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.
Originally Posted by whip I have heard claims of junk science, 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, so let me get this straight I can move my hand through there any which way and it won't affect the golf ball? If I reverse roll vs full roll that doesn't affect the ball? Gimme a break someone enlighten me as to these claimsThe thought is that wherever the face is pointing at "maximum deformation" (as opposed to separation) along with the direction of the path, it makes no difference how it got there or what happens after it leaves. The "rate of closure" means nothing, it's all in what direction the vectors (face direction, path direction) are pointing. Also, I hear that there has been "3D imaging" that shows that there is very little actual difference in the rate of closure when angled hinging vs. horizontal hinging. As far as where this is published, I'm not sure that it is.
Originally Posted by Taffy 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.
Originally Posted by chipingguru hinge action is what squared club up the club in the first place.I get that. I know I hit different shots when I feel the difference in hinge action.
Originally Posted by whip I have heard claims of junk science, 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."Junk Science" is just negative marketing.
, 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. 
Originally Posted by whip 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?I agree, plus Homer Kelley left a lot of room to add our own flair. YODA does such a great job with this in combining other ideas like the MacDonald drills with TGM. I kind of enjoy the Book Literalist Moniker.