Has Golf Instruction Gotten Too Technical?

[ChetlovesMer]

37 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

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?

Good post here. I certainly feel this way. I'm far from a tour pro. Hell, I'm barely coordinated enough to tie my own shoes. But I like to see the technical information on what I'm trying to achieve. 

53 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Do you think the data used and conversation between DJ and his coach is anything like that between Bryson and his coach?

DJ be like:

[billchao]

1 hour 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. 

I agree with this. Technology has improved and the body of knowledge about golf has increased. That’s a benefit to both instructors and their students, especially the weekend golfers who don’t have the time required to “dig it out of the dirt.”

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

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).

Two things:

1. What is this obsession with numbers you’re talking about, and how does it hinder the golfers who see you?
2. I believe you’re not seeing an accurate picture of golf instruction as a whole due to your methodology.

I’ll elaborate on the latter point. You teach without data analysis, as you put it. You get students who have not had success with another instructor that teaches a different way, so you’ve pinned the cause to be the difference in your methodology. But that completely discounts the myriad of other reasons why a student may not have improved from instruction, and you’re not seeing any students that have success with instructors that are “too technical.” These people come to you specifically because they failed to improve after working with someone else. In other words, your observations, which I’m not dismissing at all, are flawed because the population you’re observing is not an accurate reflection of the whole. It’s a bit like a guy working in a tire shop saying tires are bad because they spend all day replacing tires.

In that same vein, you’re going to find yourself on the opposite side of the majority opinion on this topic here. Most of us are here because we seek that technical information so our opinions on these types of topics are fairly similar. Many of us have failed to improve from seeing instructors with opposing philosophies. Again, not an accurate representation of the golfing population as a whole.

[iacas]

1 hour 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.

You keep saying things… without ever really saying anything solid.

Who exactly are you talking about in both parts above:

• I'm a pro (instructor) and my livelihood depends not on "data analysis" and "science" but on whether I can help golfers play better golf and whether they enjoy their time with me. The "data analysis" and "science" is hardly ever really exposed to them.
• What's a "huge investment"?
• What "level" is that?

Heck, this happens a few times a week (typically with newer students, as my long-time students know how it works):

Me: I explain what we're going to do, and we begin working on it.
Student: "Okay, so I get that, but what about y and z?"
Me: "Well, part of my job is to keep this simple so you can focus on your priority thing right now, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it — it would actually be bad for you if I got into that question right now."

Or they'll see a number on GEARS and ask about it, and I'll give a similar answer. Or I'll say something like "Yeah, so it's 5.4 right now, let's see how that changes throughout the lesson as we work on what we're doing." (If it's related and I know it'll change.)

1 hour ago, Coach Whitty said:

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).

Please provide some more specific examples. What "numbers" are they getting confused by? Launch monitor data? GEARS 3D data? What?

In general, nobody here would disagree that confused student aren't a good thing.

I also think there's likely a little bit of a confirmation bias going on here — you don't notice how many times someone who is taking lessons doesn't seem overwhelmed or confused, but when they are, you notice. Like this:

5 minutes ago, billchao said:

I’ll elaborate on the latter point. You teach without data analysis, as you put it. You get students who have not had success with another instructor that teaches a different way, so you’ve pinned the cause to be the difference in your methodology. But that completely discounts the myriad of other reasons why a student may not have improved from instruction, and you’re not seeing any students that have success with instructors that are “too technical.” These people come to you specifically because they failed to improve after working with someone else. In other words, your observations, which I’m not dismissing at all, are flawed because the population you’re observing is not an accurate reflection of the whole. It’s a bit like a guy working in a tire shop saying tires are bad because they spend all day replacing tires.

Anyway…

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

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.

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

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. 

They probably already have one in their pocket, yep.

[iacas]

@Coach Whitty, this is poor form.

Your behavior is disingenuous. Intellectual dishonesty isn't a good look for anyone.

On 7/29/2024 at 8:56 AM, CoachWhitty said:

I was taught that a "pull swing" is when the left side for a right handed golfer (hip, shoulder, arm) turns together and pulls the club down and through the ball in the downswing.  This is a product of the "barrel swing".  The right hand often plays havoc when allowed to takeover too early in the downswing.  Some instructors taught students to have a feeling of pulling the club down with the last three fingers of the left hand in order to combat this.

Here's the thing:

• Feel ain't real.
• We can measure these kinds of things.
• We now know the golf swing is not a "left arm pulling" type motion (both arms are involved, as are other things — and even Ben Hogan said things like "I wish I had three right hands/arms.")
• Measurements alone don't necessarily make the instruction overly technical. They inform. For example, I can know where someone's pressure needs to be, or the sequencing of the 3D pressures (TPI calls them shift/lateral, rock, and rotate IIRC, and they generally peak in that order) without necessarily sharing any of the "technical" side of that with the student.

We're not going to turn this topic into a discussion of any of the specifics of Sam Snead's thoughts or anything like that, but it will remain on topic.

And, you've not been given any warning points or anything like that, but you have been warned now that we don't really like intellectual dishonesty here in our discussions. We like clarity, people who can separate statements from the people who make them, people who understand the difference between facts and opinions… etc. We appreciate maturity.

[ChetlovesMer]

I thought of this thread at the range today. 
There was a young coach giving a small group lesson to two total novice lady golfers. I'm nearly positive this was these two ladies very first ever lesson. Perhaps the first time they've ever even swung a golf club. 

I'm going to suggest this coach got "too technical". 

They were in the two bays right next to me at the range, so I had the opportunity to listen to the lesson and I think he got too technical. I feel like the coach went on and on about the golf swing. Do this and do that and do this and that. I really thought I saw the two young ladies glaze over. 

I should say that I don't know what the proper method for a first lesson ever should be, but it looked like these 2 students were drinking from the fire hose. 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I thought of this thread at the range today. 
There was a young coach giving a small group lesson to two total novice lady golfers. I'm nearly positive this was these two ladies very first ever lesson. Perhaps the first time they've ever even swung a golf club. 

I'm going to suggest this coach got "too technical". 

They were in the two bays right next to me at the range, so I had the opportunity to listen to the lesson and I think he got too technical. I feel like the coach went on and on about the golf swing. Do this and do that and do this and that. I really thought I saw the two young ladies glaze over. 

I should say that I don't know what the proper method for a first lesson ever should be, but it looked like these 2 students were drinking from the fire hose. 

This goes to show how you can get "too technical" without technology.