Golftec and Video Swing

[GolfGuy123]

Two part question here:

Has anyone ever taken lessons from Golftec? I did an expensive package with them at one point and never really got much out of it. (and yes, I practiced a ton during the 3-4 months I was getting lessons from them). Spent around 3k and still could not break 90...which I find absolutely insane considering the natural athletic ability, hand eye coordination etc. that I have. I went into it thinking my instructor is going to have a very easy time with me since I was shooting consistent 94-100 and was just looking to accomplish the more than reasonable goal of breaking 90. By the time I was done, I could not break 100 to save my life. I had to abandon the months of lessons, practice time (working on what they were trying to get me to do) and basically go back to my original way of playing (which obviously is not good at all but at least it lets me break 100!)

Even though Golftec did not help me improve my game at all, still all my lessons were put on video so the pro was analyzing what he saw in slow mo and I also had the ability to see myself over and over on video to see what is REALLY happening...

So my second question is, now that I am looking to get lessons again (my game is an embarassment), I def. do not want to go back to Golftec however it looks like all the PGA instructors in my area are NOT using video. Is video absolutely necessary when receiving lessons from a pro? OR can you get a really good pro who can spot your issues etc. without seeing your swing in slow mo on video?

Thanks!

[festivus]

2-D video can be as much a hindrance as a help.  For some it's a life saver, for others a source of utter confusion.  That might sound like a cop-out but it can really depend.  Some people are okay with "feel is not real" and trust the pro's advice will improve plane, balance, or whatever.  Others need that visual confirmation on a regular basis.

One thing is for sure: 2-D video can be incredibly deceiving.  There are many things that appear one way but are in reality the opposite, and 3-D really helps sort that out.  If you're gonna invest and believe technology can help you, then you'll get more from 1 3-D session than 5 2-D ones.  But maybe some of these experiences have turned you off and you just want to some practical advice and feedback that keeps it quite simple.

If you're already shooting 95 than you could break 90 with some course management and short game work.

[garybbq]

Run!!! far away from Golftec.

I don't think video is absolutely necessary for a golf instructor.

[dsc123]

I think lessons without video is flying blind.  I went for a golftec evaluation but the prices were ridiculous.  I ended up going with http://evolvr.thegolfevolution.com/ and have had good success, I think.  You could give that a try.

[Golfingdad]

I don't think video is absolutely necessary for a golf instructor.

It's not.  If you have 100% trust in your instructor, and your trust is not misguided.  However,

I think lessons without video is flying blind.

I agree.  It's better for peace of mind to be able to see yourself and compare yourself to your goal.

And +1 in regards to Evolvr. @GolfGuy123 I have been getting continous lessons from Evolvr for about a year and a half now, and my handicap has improved by a couple of strokes, and I've spent less than 1/4 of what you spent with Golftec.

I highly recommend them.

[Dave2512]

Heck I think even some practice is better with video. No way I'd work with an instructor that didn't use video. I hit balls at indoor stalls in the summer just because they have video stalls.

[iacas]

One thing is for sure: 2-D video can be incredibly deceiving. There are many things that appear one way but are in reality the opposite, and 3-D really helps sort that out.  If you're gonna invest and believe technology can help you, then you'll get more from 1 3-D session than 5 2-D ones.  But maybe some of these experiences have turned you off and you just want to some practical advice and feedback that keeps it quite simple.

Completely disagree. And I'd challenge you to find something where it's "the opposite."

Virtually every 3D system requires you to strap stuff on. 2D video has a few limitations, but they're incredibly easy to work with and understand if you know a few basic things, and high speed video is a tool, just as launch monitors, pressure plates, etc. are tools.

[jclark]

There is obviously a difference between 2D video and 3D life but I'm pretty sure our brains are really good at filling in the info from 2D video to help us think of it in 3D. I doubt a 2D video is gonna show the opposite of reality. Our brains fill in so much information that we subconsciously think we are seeing 3D anyway. (Seen this on brain games on science channel and done a little research myself since I suffer from the worst depth perception you can have)

[Pave]

Two part question here:

Has anyone ever taken lessons from Golftec? I did an expensive package with them at one point and never really got much out of it. (and yes, I practiced a ton during the 3-4 months I was getting lessons from them). Spent around 3k and still could not break 90...which I find absolutely insane considering the natural athletic ability, hand eye coordination etc. that I have. I went into it thinking my instructor is going to have a very easy time with me since I was shooting consistent 94-100 and was just looking to accomplish the more than reasonable goal of breaking 90. By the time I was done, I could not break 100 to save my life. I had to abandon the months of lessons, practice time (working on what they were trying to get me to do) and basically go back to my original way of playing (which obviously is not good at all but at least it lets me break 100!)

Even though Golftec did not help me improve my game at all, still all my lessons were put on video so the pro was analyzing what he saw in slow mo and I also had the ability to see myself over and over on video to see what is REALLY happening...

So my second question is, now that I am looking to get lessons again (my game is an embarassment), I def. do not want to go back to Golftec however it looks like all the PGA instructors in my area are NOT using video. Is video absolutely necessary when receiving lessons from a pro? OR can you get a really good pro who can spot your issues etc. without seeing your swing in slow mo on video?

Thanks!

I used video combined with software to teach between 1995 and 2008 when I stopped teaching and moved into another area of golf.

Video is only a tool and can be really successful for the learning process AND can be an absolute waste of time for some.

Videoing your swing is great if you want to have a technically better swing- but it won't necessarily make you a better golfer, which can only be judged by your scores.

Improving your technique is only a small part of the equation.

In your case I would suggest having a playing lesson, let the pro see what you do on the course.

[iacas]

Improving your technique is only a small part of the equation.

I think that improving your technique is a BIG part of the equation. A huge part. Bad golf swings produce bad golf shots.

In your case I would suggest having a playing lesson, let the pro see what you do on the course.

So let's say the golfer slices.

The pro properly assesses that the face is open to the path. Maybe he even knows the face points left of the target at impact and the path is even farther left of that.

That still doesn't answer the root question: what is the golfer's body doing that causes the path to be so far left? Are his shoulders open? Arms coming down late? Wrist conditions throwing the clubhead out? Maybe he's heeling most shots with his driver. Maybe he's lined up right and trying to "pull" the ball back to the left. It could be a hundred other things.

Or maybe the golfer just doesn't make good contact. In real speed, without the use of high-speed video, what is the golfer doing to disrupt the radius of his golf swing to cause fat and thin contact? It could be a thousand things. A hundred at the least. Does the pro without video just begin randomly going through all of them (admittedly, some can be removed because vision isn't the same as being blind, so some things could potentially be ruled out)?

Video is, used properly with its modest limitations understood and accounted for, the single best tool we have available to us today. Their importance, when used properly, almost cannot be overstated. Can they be over-used? Absolutely. Is there more to golf than a swing that LOOKS good? Of course - but that would start to put words into my mouth, as I will simply tell you that the camera is simply a record of WHAT occurred. It's a record of what the golfer DID. It may not be as precise as a $250,000 sensor system, but in other ways, it can be more precise given how simply we understand pictures and optics and the recordings a video camera produces.

[Hammer 4]

Just my 3 cents. My last lesson included video, a dtl, and fo. Just for reference, I'm a show me kinda guy, I need to see what I'm doing wrong, and with the video, I could see where I needed to work on. If not for the video, I would have never guessed what I was doing wrong. So while I'm not an expert, video for sure helps.

[GolfGuy123]

Thanks for all the helpful input! I have been saying I am going to try evolvr but I'm serious this time! ;)

[festivus]

Completely disagree. And I'd challenge you to find something where it's "the opposite."

Virtually every 3D system requires you to strap stuff on. 2D video has a few limitations, but they're incredibly easy to work with and understand if you know a few basic things, and high speed video is a tool, just as launch monitors, pressure plates, etc. are tools.

That's fair - appreciate your thoughts.

A classic case of being "opposite" is reverse spine tilt.  Often missed or not seen in 2-D and easily picked up right away in 3-D.  We see the same in some wrist angles and torques where people have come to us with 2-D "diagnosis" of (name your condition) and it turns out to be very different because of the many bones and joints being hard to pick up on 2-D.

Good tools are only good tools and can help or hurt - you're 100% correct.   In the hands of good teachers then better tools would likely produce better results, no?

There are 3-D systems that don't require cords - we built ours that way for the exact reasons you describe.  Some of the biofeedback systems can really help bridge the gap between "feel" and "real."

[jclark]

Wouldn't filming your swing in a face on and down the line view give you a 3D image of the swing?

[iacas]

Wouldn't filming your swing in a face on and down the line view give you a 3D image of the swing?

It's still a 2D image.

[saevel25]

3d is cool, but I think it is a hassle. 3d to me should only be applied to the club. Get some real time data on the position of the club head, especially at impact. Besides that, slow motion video camera is just fine. Keep it simple. Golf doesn't need the swing broken down to the nth degree here.

[festivus]

That's fair - like any info you need someone who knows what he/she is doing to break down all the info and make simple suggestions.  For us the 3-D is actually more useful for the 15-handicapper because we can get to the bottom of why they're doing what they do; in other words why have all the lessons and other stuff not worked to this point.  That requires some time, testing, and expertise but is obviously worth it.  Otherwise, the extra data is just noise and you're 100% right more a hassle than anything.

This OP spent $3,000 and didn't get much out of it.  Probably a dedicated and interested person just too bad he/she didn't find someone to help them more.  IMHO neither video nor 3-D is necessary to get better but you can increase your chances exponentially other things being equal.

[Bird E3]

Maybe he can't putt. Some many people spend so much time on their swing, and never practice the short game. Get a 4 ft wide birdie ball putting green, and make 30 4 footers in a row every day and you will break 90 unless 4 footer are gimmes for you.