Kelvin Miyahira method...

[kyle75]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1401204986' post='9374141']
[quote name='kyle75' timestamp='1401199924' post='9373585']
Seems very complicated, like golf machine theory. Lot of thoughts to have while making a swing that lasts for about a sec. I got sucked into Stack and Tilt and then Golf Machine via Steve Elkington's site. They both make the swing way to complicated in my opinion.
[/quote]

Only as complicated as you make it. It would be complicated for you to read a 747 flight manual, but you're not a pilot(assuming of course, if you are then insert other thing that's outwardly complex). Yet that doesn't stop you from using the plane. A TGM or S&T teacher can help you out, and make what they're saying on a much easier to understand level. You shouldn't discredit a source because you can't understand it. I'd say that if you were a player trying to improve, you wouldn't try to understand it. You'd go to someone that already does, and have them help you. If you want to learn to be a golf instructor, read TGM. IF you want to learn to be a better golfer, go to an instructor, don't attempt to become one.
[/quote] That is a very pompous and condescending statement from you. You imply that because I said it was complicated that I am not smart enough to understand it. I understand both methods very well and have had lessons from teachers who were trained in GM and Stack&Tilt. It was through those lessons that I learned that those swing methodologies weren't for me. There is a reason why no top player on the tour uses either methods. OF course, they are probably just not smart enough to understand it by your reasoning.

[lv_2_hack]

8 what's your take on KM's stuff?

[eightiron]

[quote name='lv_2_hack' timestamp='1401209069' post='9374523']
8 what's your take on KM's stuff?
[/quote]

Honestly I have not read any of his articles in depth , I have skimmed a couple and for the most part it's probably good information . How or what part / moment in time during a swing an individual golfer needs to add/ subtract or change a move would obviously need guidance ( providing they are physically capable) . I suppose it's a direct opposite of instructors who rely on graph print outs of GRF , body movements measured and to an extent trackman type devices , all of which are just end result scenarios with zero application in how to get it done

[limcauco]

Why we're Jeffygolf and Brian Manzella at war? What started it?

[eightiron]

[quote name='limcauco' timestamp='1401277316' post='9380489']
Why we're Jeffygolf and Brian Manzella at war? What started it?
[/quote]

Been on for years , started when Manzella punted Jeffy from the forum . Jeffy started his forum , basically to expose inadequate instruction with a high priority hit list featuring Manzella at the top. Jeffy has a keen eye as you can observe from the picture below!

[Tax Man Golfeth]

KM's site might help some folks but not others. I'm a detail oriented guy, and I like to understand the "why" of things, so I love his site. Without the "why" explained, I have no real concept of why a given swing thought works, or what the objective is, so the "fixes" don't stick.

Key takeaways for me have been:
- forward slide inhibits rotation, but is fundamentally caused by other things in the backswing/transition;
- more fundamentally, the concept of stretch-shorten cycles, e.g., if you want to throw a ball, you finish with your (right) hand/arm internally rotated (coming over and in around your shoulder), therefore it is moving from an externally rotated, loaded position (elbow forward, hand back), and further, in order to get to the loaded position, you started the motion internally rotated (moving back w/ your elbow first). This idea is then applied to each motion in the golf swing (including a tearing down of popular instruction methods), and you can basically see how certain movements can prevent you from moving in natural, athletic ways. ...sort of like if you were told to throw a ball starting from a static, externally rotated shoulder condition. Weak and contrived.

So basically, for me the detailed pictures and explanations have highlighted the difference between hitting static poses and how the body reacts in motion. As an experiment, go outside with your driver and swing it with no ball, no swing thoughts at all, ...just swing it as fast as you possibly can. Let your knees and feet move where they will. For me, I noticed my left foot moved a lot more... it opened up by itself on the downswing. Other things happened too. ...and I noticed that these were some of the same differences I felt during some of my best swings on good days. ..and then all of the bad movements, sliding, etc., that happen on the off days started to ring true as well.

So I don't think he advocates a method so much as an awareness of what's going on in a swing, from which you can draw your own conclusions.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='kyle75' timestamp='1401208246' post='9374451']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1401204986' post='9374141']
[quote name='kyle75' timestamp='1401199924' post='9373585']
Seems very complicated, like golf machine theory. Lot of thoughts to have while making a swing that lasts for about a sec. I got sucked into Stack and Tilt and then Golf Machine via Steve Elkington's site. They both make the swing way to complicated in my opinion.
[/quote]

Only as complicated as you make it. It would be complicated for you to read a 747 flight manual, but you're not a pilot(assuming of course, if you are then insert other thing that's outwardly complex). Yet that doesn't stop you from using the plane. A TGM or S&T teacher can help you out, and make what they're saying on a much easier to understand level. You shouldn't discredit a source because you can't understand it. I'd say that if you were a player trying to improve, you wouldn't try to understand it. You'd go to someone that already does, and have them help you. If you want to learn to be a golf instructor, read TGM. IF you want to learn to be a better golfer, go to an instructor, don't attempt to become one.
[/quote] That is a very pompous and condescending statement from you. You imply that because I said it was complicated that I am not smart enough to understand it. I understand both methods very well and have had lessons from teachers who were trained in GM and Stack&Tilt. It was through those lessons that I learned that those swing methodologies weren't for me. There is a reason why no top player on the tour uses either methods. OF course, they are probably just not smart enough to understand it by your reasoning.
[/quote]

Not at all. It has nothing to do with being smart. Tour players absolutely talk to people in both camps. Just because they don't fit the model, doesn't mean they don't use the coaches. You don't have to look like Charlie Wi to get help from Mike & Andy. Your specific complaint was that it was too complicated. If that is the case, it's because you had a teacher that didn't communicate effectively, or you didn't listen effectively. It's still a golf swing. Being S&T or TGM doesn't magically make it some pandora's box. If I told you to just go up and whack it, that's just as complicated, only I'm not explaining anything so it seems less so. People who give a one-sided representation of a method are the reason that these methods have such negative perceptions. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, but if you get with a good teacher in either of those two camps, they are certainly going to help you play better.

It also has nothing to do with intelligence. A golf instructor is looking at the parts of the swing and getting them into the correct positions,which they infer will help a player hit good shots. A player is worried about scoring the ball. They are quite different. Which is exactly what I said you shouldn't try to learn a system to improve your game. You should have someone else who understands that system help you. Or if you want to learn, then learn, but know that it's not for your game, it's for your knowledge bank. Golf pros aren't geniuses. Hop off your horse.

[bph7]

[quote name='kyle75' timestamp='1401208246' post='9374451']

That is a very pompous and condescending statement from you. You imply that because I said it was complicated that I am not smart enough to understand it. [b] I understand both methods very well and have had lessons from teachers who were trained in GM and Stack&Tilt[/b]. It was through those lessons that I learned that those swing methodologies weren't for me. There is a reason why no top player on the tour uses either methods. OF course, they are probably just not smart enough to understand it by your reasoning.
[/quote]

If you truly understood TGM, you wouldn't be calling it a "method", because TGM doesn't teach "a method". MAYBE once could say it teaches ALL METHODS, but even that goes way too far. TGM is more of a catalog of movements one can possibly make in a golf swing.

[lv_2_hack]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1401277077' post='9380473']
[quote name='lv_2_hack' timestamp='1401209069' post='9374523']
8 what's your take on KM's stuff?
[/quote]

Honestly I have not read any of his articles in depth , I have skimmed a couple and for the most part it's probably good information . How or what part / moment in time during a swing an individual golfer needs to add/ subtract or change a move would obviously need guidance ( providing they are physically capable) . I suppose it's a direct opposite of instructors who rely on graph print outs of GRF , body movements measured and to an extent trackman type devices , all of which are just end result scenarios with zero application in how to get it done
[/quote]

I've always viewed KM as a researcher and wondered how well he applied his research to everyday teaching.

I find it interesting they are all about copying Jamie Sadlowski's swing.

I understand the desire for the 'stable' release. What I'm not sure about is why they want everyone to copy his lead leg action.

[DevilDog]

I can't do Sadlowski's leg action with two replaced knees but some of the things Kelvin touches on make good sense though I prefer Monte's method of teaching because it is simple and easily understood.

For me, I work on setup religiously and other than that it is wide back and narrow down. Most good golf swings are that way but don't get artificially too wide. Just basically both arms straight but soft not firm on the way back then the swing narrows on the way down due to wrist c0ck and right elbow bend (for righty's) as I see it but I am sure I am wrong too though about every sport where a ball is hit works on this principle of wide back and narrow through.

[Ezgolfer]

Here is a good start ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDsHgObe6c
It seems like lucas is able to elimnate flip in golf swing and there is a tremendous improvement in his students in a short time as far as flipping is concerned.

[DevilDog]

[quote name='DeadPoets' timestamp='1401090329' post='9367503']
Yes - correcting someone's finish can change a lot of what happens in the downswing.
[/quote]

True indeed. The late great British instructor, Leslie King, advocated what he called "front end therapy" as a drill. Basically, you would set up, go from there into the finish position making sure you did what you should do after impact. He would say you could get in the proper impact position and take it forward from there. Said that doing this would work wonders on your backswing because your mind knew where your body wanted to end up with the golf club.

[kyle75]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1401299040' post='9382909']
[quote name='kyle75' timestamp='1401208246' post='9374451']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1401204986' post='9374141']
[quote name='kyle75' timestamp='1401199924' post='9373585']
Seems very complicated, like golf machine theory. Lot of thoughts to have while making a swing that lasts for about a sec. I got sucked into Stack and Tilt and then Golf Machine via Steve Elkington's site. They both make the swing way to complicated in my opinion.
[/quote]

Only as complicated as you make it. It would be complicated for you to read a 747 flight manual, but you're not a pilot(assuming of course, if you are then insert other thing that's outwardly complex). Yet that doesn't stop you from using the plane. A TGM or S&T teacher can help you out, and make what they're saying on a much easier to understand level. You shouldn't discredit a source because you can't understand it. I'd say that if you were a player trying to improve, you wouldn't try to understand it. You'd go to someone that already does, and have them help you. If you want to learn to be a golf instructor, read TGM. IF you want to learn to be a better golfer, go to an instructor, don't attempt to become one.
[/quote] That is a very pompous and condescending statement from you. You imply that because I said it was complicated that I am not smart enough to understand it. I understand both methods very well and have had lessons from teachers who were trained in GM and Stack&Tilt. It was through those lessons that I learned that those swing methodologies weren't for me. There is a reason why no top player on the tour uses either methods. OF course, they are probably just not smart enough to understand it by your reasoning.
[/quote]

Not at all. It has nothing to do with being smart. Tour players absolutely talk to people in both camps. Just because they don't fit the model, doesn't mean they don't use the coaches. You don't have to look like Charlie Wi to get help from Mike & Andy. Your specific complaint was that it was too complicated. If that is the case, it's because you had a teacher that didn't communicate effectively, or you didn't listen effectively. It's still a golf swing. Being S&T or TGM doesn't magically make it some pandora's box. If I told you to just go up and whack it, that's just as complicated, only I'm not explaining anything so it seems less so. People who give a one-sided representation of a method are the reason that these methods have such negative perceptions. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, but if you get with a good teacher in either of those two camps, they are certainly going to help you play better.

It also has nothing to do with intelligence. A golf instructor is looking at the parts of the swing and getting them into the correct positions,which they infer will help a player hit good shots. A player is worried about scoring the ball. They are quite different. Which is exactly what I said you shouldn't try to learn a system to improve your game. You should have someone else who understands that system help you. Or if you want to learn, then learn, but know that it's not for your game, it's for your knowledge bank. Golf pros aren't geniuses. Hop off your horse.
[/quote]Listen, I don't know how many times that I have to say this. I went to well versed teachers of both swing theories who were thorough in their teachings to me. They both helped me with my game, but I never felt comfortable with the swing changes they made, so I choose to go in a different direction. The instructor I am seeing now has me swinging better than ever and shooting my lowest scores ever. The hop of my horse comment made me laugh, so thanks for that. You're the one who decided to preach to me about golf instruction and make personal attacks after I gave my opinion. So maybe you should take a look in the mirror. With that being said, I am done with this. This is a thread for Kevins teachings and not for us to go back and forth. Good luck to you and to Kevin with his teachings

[kyle75]

[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1401299285' post='9382949']
[quote name='kyle75' timestamp='1401208246' post='9374451']
That is a very pompous and condescending statement from you. You imply that because I said it was complicated that I am not smart enough to understand it. [b] I understand both methods very well and have had lessons from teachers who were trained in GM and Stack&Tilt[/b]. It was through those lessons that I learned that those swing methodologies weren't for me. There is a reason why no top player on the tour uses either methods. OF course, they are probably just not smart enough to understand it by your reasoning.
[/quote]

If you truly understood TGM, you wouldn't be calling it a "method", because TGM doesn't teach "a method". MAYBE once could say it teaches ALL METHODS, but even that goes way too far. TGM is more of a catalog of movements one can possibly make in a golf swing.
[/quote]Look up method in the dictionary