It depends on the grip.
That’s the problem with the word “hinge”. It’s ambiguous.
If you turn the right hand or both hands to the top in the grip you can more align left wrist cock with right wrist bend.
It destroys the flying wedges, but if you’re a swinger and want to swing that way, go ahead. The hitter is better off with the strong, single-action or double-action grips.
(Strong in TGM does not mean what’s in the common vernacular. It has to do with what’s lying on the sweetspot plumb line across the grip from the aft side. It does not mean turned.)

TGM does not recognize right wrist cock, intentional anyway. That does not mean you can’t swing that way.
This was a ‘sticking point’ for me in TGM for a long time.
I have my problems with TGM, also.
That doesn’t mean that it’s not a monumental, unique work the likes of which will never be repeated. Most of TGM is intuitively obvious once you understand the detail. It’s a ‘forehead slap’ kind of obvious.

“I don’t care what you do as long as you know how you do it.” Homer Kelley

OM,Joe Dante touched on this in his book 4 magic moves,the secondary system of rotation,the hands being the axis of this rotation.
I believe Abe Mitchell also used “similar” technique but by all accounts it wasnt popular as it wrecked a lot of swings or something along those lines.

Dantes way would most likely fit in with homers statement you quoted in the last paragraph in your last post

I studied Dante and discarded it for a few reasons, the tension in the left arm, the arched left wrist at the top plus there are easier ways to do the same thing. The meat of it is on the web, not the whole of it as I recall. I think someone has revived it in print or video or online subscription lessons.
The only teacher I know of who teaches the “curlaway” is Dan Shauger and Mike Austin/Mike Dunaway didn’t do it.

Yes, of course, the double pendulum, the flail, the trebuchet, nunchuck (chuck a nun?). To say that the wrists provide a secondary axis of rotation is motherhood and apple pie. Heh.
Some think of the two arms together making one handle (Sean Clement) and more modern models consider the left arm by itself to be the handle and the left wrist the link. The shaft is the swingle of course. Sean doesn’t do what he says he does, incidentally.
The low point, bottom of the divot, is just inside the left foot regardless. It just happens to be in line with both the left shoulder and the hands at mid-body. The mid-body moved with the forward press.
Plus “no part of the power package moves separately from any other part of the power package” TGM

A chain is a flail with a lot of handles and swingles in turn, but the last link is the only swingle alone. They all line up with inertial momentum or centrifugal force.
A snake or a whip is a virtual flail with innumerable handles and swingles. The last swingle of a whip’s tail creates such a vacuum behind it it makes a popping noise with air rushing in to equalize. I don’t think it’s necessary to break the sound barrier to do that but some say that’s the reason.

Several rotational centers.
Maximum trigger delay is your friend for power, not necessarily accuracy.
Force = m x velocity squared divided by radius. It’s huge.
A peak of say 3000 fl lbs but by impact it’s down to about 1800 ft lbs due to extending the radius.

You can’t trigger the throw until the hands leave the right shoulder and you have to be low enough that the right arm doesn’t run out of extension by impact.
Best to have a little bit of everything left by impact to be sure the left wrist is not cupped.

Loren if you are going to use the flail as an example then you need to understand how it relates to the golf swing. A flail has a handle called a hand-staff, a swivel called thongs and a swiple. To work the swiple the staff has to stretch the thong/s – any slack has to be taken up before the swiple can answer to any movement conducted to it by the staff.
In the context of the golf swing, the hand-staff is the body from the pelvis to the elbows, the thongs are the forearms and wrists, the swiple is the hands and the club (the hands are fixed to the club). The motive force wielding the flail is the feet and legs.
This is pre 1920’s concept by George William Beldam. All Homer did was describe the various methods of using the human flail to hit the golf ball. Beldam had been there and done that with the Champions of his era, documented in his 11 booklets of their swings.

Thank you.

You are welcome. This is the exact issue under review with anchoring the putter.

Thank you.

“There is only one golf swing. It’s not a procedure. It’s simple geometry.” Homer Kelley,The Golfing Machine

LynnBlakeGolf

OMG

Loren if you are going to use the flail as an example then you need to understand how it relates to the golf swing. A flail has a handle called a hand-staff, a swivel called thongs and a swiple. To work the swiple the staff has to stretch the thong/s – any slack has to be taken up before the swiple can answer to any movement conducted to it by the staff.
In the context of the golf swing, the hand-staff is the body from the pelvis to the elbows, the thongs are the forearms and wrists, the swiple is the hands and the club (the hands are fixed to the club). The motive force wielding the flail is the feet and legs.
This is pre 1920’s concept by George William Beldam. All Homer did was describe the various methods of using the human flail to hit the golf ball. Beldam had been there and done that with the Champions of his era, documented in his 11 booklets of their swings.

Totally ignorant about almost everything except golf.

Ig,

Loren is too nice to mention teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, but I am not. All Homer did?!??? Are you trying to sound funny?.

He categorised 24 components with 6 to 15 useful variations. That is 144 to 360 possibilities that George might not have considered, especially for non-champions. He slotted in how best to use you brain and a correct sequence for its use, the usual errors of swing/hit, some foolproof short cuts, tips for simplicity buffs, basic motion curriculums. He shares insights only and investigative genius could glimpse

Stuff that the average guy would kill for if they knew it was there BUT people don’t look far – do they!

That’s interesting raz. A different way to describe the flail than I’ve ever heard before. Especially from a handle and power source perspective. That totally changes how I thought about it.

Loren if you are going to use the flail as an example then you need to understand how it relates to the golf swing. A flail has a handle called a hand-staff, a swivel called thongs and a swiple. To work the swiple the staff has to stretch the thong/s – any slack has to be taken up before the swiple can answer to any movement conducted to it by the staff.
In the context of the golf swing, the hand-staff is the body from the pelvis to the elbows, the thongs are the forearms and wrists, the swiple is the hands and the club (the hands are fixed to the club). The motive force wielding the flail is the feet and legs.
This is pre 1920’s concept by George William Beldam. All Homer did was describe the various methods of using the human flail to hit the golf ball. Beldam had been there and done that with the Champions of his era, documented in his 11 booklets of their swings.

Totally ignorant about almost everything except golf.

Ig,

Loren is too nice to mention teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, but I am not. All Homer did?!??? Are you trying to sound funny?.

He categorised 24 components with 6 to 15 useful variations. That is 144 to 360 possibilities that George might not have considered, especially for non-champions. He slotted in how best to use you brain and a correct sequence for its use, the usual errors of swing/hit, some foolproof short cuts, tips for simplicity buffs, basic motion curriculums. He shares insights only and investigative genius could glimpse

Stuff that the average guy would kill for if they knew it was there BUT people don’t look far – do they!

For tuition in Sydney call Paul Hart (TheDart) 0412 070 820.

Terry Hill’s, St. Michael’s or Duntryleague Golf Club Orange

Dart
Basically that’s what he did if the golf swing fits the flail action. Never read Kelley’s book but I have read several of Beldam’s booklets. I do know that the principles of an efficient golf swing haven’t changed that much in 90 years when GWB published his keys to interpreting the golf swings (full, short shots and putting) of the champions of that era.
Happy to suck eggs if I am wrong. Eggs are a pure source of protein.

Homer also described the double pendulum as a big pulley, little pulley depending on where you release.
The little pulley at the hands represents maximum trigger delay, or automatic snap release, the most powerful. You could trigger the release before then making it non-automatic on purpose though most people do it accidentally.

The use of the flail by Homer is separate from the body.
It’s just the instrument related to the power package which starts with the right shoulder and goes out to the hands. No part of the power package moves separately from any other part of the power package.

To see how the flail works and how to keep it under control you don’t need to look at the body, just the power package.

Demonstrated by John Furze, Melbourne area

The Golfer’s Flail

The hard part is duplicating that detente in the wrist of the flail.

TheDart also did one of these for Peter Croker.

Ray, I thought you told us you had ordered and received the little yellow instructors’ handbook and were studying it.
Throw it in the trash like everyone else?
And then dig it out again.

Not that I recall Loren. There has been a few suggestions from TGM followers that I should read it. I read the published version by Scott Gummer about Kelley and the Golf Machine, which satisfied my curiosity about it. I’m sure if I have any questions then the TGM experts here will be happy to answer them.

Indeed I would, Ray, as I did for HeadPro.
But you’re not a Seeker.

A biography of the author is not sufficient.
It’s not like anything you’ve ever seen before.
So you can’t make any assumptions.

Thank you.

“There is only one golf swing. It’s not a procedure. It’s simple geometry.” Homer Kelley,The Golfing Machine

LynnBlakeGolf

Im Sorry….........Im still ROFLMAO

Indeed I would, Ray, as I did for HeadPro.
But you’re not a Seeker.

A biography of the author is not sufficient.
It’s not like anything you’ve ever seen before.
So you can’t make any assumptions.

“There is only one golf swing. It’s not a procedure. It’s simple geometry.” Homer Kelley,The Golfing Machine

LynnBlakeGolf

Loren I already have a pretty fair concept of an efficient golf swing and how it works. How would you know what I have seen, who I have associated with and the extent of my knowledge to make that assumption Loren?

Indeed I would, Ray, as I did for HeadPro.
But you’re not a Seeker.

A biography of the author is not sufficient.
It’s not like anything you’ve ever seen before.
So you can’t make any assumptions.

“There is only one golf swing. It’s not a procedure. It’s simple geometry.” Homer Kelley,The Golfing Machine

LynnBlakeGolf

Loren I already have a pretty fair concept of an efficient golf swing and how it works. How would you know what I have seen, who I have associated with and the extent of my knowledge to make that assumption Loren?

Totally ignorant about almost everything except golf.

People who think they know, you know they know nothing, there is a massive difference being a book reader and thinking you know, to standing on a practice fairway for thousands of hours finding out what works and doesn’t through experience of coaching. Apples and oranges

If we have any real experience we would know it’s a given the TGM book is a must read. I know for a fact that most of the top 100 coaches in the world have read and have adopted part of TGM to how the teach. There is thousands of golf coaches world wide who have applied TGM as well. The US PGA was going to make it part of their teaching curriculum sadly Homer passed away so it fell through.

Any coach serious about coaching and want to be worth their salt would study TGM and not just TGM all other swing methodologies out there at present. They know they can always learn something whether useful or not useful.

A great coach is always studying and learning he knows that he won’t stop learning how to be a better coach until he dies.

When people think they know it all, in my experience they know nothing, they just think they know. I also have no time of day for them either, because they have a closed mind to learning and that is cancerous it stops evolution for change and improvements not just in golf in all facets of life.

Just imagine what would happened if doctors applied this same attitude of thinking they knew it all. Scary. But they are smarter they know they only know a little about something, although in the bigger picture they know, they know nothing in comparison. It’s why they spend the rest of their life studying and learning like many other professions and golf ain’t no different either.

A closed mind sums up a persons knowledge.

That’s interesting raz. A different way to describe the flail than I’ve ever heard before. Especially from a handle and power source perspective. That totally changes how I thought about it.

Golflink 4161100078 – 11/3/2013 17.6 – 2013 target single figures
Inaugural Official Handicapper and Treasurer of the SEQ Golf Guys

It is an interesting concept, hey Bix. Beldam was the first to actually put in print the fact that an efficient golf swing was powered from the feet up with the motive power coming from within and is transmitted outwards to the club through the wrists. He was able to prove it by the pictures he took with the ultra-rapid camera. Unfortunately his concept was too advanced for many swing gurus of his time and he never received the acclaim he deserved. It wasn’t until J.Douglas Edgar and Abe Mitchell published their views of the golf swing that Beldam received recognition. It was an interesting era in golf.

Loren if you are going to use the flail as an example then you need to understand how it relates to the golf swing. A flail has a handle called a hand-staff, a swivel called thongs and a swiple. To work the swiple the staff has to stretch the thong/s – any slack has to be taken up before the swiple can answer to any movement conducted to it by the staff.
In the context of the golf swing, the hand-staff is the body from the pelvis to the elbows, the thongs are the forearms and wrists, the swiple is the hands and the club (the hands are fixed to the club). The motive force wielding the flail is the feet and legs.
This is pre 1920’s concept by George William Beldam. All Homer did was describe the various methods of using the human flail to hit the golf ball. Beldam had been there and done that with the Champions of his era, documented in his 11 booklets of their swings.

Totally ignorant about almost everything except golf.

If we are going to consider a flail, the handle would be considered the left arm. the right arm can be another version. Although the left arm is the handle. The thong is the wrists, the swiple is the club. To drive the flail we create speed from the ground up, you could call the flail the last parts of the kinetic link. Arms, wrist and club. How ever the pelvis to elbows couldn’t be considered the handle of a flail because the hips function independently to the upper body. The upper body function independently to the arms. How ever in order for a flail to work we need acceleration or speed starting from the ground up, pass speed to the lower body, then pass speed to the upper body and then into the arms in order for a flail to work effectively so that the flail effect will occur at impact, not prior. In order to have an effective flail we need a kinetic link to power it.

Watch the video maverick posted on a flail this gives us better understand how this ties in with the last stages of the kinetic link.

Indeed I would, Ray, as I did for HeadPro.
But you’re not a Seeker.

A biography of the author is not sufficient.
It’s not like anything you’ve ever seen before.
So you can’t make any assumptions.

“There is only one golf swing. It’s not a procedure. It’s simple geometry.” Homer Kelley,The Golfing Machine

LynnBlakeGolf

Loren I already have a pretty fair concept of an efficient golf swing and how it works. How would you know what I have seen, who I have associated with and the extent of my knowledge to make that assumption Loren?

Totally ignorant about almost everything except golf.

I for one hope you keep sharing Ig and are not run out of town. There have been too many contributors lost in my short time.

People who think they know, you know they know nothing, there is a massive difference being a book reader and thinking you know, to standing on a practice fairway for thousands of hours finding out what works and doesn’t through experience of coaching. Apples and oranges

Interesting quote considering the grief Brad got when people wanted to question his views. I am sure he has thousands of hours of practice fairway experience and first hand knowledge of what he believes is the truth regarding the golf swing. Why can’t people just accept others have their own thoughts and let it be.

Lots of reasons 2manybogies

The main one though is that the people who are getting involved in these discussions are very passionate about it. They’ve all committed significant time and energy into learning what they’ve learned. They feel strongly that there is value in what they say, and generally there is.

Alongside that is that all of us are different and what works for one is different to what works for someone else. This generates disagreement. For example I found swinging to right field to lead to problems for me. For others it has probably helped immensely. So if I say it is a bad thing (true for me) they are going to get pissed about that. It’s human nature. There will actually be a lot more people pissed than you’d think. Certainly more than will ever come here and get into a heated argument.

Because different people react differently to being pissed. Some will just walk away straight up. Stuff it! Some will argue for a while and then get tired of it and walk away. And some will keep fighting, getting more and more angry until they get their marching orders.

We’ll often demonise those who get to that stage, but that’s no more fair than them getting angry at someone who disagrees with them. They are emotionally involved in the topic and especially in men that can easily lead to aggression. Witness how people react to getting cut off in traffic!

I personally have a lot of time for most of the people on this site. None of us are perfect. But then people who enter these discussions generally have a lot that we can learn from. We have to discern what is good for us and what isn’t. But everyone can teach us something – even if it’s what not to do! :-)

Mate ,the posts about the flail,Im not sure you understand what they are on about here,its IG being so condescending of Loren re the flail,hells bells ,Im fairly sure that Loren could explain the “FLAIL” in his sleep.
Condescending maybe a bad choice of words,as I dont mean Ray would have meant it quite that way.,more likely a seniors moment,I dont take ray to be like that in all honesty.

As for different methods,that to is fine,each to their own,imo,as for the seniors moments,I should know,I OWN many moments lol.

As an example, I don’t have any doubt that TGM is a very useful tool for learning golf. Just having a glossary of terms is a huge advantage – most sciences are built on a foundation of shared terminology and shared concepts.

What does get me rolling my eyes though is when someone responds to a criticism of TGM around the ‘preferred patterns’ (wrong phrase but hopefully you know what I mean) by saying that TGM includes all options. Whether the book has documented all options or not it most definitely has proposed that some things are better than other things. So it is a cop out to avoid arguments against what TGM advocates by saying that TGM is not a method book. It acts like a method book because users of the book posit that certain things are preferable.

On the other hand, I roll my eyes at those who write the whole thing off because they believe they have found flaws in parts of it. I certainly believe that you should identify the flaws, but flaws don’t mean the whole thing is worthless.

I find that the idea that Homer got it all right way back then is foolish. Nobody ever got it all right. Probably no one every will. The human body is complex beyond belief and trying to define a golf swing as a mechanical action is always going to be imperfect.

But I equally find the idea that you should ignore the whole thing to be equally foolish. Why waste a resource?

So I sit between cringing when someone tries to criticise TGM as a whole as worthless, and I shake my head in disbelief when someone tries to argue that TGM has it all right there, and that nothing before or after can add to it. I suspect Homer would shake his head too!

Mate ,the posts about the flail,Im not sure you understand what they are on about here,its IG being so condescending of Loren re the flail,hells bells ,Im fairly sure that Loren could explain the “FLAIL” in his sleep.
Condescending maybe a bad choice of words,as I dont mean Ray would have meant it quite that way.,more likely a seniors moment,I dont take ray to be like that in all honesty.

As for different methods,that to is fine,each to their own,imo,as for the seniors moments,I should know,I OWN many moments lol.

Golfs ABC…………..Always Be Cool……….Thanks paul Hart

I’m not sure brownman – I’ve seen things on here about the flail but never that way. It was never the lower body throwing the wrist/club flail via the torso/upper arms handle. More the pivot throwing the wrist/club flail via the arms handle.

Razaar is a student of the game, just like Loren. So it shouldn’t need to be condescending to say what he said. Maybe it was. We’ve all posted stuff in this forum that was aggressive or exasperated or sarcastic. So it could definitely be condescending.

But I think we tend to read a lot of emotion into what is written here that is maybe not what was intended by the writer. I don’t know whether that’s the case here.

Loren’s a pretty good golfer (for an old guy – sorry Loren couldn’t stop myself:-) so I think he should be heard here. And not written off as a TGM bookworm. Similarly Ray can play and has demonstrated that he has studied golf just as much as the TGM experts. And that should be respected as well.

For me the only shame in all this is when it gets personal and tiring to people and they leave. But we should also remember that people have their reasons why they are here, so sometimes people leave or are ejected because they are not getting their way so they push past the lines.

I love hearing all these different ideas. I try things. Pick and choose. Run down rabbit holes, then have to reverse out! I hope that everyone posting here will continue to. Loren has helped me over the years a lot. Zen has similarly volunteered enormous time. Sure I did the program a bit but he has given much more than just what I paid for. Razaar intrigues me with his ‘ancient golfer wisdom’ – it’s awesome stuff. Fos has also helped me enormously. All of them continue to help me, on and off ISG. It’s part of why I keep coming here.