Natural Movement sequence

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mikeod5785

Actually they are the swings of  scratch golfer how bout that lmfao

I didn't know you could get a mini-golf handicap? You do know you're not supposed to post the scores you shoot on your Xbox 360 or PS3 for your handicap, right?

[mdl]

Interesting point of discussion, but I'd venture that we've evolved for millions of years to be able to naturally learn how to walk, run, and throw without breaking down power accumulators and positions and whatnot.  We have not evolved for millions of years to be able to naturally teach ourselves to hit a nice pretty baby push draw on the sweet spot.

That said, I'm generally an over analytical guy, and my biggest leaps forward have happened after I've thought about mechanics and practiced stuff that's supposed to fix my current problem without great success, then went back to just feeling it out and trying to feel what the good ones were like.  But still, given how we haven't evolved to hit a 4i, I'd posit that both steps, analysis and thinking about mechanics and the natural feel/self-teaching, are necessary for all but the most spectacularly gifted athletes.

[mdl]

Originally Posted by iacas

I didn't know you could get a mini-golf handicap? You do know you're not supposed to post the scores you shoot on your Xbox 360 or PS3 for your handicap, right?

Gettin' a little cheeky?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mdl

Gettin' a little cheeky?

I need to keep my sanity too.

If you're going to make claims, back them up. Don't claim a handicap - or an ability - you do not legitimately possess. (Obviously the "you" in that sentence is not YOU, mdl, but the general "you.")

[BWChuck]

Adam,

Can you go into more depth of what and how you teach your students?  If your not teaching them body sequence (or telling them to consciously focus on it), what are you spending your time telling them in their lessons?

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by BWChuck

Adam,

Can you go into more depth of what and how you teach your students?  If your not teaching them body sequence (or telling them to consciously focus on it), what are you spending your time telling them in their lessons?

Its different for everyone. I don't have a specific method really, I go with what is in front of me as a player. I do teach technique sometimes, but it is usually on a case by case, and its almost always a second resort to a more natural change.

I deal a lot with concepts, or what you may call building the correct intention of what to do with the club and the ball at impact. I see a lot of natural changes from this that are beneficial, and to be honest if it gets the player to get the clubhead on the ball more consistently and better then that is the first goal, refining how they do that happens as a result of certain task led exercises.

I also deal with a lot of skill development. If someone can do a certain skill, they tend to then possess the technique. For example, if someone can fade and draw the ball effectively, then they can find the in-between, which would be a more neutral swing (although the movement pattern would be different for everyone for many different reasons).

So in essence, I educate people on what needs to happen at impact - translate that into how it feels, and then build skill and co-ordination tasks in order to improve that. Technique does come in, but it is a supplement, and I often find that when the preceding information is in place, I need to delve into the technical less and less.

I am not opposed to teaching technically. I just like to play devils advocate, and feel that golf is too heavily weighted in terms of technical teaching. I would just like people to think a little more outside the box than normal, that is all. I am not trying to change anyone's beliefs, just maybe make them think that there are other possibilities out there - like evolutionary learning, and employing some elements of how we learned other tasks such as walking, running, throwing, catching, jumping and hitting a baseball. It's lost on a lot of people though, as people who are of a middle level of intelligence seem to think that the only way to learn is to use that intelligence to be analytical.

As with everything, balance is key

[BWChuck]

Originally Posted by Adam Young

So in essence, I educate people on what needs to happen at impact - translate that into how it feels, and then build skill and co-ordination tasks in order to improve that. Technique does come in, but it is a supplement, and I often find that when the preceding information is in place, I need to delve into the technical less and less.

As with everything, balance is key

Thanks for the response.  I am a fairly new golfer (and analytical minded), but I have noticed that most tips that involve a "feel," rather than a technical example of what needs to happen, work much better for me.  But at the same time, having to "feel" something, isn't necessarily any more natural feeling than trying to imitate someone else's technique.

You've mentioned the subconscious in a few other threads, what exactly do you mean by this (relative to the golf swing, of course)?  Would it be the same as examples like:  "Just relax", "Don't think about it", "Clear your head", etc.?  If not, what would you consider the differences to be?

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by BWChuck

Thanks for the response.  I am a fairly new golfer (and analytical minded), but I have noticed that most tips that involve a "feel," rather than a technical example of what needs to happen, work much better for me.  But at the same time, having to "feel" something, isn't necessarily any more natural feeling than trying to imitate someone else's technique.

You've mentioned the subconscious in a few other threads, what exactly do you mean by this (relative to the golf swing, of course)?  Would it be the same as examples like:  "Just relax", "Don't think about it", "Clear your head", etc.?  If not, what would you consider the differences to be?

Subconscius learning can come in many forms, and on a sliding scale. An example of pure subconscious is when you give 100 kids a putter and ask them to hit it as far as they can along the ground. Come back in an hour and 70 of them will have great movements. Come back in a week and almost all of them will. hitting a putter along the ground is more likley to do this as the concept is simple. Ask a kid to hit the ball in the air and you will get a much lower percentage of good movements, because now an intention has been brought in. This is where concept/intention building comes in.

The next level on consciousness would be where you show someone a swing (say for example by demonstrating). Then they close their eyes and try to visualise it, then try to visualise themselves doing it. Then they have a go. This is amazing for complete beginners to pick up a thousand different bits of technique with a low level of conscious thought.Research mirror neurons in the brain.

Then there are ways of learning technical movements (such as weight shift) through task led exercises (such as brush the ground in the right place). Obviously this involves some level of conscious thought as they are thinking of what to do, but what is important is they are not so conscious of how to do it, that's where the brain works it out.

There are other examples such as the tour striker iron which would develop a subconscious learning of the correct positions at impact, or just by placing a ball next to another ball and tryign to hit only one can improve your ability to control the clubhead without too much conscious effort.

In essence, it is almost impossible for an adult to learn fully subconsciously, as we always have this internal dialogue and story that we are telling ourselves. In fact, many theorists say that consciousness is a pure result of us using language, and it is the ability to convey our brains' firings in terms of language to ourselves that brings about his feeling of 'I'. Can you remember being conscious before you learned language? Yet as a baby we managed to learn a lot of things without being able to convey it to ourselves in language terms. The whole point is trying to get closer to that state when possible.

So I suppose the conscious part is working on the correct understanding of 'what to do' whereas the 'how to do it' is more subconsciously controlled. Like if i asked you to throw a dart into the bullseye and you had enough practice, you would find a way to do it relatively consistently, and it would be your own style and would bring everything you are as a human with it (past experiences/skills/genetics/injuries etc). The opposite way would be to try and learn to hit the bullseye by following a model hand action - but this may actually 'fight' everything you are as a person and also interferes with the actual act of hitting the bullseye (studies have been done on this, but its pretty obvious to say that if you are focusing on your hand your performance will drop).

Then when the tasks are learned consciously (but the movement pattern has been learned subconsciously) it is time to get into a minimal thinking state - similar to how, once you have learned to drive, you can change gears and all that jazz without thinking (unless you are american and its even easier). This can be done through routine procedures that force minimal thinking about the movement, and increase the chance of getting in the zone.

[BWChuck]

Interesting stuff.  Thanks.

[Limpinswinger]

Originally Posted by Adam Young

I think you said it correctly in a different post. Hit 500 balls a day for a month, that's 15,000 balls. do this every day for 10 years and you've done your 10,000 hour rule - every pro out there has done this (or more in golf).

Now, do you learn the kinematic sequence bit by bit, or do you let it develop as a result of the above, just like the monkey, with no conscious awareness. Is it better to have a consciously learned kinematic sequence, or a naturally developed one?

If a skill is not purposely and knowingly learned, it becomes very difficult to diagnose and fix problems when they occur.

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by Limpinswinger

If a skill is not purposely and knowingly learned, it becomes very difficult to diagnose and fix problems when they occur.

true.

But I prefer to think about concepts of impact and let the movement develop itself rather than the alternate way - develop movements and hope that concepts of impact come with.

one is 'tool' based and the other is 'body awareness' based, there are advantages and disadvantages to each

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by Limpinswinger

If a skill is not purposely and knowingly learned, it becomes very difficult to diagnose and fix problems when they occur.

true.

But I prefer to think about concepts of impact and let the movement develop itself rather than the alternate way - develop movements and hope that concepts of impact come with. one is 'tool' based and the other is 'body awareness' based, there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Also, even when a skill is purposefully learned, fixing problems can be just as difficult as when not. In fact, I have taught a load of good players who had no problem fixing themselves, in terms of ball flight. Sure, the fixes they made may not have been mechanically great or textbook in any way, but they managed to get the club on the ball better with no conscious knowledge of how they did it, only through feels etc. On the other hand, I have played with more golf instructors than I care to see that KNOWING a lot about how to fix yourself doesn't always mean you do it. In fact, I have seen more good players and instructors ruined by their increase in knowledge in certain areas than made better. Obviously the snarky answer here would be 'well obviously they weren't working on the correct thing then'. I can assure you that these people were working on the 'technically correct' thing. But anyone can argue a point and say 'well working on this, or this, or this would have been better'. It is a never ending argument that anyone with their 2 cents can chime in on.

now I know that this style doesn't suit everyone, it certainly wouldn't have suited me 10 years ago when i was very analytical and searching for the perfect swing. So I can understand where people are coming from when they don't quite 'get' this. But you have to understand where I am coming from. I have worked with lots of very good players and have seen how they were created. I have seen naturally developed players and I have seen 'built' players of all levels, from high handicaps to pro's on the USPGA and LPGA. When the pressure is on, when things are not going exactly how they want on the day, when they are playing their best, I know which group wins hands down.

All I am really saying is that, you would be surprised about how a lot of assumptions that seem infallibly logical just don't hold up in reality. You can get a guy more on plane and make him worse. you can zero out a guys numbers on trackman and he never breaks 80 again. you can turn a guys 20 yard draw into a 3 yards fade and they completely lose their game. Sure, this can all work and make players better too, but it's not always the case, and when you deal with fixing players whose livelihoods are on the line, you better make sure you make as least disruptive a change as possible and take into account everything else the player is bringing to the table, not just how their swing looks compared to hogans, or what their numbers are on trackman.

It's very interesting stuff, and I guess you have to see a lot of it from the inside and be on the firing line before you start to question your assumptions.

Let me ask you this, out of two darts players who are trying to hit the bullseye, who would perform better after a mistake. The guy who knows that he released the dart 3 degree too early with the dart angled 5 degrees too upright, and then tries to adjust this consciously the next time by thinking about release points and dart angles... or the one who just 'felt' it was wrong and tries again? Do you pay darts by any chance?

Oh, and some wise words by Moe Norman - apparently he could hit the ball

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rIq1aPKi1w&feature;=results_video&playnext;=1&list;=PL70085F30FC27E1BF

About 1 minute and 4 seconds in he says something that I wished I had known 10 years ago

[Limpinswinger]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Adam.  No, I wouldn't be surprised that some make adjustments intuitively.  I've done the same, on occasion.  But, in my experience, making intuitive adjustments usually results in temporary fixes, and adjustments based on correcting observed technique flaws usually result in more permanent fixes.

I don't play darts.  I understand your analogy and it has some application. But, there are many more variables in a full golf swing than in a dart throw, which makes it much easier to rely on natural timing and coordination to throw a dart than to swing a golf club, IMO.

I've never heard of Moe Norman before now.  At the beginning of his interview he was inspiring.  But, by the end he was getting depressing.  I did a little Wiki search on him and it seems he was famous for his home grown swing.  Apparently, he had a short powerful swing with little wrist release which eliminates and/or minimizes many of the variables that plague many golfers.  I'm beginning to think that such a swing may be the best answer for most of us mere mortals who don't have the inate proprioceptive awarness of the Sneads, Nicklaus's, Trevino's, Miller's and Woods's of the game.

Thanks again.

[Square]

I find this discussion interesting (been a lurker for awhile).  I'm a fairly bad golfer at this stage with the hopes of eventually being a consistent bogey player (I know it's low bar for around here, but I've no delusions about golf being anything more than recreational).  I've done a few lessons over the last few years and while I think I have gained from them overall, I'm kind of at a crossroads where I either go for more technical instruction or find my own path with what I know.  I'm hitting the ball as well as I ever have but it's not all showing up on the scorecard at this point.  So there is some frustration with that, but I think I could probably drop several strokes if I just work within my current limitations and concentrate on a natural way (for me) to swing while just focusing on getting the club face square to the ball.  I'd probably give up a little on the full back swing but I tend to hit my irons long anyways so I'm not really that concerned.  I guess for me personally, in the terms that Adam uses when both players aren't playing well, I'd prefer to have a more natural and self-evolved swing for my recreational play to fall back on.  So I appreciate AY for putting these thoughts out there as I definitely think they are helping me to figure out which way I should try to make my next step.  Maybe I'll take a step back (not that there are many for me to go) but I also think getting something that feels right and blocking out a lot of the overthinking analytical stuff I may actually improve my game in shorter time.  Anyway, I guess I'm more thinking out loud than adding to the conversation but that's my take as a high handicapper that is really just trying to get beer-league recreational golf "good".

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by Square

I find this discussion interesting (been a lurker for awhile).  I'm a fairly bad golfer at this stage with the hopes of eventually being a consistent bogey player (I know it's low bar for around here, but I've no delusions about golf being anything more than recreational).  I've done a few lessons over the last few years and while I think I have gained from them overall, I'm kind of at a crossroads where I either go for more technical instruction or find my own path with what I know.  I'm hitting the ball as well as I ever have but it's not all showing up on the scorecard at this point.  So there is some frustration with that, but I think I could probably drop several strokes if I just work within my current limitations and concentrate on a natural way (for me) to swing while just focusing on getting the club face square to the ball.  I'd probably give up a little on the full back swing but I tend to hit my irons long anyways so I'm not really that concerned.  I guess for me personally, in the terms that Adam uses when both players aren't playing well, I'd prefer to have a more natural and self-evolved swing for my recreational play to fall back on.  So I appreciate AY for putting these thoughts out there as I definitely think they are helping me to figure out which way I should try to make my next step.  Maybe I'll take a step back (not that there are many for me to go) but I also think getting something that feels right and blocking out a lot of the overthinking analytical stuff I may actually improve my game in shorter time.  Anyway, I guess I'm more thinking out loud than adding to the conversation but that's my take as a high handicapper that is really just trying to get beer-league recreational golf "good".

This is very sensible in my opinion, I work on this exact type of thing in a more structured form with high level players. There are times where you want some technique periodisation in your regime/year/monthly cycle..... but there are also times where you need to drop back from that and work with what you have ad get better at making that work for you through certain skills (which can be inhibited by technical thinking).

A good example of this is, 3 months before an important tournament, a player will work on something technical for up to a month, along with creativity (shaping shots as wildly as they can to learn new motor skills). As the tournament gets closer, we move more to calibrating a cosistent shot pattern, whilst maintaining about 10% of the creativity work. then up to a month before the tournament, all technique focus is left behind, now its a pure performance and routine focus, with some creativity thrown in.

then the cycle is repeated. This is a healthy practice regime. most people get stuck in technical or calibrating with no creativity or routine work. There is more to golf than just looking good.

[Mr. Desmond]

And some people tend to make things too simple ... as seen in this thread.

If the golf swing was simple, we'd see more people taking up the game. I've given a 50 deg club to first timers and asked them to make a stroke.

Their body, arms, and hands are like jelly, everything is bent incorrectly, and their body goes all over the place - it's like watching a

BLOB!

Golf is not throwing stones or batting a baseball, or playing cricket. You are taking a bent club while bent over, attempting to hit a tiny ball with a tiny club head on a long shaft a long way to a target. It is a learned skill.

The idea is to make a not so simple act - seem simple.

And that takes genius.

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

And some people tend to make things too simple ... as seen in this thread.

If the golf swing was simple, we'd see more people taking up the game. I've given a 50 deg club to first timers and asked them to make a stroke.

Their body, arms, and hands are like jelly, everything is bent incorrectly, and their body goes all over the place - it's like watching a

BLOB!

Golf is not throwing stones or batting a baseball, or playing cricket. You are taking a bent club while bent over, attempting to hit a tiny ball with a tiny club head on a long shaft a long way to a target. It is a learned skill.

The idea is to make a not so simple act - seem simple.

And that takes genius.

I never said golf was simple. but its also not as difficult as people make out. People could learn to play perfectly good golf before d-plane, impact laws, k-vests, 3dpofs, trackmans, video anlaysis etc. Some people had a ball and a stick and whacked it around a field without worrying if their shoulder plane was too steep in the exit.

I'm not against ALL of that, some of it is great (I love trackman stuff). But you seem to be suggesting that learning golf should be completely different to how baseball is learned or how stones are thrown.

your example of giving a first time a club actually goes with my idea... the whole point is that certain things, such as the kinematic sequence, are developed (natural means or unnatural means INO conscious effort) as a natural part of practice. A baby learning to walk also looks like a blob when they first try, but the subconscious develops, refines, adds strength to the movement all without conscious effort - a task that would be insurmountably difficult if done consciously. The question is - how many tasks in golf can be learned this way - have the tasks even been defined correctly to a person. Should learning golf be largely setting the correct task followed by giving the correct feedback as opposed to telling someone how to do it. Again, there is balance in here somewhere

And how many tour pros would be classified as a genius. I don't know if you have met many of them :)

[Limpinswinger]

Originally Posted by Adam Young

I never said golf was simple. but its also not as difficult as people make out. People could learn to play perfectly good golf before d-plane, impact laws, k-vests, 3dpofs, trackmans, video anlaysis etc. Some people had a ball and a stick and whacked it around a field without worrying if their shoulder plane was too steep in the exit.

I'm not against ALL of that, some of it is great (I love trackman stuff). But you seem to be suggesting that learning golf should be completely different to how baseball is learned or how stones are thrown.

your example of giving a first time a club actually goes with my idea... the whole point is that certain things, such as the kinematic sequence, are developed (natural means or unnatural means INO conscious effort) as a natural part of practice. A baby learning to walk also looks like a blob when they first try, but the subconscious develops, refines, adds strength to the movement all without conscious effort - a task that would be insurmountably difficult if done consciously. The question is - how many tasks in golf can be learned this way - have the tasks even been defined correctly to a person. Should learning golf be largely setting the correct task followed by giving the correct feedback as opposed to telling someone how to do it. Again, there is balance in here somewhere

And how many tour pros would be classified as a genius. I don't know if you have met many of them :)

Different people play golf for different reasons.  Some people crave competition.  Some are gambling addicts.  Some just like to drink and smoke cigars with their friends because their wives won't let them do it in the house.  Some like a long walk in the sunshine.  For me, it's the reward of being better today than I was yesterday.  I enjoy the process of developing, working on and improving upon a highly skilled activity.  I feel pride and satisfaction in working to obtain a skill level and then executing my shots on the course.  I also love competition.  Being out there playing the game, being with friends, meeting new friends, having a nice long walk, or ride, in the sunsihine, smoking the occasional cigar, enjoying the beauty of a well designed, well maintained, golf course, are all bonuses.  But, none of that is why I play.   And, it matters not how good I get.  I still want to be better today than I was yesterday.