Kelvin Miyahira: pro or con

[eightiron]

[quote name='Tod Johnson' timestamp='1411744580' post='10188503']
[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1411743197' post='10188385']
Now I am more confused [b]"his tailbone isn't anywhere near his left foot at impact"?[/b] Maybe I am not seeing this correctly but to me both Hogan and Snead have their tailbones very close to their left foot and Sneads maybe even over top of the inside of his left ankle. That isn't close? Is it just not close because they have not bent their knee and their Sneads inseam is 34"? Because to me it is close as in nearly directly over his left ankle at impact from the ground up.

Edit - I think some my confusion lies in some of your posts then Tod. From watching the videos in the KM articles, it looks to me it is more a sequencing of when the pelvis rotates and moves left? It looks like KM is talking more about P4 to P4.5 closer to transition where the pelvis rotates more and then moves left more. That is how I understand it anyway, vs saying they are not moving left. To me if you watch the belt buckle it clearly moves left and like I said it is almost over the left ankle at impact.
[/quote]


I actually said "belt buckle", not "tailbone", and this was the picture I was talking about:
[/quote]

Well not really because that is just a drawing , not the real swing . I put that up for you because I knew you'd jump on it . Here is the real swing and not quite impact

[eightiron]

[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411876548' post='10197781']
[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1411870974' post='10197487']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411860794' post='10196765']
No you still don't get the meaning of what I posted. What's free got to do with anything? It adds nothing to the perceived value, just because it's free does not make it any more or less valuable...get it now?

Sometimes you just got to step back and quit acting so defensively and quit assuming all posts are slamming your guru...lol!
[/quote]

Oh I don't have to assume that you're a detractor of KM and JM, it's painfully obvious from your numerous posts in this thread that you are.

What's valueless is your generalization that something being free doesn't add to it's perceived value. So what. Either the articles are beneficial or they're not. Either Kelvin's teachings have value or not.

Since they are incredibly informative and useful, the fact they are easily accessible by anyone makes it all the better. What makes you unmindful is thinking I'm being defensive and Kelvin is my guru.
[/quote]



It's obvious you're defensive! your post proves it. Beneficial or not has nothing to do with price...are you that thick? There is a lot of things in those articles that are pure junk science, starting with the spine engine theory which is total garbage. All one has to do is read a real spine experts peer review on that subject, Dr.Stuart McGill. So the benefits of that are not only zero but of no use other than to be used as a hook by K.M.

Many of his observations are totally without merit. He was proven wrong by real scientists on Facebook and couldn't handle their questioning and got super defensive and belligerent to the point of banishment. His 3d experience is with a K-vest...lol!...really? Mostly 2d pictures and vids with all kinds of issues that accompany those types of observations. I won't even bother with the goofy trip to the desert The Research-a-thon they called it, with no results ever posted that proved anything except there are real scientists and then there are pseudo scientists like KM and JM.

keeping it real!
[/quote]

I believe this was about the "second fire" and K/ sequence which actually turned out to be forward and upwards translation of the pelvic region ( chip johnson will know the details) .Sadlowski was the gold standard and there was some testing done by Dr Kwon which all fizzled out with no further information on the K/ sequence as far as I am aware .
I suppose sadlowski is a living subject to measure but in terms of " second fire" Hogan is the real gold standard.

[RBImGuy]

[quote name='russc' timestamp='1411269160' post='10155435']
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I on the other hand regard Kelvin's articles as some of the very best information on the web.He is at the forefront in using very high speed cameras and the use of biomechanics in golf swing analysis.



[/quote]

/Thread

[Golf nerd]

I would like to ask the Golfwrx community, who has "real knowledge" of the golf swing and whose philosophy is fundamentally sound and worth to follow? The reason for this question is my impression that many fellows here are not very happy with what Kel, Jeff Mann and others have to offer . I am interested in the reason for that and appreciate any answer. Probably I am mislead and you do acknowledge and honor theirs publications?

[bph7]

[quote name='Golf nerd' timestamp='1411900498' post='10198253']
I would like to ask the Golfwrx community, who has "real knowledge" of the golf swing and whose philosophy is fundamentally sound and worth to follow? The reason for this question is my impression that many fellows here are not very happy with what Kel, Jeff Mann and others have to offer . I am interested in the reason for that and appreciate any answer. Probably I am mislead and you do acknowledge and honor theirs publications?
[/quote]

Jeff Mann, are you kidding? He has zero credentials and just publishes incredibly long and admittedly thorough articles but which are literally just his opinion with little else. He's been banned from so many forums for a reason, he doesn't seem interested In hearing anyone else's thoughts or acknowledging that he could possibly be wrong about anything. For somebody with no real golfing credentials to think of, you should be very skeptical of those who will not tolerate opposing viewpoints, and he's the king of that.

As for KM, I think this is just a vigorous debate about the whole spine engine idea. Again, sort of like Jeff, KM has no real golfing credentials ( apparently not playing the game himself), so when anyone like that publishes stuff that is so different than everything else, people will (and should) be skeptical.

So there's your answer IMO. Also, I'm not really interested in any senseless follow up debate about what constitutes credentials and whether you should be able to play golf decently to have credibility (fwiw, I think you should, and lots of others here do as well). I think both are similar because they made such sweeping and bold claims, and do not have either the requisite proof or standing in the golf community to do so without there being some healthy skepticism.

As for "real knowledge", lots of the (non-troll) teachers that post on this forum have it...

[hoganfan924]

Funny thing about Jeff Mann, the guy couldn't even do the most basic things correctly like trace the clubhead path in V1. He would claim idiotic things like that his left arm bent severely in the backswing due to lack of scapula flexibility. When I pointed out that it was due to over flexion of his right arm, he argued endlessly about it. He used to trash TGM then became a convert. Of course during all of his changes of philosophy he was never wrong about anything. Lol

It's obvious that Kelvin is using Sadlowski as his #1 swing model, since Lucas' swing looks like a copy as well as other students. I have no issue with that, just don't couch it in some discredited "spine engine" theory mumbo jumbo to try and make it sound scientifically credible.

It seems like golf is one of the few sports out there that attracts these kind of "gurus." Hard to think of another technique intensive athletic activity where "instructors" can't, or have never demonstrated high level proficiency. Just here on WRX we've had Mann, Kelvin, the "Maestro" and several other kooky theories posited. I guess golfers are suckers for the "one magic move" that's going to get them to the Champions tour. Lol

[Golf nerd]

[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1411901983' post='10198283']
[quote name='Golf nerd' timestamp='1411900498' post='10198253']
I would like to ask the Golfwrx community, who has "real knowledge" of the golf swing and whose philosophy is fundamentally sound and worth to follow? The reason for this question is my impression that many fellows here are not very happy with what Kel, Jeff Mann and others have to offer . I am interested in the reason for that and appreciate any answer. Probably I am mislead and you do acknowledge and honor theirs publications?
[/quote]

Jeff Mann, are you kidding? He has zero credentials and just publishes incredibly long and admittedly thorough articles but which are literally just his opinion with little else. He's been banned from so many forums for a reason, he doesn't seem interested In hearing anyone else's thoughts or acknowledging that he could possibly be wrong about anything. For somebody with no real golfing credentials to think of, you should be very skeptical of those who will not tolerate opposing viewpoints, and he's the king of that.

As for KM, I think this is just a vigorous debate about the whole spine engine idea. Again, sort of like Jeff, KM has no real golfing credentials ( apparently not playing the game himself), so when anyone like that publishes stuff that is so different than everything else, people will (and should) be skeptical.

So there's your answer IMO. Also, I'm not really interested in any senseless follow up debate about what constitutes credentials and whether you should be able to play golf decently to have credibility (fwiw, I think you should, and lots of others here do as well). I think both are similar because they made such sweeping and bold claims, and do not have either the requisite proof or standing in the golf community to do so without there being some healthy skepticism.

As for "real knowledge", lots of the (non-troll) teachers that post on this forum have it...
[/quote]

Thanks for your opinion.

[petter7]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1411882413' post='10197959']
Yeah but if you get [b]Jeff Mann[/b] to " fill in the missing blanks " it's all good .
[/quote]

Another robust laugh of the day courtesy of eightiron!!

He's been blown up so many times, his blog is a virtual Three Mile Island…Mann standing there in is his bedroom with his dwarf golf club and the memory of the many massacres, literally posting to himself.

Of course all evidence of the posting carnage has been methodically deleted.

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1411905084' post='10198373']
It's obvious that Kelvin is using Sadlowski as his #1 swing model, since Lucas' swing looks like a copy as well as other students. I have no issue with that, just don't couch it in some discredited "spine engine" theory mumbo jumbo to try and make it sound scientifically credible.[/quote]

I would not care if Sadlowski was Kelvin's #1 swing model. But, in the 2 lessons I don't recall looking at Sadlowski's swing once. We have looked at JB Holmes swing and Tiger from 2000 swing. So for me, if Sadlowski is his #1 swing model...he has not showed it to me and it appears your statement is inaccurate.

[quote]It seems like golf is one of the few sports out there that attracts these kind of "gurus." Hard to think of another technique intensive athletic activity where "instructors" can't, or have never demonstrated high level proficiency. Just here on WRX we've had Mann, Kelvin, the "Maestro" and several other kooky theories posited. I guess golfers are suckers for the "one magic move" that's going to get them to the Champions tour. Lol
[/quote]

Not sure what your definition of a high level of proficiency is. The top teachers in the world usually have models of swings they prefer and I may count on my hand the teachers that can strike the ball within the same galaxy as those models.

Doesn't mean those teachers are bad players. They can probably break par from time to time on your regular tracks, but get them on a Tour course they do not generate nearly enough club head speed nor have the control of the trajectory of their shots to hit it well enough to break par. At the risk of singling out particular teachers I've seen like this, it includes teachers I've seen play or hit balls (up to 20 years ago when they were younger) including Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, Jimmy Ballard, David Leadbetter, David Orr and Mike Bender to name a few.

Ballard is a good example as he has had about as many Tour winners and major championship winners as anybody. His client list on Tour has been extremely devoted to him and lauds his work. But, you're not going to see him play golf anytime soon.

I understand the desire to want to see the professional instructor perform what they are teaching. The issue is that if you're looking for an instructor that can truly hit is as well as the players with the mechanics they are preaching...or even within the same galaxy....you're going to be searching for a long time. The job of an instructor is to improve his players. That is really all there is to it. It's not prove that they can play golf really well.





RH

[hoganfan924]

Another POV - rifle marksmanship is my other technique intensive hobby (and a lot less complicated than hitting a golf ball well). I think I'd be I'd be an utter fool to take marksmanship lessons from someone who can't (or never has) shot at at least an "expert" level on a standard Army rifle marksmanship test, and would much prefer coaching from someone who has been nationally ranked or competed at the national matches. Heck, I've taken slalom water skiing lessons from a water skiing hall of famer and it cost me less/hour than a typical golf lesson from local driving range pro, and it included use of a boat and gas! Lol. People in other sports must laugh at the nonsense that golfers will swallow as "quality instruction." BTW, Harmon once played on tour, Bender played the Nike tour, Ledbetter played at a high level as well. Not sure about Haney or Ballard but I wouldn't bother with lessons from them anyway.

[PutterKilledTheDream]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1411923985' post='10199891']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1411905084' post='10198373']
It's obvious that Kelvin is using Sadlowski as his #1 swing model, since Lucas' swing looks like a copy as well as other students. I have no issue with that, just don't couch it in some discredited "spine engine" theory mumbo jumbo to try and make it sound scientifically credible.[/quote]

I would not care if Sadlowski was Kelvin's #1 swing model. But, in the 2 lessons I don't recall looking at Sadlowski's swing once. We have looked at JB Holmes swing and Tiger from 2000 swing. So for me, if Sadlowski is his #1 swing model...he has not showed it to me and it appears your statement is inaccurate.

[quote]It seems like golf is one of the few sports out there that attracts these kind of "gurus." Hard to think of another technique intensive athletic activity where "instructors" can't, or have never demonstrated high level proficiency. Just here on WRX we've had Mann, Kelvin, the "Maestro" and several other kooky theories posited. I guess golfers are suckers for the "one magic move" that's going to get them to the Champions tour. Lol
[/quote]

Not sure what your definition of a high level of proficiency is. The top teachers in the world usually have models of swings they prefer and I may count on my hand the teachers that can strike the ball within the same galaxy as those models.

Doesn't mean those teachers are bad players. They can probably break par from time to time on your regular tracks, but get them on a Tour course they do not generate nearly enough club head speed nor have the control of the trajectory of their shots to hit it well enough to break par. At the risk of singling out particular teachers I've seen like this, it includes teachers I've seen play or hit balls (up to 20 years ago when they were younger) including Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, Jimmy Ballard, David Leadbetter, David Orr and Mike Bender to name a few.

Ballard is a good example as he has had about as many Tour winners and major championship winners as anybody. His client list on Tour has been extremely devoted to him and lauds his work. But, you're not going to see him play golf anytime soon.

I understand the desire to want to see the professional instructor perform what they are teaching. The issue is that if you're looking for an instructor that can truly hit is as well as the players with the mechanics they are preaching...or even within the same galaxy....you're going to be searching for a long time. The job of an instructor is to improve his players. That is really all there is to it. It's not prove that they can play golf really well.





RH
[/quote]
High proficiency doesn't mean current, could mean in the past tense as well. Obviously several of the top world-class instructors are significantly older than their students. Proficiency means demonstrated the capacity at some point in time to play at a high level. Not 100 shooters who seemingly appear on the scene overnight and self anoint or golf scientists who somehow bridge the gap from analysis to trying to teach the whole package. I agree 100% with Hoganfans assessment.

[eightiron]

Jeff Mann hits lasers and regularly shoots 65 , he would surely whip Kelvin M

[petter7]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1411927166' post='10200189']
Jeff Mann hits lasers and regularly shoots 65 , he would surely whip Kelvin M
[/quote]

And he does it all with his dwarf club.

[attachment=2436289:Screen Shot 2014-09-28 at 2.08.58 PM.png]

[eightiron]

Well that's an improvement , normally he's got his tight bicycle shorts on with a tube of Vaseline in his hand

[petter7]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1411928522' post='10200329']
Well that's an improvement , normally he's got his tight bicycle shorts on with a tube of Vaseline in his hand
[/quote]

And as always….an intact LAFW with a FLW.

[pick it up]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1411882413' post='10197959']
[quote name='pick it up' timestamp='1411880808' post='10197923']
[quote name='dap' timestamp='1411879652' post='10197879']
KM should forget about "science" in his instructions and just focus on teaching technique based on his opinionated idea of gold medal ball strikers with the use of high speed cameras. Nothing wrong with that. Why try to fit your theories into scientific fact if you are not qualified. I find it strange that most instructors are not humble enough to write a simple JMOH.
[/quote]


The reason is simple they think it adds to their credibility and authority on the subject matter, that's a way to get people to believe your theories have merit. If you say a lot of things that sound technical and scientific lots of people tend to just accept it as gospel and view that person as an authority on the subject. How else could someone get 900 people to drink the kool-aid? People want to believe.
[/quote]

Yeah but if you get Jeff Mann to " fill in the missing blanks " it's all good . Couple of key points would be , get the arms high , add rear side lateral bend starting down and get steep inside out . Back out with the crack and upper body and get a bent left arm to stop the face turning fast
[/quote]



Yeah but I posted it just for the medical facts! I'll take Manns' version and Stuart McGill's over KM'S and S.G'S version of the "Spine Engine" anyday.

Golf instruction is like rolling dice sometimes you come up with a winner, but mostly not and from what i have read everyone is right and no one is wrong except the other guy...lol!

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1411926450' post='10200109']
Lol. People in other sports must laugh at the nonsense that golfers will swallow as "quality instruction."[/quote]

I wouldn't be so sure. I think most head coaches in the NFL have no NFL experience playing. Or imagine Nick Saban, all 5'7" tall, trying to teach a 6'4" 300+ lb O-Linemen how to use the proper hand technique on run blocking plays.

[quote]BTW, Harmon once played on tour, Bender played the Nike tour, Ledbetter played at a high level as well. Not sure about Haney or Ballard but I wouldn't bother with lessons from them anyway.
[/quote]

Yup.

And I specifically identified those coaches for a reason.

I saw Harmon hit shots in person (took lessons from him) in 1995 when he was 52 years old. He was not a hacker by any means, but he could not compete on the Champions Tour with his ballstriking.

I saw Bender hit shots in person in 1999 and there is no way he could compete on the PGA Tour with his ballstriking.

And both guys will tell you that they know far more about the golf swing now then they did when they were on Tour.

So that's where the 'demonstrating a high level of proficiency' falls short with me because by the logic that many people use here...they should be able to take what they preach and implement it into their own swings and do it with a high level of proficiency.

The reality is far different from that ideal and there's a good reason for it...there are too many factors as to why they don't swing as well as their models and the main reason being is that they do not get paid to strike it at a Tour level proficiency. They get paid to teach their students to hit the ball better.








RH

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='PutterKilledTheDream' timestamp='1411927126' post='10200187']
High proficiency doesn't mean current, could mean in the past tense as well. Obviously several of the top world-class instructors are significantly older than their students. Proficiency means demonstrated the capacity at some point in time to play at a high level. Not 100 shooters who seemingly appear on the scene overnight and self anoint or golf scientists who somehow bridge the gap from analysis to trying to teach the whole package. I agree 100% with Hoganfans assessment.
[/quote]

As I posted earlier, I saw Harmon at 52 years old. By your logic I think it would be fair to say that Harmon should have been able to hit the ball well enough to compete on the Champions Tour, but he could not. The same with Bender (although younger than Harmon).

And both Harmon and Bender will tell you that they know far more about the swing now then when they were on Tour.

We can go on with this with teachers like Dan Carraher and Chris Como, both excellent and well respected instructors that can't come close to competing on the PGA Tour.

And by that logic, we could at least assume that Lucas Wald would not fit into this category since he won the Arkansas State Open before working with Kelvin and prefers the mechanics and the ballstriking coming from his swing he learned under KM.

Lastly, I wouldn't label Kelvin as a guy that can't break 100.

The reality is that good instructors don't have much time to spend on their own swing. Otherwise they are not making a good living. As a consumer of golf instruction, all I care about is if the teacher can improve my ballstriking.





RH

[Hstead]

I understand the argument about whether or not the coach needs to play but I have to chime in on the football analogy as I have played in college and coached some. First, Nick Saban played college football at Kent State as a DB. He is not 5'7". He played at 5'10" 205 lbs. Not a small DB in his day by any means. He may look small on the field because he is surrounded by linemen etc and I am sure like everyone as they get older he has shrunk a little, but he is not a tiny dude. I don't think you will find very many NFL or College football coaches that did not play the game at least at the College level. Being the head coach is not all about understanding technique at each position as they are widely different, however the head coach generally knows quite a bit about technique at each position because he has learned it from guys that could do it themselves over the years and knows what he is looking for when searching for position coaches. Often you do not only coach the position you played as a position coach. I was a running back and have served as an offensive line coach before. There are tons of similarities in blocking at any position. The head coach however is much more responsible for A) assembling the best positions coaches he can find on his staff to do that for him and B) to be the leader and make strategic game time decisions. Head coaches at that level are masters at delegating. The head coach is more of a father figure type leader of the organization. Head coaches win by being highly organized, great recruiters, understanding the game, being able to identify talent of the players and their coaches,etc. not by being able to teach a guard how to reach block. Just had to chime in as I thought that analogy was way off. I doubt think you can compare football coaches to golf teachers.

[PutterKilledTheDream]

I never said anything about competing on professional tours, I said high level of proficiency. I wasn't referring to Kelvin either, I know nothing about him. Being a PGA instructor doesn't exactly require a " high level of proficiency" and there plenty of good instructors in those ranks I trust.

[hoganfan924]

I've seen both Dan Carraher and Chris Como hit balls in person and I considered their abilities to both demonstrate a high level of proficiency in ballstriking/swing mechanics. Nowhere did I state that someone had to play on a high level tour in order to prove their capabilities at swinging a club, as tournament golf is far more complex than that. I'm extremely leery of "instructors" that can't and have never demonstrated, yet come up with excuses for why. Seems we've seen it frequently here at WRX - "I hurt my back," " I lack flexibility," etc.

It's a bit analogous to stock analysts vs. Traders. Even good analysts usually make lousy traders, so if I wanted to learn to trade, I'd take lessons from a great trader, not an analyst. I see Kelvin and Jeff Mann as two birds of a feather, although I'd obviously pick Kelvin over Mann if I had to choose. Even the great Hogan said that he tried things that worked great on the practice tee but didn't hold up under tournament pressure, and that's exactly the kind of stuff you'll get from an analyst,

[Hoganstriker]

Con. The best teachers make complicated things seem simple. Focus of the teaching appears not to be grounded in core concepts I prefer.

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1411943533' post='10201585']
I've seen both Dan Carraher and Chris Como hit balls in person and I considered their abilities to both demonstrate a high level of proficiency in ballstriking/swing mechanics. Nowhere did I state that someone had to play on a high level tour in order to prove their capabilities at swinging a club, as tournament golf is far more complex than that.[/quote]

Again, I stated that I'm not sure of your definition of a high level of proficiency.

Is being able to break par a high level of proficiency?

For some it is, for others it is not.

And when we are talking about the golf swing, we are talking about generating power, accuracy and consistency. It's difficult to determine what your definition of a high level of proficiency is in those areas. What if the instructor can hit it straight consistently time over time, but only generates 100 mph of club head speed? Is that highly proficient?


[quote]I'm extremely leery of "instructors" that can't and have never demonstrated, yet come up with excuses for why. Seems we've seen it frequently here at WRX - "I hurt my back," " I lack flexibility," etc.
[/quote]

You have every right to be leery. It's your money, time and effort you are spending.

I just don't quite agree with the thinking because everybody is going to have their own definitions of being able to demonstrate a high level of proficiency. Brandel Chamblee appears to not even consider any instructor that has never played on Tour before. Doesn't mean he's right or wrong, but his terminology of a high level of proficiency is different from yours.

I've seen guys that can hit it straight and consistently, but have zero shot of making it on any Tour because they can only generate about 100 mph of club speed. To me, if I really cared about a 'high level of proficiency', I would care about how much speed a golfer could generate.

And what has been mentioned here many times...Lucas Wald has demonstrated a high level of proficiency by your standards and he learned from Kelvin.

I"m not trying to come down hard on you, I just have a different perspective and I think there are issues when people focus on the teacher's ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency..






RH

[hoganfan924]

I wouldn't constrain my definition of proficiency to threshold numbers as there are always mitigating factors. In fact, your description of a guy who hits it straight every time but with "only" 100 mph SS sounds like a great description of a 65 year old Moe Norman or a whole bunch of guys on the Champions tour! Age, physical size, and conditioning are all mitigating. But as I said "can or has" as in the past (e.g. Butch, Led, Bender). I wouldn't expect a 52 year old Butch, who's teaching full time, to be able to demonstrate a level of ballstriking equivalent to a Champions tour player. If my standards were that high, no teacher would qualify!

We've got guys out there right now that I'm told have never consistently broken 90, bending the ears of touring pros! That's fine if they're a psychologist, but not if they're teaching swing mechanics, IMHO.

Dan Carraher also swings it really well for example but he's a pretty small guy, probably 5'6" and 135lbs. When I met him in 2011 (Sorry if I'm off here Dan) So even though he's young, I don't expect 115 SS out if him. If he's at 105 cool with me. (No idea what his actual numbers are). If he were 6'2", 200 lbs. then I'd probably not be too impressed if he was at 105 and would be reluctant to take a lesson from him.

When I met Como back in '06 he was a scratch player, had a really nice swing and hit it solid. I'm sure he's learned a ton since the (he's clearly exhibited a high thirst for knowledge) and I wouldn't hesitate to take a lesson from him even though he's never played on any tour (that I know of). There are also a bunch of GD "top 100" guys that I'd never spend my money on for a lesson, simply because I don't like their philosophy, or results.

[Hstead]

I just played 36 holes this week with iteach and he has told me a million times his ss is around 105 or so with driver, but he was hitting a 43" 12* SLDR mini off of the tee and flying it 260+ off of nearly every tee. Sometimes he was actually hitting it off of the ground on the teebox and still hitting it out there 270 with roll.

[russc1597187869]

[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1411901983' post='10198283']
[quote name='Golf nerd' timestamp='1411900498' post='10198253']
I would like to ask the Golfwrx community, who has "real knowledge" of the golf swing and whose philosophy is fundamentally sound and worth to follow? The reason for this question is my impression that many fellows here are not very happy with what Kel, Jeff Mann and others have to offer . I am interested in the reason for that and appreciate any answer. Probably I am mislead and you do acknowledge and honor theirs publications?
[/quote]

Jeff Mann, are you kidding? He has zero credentials and just publishes incredibly long and admittedly thorough articles but which are literally just his opinion with little else. He's been banned from so many forums for a reason, he doesn't seem interested In hearing anyone else's thoughts or acknowledging that he could possibly be wrong about anything. For somebody with no real golfing credentials to think of, you should be very skeptical of those who will not tolerate opposing viewpoints, and he's the king of that.

As for KM, I think this is just a vigorous debate about the whole spine engine idea. Again, sort of like Jeff, KM has no real golfing credentials ( apparently not playing the game himself), so when anyone like that publishes stuff that is so different than everything else, people will (and should) be skeptical.

So there's your answer IMO. Also, I'm not really interested in any senseless follow up debate about what constitutes credentials and whether you should be able to play golf decently to have credibility (fwiw, I think you should, and lots of others here do as well). I think both are similar because they made such sweeping and bold claims, and do not have either the requisite proof or standing in the golf community to do so without there being some healthy skepticism.

As for "real knowledge", lots of the (non-troll) teachers that post on this forum have it...
[/quote]
Jeff Mann has never professed to be a golf instructor ,a golf coach or a very good golfer.He writes extensively about the way that muscle,tendons,ligaments and bones work in the golf swing .Is he always correct in that regard .No,but tell me who comes close to him .Is he arrogant and condescending .Yes
There is hardly a "vigorous" debate on the "spine engine".Kelvin and his supporters on one side and a Jeff Mann and a few others opposing him

[russc1597187869]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1411947843' post='10201995']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1411943533' post='10201585']
I've seen both Dan Carraher and Chris Como hit balls in person and I considered their abilities to both demonstrate a high level of proficiency in ballstriking/swing mechanics. Nowhere did I state that someone had to play on a high level tour in order to prove their capabilities at swinging a club, as tournament golf is far more complex than that.[/quote]

Again, I stated that I'm not sure of your definition of a high level of proficiency.

Is being able to break par a high level of proficiency?

For some it is, for others it is not.

And when we are talking about the golf swing, we are talking about generating power, accuracy and consistency. It's difficult to determine what your definition of a high level of proficiency is in those areas. What if the instructor can hit it straight consistently time over time, but only generates 100 mph of club head speed? Is that highly proficient?


[quote]I'm extremely leery of "instructors" that can't and have never demonstrated, yet come up with excuses for why. Seems we've seen it frequently here at WRX - "I hurt my back," " I lack flexibility," etc.
[/quote]

You have every right to be leery. It's your money, time and effort you are spending.

I just don't quite agree with the thinking because everybody is going to have their own definitions of being able to demonstrate a high level of proficiency. Brandel Chamblee appears to not even consider any instructor that has never played on Tour before. Doesn't mean he's right or wrong, but his terminology of a high level of proficiency is different from yours.

I've seen guys that can hit it straight and consistently, but have zero shot of making it on any Tour because they can only generate about 100 mph of club speed. To me, if I really cared about a 'high level of proficiency', I would care about how much speed a golfer could generate.

And what has been mentioned here many times...Lucas Wald has demonstrated a high level of proficiency by your standards and he learned from Kelvin.

I"m not trying to come down hard on you, I just have a different perspective and I think there are issues when people focus on the teacher's ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency..






RH
[/quote]
Richie
Back to questions about Kelvin's instruction.I believe that you stated that you had a Boditrak pressure system or the equivalent p[size=4]ressure system.[/size]
After your sessions with Kelvin ,did you notice any difference in the weight distribution at your feet.

[bph7]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1411947843' post='10201995']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1411943533' post='10201585']
I've seen both Dan Carraher and Chris Como hit balls in person and I considered their abilities to both demonstrate a high level of proficiency in ballstriking/swing mechanics. Nowhere did I state that someone had to play on a high level tour in order to prove their capabilities at swinging a club, as tournament golf is far more complex than that.[/quote]

Again, I stated that I'm not sure of your definition of a high level of proficiency.

Is being able to break par a high level of proficiency?

For some it is, for others it is not.

And when we are talking about the golf swing, we are talking about generating power, accuracy and consistency. It's difficult to determine what your definition of a high level of proficiency is in those areas. What if the instructor can hit it straight consistently time over time, but only generates 100 mph of club head speed? Is that highly proficient?


[quote]I'm extremely leery of "instructors" that can't and have never demonstrated, yet come up with excuses for why. Seems we've seen it frequently here at WRX - "I hurt my back," " I lack flexibility," etc.
[/quote]

You have every right to be leery. It's your money, time and effort you are spending.

I just don't quite agree with the thinking because everybody is going to have their own definitions of being able to demonstrate a high level of proficiency. Brandel Chamblee appears to not even consider any instructor that has never played on Tour before. Doesn't mean he's right or wrong, but his terminology of a high level of proficiency is different from yours.

I've seen guys that can hit it straight and consistently, but have zero shot of making it on any Tour because they can only generate about 100 mph of club speed. To me, if I really cared about a 'high level of proficiency', I would care about how much speed a golfer could generate.

And what has been mentioned here many times...Lucas Wald has demonstrated a high level of proficiency by your standards and he learned from Kelvin.

I"m not trying to come down hard on you, I just have a different perspective and I think there are issues when people focus on the teacher's ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency..






RH
[/quote]

I think you are intentionally obfuscating and making this much more difficult than it needs to be. Sure, different people have different definitions of proficiency, but in no event would KM be deemed "proficient" by any sane definition. Similarly, any teacher who has played at web.com level or higher or even had success at lower pro levels or even just those who could maintain a plus cap for a while with some tournament rounds included would be deemed proficient. The fact that there may be other levels that fall between these two is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just by the simple principals I have outlined, every instructor discussed in this thread (wald, Harmon butch led bender etc) would be proficient, and KM wouldn't. Is there really any debate to that? I am not saying that being proficient necessarily means anything, but simply hiding behind the fact that it might be hard to decide whether someone is proficient in certain situations seems like grasping at straws in an attempt to avoid the discussion.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='russc' timestamp='1411952910' post='10202611'][quote name='bph7' timestamp='1411901983' post='10198283']
[quote name='Golf nerd' timestamp='1411900498' post='10198253']
I would like to ask the Golfwrx community, who has "real knowledge" of the golf swing and whose philosophy is fundamentally sound and worth to follow? The reason for this question is my impression that many fellows here are not very happy with what Kel, Jeff Mann and others have to offer . I am interested in the reason for that and appreciate any answer. Probably I am mislead and you do acknowledge and honor theirs publications?
[/quote]

Jeff Mann, are you kidding? He has zero credentials and just publishes incredibly long and admittedly thorough articles but which are literally just his opinion with little else. He's been banned from so many forums for a reason, he doesn't seem interested In hearing anyone else's thoughts or acknowledging that he could possibly be wrong about anything. For somebody with no real golfing credentials to think of, you should be very skeptical of those who will not tolerate opposing viewpoints, and he's the king of that.

As for KM, I think this is just a vigorous debate about the whole spine engine idea. Again, sort of like Jeff, KM has no real golfing credentials ( apparently not playing the game himself), so when anyone like that publishes stuff that is so different than everything else, people will (and should) be skeptical.

So there's your answer IMO. Also, I'm not really interested in any senseless follow up debate about what constitutes credentials and whether you should be able to play golf decently to have credibility (fwiw, I think you should, and lots of others here do as well). I think both are similar because they made such sweeping and bold claims, and do not have either the requisite proof or standing in the golf community to do so without there being some healthy skepticism.

As for "real knowledge", lots of the (non-troll) teachers that post on this forum have it...
[/quote]
Jeff Mann has never professed to be a golf instructor ,a golf coach or a very good golfer.He writes extensively about the way that muscle,tendons,ligaments and bones work in the golf swing .Is he always correct in that regard .No,but tell me who comes close to him .Is he arrogant and condescending .Yes
There is hardly a "vigorous" debate on the "spine engine".Kelvin and his supporters on one side and a Jeff Mann and a few others opposing him[/quote]

At one time, Jeff Mann was trying to get students and teach. Not sure if he succeeded though.

[rok78]

Kelvin is highly proficient as an instructor, and that should be what matters. I think it's pretty good to take a kid, coach him up and have him qualify for the Sony Open before graduating high school. Isn't that the end all of measurement for the effectiveness of an instructor? His students get better and the better ones play at a very high level.

Not to mention he's also a very good person and generous with his time.