration staffers jump ship and more information comes to light,
>> few Americans will doubt that serious crimes took place in the build-up
>> and during the war. As people become aware of the epic, colossal scope
>> of the failure in Iraq there will be screams for blood from all sides.
>> The dreams of the Neocons who started this mess will be filled with
>> images of mobs with torches and pitchforks. All it's going to take is a
>> couple more years to ripen.
>>
>> And obviously, I think the Republicans have -0- chance of winning in
>> 2008.
>
> There's a difference between carrying out a vendetta with impeachment
> resolutions and so on and carrying out responsible oversight of the
> executive branch. That is part of Congress' responsibility. And the
> current Congress has completely abdicated it. I wouldn't object to
> hearings aimed at exposing the incompetence, stupidity, arrogance and
> corruption that have gotten us to where we are in Iraq. But I think the
> House members who are making noises about drafting articles of
> impeachment ought to be bound and gagged.

I'm not sure I'm crazy about it myself. But it needs to be made clear to
everyone how this war happened, why checks and balances in government are
important, etc. Hopefully as a result we will explicitly outlaw the more
outrageous constitutional violations--wholesale indiscriminate domestic
spying, for example.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:26:42
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:bkhpn215pa15k0qvvfkmuae1ipgtpq6mdo@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:32:22 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Those who can learn by
>>watching can simply sit and watch and learn.
>
> Who did you sit and watch when you learned to shank a golf ball?
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982

I'm sorry, I don't know what shank is. Would you teach me?

tin Levac

Date: 09 Dec 2006 23:19:56
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: golf swing

Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:02:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: golf swing

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 23:19:56 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:

>
>"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
>news:OvLeh.4370$SV1.621@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:wSJeh.57987$4A.1018898@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>
>>> "miki" <parpluseagle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1165590844.746710.228750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I have read almost everything written about the golf swing and tried
>>>> many pros over these long and short golf years, but the only course or
>>>> instruction that makes complete sense(once you re-read and practice to
>>>> find out you must open your mind) is http://golfswinger.com. Honestly,
>>>> just go there and read and practice you will be rewarded whether your a
>>>> beginner or a tour player! Hope this helps all as it helped me. the
>>>> other good course (don't know if its still on the web) is "Gravity
>>>> Golf"
>>>> miki
>>>>
>>>
>>> "You can't learn a terrific golf swing by looking at anyone."
>>>
>>> The statement above is bullshit. It comes from that link above. We've
>>> been learning by watching for thousands of years, why should it be
>>> different now?
>>>
>>>
>>> tin Levac
>>>
>>
>> Do you think you could learn to do a double axel by watching Katerina Witt
>> do it 1000 times replay?
>>
>
>Of course I could, would I want to. What about you, do you have a special
>learning method that we don't already know about?
>
>
>tin Levac
>
WARNING: Brace yourself.
___,
\o

Date: 09 Dec 2006 14:11:13
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: golf swing

Opening the mind of a golfer is like opening an empty can of beer.

Dry and disappointing.