Ray Ray's Swing Thread

[iacas]

8 hours ago, TexasTurf said:

What is the best way to use this thing? It has to be shaped the way it is for a reason.

 

It's shaped the way it is because of the way golf developed. Nothing more. It could have developed as a one-handed, facing-the-target, windmill type motion, but it didn't. Golf began, the rules evolved to support the way it began, and that was that.

 

8 hours ago, TexasTurf said:

I can figure out how to get there, but no one will describe how it should be used through the ball.

 

The inputs for that have largely occurred by P5.

 

8 hours ago, TexasTurf said:

Thank you sir. I just want to know what the club should be doing at impact based on it's design. Is it a horizontal rolling shut motion (mickelson)? Is it a held off driving forward but moving left square motion (trevino, o'grady). Is it a horizonal closing motion (monte and duval)? Is it an in to out hooking motion like Bryson? Is it an on top smashing move like Koepka?

 

Again… all of that depends on what inputs go into the system before that.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

It's shaped the way it is because of the way golf developed. Nothing more. It could have developed as a one-handed, facing-the-target, windmill type motion, but it didn't. Golf began, the rules evolved to support the way it began, and that was that.

 

 

The inputs for that have largely occurred by P5.

 

 

Again… all of that depends on what inputs go into the system before that.

He’s asking what the best impact scenario is .  Not if impact scenarios change  with different imputs.  Just to clarify.  We all understand that inputs cause impact. He’s asking what he best impact scene is? 
 

not a dig. Just playing translator. I think it’s an interesting question.  

Edited January 29 by bladehunter

[RayPlan]

Maybe this discussion is best suited to its own thread? 

[bladehunter]

4 minutes ago, RayPlan said:

Maybe this discussion is best suited to its own thread? 

Probably so … maybe @iacas or @TexasTurf want to start that ?   I’m curious but it’s their topic.  

[iacas]

47 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

He’s asking what the best impact scenario is .  Not if impact scenarios change  with different imputs.  Just to clarify.  We all understand that inputs cause impact. He’s asking what he best impact scene is? 
 

not a dig. Just playing translator. I think it’s an interesting question.  

 

I didn't take it as a dig, though I disagree that I didn't answer his question. I think it's obvious that there's no such thing as "the best impact scenario" and I think the question of "how the clubs are designed" is a pointless one. They are how they are, and we know how to use them. Since we don't control anything after about P5, and since majors have been won with everything you can imagine (within reason) going on down there… I'll disagree on the interest in the question, and will let it die here, as I agree that it's off topic (another reason I kept my initial reply brief).

[TexasTurf]

On 1/29/2025 at 10:42 AM, iacas said:

 

I didn't take it as a dig, though I disagree that I didn't answer his question. I think it's obvious that there's no such thing as "the best impact scenario" and I think the question of "how the clubs are designed" is a pointless one. They are how they are, and we know how to use them. Since we don't control anything after about P5, and since majors have been won with everything you can imagine (within reason) going on down there… I'll disagree on the interest in the question, and will let it die here, as I agree that it's off topic (another reason I kept my initial reply brief).

Definitely not a dig, just a question because there's so much conflicting information out there. I appreciate your response. 

 

It's just interesting that every other ancient and modern tool known to man has a known function and ideal use; from spears, atlatls, drills, saws, axes, hammers, slingshots, bow and arrows, except for the golf club, irons and wedges in particular. Anything goes with golf, where with other tools there's a pretty narrow and intuitive way to use them.

 

For example, If i'm hammering a nail my intention is to strike the nail head. If I'm throwing a spear, i'm launching it at the animal. If I'm using a slingshot or bow and arrow I'm moving it in the opposite direction of the target to launch it towards the target. Drilll i'm forcing down and through the screw. With a golf clulb different people will advocate for all of these techniques of these other tools, but surely one is better than the others for a standard shot. Which one is it?

Edited January 31 by TexasTurf

[PedronNiall]

50 minutes ago, TexasTurf said:

Definitely not a dig, just a question because there's so much conflicting information out there. I appreciate your response. 

 

It's just interesting that every other ancient and modern tool known to man has a known function and ideal use; from spears, atlatls, drills, saws, axes, hammers, slingshots, bow and arrows, except for the golf club, irons and wedges in particular. Anything goes with golf, where with other tools there's a pretty narrow and intuitive way to use them.

 

For example, If i'm hammering a nail my intention is to strike the nail head. If I'm throwing a spear, i'm launching it at the animal. If I'm using a slingshot or bow and arrow I'm moving it in the opposite direction of the target to launch it towards the target. Drilll i'm forcing down and through the screw. With a golf clulb different people will advocate for all of these techniques of these other tools, but surely one is better than the others for a standard shot. Which one is it?

 

Shawn Clement's videos touch on some of what you seem to been keen for, in that he does a great job of explaining how movements like throwing a ball, swinging a hammer with the whole body, using a grass scythe, and so on, demonstrate the way efficient motion is carried out by the body and how some of those motions are mirrored in a good golf swing because they're mirrored in all stick and ball sports in some way. Still, what you're asking is overcomplicating things. The downswing is an unwinding of all that came before. If someone starts their swing in balance with a grip that can maintain control of the club and sequences correctly the downswing isn't something that has to be chased for most people; the issue is most people never get the before parts right. 

 

 

 

 

If you want a longer explanation of how efficient swings work from the beginning of the downswing into impact there are a number of threads on here where that's discussed. If you want the easiest to digest technical synopsis you can watch something like the AMG 10 Downswing Myths video. If you want more detailed explanation than that you can watch Dr. Kwon's or Dr. McKinzie's longer form videos.

 

Point number one remains: the downswing is a result of everything that came before. The standard for the entirety of the swing--like swinging a racquet or a hammer--is simple but it was complicated by a lot of time spent teaching golf as an unknowable art or through individual feels which is likely why you have the impression you do about needing to define what the intent or practice of the downswing should be. 

 

The intention with all golf clubs is to swing such that you place the club on an efficient path back to set your body and arms correctly to allow them to then move the club forward through the golf ball on an efficient arc with the desired flight and distance. We know what golf clubs are--a delivery device for the body's forces to do what was just mentioned--and how they should be used but unlike other sports thoughts of the game as secret knowledge and a refusal by some to accept reality get in the way of that.

 

The downswing is a result of everything that came before, all day, every day, and twice on days that end in "y".

[RayPlan]

This looked like a decent backswing: no early extension, wrists set early, no overrun at the top. I think I even got my shift to the left started before the club changed direction. The downswing had a major lack of rotation, but based in part on the above discussion, I'm not too worried about it right now.

 

 

I'll admit it was pretty disappointing after seeing what seemed like pretty good signs before that. 

[TexasTurf]

22 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

Shawn Clement's videos touch on some of what you seem to been keen for, in that he does a great job of explaining how movements like throwing a ball, swinging a hammer with the whole body, using a grass scythe, and so on, demonstrate the way efficient motion is carried out by the body and how some of those motions are mirrored in a good golf swing because they're mirrored in all stick and ball sports in some way. Still, what you're asking is overcomplicating things. The downswing is an unwinding of all that came before. If someone starts their swing in balance with a grip that can maintain control of the club and sequences correctly the downswing isn't something that has to be chased for most people; the issue is most people never get the before parts right. 

 

 

 

 

If you want a longer explanation of how efficient swings work from the beginning of the downswing into impact there are a number of threads on here where that's discussed. If you want the easiest to digest technical synopsis you can watch something like the AMG 10 Downswing Myths video. If you want more detailed explanation than that you can watch Dr. Kwon's or Dr. McKinzie's longer form videos.

 

Point number one remains: the downswing is a result of everything that came before. The standard for the entirety of the swing--like swinging a racquet or a hammer--is simple but it was complicated by a lot of time spent teaching golf as an unknowable art or through individual feels which is likely why you have the impression you do about needing to define what the intent or practice of the downswing should be. 

 

The intention with all golf clubs is to swing such that you place the club on an efficient path back to set your body and arms correctly to allow them to then move the club forward through the golf ball on an efficient arc with the desired flight and distance. We know what golf clubs are--a delivery device for the body's forces to do what was just mentioned--and how they should be used but unlike other sports thoughts of the game as secret knowledge and a refusal by some to accept reality get in the way of that.

 

The downswing is a result of everything that came before, all day, every day, and twice on days that end in "y".

Thanks!

[Valtiel]

23 hours ago, RayPlan said:

This looked like a decent backswing: no early extension, wrists set early, no overrun at the top. I think I even got my shift to the left started before the club changed direction. The downswing had a major lack of rotation, but based in part on the above discussion, I'm not too worried about it right now.

 

 

I'll admit it was pretty disappointing after seeing what seemed like pretty good signs before that. 

What you unfortunately got before the club changed direction was more of a "sit into your heels" than a proper shift forward, and you're breaking a fundamental there because you can't do s*** in the downswing rotationally with your weight on both heels:



Notice how your left foot sags back towards your heel and gets stuck there. You're just sticking your butt backwards in a way that shows you don't understand the types of forces you're supposed to be creating with your legs in the downswing....forces that when created actually keep your butt back without you manufacturing any kind of move. Denny McCarthy is a great comp for this and he's one of my favorite swings out there because he does a move that literally every golfer trying to learn proper pelvic rotation and sequencing can learn from:



Notice how you both create virtually identical bumps backwards with your butt, but in a completely opposite ways. You're just leaning back into your heels which unbalances and puts you in a weak position, whereas Denny uses a planted left toe/ball of the foot to push to both slightly push him backwards while also keeping pressure where it needs to be in transition (front of the lead foot). From his position you can drive down with the left foot and keep the hips back:



His is a great visual example for what the front leg is supposed to be, albeit just a bit more exaggerated. Pros that don't lift their left heel still have this same sequence of pressure starting from the front of the lead foot in transition because you need to start there to get "back".

[RayPlan]

4 hours ago, Valtiel said:

What you unfortunately got before the club changed direction was more of a "sit into your heels" than a proper shift forward, and you're breaking a fundamental there because you can't do s*** in the downswing rotationally with your weight on both heels:



Notice how your left foot sags back towards your heel and gets stuck there. You're just sticking your butt backwards in a way that shows you don't understand the types of forces you're supposed to be creating with your legs in the downswing....forces that when created actually keep your butt back without you manufacturing any kind of move. Denny McCarthy is a great comp for this and he's one of my favorite swings out there because he does a move that literally every golfer trying to learn proper pelvic rotation and sequencing can learn from:



Notice how you both create virtually identical bumps backwards with your butt, but in a completely opposite ways. You're just leaning back into your heels which unbalances and puts you in a weak position, whereas Denny uses a planted left toe/ball of the foot to push to both slightly push him backwards while also keeping pressure where it needs to be in transition (front of the lead foot). From his position you can drive down with the left foot and keep the hips back:



His is a great visual example for what the front leg is supposed to be, albeit just a bit more exaggerated. Pros that don't lift their left heel still have this same sequence of pressure starting from the front of the lead foot in transition because you need to start there to get "back".

Wow, he does really demonstrate the difference well. I've never seen his swing before, it's fascinating to watch.

 

I haven't focused on transition yet, but Monte's "zipper away" drill was what I had in mind. I can see how it went wrong, with your explanation. When I do lift my left heel (not in this swing), it's way too early and it doesn't really do anything. I can see from this swing example that it's actually part of the transition movement, and it intuitively makes sense how it would facilitate rotation. I'm already trying that out as I'm puttering around the house this morning.

 

I like the way you show comparisons that focus on small details. Very helpful.

 

My Weird Joints:

Also, unrelated(ish), but thanks to @Rbsiedsc, I've become aware that my joint hypermobility could be a sign of a genetic disorder (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or EDS), or it could be fairly benign. I would need proper diagnosis to know.

 

All I had known up this point is that I was "double jointed" and that my left arm could sometimes get into a position in the backswing that would make my dad "want to puke." See this photo from last spring/early summer:

 

 

It's not just my elbows as it turns out, so I have to be more conscious throughout the swing that I'm not doing unnatural movements afforded by my extra range of motion. It's not painful, but if my joints go past normal limits, they can probably get into positions that aren't really accounted for in proper swing mechanics. I'm just now beginning to reckon with how this affects my work on my swing, but I think it's reasonable to assume that most instruction is based on assumptions about how joints normally behave.

 

Now I wonder if I'll need to find an instructor who has experience teaching students with hypermobility. @iacas: have you had students with hypermobility before? Is this something that's well-known in golf instruction?

 

It's uncommon, but it's not super rare, from what I've read on the subject. I just hope it's not going to be something where a doctor says I should stop golfing, for my health.

 

Edit for clarity:

I'm not attributing my poor mechanics to my joint characteristics, just thinking about ways my feels might be different from others, because I can get into strange positions without noticing, where the same positions might cause discomfort for most people. 

Edited February 1 by RayPlan
Weird joint mobility

[TheDeanAbides]

1 hour ago, RayPlan said:

Wow, he does really demonstrate the difference well. I've never seen his swing before, it's fascinating to watch.

 

I haven't focused on transition yet, but Monte's "zipper away" drill was what I had in mind. I can see how it went wrong, with your explanation. When I do lift my left heel (not in this swing), it's way too early and it doesn't really do anything. I can see from this swing example that it's actually part of the transition movement, and it intuitively makes sense how it would facilitate rotation. I'm already trying that out as I'm puttering around the house this morning.

 

I like the way you show comparisons that focus on small details. Very helpful.

 

My Weird Joints:

Also, unrelated(ish), but thanks to @Rbsiedsc, I've become aware that my joint hypermobility could be a sign of a genetic disorder (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or EDS), or it could be fairly benign. I would need proper diagnosis to know.

 

All I had known up this point is that I was "double jointed" and that my left arm could sometimes get into a position in the backswing that would make my dad "want to puke." See this photo from last spring/early summer:

 

 

It's not just my elbows as it turns out, so I have to be more conscious throughout the swing that I'm not doing unnatural movements afforded by my extra range of motion. It's not painful, but if my joints go past normal limits, they can probably get into positions that aren't really accounted for in proper swing mechanics. I'm just now beginning to reckon with how this affects my work on my swing, but I think it's reasonable to assume that most instruction is based on assumptions about how joints normally behave.

 

Now I wonder if I'll need to find an instructor who has experience teaching students with hypermobility. @iacas: have you had students with hypermobility before? Is this something that's well-known in golf instruction?

 

It's uncommon, but it's not super rare, from what I've read on the subject. I just hope it's not going to be something where a doctor says I should stop golfing, for my health.

 

EDS can be an absolute b%&ta$% to live with. The best thing you can do for it is to get strong because strong muscles provide support. My ex wife is a yoga therapist with EDS for context. 

[PedronNiall]

Since you're already looking at McCarthy, who I agree is a great example to emulate, I'd also recommend you take a look at his setup vs yours. A huge part of the reason he's able to shift as Valtiel mentioned and get a much better overall turn, as well as a more powerful set over the ball at the top of his swing, is his address position. You're crowding your hands a bit, he's relaxed over his with plenty of room for them and the club to turn. Not a perfect perspective here with the depth of field, but you'll get the gist.

 

vs

 

Resulting in the difference in where each of you sit when storing up power and setting the angles that will take you back to the ball. 

 

 

You're going to have trouble getting pressure where it needs to be and trouble staying balanced if you try to put any kind of force into your strike whereas McCarthy is setup such that his pressure is going to be set as needed by his rotation, enabling all the energy of the downswing to be directed into the ball instead of some leaking into trying not to fall over. A club rotating around McCarthy's spine angle at any given point is also going to tend towards a far more efficient path back and through the ball. 

 

Everything in McCarthy's swing is a result of what came before, and in his case the before is a better setup over the ball. Don't try to force yourself into the same position, work on relaxing into it naturally and feeling the increased stability it brings at address and through the turn. 

 

The good thing is when you learn to allow your body to settle in a similar posture it will feel about as comfortable as it gets and you'll be a lot more confident in making a good turn without tons of thoughts overwhelming you. 

[RayPlan]

21 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

Since you're already looking at McCarthy, who I agree is a great example to emulate, I'd also recommend you take a look at his setup vs yours. A huge part of the reason he's able to shift as Valtiel mentioned and get a much better overall turn, as well as a more powerful set over the ball at the top of his swing, is his address position. You're crowding your hands a bit, he's relaxed over his with plenty of room for them and the club to turn. Not a perfect perspective here with the depth of field, but you'll get the gist.

 

vs

 

Resulting in the difference in where each of you sit when storing up power and setting the angles that will take you back to the ball. 

 

 

You're going to have trouble getting pressure where it needs to be and trouble staying balanced if you try to put any kind of force into your strike whereas McCarthy is setup such that his pressure is going to be set as needed by his rotation, enabling all the energy of the downswing to be directed into the ball instead of some leaking into trying not to fall over. A club rotating around McCarthy's spine angle at any given point is also going to tend towards a far more efficient path back and through the ball. 

 

Everything in McCarthy's swing is a result of what came before, and in his case the before is a better setup over the ball. Don't try to force yourself into the same position, work on relaxing into it naturally and feeling the increased stability it brings at address and through the turn. 

 

The good thing is when you learn to allow your body to settle in a similar posture it will feel about as comfortable as it gets and you'll be a lot more confident in making a good turn without tons of thoughts overwhelming you. 

This is helpful, especially the parts about relaxing into it and feeling comfortable. 

 

Setup consistency is something I've struggled with in my current swing journey (circa 2025), but probably longer than that. I tend to get a bit fidgety when I set up, so I may adjust into poor position without realizing it. My main focus on setup had been getting forward knee bend, with my shins angled forward, trying to keep my hips over my ankles. Needs a renewed focus, I think. 

 

This middle image was a day later, but before your comment. Clear differences between the two, demonstrating the lack of consistency. Also included Adam Scott for comparison, because I've been trying to use him as a model for most things. His hands look closer than McCarthy's, but he also doesn't look crowded. 

 

 

To take a step back and ask a fundamental question, what makes a setup "crowded"? Is it mainly a function of spine angle? All else being equal, greater spine angle means my arms hang more freely, where I can feel the lack of hang when I'm too upright.

 

I also notice that I can stand in a pretty bent over posture and get my thighs closer to my hands by just bending my knees more. Adam Scott's knees look a bit more bent than Denny McCarthy's, so I wonder if that's the main difference between the two regarding relative hand position.

 

Edit:

Actually McCarthy looks to be bent over a little more.

 

Edited February 2 by RayPlan
Thoughts about posture and crowding. Comparing Adam Scott and Denny McCarthy posture

[Hawkeye77]

38 minutes ago, RayPlan said:

This is helpful, especially the parts about relaxing into it and feeling comfortable. 

 

Setup consistency is something I've struggled with in my current swing journey (circa 2025), but probably longer than that. I tend to get a bit fidgety when I set up, so I may adjust into poor position without realizing it. My main focus on setup had been getting forward knee bend, with my shins angled forward, trying to keep my hips over my ankles. Needs a renewed focus, I think. 

 

This middle image was a day later, but before your comment. Clear differences between the two, demonstrating the lack of consistency. Also included Adam Scott for comparison, because I've been trying to use him as a model for most things. His hands look closer than McCarthy's, but he also doesn't look crowded. 

 

 

To take a step back and ask a fundamental question, what makes a setup "crowded"? Is it mainly a function of spine angle? I notice that I can stand in a pretty bent over posture and get my thighs closer to my hands by just bending my knees more. Adam Scott's knees look a bit more bent than Denny McCarthy's, so I wonder if that explains the difference between the two regarding relative hand position.

 

Edit:

Actually McCarthy looks to be bent over a little more.

 

 

I think you are way overanalyzing.  They have different body types and builds, different setups, IMO, and diving into whose knees look "x" or "y" or trying to analyze and match your spine angle or anything else to theirs seems a bit of a waste of time.

 

Thinking you need to get your hands closer for whatever reason and determining that you can bend over more and then bend your knees more to accomplish a look of your hands closer to your thighs?  I'm not following.

 

I haven't read all of this - is there no competent golf coach within an hour or so of where you live? 

 

 

[RayPlan]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

I think you are way overanalyzing.  They have different body types and builds, different setups, IMO, and diving into whose knees look "x" or "y" or trying to analyze and match your spine angle or anything else to theirs seems a bit of a waste of time.

 

Thinking you need to get your hands closer for whatever reason and determining that you can bend over more and then bend your knees more to accomplish a look of your hands closer to your thighs?  I'm not following.

 

I haven't read all of this - is there no competent golf coach within an hour or so of where you live? 

 

 

It's not that complicated. I was just thinking in public about what makes setup positions look different in good players. It's obviously not about an arbitrary distance between the hands and legs, because you can set up poorly (like I did) and have a superficially similar distance with someone like Adam Scott. Understanding why others look the way they do will help me understand why I should or shouldn't look like that when I set up. 

 

And yes, there's presumably competent instructors at the country club that I can see behind the houses across the street, at $100/hour. 

[Hawkeye77]

8 minutes ago, RayPlan said:

It's not that complicated. I was just thinking in public about what makes setup positions look different in good players. It's obviously not about an arbitrary distance between the hands and legs, because you can set up poorly (like I did) and have a superficially similar distance with someone like Adam Scott. Understanding why others look the way they do will help me understand why I should or shouldn't look like that when I set up. 

 

And yes, there's presumably competent instructors at the country club that I can see behind the houses across the street, at $100/hour. 

Get over there!!!!!

[Nels55]

2 hours ago, RayPlan said:

It's not that complicated. I was just thinking in public about what makes setup positions look different in good players. It's obviously not about an arbitrary distance between the hands and legs, because you can set up poorly (like I did) and have a superficially similar distance with someone like Adam Scott. Understanding why others look the way they do will help me understand why I should or shouldn't look like that when I set up. 

 

And yes, there's presumably competent instructors at the country club that I can see behind the houses across the street, at $100/hour. 

You know I don't think that it matters what setup and swing that you post someone here will say that it is wrong.  That would seem to me to be a good reason to listen to one voice. 

 

Or maybe the path that you are on will work if you can learn to filter out what is not correct while building your knowledge to the point where you can trust your own eyes.

[GoGoErky]

8 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

You know I don't think that it matters what setup and swing that you post someone here will say that it is wrong.  That would seem to me to be a good reason to listen to one voice. 

 

Or maybe the path that you are on will work if you can learn to filter out what is not correct while building your knowledge to the point where you can trust your own eyes.

Well it’s being said because it is. And so far he’s gotten good info from the resources on here that matter.

 

Nobody is saying that his setup and backswing are bad just to say they are bad,

 

His setup makes it harder to do the right things in the takeaway and backswing, and then he does things in the backswing that he does are detrimental to a good transition as downswing. So he needs to keep working on both. 
 

This is why it’s been suggested that he find a good local instructor who can show him what to do, which he had agreed with and was going to pursue if things didn’t in improve in a 30 day timeframe iirc.
 

 

 

[RayPlan]

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

You know I don't think that it matters what setup and swing that you post someone here will say that it is wrong.  That would seem to me to be a good reason to listen to one voice. 

 

Or maybe the path that you are on will work if you can learn to filter out what is not correct while building your knowledge to the point where you can trust your own eyes.

 

Nah, people here have been extraordinarily helpful. I only wish I'd started here rather than getting all mixed up with too many sources of information.

 

My setup definitely suffered from the weeks of not even holding a club or doing anything with my arms. And I can feel my swing not working smoothly, so if it's identifiable as a setup fault, that's what I'll fix. I don't enjoy playing golf poorly, and I have no emotional attachment to any elements of my swing. Why wouldn't I just rebuild it wholesale if that's what's necessary?

 

There are people who have stuck with this thread for 2+ months and still have the patience to offer feedback. They're good folks.

 

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

Well it’s being said because it is. And so far he’s gotten good info from the resources on here that matter.

 

Nobody is saying that his setup and backswing are bad just to say they are bad,

 

His setup makes it harder to do the right things in the takeaway and backswing, and then he does things in the backswing that he does are detrimental to a good transition as downswing. So he needs to keep working on both. 
 

This is why it’s been suggested that he find a good local instructor who can show him what to do, which he had agreed with and was going to pursue if things didn’t in improve in a 30 day timeframe iirc.

All true. And I don't know exactly when I made that 30 day commitment, but I'm probably somewhat close, if not past it. I reached out to the instructor directly, so I already know who I would go to, the rate, and what the place has to offer. From an ADHD standpoint, that's a substantial step up from "I'll do that later," which is the place where good intentions go to die.

 

At this point it's more a question of whether I can justify the time and expense compared to more important family & household or career priorities.

[mshills]

You must work with someone in person if you want to get better, so have a good think about what your priorities are. 
 

That does not mean golf > family, career, etc. That does mean the vast majority of people who play this game do not prioritize getting better.

[PNWGuy]

The biggest benefit you will get from in person instruction from a qualified teaching pro is IMMEDIATE feedback and correction.  They will place you in the correct positions if needed.  I can send my guy a video between teaching sessions if needed.  Don't have another lesson until you have nailed the the material.

 

Building a relationship with the right teacher will pay off in the long run.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, mshills said:

You must work with someone in person if you want to get better

 

That's not true at all.

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, mshills said:

You must work with someone in person if you want to get better, so have a good think about what your priorities are. 
 

That does not mean golf > family, career, etc. That does mean the vast majority of people who play this game do not prioritize getting better.

Judges say that’s a false statement. There’s plenty of members on here who have gotten better via online with Monte and iteach and others. There’s plenty of examples across forums, internet groups and so on that show that online works.

one can get better at golf while also spending time with family, etc. the road may be slower but it’s not a roadblock 

 

[mshills]

Prove me wrong. I don’t think this player can get better without in person instruction. 

[RayPlan]

Well folks, looks like it's online lessons for me. The challenge has been made.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, RayPlan said:

Well folks, looks like it's online lessons for me. The challenge has been made.

Let’s quantify “better “.   And I’m pulling for you.      
 

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, RayPlan said:

Well folks, looks like it's online lessons for me. The challenge has been made.

Pulling for you. 

[RayPlan]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Let’s quantify “better “.   And I’m pulling for you.      
 

I'm open to suggestions on what a meaningful measure would be. I've never established a handicap, and I've played like 3 times a year for the last 3 years, then 0 times for the prior 3 years. Hard to quantify with such a small sample.

 

All-time best round was an 84 on a pretty average difficulty public course, maybe 15 years ago when I was 20. My mechanics were garbage back then, but I played a lot.

 

@mshills you've taken such a keen, good-natured interest in my improvement. Maybe you can come up with a good metric

Edited February 3 by RayPlan

[TheDeanAbides]

5 hours ago, RayPlan said:

I'm open to suggestions on what a meaningful measure would be. I've never established a handicap, and I've played like 3 times a year for the last 3 years, then 0 times for the prior 3 years. Hard to quantify with such a small sample.

 

All-time best round was an 84 on a pretty average difficulty public course, maybe 15 years ago when I was 20. My mechanics were garbage back then, but I played a lot.

 

@mshills you've taken such a keen, good-natured interest in my improvement. Maybe you can come up with a good metric

I wouldn't defer to another hacker for your metrics. You have to decide what improvement is, but at this point I wouldn't expect any improvement in your scores. I think you said that you only play a couple of times a month? Honestly, it's really hard to score well like that, but you can recognise changes in your swing with practice alone.