Instruction Too Technical

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Bullitt5339

I'm not paying an instructor to listen to me, I'm paying him to make changes to my swing so that I improve.  I went from a 24 handicap to a 14 after taking 3 lessons on my iron swing and a single short-game lesson, because I was having trouble hitting GIR's.  There was definitely no Non-Judgemental feedback going on either, and I appreciated the no B.S. approach to trying to make me better.  I am going back to him for a few lessons on Driver and Fairway woods, since that's what I need to get into the single digits now.

The thread's about instruction being too technical. I discuss this at depth on another thread. NJF will change your swing more effectively than any of that judgemental stuff any day of the year.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I have manners.

You're going with "I have manners"? Really, Rebecca? Or were you being a "sarcastic clown"?

Originally Posted by Patrick57

There are coaches who can actually instruct without knowing stuff that is uncomprehensible at a physical level.

What makes you think it's "uncomprehensible [sic] at a physical level"? I understand it. It's perfectly comprehensible to me.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Are we getting better? No.

Yes, we are. Both individually and as a whole.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

The feel can be made real using NJF. The student gives feedback for what he is feeling and the coach agrees or disagrees with what he is feeling. Rather quickly the student's feel becomes real.

And what about feels that can't be seen with the naked eye? Trackman can tell you path and clubface to a tenth of a degree or so. Video can tell you what the wrist conditions did in transition. You can't see that without technology.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I do use a camera, of course, it helps used correctly.

Yet you're the only one who uses it appropriately? Because if that's not what you're saying, that's how it comes off, at least to me and I'd wager to many others as well.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

People are hitting the ball better, further and straighter but on average they are not scoring better.

Incorrect. Additionally, most people (~86%) aren't taking lessons for various reasons, so counting them in the stats puts an awfully big anchor out there.

I've linked to this before.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

The thread's about instruction being too technical. I discuss this at depth on another thread. NJF will change your swing more effectively than any of that judgemental stuff any day of the year.

Yeah, and 90% of all putts from 10-15 feet are missed left. Patrick, you've got some ocean-front property in Idaho to sell us all, too, right?

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I can only speak from my experience and I think that the studies of the intricacies at modern levels only confuse the handicap golfer. They sure confuse me and I know the swing rather well.

I think they confuse you so because you can't explain them, when you've tried they've confused your students.

If I was taught calculus by someone who hadn't gotten past basic algebra I'd be confused too.

I think this right here is the crux of it all. You are confused, so you assume everyone else is confused or bored by this type of stuff. I've already tried to make it clear that while I think it's important for me to understand things, I don't bust out a bunch of knowledge and heap it on my students. Some want to know a little more and knowing helps them "buy in" and/or practice better on their own. Others don't need to know much of it at all. I use a 1-10 scale often with my students, but if they're wrong, I'll say "I think that was more of a 5." I think it's silly to say you should always only ever use one form of "feedback" to the exclusion of all other kinds - I think each form has its role and place, and a good instructor knows when to use whatever kind of feedback he wants, just as a good instructor knows how and when to use what level of technology.

I think it boils down to this: Patrick doesn't understand something, and doesn't care for it, so he's incapable of understanding how others can understand the information and use it to benefit their students.

And now that I believe I've figured you out, my curiosity is satisfied.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

You're going with "I have manners"? Really, Rebecca? Or were you being a "sarcastic clown"?

OK yawn. I think Rebecca was especially good mannered.

Originally Posted by iacas

What makes you think it's "uncomprehensible [sic] at a physical level"? I understand it. It's perfectly comprehensible to me.

Yeah but not to me and I do know the golf swing.

Originally Posted by iacas

Yes, we are. Both individually and as a whole.

There is a study that proves this?

Originally Posted by iacas

And what about feels that can't be seen with the naked eye? Trackman can tell you path and clubface to a tenth of a degree or so. Video can tell you what the wrist conditions did in transition. You can't see that without technology.

NJF requires more senses, with hearing and feeling being used with seeing of course. Just because you can see what's happening to a tenth of a degree or so, doesn't mean our senses are going to be able to do anything about it. I could watch my knees bending to a tenth of a degree or so in the act of running but I doubt that would help me to become a better runner. And running is less complicated than golf, I think? I show students especially ladies, who cast, how the wrists should just try to pull the club etc and they great difficulty changing this simple move. You want to show golfers things that happen in 10ths of degrees and expect me to swallow it because it is scientifically proven. I can't believe how gullible golfers are becoming.

Originally Posted by iacas

Yet you're the only one who uses it appropriately? Because if that's not what you're saying, that's how it comes off, at least to me and I'd wager to many others as well.

Its not what I said. But i do not abuse it.

Originally Posted by iacas

Incorrect. Additionally, most people (~86%) aren't taking lessons for various reasons, so counting them in the stats puts an awfully big anchor out there.

This statement was directed more toward better forgiving equipment than lessons. I don't think I said because of lessons or anything in particular.

Originally Posted by iacas

Yeah, and 90% of all putts from 10-15 feet are missed left. Patrick, you've got some ocean-front property in Idaho to sell us all, too, right?

80-90% of putts for righties under 10 feet. Correct. You are learning from me.

Originally Posted by iacas

I think they confuse you so because you can't explain them, when you've tried they've confused your students.

I can explain anything my student asks.

Originally Posted by iacas

If I was taught calculus by someone who hadn't gotten past basic algebra I'd be confused too.

A good coach will get back very well with basic algebra

Originally Posted by iacas

I think this right here is the crux of it all. You are confused, so you assume everyone else is confused or bored by this type of stuff. I've already tried to make it clear that while I think it's important for me to understand things, I don't bust out a bunch of knowledge and heap it on my students. Some want to know a little more and knowing helps them "buy in" and/or practice better on their own. Others don't need to know much of it at all. I use a 1-10 scale often with my students, but if they're wrong, I'll say "I think that was more of a 5." I think it's silly to say you should always only ever use one form of "feedback" to the exclusion of all other kinds - I think each form has its role and place, and a good instructor knows when to use whatever kind of feedback he wants, just as a good instructor knows how and when to use what level of technology.

I think it boils down to this: Patrick doesn't understand something, and doesn't care for it, so he's incapable of understanding how others can understand the information and use it to benefit their students.

And now that I believe I've figured you out, my curiosity is satisfied.

You are confusing me with some of your followers. You think because you have studied the bio and aero dynamics and calculus of the swing that you are a better coach than me. A good coach knows how to assist his student's learning process and the above knowledge is dodgy to say the least. I consider the most important trait for good learning is concentration. Now that I can teach.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I have an opinion.   Do not try to confuse me with facts.

Fixed it for you Patrick...........

[iacas]

Patrick, good luck to you, but I'm getting off the crazy train.

I learned awhile ago not to deal with people who are crazy, because my logical, rational brain simply can't fathom the inner workings of someone who operates outside of the boundaries of reason and logic.

You continually make things up, ignore things that are said by others, make vague BS-laden statements, and couch virtually everything you say in absolutes. You are crazy, and having now determined this, my next decision is both logical and clear.

In laymen's terms, I'm obeying this sign:

[turtleback]

Just one question Patrick.  If you are so right and everyone is so wrong your students must be showing remarkable progress compared to the students of all of the wrong teachers,  right?

So how come no one has ever heard of you?

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Fixed it for you Patrick...........

Sorry I don't understand this.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Just one question Patrick.  If you are so right and everyone is so wrong your students must be showing remarkable progress compared to the students of all of the wrong teachers,  right?

So how come no one has ever heard of you?

That's two questions.

I am not delighted with the results of my students because they cannot avoid being contaminated by the 'outside-in' version of teaching that is widespread in golf. I know only two students that fall into the avoidance category, my daughter Hcp 3 and another girl aged 11, Hcp 8.

You've heard of me and so have plenty of others! I'm the guy who thinks that this game is getting taken over by techno-geeks in an age of techno-geeks who don't know any better.

[logman]

Again......So I read the whole thread and it's like the "playing with fear thread". It doesn't seem as crazy as some of you guy a going on about. Patricks talking about a percieved failure from coaching jargon to students head. I think. So what happens next is Iacas pulling apart every little bit of a patrick post. Why. Iacas is it not possible to just say "no I don't agree with you there champ" and then just make a nice cup of tea and sit down and read the paper. It is a forum and people have different ideas about the game and the way it should be taught. So why the vehemence. I'm new here, and seeing the antagonistic mindset of some of you guys it makes me think about posting anything.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by logman

Again......So I read the whole thread and it's like the "playing with fear thread". It doesn't seem as crazy as some of you guy a going on about. Patricks talking about a percieved failure from coaching jargon to students head. I think.

Exactly. Explaining a movement with micro science. They'll be writing books next telling infants how to walk to a 1/10 of a degree precision.

Originally Posted by logman

It is a forum and people have different ideas about the game and the way it should be taught. So why the vehemence. I'm new here, and seeing the antagonistic mindset of some of you guys it makes me think about posting anything.

Careful logman, they'll be thinking I hired you.

I'm not sure if the forum has time for people who have different ideas about the game and the way it should be taught. I have thick skin and I will listen to any rebuttals but you are right, there is too much vehemence towards people with a different view. The site has many live guests but few members, does that say something?

[Motley01]

Wow, just wow! This guy is worse than our Fake Webb Simpson.

[saevel25]

Feel isn't real, if Hogan played with what felt natural to him he would hit a hook all day. He had to add a compensation to his game to block the lefts. So he blocked out one side of the course. Even tiger's swing was modified from his original swing by Butch Harmon and he had a stretch that rivaled no other in golf. Even Bobby Jones mimiced other golfers. This concept of a natural swing is a myth. Is every swing different, yes, will one thing feel different between players, yes. Look at Adam Scott, he tired to copy Tiger's swing and he didn't have the success Tiger did. Because Tiger knew his swing, and he knew what he can do with it. Thats what is important. But its also important to know that we have these great technologies, Trackman, slow motion cameras, physics. Its a correct understanding that will greatly improve the game. Because its the tools that will allow us to know what is wrong in our swings faster.

But to claim instruction is to technical, it can be. Some great players have never recovered there swings after changing them. Other players like Nick Price went on to a hall of fame career after revamping his swing. Its really depends on the player, his swing, and the instructor. Its not as simple as just making that generalizing comment, its very individual on if something gets to techinical or not.

[Patrick57]

Feel isn't real, if Hogan played with what felt natural to him he would hit a hook all day. He had to add a compensation to his game to block the lefts. So he blocked out one side of the course. Even tiger's swing was modified from his original swing by Butch Harmon and he had a stretch that rivaled no other in golf. Even Bobby Jones mimiced other golfers. This concept of a natural swing is a myth. Is every swing different, yes, will one thing feel different between players, yes. Look at Adam Scott, he tired to copy Tiger's swing and he didn't have the success Tiger did. Because Tiger knew his swing, and he knew what he can do with it. Thats what is important. But its also important to know that we have these great technologies, Trackman, slow motion cameras, physics. Its a correct understanding that will greatly improve the game. Because its the tools that will allow us to know what is wrong in our swings faster.

I think you are answering all of my threads in one go here. [quote name="saevel25" url="/t/56813/instruction-too-technical/18#post_695586"] But to claim instruction is to technical, it can be. Some great players have never recovered there swings after changing them. Other players like Nick Price went on to a hall of fame career after revamping his swing. Its really depends on the player, his swing, and the instructor. Its not as simple as just making that generalizing comment, its very individual on if something gets to techinical or not. [/quote] 99.9% of golf when you are playing has nothing to do with micro technology or at least I hope you haven't got any of that stuff in your head. 99% of learning to play/swing better also has nothing to do with the geeky stuff.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Sorry I don't understand this.

Of course you don't.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

That's two questions.

I am not delighted with the results of my students because they cannot avoid being contaminated by the 'outside-in' version of teaching that is widespread in golf. I know only two students that fall into the avoidance category, my daughter Hcp 3 and another girl aged 11, Hcp 8.

In other words, what you are saying is, we haven't heard of you or your students because they are failing.    Of course, your reasoning for the failure has nothing to do with your teaching methods, it is all on the students.    Here is a clue for you, if your methods are not producing results, it is not the students, it is the teaching method.   End of story.   Suggesting otherwise (and you did just that in this post) is tantamount to not seeing the forest for the trees...

[Patrick57]

Of course you don't. In other words, what you are saying is, we haven't heard of you or your students because they are failing.    Of course, your reasoning for the failure has nothing to do with your teaching methods, it is all on the students.    Here is a clue for you, if your methods are not producing results, it is not the students, it is the teaching method.   End of story.   Suggesting otherwise (and you did just that in this post) is tantamount to not seeing the forest for the trees...

My results are as good as any ones. That I am not happy with the interference that exists is another matter. Don't be reading what I wrote as what you want to believe to be true. I'm not here to push my skills, I'm here to discuss golf coaching and how students learn.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

My results are as good as any ones. That I am not happy with the interference that exists is another matter. Don't be reading what I wrote as what you want to believe to be true. I'm not here to push my skills, I'm here to discuss golf coaching and how students learn.

YOUR results do not matter.  How much a student learns from you is what matters.    Blaming your student's lack of understanding on outside forces is nothing more than denying your own shortcomings as an instructor.

[Patrick57]

YOUR results do not matter.  How much a student learns from you is what matters.    Blaming your student's lack of understanding on outside forces is nothing more than denying your own shortcomings as an instructor.

You're not going to go away are you. OK I suck you're right. But my students don't suck. The system sucks. Their improvement would be better without 'outside-in' interference.

[Williamevanl]

Someone mentioned snake oil in one of the 'Patrick' threads, that's exactly how this reads. You have someone who has had success with chants, a spoon full of motor oil and leeches and you have a bunch of MD's telling him he's crazy.

Patrick has a 'holistic' approach that doesn't require all these unnecessary details and facts. He's not even all that concerned with what the 'facts' are. To be fair though Patrick if you can't answer the question: "Why does someone that pull slices the ball need to do to turn their ball flight into a push draw?", how helpful can you really be?

It's cool though, I like reading these threads. It reminds me of college (you think you are good at things until you get to college) Patrick thought he had a good understanding of the golf swing until he came 'to the internet'. The "I have no real idea what I'm talking about" is starting to catch up to him and it's interesting to watch how he comes to grips with that. So far it's been a lot of all this science pisses me off and is unnecessary, He's also tried to level the playing field by dismissing all factual information related to the golf swing as too technical. I'm not sure where he'll go next but I'll keep tuning in. :)