Are most amateur golfers being mislead on how to swing?

[Golfingdad]

How do you explain how a slice occurs without using ball flight laws?

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

How do you explain how a slice occurs without using ball flight laws?

Do you have time for an hour's lesson? I guess writing how I do this would take 2-3 hours. As I said I only scraped the surface of this exercise explaining how I achieve the control of the swing path. I wasn't finished with this part of the lesson. The part I explained usually takes about five minutes to ingrain and then we get more precise with the paths.

I'm sure I have written a whole chapter on this somewhere in my notes but that's about 30 pages long. I'll be glad to send it to you if you like.

P.S. Without my student having any psychological knowledge of learning the BFL.

[Golfingdad]

So it takes you 1 hour to explain what mvmac just explained in 15 words?  (Not to mention, he also explained in thsoe same 15 words, what causes a hook and a straight ball.)

That seems more complicated to me, not less.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

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.

They're not lengthy, and knowing the way the ball flies is what tells you whether something is a path issue or a face issue (or both). A golfer pull-slicing the ball will not be told to "close the clubface more through impact to hit a draw" by an instructor who knows the proper (correct) laws. Doesn't mean the student has to know them (though, given how simple they are, most of our students do know them).

Originally Posted by Patrick57

This pupil has learned to alter his swing path with very little interference or verbal commands from me.

The problem with that is already pointed out by newtogolf, but also that a golfer can do a bunch of things incorrectly in order to manipulate just the path. Then what? You could easily create a situation in which the golfer's swing gets worse because he's allowed to do whatever he wants in order to manipulate the path. The golfer hasn't necessarily learned a better way to swing (I could argue they haven't learned much of anything), they've simply learned a different way to swing.

Also, swings made with no ball there are often different than swings made with a ball there, so watching their "path" through the grass doesn't seem like a likely way to effect a long-lasting change.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

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

What skill for correcting a slice has a golfer learned in childhood, exactly?

Originally Posted by Patrick57

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 realize that tennis instructors use high speed video, etc. to analyze tennis motions as well, right? And tennis, I would argue, is not as complex as golf. The margin for error is greater. You can miss the center of the racket and still win the point. You're not swinging as fast, the ball isn't going as far, the lever (shoulder to "clubhead") is not as long, you have greater margin for angular error, etc.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I do believe that all instructors manage to give some feedback but NJF is definitely the most effective.

This isn't the "JF"/"NJF" thread.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

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

Oh, Patrick. Nice try, but no, it's not. My statement was not vague nor "inconclusive."

Originally Posted by Patrick57

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.

What does that have to do with golf? I've seen plenty of golfers standing in what I would consider "non-athletic" stances.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

This is the simplest and most complicated lesson I give.

And what, pray tell, do you do with a motion or move that a golfer can't see or feel (and that you can't see or feel because it occurs at 110 MPH or so)?

Originally Posted by Patrick57

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.

Huh? You "doubt that you create the extremities required for this to happen"? For what to happen?

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

So it takes you 1 hour to explain what mvmac just explained in 15 words?  (Not to mention, he also explained in thsoe same 15 words, what causes a hook and a straight ball.)

That seems more complicated to me, not less.

No, I have helped my student to learn how to slice and hook in a way that he will never need to learn again. Knowing the words doesn't mean you can carry out the deed. I feel daft saying this but, "Surely you know that."

[GaijinGolfer]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

It's a wash because there are a lot of bad instructors and a lot of bad students.  Students who may be fortunate enough to have a decent instructor but don't practice at all or practice what they're told aren't going to see the results they expect.  Many people don't have the time to put into practice and playing so they prefer the quick fix.  New golf equipment that promises longer and straighter shots is always going to be an easier sell.

True but part of growing as a player is finding an instructor who you click with and then practicing what they are teaching you.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

They're not lengthy, and knowing the way the ball flies is what tells you whether something is a path issue or a face issue (or both). A golfer pull-slicing the ball will not be told to "close the clubface more through impact to hit a draw" by an instructor who knows the proper (correct) laws. Doesn't mean the student has to know them (though, given how simple they are, most of our students do know them).

As I said to Grandad, knowing the correct words doesn't even bring you close to being able to perform the act. I beg to differ on your comment that the laws aren't lengthy. If you want to get a long never ending topic going, that just keeps going round and round, then the BFL will do that.

My stance will never change on this next point. We are human beings and we don't possess the radar, sonar and super slow motion skills of the equipment used for the laws and when we perform these shots we have to do them with the normal senses that we do have.

My ball shaping lessons always start with path because its the easiest to see and control. With path in place we can discuss face angles and effects, although the face angles at impact are not so easy to see.

Originally Posted by iacas

The problem with that is already pointed out by newtogolf, but also that a golfer can do a bunch of things incorrectly in order to manipulate just the path. Then what? You could easily create a situation in which the golfer's swing gets worse because he's allowed to do whatever he wants in order to manipulate the path. The golfer hasn't necessarily learned a better way to swing (I could argue they haven't learned much of anything), they've simply learned a different way to swing.

I knew I was setting myself up a little here. There are some prompts needed to keep the golfer on course but the initial aim is for the golfer to see his path through impact. I had only covered the first 5 minutes of this particular lesson, if that, with way more to explain. I'll send you the 30 page chapter if you like. It covers about a one hour lesson I would guess.

Originally Posted by iacas

What skill for correcting a slice has a golfer learned in childhood, exactly?

Well if you try to karate chop someone on the right hip but your swing comes from the outside with an open palm you are going to slap his right butt cheek. Simple motor skills.

Originally Posted by iacas

You realize that tennis instructors use high speed video, etc. to analyze tennis motions as well, right? And tennis, I would argue, is not as complex as golf. The margin for error is greater. You can miss the center of the racket and still win the point. You're not swinging as fast, the ball isn't going as far, the lever (shoulder to "clubhead") is not as long, you have greater margin for angular error, etc.

Inconclusive but for arguments sake lets say baseball is as complex as golf. I disagree with all sports' overuse of advanced equipment at the low amateur level in any case.

Originally Posted by iacas

This isn't the "JF"/"NJF" thread.

Sorry couldn't resist that one.

Originally Posted by iacas

Oh, Patrick. Nice try, but no, it's not. My statement was not vague nor "inconclusive."

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I do appreciate your point and beliefs but I also have mine. I can't conclude that my students will be able to perform because he, or I for that matter, understand what happens at slow speeds. I don't explain too much when I do video analysis. It confuses things.

Originally Posted by iacas

What does that have to do with golf? I've seen plenty of golfers standing in what I would consider "non-athletic" stances.

Well just tell them to stand like a goalkeeper or receiver at tennis etc and make small adjustments without touching them. Its the easiest and most natural thing to learn.

Originally Posted by iacas

And what, pray tell, do you do with a motion or move that a golfer can't see or feel (and that you can't see or feel because it occurs at 110 MPH or so)?

I would probably pull out my camera and have a look and then concoct an appropriate NJF drill to correct it. I didn't say I never use video, I just said I think it is overused. However I can see amazing things at those speeds with the naked eye.

Originally Posted by iacas

Huh? You "doubt that you create the extremities required for this to happen"? For what to happen?

For a ball of mine to start left of the target line. Its wild conditions for me. I could probably do it with deliberate extremes but not with a standard controlled swing. The more I close my face the more I change my feet the more I angled my path. Its called control.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

As I said to Grandad ...

Hey!!!  I may have the fitness and the back problems of a grandpa, but I'm not that old.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

As I said to Grandad, knowing the correct words doesn't even bring you close to being able to perform the act. I beg to differ on your comment that the laws aren't lengthy. If you want to get a long never ending topic going, that just keeps going round and round, then the BFL will do that.

I think you're virtually alone in thinking that "The ball starts where the clubface is pointed and curves away from the path" is lengthy. I never said knowing the laws means you can perform the act, but knowing them often stops you from considering an act that's the opposite of the one you need to work on.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

My stance will never change on this next point. We are human beings and we don't possess the radar, sonar and super slow motion skills of the equipment used for the laws and when we perform these shots we have to do them with the normal senses that we do have.

Nobody disagrees with that. But we can, with our "normal senses," do two things which are important:

1. Change the way we aim the clubface properly.
2. Know whether to look at the clubface or the path.

Again, for example, if a golfer is hitting a ball that starts straight at the target and then slices wildly to the right, the Old rules will tell you that the golfer needs to close the clubface. The proper laws will correctly tell you that the face is pretty square at impact, but the path is well to the left.

By observing the ball flight we're able, with our "normal senses," to deduce the impact conditions that created the shot and then we can look at the proper areas.

The golfers I instruct to get better use technology (with me, sometimes on their own) to augment their own senses, to provide them a sense of measured reality, so that they can implement feelings that work to create the reality (the impact conditions, the right elbow location, whatever) that they want to produce in the golf swing "at speed."

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Well if you try to karate chop someone on the right hip but your swing comes from the outside with an open palm you are going to slap his right butt cheek. Simple motor skills.

Oh brother.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Inconclusive but for arguments sake lets say baseball is as complex as golf. I disagree with all sports' overuse of advanced equipment at the low amateur level in any case.

It's not inconclusive. Tennis instructors use technology too. Simple statement of fact. More facts: the lever in golf is longer. The ball can be mis-struck more. You're playing against an opponent. You have a wider margin of error that can still result in a "winning" stroke. I'm not saying tennis is easier.

If you disagree and you're not going to change your mind, stop posting. I'm about to, because you're not presenting an argument at all.

And there's more to golf instruction than whatever the "low amateur level" is. Do you not teach players once they're capable of breaking 90? 80?

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I don't explain too much when I do video analysis. It confuses things.

I'm capable of using the technology I have available to me without confusing things.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Well just tell them to stand like a goalkeeper or receiver at tennis etc and make small adjustments without touching them. Its the easiest and most natural thing to learn.

Some people have never seen a goalkeeper. What's "touching them" have to do with anything? Where'd that come from? (These are rhetorical questions, btw.)

Originally Posted by Patrick57

For a ball of mine to start left of the target line. Its wild conditions for me. I could probably do it with deliberate extremes but not with a standard controlled swing. The more I close my face the more I change my feet the more I angled my path. Its called control.

Every ball that fades should start left of the target line, and it shouldn't require a "wild condition" or "deliberate extremes." Every PGA Tour player who plays a cut starts the ball left of the target line, just as every PGA Tour player who plays a draw starts the ball right of the target line.

If they play a cut that starts at the target or right of it (righties, obviously), they aren't going to be on the PGA Tour for very long.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Hey!!!  I may have the fitness and the back problems of a grandpa, but I'm not that old.

Ha Ha!

Sorry, I didn't do it deliberately. My younger brother's a granddad but I am still way too young.

[Patrick57]

Oh brother.

You did ask for a motor skill example. Quickest one I could come up with.

Originally Posted by iacas

It's not inconclusive. Tennis instructors use technology too. Simple statement of fact. More facts: the lever in golf is longer. The ball can be mis-struck more. You're playing against an opponent. You have a wider margin of error that can still result in a "winning" stroke. I'm not saying tennis is easier.

I would like you to go with you onto a tennis forum and argue the point that tennis is not as complex as golf. Bigger ball, bigger club face but totally different reaction speeds, fitness levels, stamina, hand eye coordination. I don't see arguable differences in complexity. Snooker has a tiny contact point of impact with a bigger ball but I can make no complexity arguments regarding that. its just one person's opinion against another and you're not going to convince the tennis player IMO. You could prove me wrong but its non-bias facts I would submit to.

Originally Posted by iacas

And there's more to golf instruction than whatever the "low amateur level" is. Do you not teach players once they're capable of breaking 90? 80?

Like most pros suck, most amateurs are a bunch of hackers. My daughter plays off 3 something and she's miles away from professional standards. She shoots in the low 70's but can top balls for no reason other than concentration errors. Our club champion (male) plays off 5 but his head and right shoulder is over his left knee at impact and he says he likes the way he swings. A bunch of hackers.

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm capable of using the technology I have available to me without confusing things.

Because you hopefully say what you have to say and don't over analyse. Me too.

Originally Posted by iacas

Some people have never seen a goalkeeper. What's "touching them" have to do with anything? Where'd that come from? (These are rhetorical questions, btw.)

But they do have that new invention called a television and on that television they have seen a goalkeeper or tennis player, right?

Originally Posted by iacas

Every ball that fades should start left of the target line, and it shouldn't require a "wild condition" or "deliberate extremes." Every PGA Tour player who plays a cut starts the ball left of the target line, just as every PGA Tour player who plays a draw starts the ball right of the target line.

If they play a cut that starts at the target or right of it (righties, obviously), they aren't going to be on the PGA Tour for very long.

You wrote draw, did you not tell me for the sake of the NBFL please use the word hook? (Rhetorical)

In this case I was discussing draw/hook and you should've recognised that from the discription. I have trouble starting a ball left of ... oops

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I would like you to go with you onto a tennis forum and argue the point that tennis is not as complex as golf. Bigger ball, bigger club face but totally different reaction speeds, fitness levels, stamina, hand eye coordination. I don't see arguable differences in complexity. Snooker has a tiny contact point of impact with a bigger ball but I can make no complexity arguments regarding that. its just one person's opinion against another and you're not going to convince the tennis player IMO. You could prove me wrong but its non-bias facts I would submit to.

Whatever you say Patrick.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Like most pros suck, most amateurs are a bunch of hackers. My daughter plays off 3 something and she's miles away from professional standards. She shoots in the low 70's but can top balls for no reason other than concentration errors. Our club champion (male) plays off 5 but his head and right shoulder is over his left knee at impact and he says he likes the way he swings. A bunch of hackers.

You made comments that implied that your method of instruction only works for "low amateurs." I basically asked if you only teach "low amateurs."

Originally Posted by Patrick57

But they do have that new invention called a television and on that television they have seen a goalkeeper or tennis player, right?

Maybe. But they don't necessarily know how to stand like one.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

You wrote draw, did you not tell me for the sake of the NBFL please use the word hook? (Rhetorical)

Draw, hook... same thing in terms of spin axis.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

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.).

Erik is correct.

Quote:

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.

This is where Patrick is incorrect.  Learning to stay upright and learning to really ride are two entirely different levels.  Understanding with better instruction will help everyone.  It will bring you up to the level you want to get faster.  If you want to put in the effort and time, and get better instruction, you will rise to a higher level.

I have raced bicycles and taught clinics on racing.  Most people misunderstand the physics of riding a bicycle.  I heard it the other day when a mother was trying to teach her daughter to ride.  "You turn by turning the handlebar", she said.  This is actually the opposite of the way you do it.  You eventually figure it out subconsciously after hitting pavement a few times when you're six.  You actually turn by leaning your body.  To turn really fast, you actually counter-steer by turning the handlebar away from the direction you want to go.  Go try it.  Ride in a straight line then turn the handlebar by pushing your right arm slightly forward (wheel will turn to the left).  You will turn right, not left.

So now you can ride a bike, but you want to go faster and stay going faster for a longer time.  With proper instruction, not just riding a lot, you can and will improve faster.  You want to learn to turn hard at 35 mph?  Knowing the correct way will help you do it right on tiny little tires without crashing.  Want to ride a mountain bike up a nasty, rocky slope without having to stop?  There is a right way to do it and if you learn from someone who knows, it becomes much easier and you learn it faster.

You can "naturally" plod along riding, but don't expect them to let you race in anything but Cat 5 Novice level or you will kill someone.  And there are plenty of books and magazines with tons of instruction on how to improve riding.  It is just like golf too, with some good and some bad.

I don't think we will ever convince Patrick on this issue.  It seems he wants to use the "Think" method as in the The Music Man.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Erik is correct.

This is where Patrick is incorrect.  Learning to stay upright and learning to really ride are two entirely different levels.  Understanding with better instruction will help everyone.  It will bring you up to the level you want to get faster.  If you want to put in the effort and time, and get better instruction, you will rise to a higher level.

I am not arguing that coaching is not required or helpful for the student. Good coaching is always beneficial. I was making the point that I learned the basics of cycling etc without requiring a coach. My objective was to get to school and back without breaking my neck. I, and many of my friends, accomplished this very successfully alone. That's my point and I don't think basic cycling skills require much coaching although I can see that there are definitely benefits.

If I wanted to advance my skills, I don't need to be converted, a good coach would be more than beneficial. I'm a golf coach by profession after all. Its the method or standard of coaching that's  in question.

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I have raced bicycles and taught clinics on racing.

You can "naturally" plod along riding, but don't expect them to let you race in anything but Cat 5 Novice level or you will kill someone.

I don't think we will ever convince Patrick on this issue.  It seems he wants to use the "Think" method as in the The Music Man.

I said I learned to cycle, its like saying I learned to drive a car, both of these statements have nothing to do with racing. Did I say I learned to race a bike?

My first answer above certainly agrees with the benefits of good coaching. Its convincing me that coaching in the sport of golf is good that is going to be difficult.

Will someone, just once agree with this opinion. I have often agreed with what most of you are saying but have extended my opinions. Its called an opinion. I listen and answer and elaborate. All I get is Patrick's wrong , Erik's right, no in betweens. Very few people have agreed with anything I say. Instead they look for things to disagree with.

Just my slant on things. Do I talk only in untruths? Probably not! Seems that way though.

[Zeph]

Will someone, just once agree with this opinion. I have often agreed with what most of you are saying but have extended my opinions. Its called an opinion. I listen and answer and elaborate. All I get is Patrick's wrong , Erik's right, no in betweens. Very few people have agreed with anything I say. Instead they look for things to disagree with.

You suggest we should agree just to satisfy you? I've read a lot of your posts and still don't agree at all. I believe you oversimplify the golf swing too much. The golf swing is far more difficult than riding a bicycle or walking. I can't imagine any nautral move that is remotely similar to it. The biggest problem is how the clubs are designed, speed and requirement for accuracy. People won't naturally understand and be able to hit the ball with the shaft leaning forward. There are thousands of examples out there that people without instruction don't get a whole lot better. Some can get down to around handicap 20 without learning anything or getting help, but beyond that is rare. You just have to accept that people disagree with you. Nothing you post on this subject will ever convince me that golf is easy and a natural thing that everyone should be able to do somewhat decent without too much trouble.

[Th3R00st3r]

I don't know why you guys are bothering..probably the same reason I keep coming back to read the replies. This is a circlejerk at best. Like a debate between a religious person and an atheist. Neither side will likely change the point of view of the other.

Seems like this thread of incoherent rambling is getting more attention than the other threads that could do some good, no?

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Will someone, just once agree with this opinion. I have often agreed with what most of you are saying but have extended my opinions. Its called an opinion. I listen and answer and elaborate. All I get is Patrick's wrong , Erik's right, no in betweens. Very few people have agreed with anything I say. Instead they look for things to disagree with.

Just my slant on things. Do I talk only in untruths? Probably not! Seems that way though.

Patrick, I think the problem is that after 14 pages most of us still don't understand what you're saying. You just keep talking about a "natural swing", and haven't answered any of the questions posed to you. You just keep saying the same things, phrased slightly differently, like that's going to help us but it isn't.

Your example of how you'd start a session to help someone slicing was the first time I had any insight at all to what you mean in this thread. If all you've been trying to say is that you don't agree that sitting someone in front of a slow motion video of a pro and saying "swing like that", or telling someone to aim for a 8.5 degree shaft lean forward is going to help then I think most people would agree with you.

If you spent a little less time posting, and a little more reading you'd see that most of the swing help people receives follows a basic pattern of analysing a video (slow motion helps), then often providing a model example of what the person should try and achieve (mostly using a pro as they're good examples!), and then some suggestions of feelings or drills the person can try that might help them achieve the desired result. Is this the pattern you're so against?

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Zeph

You suggest we should agree just to satisfy you? I've read a lot of your posts and still don't agree at all. I believe you oversimplify the golf swing too much. The golf swing is far more difficult than riding a bicycle or walking. I can't imagine any nautral move that is remotely similar to it. The biggest problem is how the clubs are designed, speed and requirement for accuracy. People won't naturally understand and be able to hit the ball with the shaft leaning forward.

There are thousands of examples out there that people without instruction don't get a whole lot better. Some can get down to around handicap 20 without learning anything or getting help, but beyond that is rare.

You just have to accept that people disagree with you. Nothing you post on this subject will ever convince me that golf is easy and a natural thing that everyone should be able to do somewhat decent without too much trouble.

What a shocker, another person who disagrees.

Is the movement in field hockey remotely similar to golf? Baseball, swinging an axe? Are there similar motor skills being used in these activities? Is swinging an axe a natural swing?

There are also plenty of people who have attained single figure handicaps without any instruction but that's not the point of the thread.

Did I say somewhere on this thread that golf was easy?