[innercityteacher]

For me the "conversion" was more one of accepting the TGM components (and the big three) and abandoning "position" golf -- very freeing to know there is no one "right" way to swing a club but many variations on a theme.

I say "religion" but maybe a better term would be "belief system" or even just "system" -- a way to understand and explain the world around us from more easily seen/understood (address, alignment) to the more mysterious (impact, compression).

For me, TGM provides a system that I can learn and apply. I'll interpret everything else through that view. That's why Trackman and D-plane are important elements to incorporate and explain in TGM terms. If we have real data (Trackman interpolations aside), then we must be able to explain it by TGM or change TGM to improve it or ultimately we should abandon TGM in favor of a superior system

So far, it looks to me like TGM as a system explains or includes all the popular "methods" or applications (S&T, Hogan, etc.) at least as well as any other system can explain all of them. That's why I find it interesting -- a Unified Field Theory for golf! Learning it should de-mystify the swing and only leave execution as the final frontier to ball striking (and then the final, final frontier of "scoring" -- but that's bordering on voodoo and witchcraft there... ).

Because TGM is based on a solid bio-mechanical foundation, almost all swings can be described and worked with, imho.

ICT