Jump to content


 

 

 

 

Special Promotions

Teetime Specials

Photo

HOMER KELLY


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 BROWNMAN

BROWNMAN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3320 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:05 PM

This thread is for people to put their veiws on Homer so they dont take up space on other peoples posts,

#2 Devongolfer

Devongolfer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:05 AM

Well said, Brownman, sorry your other thread got lost. Everything I know about HK comes from his biography, I gave my copy to my club pro in the hope of intriguing him enough to get him into TGM. So far, no luck. HK was a techie, nerdy, obsessive type of guy. A modern equivalent might be someone like Dave Pelz (no offense to DP). Technically oriented people (count me as one as well) want to understand how things work, and then how to improve how they work. There was another book, written by a physics professor in the UK, around the same time as TGM. But that only looked at the physics of a 2 lever action. TGM is a masterpiece, IMO. The idea of trying to analyse and document all the different ways of playing is a huge idea, virtually every other book on golf is all about "my way" or "the way" or "the secret". IMO it also contains some very useful ideas that I have not seen anywhere else: The notion that lag stresses the club shaft and that hitting a ball with a pre-stressed shaft means that the clubhead loses less speed between impact and separation thereby increasing ball speed is one. Another is the whole idea of the Computer (our brains) and the idea that the Computer will compensate for flaws is huge. It is so easy to get totally confused when you are working on your game, but if you have the idea that what you see might actually be a compensation for some earlier flaw, you can often make a much better diagnosis. HK's ideal of "an uncompensated swing" is right on the money. When I see people picking at bits of TGM, finding fault and questioning this or that, it frustrates me. There is no other body of work to compare to TGM, so I simply do not understand why anyone who is serious about contributing further to the understanding of the game does not start from TGM as a foundation and use TGM language. TGM leaves scope for further advances in understanding, so there is no need to start again with different language. If someone has a brilliant insight, there is no need to piss on TGM, they can more easily explain their brilliant idea and get people to understand if they use the TGM framework to explain it, IMO. When you look at all the other pro's and teaching resources, they are all arguing with each other. Even on ISG, argue argue argue. Getting 3 teaching pro's to agree on anything seems almost impossible these days, and that is just annoying if you are trying to learn how to play. TGM stands alone among all of the arguing and BS. That makes HK's work a major contribution to the game, again IMO.

#3 Stinkler

Stinkler

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25174 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:38 AM

WELL I'LL BE DAMNED, A SENSIBLE, INTELLIGENT, WELL WRITTEN POST WITHOUT PREJUDICE! HOW NICE TO SEE :)

#4 BROWNMAN

BROWNMAN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3320 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:51 AM

Ditto,Stinkler Ditto

#5 Jack_Golfer

Jack_Golfer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1943 posts
  • LocationPerth

Posted 14 December 2012 - 06:46 AM

Lots more on his own thread. One of the few worth reading.

#6 TheDart

TheDart

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4193 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:26 AM

Amen. I wish I had half the wit to say that. I am going to steal every bit of it. It is like seeing why I live. I hope there are more like him. Jeez - I hope he gets to +6.

#7 chinaalan

chinaalan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 809 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:28 PM

I will even have another go at trying to understand this. Great post!!

#8 Jack_Golfer

Jack_Golfer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1943 posts
  • LocationPerth

Posted 16 December 2012 - 01:22 AM

Another is the whole idea of the Computer (our brains) and the idea that the Computer will compensate for flaws is huge. It is so easy to get totally confused when you are working on your game, but if you have the idea that what you see might actually be a compensation for some earlier flaw, you can often make a much better diagnosis. HK’s ideal of “an uncompensated swing” is right on the money.

Trying to get rid of ingrained compensation habits keeps my golf coach in a comfortable life style. Years of practice and playing to the compensation swing is a hard thing to unlearn but the only way forward.

#9 TheDart

TheDart

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4193 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:45 AM

The old swing may not be so bad - at least it is familiar. The new one will give greater eventual satisfaction but the old one is always there in case things go temporarily wrong. I have a sliding scale of ten swing/hits depending on daily form. They say what are you thinking of. I say I am waiting for a shot that I can hit right now.

#10 TheDart

TheDart

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4193 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:59 AM

I will even have another go at trying to understand this. Great post!!

Mate, It is a series of understandings - ad infinitum. With TGM at least you have a blue print and options galore.

#11 OldMaverick

OldMaverick

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2485 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:15 PM

'tis a thrice-told tale, eh, Dart?

#12 TheDart

TheDart

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4193 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:19 PM

Itchy trigger finger Loren.

#13 Stinkler

Stinkler

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25174 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:37 PM

JUST LIKE THE OLD DAYS HEY, DARTY AND LOREN CHATTING! WOW, I'VE MISSED HANGING HERE WITH YOU GUYS, GOOD MEMORIES INDEED. :)

#14 Ignoramus

Ignoramus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4464 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

Would HK be a regular contributor in golf forums if they existed in his days. If he did I wonder what his posts would read like.

#15 Zenstb

Zenstb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2480 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:04 AM

Would HK be a regular contributor in golf forums if they existed in his days. If he did I wonder what his posts would read like.

The man who hits at the ball rather than through it has no sense of rhythm.
Secrets of the Master – The Best of Bobby Jones

You don't get it, The book is very well organised in a file system we all understand. If you can count to 12 and understand the alphabet ABCD you can easily understand the format of the book. Homer set the book out in an organised format. He created a language which is so that when everyone is referring to a certain style every one was using the same lingo and on the same page. 6-m-1 pretty easy to understand. Chapter 6 section M - 1st paragraph. 6-m-2 Chapter 6 section M paragraph 2. The golf swing is broken up into components and zones. You want to work out the components of a certain swing you can look up the check list then go back through the book and see all the components required for a certain swing style. Homer would write in a way we could all understand first he would recommend to get a book so you can follow, then he would quote a section then explain what it means. It's the best written golf instruction book I have read it's put in a format that when Loren, Dart speak I understand or any other TGMer understand exactly what they are talking about. I can say to any instructor around the world doing TGM , what are you working on? 6-m-1, I know exactly what they are working on.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users