Originally Posted by LongballGer
I never said a golfer with "no swing flaws". I could make a list of almost every swing fault there is and then show you a player competing at the highest level that has this certain "fault".
I´m also not saying that golf instruction is worthless provided your instructor knows what he´s doing. If the guy that hits 50000 balls works with a good instructor IMO he´ll improve faster than the guy that just goes at it alone. However if you have an instructor that constantly tries to force his student into certain positions and nitpicks the tiniest "flaws", having his student repeat slow motion drills to no no end just to make it look pretty on camera while justifying this by saying "It´ll make you more consistent" I´d pick the guy that hits 50000 balls on his own, provided he is constantly experimenting and making adjustments and watches his ball flight. (I guess this is what you were trying to say with your last sentence which I basically agree with?!) That´s the reason why kids learn so fast. It´s because they are being left alone and experiment by making mistakes and figuring out what works for them.There is a reason why the best ball strikers in history have all been self taught.
However if you go to any driving range you´ll see people hit terrible shots, doing their same shitty move over and over again while expecting different results.
This still doesn´t refute my point though. Would Jim Furyk be a more consistent player if he had a more conventional swing? If you "corrected" his setup to make it more conventional would he immediately hit the ball more consistently? I don´t think so.
Would he be a more consistent player after converting to a conventional swing 5 years down the stretch? I don´t think so either.
Did Tiger become more consistent under Foley?
Perhaps I misread or misunderstood your point.
With regards to original thought posed: "I don't think better technique makes you more consistent"
I completely agree. Repetition makes you more more consistent. Now, is it consistently good or consistently bad? What's the benefit of consistency if it doesn't
lead to lower scores? I think we need to move the discussion away from simply being consistent to being consistently good.
The part about Jim Furyk is a good point. It was the basis for my last comment and Bubba and Rickie that you referenced. Furyk is a world-class player. His technique and consistency are excellent. Would he benefit from changes to a more "conventional" swing? I agree with you, no. But I do think you are mistaken if you think that he is self-taught and that he did not have some instruction along the way. His father is/was a Golf Professional.
I guess I took your point to be: 1. The best way to get better is to trail and error your way through many thousands of golf balls.
2. Technique is not important because is does not yield immediate results
3. Once a player achieves good technique, practice should no longer be required because, as you put it, "Your technique didn't change."
By the way, good post. You raise some interesting things to think about and it has led to a good discussion. I look forward to continuing it.