Are most amateur golfers being mislead on how to swing?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I claimed that most golfer's create errors in their back swing because they are trying to achieve a model position at the top of the swing. In doing so, they disregard many important conditions for a position that is unattainable for their untrained bodies.

I would suggest that more often golfers have "errors" in the backswing because they lack an understanding and feeling for what they're supposed to do, not because they are trying to achieve the unattainable.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

'Outside-in': We look at a student as being an empty vessel and fill that student with info about how to swing, disregarding anything that might already be in there. This would mean refusal to compare golf to previously learned skills. (This is the widespread instructing techniques)

'Inside-out': We look at the student as having experience of motor skills and nurture these skills to help advance learning and development of the golf swing.

Well, I'm going to begin calling the way I teach Inside-Outside-Inside again. That sounds like a dribble or something Sidney Crosby might do to a defenseman, but again, I tend to (after spotting the highest priority flaw on which I am going to work):

1) Explain to the student what I see as the biggest problem.

2) Explain and demonstrate to the student what they're currently doing, what they should be doing, and the results we should expect to see.

3) Work with the student on achieving those changes via any and all available methods, whether it's a feeling like "karate chop my hand with your left arm" (release #4 accumulator faster) or a feeling the student comes up with or any other method that's appropriate. Sometimes we'll use training aids. Sometimes we'll swing slower. Sometimes we'll exaggerate.

My "method" (tough to call it that since it really isn't rigid at all) engages the student on several levels. They "buy in" more because they see the results, understand the process more, and can begin very quickly to coach themselves and thus to practice on their own more effectively.

Many of the motions in the golf swing are not "natural" or previously "experienced" motions.

[Patrick57]

Quote:

I would suggest that more often golfers have "errors" in the backswing because they lack an understanding and feeling for what they're supposed to do, not because they are trying to achieve the unattainable.

I would agree that my statement included the word most (golfers) and that is certainly argumentative but I am glad that my actual beliefs are being discussed and not something that has just been pulled out of a hat.

They also lack a feeling for what they are supposed to do because they are being led to a position that is unnatural and physically unattainable for non athletes. I can agree with your suggestion but can't agree with 'more often' as that is a debatable remark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Well, I'm going to begin calling the way I teach Inside-Outside-Inside again.

Don't be doing that. They be sending the men with the white jackets to you.

We are discussing two methods for teaching and I don't say to my students I am the 'inside-out' man, toooo complicated. I use inside-out methods among others. Now who's being derogatory. I don't even know who Crosby is so I can't rebutt.

Quote:

but again, I tend to (after spotting the highest priority flaw on which I am going to work):

1) Explain to the student what I see as the biggest problem.

2) Explain and demonstrate to the student what they're currently doing, what they should be doing, and the results we should expect to see.

3) Work with the student on achieving those changes via any and all available methods, whether it's a feeling like "karate chop my hand with your left arm" (release #4 accumulator faster) or a feeling the student comes up with or any other method that's appropriate. Sometimes we'll use training aids. Sometimes we'll swing slower. Sometimes we'll exaggerate.

My "method" (tough to call it that since it really isn't rigid at all) engages the student on several levels. They "buy in" more because they see the results, understand the process more, and can begin very quickly to coach themselves and thus to practice on their own more effectively.

I really have nothing against how you teach and wouldn't want to change you in any way. I am discussing the capabilities of amateurs who are trying to swing to athletic positions beyond their capabilities.

Quote:

Many of the motions in the golf swing are not "natural" or previously "experienced" motions.

Oh yeh, then name just two single movements that fall into this category.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

If you don't mind I will correct this sentence to what I actually did say...

I claimed that most golfer's create errors in their back swing because they are trying to achieve a model position at the top of the swing. In doing so, they disregard many important conditions for a position that is unattainable for their untrained bodies.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth. But you've basically just restated the point that I didn't understand previously, that doesn't help me. What is this model position they're trying to achieve? What are these important conditions, and what exactly is this position that is unattainable?

Regarding the right leg/knee, "not straightening" could mean retaining the full address flex in the right knee, or it could mean not fully straightening (ie. locking the right knee). If you like to see it straighten but not lock then maybe start a thread about that, you'll get plenty of people agreeing with you.

I also seem to have misunderstood your statement of "leaving their weight on the target foot" being a problem to mean you want to see a shift of weight away from the target foot. Can you clarify?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

They also lack a feeling for what they are supposed to do because they are being led to a position that is unnatural and physically unattainable for non athletes.

100% completely disagree with blanket statements like that.

And once again you're going into the vague, murky territory. I've learned to stop engaging you when you wander into these areas, because you can just keep being vague and claiming victory, when really, nobody (including you) knows what anyone is talking about.

BTW, clues that you're wandering into this territory include your over-use of words like "unnatural/natural" and "unattainable" and "non-athletes."

I've taught fat people. Old people. Inflexible, stiff people. Women. Kids. I don't ask them to achieve positions that are "unattainable." Depending on your definition of "natural," I could say two very different things, but I'm inclined to say that there's nothing natural about the golf swing as a whole, so what they currently do is what's "natural" to them, and so doing something "unnatural" indicates a change which, since it's at my discretion, indicates a change in the positive.

If your entire teaching philosophy is based on ways to get people to feel things, whoopty doo. I think every instructor does that. I used "karate chop" yesterday with a student. I've used "rev the motorcycle" with people. I've used all sorts of feelings like that with students. Big whoop if that's what you're trying so desperately to say. It's not like I instruct by saying only "you want to get into this position" and then every time they fail I only say "no! that was the wrong position!" Oh, and of course, those positions are unattainable because they're definitely a non-athlete. :P

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Don't be doing that. They be sending the men with the white jackets to you.

Right over your head.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

We are discussing two methods for teaching and I don't say to my students I am the 'inside-out' man, toooo complicated. I use inside-out methods among others. Now who's being derogatory.

Nothing I said there was "derogatory." If you think there are only two methods for delivering instruction, I disagree with that as well. I think there are quite a few more than two.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I really have nothing against how you teach and wouldn't want to change you in any way. I am discussing the capabilities of amateurs who are trying to swing to athletic positions beyond their capabilities.

Straw man, Patrick. Addressed above. Guess what? Golf is a sport. You act like every other instructor out there is asking students to "swing to athletic positions beyond their capabilities." That's nonsense.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Oh yeh, then name just two single movements that fall into this category.

I'm not interested. I suspect I know how you'll respond, and I'm fairly confident you define "natural" very differently than most people.

But I'll throw you one bone: palmar flexion throughout the downswing. It's an odd feeling for people, and not one many people have had to do in real life particularly since it's palmar flexion of the LEFT wrist in a right-handed person. We've use the feeling of revving the motorcycle (it's not really) or twisting the shaft, but some of these people have never ridden a motorcycle (and I wouldn't call riding a motorcycle and twisting the grip "natural" anyway).

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

I've taught fat people. Old people. Inflexible, stiff people. Women. Kids. I don't ask them to achieve positions that are "unattainable."

My experience is this... I've taught fat people. Old people. Inflexible, stiff people. Women. Kids. and they all try to swing to a parallel position at the top because the model swing portrays that this is correct. That's my point. I spend many initial lessons demonstrating and proving that they are neither athletic enough or technically efficient for this position. I have rarely/never seen a picture of a model swing showing a more restricted back swing for them to follow. That's the point. I have never digressed from this and I don't think this is vague.

Originally Posted by iacas

If you think there are only two methods for delivering instruction, I disagree with that as well. I think there are quite a few more than two.

There are two systems of teaching or learning. These can be expanded into multiple methods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

But I'll throw you one bone: palmar flexion throughout the downswing. It's an odd feeling for people, and not one many people have had to do in real life particularly since it's palmar flexion of the LEFT wrist in a right-handed person. We've use the feeling of revving the motorcycle (it's not really) or twisting the shaft, but some of these people have never ridden a motorcycle (and I wouldn't call riding a motorcycle and twisting the grip "natural" anyway).

Well you have answered this yourself. Palmer flexion can be compared to revving a motor cycle. Although you say its not because the hand is held in a flexed position and the wrist is stationary whereas revving needs wrist movement. But you have compared it to a motor skill. We could compare palmar flexion to a waiter holding a tray above his head, another simple motor skill. With these comparisions people get closer to what palmar flexion means.

Its good that your use of the 'inside-out' system is definitely evident.

[Kingkat1954]

As most golfers know.................the impact position must be replicated from the correct set-up. Impact is the key to hitting a golf ball correctly. I have seen many systems come and go in my years playing. Whatever a golfer can do to "correct" or improve the impact position while hitting a golf ball is what he needs. Grip, stance. ball poistion, and balance all are necessary but not the same for everyone. There is no one size fits all. Look at Furyik, Trevino, Miller Barber and Nicklaus. ALL were individual and distinct......yet produced pretty good golf shots.

Let the ball after impact indicate what you might have done wrong, or right. The ball flight will tell you, NOT the image at impact. Teaching swing positions hurts more than helps us amateurs. Swing thoughts should be active while swinging, not merely achieving a "position" during the swing. Just my thoughts.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Kingkat1954

As most golfers know.................the impact position must be replicated from the correct set-up. Impact is the key to hitting a golf ball correctly. I have seen many systems come and go in my years playing. Whatever a golfer can do to "correct" or improve the impact position while hitting a golf ball is what he needs. Grip, stance. ball poistion, and balance all are necessary but not the same for everyone. There is no one size fits all. Look at Furyik, Trevino, Miller Barber and Nicklaus. ALL were individual and distinct......yet produced pretty good golf shots.

Hello KK,

Yes impact is the moment of truth but unfortunately is hard to describe or prescribe as it only lasts 4 milliseconds. I like the impact bag but I tend to press against it rather than hit it to feel the more important conditions. Watching what then happens to the ball in flight can give us good indications to what these conditions were at impact.

Originally Posted by Kingkat1954

Teaching swing positions hurts more than helps us amateurs.

Swing thoughts should be active while swinging, not merely achieving a "position" during the swing. Just my thoughts.

My argument and the theme of this topic questions whether teaching model swing positions hurts amateurs.

I try to have no swing thoughts because they come mostly from my inner critic and the more inactive he is the better I swing. Swinging should be a physical action and not physiological.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

My experience is this... I've taught fat people. Old people. Inflexible, stiff people. Women. Kids. and they all try to swing to a parallel position at the top because the model swing portrays that this is correct. That's my point. I spend many initial lessons demonstrating and proving that they are neither athletic enough or technically efficient for this position. I have rarely/never seen a picture of a model swing showing a more restricted back swing for them to follow. That's the point. I have never digressed from this and I don't think this is vague.

The bold part is shocking. I can name plenty of guys - and have plenty of video - of PGA Tour pros not reaching parallel. And I've never met a golfer who says or demonstrates that he's "trying to swing to a parallel position at the top."

So you spend your initial lessons "demonstrating and proving" to people that they are "not athletic" and they're "not technically efficient"? Wow, what an esteem builder, Patrick! Tell me again how "demonstrating and proving" that your students are non-athletic technically incompetent boobs is "non-judgmental"?

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Well you have answered this yourself. Palmer flexion can be compared to revving a motor cycle. Although you say its not because the hand is held in a flexed position and the wrist is stationary whereas revving needs wrist movement. But you have compared it to a motor skill. We could compare palmar flexion to a waiter holding a tray above his head, another simple motor skill. With these comparisions people get closer to what palmar flexion means.

You clearly don't know what palmar flexion is. It's not "holding a tray above his head."

And again I would not call palmar flexing the left wrist during the whatever milliseconds you've got in the downswing to be a "natural" act. We almost never perform this act outside of golf, and never at the speeds required in golf, and again if someone's never ridden a motorcycle then they might not have a clue what they need to do just by telling them "it's natural, just like a motorcycle."

Point being this: sometimes golfers need to learn NEW skills. Sometimes they can't relate something they need to do to something that's "natural" to them. Sometimes things feel decidedly UN-natural to a golfer.

P.S. Impact is 0.4 milliseconds.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

P.S. Impact is 0.4 milliseconds.

A millisecond is 1/1000 of a second and impact is 4 of them, 4/1000. We're not talking about physics here we're on my patch, simple mathematics.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

So you spend your initial lessons "demonstrating and proving" to people that they are "not athletic" and they're "not technically efficient"? Wow, what an esteem builder, Patrick! Tell me again how "demonstrating and proving" that your students are non-athletic technically incompetent boobs is "non-judgmental"?

I ask them at the beginning of the lesson how much time they intend playing and practising golf in a normal week and base my advice on their answers. I don't tell them they aren't athletic enough or technically efficient, they find that out for themselves. NJF involves the student finding and feeling these things for themselves. I don't tell them they can't swing to parallel, they feel for themselves that they can't.

[Apotheosis]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

A millisecond is 1/1000 of a second and impact is 4 of them, 4/1000. We're not talking about physics here we're on my patch, simple mathematics.

When the clubface collides with the ball it's total contact time is approximately just under 1/2 Millisecond = 400 Microseconds = 0.0004 Seconds = 400/1,000,000 = 4/10.000 Second

http://www.golfswing.com.au/139

[EverythingGolf]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I'm sure I replied to this post last night. It has probably been withdrawn. As my reply would be the same I can't really repost it.

I will just say this to your closing statement...

"so If you want to learn this game correctly you better listen to what Erik has to say"

I have my own mentors who I follow and have met at least 100 Eriks, each one more convincing than the last. Saying that I do believe Eric has a sound grasp of the game and I am in no way trying to say anything derogatory against him. I have my views he has his and we don't really click, so to say.

How can you suggest that I better listen to someone who disagrees with most of what I believe.

Ball flight does not lie!!! There is no what I think or believe about them. If you don't understand ball flight then what do you tell your student to do to correct the problem.

Yes amateurs have been mislead, turn the hands over at impact to square the face, the face must be closed to hit a draw, the face must be open to hit a fade etc. I have been down this road!!

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

When the clubface collides with the ball it's total contact time is approximately just under 1/2 Millisecond = 400 Microseconds = 0.0004 Seconds = 400/1,000,000 = 4/10.000 Second

http://www.golfswing.com.au/139

OK I believe you. This is probably/definitely correct, I probably/definitely got it wrong. Failed the instructor test then? I can live with that.

I think its easier to say 4 milliseconds but I will change it to 40 microseconds, no wait no one knows what that is. Four tenths of a millisecond. OK got it.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by EverythingGolf

Ball flight does not lie!!! There is no what I think or believe about them. If you don't understand ball flight then what do you tell your student to do to correct the problem.

Yes amateurs have been mislead, turn the hands over at impact to square the face, the face must be closed to hit a draw, the face must be open to hit a fade etc. I have been down this road!!

I normally do not discuss the laws themselves on this thread, but I can assure you there isn't a clause in the OBFL that says, "turn the hands over at impact to square the face."

Unfortunately that's about all I can comment on here without discussing the laws. Rest assured I can help my students shape shots and they haven't got a clue about old or new laws. Top pros are also still misled but they, like me, don't give a fish!

I/they learned to shape balls without TrackMan

[EverythingGolf]

I think you missed the point.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

OK I believe you. This is probably/definitely correct, I probably/definitely got it wrong. Failed the instructor test then? I can live with that.

I think its easier to say 4 milliseconds but I will change it to 40 microseconds, no wait no one knows what that is. Four tenths of a millisecond. OK got it.

It's 400 microseconds, not 40. And only half of that truly matters (the first half).

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

It's 400 microseconds, not 40. And only half of that truly matters (the first half).

Don't be telling me you can measure the first half of this and give any instructions on it.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Don't be telling me you can measure the first half of this and give any instructions on it.

Completely misses the point. The first half of the impact interval is all the ball knows in terms of how it will fly.

And yes, I can give instructions that affect the first half of it. That's the entire point of golf instruction: effecting the first half of the impact interval.

But I bet you'll mis-understand that as well.