Are most amateur golfers being mislead on how to swing?

[Patrick57]

OK, original question/discussion...

Are most amateur golfers being mislead on how to swing?

In short, can an average golfer really expect to assimilate physically the swing mechanics of the top professionals?

Typically a pro in any sport will spend at least 10,000 hours to get to his level of play/performance and athleticism. There are some exceptions but not many. This thread argues that unless a casual golfer is going to invest some serious time and effort, he should really be looking to achieve a way of swinging that is more suited to his circumstances. I correct golfers all season and my biggest problem is they want to swing like the pros. Textbook back swing, impact and follow through. I blame the magazines, videos, golf channels etc. for not clarifying this misinformation.

Usain Bolt can run the 100 metres in 9.5 secs and if I had started at the age of 7 and put in the 10,000 hours of training, I could possibly have got somewhere around sub 11 secs but I knew my limitations/dedication and decided to stick to 15 - 20 second 100m sprints. I don't see the sport magazines etc in his sport promising 0.5 of a second faster if you adopt this style of running or buy this sprinting video. Golf however does make these sort of promises and more.

[Golfingdad]

Yes, because most of us don't take lessons from professionals, but instead we read books and gather tips willy nilly from magazines and TV, and our friends.  The combination of all of that certainly leads a lot of us down the wrong paths, and into bad habits, etc.

However, you sound like you are suggesting there is a totally different way that amateurs should be swinging.  A Scott Houston "Play Piano In A Flash" style of golf swing that is better for most of us than (for lack of a better term) the "right way."  That part I don't agree with.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Are most amateur golfers being mislead on how to swing?

In short, can an average golfer really expect to assimilate physically the swing mechanics of the top professionals?

First question: Yes. Most instructors flat out suck.

Second question: Yep, with a caveat depending on your definition of "assimilate" and given the student's time, dedication, physical attributes (Calvin Peete, Lee Westwood don't have straight lead arms like the other "top professionals" because they couldn't/can't).

You've asked two very, very different questions.

The laws of physics are the same for everyone. Geometry is the same for everyone. The human body is built of the same muscles and bones and general structure in everyone.

PGA Tour players don't all swing "one way."

What holds back the "average golfer" from being better is that they swing LESS like a PGA Tour player than they need to. They lack one, two, three, four, or five of the 5 Simple Keys®.

The better a player gets, the more his swing will look like that of a "top professional."

Originally Posted by Patrick57

This thread argues that unless a casual golfer is going to invest some serious time and effort, he should really be looking to achieve a way of swinging that is more suited to his circumstances.

I disagree with that, or think I do based on what you seem to be implying. If anything, the average golfer needs to simplify things and be even more precise with what he's working on. Again, physics, geometry, and anatomy are the same. We generate speed the same way, we hit the golf ball solidly the same way, etc.

We make golfers better by applying the top priority fix each time they have a lesson. Oftentimes it's the same priority (the fix may vary slightly as they change or "work nearby" the affected issue), but a golfer who is fatting and thinning the ball because of X and Y needs to work on X and Y. Working on those things will make their swings more like a "top professional" because the "top professionals" all do X and Y really really well. That's why they're the top professionals.

A golfer cannot play good golf violating certain physical or geometrical or anatomical laws. I think, however, this thread is too vague to really amount to much.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Textbook back swing, impact and follow through. I blame the magazines, videos, golf channels etc. for not clarifying this misinformation.

The "top professionals" don't have a "textbook backswing, impact, and follow-through." (They're closest on the impact one, of course.)

What "misinformation"? I agree there's a lot out there, but again, this is all too vague to have a serious discussion. Are average golfers "mislead"? Yes. HOW??? What's the specific misinformation? We have hundreds of threads about "misinformation" presented by people, like "take it back low and slow." Did you know 90% of amateurs have backswings that are TOO SLOW based on PGA Tour players? Yet you commonly hear the advice "slow it down" or "your tempo was too fast." Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Misinformation.

But changing the player's tempo to speed up their backswing will make them more like a "top professional," and you're saying - if I'm reading correctly - that that's bad, too.

Here's what it breaks down to for me.

I only care about information that makes sense. What do the top professionals actually DO in their swings. What people SAY THEY DO is of little consequence and I tend not to pay much attention to it. Feel isn't real, and "feel" is a great source of misinformation.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I don't see the sport magazines etc in his sport promising 0.5 of a second faster if you adopt this style of running or buy this sprinting video. Golf however does make these sort of promises and more.

There are a ton of people involved in running who train form, from sprinters to marathon runners and beyond. They're using high-speed video, doing impact force measurements, VO2 measurements, and all sorts of stuff to train people to run faster. Absolutely that goes on.

Nobody in golf is promising that you're going to beat Tiger Woods, but you can employ some characteristic of his swing because the physics, geometry, and anatomy are the same. Nobody's in running is promising you'll run as fast as Bolt, but they will tell you that if you're a heel-striking sprinter you can get faster if you run more like Bolt. Absolutely.

P.S. I really like Golfingdad's post. Specifically: However, you sound like you are suggesting there is a totally different way that amateurs should be swinging. A Scott Houston "Play Piano In A Flash" style of golf swing that is better for most of us than (for lack of a better term) the "right way."  That part I don't agree with.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Yes, because most of us don't take lessons from professionals, but instead we read books and gather tips willy nilly from magazines and TV, and our friends.  The combination of all of that certainly leads a lot of us down the wrong paths, and into bad habits, etc.

However, you sound like you are suggesting there is a totally different way that amateurs should be swinging.  A Scott Houston "Play Piano In A Flash" style of golf swing that is better for most of us than (for lack of a better term) the "right way."  That part I don't agree with.

I prefer to say there is a totally different way they should be learning. Riding a bike, swinging an axe, climbing stairs, using a toothbrush are mechanics that have to be leaned but they are achieved using other motor skills that have been learned in childhood. I believe golf should likewise be associated with basic motor skills and not be defined as a complicated unnatural act.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I prefer to say there is a totally different way they should be learning. Riding a bike, swinging an axe, climbing stairs, using a toothbrush are mechanics that have to be leaned but they are achieved using other motor skills that have been learned in childhood. I believe golf should likewise be associated with basic motor skills and not be defined as a complicated unnatural act.

More vague nonsense.

What makes brushing our teeth any more natural than swinging a golf club?

You seem to confuse "simple" with "natural." Swinging a golf club is much more complex than brushing our teeth, climbing stairs, etc.

BTW, you may not need lessons on how to ride a bike (many people do - I don't know of anyone who got on a bike for the first time and never crashed), but there are plenty of schools out there that teach people how to ride a bike. There are "upper levels" of bicycling out there, and whether you're talking about the Tour de France contestants (they put in a TON of time learning how to "ride a bike" the best way and training their bodies to do it) or competitive mountain bikers (ditto: tons of time training, studying technique, learning, video taping themselves, etc.) or even BMX trick people (like the ones in the X Games - also put a ton of time in learning how to get better, training, taking "lessons," etc.).

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

More vague nonsense.

What makes brushing our teeth any more natural than swinging a golf club?

You seem to confuse "simple" with "natural." Swinging a golf club is much more complex than brushing our teeth, climbing stairs, etc.

BTW, you may not need lessons on how to ride a bike (many people do - I don't know of anyone who got on a bike for the first time and never crashed), but there are plenty of schools out there that teach people how to ride a bike. There are "upper levels" of bicycling out there, and whether you're talking about the Tour de France contestants (they put in a TON of time learning how to "ride a bike" the best way and training their bodies to do it) or competitive mountain bikers (ditto: tons of time training, studying technique, learning, video taping themselves, etc.) or even BMX trick people (like the ones in the X Games - also put a ton of time in learning how to get better, training, taking "lessons," etc.).

Because I use simple methods to teach a particular movement doesn't mean I am using vague nonsense. Although in this instance I prefer vague to complicated. Our bodies don't understand bio-mechanical commands any more than you can explain what the legs are doing in the act of walking. There are scientists who could make a good job of explaining these movements, and I'm guessing you will probably give it a go as well, but this knowledge doesn't help infants learn this skill and many other motor skills. Why is it when we are apparently wiser, as educated adults, we think all of a sudden our bodies seem to have a better way to quickly learn a (complex) skill by reading books and watching slow motion videos.

I must be from another part of the world where, we as kids, learned to cycle with very little instruction. I learned to walk without a coach and fell plenty of times, cycling and crashed, climbing and fell, but I learned these skills using basic trial and error and improved quickly. Its the way of the world, animals, birds, fish and insects. Goodness only knows how birds become expert fliers in your world of studying techniques and video analysis. I say get off your soapbox and admit that there is some truth in what I am saying. Your pupils aren't really getting better with all of the new technology, you know the average golfer hasn't improved in the last decades. I say we are going wrong because we are getting too smart for our own good. So when you say I am being vague, I take that as a compliment.

BTW dedication to practice is the main asset for achieving skill levels in any activity or subject and combined with having an interest in what our peers can demonstrate/teach us makes for a good learning formula.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Because I use simple methods to teach a particular movement doesn't mean I am using vague nonsense.

I'm talking about your posts, not how you teach.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Although in this instance I prefer vague to complicated.

"Complicated" is a straw man. I understand the complexities of the golf swing and one of my key skills as an instructor is making it simple for the student.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Our bodies don't understand bio-mechanical commands any more than you can explain what the legs are doing in the act of walking.

Of course with enough study you can explain it, and the golf swing is more complex than walking. More vague nonsense.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Why is it when we are apparently wiser, as educated adults, we think all of a sudden our bodies seem to have a better way to quickly learn a (complex) skill by reading books and watching slow motion videos.

Straw man. Walking is far less complex than the golf swing, and again, even the act of running utilizes slow motion video and in-depth analysis using force plates and various other thousands-of-dollars devices.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I must be from another part of the world where, we as kids, learned to cycle with very little instruction.

Cycling isn't as complex as the golf swing, and again, at the higher levels of cycling, they have "coaches" and sophisticated machinery. There's a lot of science in cycling at higher levels. Your analogies fall apart very quickly, but here's one that makes a little sense to me:

Running "Naturally":Sub-2:05 Marathoner::Guy Who Can't Break 100:PGA Tour Player

And that analogy still stinks because the act of running is about 100x simpler than the act of hitting a golf ball, so someone can reasonably become a "scratch runner" without any real in-depth analysis (though many of them will still research equipment, their form, nutrition, their hydration strategies, they'll use training programs built by coaches, and so on).

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Goodness only knows how birds become expert fliers in your world of studying techniques and video analysis.

Patrick, the golf swing is not something that's been bred into the human species the way "flying" is genetically imbued into birds. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I say get off your soapbox and admit that there is some truth in what I am saying.

When I find some truth I'll step down. Until then, you just keep babbling on about the "natural" golf swing we apparently all have, like learning to walk.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Your pupils aren't really getting better with all of the new technology, you know the average golfer hasn't improved in the last decades. I say we are going wrong because we are getting too smart for our own good. So when you say I am being vague, I take that as a compliment.

Wrong and wrong.

1. My students are getting better.
2. The average handicap is dropping .

Originally Posted by Patrick57

BTW dedication to practice is the main asset for achieving skill levels in any activity or subject and combined with having an interest in what our peers can demonstrate/teach us makes for a good learning formula.

Dedication to practicing the wrong things will not do someone as much good as practicing the right things (and using the available technology to augment their understanding and ability to measure).

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

First question: Yes. Most instructors flat out suck.

Whoa, there's not enough substance in that statement. You probably think I suck because I don't use the 5 keys or NBFL. But you don't know me or at least 20,000 other golf coaches.

Originally Posted by iacas

The better a player gets, the more his swing will look like that of a "top professional."

The more I study and practice mathematics the closer I will get to becoming a mathematician.

Originally Posted by iacas

A golfer cannot play good golf violating certain physical or geometrical or anatomical laws.

Yes, but he can become a world beater even when he is psychologically unaware of these laws.

Originally Posted by iacas

What "misinformation"?

Here's what it breaks down to for me.

I only care about information that makes sense. What do the top professionals actually DO in their swings. What people SAY THEY DO is of little consequence and I tend not to pay much attention to it. Feel isn't real, and "feel" is a great source of misinformation.

On one breath you say feel isn't real but what you can see in super slow motion is. I, for one can't feel or associate slow motion with what I am doing when I swing but I can feel impact and that's real. Can I explain what I am feeling, no, but I'll take feel before technology any day of the week.

Originally Posted by iacas

There are a ton of people involved in running who train form, from sprinters to marathon runners and beyond. They're using high-speed video, doing impact force measurements, VO2 measurements, and all sorts of stuff to train people to run faster. Absolutely that goes on.

You also made this example for cycling. When you get to the top level of many sports - I believe 90% of an athletes talent comes from the joy of learning and practice - they get very scientific but in the other sports this is almost only at the top level and I don't dispute that. But golfers are hit with technology too early in my opinion. Learn the fundamentals of cycling, running and the golf swing naturally before you even consider getting into all that techno-stuff.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Because I use simple methods to teach a particular movement doesn't mean I am using vague nonsense.

Then can you give us a specific example of what you are talking about?  Otherwise, to us it does just come across as vague nonsense because we aren't your students so we don't know what you are talking about as it pertains to the golf swing.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

The more I study and practice mathematics the closer I will get to becoming a mathematician.

More vague nonsense. Rather than actually respond to my point you just say random stuff like this. Fun.

The more I eat, the more I weigh! The more I run, the skinnier I get!

The thing is, this breaks down when it comes to golf. "The more someone golfs, the better they get"? No. Not really. They need to be working on the proper things.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Yes, but he can become a world beater even when he is psychologically unaware of these laws.

He still abides by and adheres to them, whether he knows it or not.

I've never said I brain dump all of the physics and geometry I understand on my students, so if you've assumed that, it's your mistake.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

On one breath you say feel isn't real but what you can see in super slow motion is. I, for one can't feel or associate slow motion with what I am doing when I swing but I can feel impact and that's real. Can I explain what I am feeling, no, but I'll take feel before technology any day of the week.

Misses the point entirely. Feel ain't real - that's pretty much a fact. What you can see in slow motion video is "real," yes.

The point of high speed video is that you can see - and show the student - what's going on, what they're really doing - and then as the instructor you can work with them to make the appropriate changes.

You can "feel" impact and it's "real"? What does that even mean? Is it "real" that your clubface (or the crown of your driver, in your case) contacted the golf ball? You bet. But was your left wrist flat at impact or did you flip the crap out of it and fail to properly compress the ball?

Originally Posted by Patrick57

You also made this example for cycling. When you get to the top level of many sports - I believe 90% of an athletes talent comes from the joy of learning and practice - they get very scientific but in the other sports this is almost only at the top level and I don't dispute that. But golfers are hit with technology too early in my opinion. Learn the fundamentals of cycling, running and the golf swing naturally before you even consider getting into all that techno-stuff.

More vague nonsense. What's a "natural" golf swing? You've still never answered that question. Running is somewhat natural, yes. A golf swing? No way.

You seem to be assuming I bust out several thousand dollars worth of technology for every student. Couldn't be farther from the truth. At the end of the day, I'm more than pleased with the results I get from my students, and they're happy as well. I have happy, improving students who know more and more about their own golf swing each time they come to see me.

[Zeph]

The golf swing is as natural as......turns out I can't find a human movement as complicated as the golf swing being done by thousands on a regular basis. If the golf swing is as natural as you want it to be, why aren't every weekend amateur playing better golf? Why are the guys taking lessons improving faster? You have yet to provide any evidence for your claims. I can vouch for the "most instructors suck" part based on personal experience and encounters online. It may still be better than doing nothing at all though. I'm not saying every student should learn everything the instructor knows. How much the student needs and wants to learn, changes from person to person. Some are happy with just getting instruction on how drills and what to work on. Others might want to learn the reasons behind the drills and changes.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Then can you give us a specific example of what you are talking about?  Otherwise, to us it does just come across as vague nonsense because we aren't your students so we don't know what you are talking about as it pertains to the golf swing.

OK, I'll give it a go. A typical student comes to me and wants to know how to stop slicing.

In order to stop slicing he must have a basic understanding of how a slice occurs and also how to create a hook - but not using lengthy ball flight laws . I wont go into the whole lesson but we would start like this with swing path observations.

I ask him if he knows his swing path and his answer is usually uncertain, "yes, apparently I swing from 'out to in' or so I'm told". I will tell him that he can check this himself by watching the club head swish through or over the grass. I assure him that he will be able to see the line of the arc, over the ground or through the grass, created by his club head. I will then take a few swings and ask him to indicate if my swing was 'in to out' or 'out to in'. In no time he grasps this exercise and sees what I am doing and calls each different arc perfectly. I am deliberately keeping this very simple. In fact this is about as complicated as it gets.

I now ask him to swing and this time call out the arc his club head is drawing. If he has a natural 'out to in' path then that's the one he will be demonstrating and usually he will call it right, if not I will wait/assist until he can. I will now ask him if he can alter his swing in order to create the other arc. I will use imperatives like can you swish the club through/over the grass in the other direction. He will swing a little closer to DTL and I'll let him say, "I think that was more 'in to out'" and at this stage I will return my NJF, "IMO it was closer to straight but still 'out to in'. His body will continue to make adjustments and he will begin to control the path of his club head. It is important that he calls the show here and I am basically his second pair of eyes. E.g. He would say, "That was definitely 'in to out'" and I would simply confirm his correct observation.

This pupil has learned to alter his swing path with very little interference or verbal commands from me. This is the basis of 'Inner Game Coaching' using 'Non Judgemental Feedback'.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Zeph

The golf swing is as natural as......turns out I can't find a human movement as complicated as the golf swing being done by thousands on a regular basis.

If the golf swing is as natural as you want it to be, why aren't every weekend amateur playing better golf? Why are the guys taking lessons improving faster?

You have yet to provide any evidence for your claims.

I can vouch for the "most instructors suck" part based on personal experience and encounters online. It may still be better than doing nothing at all though. I'm not saying every student should learn everything the instructor knows. How much the student needs and wants to learn, changes from person to person. Some are happy with just getting instruction on how drills and what to work on. Others might want to learn the reasons behind the drills and changes.

I'm saying, "Learn a skill using existing motor skills you have already mastered in childhood."

People learn to play tennis using existing skills like holding, swinging, leaping, braking, stretching, running and jumping which they have already learned to a certain degree. Tennis would be difficult if we considered it an alien sport from the off. But golf is just plain alien in comparison to tennis, isn't it? (Try telling Roger Federa and co. that tennis isn't a human movement as complicated as the golf swing and he'll, ever so slightly, beg to differ.) Golf is like any sport, we need to and should be using natural motor skills to enhance our control. But no, golf is different. Not for me.

You also say most instructors suck but the people taking lessons are improving faster. There are some advantages to be had even from a poor instructor as he can unknowingly confirm certain uncertainties you had about your swing and incidently leave you with something to improve on. I do believe that all instructors manage to give some feedback but NJF is definitely the most effective.

[newtogolf]

You may attain the results you describe with your student while you're working with him, but who will tell him the next day when he goes to the range and starts slicing again?  How will he know if he's swinging out to in, or if he's lifting up and pulling out of his swing.  I can make a perfect swing when I'm with my instructor while he points out every issue he sees with my swing and allows me to correct for it.  The problem is replicating those results on my own and I can assure you that doesn't happen after a half hour or hour lesson.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

OK, I'll give it a go. A typical student comes to me and wants to know how to stop slicing.

In order to stop slicing he must have a basic understanding of how a slice occurs and also how to create a hook - but not using lengthy ball flight laws. I wont go into the whole lesson but we would start like this with swing path observations.

I ask him if he knows his swing path and his answer is usually uncertain, "yes, apparently I swing from 'out to in' or so I'm told". I will tell him that he can check this himself by watching the club head swish through or over the grass. I assure him that he will be able to see the line of the arc, over the ground or through the grass, created by his club head. I will then take a few swings and ask him to indicate if my swing was 'in to out' or 'out to in'. In no time he grasps this exercise and sees what I am doing and calls each different arc perfectly. I am deliberately keeping this very simple. In fact this is about as complicated as it gets.

I now ask him to swing and this time call out the arc his club head is drawing. If he has a natural 'out to in' path then that's the one he will be demonstrating and usually he will call it right, if not I will wait/assist until he can. I will now ask him if he can alter his swing in order to create the other arc. I will use imperatives like can you swish the club through/over the grass in the other direction. He will swing a little closer to DTL and I'll let him say, "I think that was more 'in to out'" and at this stage I will return my NJF, "IMO it was closer to straight but still 'out to in'. His body will continue to make adjustments and he will begin to control the path of his club head. It is important that he calls the show here and I am basically his second pair of eyes. E.g. He would say, "That was definitely 'in to out'" and I would simply confirm his correct observation.

This pupil has learned to alter his swing path with very little interference or verbal commands from me. This is the basis of 'Inner Game Coaching' using 'Non Judgemental Feedback'.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

The point of high speed video is that you can see - and show the student - what's going on, what they're really doing - and then as the instructor you can work with them to make the appropriate changes.

Yes but does this help. IMO this is inconclusive... unproven... vague at best.

Originally Posted by iacas

More vague nonsense. What's a "natural" golf swing? You've still never answered that question. Running is somewhat natural, yes. A golf swing? No way.

I mean associate natural motor skills to golf. Running is a required skill for many sports. Natural skills for golf include; athletic stance, like a tennis player receiving serve or a goal keeper waiting on a penalty; gripping/holding; swinging; balance; hand/eye coordination; I could go on and on. Nobody needs to tell me or put me into an athletic stance, my body knows it already. Tell me I'm to tend goal, little directives like stand a little more upright or widen your stance won't throw me but don't start manouvering me into uncomfortable positions.

Originally Posted by iacas

You seem to be assuming I bust out several thousand dollars worth of technology for every student. Couldn't be farther from the truth. At the end of the day, I'm more than pleased with the results I get from my students, and they're happy as well. I have happy, improving students who know more and more about their own golf swing each time they come to see me.

Do students improve because of us or are they improving despite of us. I say 90% despite and 10% because of us. This goes back to my earlier statement, "I believe 90% of an athletes talent comes from his own joy/involvement in learning and practice". Our 10% has put him on the correct path. In other words 10% is the highest compliment I am willing to give or accept. He improves, I'm glad we had a partnership that was effective. Am I a good coach? Maybe. Can I accept more than 10% credit for my pupils improvement? Definitely not!

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

You may attain the results you describe with your student while you're working with him, but who will tell him the next day when he goes to the range and starts slicing again?  How will he know if he's swinging out to in, or if he's lifting up and pulling out of his swing.  I can make a perfect swing when I'm with my instructor while he points out every issue he sees with my swing and allows me to correct for it.  The problem is replicating those results on my own and I can assure you that doesn't happen after a half hour or hour lesson.

Lets stick with one exercise at a time. I didn't explain the lifting up or pulling out lesson. Its a good point though. We must work on one and only one aspect of a swing at a time, only then can we move on.

You missed the point of the NJF lesson, he didn't learn to swing from 'in to out' with my direction, he did it using his own feedback. He controlled it himself using his eyes, I only confirmed that he was seeing it correctly. Afterwards he didn't need me any more. I know that student cannot forget how to change his swing path using this feedback. This is the simplest and most complicated lesson I give.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

OK, I'll give it a go. A typical student comes to me and wants to know how to stop slicing.

In order to stop slicing he must have a basic understanding of how a slice occurs and also how to create a hook - but not using lengthy ball flight laws.

Ball starts where the face is aimed at impact and curves away from the path.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Ball starts where the face is aimed at impact and curves away from the path.

Not mentioning any ball flight laws. However this is short and simple. My only problem is when the ball starts left of the target line. Although the modern laws prove this, I doubt that I create the extremities required for this to happen. Left or right of swing path, I can completely accept that. It comes down to 'feel isn't real' but that's all I've got when I swing.