Has Golf Instruction Gotten Too Technical?

[Coach Whitty]

My goodness, I didn't realize I would have such an impact on my very first time posting.  Like throwing one French Fry to a flock of seaguls.  Thank you so much for the warm welcome.

To answer the first question, I was taught by my father who is my hero not that it is of any importance to all of you kind and inviting individuals.  I was fortunate to have him, because I came from a very poor family who on paper, should not have been able to make it, but somehow my parents managed.

Now back to topic.  The usage of technical data is not a bad thing and I support this in my original post, but I do believe that in instruction, it all depends on the need of the student and the level they are at. For example, could I take a beginning student and tell them all about the intricacies of hip turn, shoulder turn, spine angle, inside/outside path, etc...?  Yes, and if that is what they needed...I would.  However, if I could give them simple swing thoughts that could get them to develop a beautiful swing that they could use for a lifetime and have fun/success with, while naturally adhering to said scientific principles you seem to be so beholden to,  would I do it?  If that is what the student needed, you bet.

However, I was simply responding to this topic with an opinion that as I said before "many (but not the majority)" become too engrossed with trying to sell their beliefs of what goes into the swing, that they are willing to attack anyone who has had successful instruction techniques sometimes different and even contrary from their chosen pedagogy.  For future reference, perhaps you should frame the question as "Why do you feel there should be more technical data in golf instruction?"  That way only people of the same persuasion will be there to support your opinions.

Thank you to the several individuals (including the administrator and moderator?) who have demonstrated the coaching styles they must employ.  While I am very aware of the difference between "correction" vs "attacks", I must assume you are all younger based on the sarcastic and childish .gifs you used.  I can see this is not a place for professional discussion.  Best of luck. 

[saevel25]

45 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

Thank you to the several individuals (including the administrator and moderator?) who have demonstrated the coaching styles they must employ.  While I am very aware of the difference between "correction" vs "attacks", I must assume you are all younger based on the sarcastic and childish .gifs you used.  I can see this is not a place for professional discussion.  Best of luck. 

You had no intent for a professional discussion with your clearly defining your self as the victim in the first post.

Go find an echo chamber to live in. We enlighten will sit out here and take criticism with thick skin and learn something.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

My goodness, I didn't realize I would have such an impact on my very first time posting.  Like throwing one French Fry to a flock of seaguls.  Thank you so much for the warm welcome.

Let's take a look at all of the ten replies you got:

1. @billchao asked if you took lessons.
2. @saevel25 engaged with your post respectfully.
3. I replied with GIFs, which was mostly an attempt at being light while still expressing a bit of an opinion (my Twitter topic at the top of page 3 shared my opinion at some length).
4. @klineka replied to me with a GIF.
5. I replied to him and asked you to elaborate on the Snead thing, whether you take lessons, etc.
6. @billchao replied again with a joke.
7. @Vinsk made a joking comment with a grain of salt to it.
8. I replied to him to make sure it didn't go any farther, and clarified two things based on experience.
9. @Vinsk replied again.
10. @Ty_Webb replied with his own response to the topic.

So… I don't think that your characterization is all that accurate. But okay.

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

To answer the first question, I was taught by my father who is my hero not that it is of any importance to all of you kind and inviting individuals.  I was fortunate to have him, because I came from a very poor family who on paper, should not have been able to make it, but somehow my parents managed.

Okay, so unless your dad was an instructor (seems unlikely, but maybe)… that's a "no" on having taken lessons, especially recently. Correct?

And if you haven't taken lessons, how would you know if "golf instruction is too technical"? Because of how you've interacted with other golfers on other forums? Or maybe better said, how you've felt you've been treated by other golfers on other forums?

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

Now back to topic.  The usage of technical data is not a bad thing and I support this in my original post, but I do believe that in instruction, it all depends on the need of the student and the level they are at. For example, could I take a beginning student and tell them all about the intricacies of hip turn, shoulder turn, spine angle, inside/outside path, etc...?

I don't see instructors doing that. Heck, most instructors don't even know the "intricacies" of those things, and those who do (me among them) know better than to do that sort of stuff.

Who have you seen doing this in a lesson?

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

However, if I could give them simple swing thoughts that could get them to develop a beautiful swing that they could use for a lifetime and have fun/success with, while naturally adhering to said scientific principles you seem to be so beholden to,  would I do it?  If that is what the student needed, you bet.

"You'd do what the student needs." Me too. And "If I could…" is doing some heavy lifting there.

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

However, I was simply responding to this topic with an opinion that as I said before "many (but not the majority)" become too engrossed with trying to sell their beliefs of what goes into the swing, that they are willing to attack anyone who has had successful instruction techniques sometimes different and even contrary from their chosen pedagogy.

Just so I'm clear… you're still mostly talking about golfers right now. Golfers on the Internet. Not instructors/coaches during lessons.

So I don't know that you're responding to the topic.

And let me be really clear about this: you weren't remotely close to being "attacked" at all here in this topic.

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

For future reference, perhaps you should frame the question as "Why do you feel there should be more technical data in golf instruction?"  That way only people of the same persuasion will be there to support your opinions.

The question was from Dr. Jim Suttie. Visit the OP if you'd like to see the question. I just thought it would make for a good discussion — if you don't like the question, you could message Jim about that.

And I don't want "only people of the same persuasion." I'm looking for discussion. But it seems that between the two of us… that makes one.

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

Thank you to the several individuals (including the administrator and moderator?) who have demonstrated the coaching styles they must employ.

You've not made a case for that at all. Not remotely. You don't know the first thing about how I coach.

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

While I am very aware of the difference between "correction" vs "attacks", I must assume you are all younger based on the sarcastic and childish .gifs you used.  I can see this is not a place for professional discussion.  Best of luck. 

The GIFs were amusing and funny and light-hearted, because you seemed like the type of guy who would take a heavier discussion as an attack.

This post here did nothing to dissuade me from thinking that's accurate.

Toodles.

[Vinsk]

Gosh @Coach Whitty I’m surprised with your upbringing you’re so thin skinned. That’s a shame. I was hoping to have a nice discussion on your ideas. 

[billchao]

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

While I am very aware of the difference between "correction" vs "attacks", I must assume you are all younger based on the sarcastic and childish .gifs you used.  I can see this is not a place for professional discussion.  Best of luck. 

You literally joined and posted your thoughts. Then other members asked you questions and to elaborate on some of your points and you have responded to none of those things, following up with a post insinuating that you're some kind of pariah. And we're the ones that don't want discussion?

[Coach Whitty]

If you would like a serious discussion here goes.  In order, my father played college golf at the University of Minnesota and was a coach.  If that doesn't fit the definition of having lessons...so be it.  

What is your definition of technical data?  Is it going to simulators and standing on pressure plates and looking at numbers?  Is it investing heavily in trainer equipment?  I'll go with you on range sessions, as that is where a swing will be developed. 

If you require more data to improve your game and instruction, more power to you.  I teach in a classical way with the philosophy of the more complicated you try to make something, the more things that can go wrong, and the more bad golf you will experience.  My views may sound too simple at times, but I've never been a great believer in complicating an issue unnecessarily.  "If you have the task of giving first aid, it is a mistake studying up on open heart surgery."

However if something works, great.  Go with it.  

A lot of instructional talk today comes out of a couple hundred unusually gifted and highly trained pros and rarely contributes to the game of the weekend golfer.  

To a beginning golfer, I try to get them to follow techniques that Sam Snead taught.  For reference, Sam Snead taught my father's college coach, who instructed my father, who in turn instructed me.  Call me biased, it's what I know and has proven fruitful for my instruction and students' success.  I believe in focusing on technique more than data analysis.  A cause based instructional method of analysis does an awesome job of explaining the golf swing, but it doesn't make a good game happen.  Sound individualized, results based technique instruction does teach a good game and keeps explanations down to a minimum.

So I understand your "feel ain't real" thought, but if a technique works (even if what is "felt" isn't what is actually happening), does it really matter why to the average golfer who is successful, probably not. 

I do teach my students timing and rhythm as I want them to build a swing that is free and easy, focusing on smooth movements not torqued mechanical motions. I want them to physically be able to use their swing into their old age without having to constantly tweak and mess with it.  That does not mean avoiding data, it simply means not getting hung up on it.  This topic is on instruction and in my experience over the years many of the instructors I listen to on the course teach in a way where they flood a student with so many swing thoughts of angles etc..., you can see the smoke coming out of the poor player's ears.  I see this as too much technical instruction.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

In order, my father played college golf at the University of Minnesota and was a coach.  If that doesn't fit the definition of having lessons...so be it.

It doesn't meet the definition of "modern day lessons," no.

Have you taken lessons in the last decade? How are you determining that "instruction has gotten too technical"? Based on YouTube videos? What golfers, not golf instructors, say on another forum?

17 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

What is your definition of technical data?

What's that matter?

I have a GEARS system. I often narrow the student's focus to ONE of the numbers, and will teach them via feels how they can change the golf swing they're making and, thus, see a change to the number we're looking at. Is that "technical data"? Is it "technical" instruction?

17 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

I teach in a classical way with the philosophy of the more complicated you try to make something, the more things that can go wrong, and the more bad golf you will experience.

So after alleging that other golf instructors are trying to "sell" things, you're a golf instructor? Or… what?

17 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

My views may sound too simple at times, but I've never been a great believer in complicating an issue unnecessarily.  "If you have the task of giving first aid, it is a mistake studying up on open heart surgery."

Who said anything about "complicating" things? I just finished typing up about how I might say "see this number? Your pelvis is moving toward the golf ball 3" during the backswing. Let's try some feels to make it turn a little bit more about the center." And then we do that. Complicated? No. Measured? Yes. Specific, accurate? Yes. But complicated? No.

17 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

A lot of instructional talk today comes out of a couple hundred unusually gifted and highly trained pros and rarely contributes to the game of the weekend golfer.

Huh? I teach "weekend golfers" all the time.

Who are you even talking about here? Pros you watch on YouTube or Instagram? Or people you've seen giving lessons to people?

17 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

To a beginning golfer, I try to get them to follow techniques that Sam Snead taught.  For reference, Sam Snead taught my father's college coach, who instructed my father, who in turn instructed me.  Call me biased, it's what I know and has proven fruitful for my instruction and students' success.

Okay?

17 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

I believe in focusing on technique more than data analysis.

No straw men there… Data is just a measurement.

If I use a launch monitor, as I often do, am I doing "data analysis" or am I just looking at a number and saying "see, your path used to be 12° out, now it's only 3° out"? Or "see, your clubhead speed is now 5 MPH higher."

27 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

So I understand your "feel ain't real" thought, but if a technique works (even if what is "felt" isn't what is actually happening), does it really matter why to the average golfer who is successful, probably not. 

27 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

I do teach my students timing and rhythm as I want them to build a swing that is free and easy, focusing on smooth movements not torqued mechanical motions.

Straw man. Who are these people teaching "torque mechanical motions"? And what does that have to do with golf instruction getting "too technical"?

27 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

That does not mean avoiding data, it simply means not getting hung up on it.

Who are the instructors getting "hung up on it"?

27 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

This topic is on instruction and in my experience over the years many of the instructors I listen to on the course teach in a way where they flood a student with so many swing thoughts of angles etc..., you can see the smoke coming out of the poor player's ears.  I see this as too much technical instruction.

Oh boy.

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

What is your definition of technical data?  

Data, it is the facts used to reason. Technical just implies it was derived from a scientific source or technological source. 

22 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

If you require more data to improve your game and instruction, more power to you.  I teach in a classical way with the philosophy of the more complicated you try to make something, the more things that can go wrong, and the more bad golf you will experience.  

You got it backwards. Data lets you find the root cause, it doesn't complicate it makes things simpler.

24 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

A lot of instructional talk today comes out of a couple hundred unusually gifted and highly trained pros and rarely contributes to the game of the weekend golfer.  

Where is your data on this? Who are these couple hundred instructors? Going to need evidence to back this claim. 

28 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

So I understand your "feel ain't real" thought, but if a technique works (even if what is "felt" isn't what is actually happening), does it really matter why to the average golfer who is successful, probably not. 

Yes it matters. Because humans are masters at gas lightening themselves into thinking they need x,y,z to do something. Because feel isn't real. They will go down a dark rabbit hole of, "Well this felt this, that felt that, and I need to feel my swing do this". When you can have a simple tri-pod, cellphone, and alignment stick can show you that they were wrong. Any practice with out a way to measure or at minimum provide instant feedback if the golfer is doing something right or wrong is not practice, its exercise. That is the basics of how humans re-wire the neural pathways to learn something.

 

[billchao]

26 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

If you would like a serious discussion here goes.  In order, my father played college golf at the University of Minnesota and was a coach.  If that doesn't fit the definition of having lessons...so be it

Ok, so short answer is no, you don’t take lessons. You are, in fact, a golf instructor. Might have been helpful to lead with that in the first place, seeing as how my primary focus was trying to figure out what your experience is with the topic and more importantly, if they were relevant.

There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. Technology is a tool and I believe in using the right tools for the right job. In this context being golf instruction, it means knowing which students you need to give that information to and which students you don’t. Some people like myself don’t respond well to “just do this.” We need to know why. We need to understand why, and not being able to provide that that to us means you won’t be able to do your job as effectively. And others don’t. It’s your job to understand what tools you need to use.

All the other stuff about how golf instruction is too technical and fills people’s heads with too much information is just an oversimplified generalization. I have an interest in the golf swing, so I learn about it. It doesn’t mean I use everything I watch on YouTube and try to apply it to my swing. If anything, understanding the swing more allows me to filter out what can help me and what can’t.

[4zim]

7 hours ago, Coach Whitty said:

 

 

To a beginning golfer, I try to get them to follow techniques that Sam Snead taught.  For reference, Sam Snead taught my father's college coach, who instructed my father, who in turn instructed me.  Call me biased, it's what I know and has proven fruitful for my instruction and students' success.  I believe in focusing on technique more than data analysis.  A cause based instructional method of analysis does an awesome job of explaining the golf swing, but it doesn't make a good game happen.  Sound individualized, results based technique instruction does teach a good game and keeps explanations down to a minimum.

So I understand your "feel ain't real" thought, but if a technique works (even if what is "felt" isn't what is actually happening), does it really matter why to the average golfer who is successful, probably not. 

I do teach my students timing and rhythm as I want them to build a swing that is free and easy, focusing on smooth movements not torqued mechanical motions. I want them to physically be able to use their swing into their old age without having to constantly tweak and mess with it.  That does not mean avoiding data, it simply means not getting hung up on it.  This topic is on instruction and in my experience over the years many of the instructors I listen to on the course teach in a way where they flood a student with so many swing thoughts of angles etc..., you can see the smoke coming out of the poor player's ears.  I see this as too much technical instruction.

Currently taking lessons with @iacas and the main thing we’re working on or have to keep coming back to is “flow”. 
 

[boogielicious]

@Coach Whitty,

You really should have indicated you are an instructor in your first post. Many “YouTube” expert devotees fly by here and drop gibberish about many things that are unsupported by data or facts. So folks on the site grow weary of these kinds of discussions. They spout something they heard or feel or even have a grudge against something or someone. Some even support really bizarre YouTube instruction. 

We like to engage in discussions that are presented with logic and reason and good intentions. We all can learn from each other. There are a few really good instructors that are members here. So I feel you were a bit disingenuous in your first post by not identifying yourself as one.

[woodzie264]

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Because humans are masters at gas lightening themselves into thinking they need x,y,z to do something. Because feel isn't real. They will go down a dark rabbit hole of, "Well this felt this, that felt that, and I need to feel my swing do this". When you can have a simple tri-pod, cellphone, and alignment stick can show you that they were wrong. Any practice with out a way to measure or at minimum provide instant feedback if the golfer is doing something right or wrong is not practice, its exercise. That is the basics of how humans re-wire the neural pathways to learn something.

 

^^^^this.

@Coach Whitty, coming into the discussion a little late and from a lay person’s perspective, to answer the question, I don’t think instruction has gotten too technical for the amateur golfer. I think technology has made great gains and is super useful for instructors to evaluate their students, but that the better instructors communicate their recommendations in an easy-to-understand non-tech manner for those of us who don’t learn that way. I know @iacas and other instructors/coaches here use a lot of cool gadgets to evaluate swings and all the associated parameters, but as he and other have stated, he only provided me with one, uncomplicated “priority piece” at a time on which to focus…not a myriad of swing thoughts as you mentioned in one of your posts. I suppose like any area/profession in life, there is a spectrum wherein some instructors likely do go overboard and over complicate things for their students, but if you are asking about the typical “good” to better instructors, I think they can communicate their analysis in a a way that isn’t overly technical (Tour players/coaches excluded as they need more technical fine tuning).
 

But back to @saevel25’s point above, it’s super helpful at times to show the student that “feel ain’t real” because many times I believe I’m doing something correctly, but when I’m presented film/data that shows me otherwise, it convinces me to make changes rather than throwing the instructor away since I believe he’s misdiagnosing the issue. 

Hope that makes sense

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, woodzie264 said:

I don’t think instruction has gotten too technical for the amateur golfer. I think technology has made great gains and is super useful for instructors to evaluate their students, but that the better instructors communicate their recommendations in an easy-to-understand non-tech manner for those of us who don’t learn that way.

I would say people use the phrase, "Oh you are being too technical", as a non-validated reason why they are not hitting the ball well. It just has been this go to way to find something to blame. 

1 hour ago, woodzie264 said:

I know @iacas and other instructors/coaches here use a lot of cool gadgets to evaluate swings and all the associated parameters, but as he and other have stated, he only provided me with one, uncomplicated “priority piece” at a time on which to focus…not a myriad of swing thoughts as you mentioned in one of your posts.

Yep, at most maybe two and if they are not related, but mostly just one thing to work on. 

I do think the BAD instructors just need to fill in the lesson time and throw a ton of jargon at a golfer. Maybe this is where it becomes too much. That isn't being too technical. I literally have spent hours working on one thing in the golf swing. I have spent years working on my backswing length, lol. I will continue to work on it for years to come. 

To answer the question, has it gotten too technical, no. Golf instructors must teach techniques and make the swing technical to a certain amount. Being taught too many techniques or told to think of half a dozen things is not an epidemic of golf instruction coming from Youtube or in person golf instruction over the past 10 years or what not. Now, a golfer can go down a bad rabbit hole of Youtube instruction which mimics just going to a bad instructor, but again nothing new. A golf can go to 5 different golf instructors over the course of 5 months and get the equivalent of watching Youtube videos. 

It isn't like the past 10 years golf has gotten too technical. It has gotten more scientific. Which is a good thing. The good instructors will have better tools to understand the golf swing and to relate that to the golfer who needs to improve. 

[ChetlovesMer]

36 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I do think the BAD instructors just need to fill in the lesson time and throw a ton of jargon at a golfer. Maybe this is where it becomes too much. That isn't being too technical. I literally have spent hours working on one thing in the golf swing. I have spent years working on my backswing length, lol. I will continue to work on it for years to come. 

Although, there are bad instructors out there. The other problem is there are bad students. I was at the range yesterday and I happened to overhear a guy getting a lesson in the next stall from me. 

• STUDENT: "I don't want to change my swing at all, I just want a couple of tricks to stop me from losing so many shots out to the right." 
• INSTRUCTOR: "Let's see your swing." 
• (Student swings)
• INSTRUCTOR: "Okay to fix this properly we are going to have to make a few changes. Let's work on them one at a time."
• STUDENT: "Just give them all to me now, I'll work on them all at once. Then I'll only use the ones I like." 
• INSTRUCTOR: "In my experience its hard to make several changes at once." 
• STUDENT: "I don't want to change my swing. I just want to stop slicing it to the right. If I didn't have that slice the rest of my game would be really good." 
• INSTRUCTOR: (blank stare)... (pause) ... "Hmm... Hit another one for me." 

This isn't word for word. But it's pretty close to what I heard them say over and over again. The student, a full-grown man, wanted the instructor to fix him without making changes. 

I'm 100% sure this guy went back to his golfing buddies and said: "I got a lesson but it didn't work for me." 

36 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It isn't like the past 10 years golf has gotten too technical. It has gotten more scientific. Which is a good thing. The good instructors will have better tools to understand the golf swing and to relate that to the golfer who needs to improve. 

Fact.

[Coach Whitty]

That's fine if that is how you want to approach your golf instruction.  I think too many students get hung up on too many things to think about as it is.  I can see how the ability to break down the data and use science is very valuable to pros whose livelihood depends on it.  It is a huge investment for someone who never will go to that level.

I am glad you give only one thing for your students to think about.

While I am not speaking on YouTube "instruction", I am addressing the coaches I have witnessed on the course over the years all the way up to today, especially ones that put on summer clinics in my area.  There are a lot of wonderful coaches here that are able to balance the two, but I have noticed an obsession with numbers beginning to creep in, to the point where some of the students who come to me have been tied up into a mental not (frustrated that the data they got from hours and hours of lessons on our local simulators isn't equating to good golf, or at least improvement, on the course).

Edited July 31 by Coach Whitty

[Vinsk]

3 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

I have witnessed on the course over the years all the way up to today, especially ones that put on summer clinics in my area

I’m not doubting your observations but I don’t think that equates to ‘not the majority but many ‘ instructors teach this way. The world of golf instruction is so vast I believe it’s pretty damn easy to find one with your own preferences to the level of technicality you want. 
 

You don’t have to be a tour level golfer to appreciate and comprehend high levels of technology. You keep saying it won’t benefit the weekend golfer. You don’t know that. Why can’t a weekend golfer appreciate and comprehend high technical data if that’s what they click with?

Hell look at tour players themselves. Do you think the data used and  conversation between DJ and his coach is anything like that between Bryson and his coach?

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

That's fine if that is how you want to approach your golf instruction. 

I am not a golf instructor. 

4 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

I think too many students get hung up on too many things to think about as it is. 

That is true, but that could be more on the student than the instructor. For how much my instructor keeps me on the correct path, my mind is one to search out possible reasons why something is happening when it is just me not doing what I need to do as a student. 

6 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

I can see how the ability to break down the data and use science is very valuable to pros whose livelihood depends on it.  It is a huge investment for someone who never will go to that level.

Not really. For most golfers, let's say for the first few years of golf. You probably can get away with just using a camera with slow motion functionality (cell phone). 

I have an iPhone, like 58% of all cell phone users in the USA have. I bought a $40 combination of tri-pod and cellphone mount. With help from my instructor, I know what to look for on the range. It absolutely is not a huge investment. Even a golf instructor can get away with using a good camera. 

Heck, I went to home-depot and created a training aid to allow me to bump into if I swing too far back. It cost me like under $20 bucks. 

9 minutes ago, Coach Whitty said:

I am glad you give only one thing for your students to think about.

Not an instructor. In general, keeping a student to 1 to 2 things to do is important. 

 

[Coach Whitty]

46 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I’m not doubting your observations but I don’t think that equates to ‘not the majority but many ‘ instructors teach this way. The world of golf instruction is so vast I believe it’s pretty damn easy to find one with your own preferences to the level of technicality you want. 
 

You don’t have to be a tour level golfer to appreciate and comprehend high levels of technology. You keep saying it won’t benefit the weekend golfer. You don’t know that. Why can’t a weekend golfer appreciate and comprehend high technical data if that’s what they click with?

Hell look at tour players themselves. Do you think the data used and  conversation between DJ and his coach is anything like that between Bryson and his coach?

I have already stated that if that is what "clicks" with a student, they should go for it.  If it doesn't, that's okay to.  There's good news for those who don't.  You don't need it to learn to play good golf.