I'm not really sure what exactly BGG taught, except that it was similar to the original Natural Golf. I don't know if they taught a pre-set of the hips left at address, along with a pre-turn of the body. I don't think that they did. I also think they taught a palm grip with the trail hand, which I do not.
Similar is probably the distance from the ball and single plane alignment at setup.
taught that the swing should be done from impact position so, yes the hips were preset towards the target. We discussed that part here a while back. He did this as a way of eliminating the need to teach 'weight shift'.
Tom also taught a 'pre turn' of the body which was how you got to the Moe address position with the clubhead away from the ball.
pre-turn from the look of pictures that I could find.
The minimalist single plane swing has a pre-turn of between 20 and 35 degrees. It is customizable to each person's physical specifications. It is recommended that a thicker person with less flexibility would very likely need to pre-turn more.
There is also a weight shift with the Minimalist Single Plane swing. It is just less pronounced then in the regular single plane swing.
exist anymore. A number of my customers had tried to contact Tom by various methods with no result. Also seems that at some point he changed it from big grip golf, to better golf guaranteed. Have you heard anything from him?
When the economy 'tanked', Tom needed to get a job with a stable income. The idea at the time was to try and keep BGG going as a remote entity with his wife's help.
I've not heard from him and it's been probably 2 years since I heard of someone that got a response. Too bad if the operation is completely dead. He had some good ideas and reports here are that he was an excellent teacher.
I developed that swing working with Single Plane golfers who still struggled with getting into a good impact position. It works well for those who have little time for practice.
It has little to nothing to do with the the MGS swing that Kevin and Kiran teach. Almost polar opposite, not that there is a right way or wrong way to swing a golf club. I think that certain ideas work better for certain people. Maybe why there are thousands of swing methods.
I sell learning systems for three different swings myself. I think the swing needs to be fit to the individual with certain fundamentals that must be met in order to achieve success for the individual. Certainly some influence from this forum in my teaching as well.
LOL, you have got to be kidding right? At any rate it is a really cheesy page and associating yourself with it is probably not a good idea.
You yourself said: "not that there is a right way or wrong way to swing a golf club. I think that certain ideas work better for certain people". You actually believe this 'research'? If so then why do you swing conventionally? Why do you teach other methods?
is a newspaper article reporting the scientific result of the study from three research organizations. I see no reason to call it cheesy. LOL
I am certain that it is easier and puts less stress on the human body to swing on a single plane. Playing conventionally puts too much stress on my body. Playing two days in a row, or even practicing is not good for me. With Single Plane it is a different story. I can hit balls and play with no pain the next day, and my ball striking is also more accurate and just as long.
I have been able to do both conventional and Single plane over the past almost 40 years. I think Single plane is the best choice.
It is not a newspaper article it is paid advertising. It says so right on the top. The science appears to be flawed for several reasons. One of which is that researchers selected the data from the two groups with full knowledge of what they wanted to prove.
You do like to argue your point don't you? Well, you can argue whatever you want but in this case I am the customer and seeing a link to a cheesy advertisement on your site is a turn off. If you posted the actual research and explained it you would be way ahead in my book. Have you actually looked at the research?
It looks to me like the paid advertising was for the Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams piece at the top, but maybe it was for the whole thing. Maybe NG had to pay to get the Scientific study published in the newspaper. I really see nothing wrong with that. It is not like very many scientific studies get published in the newspaper, and it was big news for NG.
I did read the study back in 2002, but do not have a copy. I know that Ed Woronicz went over to Scotland to present the study to the world scientific congress on golf back then. I believe Ken Martin also went with him, but am not positive on that one.
I see no flaw in the research. Every scientific experiment has a goal of what they wish to prove, or find out. Often the experiments prove something other then what was desired as in JK's case years ago.
I will take your advice and try to get a copy of the paper, but I am not sure if I would then be allowed to post it online or not. Maybe once I have it I could post it to my free members section.
I engaged in a debate on the NG forum about the 'study' and in particular, one of the pictures. WHile I don't remember the specific point, some on the NG forum had problems seeing one of the 'locators' that indicated arm position because the indicated arm position did not match their sense of what it should be
As the time I mentioned that I very much looked forward to seeing the study if, in fact, it was published. I had a feeling it might not be (same with JK's) because I did not think the study would necessarily prove that NG per se was more effective than other methods of swinging a club in producing optimum kinetic sequencing. It might have demonstrated that NG was effective at producing proper sequencing but the required data set to prove it better than other methods seemed to me to be difficult to assemble.