![]() |
You are right
I have heard claims of tgm being incorrect but seen no proof to back them up, what exactly are these claims and what is there supposed proof? For example I read someone stating hinge action was nonsense.
|
Quote:
|
It may be junk science and hinge action may not matter but when I hinge differently I can SEE a difference in my ball flight.
|
hinge action is what squared club up the club in the first place.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've learned, finally :) , to just ignore it and follow what I believe. I like to follow many teachers and enjoy their work, but YODA speaks my language and has made me a better teacher. :salut: Kevin |
Right kev, I kinda realized that after re reading the thread title, that is definitely not my intention. Just trying to understand what exactly they are referring to when criticizing someone for being a book literalist, what exactly are they suggesting you not take literal? I guess I'm out of the loop I have only recently become aware of these claims/comments. I suppose I ought not concern myself with what these claims are, just frustrating to read things like a player is now taking lessons from an ai and then saying They hope he isn't a book literalist. Why wouldn't u take the manual that u use to teach literal?
|
Quote:
Kevin |
If reading and appreciating what the Yellow Book contains makes me a literalist, so be it. I am a literalist. Actually, I am a bit of a slow reader so I have to digest it all in small bites. It seems to make the digestion work better.
I see plenty of teachers around here who don't even know what the Yellow Book is and they seem to be teaching out of popular magazines. They'd be far better off to at least get ahold of the works of the earlier teachers. As an aside, thanks to Yoda and Kev for making golf a whole lot of fun for me again. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:49 PM. |