A6, Compensations, and Understanding the Past and the Future

[iacas]

There are teachers out there who are "position" teachers, no doubt. They look at setup, or P2, or A4, or "club shaft parallel to the ground on the downswing" or whatever they call them, and they say "this needs to look like this."

Oftentimes these teachers are fine. They're just using the positions as "checkpoints" - points in time which, when things are done properly, look good.

As I said in this thread (you should go read it again too): :

What matters? The things that create the positions. It's a subtle but important variation.

…

"Position golf" is trying to connect a series of static positions. A golf swing is a connected series of feelings (many or most of which become ingrained over time - I'm not preaching 27 swing thoughts!) that are unique to you and which dynamically result in checkpoints being passed through during your motion.

Simply put, the golf swing - and any feelings you generate - are dynamic - position golf is static. We "pass through" checkpoints, we don't "hit" positions.

That in mind, Dave and I recorded a nice video on the relative importance of the position known as A6… but it's not about A6 itself, but how the club gets to A6 and where it's going to. Here it is:

It's important, when looking at A6, to consider not only the past (where the club is coming from), but the future (where it's going to). We hope this video helps.

[boogielicious]

Thanks!  Could you show a swing with the proper path as comparison?

[jclark]

Great Video! After watching this the question popped in my mind, What is the most important position in golf, if there is one? A6?

[Fried Egg]

I think A7 would be up there.

[jclark]

I think A7 would be up there.

I thought the same thing but how you get there is more important. You can't get to "good" A7 without a correct A6. My thoughts anyway...

[billchao]

I thought the same thing but how you get there is more important. You can't get to "good" A7 without a correct A6. My thoughts anyway...

A7. That was kind of the whole point of the video: you can have a good looking A6 and still have multiple compensations in your swing. Doesn't matter how good A6 looks without considering how it got there.

[jclark]

A7. That was kind of the whole point of the video: you can have a good looking A6 and still have multiple compensations in your swing. Doesn't matter how good A6 looks without considering how it got there.

I tend to agree with that, but I got the impression there isn't really enought time to make compensations from A6 to A7. I figure what you had at A6 will translate into A7. For example, if the club head is behind your hands and closed at A6, how in the world are you going to make it inline and square at A7? You are most likely gonna hook it. Can you tell the shot a pro is gonna hit if it's freeze framed at A7, or A6?

[saevel25]

I tend to agree with that, but I got the impression there isn't really enought time to make compensations from A6 to A7. I figure what you had at A6 will translate into A7. For example, if the club head is behind your hands and closed at A6, how in the world are you going to make it inline and square at A7? You are most likely gonna hook it. Can you tell the shot a pro is gonna hit if it's freeze framed at A7, or A6?

I would guess that if you don't hit a lot of shots and develop some sort of pattern then you wont be able to. It isn't like the body is saying, oh clubhead is too in at A6. It's more or less sensing the overall movements of the body and trying to find the ball at impact with some sort of consistency. Over time they can develop those compensations into something repeatable, yet not nearly as consistent as you need it to be to have a good key 4 and 5.

Example, I played for years taking the club back too inside. I then developed a slight over the top move, but got close to on plane, but I was very steep due to bad turn rates. Due to this steepness, I played the ball further back in my stance and started to aim 20-30 yards right. Basically I would swing all out and hit a pull. These corrections were not something I thought of doing. It was just a natural progression to try to find target with the swing I had. You'd be surprised at how adaptive the body is in trying to produce a golf shot you want.

[iacas]

Thanks!  Could you show a swing with the proper path as comparison?

Sure. Virtually any Tour pro (not all, some are just very good at compensating):

[boogielicious]

Thanks.

[iacas]

Notice that the early extension is a result of the steep shaft causing a player to try to shallow the club out by impact.

[billchao]

Sure. Virtually any Tour pro (not all, some are just very good at compensating): [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/110247/] [/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/110248/] [/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/110249/] [/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/110250/] [/URL]

It looks like the clubhead is traveling along a direct line to the ball from about A5.5. Is that how to check for the proper path?

[iacas]

It looks like the clubhead is traveling along a direct line to the ball from about A5.5. Is that how to check for the proper path?

I was just showing that they're not compensating. The clubhead and shaft are pretty much staying on the same line, not steepening or shallowing or being thrown around the corner.

[billchao]

I was just showing that they're not compensating. The clubhead and shaft are pretty much staying on the same line, not steepening or shallowing or being thrown around the corner.

I saw that, but if I were to look at that in my swing, would drawing a line from the clubhead to the ball at A5.5 and seeing if the clubhead traces that line be the right way to do it? Or is it more complex than that, because you'd have to watch for compensations?

[chipandcharge]

I thought I would post some information on "position" and "check points" as they are affected by differences in cognitive styles of different individuals.  This might some learners understand why the relate better to one style of coaching than another, and it might help instructors understand why they can reach some people faster than others.  This will be long and wordy, but I don't want to leave holes in the description.

There is a psychological scale, where at one end, a person sees movements in terms of check points or positions along the movement.  You can think of this as "connecting the dots," like the drawings that kids used to do in grade 1.  At the other end of the scale are those who see movements in their broadest sense, seeing more of the artistry and flair in the movements and not specific check points.  The first mentioned person, when learning a new dance, would like to be taught the elements of the hand and feet positions rather than just go out on the floor an imitate the other dancers.  The second mentioned person would just go out and imitate the others, and maybe even invent totally different movements, just moving to the music.  Then there are people whose cognitive styles populate the full range of the scale between the two extremes.

As a volleyball coach who was rather successful, II once almost ruined a volleyball holistic  hitter  by trying  to coach his as a technique hitter  like I had successfully coached other hitters.   I would say that the majority of hitters are technique hitters.   Then I learned of his natural abilities to learn motions holistically and only got confused by having to concentrate on positions.  On the other hand, I know of a dad whose daughter was taking softball position lessons.  He asked the coach for the various positions so that he could coach his daughter between lessons and was told, "We don't coach that way.   Pitching is a holistic motion."

Bottom line--the person who learns by connecting the dots musts be able to transition to holistic movements, and the person who learns holistically must eventually get the right dots.  The way golf seems to be taught to adults in any class I took is by first getting some dots.  The expression used by people who study things like this is "transcent."  Those who prefer the dots must transcend to holistic motions, and those who prefer to learn holistic motions must transcend and master the details.

On the other hand, kids seem to observe a swing and just copy it if they aren't taught the fundamental positions early on.

[Jameson]

Oucch! the man on the right side on the first video is definitely my case. Thats why I slice, and sometimes hook. And that´s why I´m not able to drop my 20.0 handicap. What should I do ?????

[colin007]

Oucch! the man on the right side on the first video is definitely my case. Thats why I slice, and sometimes hook. And that´s why I´m not able to drop my 20.0 handicap. What should I do ?????

The golfer on the right has virtually no weight transfer to the target. You need to slide your hips towards the target, it's how you can deliver the club on an in to out path.

[mvmac]

A4 caddy view from a very good player that recently sent me a swing. I'm not teaching anymore but I got into a conversation with him on Twitter and he wanted to get my thoughts.  

This thread came to mind when looking at his swing. It appears that he has made a full turn but it's a bit of a fake out because he gets here by retracting his right shoulder blade to "complete" his backswing. I put together a video for him detailing how to go about improving his pivot but the point of me sharing this is just to reiterate that you can't just analyze a swing by looking at positions, you have to consider the entire motion and what came before it.