Is Too Much Attention Spent On Swing Mechanics (at the amateur level)

[Krt22]

I invite everyone to google Mike Malaska and gravity to get another view. Not necessarily better but worth considering.

 

Steve

 

Ands it's a wrong view. Every PHD and biomechanics expert will tell you he's way off. And you can't get them to agree on much of anything, but they'd all agree on that.

 

Most of the great golf that has ever been played was played without consulting PHD and bio mechanics experts. Such complication appears to be unnecessary although fashionable.

 

The reason I posted was not to debate the merits of your point, just to let those following the thread know that what you say is a teachers opinion, not the TRUTH delivered from on high.

 

Steve

 

Except this thread is about swing mechanics and the mechanics are relatively absolute. What you have in here are amateurs discounting the merits of the actual facts based off their own intuition/opinions/feels

[dhc1]

Just to be clear, you think that improving the mental focus on a mid 80s player would lower his average score by 10 strokes so that he's flirting with even par?

 

Yes. It's not an overnight transition, but it can happen.

 

If you focus on the proper task, give up control and maintain that focus, more often than not you will hit a quality golf shot. Your brain knows how to do it, if you let it.

 

Don't misunderstand me, you have to have some technical fundamentals. You have to have a proper grip so the club can hinge. You have to allow the club to swing with enough width. You have to start in an address position that will allow you to execute the task.

 

But once you have those fundamentals down, focusing on right task will solve many, many swing flaws all on its own. The swing flaws are the symptom, not the disease. As an example, think about the common over-the-top problem that plagues most newer golfers. If your focus is on throwing the club to a target, you WILL NOT come of the top. You can't. You'd throw it into the ground. But rather than teaching students to focus on the feel of a club throw, most pros will draw lines on a monitor to show us how under the plane and inside we are. Then they'll setup swim noodles and put a shoebox outside our ball. Then they'll say "do this drill 3 times a week every week for 12-18 months and you'll have ingrained the right move." "What, it's not working? Oh..that's your fault. You're not committed enough."

 

What some of you are not understanding is there are people in the world that have taken many dozens of lessons, including from highly acclaimed teaching pros. They did the drills. The improvement would come, but it would quickly disappear. Why? Not because of a lack of commitment. Rather, because of a fundamental disconnect.

 

In my own personal case, in all my years of lessons, not a single conventional pro ever said anything to me about allowing the club to swing utilizing gravity. Thus, throughout most of my life, I tried to shove the club back and forth with my muscles. I was never told it wasn't my job to hit the ball. So, I made an ill-timed, awkward, massively over-the-top swing at the ball for most of my life.

 

Pros would always identify the correct flaws. My takeaway was too inside. I was too over the top. My club face was too open. I was going left at impact.

 

They'd give me drills. "Feel like you're shaking hands in the takeaway." "Hit the inside part of the ball." "Bump your left hip to start the downswing." But all they resulted in was the proverbial unfolding lawn chair. With all of these body part focuses, I made a very confused swing. On occasion, I'd hit the ball better, but I didn't know why, or how to do it again.

 

It wasn't until an unconventional pro alerted my idiot self to the fact that I WAS supposed to allow the club to swing utilizing gravity and I was not supposed to try to hit the ball that I saw actual, sustainable improvement. Feeling those feelings for the first time was like a bomb going off. Holy CRAP. I've been doing it SO wrong for all these years. THIS is what all those good golfers have been feeling. No wonder I could never make progress. It's like I was trying to cut down a tree with a toothbrush.

 

The conventional pros analysis of the problems was spot on. It was their lack of understanding WHY I had those problems that was at fault. I didn't take the club too far inside because it was a bad habit that had to be broken through 12-18 months of drills. I took the club too far inside because I was trying to hit the ball.

 

But it's really, really hard to get a golfer who learned via the conventional route to consider the fact there may be a different way. It's probably even harder to convince a golf pro. They learned via drills, their mentor taught them via drills, they've helped some golfers improve via drills, so by god, drills are the correct way, end of discussion.

 

Obviously there are people who can use conventional instruction methods and have success. The large numbers of single-digit handicaps in the world are proof of that. However, I contend there's an even larger number of people who don't have success. They take the same lessons. They do the same drills. But when they fail, they get the blame. Maybe, just maybe it's the instructor's failure to identify these fundamental disconnects that is at fault. It's like telling someone to dig a hole, then blaming them when the hole didn't get dug, but you never asked them if they know how to use a shovel.

 

Finally, let me say that even using unconventional instruction still requires repetition to improve to a very high level. While there is no such thing as repeating a swing or "muscle memory," we as humans do get better at tasks the more we repeat them. I don't care what methodology you use, if you only play golf and hit the range once a month, your chances of becoming a great golfer are very, very low.

 

Actually it is an "overnight transition" for a lot of my mental game students!

 

Dropping ten strokes or more due to better application of mental game principles is certainly very common, in my teaching experience.

 

Jim,

 

Can you please be a bit more specific? Do you think that a mid teens handicap could get to a mid single digit solely by mental application (no mechanical thinking/work)? That's different than the broader dropping ten strokes or more you mentioned.

 

Thanks.

[Krt22]

I don't think mental approach and mechanics are mutually exclusive. How you improve mechanical issues is in fact a mental exercise. No one is shaving 10 strokes off their index with some kumbaya "I will be a better golfer...I will not slice it...I will not lay sod over it" type mental gymnastics

[Jim Waldron]

Just to be clear, you think that improving the mental focus on a mid 80s player would lower his average score by 10 strokes so that he's flirting with even par?

 

Yes. It's not an overnight transition, but it can happen.

 

If you focus on the proper task, give up control and maintain that focus, more often than not you will hit a quality golf shot. Your brain knows how to do it, if you let it.

 

Don't misunderstand me, you have to have some technical fundamentals. You have to have a proper grip so the club can hinge. You have to allow the club to swing with enough width. You have to start in an address position that will allow you to execute the task.

 

But once you have those fundamentals down, focusing on right task will solve many, many swing flaws all on its own. The swing flaws are the symptom, not the disease. As an example, think about the common over-the-top problem that plagues most newer golfers. If your focus is on throwing the club to a target, you WILL NOT come of the top. You can't. You'd throw it into the ground. But rather than teaching students to focus on the feel of a club throw, most pros will draw lines on a monitor to show us how under the plane and inside we are. Then they'll setup swim noodles and put a shoebox outside our ball. Then they'll say "do this drill 3 times a week every week for 12-18 months and you'll have ingrained the right move." "What, it's not working? Oh..that's your fault. You're not committed enough."

 

What some of you are not understanding is there are people in the world that have taken many dozens of lessons, including from highly acclaimed teaching pros. They did the drills. The improvement would come, but it would quickly disappear. Why? Not because of a lack of commitment. Rather, because of a fundamental disconnect.

 

In my own personal case, in all my years of lessons, not a single conventional pro ever said anything to me about allowing the club to swing utilizing gravity. Thus, throughout most of my life, I tried to shove the club back and forth with my muscles. I was never told it wasn't my job to hit the ball. So, I made an ill-timed, awkward, massively over-the-top swing at the ball for most of my life.

 

Pros would always identify the correct flaws. My takeaway was too inside. I was too over the top. My club face was too open. I was going left at impact.

 

They'd give me drills. "Feel like you're shaking hands in the takeaway." "Hit the inside part of the ball." "Bump your left hip to start the downswing." But all they resulted in was the proverbial unfolding lawn chair. With all of these body part focuses, I made a very confused swing. On occasion, I'd hit the ball better, but I didn't know why, or how to do it again.

 

It wasn't until an unconventional pro alerted my idiot self to the fact that I WAS supposed to allow the club to swing utilizing gravity and I was not supposed to try to hit the ball that I saw actual, sustainable improvement. Feeling those feelings for the first time was like a bomb going off. Holy CRAP. I've been doing it SO wrong for all these years. THIS is what all those good golfers have been feeling. No wonder I could never make progress. It's like I was trying to cut down a tree with a toothbrush.

 

The conventional pros analysis of the problems was spot on. It was their lack of understanding WHY I had those problems that was at fault. I didn't take the club too far inside because it was a bad habit that had to be broken through 12-18 months of drills. I took the club too far inside because I was trying to hit the ball.

 

But it's really, really hard to get a golfer who learned via the conventional route to consider the fact there may be a different way. It's probably even harder to convince a golf pro. They learned via drills, their mentor taught them via drills, they've helped some golfers improve via drills, so by god, drills are the correct way, end of discussion.

 

Obviously there are people who can use conventional instruction methods and have success. The large numbers of single-digit handicaps in the world are proof of that. However, I contend there's an even larger number of people who don't have success. They take the same lessons. They do the same drills. But when they fail, they get the blame. Maybe, just maybe it's the instructor's failure to identify these fundamental disconnects that is at fault. It's like telling someone to dig a hole, then blaming them when the hole didn't get dug, but you never asked them if they know how to use a shovel.

 

Finally, let me say that even using unconventional instruction still requires repetition to improve to a very high level. While there is no such thing as repeating a swing or "muscle memory," we as humans do get better at tasks the more we repeat them. I don't care what methodology you use, if you only play golf and hit the range once a month, your chances of becoming a great golfer are very, very low.

 

Actually it is an "overnight transition" for a lot of my mental game students!

 

Dropping ten strokes or more due to better application of mental game principles is certainly very common, in my teaching experience.

 

Jim,

 

Can you please be a bit more specific? Do you think that a mid teens handicap could get to a mid single digit solely by mental application (no mechanical thinking/work)? That's different than the broader dropping ten strokes or more you mentioned.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes - I see that all the time. 15 handicap as an example, likely at least 50% of his or her really bad misses are due to non-physical reasons, ie wrong use of the mind and emotions will tend to cause any golfer to flinch. The "Flinch Factor" is not widely understood in golf, and especially in Internet Golfland. Here on wrx even more so. The bias is towards ONLY mechanics, ALL the time for explaining why bad shots happen. It totally ignores the overwhelming evidence from Neuroscience regarding the mind/brain/body connection, and why certain muscles will tighten up that should not be doing so.

 

The question is this: which of two swings would you rather have to play a round of golf with: the typical 15 handicap swing with one or more Fatal Flaws physically (and I include poor Balance and Tempo in that category as well as Mechanics) but with ZERO flinches, or that same swing with one or more bad flinches?

 

I would rather have the flinch-free motion any day of the week, it will produce better shots and lower scores than that same poor swing will when you add the flinch factor to it.

[wadesworld]

I don't think mental approach and mechanics are mutually exclusive. How you improve mechanical issues is in fact a mental exercise. No one is shaving 10 strokes off their index with some kumbaya "I will be a better golfer...I will not slice it...I will not lay sod over it" type mental gymnastics

 

You're absolutely correct.

 

The key debate here though is whether changing your focus can cause you to improve your mechanics, or whether the only way to improve your mechanics is some number of months of drills to "ingrain a change."

 

I argue that changing your focus can and does improve your mechanics. Given a different task, you swing the club differently....aka your mechanics have changed.

 

Others argue that's impossible. If you want to not take the club so far inside, the only solution is 5000 swings without touching a swim noodle, standing in front of a mirror, or any other drill you want to name.

[Krt22]

I would disagree. Anyone who has done any amount of self video work can likely tell you they will think/feel some dramatically different things and then the two swings will look nearly identical.

[Grayback1973]

Just to be clear, you think that improving the mental focus on a mid 80s player would lower his average score by 10 strokes so that he's flirting with even par?

 

Yes. It's not an overnight transition, but it can happen.

 

If you focus on the proper task, give up control and maintain that focus, more often than not you will hit a quality golf shot. Your brain knows how to do it, if you let it.

 

Don't misunderstand me, you have to have some technical fundamentals. You have to have a proper grip so the club can hinge. You have to allow the club to swing with enough width. You have to start in an address position that will allow you to execute the task.

 

But once you have those fundamentals down, focusing on right task will solve many, many swing flaws all on its own. The swing flaws are the symptom, not the disease. As an example, think about the common over-the-top problem that plagues most newer golfers. If your focus is on throwing the club to a target, you WILL NOT come of the top. You can't. You'd throw it into the ground. But rather than teaching students to focus on the feel of a club throw, most pros will draw lines on a monitor to show us how under the plane and inside we are. Then they'll setup swim noodles and put a shoebox outside our ball. Then they'll say "do this drill 3 times a week every week for 12-18 months and you'll have ingrained the right move." "What, it's not working? Oh..that's your fault. You're not committed enough."

 

What some of you are not understanding is there are people in the world that have taken many dozens of lessons, including from highly acclaimed teaching pros. They did the drills. The improvement would come, but it would quickly disappear. Why? Not because of a lack of commitment. Rather, because of a fundamental disconnect.

 

In my own personal case, in all my years of lessons, not a single conventional pro ever said anything to me about allowing the club to swing utilizing gravity. Thus, throughout most of my life, I tried to shove the club back and forth with my muscles. I was never told it wasn't my job to hit the ball. So, I made an ill-timed, awkward, massively over-the-top swing at the ball for most of my life.

 

Pros would always identify the correct flaws. My takeaway was too inside. I was too over the top. My club face was too open. I was going left at impact.

 

They'd give me drills. "Feel like you're shaking hands in the takeaway." "Hit the inside part of the ball." "Bump your left hip to start the downswing." But all they resulted in was the proverbial unfolding lawn chair. With all of these body part focuses, I made a very confused swing. On occasion, I'd hit the ball better, but I didn't know why, or how to do it again.

 

It wasn't until an unconventional pro alerted my idiot self to the fact that I WAS supposed to allow the club to swing utilizing gravity and I was not supposed to try to hit the ball that I saw actual, sustainable improvement. Feeling those feelings for the first time was like a bomb going off. Holy CRAP. I've been doing it SO wrong for all these years. THIS is what all those good golfers have been feeling. No wonder I could never make progress. It's like I was trying to cut down a tree with a toothbrush.

 

The conventional pros analysis of the problems was spot on. It was their lack of understanding WHY I had those problems that was at fault. I didn't take the club too far inside because it was a bad habit that had to be broken through 12-18 months of drills. I took the club too far inside because I was trying to hit the ball.

 

But it's really, really hard to get a golfer who learned via the conventional route to consider the fact there may be a different way. It's probably even harder to convince a golf pro. They learned via drills, their mentor taught them via drills, they've helped some golfers improve via drills, so by god, drills are the correct way, end of discussion.

 

Obviously there are people who can use conventional instruction methods and have success. The large numbers of single-digit handicaps in the world are proof of that. However, I contend there's an even larger number of people who don't have success. They take the same lessons. They do the same drills. But when they fail, they get the blame. Maybe, just maybe it's the instructor's failure to identify these fundamental disconnects that is at fault. It's like telling someone to dig a hole, then blaming them when the hole didn't get dug, but you never asked them if they know how to use a shovel.

 

Finally, let me say that even using unconventional instruction still requires repetition to improve to a very high level. While there is no such thing as repeating a swing or "muscle memory," we as humans do get better at tasks the more we repeat them. I don't care what methodology you use, if you only play golf and hit the range once a month, your chances of becoming a great golfer are very, very low.

 

Actually it is an "overnight transition" for a lot of my mental game students!

 

Dropping ten strokes or more due to better application of mental game principles is certainly very common, in my teaching experience.

 

Jim,

 

Can you please be a bit more specific? Do you think that a mid teens handicap could get to a mid single digit solely by mental application (no mechanical thinking/work)? That's different than the broader dropping ten strokes or more you mentioned.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes - I see that all the time. 15 handicap as an example, likely at least 50% of his or her really bad misses are due to non-physical reasons, ie wrong use of the mind and emotions will tend to cause any golfer to flinch. The "Flinch Factor" is not widely understood in golf, and especially in Internet Golfland. Here on wrx even more so. The bias is towards ONLY mechanics, ALL the time for explaining why bad shots happen. It totally ignores the overwhelming evidence from Neuroscience regarding the mind/brain/body connection, and why certain muscles will tighten up that should not be doing so.

 

The question is this: which of two swings would you rather have to play a round of golf with: the typical 15 handicap swing with one or more Fatal Flaws physically (and I include poor Balance and Tempo in that category as well as Mechanics) but with ZERO flinches, or that same swing with one or more bad flinches?

 

I would rather have the flinch-free motion any day of the week, it will produce better shots and lower scores than that same poor swing will when you add the flinch factor to it.

I've read many of your posts about the flinch factor and I know what you're talking about.It is especially evident in the short game around the green.

 

In my last tournament on a par 5 I was pin high in 2.Had a delicate flop over the bunker with virtually no green to work with.My thought was to swing through without flinching.Hit the shot perfectly as pictured in my mind and ended up 1.5 ft from the cup.I really feel that flinching and trusting are polar opposites.Seems the flinch happens when at the last second you don't trust and then suddenly try to steer.

[davep043]

I don't think mental approach and mechanics are mutually exclusive. How you improve mechanical issues is in fact a mental exercise. No one is shaving 10 strokes off their index with some kumbaya "I will be a better golfer...I will not slice it...I will not lay sod over it" type mental gymnastics

 

You're absolutely correct.

 

The key debate here though is whether changing your focus can cause you to improve your mechanics, or whether the only way to improve your mechanics is some number of months of drills to "ingrain a change."

 

I argue that changing your focus can and does improve your mechanics. Given a different task, you swing the club differently....aka your mechanics have changed.

 

Others argue that's impossible. If you want to not take the club so far inside, the only solution is 5000 swings without touching a swim noodle, standing in front of a mirror, or any other drill you want to name.

I would agree that changing your focus CAN change your mechanics, but not necessarily that it IMPROVES mechanics, certainly not for everyone. On the other hand, if an instructor told me that there was one and only one way to induce a certain desired change, I'd find a different instructor.

[juststeve]

Jim Waldron:

 

Flinch factor? What's that? I was taught to swing the club to the target while doing my best to ignore the golf ball. Same thing?

 

Steve

[wadesworld]

I would disagree. Anyone who has done any amount of self video work can likely tell you they will think/feel some dramatically different things and then the two swings will look nearly identical.

 

You misunderstand what I mean by focus and task then.

 

I guarantee you if my task is to hit the ball, the swing will look dramatically different than if my task is to allow the cub to swing to a target out there. Fred Shoemaker illustrates this brilliantly in his video. He videos students being asked to hit the ball. Most of them have the typical OTT, poor weight shift hacker swing. Then he gives them a club and tells them to hit a guy 50-yards downrange that just stole their wallet. The difference is astounding. When they focus on throwing the club, they have a beautiful sequence, head stays back, weight shifts beautifully. Why? Because it has to. You cannot throw a club effectively otherwise.

 

This is what teachers like Fred Shoemaker and Shawn Clement are trying to get across. That a change in your focus/task can make a positive change to your mechanics.

[TB07]

I don't think mental approach and mechanics are mutually exclusive. How you improve mechanical issues is in fact a mental exercise. No one is shaving 10 strokes off their index with some kumbaya "I will be a better golfer...I will not slice it...I will not lay sod over it" type mental gymnastics

 

You're absolutely correct.

 

The key debate here though is whether changing your focus can cause you to improve your mechanics, or whether the only way to improve your mechanics is some number of months of drills to "ingrain a change."

 

I argue that changing your focus can and does improve your mechanics. Given a different task, you swing the club differently....aka your mechanics have changed.

 

Others argue that's impossible. If you want to not take the club so far inside, the only solution is 5000 swings without touching a swim noodle, standing in front of a mirror, or any other drill you want to name.

 

Changing your focus can and does absolutely work. That’s absolutely putting attention on mechanics though. Wether it’s missing a pool noodle or FEELING as if you are letting gravity swing the club, if it changes your mechanics for the better than great! It’s not the same thing as swing your swing though.

[davep043]

I would disagree. Anyone who has done any amount of self video work can likely tell you they will think/feel some dramatically different things and then the two swings will look nearly identical.

 

You misunderstand what I mean by focus and task then.

 

I guarantee you if my task is to hit the ball, the swing will look dramatically different than if my task is to allow the cub to swing to a target out there. Fred Shoemaker illustrates this brilliantly in his video. He videos students being asked to hit the ball. Most of them have the typical OTT, poor weight shift hacker swing. Then he gives them a club and tells them to hit a guy 50-yards downrange that just stole their wallet. The difference is astounding. When they focus on throwing the club, they have a beautiful sequence, head stays back, weight shifts beautifully. Why? Because it has to. You cannot throw a club effectively otherwise.

 

This is what teachers like Fred Shoemaker and Shawn Clement are trying to get across. That a change in your focus/task can make a positive change to your mechanics.

The instructors you cite have selected specific students to present to you. Obviously they are not going to present students for whom their technique did not work. I am not doubting that their "feel-based" instruction works for some people, I absolutely believe it does. But it doesn't work for every individual. If it did, every single instructor would be teaching in exactly the same way. Apparently that style of instruction has worked for you, and I'm happy that it has.

[Krt22]

I would disagree. Anyone who has done any amount of self video work can likely tell you they will think/feel some dramatically different things and then the two swings will look nearly identical.

 

You misunderstand what I mean by focus and task then.

 

I guarantee you if my task is to hit the ball, the swing will look dramatically different than if my task is to allow the cub to swing to a target out there. Fred Shoemaker illustrates this brilliantly in his video. He videos students being asked to hit the ball. Most of them have the typical OTT, poor weight shift hacker swing. Then he gives them a club and tells them to hit a guy 50-yards downrange that just stole their wallet. The difference is astounding. When they focus on throwing the club, they have a beautiful sequence, head stays back, weight shifts beautifully. Why? Because it has to. You cannot throw a club effectively otherwise.

 

This is what teachers like Fred Shoemaker and Shawn Clement are trying to get across. That a change in your focus/task can make a positive change to your mechanics.

 

That's because they aren't hitting a ball. Hitting a ball is where your well ingrained bad habbits (ie neural pathways) kick in to accomplish the task at hand. Lot's of folks have great looking practice swings and terrible real swings because of that key difference, but many ignore the fact that their practice swing likely isnt perfect either (ie many have a wide open face). Whether your focus is internal or external to the mechanics, the mechanics is what will bring about change. The trick is finding a good instructor that can figure out what way is best for you and your learning style

[mikpga]

Dan, I obviously do believe that improving ball striking will help with lowering scores. I think the point I was making is that too many golfers fail to make solid contact with chip and pitch shots which leads to higher and higher scores. Help the student to prioritize...

 

Learn how to hit a 40 yard pitch shot solid before you start worrying about hitting your driver further...

 

Perhaps I didn't communicate my point as well as I could have!

[wadesworld]

[The instructors you cite have selected specific students to present to you. Obviously they are not going to present students for whom their technique did not work. I am not doubting that their "feel-based" instruction works for some people, I absolutely believe it does. But it doesn't work for every individual. If it did, every single instructor would be teaching in exactly the same way. Apparently that style of instruction has worked for you, and I'm happy that it has.

 

Never said it worked for absolutely everyone. There are still plenty of challenges to overcome. We as humans have a maddening tendency to try to interrupt our natural abilities. If you get setup correctly and let the club swing without manipulation and without fear, an amazing amount of the time, the ball is going to pretty much fly just like you visualized. But other times, you're going to feel the need to "make sure" the ball doesn't go left or whatever. And that short-circuits the swing.

 

Additionally, I'd admitted that we get better at tasks with more repetition. So one should not expect to become a scratch golfer just by changing focus.

 

I also admitted there's plenty of golfers in the world who are proof that the drill-based methods can work.

 

My point in all this was to simply relate my failures using conventional instruction and the improvement I've made by using nonconventional instruction.

 

I will disagree that it can't work for everyone. It's just anatomy, physics, and mental approach. The reason it doesn't work for some is they are just unable to divorce themselves from the need to control the club. Similarly, it's my belief that drill-based / mechanical instruction doesn't work well for me because I have difficulty translating the mechanical changes requested into a feel or a task.

[chippa13]

I would disagree. Anyone who has done any amount of self video work can likely tell you they will think/feel some dramatically different things and then the two swings will look nearly identical.

 

You misunderstand what I mean by focus and task then.

 

I guarantee you if my task is to hit the ball, the swing will look dramatically different than if my task is to allow the cub to swing to a target out there. Fred Shoemaker illustrates this brilliantly in his video. He videos students being asked to hit the ball. Most of them have the typical OTT, poor weight shift hacker swing. Then he gives them a club and tells them to hit a guy 50-yards downrange that just stole their wallet. The difference is astounding. When they focus on throwing the club, they have a beautiful sequence, head stays back, weight shifts beautifully. Why? Because it has to. You cannot throw a club effectively otherwise.

 

This is what teachers like Fred Shoemaker and Shawn Clement are trying to get across. That a change in your focus/task can make a positive change to your mechanics.

The instructors you cite have selected specific students to present to you. Obviously they are not going to present students for whom their technique did not work. I am not doubting that their "feel-based" instruction works for some people, I absolutely believe it does. But it doesn't work for every individual. If it did, every single instructor would be teaching in exactly the same way. Apparently that style of instruction has worked for you, and I'm happy that it has.

 

If every instructor taught the same thing the same way then it wouldn't be a very good business for them.

[davep043]

 

My point in all this was to simply relate my failures using conventional instruction and the improvement I've made by using nonconventional instruction.

 

I will disagree that it can't work for everyone. It's just anatomy, physics, and mental approach. The reason it doesn't work for some is they are just unable to divorce themselves from the need to control the club. Similarly, it's my belief that drill-based / mechanical instruction doesn't work well for me because I have difficulty translating the mechanical changes requested into a feel or a task.

I'd phrase this a little differently, without really disagreeing. The reason the feel-based teaching doesn't work for some people is that their brains simply don't work the same way yours does. Not better or worse, just different. You see, I know that I alone control what the club does. Left to its own devices, the club would never move. The club merely reacts to the forces I apply to it with my hands, within the greater world of physics. I don't need to control the club, I am required to control the club. For me, understanding some of the mechanics is a good thing. I still learn through feel, from word images, and occasionally visual images, they're just different images than the ones you've found effective.

 

 

The instructors you cite have selected specific students to present to you. Obviously they are not going to present students for whom their technique did not work. I am not doubting that their "feel-based" instruction works for some people, I absolutely believe it does. But it doesn't work for every individual. If it did, every single instructor would be teaching in exactly the same way. Apparently that style of instruction has worked for you, and I'm happy that it has.

 

If every instructor taught the same thing the same way then it wouldn't be a very good business for them.

Similarly, if instructors posted videos of players for whom their style of instruction was ineffective, it wouldn't be positive for business either.

[johnrobison]

I repeat what I said. Most great golfers learned to be great golfers without regard to PHDs and bio mechanics experts. How? They were able to do that because knowledge of bio mechanics is not necessary for learning to swing a golf club. Bio mechanics is an unnecessary complication, not something that needs to be taught. If anyone disagrees tell me how you think Hogan and Snead and Trevino and Nicklaus and countless others learned to hit the ball to a target.

 

Steve

 

Which instructors are teaching biomechanics to their students ? Any instructor worth their salt is using biomechanics to understand the swing better and have the ability to translate/dumb it down to the average amateur who doesn't need the detail.

 

You miss the point. Instructors don't need the detail either. Good golf instruction predates bio mechanics by at least a century. Bio mechanics, although fascinating for some are irrelevant to learning or teaching the golf swing. If you want an intellectual puzzle, work on the double slit experiment.

 

Steve

 

You're mistaken. The study of biomechanics is far older than you think.

 

Instructors may not *need* it but it sure does help. And it helps people to recognize when they're being given misinformation, such as the previously mentioned uninformed opinions of Malaska.

[johnrobison]

So what's causing the centripetal force without muscular effort?

 

You're missing the point or being purposely combative.

 

As I said, yes it takes muscles to start the club swinging and it takes muscles to apply extra force at the proper place if desired. But there's a difference between allowing the club to swing and swinging the club yourself.

 

Take 10-pound kettle bell. Use your muscles to heave it back. Now when it swings through, did you muscle it through? Or did you allow the weight of the kettle bell to swing through and track an arc. If you did the former, chances are you hurt yourself. That's what I'm talking about.

If you didn't use your muscles, the kettle bell would immediately fall to the floor. Your muscles had better be applying more force to it than gravity is.

[thug the bunny]

Man this thread is really clearing things up for me.

 

(Thank god I don't need/like/understand this crap. So what the center of mass of the club goes up for the first few feet of the downswing - I never knew that, don't need to know that, and will never use that information. [although now that I do know that I might start casting trying to force the club up with my trail hand at transition].)

[wmblake2000]

 

 

Actually they are completely relevant. In the past you either did the correct biomechanics and applied the correct forces and torques or you sucked. If you do it already naturally, great.

 

But the population who will never get it without being taught how the body and arms move to make it happen is WAY larger than the population who will just do it naturally. Increased understanding on what, how and when to move certain pieces is why the depth of good players continues increasing exponentially and the number of players who get better younger and faster is never more evident. The peak age on tour use to be mid 30s, now players in their 20s are literally dominating the game like never before.

 

And good teaching doesn't predate biomechanics, the top teachers understood biomechanics 100 years ago. The difference now is there are WAY more quality teachers as good informations spreads further and further. Those good teachers are the ones creating MORE great players at an earlier age. Instead of years of trial and error they can get world class skills much faster

 

I'd double like this if I could

[jekato]

Man this thread is really clearing things up for me.

 

(Thank god I don't need/like/understand this crap. So what the center of mass of the club goes up for the first few feet of the downswing - I never knew that, don't need to know that, and will never use that information. [although now that I do know that I might start casting trying to force the club up with my trail hand at transition].)

 

Retrospective analysis has it's place, but a far away place compared to the usefulness concurrent analysis.

[wadesworld]

 

If you didn't use your muscles, the kettle bell would immediately fall to the floor. Your muscles had better be applying more force to it than gravity is.

 

You're either utilizing the weight and momentum to allow it to swing, or you're shoving it it through and disrupting that momentum.

[ThinkingPlus]

Man this thread is really clearing things up for me.

 

(Thank god I don't need/like/understand this crap. So what the center of mass of the club goes up for the first few feet of the downswing - I never knew that, don't need to know that, and will never use that information. [although now that I do know that I might start casting trying to force the club up with my trail hand at transition].)

At the top of the backswing the club is exerting a torque on your hands that you can feel. You automatically resist that torque with your arms/hands when you keep the club in that fixed position at the top. If you resist less then the clubhead would drop slightly shallowing the club shaft plane. The net force would now be pushing the grip end up. The feel is that the clubhead got a little heavier rather than a perception that the grip end got lighter.

[David C]

Convince the golfer that better ball striking doesn't always equate to lower scores and then you're off to a good start...

 

How many golfers are chasing lower scores vs chasing better ball striking?

 

Most golfers are under the assumption that better ball striking will lead to lower scores. However, there are many golfers who will be quite satisfied with better ball striking irrelevant of their score...

 

First time students who tell me they want to lower their score and need to work on their driver/tee shot, yet cannot demonstrate the ability to pitch 8 out of 10 balls onto the green from 40 yards have a very poor concept in their head in regards to how to lower their score...

 

I would say most golfers chase better ball striking and distance more so than chasing lower scores.

 

An effective short game is a piece of piss. Putting is relatively easy. Low scores are about how far and close you can hit it and thinking well. The difficulty in golf is hitting 5 iron up and the differentiator therefore is how good you are roughly 175-225 out and is person A fortunate/skilful enough to be using more loft for those shots than person B.

[johnrobison]

If you didn't use your muscles, the kettle bell would immediately fall to the floor. Your muscles had better be applying more force to it than gravity is.

 

You're either utilizing the weight and momentum to allow it to swing, or you're shoving it it through and disrupting that momentum.

Of course its weight is providing momentum. That's basic physics. You said that you have to allow the weight of the kettle bell to track an arc and that if you use your muscles, you'll hurt yourself. That's incorrect. The only reason the kettle bell is tracking an arc is because you're using your muscles. You're acting against gravity to keep the kettle bell from dropping to the ground. You're applying a great deal of force to swing it upward. The same thing happens in a golf swing - we apply a large amount of force to make the club go where it needs to go. Without us applying that force, the club drops to the ground.

[NoTalentLefty]

Yes and no. Trying to golf pretty isn’t always right if it had mechanic flaws. Also guys with ugly swings made a bunch of money. Trevino, Barber, Spieth, Floyd, lots of others. They were technically correct at impact. (Not to sound like a Clampett infomercial)

[chippa13]

If you didn't use your muscles, the kettle bell would immediately fall to the floor. Your muscles had better be applying more force to it than gravity is.

 

You're either utilizing the weight and momentum to allow it to swing, or you're shoving it it through and disrupting that momentum.

Of course its weight is providing momentum. That's basic physics. You said that you have to allow the weight of the kettle bell to track an arc and that if you use your muscles, you'll hurt yourself. That's incorrect. The only reason the kettle bell is tracking an arc is because you're using your muscles. You're acting against gravity to keep the kettle bell from dropping to the ground. You're applying a great deal of force to swing it upward. The same thing happens in a golf swing - we apply a large amount of force to make the club go where it needs to go. Without us applying that force, the club drops to the ground.

 

If you attempt to move the kettle bell in a way that contradicts your natural body motion then you will hurt yourself. People struggle on the course when they try to force their body to do something that doesn't feel natural. A person can get there either with God-given ability or hours and hours practicing to get a proper strike in a movement that feels natural.

[johnrobison]

If you attempt to move the kettle bell in a way that contradicts your natural body motion then you will hurt yourself.

Not sure what that has to do with whether the it's your muscles or the kettle bell's weight that cause it to swing on an arc. Regardless, I can say that I've seen too many people who will hurt themselves by swinging a kettle bell using their "natural motion" and need to be taught correct motion.

People struggle on the course when they try to force their body to do something that doesn't feel natural.

Agreed. It's a learning process.

A person can get there either with God-given ability

Yes. Very few can.

or hours and hours practicing to get a proper strike in a movement that feels natural.

Most everyone else

[wadesworld]

Of course its weight is providing momentum. That's basic physics. You said that you have to allow the weight of the kettle bell to track an arc and that if you use your muscles, you'll hurt yourself. That's incorrect. The only reason the kettle bell is tracking an arc is because you're using your muscles. You're acting against gravity to keep the kettle bell from dropping to the ground. You're applying a great deal of force to swing it upward. The same thing happens in a golf swing - we apply a large amount of force to make the club go where it needs to go. Without us applying that force, the club drops to the ground.

 

You're being overly literal. The point was to not interrupt the momentum by trying to force the club back and through. You utilize the weight and momentum, not try to force it through with your muscles.