Has Golf Instruction Gotten Too Technical?

[boogielicious]

I first voted on the fence then changed to no. There is certainly more ways to gather data than ever before, especially with GEARS. But the basics are the same. A good instructor can pare that down to just one priority at a time for you to focus on.

[coachjimsc]

I voted no. Personally I'm a numbers guy and the more info the better. The technology like Trackman, Gears, Sam Putt Lab, no reason anyone should be guessing any longer.

[phillyk]

We need technical. There won’t be enough of it. Coaches can either use it to aid what they do or not. I coach to a students needs. If they want some technical, then I should know enough. If they don’t want technical, then we can do that too.

I saw a post from a older and more well known instructor that said knowing technical movements and words makes talking swing with other coaches much easier. We can say things in a sentence versus more elaborate descriptions.

Another side to this is knowing your customer base. Some golfers don’t want it. So the coach would be less willing to learn if the students wouldn’t care either way.

[pganapathy]

More than anything this depends on the instructor.  I voted for being on the fence.  But many instructors use launch monitors these days and some of them rely too much on data from that

[SEMI_Duffer]

I voted "fence," and here's why.

For some time, now, I've been pursuing an on-line course that teaches ingraining micro-motions and has you stitching those micro-motions together to form a "mechanically sound" swing.  ("Mechanically sound" is my own term for it.)

It does seem to be working.  Even not having quite completed the training by ball-striking accuracy and consistency is vastly improved.

But I have to wonder how much of that is also because I'm trusting in what I'm being taught is effective, therefor I'm swinging more confidently, therefor more consistently?

A couple weeks back I finished reading Zen Golf.  I'm now reading The Inner Game Of Golf. The authors of these books suggest relaxed awareness, focus, and attention are more important than mechanical "perfection."  They cite results to back up their claims.

I've had some experiences, both with golf and with other endeavors, that suggest they may be onto something.

Put another way: I don't know as golf instruction has gotten too technical so much as it hasn't focused enough on the "inner" game?

Mind you: These thoughts are coming from a guy who's very engineering/science oriented and never has been one inclined to "just trust my body will do the right thing."  So the whole concept of letting my "intuitive mind" (Zen) or "Self 2" (Inner Game) take the wheel is challenging for me.

[Cheese]

These are interesting points on a topic I had previously not really thought about. Maybe, that is why I am not a scratch golfer.

I guess it is whatever works to lower your score and that is proven on the coarse.

Hope everyone can golf today👍

[phillyk]

7 hours ago, SEMI_Duffer said:

I voted "fence," and here's why.

For some time, now, I've been pursuing an on-line course that teaches ingraining micro-motions and has you stitching those micro-motions together to form a "mechanically sound" swing.  ("Mechanically sound" is my own term for it.)

It does seem to be working.  Even not having quite completed the training by ball-striking accuracy and consistency is vastly improved.

But I have to wonder how much of that is also because I'm trusting in what I'm being taught is effective, therefor I'm swinging more confidently, therefor more consistently?

A couple weeks back I finished reading Zen Golf.  I'm now reading The Inner Game Of Golf. The authors of these books suggest relaxed awareness, focus, and attention are more important than mechanical "perfection."  They cite results to back up their claims.

I've had some experiences, both with golf and with other endeavors, that suggest they may be onto something.

Put another way: I don't know as golf instruction has gotten too technical so much as it hasn't focused enough on the "inner" game?

Mind you: These thoughts are coming from a guy who's very engineering/science oriented and never has been one inclined to "just trust my body will do the right thing."  So the whole concept of letting my "intuitive mind" (Zen) or "Self 2" (Inner Game) take the wheel is challenging for me.

I worked with a sports psychologist previously. He worked with Olympic athletes and Navy SEALs to name a few. 

Some pros have been using bands to monitor heart rate during a round and shots. They control emotion and heart rate very well. Some of this training allows for elite performance. 

Having the right mindset is important but it doesn’t guarantee anything. It sets you up to be ready. 

We say often feel isn’t real. But coaches have to know what is real so that students can create a feel. Technology allows us to be more specific. We are not teaching students physics and biomechanics. We try to help them create success in the game. 

[iacas]

I'll start with a general response, and then will get into specific replies.

First, we have to ignore the fact that the question uses the word "too." It doesn't ask if it's gotten "more" technical (it probably has). By saying "too" you're making a value judgment of whether it's gotten beyond a good level. Is this cake too rich? Do we have too much orange in this room? Is the movie too loud? Too much of a good thing is still "too much."

So golf instruction has gotten more technical, yes. I know things, and we can measure things and learn and "see" things that we couldn't see years ago, now. I have more "technical" knowledge than I had years ago for sure. And so, too, do my students, in general. Many more know the ball flight laws, or understand weight shifts, or come to me talking about GRF or speed training or shaft kick points or scoring information (even some from LSW), etc.

But just because the science of golf performance (because not all instruction is "the golf swing") has gotten more technical, and just because lessons have therefore gotten "more" technical, I don't agree that they've — by and large, anyway — gotten too technical.

Now, my view here is awfully limited. I don't see thousands or even hundreds of other instructors actually giving lessons. I talk with them, I talk with students, etc. But I don't see actual lessons being given.

So… I will say this: I don't feel MY lessons are "too" technical. Heck, I don't think many of my students would describe them as "technical" at all. They're mostly about feels. I've said before:

Nobody is a robot. Some players are more technically minded or savvy, so I'll tell them a little bit more sometimes (it helps them understand the space and/or buy in more), but my lessons are mostly about feels.

Even when I have a student on GEARS and expose them to thousands of bits of data… I turn off what I don't want to see (or them to see), and we focus on one thing, and the GEARS just measures. Even then it's all feels that I'm giving them.

I figure my students trust me to understand all the technical stuff, and my job is to make it simple for them to understand what I'm asking them to do.

I will also say this: I don't regard talking here or online as "instruction" per se. I think in a video where you're just talking about one concept, or I'm writing about one thing, that you can be technical as a way of being specific, as a way of being clear, etc.

On 10/7/2022 at 3:49 PM, Jeremie Boop said:

I believe it depends on the instructor/student how much of that technical knowledge needs to be shared. A good instructor will know who will benefit from that more specific information. Being able to get more in depth in the analysis in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

Exactly.

On 10/7/2022 at 4:10 PM, JetFan1983 said:

Can it get too technical? Yes, and that's bad. But golf instruction or golf tips in general tend to be too reductive than too technical, and I'm not sure why that isn't discussed more. 

True. I agree.

On 10/7/2022 at 4:24 PM, nevets88 said:

But instructors can still use all the reams of knowledge acquired especially recently, to keep it just simple enough but not reductive to help those who don't need to know every single detail.

What are you trying to get accomplished in an hour though - it's just changing movement patterns, not teaching someone organic chemistry.

Yes to that.

On 10/7/2022 at 4:54 PM, Elmer said:

I think you can tweak a habit in an hour. I don't know how much a person can absorb in an hour and how deep into technical you can get.

Yeah, you can't do much of anything in an hour. That said, it can still be "too technical" in an hour.

On 10/7/2022 at 4:57 PM, saevel25 said:

I voted no, just because I don’t think most golf instructors get to technical and are just still teaching by old adages. 

Probably also true.

On 10/7/2022 at 6:49 PM, Darkfrog said:

In my limited experience, no. I think good golf teachers should be able to recognize the amount of technical information their student needs or wants.  Also the student should know when to let the teacher know that they want more or less technical information.

Yep.

On 10/7/2022 at 6:55 PM, mohearn said:

If anything, the golf instructors I have listened to, while they are giving others lessons, are far too non-technical.

They're too non-technical? As in you think they should be more technical?

On 10/7/2022 at 6:55 PM, mohearn said:

It's my impression, could be wrong, that many are just phoning it in.

You could phone it in and be more technical, though, too no?

On 10/7/2022 at 6:55 PM, mohearn said:

I know there are good teachers out there, have to be, right?  But shouldn't they be expert level on trackman, force plates, Gears or what have you?  But then with that expertise, they don't have to dump all the data on a students head, that's certainly not the way. Really curious Erik's take on this.

Does my take above answer your question, or do you want more or something different from me?

22 hours ago, Cheese said:

From what I have read, watched etc over many years it does appear to be especially with technology gizmos.

But in lessons? We have more and better tools, but it's how they're used that gets to the heart of the question.

22 hours ago, Cheese said:

With this question out there I wonder  are golfers actually better players with all of this technical lessons and so on?

Golfers are better now, if that's what you're wondering.

19 hours ago, Big Lex said:

I don't see how it can be too technical, when what we are actually trying to learn is, well, technique.

That doesn't make any sense to me. I think you can be too technical while learning a technique, easily. I can teach you a new way of running (landing more forefoot, maybe) and make it "too technical." If you can make something "less technical" you can make it "more technical" and thus there's going to be a sweet spot where something is both not "not technical enough" and not "too technical."

19 hours ago, Big Lex said:

As long as what is being taught or what technology is used to teach is valid, and not pseudo-science, I don't see how a teacher can be too technical.

You don't?

I don't think you have the same definition of "technical" as anyone else here. And your next paragraph confirms it. So we'll skip that one.

19 hours ago, Big Lex said:

But if it's the opposite, and you have the best pure teacher in the world (observant, great communicator, etc.), but they rely on outdated and disproven theories about the golf swing or ball flight, or avoid technical tools because they don't understand them or like them, then that's not going to help a student either. 

Are those the only two options?

What about a guy who understand all the latest… and shares too much of it with the student to the student's detriment? The student gets bogged down in too many details, etc.? You don't see that as a problem?

19 hours ago, Denny Bang Bang said:

I’m on the fence.  All the information available today is great.  But the instructor needs to understand it and use it effectively (I imagine some do, and some don’t).  It also depends on the student’s ability to understand it.

Yes.

10 hours ago, phillyk said:

I saw a post from a older and more well known instructor that said knowing technical movements and words makes talking swing with other coaches much easier. We can say things in a sentence versus more elaborate descriptions.

Yeah. It's a shorthand for golfers in the know and some instructors. With a student I might say "twist like this" and with another instructor I might say "palmar flexion."

7 hours ago, SEMI_Duffer said:

Put another way: I don't know as golf instruction has gotten too technical so much as it hasn't focused enough on the "inner" game?

SEMI, sorry, that's not the topic here.

My own thoughts on the "mental game" are pretty well known (and easy to find).

[Vinsk]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

I figure my students trust me to understand all the technical stuff, and my job is to make it simple for them to understand what I'm asking them to do.

This is gold. Those who have suggested instruction is too technical probably had an instructor who failed at this.

[Cheese]

This is exactly what I meant saying instruction has go too technical.

Show me how to play guitar not how to build one comes to mind

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Cheese said:

This is exactly what I meant saying instruction has go too technical.

Show me how to play guitar not how to build one comes to mind

Huh?

If you took a lesson from me, you're going to hear a few words repeated over and over again.

For example, a student today got to hear me say "twist" and "extend" several times. Like 30.

I don't think "twist" or "extend" are all that technical.

Sorry, @Cheese, you're not making any sense here. What is "This" in your post? To whom are you replying? What are you talking about?

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

This is exactly what I meant saying instruction has go too technical.

Show me how to play guitar not how to build one comes to mind

If you use the ‘@‘ and then start typing the name you’re responding to, you’ll get a pop down menu and then select the member name you’re responding to…this will let the member know you’ve responded. Like @Cheese.

So you’re saying you had a lesson where the instructor lost you with technical jibe?

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, Cheese said:

This is exactly what I meant saying instruction has go too technical.

Show me how to play guitar not how to build one comes to mind

As a guitarist, I can say that learning to play guitar and play golf can be similar. I can teach you cowboy chords and how to play Coal Miner’s Daughter (RIP Loretta) pretty quickly. You may be happy with that level. But to become really good and be able to read sheet music, tabs, knowing all your chord forms, chord progressions, scales, modes, music theory can take a lifetime and is very technical. I would say that it can be more technical than golf, in fact.

Let good instructors dig into the data that GEARS, Flightscope, etc. has. They will pare it down to what you need to work on. If it interests you, you can dig into the data and theory if you want.

[Darkfrog]

On 10/7/2022 at 7:05 PM, Cheese said:

From what I have read, watched etc over many years it does appear to be especially with technology gizmos.

With this question out there I wonder  are golfers actually better players with all of this technical lessons and so on?

 

13 hours ago, Cheese said:

This is exactly what I meant saying instruction has go too technical.

One thing that I really like about the gizmos/technology is that it helps me (the student) see the results of a feel immediately. I have no doubt my instructor could look at my swing and ball flight on a driving range using only her human senses and identify what I was doing wrong. And she could give me some feels/exaggerations to work help correct it, and then observe and confirm whether or not it is working. But with force plates, launch monitor, face on/down the line cameras, she can show me the data from before and after, so I can see how effective the feel is at actually changing the mechanical swing.

A ton of the instruction I get hardly has any technology involved. A pool noodle and a PVC assembly to hold the pool noodle is probably the most frequently used gizmo in my lessons.

[Cheese]

Before and after data certainly is useful. Point taken on advantages of instruction.

Thank you 

[mohearn]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Does my take above answer your question, or do you want more or something different from me?

 

Yeah, answers the question. I don't have enough depth to judge golf instructors. When I answered the question, I was thinking along the lines of a coach helping a player get from 5 HCP to scratch. But there is the vast majority of instructors who are working with folks trying to get to 15 HCP. I feel like the coach working with the more skilled player needs more technical foundation than the coach working the local driving range. To be clear, your approach where you obviously have expertise in a range of technical tools, and use those tools so that you can guide the student based on real data is optimal.  

[DaveP043]

I've been letting this stew in my head for a few days, I haven't read the other answers yet.  To some extent, golf instruction is a commodity, instructors are selling their services to players, to customers.  With the availability of lots of really technical information on the internet, a significant portion of that potential customer group has come to expect a lot of technical information as part of the instruction they receive.  They may not have the tools to understand it, it could even be counter-productive, but they still want it.  So instructors have some motivation to provide technical instruction, to appear to be keeping up with the advances in technological understanding.  And I think that for most players, there's a temptation to get way too involved in the technical details. So I'm going to vote yes.

My only semi-recent direct experience with instruction was with @iacas, a bit of My Swing instruction, and a bit of in-person help here.  There's no question that he explained some of the technical stuff to me, but the end-product was a few feels to utilize, a couple of drills to help accomplish a specific change, really non-technical stuff.  To me that's a good combination of technical and "traditional".  Its great for instructors to be well-educated in all of the latest research on golf swing mechanics, its great if they have high-tech diagnostic tools, but in the end it comes down to giving a player a specific course of action through feels and drills.

 

[GolfLug]

I was not 100% certain as to what qualifies as 'technical vs. non-technical'. Honestly what constitutes each seems too broad to have a clear yay or nay at face value of the statement. I am sure for some golfers saying anything more than 'golf swing motion is like skipping a rock' is too technical and for some understanding positional mapping from P1 through P8 is just fine without getting bogged down in the slightest. Even essential. 

It seems to have been covered in above posts but for me the difference in information and instruction is key. I have benefited from a 'high tech' measurement system like GEARS and the information available could have been enough to fulfill a doctorate degree, but the instruction was boiled down to easy steps and associated feels. To @DaveP043 point, I was very curious about a lot of information that the system spit out but @iacas kept it to just the right amount.  

There can never be enough information (mostly for instructors from the diagnostic side), but I am sure good instructors don't beat a student on the head with a thesis, even in today's information richer age. So I voted no. 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by GolfLug