Would you take lessons from a Pro that doesnt use Video?

[dmnoland]

I have had mixed results with and without video. It really comes down to how well you and your swing coach gel. My latest teacher does not video but he has encouraged me to set up my tripod and tape the session. So, with that being said, what angle would be best to set up? Down the line or head on?

[DannyB215]

I think if you're using the video only to look at how you swing, you're wasting your time and money. EVERYONE has a different swing, and if your instructor tries to change the way you swing, he's wasting your time. Video should be used to point out strengths and weaknesses, and personally I like a more hands on lesson. I agree with the pharaoh, and have seen this myself, where the instructor wastes a ton of time messing with the equipment and not really focusing on their player's game.

[DBC]

Opps sorry guys, the No answer is slightly confusing, but I hope you all understand. Ive tried to change the option, butI dont see where to do that. This all started when I went to see my first Pro, he told me he feels he canconvey everythng without the use of a Video camera. So far my lessons are going good, but I do wish I could see myself on video, at least get that out of my mind.

[nevets88]

I don't think it's possible to see impact position with the naked eye. Don't you at least want to know your impact position is okay at the very least?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by DBC

This all started when I went to see my first Pro, he told me he feels he can convey everythng without the use of a Video camera. So far my lessons are going good, but I do wish I could see myself on video, at least get that out of my mind.

I can "convey" everything without the use of video too (though the students tend to like to see that they've improved). The problem is he can't SEE everything without high speed video.

Originally Posted by DannyB215

I think if you're using the video only to look at how you swing, you're wasting your time and money. EVERYONE has a different swing, and if your instructor tries to change the way you swing, he's wasting your time. Video should be used to point out strengths and weaknesses, and personally I like a more hands on lesson. I agree with the pharaoh, and have seen this myself, where the instructor wastes a ton of time messing with the equipment and not really focusing on their player's game.

What does that even mean?

How are you going to get better than a 13 handicap or so if you don't change your swing? That's ridiculous. Of course you need to change the way you swing - that's why you're taking lessons.

And if an instructor is "wasting time" messing with equipment then perhaps he's just lousy - we never "waste time" in such a way. Also, video != "hands off." People should stop assuming it does.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by nevets88

I don't think it's possible to see impact position with the naked eye. Don't you at least want to know your impact position is okay at the very least?

Funny thing is I didn't need video for my impact position. The feel and ball flight were actually completely consistent with what I saw on the screen. I'd be willing to suggest that I never need to see it again. What I do on the way back and the way down though, is my weakness. What I feel there is a bit different that what's going on. Either way, I agree that video is and was extremely helpful.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Funny thing is I didn't need video for my impact position. The feel and ball flight were actually completely consistent with what I saw on the screen. I'd be willing to suggest that I never need to see it again. What I do on the way back and the way down though, is my weakness. What I feel there is a bit different that what's going on. Either way, I agree that video is and was extremely helpful.

There's more to impact than simply where your hands and arms are. What was your right foot doing? Right knee? Left knee? Shoulder alignment? Hip pitch or tilt? Which direction if any was your head moving? Your butt? Etc.

You can't feel all of those things. You can feel compression, sure (most can't because most flip like crazy, and those who can sometimes get confused in different turf conditions), but not everything about impact position.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Funny thing is I didn't need video for my impact position. The feel and ball flight were actually completely consistent with what I saw on the screen. I'd be willing to suggest that I never need to see it again. What I do on the way back and the way down though, is my weakness. What I feel there is a bit different that what's going on. Either way, I agree that video is and was extremely helpful.

There's more to impact than simply where your hands and arms are. What was your right foot doing? Right knee? Left knee? Shoulder alignment? Hip pitch or tilt? Which direction if any was your head moving? Your butt? Etc.

You can't feel all of those things. You can feel compression, sure (most can't because most flip like crazy, and those who can sometimes get confused in different turf conditions), but not everything about impact position.

Hmmm . . . good points. My body (all the parts) looked the same at impact (and just before and after) when using the same clubs, but I'm not trained on the subtle differences. I may have to reconsider.

[Deryck Griffith]

Unless my instructor (if I had one) can see at 240 fps with his own eyes, he MUST have a camera.  Technology is way to easy to get, use and affordable to not have one.

[Clambake]

If one is going to say that video is an absolute must for teaching, you're basically saying that teachers like Penick, Grout, Flick, Jacobs, Merrins, etc. all were pretty useless.     Seems to me they were pretty good, even without 240fps 1080p technology.

I've taken lessons with and without video, and both can be very effective or not depending fully on the student/teacher interaction.    Video is just a tool, not really any different than using an impact bag or other teaching device.   A teacher who is able to effectively use video as part of their teaching process can be very valuable, but so can one who is able to describe what you're trying to do and why.     But I've also seen students and their teachers use the video so much that the student is so totally focused on hitting desired positions throughout the swing that they lose all sense of rhythm and timing and are kind of paralyzed - they forget that the golf swing is dynamic and not a bunch of interconnected static positions.

Perhaps it is just where I'm at in my swing evolution, but I'm not finding the video quite as helpful now as I'm really working to better understand what I feel instead of what I see as part of being able to better diagnose when my swing goes bad or how to correct in the middle of a round.   What video shows you is the "what", but not the "why" - it may show you what your left foot is doing at the exact moment of impact, but it doesn't let you know what is going on inside your body leading up to that point to put you in that position.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Clambake

If one is going to say that video is an absolute must for teaching, you're basically saying that teachers like Penick, Grout, Flick, Jacobs, Merrins, etc. all were pretty useless.

Straw man. Jim Flick does use video. If Harvey Penick were around, he might use video (maybe not always). John Jacobs instructors use video.

These teachers were well known at least in part because they used the technology reasonably available to them. 20 years ago, even 10 or even 5 years ago, that wasn't much.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clambake

If one is going to say that video is an absolute must for teaching, you're basically saying that teachers like Penick, Grout, Flick, Jacobs, Merrins, etc. all were pretty useless.

Straw man. Jim Flick does use video. If Harvey Penick were around, he might use video (maybe not always). John Jacobs instructors use video.

These teachers were well known at least in part because they used the technology reasonably available to them. 20 years ago, even 10 or even 5 years ago, that wasn't much.

He also said:

" But I've also seen students and their teachers use the video so much that the student is so totally focused on hitting desired positions throughout the swing that they lose all sense of rhythm and timing and are kind of paralyzed - they forget that the golf swing is dynamic and not a bunch of interconnected static positions."

This is almost exactly what John Jacobs said regarding the trend in the 1960s after many instructors began using high speed photography to break the swing down into positions. People were hitting the positions, but not generating any power - they got the process backwards. It's in his book published in 1972.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

He also said:

" But I've also seen students and their teachers use the video so much that the student is so totally focused on hitting desired positions throughout the swing that they lose all sense of rhythm and timing and are kind of paralyzed - they forget that the golf swing is dynamic and not a bunch of interconnected static positions."

This is almost exactly what John Jacobs said regarding the trend in the 1960s after many instructors began using high speed photography to break the swing down into positions. People were hitting the positions, but not generating any power - they got the process backwards. It's in his book published in 1972.

That's a good point. But, frankly, I think that's up to the teacher. A shitty teacher can use anything poorly.

Would I rather go to a shitty teacher who uses video (even if he uses video well, but his knowledge or ability is lousy) or a good teacher who used nothing but MacGyver's tools (duct tape, the zipper from his coat, and his Swiss Army knife)? I'll see the latter guy every time.

I think the best way to ask this question would be something like this: "All else being equal, would you rather see an instructor who used video at least some of the time or one who never used video?" Or three choices: "All else being equal, which would you be most likely to see: a pro who always uses video, a pro who sometimes uses video, a pro who never uses video?"

Too many people seem to be implying that the teacher who uses video is either better or worse. It's just a tool. Used improperly, it's equally ineffective as anything else. ;-) Maybe even worse.

[TourSpoon]

Duct tape, zipper and a swiss army knife...hmmm...sounds like a spoiler for an upcoming segment on "School of Golf".

I believe that the original question asked if no video was a deal breaker.   I still maintain my answer, not necessarily, for many of the reasons all ready stated.

[Deryck Griffith]

A video as it reveals what you are REALLY doing vs. what you FEEL like you are doing.

When a instructor tells you (steeper shoulders or only swing back to 3/4,), 9 /10 times, the person attempting the change doesn't come close to what the instructor has asked even though he FEELS like he is doing it.  With an on the spot video showing the student what he/she is actually doing, 10/10 times the student is stunned at the results; in this case, how flat their shoulers still were OR how long their swing still is even though they TRIED to only take it back 3/4.

So to me, with the technology that is at our disposal today, why people would agru against or opt to not use a video camera boggles my mind.  Especially when it reienforces (on the spot) 100% what the student is and isn't doing.  You can still teach athletic and "mechanically free" movements but a severe flaw in the swing can be show right away and fixed on the spot faster with video.