What are 'outside-in' and 'inside out' teaching methods?

[Patrick57]

I could've made this opener longer but decided when answering any replies, I can elaborate

Let me start this discussion by explaining that there are two main methods being used to teach golf, the 'outside-in' and the 'inside-out' methods , one of which, is at best ordinary and the other outstanding.

The ordinary coaching method is widespread and it entails endless instruction with slow levels of improvement. Timothy Gallwey captures this well when he states in his book, (The Inner Game of Golf),

"Golf teaching professionals certainly know a lot about the swing but very little about how to teach it."

On the other hand, the outstanding golf teaching method is easier to understand and, once learned, cannot be forgotten.

It would probably be appropriate of me to explain why I have described the mostly used golf teaching method as being ordinary.

The word 'ordinary' is not the description I want to use but as I have many colleagues who use this method, I am going to have to tread carefully. (I would prefer to use the word 'poor' or 'sucks,' - as I have read on this forum - if I was being more honest). Allow me to continue.

Man has only recently developed the modern game of Golf and a golf coach is a by-product of this and, like the game, he started out rather uncomplicated. In the beginning, the game was straightforward and had 13 rules written on one sheet of paper. It was played with a few golf sticks and balls on a large field with little flagged holes as targets to aim at.

The participants of the sport, for want of playing a better game, then turned to the expert players who were using a more outstanding golf method. They asked them to demonstrate how they managed to hit the ball so sweet and accurately.

These experts then became the first coaches of golf but it puzzles me that their knowledgeable advice changed from:

Simply saying, "Swing like this!", to a high tech... "On the downswing, you have to return the club to the ball on the correct inside plane. You are coming from the outside of this when you swing because you start the downswing with your upper body instead of initiating it with the lower body."

And all of this to a sweet old lady who attempted, rather unsuccessfully, to do it correctly after watching her attempts several times on a video screen.

(The modern teacher knows a lot about the swing but very little about how to teach it) "I have personally rarely walked away from such a lesson with anything better than a feeling of hopelessness and an awkward and jerky swing."

It puzzles me that somewhere along the way golf teachers decided to ignore the ancient method of coaching by example (outstanding method) and have instead adopted a complicated, frame by frame, diagnosis of the entire swing. There just isn't another sport that comes close in this complicated biomechanical analysing at normal playing levels.

The outstanding golf method is dedicated to making the use of natural motor skills the basis of your swing. This can only be achieved when the conscious mind is not involved in trying to control body movement. Reflex is something you do, not something you physiologically have to learn to do.

I recently read an article that claims our ancestors, the apes, first adopted an upright posture in the act of throwing missiles and wielding a stick. They adopted this posture because it improved the dynamics of the swing and thus gave them an advantage over otherwise faster and stronger opponents.

All human beings possess this amazing and highly developed learning system, which is the product of millions of years of evolution. It’s how you learn to walk, run, jump, climb, drive a car, ride a bicycle and all other motor skills. "The less we use the thinking/calculating mind for these tasks the more they seem to flow."

To be coached by someone who is not using this system is quite easy to spot. He will be filling you with instructions on how to swing. These will help you, at best, for a short time and then you will have to go back to him again and again to be filled with the same or similar info.

[anthony]

What?

[saevel25]

I would concur, "WHAT"

That was very hard to understand and don't get the title...  Summary please?

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by saevel25

I would concur, "WHAT"

That was very hard to understand and don't get the title...  Summary please?

Sorry - I suffer from verbal diarrhea and sometimes don't get my point properly across with my opening post.

'Outside-in' and 'inside-out' refers to how a skill is learned.

'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.

'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.

The widespread form of teaching in golf is more inclined to fill a student with data and disregard what's already in there.

All human beings have however used the 'inside-out' version for learning  all of the other motor skills. It's an amazing and highly developed learning system, which is the product of millions of years of evolution.

[Patrick57]

They teach languages at school using the 'outside-in' method with endless pages of vocabulary, reciting verbs and complicated grammar. They totally disregard how our children learned to speak their native tongue.

I studied French for five years at school with this system and I can't put two normal conversation sentences together fluidly/fluently. It's like it went in one ear and out of the other. It didn't stick, was boring and inefficient.

I learned to do this with German in less than 4 weeks because I was forced to adopt my natural 'inside-out' instincts. Learning by doing, following instincts and regarding and listening in on my peers.

[Zeph]

I tried your version first. In fact, three instructors used something similar to that theory. It did not work at all. I could perhaps hit some decent shots in the lesson, then regress the next day and not figure out what I was doing wrong. After a couple of lessons using video and detailed analysis, my slice was history.

[Apotheosis]

Pretty standard P57 thread...I swear this thread has been posted now under like 4 different user names and titles...

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Zeph

I tried your version first. In fact, three instructors used something similar to that theory. It did not work at all. I could perhaps hit some decent shots in the lesson, then regress the next day and not figure out what I was doing wrong.

After a couple of lessons using video and detailed analysis, my slice was history.

Its not my version its the 'inside-out' or the highly developed learning system, which is a product of millions of years of evolution. It worked for you as a child but unfortunately was badly received as an adult. This isn't uncommon.

Three 'inside-out' coaches who couldn't cure your slice. Sorry I can't accept that especially as you are using it as a conclusion to your argument and suggesting that 'inside-out' doesn't work for golf. I could say I have cured 100 out of 100 slicers with this method, doesn't make it fact though, just an statement with no substance.

In my experience, people who learn with this method rarely regress, they do tend to diverse though and require to be put back on track. They are being contaminated by the widespread 'outside-in' method coming at them from all sides.

On this site every one seems to be delighted with present coaching when they are arguing with me but at the same time I hear that most golf instructors suck.

[Zeph]

Three 'inside-out' coaches who couldn't cure your slice. Sorry I can't accept that especially as you are using it as a conclusion to your argument and suggesting that 'inside-out' doesn't work for golf. I could say I have cured 100 out of 100 slicers with this method, doesn't make it fact though, just an statement with no substance.

You are confusing a swing component with teaching methods. If you disagree with facts, I can't bring anything else into the discussion, I'm through with you. Zeph out... Best of luck with your future students! We all have a wish that golfers around the world get better.

[Patrick57]

Discussion so far...

No one seems to be disagreeing with the fact that motor skills are learned using a highly developed learning system, which is the product of millions of years of evolution. This system is definitely an 'inside-out' method as little outside input is required. Thus nurturing the ability to learn without complicated input.

However when it comes to learning the golf swing - an array of motor skills - nobody agrees that this system should be adopted because we have adopted an 'outside-in' method that in my opinion is poor in comparison.

I feel my learning a language example backed up these statements and hope to hear some feedback along this structured theme.

Are we getting too smart for our own good by ignoring this ancient learning system?

[jamo]

I think the naming is the real tragedy of this thread.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by jamo

I think the naming is the real tragedy of this thread.

The naming of what? Name calling? That's been dealt with in my part anyway.

[jamo]

The naming of what? Name calling? That's been dealt with in my part anyway.

I read (and I suspect most other people did as well) "inside out" and "outside in" as talking about swing plane direction. You didn't even really clear that up until the 4th post. But, nevermind, that's off-topic.

[newtogolf]

Patrick, we get that you prefer your own teaching methods over what traditional instructors and the rest of the golf world teach.  What I don't get is what exactly you teach?  Give us a definitive lesson, not thousands of words that make little or no sense.  FWIW, I see no relationship between how I learned to read and spell and how I swing a golf club.  One is a mental exercise the other is physical and mental.  Once you learn to spell a word you typically don't forget how to spell it.  A golf swing can vary over time, bad habits can be introduced, physical conditions can cause variations as well.

You have posted 178 times on this subject and how you want to simplify golf for new players yet I don't think a single person here understands what you're teaching.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Patrick, we get that you prefer your own teaching methods over what traditional instructors and the rest of the golf world teach.  What I don't get is what exactly you teach?

The methods aren't mine but techniques I follow. There are also traditional methods that must be associated with my teaching. Many adults don't accept that 'inside-out' teaching is right for them because they have been emerged in 'outside-in' methods since school age and beyond. I would lose half of my students if i wasn't flexible to this demand.

I will repost a teaching example from another thread on teaching... ( I know you will probably knock this but it works well)

---

A typical student comes to me and wants to know how to stop slicing.

In order to stop slicing he needs to have a basic understanding of how a slice occurs and also how to create a hook - but not by using lengthy ball flight laws . I am only covering the first five minutes of this lesson because I want to be accurate. The lesson would start by working only on 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 'inside-out' coaching/learning using 'Non Judgemental Feedback'.

---

Originally Posted by newtogolf

FWIW, I see no relationship between how I learned to read and spell and how I swing a golf club.  One is a mental exercise the other is physical and mental.  Once you learn to spell a word you typically don't forget how to spell it.  A golf swing can vary over time, bad habits can be introduced, physical conditions can cause variations as well.

I didn't mention reading and spelling.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

You have posted 178 times on this subject and how you want to simplify golf for new players yet I don't think a single person here understands what you're teaching.

You're not suggesting I simplify it even more are you? BTW are you a spokesman for everyone here?

[Apotheosis]

Quote:

You're not suggesting I simplify it even more are you? BTW are you a spokesman for everyone here?

He may not be a spokesperson for the site, but he is still correct in his assessment.  Its pretty obvious the vast majority of posters here don't understand what your are trying to convey.

My thought on your teaching style are limited.  I am fairly new to the game and have never taken a lesson, but I really see how this method could take your average person who has played very little golf and make them a competent, or even competitive golfer.  But thats just me.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

He may not be a spokesperson for the site, but he is still correct in his assessment.  Its pretty obvious the vast majority of posters here don't understand what your are trying to convey.

My thought on your teaching style are limited.  I am fairly new to the game and have never taken a lesson, but I really see how this method could take your average person who has played very little golf and make them a competent, or even competitive golfer.  But thats just me.

And you are entitled to your opinion. I am just surprised that no one recognises the fact that they themselves used 'inside-out' methods to learn many motor skills in infancy through to childhood. Although they don't disagree.

There are very few teachers using this highly developed learning system to coach golf and it doesn't surprise me that everyone disagrees with it but at least agree it is the probably the method we used to learn all of the basic motor skills.

Is this so hard to understand?

[teamroper60]

The concepts Patrick57 is calling "inside-out" is one of the most successful methods of teaching someone to speak a second language.  It is simplistic and easily grasped by most people because it is based on how babies learn to speak their primary language.   So for lingual purposes it works well.   That said, I have not seen anything simplistic about what Patrick57 is trying to say in this, or any other post.

As a new golfer, I spend a lot of time reading on TST and other places, trying to learn what I can about how to play this game better.  I've found a lot of good info here but have come to the conclusion posts started by Patrick57 should only be read for entertainment purposes.