Pepsi Duck's Golf Thread: Progress...?

[drewtaylor21]

Drew

 

Nice post. Thank you.

 

I began playing golf during my early childhood. ALL I did was PLAY GOLF, and golf-related games in backyard, nearby fields, etc. During the summer, my mother would drop me off at the local muni (more like a country cow pasture), where I could play as many holes as I could play by day’s end.

 

NEVER hit a range ball, as there was no range. NEVER had a single thought of swing motion, or even had any knowledge that there was a ‘way’ to swing the club. NEVER had a single lesson, or that they were even available. I just played golf, trying to hit targets and get the ball in hole in as few shots as possible. By the time I was in my teens, I had developed into a rather proficient golfer, and decent competitor. Nonetheless, playing golf wasn’t my greatest passion, nor is it today.

 

My career pursuits from early 20s through early 30s didn’t allow me to play much golf, if any. When things settled out, and free time once again presented itself, I regained some degree of passion for the game. However, my game didn’t share the same passion it once had for me ;-) For the first time I began to frequent ranges, getting lessons with teaching professionals, studying the swing online, etc. . . My chase down the rabbit hole fully commenced.

 

Not meant to disparage Pepsi, but I was Pepsi. I was officially insufficient and eventually bottomed out in relative terms. As I have been ‘preaching,’ I knew there was a better approach. Why? Because I had once taken the correct path to proficiency. The path most take to proficiency. . . playing golf with proper focus and objective.

 

It could be argued that becoming proficient in sport and developing coordinated motor function is simply easier in youth. I believe it is. However, that does not mean the ability to learn (re-learn) and develop is lost upon those more advanced in age. The path back from insufficiency was the same path I originally took to proficiency. Again, PLAYING GOLF WITH PROPER FOCUS AND OBJECTIVE.

 

As per a prior post in another thread, it was a more difficult path for me in my 30s than earlier on in life, as unlearning is more difficult than learning. I had to unlearn - rid myself - of the minutia that had accumulated while I gave chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency.

 

By now, you know the path I have been ‘preaching.’ I also know there is a lot of skepticism around these parts regarding my message. Nonetheless, whether he wants to admit it or not, Pepsi is DEEP down the rabbit hole. His focus is wrong.

 

You suggest Pepsi has ingrained bad habits regarding his golf swing (motion), and needs to focus on the motion to improve. I agree, he has ingrained bad habits, but feel the bad habits originated, and will only get worse by continuing to place focus on the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

I know you aren’t in complete agreement, and respect that.

 

FR

 

I appreciate the response FR, nicely said!

 

I would counter that there are a couple of reasons why I don't think the artist/target-centric approach works for everyone.

 

1. Golf is extremely counter-intuitive, to the point where many times it seems the correct fix to a problem is exactly the opposite of what our instincts tell us. Why is it that the average slicer continues to swing further left when the opposing ball flight requires a swing direction to the right? I'll concede that a proper conceptual understanding of ball flight laws might be all that a player needs to then let their athleticism take over and fix the picture being painted, but I would also argue that it is more likely (in my opinion) that a mechanical fix would be more successful for most people who play golf. I think there is a pretty significant component in all sports that requires a level of coordination and physical prowess that many simply don't have and never will. The people who possess it will be able to figure things out pretty quickly/easily, while the "mere mortals" must labor tremendously for smaller glimpses of success. I don't believe focusing on the target or moving the ball from point A to point B will really be all that is needed for the "mortals." I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong about that, and also that there is a spectrum between the thoroughbred and the mortal where perhaps a period of mechanical focus is enough to provide clarity for the individual to then graduate up to a greater dependence on feeling/seeing ball flight. I think Pepsi fits in this last category.

 

2. Golf is one of the rare (or only?) accuracy sports where you aren't actually looking at your target while you complete the required motion. I think this is a big reason why many players, even through the professional ranks, will maintain at least one simple thought to work in conjunction with visualization of ball flight. My pre-shot routine relies heavily on seeing/feeling ball flight before I step in and hit the shot. However, I always have a physical key that assists me in that period of "darkness" between the last glance at the target and impact. I've tried numerous times to play only with ball flight in mind and at times it works well, but invariably my old swing flaws creep back in and I am forced to go back to video/mirror/mechanics to sort things out. I find that to be telling.

 

Regardless, it's an interesting conversation! Thanks for your civility, it's appreciated!

[oikos1]

Whoever it was earlier in the thread who said your persona is "yes, but..." absolutely nailed it.

[Rosco1216]

My dude, You’re much too jacked for golf!

[dap]

"Analysis paralysis or paralysis by analysis is the state of over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome."

[PepsiDuck]

Whoever it was earlier in the thread who said your persona is "yes, but..." absolutely nailed it.

 

I should have stayed in the legal field... :lol:

[FatReed]

Drew

 

Nice post. Thank you.

 

I began playing golf during my early childhood. ALL I did was PLAY GOLF, and golf-related games in backyard, nearby fields, etc. During the summer, my mother would drop me off at the local muni (more like a country cow pasture), where I could play as many holes as I could play by day’s end.

 

NEVER hit a range ball, as there was no range. NEVER had a single thought of swing motion, or even had any knowledge that there was a ‘way’ to swing the club. NEVER had a single lesson, or that they were even available. I just played golf, trying to hit targets and get the ball in hole in as few shots as possible. By the time I was in my teens, I had developed into a rather proficient golfer, and decent competitor. Nonetheless, playing golf wasn’t my greatest passion, nor is it today.

 

My career pursuits from early 20s through early 30s didn’t allow me to play much golf, if any. When things settled out, and free time once again presented itself, I regained some degree of passion for the game. However, my game didn’t share the same passion it once had for me ;-) For the first time I began to frequent ranges, getting lessons with teaching professionals, studying the swing online, etc. . . My chase down the rabbit hole fully commenced.

 

Not meant to disparage Pepsi, but I was Pepsi. I was officially insufficient and eventually bottomed out in relative terms. As I have been ‘preaching,’ I knew there was a better approach. Why? Because I had once taken the correct path to proficiency. The path most take to proficiency. . . playing golf with proper focus and objective.

 

It could be argued that becoming proficient in sport and developing coordinated motor function is simply easier in youth. I believe it is. However, that does not mean the ability to learn (re-learn) and develop is lost upon those more advanced in age. The path back from insufficiency was the same path I originally took to proficiency. Again, PLAYING GOLF WITH PROPER FOCUS AND OBJECTIVE.

 

As per a prior post in another thread, it was a more difficult path for me in my 30s than earlier on in life, as unlearning is more difficult than learning. I had to unlearn - rid myself - of the minutia that had accumulated while I gave chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency.

 

By now, you know the path I have been ‘preaching.’ I also know there is a lot of skepticism around these parts regarding my message. Nonetheless, whether he wants to admit it or not, Pepsi is DEEP down the rabbit hole. His focus is wrong.

 

You suggest Pepsi has ingrained bad habits regarding his golf swing (motion), and needs to focus on the motion to improve. I agree, he has ingrained bad habits, but feel the bad habits originated, and will only get worse by continuing to place focus on the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

I know you aren’t in complete agreement, and respect that.

 

FR

 

I appreciate the response FR, nicely said!

 

I would counter that there are a couple of reasons why I don't think the artist/target-centric approach works for everyone.

 

1. Golf is extremely counter-intuitive, to the point where many times it seems the correct fix to a problem is exactly the opposite of what our instincts tell us. Why is it that the average slicer continues to swing further left when the opposing ball flight requires a swing direction to the right? I'll concede that a proper conceptual understanding of ball flight laws might be all that a player needs to then let their athleticism take over and fix the picture being painted, but I would also argue that it is more likely (in my opinion) that a mechanical fix would be more successful for most people who play golf. I think there is a pretty significant component in all sports that requires a level of coordination and physical prowess that many simply don't have and never will. The people who possess it will be able to figure things out pretty quickly/easily, while the "mere mortals" must labor tremendously for smaller glimpses of success. I don't believe focusing on the target or moving the ball from point A to point B will really be all that is needed for the "mortals." I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong about that, and also that there is a spectrum between the thoroughbred and the mortal where perhaps a period of mechanical focus is enough to provide clarity for the individual to then graduate up to a greater dependence on feeling/seeing ball flight. I think Pepsi fits in this last category.

 

2. Golf is one of the rare (or only?) accuracy sports where you aren't actually looking at your target while you complete the required motion. I think this is a big reason why many players, even through the professional ranks, will maintain at least one simple thought to work in conjunction with visualization of ball flight. My pre-shot routine relies heavily on seeing/feeling ball flight before I step in and hit the shot. However, I always have a physical key that assists me in that period of "darkness" between the last glance at the target and impact. I've tried numerous times to play only with ball flight in mind and at times it works well, but invariably my old swing flaws creep back in and I am forced to go back to video/mirror/mechanics to sort things out. I find that to be telling.

 

Regardless, it's an interesting conversation! Thanks for your civility, it's appreciated!

 

Drew wrote:

 

“Golf is extremely counter-intuitive.”

 

***

 

Drew

 

Per my thread on proficiency versus insufficiency, I agree with you, but perhaps not on WHAT is counterintuitive.

 

I will try not to put words in your mouth, but suspect you are referring mostly, if not exclusively to the golf SWING being counterintuitive.

 

I think the most counterintuitive thing in golf is that the ball is NOT the target, and is a key, if not the key variable that differentiates an EARLY path of proficiency from insufficiency. Chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency is furthered by not correcting this variable, instead, turning focus to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Thus, I think NOT focusing on the golf swing (motion) is the next most counterintuitive thing in golf.

 

FR

[dap]

Not meant to disparage Pepsi, but I was Pepsi. I was officially insufficient and eventually bottomed out in relative terms. As I have been ‘preaching,’ I knew there was a better approach. Why? Because I had once taken the correct path to proficiency. The path most take to proficiency. . . playing golf with proper focus and objective.

 

It could be argued that becoming proficient in sport and developing coordinated motor function is simply easier in youth. I believe it is. However, that does not mean the ability to learn (re-learn) and develop is lost upon those more advanced in age. The path back from insufficiency was the same path I originally took to proficiency. Again, PLAYING GOLF WITH PROPER FOCUS AND OBJECTIVE.

 

As per a prior post in another thread, it was a more difficult path for me in my 30s than earlier on in life, as unlearning is more difficult than learning. I had to unlearn - rid myself - of the minutia that had accumulated while I gave chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency.

 

By now, you know the path I have been ‘preaching.’ I also know there is a lot of skepticism around these parts regarding my message. Nonetheless, whether he wants to admit it or not, Pepsi is DEEP down the rabbit hole. His focus is wrong.

 

You suggest Pepsi has ingrained bad habits regarding his golf swing (motion), and needs to focus on the motion to improve. I agree, he has ingrained bad habits, but feel the bad habits originated, and will only get worse by continuing to place focus on the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

I know you aren’t in complete agreement, and respect that.

 

FR

 

I certainly wish that I were able to drop all my swing thoughts right now and just play golf. Believe me... But as Drew iterated, that's probably not feasible because I don't have a "natural" golf swing. I've been inundated with so many different ways to perform the various parts of the swing that I don't know which combination of parts is (1) the most mechanically sound, and more importantly, (2) the most repeatable.

 

I was considering listing every permutation of intents for takeaway, backswing, upper body transition, and lower body transition, just for everyone's entertainment, but it'd probably be a waste of time. Let's just say there are a lot, and I don't really have a "go-to" combination of moves that I'd be willing to commit to for the rest of my golf life. That's why this work with Drew is important to me. This is developing that "go-to" swing that I trust and will allow me to learn to play golf again. It may not be perfect, but it will be definitive...and that's probably most important for me.

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

[oikos1]

Drew

 

Nice post. Thank you.

 

I began playing golf during my early childhood. ALL I did was PLAY GOLF, and golf-related games in backyard, nearby fields, etc. During the summer, my mother would drop me off at the local muni (more like a country cow pasture), where I could play as many holes as I could play by day's end.

 

NEVER hit a range ball, as there was no range. NEVER had a single thought of swing motion, or even had any knowledge that there was a 'way' to swing the club. NEVER had a single lesson, or that they were even available. I just played golf, trying to hit targets and get the ball in hole in as few shots as possible. By the time I was in my teens, I had developed into a rather proficient golfer, and decent competitor. Nonetheless, playing golf wasn't my greatest passion, nor is it today.

 

My career pursuits from early 20s through early 30s didn't allow me to play much golf, if any. When things settled out, and free time once again presented itself, I regained some degree of passion for the game. However, my game didn't share the same passion it once had for me ;-) For the first time I began to frequent ranges, getting lessons with teaching professionals, studying the swing online, etc. . . My chase down the rabbit hole fully commenced.

 

Not meant to disparage Pepsi, but I was Pepsi. I was officially insufficient and eventually bottomed out in relative terms. As I have been 'preaching,' I knew there was a better approach. Why? Because I had once taken the correct path to proficiency. The path most take to proficiency. . . playing golf with proper focus and objective.

 

It could be argued that becoming proficient in sport and developing coordinated motor function is simply easier in youth. I believe it is. However, that does not mean the ability to learn (re-learn) and develop is lost upon those more advanced in age. The path back from insufficiency was the same path I originally took to proficiency. Again, PLAYING GOLF WITH PROPER FOCUS AND OBJECTIVE.

 

As per a prior post in another thread, it was a more difficult path for me in my 30s than earlier on in life, as unlearning is more difficult than learning. I had to unlearn - rid myself - of the minutia that had accumulated while I gave chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency.

 

By now, you know the path I have been 'preaching.' I also know there is a lot of skepticism around these parts regarding my message. Nonetheless, whether he wants to admit it or not, Pepsi is DEEP down the rabbit hole. His focus is wrong.

 

You suggest Pepsi has ingrained bad habits regarding his golf swing (motion), and needs to focus on the motion to improve. I agree, he has ingrained bad habits, but feel the bad habits originated, and will only get worse by continuing to place focus on the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

I know you aren't in complete agreement, and respect that.

 

FR

 

I appreciate the response FR, nicely said!

 

I would counter that there are a couple of reasons why I don't think the artist/target-centric approach works for everyone.

 

1. Golf is extremely counter-intuitive, to the point where many times it seems the correct fix to a problem is exactly the opposite of what our instincts tell us. Why is it that the average slicer continues to swing further left when the opposing ball flight requires a swing direction to the right? I'll concede that a proper conceptual understanding of ball flight laws might be all that a player needs to then let their athleticism take over and fix the picture being painted, but I would also argue that it is more likely (in my opinion) that a mechanical fix would be more successful for most people who play golf. I think there is a pretty significant component in all sports that requires a level of coordination and physical prowess that many simply don't have and never will. The people who possess it will be able to figure things out pretty quickly/easily, while the "mere mortals" must labor tremendously for smaller glimpses of success. I don't believe focusing on the target or moving the ball from point A to point B will really be all that is needed for the "mortals." I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong about that, and also that there is a spectrum between the thoroughbred and the mortal where perhaps a period of mechanical focus is enough to provide clarity for the individual to then graduate up to a greater dependence on feeling/seeing ball flight. I think Pepsi fits in this last category.

 

2. Golf is one of the rare (or only?) accuracy sports where you aren't actually looking at your target while you complete the required motion. I think this is a big reason why many players, even through the professional ranks, will maintain at least one simple thought to work in conjunction with visualization of ball flight. My pre-shot routine relies heavily on seeing/feeling ball flight before I step in and hit the shot. However, I always have a physical key that assists me in that period of "darkness" between the last glance at the target and impact. I've tried numerous times to play only with ball flight in mind and at times it works well, but invariably my old swing flaws creep back in and I am forced to go back to video/mirror/mechanics to sort things out. I find that to be telling.

 

Regardless, it's an interesting conversation! Thanks for your civility, it's appreciated!

 

Drew wrote:

 

"Golf is extremely counter-intuitive."

 

***

 

Drew

 

Per my thread on proficiency versus insufficiency, I agree with you, but perhaps not on WHAT is counterintuitive.

 

I will try not to put words in your mouth, but suspect you are referring mostly, if not exclusively to the golf SWING being counterintuitive.

 

I think the most counterintuitive thing in golf is that the ball is NOT the target, and is a key, if not the key variable that differentiates an EARLY path of proficiency from insufficiency. Chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency is furthered by not correcting this variable, instead, turning focus to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Thus, I think NOT focusing on the golf swing (motion) is the next most counterintuitive thing in golf.

 

FR

Yes, this is your thought. I would suggest another, that there are multiple targets to be managed for each shot, with some being easily dismissed based on the parameters of the shot. You seem to have chosen to place more importance on one, which may be considered a cognitive compensation in your swing philosophy to allow you to hit the ball proficiently. So while this approach has proven to be effective for you, it is not necessarily the special sauce or most "counter intuitive thing" in golf that is going to work for everyone. Pepsi still has much to discover.

[PepsiDuck]

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

 

This is a great point and one that I never considered in my quest for a more mechanically sound swing. I was always under the impression that if it "felt natural," then I'm still doing it wrong...especially if "natural" had been ingrained over 20 years...

 

Can a fundamental change ever feel "natural"...? Or must be settle for awkward and contrived...?

[Ghost of Snead]

IMO, the key is to be able to distinguish between relevant and non-relevant minutia which is line with your #2 point of being told it doesn't matter. Maybe some minutia really doesn't matter. I've never experienced #1, #3, or #4 from a competent instructor.

 

I see your point, but the relevance is often in the eye of the beholder...and I find that minutia always has some degree of relevance... My counter to #2 point of being told it doesn't matter is point #1...is it possible that the instructor doesn't know that it actually matters...?

 

I'm certainly not suggesting that I know it all or that I know more than any professional instructors out there...I've just become very wary whenever someone summarily says that something doesn't matter...

 

You can nitpick the swing and your swing to the point of no return and maybe that's what FatReed means by "deep down the rabbit hole". For example, if you ask the instructor if flaring your front foot 45° is better than your current 20°, maybe it really doesn't matter and the instructor says so. Only you think it matters. Some consider minutia to be my previous example and some would say that "c0ck your wrists sooner" is swing minutia.

 

If you've done your homework and picked a good instructor and the right one for you, you need to trust what the instructor is telling you at some point and do what he or she says. Otherwise, that would tell me that you think you know how to fix your own swing. And you would've done it by now.

[PepsiDuck]

You can nitpick the swing and your swing to the point of no return and maybe that's what FatReed means by "deep down the rabbit hole". For example, if you ask the instructor if flaring your front foot 45° is better than your current 20°, maybe it really doesn't matter and the instructor says so. Only you think it matters. Some consider minutia to be my previous example and some would say that "c0ck your wrists sooner" is swing minutia.

 

If you've done your homework and picked a good instructor and the right one for you, you need to trust what the instructor is telling you at some point and do what he or she says. Otherwise, that would tell me that you think you know how to fix your own swing. And you would've done it by now.

 

Then my expectation for an instructor would be to tell me that exactly 20* of front foot flare is correct and leave it at that. Saying something doesn't matter implies that I can do it in any reasonable manner and that I can do it differently every time. So I can flare my front foot 45* on one swing and then 20* on the next swing and it should produce near-identical results?

 

For the wrist c0ck example, how soon is sooner? Immediately off the ball? Right thigh? After P2? Somewhere in between? Saying something doesn't matter or using imprecise terms leaves room for variability. Hell, can I even switch it up from swing to swing because it doesn't matter or because I'm close enough?

 

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable for expecting a certain degree of detail, but years of frustration have made me realize that almost everything does matter to some degree...and I think that's what makes an instructor good for me: An appreciation for precise details that leave little room for student interpretation or variation. And it's one of the things that I appreciate about working with Drew (besides his friendly demeanor!); though I'm sure he hates me for it. :lol:

[wmblake2000]

 

I find that most instructors fall into a few camps when asked these sorts of clarifying questions:

 

(1) They don't know the answer.

(2) They tell you that it doesn't matter.

(3) They tell you to do whatever feels right.

(4) They judge based on ball flight that whatever you did was good enough.

 

So when I'm given one of the above, I'm left to self-interpret. It's even worse when that interpretation changes daily or hourly.

 

Pepsi, it seems to me you’re seeking a kind of intellectual certainty that probably doesn’t exist. Golf is a process that when deconstructed is not only overwhelmingly complex but also quickly passes the point of diminishing returns.

 

My second guess is you’re seeking ‘trust/confidence’ and believe this comes from cognitive mastery. However the swing/game occurs at a different level of the psyche. It’s hard to trust with this mental structure. There’s always another question.... the feeling of control and mastery comes not from answering all these questions but from a paradoxical state of ‘optimism’ that isn’t so driven to be precise.

 

I also suspect this input will not register with you. If I am close to on-target it is very different from how your mind works.

 

In other words, your work with Jim should be critical to your progress.

 

[Ouimet's Ghost]

Pepsi, why do you use alignment sticks, do you not know where you are, or where you're going?

[PepsiDuck]

Pepsi, it seems to me you’re seeking a kind of intellectual certainty that probably doesn’t exist. Golf is a process that when deconstructed is not only overwhelmingly complex but also quickly passes the point of diminishing returns.

 

My second guess is you’re seeking ‘trust/confidence’ and believe this comes from cognitive mastery. However the swing/game occurs at a different level of the psyche. It’s hard to trust with this mental structure. There’s always another question.... the feeling of control and mastery comes not from answering all these questions but from a paradoxical state of ‘optimism’ that isn’t so driven to be precise.

 

I also suspect this input will not register with you. If I am close to on-target it is very different from how your mind works.

 

In other words, your work with Jim should be critical to your progress.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said here. I view the golf swing in the "Iron Byron" approach, where there is an optimum path the club travels for each person based on their individual physical traits and -isms. This is why I initially found the RoboGolfPro machine at Pebble Beach Academy so appealing...it would literally guide my club on the "ideal" path. However, the main fault I discovered is that it doesn't account for individual characteristics besides height. I ended up being slightly disappointed in the experience.

 

I too am looking forward to working with Jim.

[dap]

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

 

This is a great point and one that I never considered in my quest for a more mechanically sound swing. I was always under the impression that if it "felt natural," then I'm still doing it wrong...especially if "natural" had been ingrained over 20 years...

 

Can a fundamental change ever feel "natural"...? Or must be settle for awkward and contrived...?

Instructors provide a set of eyes and ideas to work on but they can't feel what you feel. They can perhaps get you to look more mechanically correct but to you the motion could feel contrived and unnatural. If it feels overly complicated then I believe no amount of practice will make it natural. It is awfully difficult to make a significant change in an established golf swing.

 

By all means work on improving mechanics but it must be within the framework of feeling reasonably natural to you. If Nicklaus was put on a machine that made him swing exactly like Hogan, he would say no way on earth he could play feeling like that. Nicklaus had a flying right elbow coming down in contrast to Hogan's tucked right elbow. Nicklaus came down on the turned shoulder plane so there is a possibility a flying right elbow works well with that downswing plane. If you are going to fix the flying right elbow you may also need to change the plane coming down.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3fHC364p9ZQ

 

 

[drewtaylor21]

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

 

This is a great point and one that I never considered in my quest for a more mechanically sound swing. I was always under the impression that if it "felt natural," then I'm still doing it wrong...especially if "natural" had been ingrained over 20 years...

 

Can a fundamental change ever feel "natural"...? Or must be settle for awkward and contrived...?

Simple answer, YES, fundamental change eventually becomes natural. Been there, done that, though the end result has taken years.

 

I do agree that swing "DNA" matters, but fwiw we're not changing yours, simply adapting pieces to work with said "DNA."

[dap]

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

 

This is a great point and one that I never considered in my quest for a more mechanically sound swing. I was always under the impression that if it "felt natural," then I'm still doing it wrong...especially if "natural" had been ingrained over 20 years...

 

Can a fundamental change ever feel "natural"...? Or must be settle for awkward and contrived...?

Simple answer, YES, fundamental change eventually becomes natural. Been there, done that, though the end result has taken years.

 

I do agree that swing "DNA" matters, but fwiw we're not changing yours, simply adapting pieces to work with said "DNA."

Yes I agree it can be done. Faldo did it but took him 2 years and countless hours on the range.

 

I sincerely wish you and Kelvin have success together. He seems like a really nice dude and I hope he achieves his goals.

[Krt22]

Not meant to disparage Pepsi, but I was Pepsi. I was officially insufficient and eventually bottomed out in relative terms. As I have been ‘preaching,’ I knew there was a better approach. Why? Because I had once taken the correct path to proficiency. The path most take to proficiency. . . playing golf with proper focus and objective.

 

It could be argued that becoming proficient in sport and developing coordinated motor function is simply easier in youth. I believe it is. However, that does not mean the ability to learn (re-learn) and develop is lost upon those more advanced in age. The path back from insufficiency was the same path I originally took to proficiency. Again, PLAYING GOLF WITH PROPER FOCUS AND OBJECTIVE.

 

As per a prior post in another thread, it was a more difficult path for me in my 30s than earlier on in life, as unlearning is more difficult than learning. I had to unlearn - rid myself - of the minutia that had accumulated while I gave chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency.

 

By now, you know the path I have been ‘preaching.’ I also know there is a lot of skepticism around these parts regarding my message. Nonetheless, whether he wants to admit it or not, Pepsi is DEEP down the rabbit hole. His focus is wrong.

 

You suggest Pepsi has ingrained bad habits regarding his golf swing (motion), and needs to focus on the motion to improve. I agree, he has ingrained bad habits, but feel the bad habits originated, and will only get worse by continuing to place focus on the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

I know you aren’t in complete agreement, and respect that.

 

FR

 

I certainly wish that I were able to drop all my swing thoughts right now and just play golf. Believe me... But as Drew iterated, that's probably not feasible because I don't have a "natural" golf swing. I've been inundated with so many different ways to perform the various parts of the swing that I don't know which combination of parts is (1) the most mechanically sound, and more importantly, (2) the most repeatable.

 

I was considering listing every permutation of intents for takeaway, backswing, upper body transition, and lower body transition, just for everyone's entertainment, but it'd probably be a waste of time. Let's just say there are a lot, and I don't really have a "go-to" combination of moves that I'd be willing to commit to for the rest of my golf life. That's why this work with Drew is important to me. This is developing that "go-to" swing that I trust and will allow me to learn to play golf again. It may not be perfect, but it will be definitive...and that's probably most important for me.

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. It's said under the premise that one essentially cannot change their swing, which isn't the case. It may be a long and hard effort, but it can be done and sticking to what feels natural is what makes measurable long term change very hard. If your inherent swing flaw results in a path that is too far right or too far left, the chances of creating a repeatable one way miss are low. In this case mechanical changes are required to neutralize the path, when fully ingrained very well should result in a more repeatable swing

[Jim Waldron]

Lots of really important issues here. What are the essential requirements for making a swing change successfully and relatively quickly? How do you know when you are half way ("51%") toward forming a dominant habit. How much does intellectual choice or thinking your way to better mechanics actually work? If at all?

 

There are many, many serious mis-conceptions about those issues in traditional golf instruction, all of which have been made immeasurably worse by the rampant availability of "swing theory" golf teaching on the Internet.

 

I have been saying the following, out loud and many times, in PGA Education seminars and online, and especially to my golf students, for over 25 years: It is INSANE behavior to try to change how fast moving body parts move when swinging at normal speeds, even on the range. Especially so on the golf course. And doubly especially so in tournaments.

 

It not only does NOT help you hit the ball better (and I do not count the inevitable good shot that will happen due to random luck) it actually tends to make you flinch, which makes you hit it worse.

 

When you understand the following: what parts of the brain/mind actually create motor skills (and it sure ain't the conscious mind!), how random lucky shots when "thinking mechanics" actually reinforce the mistaken belief that your conscious intellectual mind employing "swing thoughts" was responsibie for that good shot (Google "random reinforcement syndrome"), the two main circuits that the brain uses to learn motor skills (Feedback and Feed Forward) and how you can use Awareness to break old strong bad swing flaw habits, and use Awareness to speed up the new swing change learning process, and how incredibly toxic to good golf a "Contaminated" mindset truly is, golfers would stop using "swing thoughts" and stop playing conscious mind golf immediately.

 

New and improved body movement patterns are NEVER A CHOICE! Believing that they are a choice is superstitious nonsense equivalent to believing in Santa Claus. And very easily proven empirically, in many ways. Body movement patterns that are complex, fast moving and start and stop in a very short period of time are body parts that are totally controlled by the non-conscious part of your brain. Not my opinion, a proven scientific fact, known to Science since the 19th century. You can look it up.

 

So why are so many golfers playing conscious mind golf? "Talking to body parts" in the middle of their downswing?

 

And then they wonder how they end up with the full swing yips? It is almost inevitable for a lot of golfers that do this, that they will end up with some form of the yips.

 

Only when moving in slow motion do humans have the ability to make their body parts move in new ways. Preferably with real-time visual feedback via a mirror.

 

Every one would play better and have more fun if they stopped trying to change their golf swing mechanics, mid-swing, on the golf course, and saved all those changes for the mirror in slow motion.

 

I would rather play golf with a mechanically-flawd swing, and one without a flinch, that that same flawed swing plus a flinch.

 

More on this topic later.....(I could write a book about this - wait, I actually am writing a book about this!)....

[dap]

Not meant to disparage Pepsi, but I was Pepsi. I was officially insufficient and eventually bottomed out in relative terms. As I have been ‘preaching,’ I knew there was a better approach. Why? Because I had once taken the correct path to proficiency. The path most take to proficiency. . . playing golf with proper focus and objective.

 

It could be argued that becoming proficient in sport and developing coordinated motor function is simply easier in youth. I believe it is. However, that does not mean the ability to learn (re-learn) and develop is lost upon those more advanced in age. The path back from insufficiency was the same path I originally took to proficiency. Again, PLAYING GOLF WITH PROPER FOCUS AND OBJECTIVE.

 

As per a prior post in another thread, it was a more difficult path for me in my 30s than earlier on in life, as unlearning is more difficult than learning. I had to unlearn - rid myself - of the minutia that had accumulated while I gave chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency.

 

By now, you know the path I have been ‘preaching.’ I also know there is a lot of skepticism around these parts regarding my message. Nonetheless, whether he wants to admit it or not, Pepsi is DEEP down the rabbit hole. His focus is wrong.

 

You suggest Pepsi has ingrained bad habits regarding his golf swing (motion), and needs to focus on the motion to improve. I agree, he has ingrained bad habits, but feel the bad habits originated, and will only get worse by continuing to place focus on the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

I know you aren’t in complete agreement, and respect that.

 

FR

 

I certainly wish that I were able to drop all my swing thoughts right now and just play golf. Believe me... But as Drew iterated, that's probably not feasible because I don't have a "natural" golf swing. I've been inundated with so many different ways to perform the various parts of the swing that I don't know which combination of parts is (1) the most mechanically sound, and more importantly, (2) the most repeatable.

 

I was considering listing every permutation of intents for takeaway, backswing, upper body transition, and lower body transition, just for everyone's entertainment, but it'd probably be a waste of time. Let's just say there are a lot, and I don't really have a "go-to" combination of moves that I'd be willing to commit to for the rest of my golf life. That's why this work with Drew is important to me. This is developing that "go-to" swing that I trust and will allow me to learn to play golf again. It may not be perfect, but it will be definitive...and that's probably most important for me.

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. It's said under the premise that one essentially cannot change their swing, which isn't the case. It may be a long and hard effort, but it can be done and sticking to what feels natural is what makes measurable long term change very hard. If your inherent swing flaw results in a path that is too far right or too far left, the chances of creating a repeatable one way miss are low. In this case mechanical changes are required to neutralize the path, when fully ingrained very well should result in a more repeatable swing

You are making a huge assumption that mechanical changes will neutralise the path. Most drills for OTT calls for exaggerated moves which over time can lead to other issues because those moves are simply not natural. How the heck can anyone play with the swing thought of keeping your back to the target for example? It might work for a week or two but you will eventually develop other serious issues.

 

There are subtle changes you can make without going contrived and unnatural. I used to have an out to in path problem before and none of those drills stuck. It would work initially but I usually ended up hitting it worse because it wasn't athletically natural. I made a subtle change to my backswing by getting a deeper hip turn which naturally reduced the out to in without making any exaggerated contrived movements. I could keep my athletically natural downswing. This worked for me but I can't guarantee it will for others but I'm just giving this as an example of being able to change your swing without changing your DNA.

[Jim Waldron]

Another way of understanding my concept of "Contamination" , which is using the wrong part of your brain-mind to control your body when moving at normal full speed tempo, ie using the conscious intellectual thinking mind to try to directly change how moving body parts move. It's like using an abacus to do a task that only a super computer can do.

 

Or it's like you buy a complex toy that requires assembly for your kid's Christmas present. Lets say it is a toy robot, that comes with a 15 page booklet of assembly instructions. Traditional teaching is kind of like handing the booklet of instructions ("Insert Tab A into Slot B") to your kid on Christmas morning, and saying to him "Merry Christmas, Timmy! Here is your new toy robot....have fun!"

 

The instructions are NOT the same thing as the robot. And symbols are NOT the same thing as the reality they point to.

 

All language-based and visual image- based instruction theory are simply instructions that are designed to stimulate the learning process, which will inevitably end up being completed at some point, with a golfer's body doing a new movement pattern that requires ZERO thought or will power or choice. And the essential nature of that learning process is intuitive and sensory NOT intellectual/cognitive/analytical. Learning a golf swing is not at all like solving an engineering puzzle. You need to engage your main tool which is Sensory Awareness or the ability to feel your body motion purely and directly without any intervening layers of visual imagery or word directions.

 

Meaning the whole purpose of instruction theory is simply to stimulate the Process of learning, which starts with awareness of what the body is actually doing, not what it "should" be doing. Then contemplating about the ideal theory, and contrasting that with what your body is actually doing, and seeing how big that Gap truly is. That Gap is filled with the next step which is Deep Insight or a "light bulb moment" at the level of the intuitive mind, the interface between conscious and non-conscious. That is the foundation for all of the thousands of reps you do at the next step, in slow mo, in front of a mirror. Then you Feel how that new move feels in slow motion....rinse and repeat. Then do the same cycle at half speed. Thousands or reps.

 

Eventually you end up with a clear and distinct feel sense memory for the new move at full speed. You can then hold that memory in your mind's eye during your rehearsal swings at start of your routine, and hope that your sub-conscious mind "get's the message" and delivers by actually executing the new pattern. You can also hold that feel sense memory in your mind during the actual swing - but that option has some serious downside risks, especially when playing under pressure.

 

"Getting the message" can be problematic, IF a. you are at less than the 51% Tipping Point of reps and b. you are under performance stress of any kind.

 

Swing feel memory can then "trigger" the new movement pattern to be executed by your subconscious mind.

 

Body responding to a trigger is NOT the same thing as how 99% of golfers understand the term "swing thought". The common understanding is more along the lines of using that "thought" as an actual direct command to move a body part. Swing feels used as triggers are "pre-planned" well prior to the point in the swing where the change actually occurs.

[Krt22]

Not meant to disparage Pepsi, but I was Pepsi. I was officially insufficient and eventually bottomed out in relative terms. As I have been ‘preaching,’ I knew there was a better approach. Why? Because I had once taken the correct path to proficiency. The path most take to proficiency. . . playing golf with proper focus and objective.

 

It could be argued that becoming proficient in sport and developing coordinated motor function is simply easier in youth. I believe it is. However, that does not mean the ability to learn (re-learn) and develop is lost upon those more advanced in age. The path back from insufficiency was the same path I originally took to proficiency. Again, PLAYING GOLF WITH PROPER FOCUS AND OBJECTIVE.

 

As per a prior post in another thread, it was a more difficult path for me in my 30s than earlier on in life, as unlearning is more difficult than learning. I had to unlearn - rid myself - of the minutia that had accumulated while I gave chase down the rabbit hole of insufficiency.

 

By now, you know the path I have been ‘preaching.’ I also know there is a lot of skepticism around these parts regarding my message. Nonetheless, whether he wants to admit it or not, Pepsi is DEEP down the rabbit hole. His focus is wrong.

 

You suggest Pepsi has ingrained bad habits regarding his golf swing (motion), and needs to focus on the motion to improve. I agree, he has ingrained bad habits, but feel the bad habits originated, and will only get worse by continuing to place focus on the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

I know you aren’t in complete agreement, and respect that.

 

FR

 

I certainly wish that I were able to drop all my swing thoughts right now and just play golf. Believe me... But as Drew iterated, that's probably not feasible because I don't have a "natural" golf swing. I've been inundated with so many different ways to perform the various parts of the swing that I don't know which combination of parts is (1) the most mechanically sound, and more importantly, (2) the most repeatable.

 

I was considering listing every permutation of intents for takeaway, backswing, upper body transition, and lower body transition, just for everyone's entertainment, but it'd probably be a waste of time. Let's just say there are a lot, and I don't really have a "go-to" combination of moves that I'd be willing to commit to for the rest of my golf life. That's why this work with Drew is important to me. This is developing that "go-to" swing that I trust and will allow me to learn to play golf again. It may not be perfect, but it will be definitive...and that's probably most important for me.

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. It's said under the premise that one essentially cannot change their swing, which isn't the case. It may be a long and hard effort, but it can be done and sticking to what feels natural is what makes measurable long term change very hard. If your inherent swing flaw results in a path that is too far right or too far left, the chances of creating a repeatable one way miss are low. In this case mechanical changes are required to neutralize the path, when fully ingrained very well should result in a more repeatable swing

You are making a huge assumption that mechanical changes will neutralise the path. Most drills for OTT calls for exaggerated moves which over time can lead to other issues because those moves are simply not natural. How the heck can anyone play with the swing thought of keeping your back to the target for example? It might work for a week or two but you will eventually develop other serious issues.

 

There are subtle changes you can make without going contrived and unnatural. I used to have an out to in path problem before and none of those drills stuck. It would work initially but I usually ended up hitting it worse because it wasn't athletically natural. I made a subtle change to my backswing by getting a deeper hip turn which naturally reduced the out to in without making any exaggerated contrived movements. I could keep my athletically natural downswing. This worked for me but I can't guarantee it will for others but I'm just giving this as an example of being able to change your swing without changing your DNA.

 

Not a huge assumption at all, but if you are making large scale mechanical changes, there are tons of ways to figure out if what you are working on is actually working. Video/ball flight for rough scale and/or launch monitors for definitive data.

 

And making mechanical changes is not the same as using bandaid drills, instead you should be working on fixing a specific flaw that leads to the overly in to out path. In your case you found the root cause in your backswing, you made a mechanical change, and saw improvement. In your case it may have still felt relatively natural which is why you can advocate your stance, other's may have larger scale issues that they have fully ingrained, in which case an unnatural motion/feel may be required to fix it, as the "natural" motion they currently employ may not be fixable, in which case they can only rely on short term bandaids or drills.

[Curlyman83]

I like your 2018 swing better, maybe because there is a DTL view. I think you need earlier wrist set on the takeaway and get the right elbow in better position. Looks like you have all the athletic ability needed.

 

The opposite for me. The 2014 swing looked far more powerful, yet also more controlled.

 

Just my two-pence-worth.

[FatReed]

Pepsi wrote:

 

“Can a fundamental change ever feel "natural"...?  Or must be settle for awkward and contrived...?”

 

***

 

Pepsi

 

There is a prevailing notion commonly expressed that meaningful ‘change’ must feel unnatural, awkward, contrived . . . again, this almost exclusively sets focus on the golf swing (motion) itself. Those descriptors are of how the MOTION and associated intents feel.

 

I believe everyone does have a natural and proficient motion; some more proficient than others, for sure. However, this does not mean learning one’s natural motion is easy; it takes commitment and proper focus. As is well known by now, my view is that focusing on the motion itself is not the proper focus.

 

For example, how has your focus on the swing served you over the past few years? A somewhat rhetorical question given the content of this thread that YOU started.

 

Let me cut to the chase by stating - what should be obvious - that anything unnatural, awkward and contrived will bear no fruit. It’s your mind/body telling that something is wrong, and unless that ‘something’ is corrected, it will never be natural or proficient. That ‘something’ is your focus!!!

 

The argument many make is that what comes natural is often not proficient; the conclusion is that the motion is wrong and, thus, must be changed by focusing on the motion itself. The argument and corresponding conclusion are flawed. An undesired outcome does not imply the motion is ‘wrong,’ rather that the focus on proper objective is wrong. The motion supports the focus or objective behind it.

 

You could make a meaningful swing (motion) change that feels completely ‘natural’ by changing your focus from the motion itself to one of numerous other (non-swing related) objectives. I have provided several, but the list is extensive and must be individualized.

 

The Clement video is excellent, and he nicely describes how changing focus from the ball being the target, to the target being the target, invariably changes the motion. Based on the focus, both motions are ‘natural,’ but one is more proficient toward advancing ball from point A to point B than the other. In other words, it’s a perfect example of how meaningful and natural change in motion occurs with no effort or change directed at the motion itself. This is essentially the entire basis of my thread on proficiency versus insufficiency.

 

Natural, in terms of motion, does not mean easily acquired. It means your focus and motion are aligned in producing a desired outcome. Your motion will change according to your focus. The motion will be ‘natural’ if the proper focus is in place. . . unnatural, awkward and contrived if not.

 

FR

[Obee]

You can nitpick the swing and your swing to the point of no return and maybe that's what FatReed means by "deep down the rabbit hole". For example, if you ask the instructor if flaring your front foot 45° is better than your current 20°, maybe it really doesn't matter and the instructor says so. Only you think it matters. Some consider minutia to be my previous example and some would say that "c0ck your wrists sooner" is swing minutia.

 

If you've done your homework and picked a good instructor and the right one for you, you need to trust what the instructor is telling you at some point and do what he or she says. Otherwise, that would tell me that you think you know how to fix your own swing. And you would've done it by now.

 

Then my expectation for an instructor would be to tell me that exactly 20* of front foot flare is correct and leave it at that. Saying something doesn't matter implies that I can do it in any reasonable manner and that I can do it differently every time. So I can flare my front foot 45* on one swing and then 20* on the next swing and it should produce near-identical results?

 

For the wrist c0ck example, how soon is sooner? Immediately off the ball? Right thigh? After P2? Somewhere in between? Saying something doesn't matter or using imprecise terms leaves room for variability. Hell, can I even switch it up from swing to swing because it doesn't matter or because I'm close enough?

 

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable for expecting a certain degree of detail, but years of frustration have made me realize that almost everything does matter to some degree...and I think that's what makes an instructor good for me: An appreciation for precise details that leave little room for student interpretation or variation. And it's one of the things that I appreciate about working with Drew (besides his friendly demeanor!); though I'm sure he hates me for it. :lol:

 

To answer you question about foot flare: yes, I am confident that most players, with even a small bit of time to adjust, could play equally good golf with anywhere from 20 to 45 degrees of front foot flare.

 

Next!

[Obee]

What you bring up about what is most mechanically sound and what is most repeatable is poignant. We are sometimes led to believe that being mechanically sound will result in better repetition which unfortunately is not true. The most repeatable action is the one that feels most natural to you..one you can do in your sleep but unfortunately for most of us that action is flawed. We then strive for what we believe to be a more mechanically sound swing but then the action feels more and more contrived and further away from natural. The result is your best shots are great but it's fleeting, you can't repeat it and your worst shots gets worse.

 

I suppose that will always be the trick in golf. You need to maintain your natural feel for the swing while you work on mechanics. You can't stray too far from your DNA swing. Nicklaus never would have had success with Hogan's swing and vice versa.

 

This is a great point and one that I never considered in my quest for a more mechanically sound swing. I was always under the impression that if it "felt natural," then I'm still doing it wrong...especially if "natural" had been ingrained over 20 years...

 

Can a fundamental change ever feel "natural"...? Or must be settle for awkward and contrived...?

 

Kelvin,

 

I can play nearly identical scratch golf with the following "fundamental" changes:

 

Stance significantly CLOSED to the target

Stance significantly OPEN to the target

Stance SQUARE to the target

 

Grip that is VERY strong

Grip that is NEUTRAL

Grip that is WEAK

 

For irons:

Ball position that is FORWARD of center

Ball position that is BACK of center

Ball position that is CENTER

 

And you know what? They all feel similar to me. Certainly none of them feel awkward. I've played solid golf (as an amateur) from all of those positions over the years and go back and forth between them at will.

 

Why is that?

 

I learned the game originally on my own with only two goals: 1) Move the ball from point A to point B efficiently and with power; and 2) try to learn to curve it both ways (because I thought that was the best way to attack tucked pins and it was also more "fun" for me to play that way).

 

Now if you told me that I had to raise my hands/arms high above my head like Jack and Bubba do at the top of their backswing, then THAT, for me, would feel "contrived and unnatural."

 

Bottom line: Fundamental changes CAN feel natural -- it just depends what the change is, and who the player is.

[oikos1]

Lots of really important issues here. What are the essential requirements for making a swing change successfully and relatively quickly? How do you know when you are half way ("51%") toward forming a dominant habit. How much does intellectual choice or thinking your way to better mechanics actually work? If at all?

 

There are many, many serious mis-conceptions about those issues in traditional golf instruction, all of which have been made immeasurably worse by the rampant availability of "swing theory" golf teaching on the Internet.

 

I have been saying the following, out loud and many times, in PGA Education seminars and online, and especially to my golf students, for over 25 years: It is INSANE behavior to try to change how fast moving body parts move when swinging at normal speeds, even on the range. Especially so on the golf course. And doubly especially so in tournaments.

 

It not only does NOT help you hit the ball better (and I do not count the inevitable good shot that will happen due to random luck) it actually tends to make you flinch, which makes you hit it worse.

 

When you understand the following: what parts of the brain/mind actually create motor skills (and it sure ain't the conscious mind!), how random lucky shots when "thinking mechanics" actually reinforce the mistaken belief that your conscious intellectual mind employing "swing thoughts" was responsibie for that good shot (Google "random reinforcement syndrome"), the two main circuits that the brain uses to learn motor skills (Feedback and Feed Forward) and how you can use Awareness to break old strong bad swing flaw habits, and use Awareness to speed up the new swing change learning process, and how incredibly toxic to good golf a "Contaminated" mindset truly is, golfers would stop using "swing thoughts" and stop playing conscious mind golf immediately.

 

New and improved body movement patterns are NEVER A CHOICE! Believing that they are a choice is superstitious nonsense equivalent to believing in Santa Claus. And very easily proven empirically, in many ways. Body movement patterns that are complex, fast moving and start and stop in a very short period of time are body parts that are totally controlled by the non-conscious part of your brain. Not my opinion, a proven scientific fact, known to Science since the 19th century. You can look it up.

 

So why are so many golfers playing conscious mind golf? "Talking to body parts" in the middle of their downswing?

 

And then they wonder how they end up with the full swing yips? It is almost inevitable for a lot of golfers that do this, that they will end up with some form of the yips.

 

Only when moving in slow motion do humans have the ability to make their body parts move in new ways. Preferably with real-time visual feedback via a mirror.

 

Every one would play better and have more fun if they stopped trying to change their golf swing mechanics, mid-swing, on the golf course, and saved all those changes for the mirror in slow motion.

 

I would rather play golf with a mechanically-flawd swing, and one without a flinch, that that same flawed swing plus a flinch.

 

More on this topic later.....(I could write a book about this - wait, I actually am writing a book about this!)....

 

Lol. So basically, you're saying what Pepsi and Drew are doing is a waste of time.

[FatReed]

Lots of really important issues here. What are the essential requirements for making a swing change successfully and relatively quickly? How do you know when you are half way ("51%") toward forming a dominant habit. How much does intellectual choice or thinking your way to better mechanics actually work? If at all?

 

There are many, many serious mis-conceptions about those issues in traditional golf instruction, all of which have been made immeasurably worse by the rampant availability of "swing theory" golf teaching on the Internet.

 

I have been saying the following, out loud and many times, in PGA Education seminars and online, and especially to my golf students, for over 25 years: It is INSANE behavior to try to change how fast moving body parts move when swinging at normal speeds, even on the range. Especially so on the golf course. And doubly especially so in tournaments.

 

It not only does NOT help you hit the ball better (and I do not count the inevitable good shot that will happen due to random luck) it actually tends to make you flinch, which makes you hit it worse.

 

When you understand the following: what parts of the brain/mind actually create motor skills (and it sure ain't the conscious mind!), how random lucky shots when "thinking mechanics" actually reinforce the mistaken belief that your conscious intellectual mind employing "swing thoughts" was responsibie for that good shot (Google "random reinforcement syndrome"), the two main circuits that the brain uses to learn motor skills (Feedback and Feed Forward) and how you can use Awareness to break old strong bad swing flaw habits, and use Awareness to speed up the new swing change learning process, and how incredibly toxic to good golf a "Contaminated" mindset truly is, golfers would stop using "swing thoughts" and stop playing conscious mind golf immediately.

 

New and improved body movement patterns are NEVER A CHOICE! Believing that they are a choice is superstitious nonsense equivalent to believing in Santa Claus. And very easily proven empirically, in many ways. Body movement patterns that are complex, fast moving and start and stop in a very short period of time are body parts that are totally controlled by the non-conscious part of your brain. Not my opinion, a proven scientific fact, known to Science since the 19th century. You can look it up.

 

So why are so many golfers playing conscious mind golf? "Talking to body parts" in the middle of their downswing?

 

And then they wonder how they end up with the full swing yips? It is almost inevitable for a lot of golfers that do this, that they will end up with some form of the yips.

 

Only when moving in slow motion do humans have the ability to make their body parts move in new ways. Preferably with real-time visual feedback via a mirror.

 

Every one would play better and have more fun if they stopped trying to change their golf swing mechanics, mid-swing, on the golf course, and saved all those changes for the mirror in slow motion.

 

I would rather play golf with a mechanically-flawd swing, and one without a flinch, that that same flawed swing plus a flinch.

 

More on this topic later.....(I could write a book about this - wait, I actually am writing a book about this!)....

 

Lol. So basically, you're saying what Pepsi and Drew are doing is a waste of time.

 

YES . . . but it does not take books, videos . . . and seminars to understand, nor implement. . . all for a fee, of course.

 

Most instructors either make it more complicated than it needs to be, or want you to believe it’s more complicated than it is.

 

Perhaps worse yet, most golfer believe them.

 

Carry on. . .

[drewtaylor21]

Lots of really important issues here. What are the essential requirements for making a swing change successfully and relatively quickly? How do you know when you are half way ("51%") toward forming a dominant habit. How much does intellectual choice or thinking your way to better mechanics actually work? If at all?

 

There are many, many serious mis-conceptions about those issues in traditional golf instruction, all of which have been made immeasurably worse by the rampant availability of "swing theory" golf teaching on the Internet.

 

I have been saying the following, out loud and many times, in PGA Education seminars and online, and especially to my golf students, for over 25 years: It is INSANE behavior to try to change how fast moving body parts move when swinging at normal speeds, even on the range. Especially so on the golf course. And doubly especially so in tournaments.

 

It not only does NOT help you hit the ball better (and I do not count the inevitable good shot that will happen due to random luck) it actually tends to make you flinch, which makes you hit it worse.

 

When you understand the following: what parts of the brain/mind actually create motor skills (and it sure ain't the conscious mind!), how random lucky shots when "thinking mechanics" actually reinforce the mistaken belief that your conscious intellectual mind employing "swing thoughts" was responsibie for that good shot (Google "random reinforcement syndrome"), the two main circuits that the brain uses to learn motor skills (Feedback and Feed Forward) and how you can use Awareness to break old strong bad swing flaw habits, and use Awareness to speed up the new swing change learning process, and how incredibly toxic to good golf a "Contaminated" mindset truly is, golfers would stop using "swing thoughts" and stop playing conscious mind golf immediately.

 

New and improved body movement patterns are NEVER A CHOICE! Believing that they are a choice is superstitious nonsense equivalent to believing in Santa Claus. And very easily proven empirically, in many ways. Body movement patterns that are complex, fast moving and start and stop in a very short period of time are body parts that are totally controlled by the non-conscious part of your brain. Not my opinion, a proven scientific fact, known to Science since the 19th century. You can look it up.

 

So why are so many golfers playing conscious mind golf? "Talking to body parts" in the middle of their downswing?

 

And then they wonder how they end up with the full swing yips? It is almost inevitable for a lot of golfers that do this, that they will end up with some form of the yips.

 

Only when moving in slow motion do humans have the ability to make their body parts move in new ways. Preferably with real-time visual feedback via a mirror.

 

Every one would play better and have more fun if they stopped trying to change their golf swing mechanics, mid-swing, on the golf course, and saved all those changes for the mirror in slow motion.

 

I would rather play golf with a mechanically-flawd swing, and one without a flinch, that that same flawed swing plus a flinch.

 

More on this topic later.....(I could write a book about this - wait, I actually am writing a book about this!)....

 

Lol. So basically, you're saying what Pepsi and Drew are doing is a waste of time.

 

I would disagree, as I have prescribed a LOT of slow-mo and mirror work for Pepsi to make these changes, and he isn't taking any full swings at the range (or at least none that he's telling me about :))

[Ghost of Snead]

Lots of really important issues here. What are the essential requirements for making a swing change successfully and relatively quickly? How do you know when you are half way ("51%") toward forming a dominant habit. How much does intellectual choice or thinking your way to better mechanics actually work? If at all?

 

There are many, many serious mis-conceptions about those issues in traditional golf instruction, all of which have been made immeasurably worse by the rampant availability of "swing theory" golf teaching on the Internet.

 

I have been saying the following, out loud and many times, in PGA Education seminars and online, and especially to my golf students, for over 25 years: It is INSANE behavior to try to change how fast moving body parts move when swinging at normal speeds, even on the range. Especially so on the golf course. And doubly especially so in tournaments.

 

It not only does NOT help you hit the ball better (and I do not count the inevitable good shot that will happen due to random luck) it actually tends to make you flinch, which makes you hit it worse.

 

When you understand the following: what parts of the brain/mind actually create motor skills (and it sure ain't the conscious mind!), how random lucky shots when "thinking mechanics" actually reinforce the mistaken belief that your conscious intellectual mind employing "swing thoughts" was responsibie for that good shot (Google "random reinforcement syndrome"), the two main circuits that the brain uses to learn motor skills (Feedback and Feed Forward) and how you can use Awareness to break old strong bad swing flaw habits, and use Awareness to speed up the new swing change learning process, and how incredibly toxic to good golf a "Contaminated" mindset truly is, golfers would stop using "swing thoughts" and stop playing conscious mind golf immediately.

 

New and improved body movement patterns are NEVER A CHOICE! Believing that they are a choice is superstitious nonsense equivalent to believing in Santa Claus. And very easily proven empirically, in many ways. Body movement patterns that are complex, fast moving and start and stop in a very short period of time are body parts that are totally controlled by the non-conscious part of your brain. Not my opinion, a proven scientific fact, known to Science since the 19th century. You can look it up.

 

So why are so many golfers playing conscious mind golf? "Talking to body parts" in the middle of their downswing?

 

And then they wonder how they end up with the full swing yips? It is almost inevitable for a lot of golfers that do this, that they will end up with some form of the yips.

 

Only when moving in slow motion do humans have the ability to make their body parts move in new ways. Preferably with real-time visual feedback via a mirror.

 

Every one would play better and have more fun if they stopped trying to change their golf swing mechanics, mid-swing, on the golf course, and saved all those changes for the mirror in slow motion.

 

I would rather play golf with a mechanically-flawd swing, and one without a flinch, that that same flawed swing plus a flinch.

 

More on this topic later.....(I could write a book about this - wait, I actually am writing a book about this!)....

 

Lol. So basically, you're saying what Pepsi and Drew are doing is a waste of time.

 

YES . . . but it does not take books, videos . . . and seminars to understand, nor implement. . . all for a fee, of course.

 

Most instructors either make it more complicated than it needs to be, or want you to believe it’s more complicated than it is.

 

Perhaps worse yet, most golfer believe them.

 

Carry on. . .

 

Spoken like a man who picked some bad instructors ...

 

Carry on ...