Instructors and Philosophies

[Artin]

[quote name='dana dahlquist' timestamp='1300253806' post='3059788']
I've come to the conclusion that the word method is beat into the vocabulary of golf like it's a bad thing.

The word method only means the systematic approach in dealing with the order.

Now knowing that Butch " only because he is being used as the example" claims to not be a method teacher sounds a bit silly to me.

So he is saying or the person describing the scenario as such that there is no end PLAN in use for the ideals of hitting a golf ball.

When working with a player such as Mr. Am. What can he convey or illustrate for what they will be working on if there is no method? Or is it a day-to-day thing?

Lets take for example Paul Goydos. He is a tour player that plays with a pattern, now knowing that his alignments produce a shot shape that fits his eye. Its still a pattern or go to shot. It's not the ideal, but it is and has worked.

One trait is always a given every player on tour has athletic ability to control his motor patterns. They own it. Even if they don't know how or why, it does not matter.

What may differ in the teachings are messages and relations to the target. All good players run the routines to hit good shots over and over again.

That leaves us to the provocative situation when a high level player comes to a loss of his ability to feel that he can hit the shot under the gun. Most the time its feel based because of self-doubt on the patterns they are running.

So what are the chances that most golfers understand this? Slim and they don't understand how to play golf.

All of this falls under the term using a method or plan.
[/quote]

John Wooden had a method of teaching his players to shoot free throws. Steve Carlson is the top QB coach of high school kids that want to play on the next level. Brad Gilbert has a method of how he teaches the serve, but people run from a method teacher in golf like their krytonite.

Would you got to a surgeon that didn't do things in a systematic orderly fashion? I promise you, each and every human body is much more unique than the few million golf swings in this country.

I think a lot of teachers that bemoan " method" teachers is because they haven't figured one out yet. Or they are copping out because they don't really know how to teach one so they make things up as they go along. A method teacher has to believe enough in his system that when he's grinding with a student that doesn't get he sticks with it. Often times it's easy to want to please the student so bad that when things aren't going well and the student doesn't seem to get it you start bouncing around with band aids and tips and tricks to get the student to respond in a positive matter. I've learned to bite the bullet knowing full well I might lose a student before we even get started by telling them " hey, this is what's going to happen and you might not hit a ball straight or in the air for two weeks like I want you too, but if you'll hang in there you're going to be glad you did" I have to tell them sometimes that lasting changes take time and that you WILL get worse before you get better. Especially if your short game isn't solid.

[Artin]

[quote name='ncgolferid' timestamp='1300390882' post='3064608']
What I see the most, which to me is the biggest problem with teachers in general is that a lot of them are not even looking at their students equipment. They are missing out on a huge opportunity to use equipment to their advantage. Students react so quickly to equipment its one of the best tools you can use to teach, but its not done much.The really great teachers understand how equipment effects motion. If you cant understand that, then how can you ever truly say that your a great teacher? I think people ( especially students) over complicate things, the golf swing is a balanced motion through air. This is what most people are lacking because there equipment is made way to strong for them ( armatures). The biggest fundamental in a golf swing is balance. There are so many things people do in a swing that are results..not the problem...but some teachers you see will spend all this time working on fixing all these results, but never fix the actual problem. There are many great teachers out there, Butch Harmon understands equipment which is why he is one of the greats.
[/quote]



Butch understands equipment for sure. But Butch also told me that he is a big believer in the " it's the indian before the arrow" Regardless of whether you are method teacher or make it up as you go along, ( a responsive teacher ) you have to teach and then coach the proper static fundamentals. You wouldn't fit a 30 handicapper if he's coming over the top of it and hitting a 50 yard pull slice. There is a ton of work to do with most average golfers before you start fitting. 90% of all average golfers can learn the proper fundamentals with a standard 7 iron. It was done for decades without custom fitting. Sure a guy might come in with ill fit clubs but the first thing you have to do is teach them why the club and ball collision is what it is and why it happens. The only problem I see with method teachers is some of them don't advise the student before they start what is going to happen and that their method might not "gee-haw" with what the students expectations are. Often times we are too afraid to scare a prospective client off. There is a certain amount of salesmanship involved and we don't want to see $$$ walk away because we don't want them to think that they might have to get worse before they get better, and we know that most guys don't want to hear that.

[Artin]

[quote name='grahler' timestamp='1300411708' post='3065511']
Making the golf swing more complicated is what a lot of golf instructors do-fill the students with left brain ideas so that they anesthetize the students natural athletic tendencies to fit their movements into what they believe they have to do to play golf(talking mid high handi students here)
I think golf instruction in general with regards to the swing would do well by simplifying and paying more attention to athletic ability and less in regards to technical instructor speak.
I have watched instructors talking to their students for 20 minutes before hitting a shot-the ultimate mind fu--!!!

Golf instruction is like engineering
Any engineer can find a complex solution to a simple problem
A great engineer can find the simplest solution to the same problem

With that said there is something to be said for instructors that work from any given model-as long as it is proven to work. Show the student a video of the model for that pattern explain the ball flight and if there is no match the student is free to make their decision.
I would guess this does not happen much but I have not been to many pros.
What do folks think?

I do not have any input on low handicap instruction.
[/quote]



I agree that it boils down to skill. The development and refinement of skill is what it boils down to. But the problem is most people come into a lesson thinking there is some secret or magic bullet. If I work with a student long enough I can find something to change their ball flight. But typically thats a band-aid that loses it's adhesive over time. Especially if there is no supervised practice. We have perpetuated the notion that a golf pro can stand on the lesson tee and after a few swings diagnose a fix that is gong to last after 45 minutes of watching the student hit balls. There is a process-1. Evaluation of issues that are costing you strokes. This is best accomplished in a playing lesson 2. Supervised practice. 3. Transfer training 4. Final Step- taking it to the course under pressure.

Every other sport is taught and coached this way but for some reason golfers think that one lesson is all it takes and if the teacher is worth is salt that's all it should take.

Sorry guys, but it's not that easy. You mentioned that you have seen teachers talk for 20 minutes before there is even one ball in the air. It's because of the notion " give the student what he wants" many teachers like to pontificate and try to convince the student that they are gurus and they know their stuff because of the fear of losing the student before results are realized. Every student is different and some need to know why the collision happens and it might take 20 minutes to explain. Others are good with " if the face is pointing to the target at impact that's where the ball will start" Now just do it with a descending strike.

The problem I see with instruction is there are too many assembly line teachers. They teach " golf swing" and not people to " play golf". But again, most people want to learn ball striking from day one because they figure " my putting is fine" or " my short game is good" Really? If you really want to get better insist on a playing lesson. In season all my new students must take a 9 hole playing lesson and physical screen. If they don't want to do that fine. But that's how I operate. Since I started doing that about 3 years ago I have not had one student NOT come back and jump in with both feet. It blows my mind how many so-called good teachers have given a student dozens of lessons and have never seen them play. Really? What do you think a tour player would say if he came to you for a lesson and you told him you had never seen him play the first hole of golf?

[wmblake2000]

[quote name='Artin' timestamp='1300415995' post='3065740']
I think a lot of teachers that bemoan " method" teachers is because they haven't figured one out yet.
[/quote]

Forgive me for this, but I want to use psychotherapy as a analogy. (I see a lot of parallels between the two - and not just that golfers are wacked out nuts). When I was a young therapist, I was "eclectic" - meaning I did not consistently use a formal therapeutic model - a "method." Naturally, the criticism of this approach was just as you mentioned above. Later, a really brilliant psychologist articulated what I was trying to do: people at different developmental levels of psychological health needed different therapeutic approaches. After this and as I matured, I used different therapies depending on who I was working with.

How this relates to golf instruction is if you are "method" centric, that theory is your main anchor and approach. Fine, I am not saying this is invalid or inferior. Nor do I agree with your statement. It is not what I have observed from knowing a lot of teachers pretty well. The teacher (and I mean an intelligent, diligent teacher, not one who's not committed or bright enough to organize complexity) that has developed a more student-centric approach indeed has a method (they never recommend they hit the ball standing on their head, to be extreme) - but it starts with the student and he applies suggestions from various swing methods and many that are hard to classify.

The two teachers I have learned the most from, the ones that made my game clearly better, had very few hard and firm beliefs about what all golfers must do. Maybe if I were another order of magnitude more sophisticated, I'd have seen more method boundaries but I didn't, and I asked them explicitly what they believed in.

[wmblake2000]

[quote name='Artin' timestamp='1300418656' post='3065848']

Every other sport is taught and coached this way but for some reason golfers think that one lesson is all it takes and if the teacher is worth is salt that's all it should take.

Sorry guys, but it's not that easy.
[/quote]

I was talking casually with a friend of mine and my teacher. He is considering taking lessons from her. He's a 5 and an engineer, and he's appropriately cautious. At some point, my teacher said to him, "The truth is I know more about the golf swing than you do. A lot more." She just said it as fact. My friend's very funny response was something like "The hell you do." That exchange was right at the core of the dilemma teachers face. We recreational golfers think we know as much as the teacher. At least, I have FINALLY concluded I know just enough to be dangerous to myself and others. I frankly consider this as a huge growth as a golfer. It means I am finally coachable. As a result my mind is much less restless and my swing a ton freer.

The way the conversation ended was she said, "You should judge my lesson by asking if the lesson improved your ball striking and if you understood how to do it when you leave. You will likely regress after you leave, and later misunderstand what I wanted you to hear, but if every lesson doesn't take you a little step forward, quit."

PS: I am taking a playing lesson next week. First one ever. I am very excited.

[jons1]

the movement of the human body is not only complicated, but there are so many variations that it's literally NOT POSSIBLE to teach someone how to swing a club, at least, not in that way anyway.


in "modern instruction" people are taught everything there is to know, beyond human comprehension, in a way that can only be described as how a tail wags a dog, then they wonder why they can't shoot better scores unless they practice 4 hours a day when they become numb to all the BS about the body positions they were just taught are "right".

I'm no swing guru, but i know one thing, the golf club is the only thing that contacts the golf ball, and how the golf club itself is used is the only thing that determines where the ball goes. the human body could literally be removed from the equation, and the ball would react to the path and clubface direction and speed as the instrument was used.

Isn't it obvious, when there are millions of variations in golf swings, that if were looking at body parts (be it how much they turn their shoulders, their hips, their posture, their alignment, all the variations of lever distances, foot action, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.) that modern instruction is focused on the wrong thing? If there are millions of variations and all of these variations have produced successful golf shots, and successful champions, then it's not the body that matters one bit. And to further illustrate that even more, there are people that can play with one leg, one arm, no legs, no eye sight. So if body positions mattered at all, they could never hit a golf ball, yet they can.

There have been a few instructors in history that I've heard focus on the instrument itself as the key to teaching the game of golf, and I always wonder, how is something so plainly obvious not adopted so easily, unless of course, instructors have no original thoughts or ideas and they just regurgitate what someone before them said.

[Corey_sulliv21]

Every teacher has a method. This is comical. Haney will get EVERY player to swing on or parallel to the swing plane throughout the swing. Butch Harmon has worked with so many different players on tour but has worked on nearly the same thing...."getting wider and shortening the arm swing" (Tiger, Mickelson, Watney, Johnson, Scott, Couples, Pavin....).

If you have no method to teaching I think you're kidding yourself.

[ncgolferid]

[quote name='Artin' timestamp='1300417258' post='3065779']
[quote name='ncgolferid' timestamp='1300390882' post='3064608']
What I see the most, which to me is the biggest problem with teachers in general is that a lot of them are not even looking at their students equipment. They are missing out on a huge opportunity to use equipment to their advantage. Students react so quickly to equipment its one of the best tools you can use to teach, but its not done much.The really great teachers understand how equipment effects motion. If you cant understand that, then how can you ever truly say that your a great teacher? I think people ( especially students) over complicate things, the golf swing is a balanced motion through air. This is what most people are lacking because there equipment is made way to strong for them ( armatures). The biggest fundamental in a golf swing is balance. There are so many things people do in a swing that are results..not the problem...but some teachers you see will spend all this time working on fixing all these results, but never fix the actual problem. There are many great teachers out there, Butch Harmon understands equipment which is why he is one of the greats.
[/quote]



Butch understands equipment for sure. But Butch also told me that he is a big believer in the " it's the indian before the arrow" Regardless of whether you are method teacher or make it up as you go along, ( a responsive teacher ) you have to teach and then coach the proper static fundamentals. You wouldn't fit a 30 handicapper if he's coming over the top of it and hitting a 50 yard pull slice. There is a ton of work to do with most average golfers before you start fitting. 90% of all average golfers can learn the proper fundamentals with a standard 7 iron. It was done for decades without custom fitting. Sure a guy might come in with ill fit clubs but the first thing you have to do is teach them why the club and ball collision is what it is and why it happens. The only problem I see with method teachers is some of them don't advise the student before they start what is going to happen and that their method might not "gee-haw" with what the students expectations are. Often times we are too afraid to scare a prospective client off. There is a certain amount of salesmanship involved and we don't want to see $$ walk away because we don't want them to think that they might have to get worse before they get better, and we know that most guys don't want to hear that.


[/quote]

I agree you don't ever fit an unbalanced swing...I also believe that most players will learn the most by just trying to hit their balance. A beginner would be much better off, just swinging in his back yard with his eyes shut learning the motion; then playing ill fitted clubs and trying to figure out how to make them go straight. Once that player takes out his 8 degree driver, with his 95 mph SS, the lesson he just got, goes right out the window.

I am talking about when a teacher spends hours with a student on the range teaching them a balanced swing, then the guys goes out to play and gets penalized for his great new swing motion. People react to ball flight, so they will completely adjust their swing to make the ball go straight. So some beginner with a 95 SS with a 8 degree driver is going to have to completely compensate to hit that strong of a driver. So no matter what swing you get the guy into, clubs will always win. If some guys is playing clubs that are 5 flat, and he is naturally a 4 upright player,,,your going to see some huge compensations.

Teachers can use clubs to help promote good balanced swings...give people more loft! So instead of them learning to hang back and poor motions because they are playing 10 degree drivers with 100 mph ss or less, give them loft, so they can learn to transfer their weight and have a better balanced motion. I mean most armatures are playing the same or less Loft on their drivers then tour players... its ridiculous.

I think if you don't understand how equipment will effect motion, and never look to see if a guys clubs are making him make a bad motion, then are you really even helping him. Yes you teach him a wonderful golf swing, but if the clubs are not rewarding him for that, then he will revert back to whatever swing makes that ball go straight...even if he is falling backwards, flipping, not transferring weight.

Its not that all armatures need to get 3,000 sets of custom fit clubs.. Most of the time all they should do is get their lies adjusted on whatever clubs they are playing for 5 dollars per club. Then if they are lacking in loft, have them use their 3 wood off the tee. I think a lot of people think that your lies shouldn't be adjusted until the player is breaking 90-80 or whatever....which is wrong. As soon as the player is making a balanced motion you should absolutely check lies dynamically and have them adjusted so the player does not loose that balanced motion because they are compensating for ill fitted irons. This makes it a lot easier for that player to be able to break 90 80 70. Use the clubs as a tool to get the player to make their best athletic motion.

[martinez]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1300435987' post='3066209']
the movement of the human body is not only complicated, but there are so many variations that it's literally NOT POSSIBLE to teach someone how to swing a club, at least, not in that way anyway.


in "modern instruction" people are taught everything there is to know, beyond human comprehension, in a way that can only be described as how a tail wags a dog, then they wonder why they can't shoot better scores unless they practice 4 hours a day when they become numb to all the BS about the body positions they were just taught are "right".

I'm no swing guru, but i know one thing, the golf club is the only thing that contacts the golf ball, and how the golf club itself is used is the only thing that determines where the ball goes. the human body could literally be removed from the equation, and the ball would react to the path and clubface direction and speed as the instrument was used.

Isn't it obvious, when there are millions of variations in golf swings, that if were looking at body parts (be it how much they turn their shoulders, their hips, their posture, their alignment, all the variations of lever distances, foot action, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.) that modern instruction is focused on the wrong thing? If there are millions of variations and all of these variations have produced successful golf shots, and successful champions, then it's not the body that matters one bit. And to further illustrate that even more, there are people that can play with one leg, one arm, no legs, no eye sight. So if body positions mattered at all, they could never hit a golf ball, yet they can.

There have been a few instructors in history that I've heard focus on the instrument itself as the key to teaching the game of golf, and I always wonder, how is something so plainly obvious not adopted so easily, unless of course, instructors have no original thoughts or ideas and they just regurgitate what someone before them said.
[/quote]
Quoted just because it bears repeating...great post.

[TB07]

[quote name='Corey_sulliv21' timestamp='1300447952' post='3066281']
Every teacher has a method. This is comical. Haney will get EVERY player to swing on or parallel to the swing plane throughout the swing. Butch Harmon has worked with so many different players on tour but has worked on nearly the same thing...."getting wider and shortening the arm swing" (Tiger, Mickelson, Watney, Johnson, Scott, Couples, Pavin....).

If you have no method to teaching I think you're kidding yourself.
[/quote]


METHOD-
Established, habitual, logical, or prescribed [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/practice.html"]practice[/url] or [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/systematic.html"]systematic[/url] [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/process.html"]process[/url] of achieving certain [url="http://www.investorwords.com/9570/end.html"]ends[/url] with [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/accuracy.html"]accuracy[/url] and [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/efficiency.html"]efficiency[/url], usually in an ordered sequence of fixed [url="http://www.investorwords.com/11189/step.html"]steps[/url]


A method teacher molds a student through their process of ESTABLISHED,FIXED STEPS it is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL approach. For argument sake, some teachers mold a student to their system.

Other teachers mold their system to the student. They also have other avenues IF NEEDED to attain the goal.This teacher does not follow a systemic process of ESTABLISHED, FIXED STEPS.

[TB07]

[quote name='martinez' timestamp='1300497124' post='3067964']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1300435987' post='3066209']
the movement of the human body is not only complicated, but there are so many variations that it's literally NOT POSSIBLE to teach someone how to swing a club, at least, not in that way anyway.


in "modern instruction" people are taught everything there is to know, beyond human comprehension, in a way that can only be described as how a tail wags a dog, then they wonder why they can't shoot better scores unless they practice 4 hours a day when they become numb to all the BS about the body positions they were just taught are "right".

I'm no swing guru, but i know one thing, the golf club is the only thing that contacts the golf ball, and how the golf club itself is used is the only thing that determines where the ball goes. the human body could literally be removed from the equation, and the ball would react to the path and clubface direction and speed as the instrument was used.

Isn't it obvious, when there are millions of variations in golf swings, that if were looking at body parts (be it how much they turn their shoulders, their hips, their posture, their alignment, all the variations of lever distances, foot action, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.) that modern instruction is focused on the wrong thing? If there are millions of variations and all of these variations have produced successful golf shots, and successful champions, then it's not the body that matters one bit. And to further illustrate that even more, there are people that can play with one leg, one arm, no legs, no eye sight. So if body positions mattered at all, they could never hit a golf ball, yet they can.

There have been a few instructors in history that I've heard focus on the instrument itself as the key to teaching the game of golf, and I always wonder, how is something so plainly obvious not adopted so easily, unless of course, instructors have no original thoughts or ideas and they just regurgitate what someone before them said.
[/quote]
Quoted just because it bears repeating...great post.
[/quote]


I understand your point and to some degree the hands,arms and club are under taught.
However,when was the last time someone without a leg won a respectable golf tourney? Some really talented and remarkable guys can play well and give them credit! However To answer the question of why are so many teaching body positions, it is because it is very important. It is not everything . Body pivot AND arm swing, BOTH make up a good golf swing. Yes turn and tilts can vary, however the sequence of pivot and transfering the energy of the body movements in the arms and club is VERY important.

[PreppySlapCut]

I'm baffled when people try to over-simplify things. Oh, ok, just hit the ball. When I began my 30+ handicap friends (who are all threatening to break 90 regularly btw), if I was to say, oh yea, just keep doing what you're doing. Feel that rhythm. Its all tempo...

They would still shoot 110+. It's not a simple game. And when you don't put pieces in place and take the right steps, it becomes an impossible game. Every mediocre to bad golfer I play with has like 8 swing thoughts going on at once. THAT IS NOT SIMPLE! Put the right pieces in place one at a time, and make them the foundation of a sound golf swing. Call it S&T, call it whatever you want. If you can't do certain things right, you will never be able to play this game at a high level. Ball first, create some power, control shot shape.

[hbgpagolfpro]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1300435987' post='3066209']
the movement of the human body is not only complicated, but there are so many variations that it's literally NOT POSSIBLE to teach someone how to swing a club, at least, not in that way anyway.


in "modern instruction" people are taught everything there is to know, beyond human comprehension, in a way that can only be described as how a tail wags a dog, then they wonder why they can't shoot better scores unless they practice 4 hours a day when they become numb to all the BS about the body positions they were just taught are "right".

I'm no swing guru, but i know one thing, the golf club is the only thing that contacts the golf ball, and how the golf club itself is used is the only thing that determines where the ball goes. the human body could literally be removed from the equation, and the ball would react to the path and clubface direction and speed as the instrument was used.

Isn't it obvious, when there are millions of variations in golf swings, that if were looking at body parts (be it how much they turn their shoulders, their hips, their posture, their alignment, all the variations of lever distances, foot action, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.) that modern instruction is focused on the wrong thing? If there are millions of variations and all of these variations have produced successful golf shots, and successful champions, then it's not the body that matters one bit. And to further illustrate that even more, there are people that can play with one leg, one arm, no legs, no eye sight. So if body positions mattered at all, they could never hit a golf ball, yet they can.

There have been a few instructors in history that I've heard focus on the instrument itself as the key to teaching the game of golf, and I always wonder, how is something so plainly obvious not adopted so easily, unless of course, instructors have no original thoughts or ideas and they just regurgitate what someone before them said.
[/quote]
The golf club can't swing itself.

I equate learning golf to learning a martial art. There is a specific process of learning. In both, you start with basics...stance, posture, small movements, bigger movements, and then you piece them together through proper sequencing into the more complicated movement.

In both activities, there are people of all shapes and sizes who practice them, and they all have different physical abilities. However, in both, to be proficient, you MUST learn how to move the body properly and in the proper sequence to be PROFICIENT.

Swinging a sword is probably the closest thing I can equate to swinging a golf club. You need to hold it properly to ensure that it cuts efficiently. You need to learn how to stand in a proper guard so that you will be in a good starting position to attack your opponent. You need to learn how to shift your weight, rotate on your feet, step, and swing the arms in order to properly execute any block or attack.

The beauty of any martial art, however, is that it is possible to expand upon the basic movements AND improve them. Furthermore, over time, improvements in sword design lead to different types of moves and more efficient ways of killing with a sword. The Japanese Samurai sword is probably the equivalent of today's drivers in golf. Much lighter, so it could be swung faster. The sharper blade, which allows easier cutting is the equivalent of the larger sweetspot on the driver, which allows more accurate tee shots. Now, with the driver, there is less need to manipulate it with the hands as was the case in the days of Bobby Jones. We can now just use the body more efficiently.

Another commonality between the two activities is that like a martial artist, a golfer can learn his own strengths and weaknesses, and adapt accordingly. For instance, a golfer who doesn't have the flexibility of Tiger Woods, may have a better chance learning how to swing like a Craig Stadler. A martial artist who lacks flexibility would be wise to study an art that focuses more on fighting in close with the hands rather than on trying to kick an opponent in the head. In both cases, you can get pretty good with the tools you have and be very competitive.

With all this in mind, I would argue that while it is important for the teacher to educate the student about the club or weapon, it is also necessary to teach them in a step by step process so that they have a better chance of becoming proficient. Just like in golf, it is more difficult to learn a martial art as you get older because the body doesn't hear the brain as well. Still, if you do not learn some of the basic fundamentals and basic body movements, you have no chance. The club doesn't swing by itself.

[jons1]

ask yourself this, if body positions = good golf shots, how is it possible that

some have flat swings
some have upright swings
some have long swings
some have short swings
some lift their left foot
some keep their feet planted
some shift their weight a lot
some don't shift their weight much
some play the ball off the left heel
some play the ball more in the middle of their stance
some turn their shoulders 80 degrees
some turn their shoulders 100+ degrees
some restrict their hip turn
some encourage more hip turn
some move their head off the ball
some keep their head very still
some people claim to be one planers (but aren't)
some people are two planers
some people play from an open stance
some people play from a closed stance
I could go on for a while, but there's no point

GUYS.... all of these things mentioned can not only be found in pga players, but the best players to ever play the game. the only thing consistent about the golf swing, is how inconsistent it is executed. and that being the case, learning how to play the game of golf based on body positions, is 100% backwards.

As children, we learn incredibly complex body movements. If we learned a far more complex motor skill, like walking, which involves pushing, free falling, catching, timing it with the arms, having a stable head, muscles supporting the actions, etc., in any fashion even close to how people try to learn golf, we'd probably still be crawling and rolling to get places (imagine the explosion of the hand sanitizer industry).

what I'm saying is, I believe that it doesn't matter what method you follow, whether you're a "one planer" or "two planer" or you move off the ball, or stack over the ball, or you (see the before mentioned list).... because every single one of those body positions can be used while returning the club to the back of the ball consistently.

It's my opinion, great teachers don't teach more, they teach less. Teaching the very core similarities found in all great golf swings, and leaving the rest for personal style.

[TB07]

Gpro
All GOOD players will sequence energy correctly in the downswing. They will also hit the ball solid and control the low point of their golf swing with that sequenced energy.

What you forget to mention is how those examples of different positions tie together or do not tie together.

General Examples: Upright swingers, two plane swingers,, will tend to have more weight shift and more vertical arm swings.
Flatter swings,one plane swingers, will tend to have less weight shift and more rotation in the downswing.

Centered pivots will have steeper shoulders and more tilt than lateral moving pivots and flatter shoulder turns.
Some guys get more turn with restricted hips and feet planted due to flexibility or due to trying to stay more on top of the ball. Some need to free the hip turn and let the foot lift to create a full backswing. More backsing hip turn allows for a straighter back knee, less would give more of a braced back knee etc.etc.etc.

Certain patterns go together. Regardless, the energy will be stored by the body,released by the body, and transfered into the arms and club.

[martinez]

[quote name='hbgpagolfpro' timestamp='1300502940' post='3068223']
The golf club can't swing itself.
[/quote]
It can once in motion to a degree, and you can use it's motion to direct your body. I think a lot of players would benefit at the beginner and mediocre level if they payed more attention to what the club was doing in the swing and less attention on the movements they were trying to make.

[MacBooky]

[quote name='slicer2scratch' timestamp='1300500320' post='3068087']
[quote name='Corey_sulliv21' timestamp='1300447952' post='3066281']
Every teacher has a method. This is comical. Haney will get EVERY player to swing on or parallel to the swing plane throughout the swing. Butch Harmon has worked with so many different players on tour but has worked on nearly the same thing...."getting wider and shortening the arm swing" (Tiger, Mickelson, Watney, Johnson, Scott, Couples, Pavin....).

If you have no method to teaching I think you're kidding yourself.
[/quote]


METHOD-
Established, habitual, logical, or prescribed [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/practice.html"]practice[/url] or [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/systematic.html"]systematic[/url] [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/process.html"]process[/url] of achieving certain [url="http://www.investorwords.com/9570/end.html"]ends[/url] with [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/accuracy.html"]accuracy[/url] and [url="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/efficiency.html"]efficiency[/url], usually in an ordered sequence of fixed [url="http://www.investorwords.com/11189/step.html"]steps[/url]


A method teacher molds a student through their process of ESTABLISHED,FIXED STEPS it is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL approach. For argument sake, some teachers mold a student to their system.

Other teachers mold their system to the student. They also have other avenues IF NEEDED to attain the goal.This teacher does not follow a systemic process of ESTABLISHED, FIXED STEPS.
[/quote]

I don't want to be rude but it would seem you're really trying very hard to make us read it into something it's not ... and for what purposes is beyond me.

a method describes the process ..... that process is used for helping the student either hitting the ball better, farther, or with more flight control or a combination of those .. all depending on the needs of said student. It is NOT Model-copying .....


[size=2][size=6]method[/size] |ˈmeθəd|[i]noun[/i][i] [/i][i]([/i][i]often[/i][i] [/i][i]method for/of[/i][i])[/i][i]a particular form [/i][i]of[/i][i] [/i][i]procedure[/i][i] [/i][i]for[/i][i] accomplishing or approaching something, [/i][i]esp.[/i][i] a [/i][i]systematic[/i][i] [/i][i]or[/i][i] [/i][i]established[/i][i] [/i][i]one[/i][i] [/i][i]: [/i][i]a [/i][i]method[/i][i] for software maintenance [/i][i]| [/i][i]labor-intensive[/i][i] [/i][i]production[/i][i] [/i][i]methods[/i][i].[/i][size=2][i]• [/i][/size][i]orderliness of [/i][i]thought[/i][i] [/i][i]or[/i][i] [/i][i]behavior[/i][i]; [/i][i]systematic[/i][i] planning or action [/i][i]:[/i][i]historical study is the [/i][i]rigorous[/i][i] [/i][i]combination[/i][i] [/i][i]of[/i][i] [/i][i]knowledge[/i][i] and method.[/i][i]
[/i][i]
[/i][font="Arial"][i]
[/i][/size][/font]

[planeshifts]

I think it was Mike Hebron who once said " Golf as a subject is a motor skill that cannot be taught, but can only be learned", or words to that effect.

Homer Kelley said " the instructor can only inform and explain, the pupil must absorb and apply ".

So the instructor needs information. On the subject of philosophy AP / MB / DD and all the SandT guys have expertly wielded William of Occam's razor !.

[hbgpagolfpro]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1300507472' post='3068376']
ask yourself this, if body positions = good golf shots, how is it possible that

some have flat swings
some have upright swings
some have long swings
some have short swings
some lift their left foot
some keep their feet planted
some shift their weight a lot
some don't shift their weight much
some play the ball off the left heel
some play the ball more in the middle of their stance
some turn their shoulders 80 degrees
some turn their shoulders 100+ degrees
some restrict their hip turn
some encourage more hip turn
some move their head off the ball
some keep their head very still
some people claim to be one planers (but aren't)
some people are two planers
some people play from an open stance
some people play from a closed stance
I could go on for a while, but there's no point

GUYS.... all of these things mentioned can not only be found in pga players, but the best players to ever play the game. the only thing consistent about the golf swing, is how inconsistent it is executed. and that being the case, learning how to play the game of golf based on body positions, is 100% backwards.

As children, we learn incredibly complex body movements. If we learned a far more complex motor skill, like walking, which involves pushing, free falling, catching, timing it with the arms, having a stable head, muscles supporting the actions, etc., in any fashion even close to how people try to learn golf, we'd probably still be crawling and rolling to get places (imagine the explosion of the hand sanitizer industry).

what I'm saying is, I believe that it doesn't matter what method you follow, whether you're a "one planer" or "two planer" or you move off the ball, or stack over the ball, or you (see the before mentioned list).... because every single one of those body positions can be used while returning the club to the back of the ball consistently.

It's my opinion, great teachers don't teach more, they teach less. Teaching the very core similarities found in all great golf swings, and leaving the rest for personal style.
[/quote]
Agreed...it's not specific positions that we try to achieve, but a certain flow, and techniques to achieve that flow sequence is what we are trying to achieve. There may be some positions more ideal than others, but there are many patterns that can achieve the same goal. Still, the body must be trained to move properly in the swing.

[hbgpagolfpro]

[quote name='martinez' timestamp='1300515352' post='3068562']
[quote name='hbgpagolfpro' timestamp='1300502940' post='3068223']
The golf club can't swing itself.
[/quote]
It can once in motion to a degree, and you can use it's motion to direct your body. I think a lot of players would benefit at the beginner and mediocre level if they payed more attention to what the club was doing in the swing and less attention on the movements they were trying to make.
[/quote]
How much motion is required to get it started?

The body can also STOP that motion at just about any time in the swing...Tiger has proven that. So, again, what is directing what? You have to learn how to move the body. That doesn't mean overly specific positions, but proper sequencing.

[martinez]

[quote name='hbgpagolfpro' timestamp='1300538962' post='3068784']
[quote name='martinez' timestamp='1300515352' post='3068562']
[quote name='hbgpagolfpro' timestamp='1300502940' post='3068223']
The golf club can't swing itself.
[/quote]
It can once in motion to a degree, and you can use it's motion to direct your body. I think a lot of players would benefit at the beginner and mediocre level if they payed more attention to what the club was doing in the swing and less attention on the movements they were trying to make.
[/quote]
How much motion is required to get it started?

The body can also STOP that motion at just about any time in the swing...Tiger has proven that. So, again, what is directing what? You have to learn how to move the body. That doesn't mean overly specific positions, but proper sequencing.
[/quote]
Very little motion is required to get it started....very little.

Proper sequencing is all relative to the club, that is the game...club on ball. People have to learn how to move their body in a sport when they're new to it only because the tools/implements in that sport are foreign to them. The most efficient sequence is the one that makes the implement the most effective weapon.

I would say we have to learn how to move the body to most effectively get out of the way of the club.......not swing it the whole way.

[hbgpagolfpro]

[quote name='martinez' timestamp='1300541311' post='3068854']
[quote name='hbgpagolfpro' timestamp='1300538962' post='3068784']
[quote name='martinez' timestamp='1300515352' post='3068562']
[quote name='hbgpagolfpro' timestamp='1300502940' post='3068223']
The golf club can't swing itself.
[/quote]
It can once in motion to a degree, and you can use it's motion to direct your body. I think a lot of players would benefit at the beginner and mediocre level if they payed more attention to what the club was doing in the swing and less attention on the movements they were trying to make.
[/quote]
How much motion is required to get it started?

The body can also STOP that motion at just about any time in the swing...Tiger has proven that. So, again, what is directing what? You have to learn how to move the body. That doesn't mean overly specific positions, but proper sequencing.
[/quote]
Very little motion is required to get it started....very little.

Proper sequencing is all relative to the club, that is the game...club on ball. People have to learn how to move their body in a sport when they're new to it only because the tools/implements in that sport are foreign to them. The most efficient sequence is the one that makes the implement the most effective weapon.

I would say we have to learn how to move the body to most effectively get out of the way of the club.......not swing it the whole way.
[/quote]
I agree with that!

[mikpga]

Jim Flick talked in terms of "swinging the instrument"...

Henry Griffitts had a slogan "Equipment Affects Motion", which I wholeheartedly agree with...

How did Jim Furyk "learn" his swing motion?

How did Jim Thorpe "learn" his swing motion?

How did Lee Trevino "learn" his swing motion?

Reaction to ball flight and feel?

[farmer]

Golf forums seem to make golf instruction more complicated than it is. Surely you would never actually hear a teacher talking about the d-plane, p1, p6, punch elbow, MORAD etc. to a real student. Every teacher needs some system to their teaching, so that they are not trying to get a beginner to hit a knockdown fade or whatever. Most students are less concerned about method than they are about results.

[jons1]

[quote name='hbgpagolfpro' timestamp='1300538807' post='3068782']
Agreed...it's not specific positions that we try to achieve, but a certain flow, and techniques to achieve that flow sequence is what we are trying to achieve. There may be some positions more ideal than others, but there are many patterns that can achieve the same goal. Still, the body must be trained to move properly in the swing.
[/quote]

well said[color="#333333"]
[/color]
[color="#333333"]i'll followup to that and say, y[/color][color="#333333"]ou couldn't have a swing unless you have the motion of a swing itself. In other words, you couldn't dissect motion into parts and still have motion: therefore it is impossible to take a swing apart and still have a swing.... which is what everyone wants to learn. The great Bobby Jones said: "... we in the PGA picture tend to take a swing apart and divided into parts, but we know you can't teach it that way.". A swing is one continuous to and fro motion which repeats between the same place. Watch the pendulum in a grandfather clock, or a child swinging in a park, and you'll see a to and fro motion in it's perfection.[/color]
[color="#333333"][/font][/color][font="arial, geneva, sans-serif"][color="#333333"]
[/color][color="#333333"][/font][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"][/color] [color="#333333"]Learning a true swinging motion, sensing it through the hands - what happens is correct mechanics follow automatically for your particular physiology. this is the reason you can see swings that look different in different people, and have different body positions, yet produce great golf shots. Chances are, if you don't swing the clubhead and have a feel for that motion, a body part or position will go wrong. Then if you correct the body part or position, you are correcting the effect, not the cause, which is an improper swinging motion itself, and the change doesn't take for long. Yet a lot of golf instruction, is doing just that... moving the body positions around, introducing a series of compensations, and the more compensations the more practice required to blend them all together into something that has a free flowing swing motion. [/color][color="#333333"]Tension relationships in the body during the swing can disrupt the swinging motion, which disrupts centrifugal force (the power source multiplier that creates "effortless power", and is the core fundamental in all golf swings that repeat)[/color]
[color="#333333"][font="arial, geneva, sans-serif"]
Here's a great quote by the way about the body position mentality in instruction:

Gary Player stated: "for every fundamental in golf, I will show you a superstar, and I don't use that word lightly, who doesn't do it."[/color]

[color="#333333"]I love these kinds of discussions. It's like everyone opens their secret cook books and we can all borrow a few recipes[/color]

[martinez]

[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1300576160' post='3069958']
Golf forums seem to make golf instruction more complicated than it is. Surely you would never actually hear a teacher talking about the d-plane, p1, p6, punch elbow, MORAD etc. to a real student. Every teacher needs some system to their teaching, so that they are not trying to get a beginner to hit a knockdown fade or whatever. Most students are less concerned about method than they are about results.
[/quote]

Golf forums ....the swing sections of them at least...are populated by teachers and people that want to understand more about the why, what, when and how of theirs and others Golf swings. In the general population, your thoughts are spot on.

I think there is no harm in reading and learning about others views on the Golf swing....but only if you have a clear idea of what you want and can filter info, or, you use that research to help you formulate a filter.

[fats]

[quote name='martinez' timestamp='1300611727' post='3071004']
[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1300576160' post='3069958']
Golf forums seem to make golf instruction more complicated than it is. Surely you would never actually hear a teacher talking about the d-plane, p1, p6, punch elbow, MORAD etc. to a real student. Every teacher needs some system to their teaching, so that they are not trying to get a beginner to hit a knockdown fade or whatever. Most students are less concerned about method than they are about results.
[/quote]

Golf forums ....the swing sections of them at least...are populated by teachers and people that want to understand more about the why, what, when and how of theirs and others Golf swings. In the general population, your thoughts are spot on.

I think there is no harm in reading and learning about others views on the Golf swing....but only if you have a clear idea of what you want and can filter info, or, you use that research to help you formulate a filter.
[/quote]

[b]Yes...well said...I agree with you and Farmer...there are a lot of interesting theories and ideas on forums but at times they sound more like a planned Nasa rocket launch than a golf swing. To simplify, rather than complicate...there is where the real talent of teaching shines through.[/b]

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='fats' timestamp='1300631957' post='3071295']
[quote name='martinez' timestamp='1300611727' post='3071004']
[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1300576160' post='3069958']
Golf forums seem to make golf instruction more complicated than it is. Surely you would never actually hear a teacher talking about the d-plane, p1, p6, punch elbow, MORAD etc. to a real student. Every teacher needs some system to their teaching, so that they are not trying to get a beginner to hit a knockdown fade or whatever. Most students are less concerned about method than they are about results.
[/quote]

Golf forums ....the swing sections of them at least...are populated by teachers and people that want to understand more about the why, what, when and how of theirs and others Golf swings. In the general population, your thoughts are spot on.

I think there is no harm in reading and learning about others views on the Golf swing....but only if you have a clear idea of what you want and can filter info, or, you use that research to help you formulate a filter.
[/quote]

[b]Yes...well said...I agree with you and Farmer...there are a lot of interesting theories and ideas on forums but at times they sound more like a planned Nasa rocket launch than a golf swing. To simplify, rather than complicate...there is where the real talent of teaching shines through.[/b]
[/quote]

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

Albert Einstein

[jons1]

 

finally a good reason to use it

[JOEGOLFWRX]

if every teacher is a method teacher, there must be tons of crappy methods out there, lol.