or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Instruction and Playing Tips › I don't think a better technique makes you more consistent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I don't think a better technique makes you more consistent - Page 2

post #19 of 52
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:

 

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."

 

 

"1. The best way to get better is to trail and error your way through many thousands of golf balls."

 

Yes! I believe that every movement especially the golf swing is an individual thing. Working with a good instructor can greatly benefit ones game especially in the beginning. However if a guy naturally moves 6 inches off the ball, but hits the ground in the same spot pretty much everytime I think it´s a bad idea to tell him he´s doing it wrong and needs to stay centered because "It makes you more consistent" or because it looks better on video. As long as you do whats important in golf it doesn´t matter what it looks like. There is no one swing that works for everyone. Everyone is different. Staying centered for example might work for some people, other people play better if they move off the ball. Kids learn how to walk by falling down over and over again. There are no walking instructors.It´s the same with a golf swing. There is no way around it, you have have to hit thousands of balls to get better. The more errors you make and the more you adjust your swing accordingly the faster you´ll get better. If you have a good instructor that guides you in the right directions you´ll improve even faster.

 

   

    "2. Technique is not important because is does not yield immediate results"

 

     As I said if you can compress the ball and have a predictable shot pattern IMO that´s all the technique you need. After that the only thing that will make you more consistent is practice. If technique was the primary determinant for consistency guys like Eamon Darcy, Jack Nicklaus, Ray Floyd would have never been able to break 90.

 

    "3. Once a player achieves good technique, practice should no longer be required because, as you put it, "Your technique didn't change."

 

       My point was the exact opposite of that statement. Since a better technique doesn´t improve your consistency, not practicing for a period of time will make you less consistent even if you have a "perfect" technique.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhwarren View Post

 

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.

post #20 of 52

It depends on what you mean by better technique and where you are in the learning curve.  Getting rid of some motions can make you more consistant.  You could practice the Happy Gilmore swing forever (for an extreme example) and you will never develop consistancy as there is too much motion to time.  You will get better with 10k hours of rep but  not as much as you will by using a technically more sound swing and practicing.  Would Furyk benefit from a switch? Now? Nope. By the time he got in the required practice time he would be on the senior tour.   Would he have been better if he had a slightly different swing early on? Maybe.  It is easy to say that any changes to a top 25 player is nuts. No one can say if those changes would have made him better or worse.

 

It is easy to hit 50k balls and be roughly in the same spot you started if all you did was spend a bunch of hours ingraining that OTT move and flip. On the other hand you can spend a lot of hours making tweaks that don't really change much. 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jhwarren View Post

 

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.

post #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

I have never seen anyone become more consistent after a golf lesson in my life unless he had an obvious move that didn´t enable him to hit the ball properly (reverse pivot, scooping etc...). Do you teach a lot of high handicappers or beginners? What you notice in advanced golfers is that after an immediate technique change their better shots might get better (more distance, tighter shot cone etc) but their worst shots also get worse. He´s gonna hit tops for example that he never hit before. He´s not going to be immediately more consistent though. Even you put up a clip of yourself shanking a ball while working on technique.

 

If technique made you more consistent then why do you get worse if you don´t practice for a long time? Your technique didn´t change, right?

 

 

I wouldn´t say very, very, few. Most high single digit players can can compress the ball properly and somewhat have an idea what their ball is gonna do when they hit it well.

If you are going to make the argument that learning new things doesn't improve consistency, then you don't get to add that little qualifier at the end of your sentence.  Nobody disagrees with that.  Of course most single digit handicappers "compress" the ball properly and have a pretty good idea what their ball is going to do WHEN they hit it well.  The "when" is the key though.  With all of the little swing flaws removed from the equation, one at a time, that "when" percentage is going to go up for most of us.

 

That is the very definition of consistency.

post #22 of 52
Quote:
 There are no walking instructors.

 

sure there is, its called seeing their parents walking on two feet

 

 

 

 

Quote:
The more errors you make and the more you adjust your swing accordingly the faster you´ll get better.

 

Here's the problem with this, you might be one of the lucky people who can actually do this and get good at golf. But the golf swing is a very unnatural action by a human, and incorporates alot of biomechanics, which makes this game really tough to play at a high level. This is why people need a good instructor, to weed out the bad motions, and get them set on the good ones. Because majority of people will just pound away at golf balls, and be stuck at the same handicap for years, because they don't know how to get past what habits they built up. Here's the thing, we are very adaptable, we learn from our mistakes, trial and error works. But this is a curse, because we develop habits as well, and these can act as barriers to our swing. If you make 1000 back swing, you might be heading on the right track, but if your doing something similar 1000 times, and that something is bad overall, it will get ingrained in your muscle memory, and now your stuck with a problem. For example, the over the top move that causes majority of people to slice. Alot of people can hit millions of golf balls, and there trial and error wont get them past that problem because they don't know how. 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Since a better technique doesn´t improve your consistency, not practicing for a period of time will make you less consistent even if you have a "perfect" technique.

 

But better technique does improve consistency, 

 

Believe me, i played 15 years, 15 handicap golf with the ball played in the middle of my stance and back, i swayed in the backswing, my head would drop down and away from the target, and i would flip at the ball, i would play a pull, slight pull draw. I had a few single digit rounds of golf as well. But i wanted something better, so i moved the ball up in my stance, worked on getting my head steady, staying on the right side more, and stopped my over the top move. I did this and my contact feels way better, i hit a powerful draw, my handicap has dropped to about a 9-12 average, and its a tighter average as well. Not my random rounds of single digits, to my highs of 20 over par. But i had a time in that stretch were i almost couldn't take a swing, because i was hitting it left, right, chunk, thin, hook, slice. But i kept at it, and now i am hitting the ball great. 

 

Sometimes now matter how many times you bang your head against the wall, your not going to get the breakthrough you need. this is were you need a new technique, and you need a good instructor. 

post #23 of 52
Thread Starter 

Then why aren´t the guys with the most technically sound swings the most consistent ball strikers on tour?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

If you are going to make the argument that learning new things doesn't improve consistency, then you don't get to add that little qualifier at the end of your sentence.  Nobody disagrees with that.  Of course most single digit handicappers "compress" the ball properly and have a pretty good idea what their ball is going to do WHEN they hit it well.  The "when" is the key though.  With all of the little swing flaws removed from the equation, one at a time, that "when" percentage is going to go up for most of us.

 

That is the very definition of consistency.

post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

If you are going to make the argument that learning new things doesn't improve consistency, then you don't get to add that little qualifier at the end of your sentence.  Nobody disagrees with that.  Of course most single digit handicappers "compress" the ball properly and have a pretty good idea what their ball is going to do WHEN they hit it well.  The "when" is the key though.  With all of the little swing flaws removed from the equation, one at a time, that "when" percentage is going to go up for most of us.

 

That is the very definition of consistency.

 

Dammit. I was just going to make this point and had to erase everything hahaha. Although I was going to use the word "caveat" instead of "qualifier." But I like yours better. And obviously, I agree with you.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

It depends on what you mean by better technique


Quote:

 

 

Which guys have the most technically sound swings in your opinion?

post #25 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

Provided you can already compress the ball properly, hit it far enough and have a predictable shot pattern ...

 

I think that's a lot of "ifs" before we get to "but".

post #26 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post
 

Then why aren´t the guys with the most technically sound swings the most consistent ball strikers on tour?

Wait, I thought we were talking about single digit handicappers?  Now we're discussing pros?  You're doing the apples and oranges thing again.

 

I can't really argue with you on this because, first of all, I have no idea who the best ball strikers on tour are, but I'll try anyway. :)  I am skeptical that any of them actually have swings that would be considered not technically sound.  And, tour pros are crazy-talented, freaks of nature, most of whom have personal swing coaches.  What are those coaches doing if not to try and help them be more consistent?

 

Just for fun, who are the best ball strikers on tour?

post #27 of 52
Thread Starter 

You guys simply cherry pick the arguments you like and talk around the points I make.

 

It´s very simple. I´ll repeat my question again.


 My point is that if a better technique improved consistency then you´d immediately get more consistent after a swing change.


I´ll give you an example.

Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. Everyone knows he has a very bowed wrist at the top. A "better technique" would be a flat left wrist at the top. Now if you fixed his wrist at the top he will very likely spray it all over the place. If a better technique made him more consistent he´d immediately hit the ball much more consistently, but it doesn´t work that way. It´s only after he has practiced that new move he will gain some level of consistency again. However in my opinion he´ll only gain a level of consistency because he practiced more and not because of a better technique, since if a better technique was responsible for consistency he would´ve immediately gotten more consistent after the change without having to practice.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Wait, I thought we were talking about single digit handicappers?  Now we're discussing pros?  You're doing the apples and oranges thing again.

 

I can't really argue with you on this because, first of all, I have no idea who the best ball strikers on tour are, but I'll try anyway. :)  I am skeptical that any of them actually have swings that would be considered not technically sound.  And, tour pros are crazy-talented, freaks of nature, most of whom have personal swing coaches.  What are those coaches doing if not to try and help them be more consistent?

 

Just for fun, who are the best ball strikers on tour?

post #28 of 52

I disagree... the entire point of better technique is that it requires less compensations to make up for swing flaws. Fewer compensations mean a swing that's easier to repeat and if it's easier to repeat then it becomes more consistent.

post #29 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

I have never seen anyone become more consistent after a golf lesson in my life unless he had an obvious move that didn´t enable him to hit the ball properly (reverse pivot, scooping etc...). Do you teach a lot of high handicappers or beginners?

 

We teach a lot of accomplished and competitive golfers too. And I guess you haven't seen a good instructor at work.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

What you notice in advanced golfers is that after an immediate technique change their better shots might get better (more distance, tighter shot cone etc) but their worst shots also get worse. He´s gonna hit tops for example that he never hit before.

 

b5_confused.gif b5_confused.gif b5_confused.gif b5_confused.gif

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

If technique made you more consistent then why do you get worse if you don´t practice for a long time? Your technique didn´t change, right?

 

Yes it did.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

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" 

 

In other words, you're changing your argument. From skimming the posts others are making, you seem to do that frequently in this discussion, along with apples-to-oranges comparisons.

 

Make no mistake about what I've said and will say again: a good instructor can improve a good player's consistency within a single lesson. We do it time after time.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

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.

 

Like who? It's a biased statement because you'll cite people like Hogan and whatnot - people who existed before "instructors" became as popular as they are now. Plus Bobby Jones had an instructor (he learned from Stuart Maiden, IIRC), and Ben Hogan was known to pick the brains and discuss the golf swing with lots of players. Arnie was taught by his father, and Jack and Tiger both had/have instructors.

 

Plus one could make the case that the modern PGA Tour player is a better ballstriker than Bobby, Jack, Ben, Arnie, or Lee. They were being compared to far lesser competition at the time, and history has a way of becoming grander as we age.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

Did Tiger become more consistent under Foley?

 

He's said so.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

As I said if you can compress the ball and have a predictable shot pattern IMO that´s all the technique you need. After that the only thing that will make you more consistent is practice. If technique was the primary determinant for consistency guys like Eamon Darcy, Jack Nicklaus, Ray Floyd would have never been able to break 90.

 

You and I apparently have very different definitions of "technique."

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

My point was the exact opposite of that statement. Since a better technique doesn´t improve your consistency, not practicing for a period of time will make you less consistent even if you have a "perfect" technique.

 

Better technique does improve your consistency. So does hitting balls on a regular basis. It's not an either-or case.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

I am skeptical that any of them actually have swings that would be considered not technically sound.  And, tour pros are crazy-talented, freaks of nature, most of whom have personal swing coaches. What are those coaches doing if not to try and help them be more consistent?

 

None of them have swings that are not technically sound.

post #30 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:

 

Make no mistake about what I've said and will say again: a good instructor can improve a good player's consistency within a single lesson. We do it time after time.

 

Then why does it take Tiger 2+ years to make a swing change hitting it worse and less consistent during that time? Are you saying that his instructors suck?

 

 

Quote:
Like who? It's a biased statement because you'll cite people like Hogan and whatnot - people who existed before "instructors" became as popular as they are now. Plus Bobby Jones had an instructor (he learned from Stuart Maiden, IIRC), and Ben Hogan was known to pick the brains and discuss the golf swing with lots of players. Arnie was taught by his father, and Jack and Tiger both had/have instructors.

I doubt they were working with a trackman or drew lines on a video screen. I imagine the advice they got from their instructors was "Work on tempo", "Swing smooth" and then were left alone. Nicklaus said he saw his instructor once or twice a year.

 

 

Quote:

 

He's said so.

 

 

lol, what else is he supposed to say?

 

 

Quote:

b5_confused.gif b5_confused.gif b5_confused.gif b5_confused.gif

 

You hit a shank in one of your videos as a result of wanting to change something in your swing.

 

 

Quote:
None of them have swings that are not technically sound.

Depends on how you define technically sound. As I said I define technically sound as having a swing that gives you the opportunity to hit good shots, doesn´t matter what it looks like. If you define technically sound as having swings without any so called swing faults then almost nobody on tour has a technically sound swing. Luke Donald thrusts his hips at the ball and rolls his wrists over hard after impact, Bubba has a funky backswing, ricky backs off his head from the ball a good six inches at impact and swings way out to the right, Westwood has a chicken wing etc... I could go on and on. There are many college kids with more technically sound swings than pga tour winners yet they are nowhere near as consistent from tee to green.

post #31 of 52

Speaking generally, I really dislike liars, but here goes nothin'... 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

Then why does it take Tiger 2+ years to make a swing change hitting it worse and less consistent during that time? Are you saying that his instructors suck?

 

No. I'm saying that you have no idea how fine the line is at that level. Tiger also didn't "take a lesson" - he essentially overhauled his swing (again). Apples and oranges.

 

Additionally, one example is not nearly as much proof as you seem to want it to be.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

I doubt they were working with a trackman or drew lines on a video screen. I imagine the advice they got from their instructors was "Work on tempo", "Swing smooth" and then were left alone. Nicklaus said he saw his instructor once or twice a year.

 

It's pretty pointless to discuss this with you if you're going to keep shifting the goalposts. You said they didn't have instructors. Now it's instructors who use certain tools. If Hogan were around today, I think he'd use a Trackman (I can't prove it, but you can't prove the opposite either). That he didn't - and it was not available to him - proves nothing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

You hit a shank in one of your videos as a result of wanting to change something in your swing.

 

Yep, I did, and I changed the picture. It illustrated to me how extreme the feeling had to be for me to get it right. I wasn't playing golf, and had I been, I'd have likely played better incorporating a little bit of what I learned.

 

Practice is not playing golf, and I understand the difference. We'll often have students exaggerate certain things - and they may hit the ball worse in the middle of the lesson - to see where they fit on the "how much is required?" spectrum - but a drill or practice is not playing golf or making full swings.

 

And again, one example is not nearly as much proof as you seem to want it to be. I have not said all students get better immediately.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

Depends on how you define technically sound. As I said I define technically sound as having a swing that gives you the opportunity to hit good shots, doesn´t matter what it looks like. If you define technically sound as having swings without any so called swing faults then almost nobody on tour has a technically sound swing.

 

I don't define it as that, clearly. I said no PGA Tour player has a swing that's not technically sound.

 

This thread lacks a point, and when I and others try to hone in on one, you simply move the goalposts.

post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

 

I wouldn´t say very, very, few. Most high single digit players can can compress the ball properly and somewhat have an idea what their ball is gonna do when they hit it well.

 

The original statement read "Provided you can already compress the ball properly, hit it far enough and have a predictable shot pattern".  That's what I was responding to.  I read it to mean something different.  I took it to mean, the golfer hits the ball first a majority of the time, controls the curve most of the time, why would they get a lesson?  All single digit golfers don't do that, that's why they're single digit and don't have a "+" in front of their handicap.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

If you are going to make the argument that learning new things doesn't improve consistency, then you don't get to add that little qualifier at the end of your sentence.  Nobody disagrees with that.  Of course most single digit handicappers "compress" the ball properly and have a pretty good idea what their ball is going to do WHEN they hit it well.  The "when" is the key though.  With all of the little swing flaws removed from the equation, one at a time, that "when" percentage is going to go up for most of us.

 

That is the very definition of consistency.

 

Exactly

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post
Then why aren´t the guys with the most technically sound swings the most consistent ball strikers on tour?

 

Not about being the most technically sound, it's about having a repeatable pattern.  All players on tour are technically sound, they all strike it solid, ball first contact and have a reliable shot pattern.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

 

My point is that if a better technique improved consistency then you´d immediately get more consistent after a swing change.


I´ll give you an example.

Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. Everyone knows he has a very bowed wrist at the top. A "better technique" would be a flat left wrist at the top. Now if you fixed his wrist at the top he will very likely spray it all over the place. If a better technique made him more consistent he´d immediately hit the ball much more consistently, but it doesn´t work that way. It´s only after he has practiced that new move he will gain some level of consistency again. However in my opinion he´ll only gain a level of consistency because he practiced more and not because of a better technique, since if a better technique was responsible for consistency he would´ve immediately gotten more consistent after the change without having to practice.

 

Yeah trying to "fix" his left wrist wouldn't make sense.  He might have to look at changing it if he started hitting shots with a start line too far to the left (pretty sure he hits draws) or was over drawing a lot of his shots.  Even then you could make adjustments to fix those shots without changing the wrist conditions, with a player at that level.  One of those situations actually happened to DJ and the swing coach at the time, not Butch, corrected the over draw without changing the bowed left wrist.

post #33 of 52

Your thread makes absolutely no sense, and you keep changing your argument.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

Depends on how you define technically sound. As I said I define technically sound as having a swing that gives you the opportunity to hit good shots, doesn´t matter what it looks like. If you define technically sound as having swings without any so called swing faults then almost nobody on tour has a technically sound swing. Luke Donald thrusts his hips at the ball and rolls his wrists over hard after impact, Bubba has a funky backswing, ricky backs off his head from the ball a good six inches at impact and swings way out to the right, Westwood has a chicken wing etc... I could go on and on. There are many college kids with more technically sound swings than pga tour winners yet they are nowhere near as consistent from tee to green.

OK, nevermind the fact that this is basically the opposite of what your OP implies, but if you define 'technically sound' as having the opportunity to hit good shots then ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. Everyone knows he has a very bowed wrist at the top. A "better technique" would be a flat left wrist at the top. Now if you fixed his wrist at the top he will very likely spray it all over the place. If a better technique made him more consistent he´d immediately hit the ball much more consistently, but it doesn´t work that way. It´s only after he has practiced that new move he will gain some level of consistency again. However in my opinion he´ll only gain a level of consistency because he practiced more and not because of a better technique, since if a better technique was responsible for consistency he would´ve immediately gotten more consistent after the change without having to practice.

 ... why would you also define a flat left wrist - for Dustin Johnson - a "better technique?"  Clearly, the bowed left wrist works for him and gives him the opportunity to hit good shots ... ergo, it's "technically sound."  In your own words!

post #34 of 52
Thread Starter 

I like how you resort to personal attacks everytime you can´t win an argument.

 

 

 

Quote:

 

I don't define it as that, clearly. I said no PGA Tour player has a swing that's not technically sound.

 

How would you define technically sound then?

 

Quote:

 

No. I'm saying that you have no idea how fine the line is at that level. Tiger also didn't "take a lesson" - he essentially overhauled his swing (again). Apples and oranges.

 

 

So did he become more consistent after his swing change or not?

 

 

 
Believe whatever you want to believe though. It´s not my job to convince you  or anyone on here of anything. This is my last post on this forum.

 

 

post #35 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

I like how you resort to personal attacks everytime you can´t win an argument.

 

I've done no such thing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

How would you define technically sound then?

 

Form follows function, so a swing which operates at a high level is bound to be technically sound. A technically sound swing strikes the ball solidly and controls the face/path relationship relative to the target.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

So did he become more consistent after his swing change or not?

 

Again, Tiger didn't take a lesson. He overhauled his swing, possibly to avoid further injury, possibly because he felt he couldn't hit certain shots anymore, possibly because he was bored, possibly because of a lot of things.

 

Did he become more consistent than he was at Firestone when he finished nearly last? Obviously yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LongballGer View Post

Believe whatever you want to believe though. It´s not my job to convince you  or anyone on here of anything. This is my last post on this forum.

 

Addition via subtraction?

 

I believe not what I want to believe, but what is most true, based on my knowledge, my experience, how I define things, and so on. You've had several questions asked of you in this thread, and the rare times you directly address them, you shift the goalposts or reply with something that's not similar, or you put a lot of emphasis on one example.

 


 

Anyway, here's what I'd posted between the time I loaded the page and posted, which refreshed and showed me your post:

 

Chris (LongballGer - the Ger means Germany, I get it now!), at this point, I'd like to request that you do this:

 

Ignoring any and all of the above, in one to three simple, clear, precisely worded sentences, please state your point so that it may be discussed.

 

Failing that, I'm with the others: you're all over the place and don't seem to have an actual point.

post #36 of 52
Quote:
My point is that if a better technique improved consistency then you´d immediately get more consistent after a swing change.

 

the answer is NO!!!!, here's why, the human body doesn't work that way. If you hit 1000 golf balls the wrong way, your ingraining a bad swing habit, your muscles are developing neural pathways for that specific movement. That is why Erik, who hit a shank in that video was exagerating a position in his swing to get a small change. there's a video of Luke Donald on the range at an event, with all his weight forward, really pushing his hips, and he's taking slow methodical swings to get a feeling. Then he swings normal. His normal swing looks nothing like the swing he was trying to get a feel for, because he has so many hours of practice doing one thing, that he has to exagerate the opposite to make a small change

 

This is why Pro's get less consistant right after a swing change, because there body is conflicted between old habits and developing new habits. Also your equating swing changes with all around golf game. Tiger actually had one of his best long games in a while, he had trouble with his wedge distance, and his putting was poorer. So other aspect of his game suffered, while the area he was trying to get better at, got BETTER. Look at a swing change just doesn't make you score better, a complete game does. 

 

So to answer your question, why would then someone want to have better technique, so they can play better golf in the long run. Look at this way, Tiger worked with Foley to get stress of his front knee. This is a swing change as well, but it might get him another 5 years onto this golf game. That is huge for him. Should he not make this change, and risk ending up retiring early. 

 

Has there been some golfers who declined after a swing change, Harrington, David Duval (though he had injuries). Look at Phil, he went to butch harmon, had a down year, and then went on a tear winning majors. Would you disregard him changing his swing he's had for over two decades, would phil out of spite say, "Hey i don't want to get better to win these majors, i am going to live with the swing i got now, because i don't want to have one bad year". No, they want to get better, they will sacrifice short term gains, for long term ones. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Instruction and Playing Tips
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Instruction and Playing Tips › I don't think a better technique makes you more consistent