Brandel Chamblee’s View of Modern Coaching: article by instructor Nick Starchuk

[mvmac]

Good article from Nick Starchuk.

Unfortunately Tiger's poor play last week put Chris Como, golf technology and "golf science" in the crosshairs of the media. It's silly because there are numerous players on tour, in college, in junior golf that are benefitting from more knowledgeable instructors and from better technology. Radar devices like FlightScope/Trackman are just tools, biomechanics is just the study of how the body works, those things can't "ruin" players.

I feel like I have a good handle on golf biomechanics, @iacas is certainly an expert. Yet we help golfers everyday try to simplify the golf swing. Being a smarter golf instructor doesn't mean you're going to get more "technical", you can be a dumb golf instructor and get technical, we see it all the time. I give Chris Como a lot of props for wanting to get better and seek out a way to do it. He's finishing up his master's degree in biomechanics, not something that should be seen in a negative light.

From conversations I've had with other instructors that I trust, they say Brandel likes Trackman, understands it and a good bit about the golf swing. Brandel even found a putting thread from Erik on this site and called it "beautiful science". I do think Brandel needs to do a better job of communicating his thoughts on technology.

I think what Brandel interprets is happening is that players get too consumed with getting optimal numbers or trying to zero everything out. I'm sure that might be the case with some players but if your instructor wants you to zero out your numbers, it's time to find a new instructor. Just off the top of my head, Zach Johnson, Rory McIlroy, Ian Poulter, Jason Dufner, Billy Horschel regularly use Trackman and it obviously hasn't hurt their games.

Anyway, here's the article....Thoughts?

http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2015/02/02/guest-post-chamblees-myopic-view-of-modern-coaching/

Quote:

Golf’s loudest advocate against science, technology, and biomechanics in instruction is the Golf Channel’s Brandel Chamblee, and love him or hate him, he has a platform that reaches the most golfers around the world and right now. That said, I’m not sure his loud voice is helping the golf improvement community.  Here is one of his latest tweets, which has been posted all over the internet:

Let’s make something clear – there is science and geometry in everything we do, but not every golf instructor has to get into those details. For example, we aren’t taught about gravity and muscle contractions when we learn to walk, but they are definitely a part of the process. So when we talk about the science that goes into the golf swing, lets be sure who the audience is. As a progressive golf instructor, I’m a member of many golf forums, message boards and Facebook groups and I’m always sure to know who I’m writing to when posting a response or a question. Mr. Chamblee has referenced a couple Facebook groups full of golf instructors. But the language and descriptions used within those forums are directed at golf coaches and the language used is much different on Facebook than it is with their students—so we all hope.

One of the points of contention is whether radars, such as Flightscope and Trackman, are too much information for some players. I fully agree that for some players these measuring devices can provide too much data and take the player out of the world of just playing and hitting the ball to a target. I have seen it countless times. Golfers are so into the their club and ball numbers that they forget that the game is about where the ball ends up, rather than how the club struck the ball. Remember that the ball is the object and the hole is the target and getting too internally invested in making the club do something specific can definitely hurt the player over the long term. Other measuring devices such as 3D body movement suits are also easily criticized for being overly technical. But if a player comes for help, don’t we want to measure with the best devices we can find?  I would hate to go to a doctor and have him guess on what’s wrong with me rather than use the tools at his disposal to better diagnose the issues. These devices help doctors come up with a cure faster and its the same thing in golf.

Chamblee and his panel of analysts are not experts on the golf swing—that’s my take. I say that because I would describe an expert as someone who actually and successfully teaches the game to many golfers, which the Golf Channel panel do not. What they do have is the ear of the millions of people watching. I’m not going to discredit them because the tweet above is 100% correct.  Those players are all taught by Harmon’s and the Harmons do not have degrees in biomechanics. But the underlying tone takes a shot at Chris Como, Tiger Woods’ new coach, who I am proud to call a friend. To see his hard work get trashed is disappointing.  Since when is having an advanced degree in human movement a bad thing for a coach of an athlete?  Since when is using measuring devices a negative to helping someone improve?  I think the issue that lies here is that some people feel that teachers talk to their players the same way they talk to scientists and fellow coaches. From my experience, that is not the case.  The art in teaching golf is being able to fully understand what is a symptom and what is a cause, and tell the player as much as they need to hear in order to practice more effectively and move towards better play.  Again, I think we can all agree on that and for the record, the last 3 major champions are all owners of radars and other devices like force plates to help them match a feel to the improvement process and this can’t be a bad thing when used correctly. They all also have terrific communicators as coaches and I know these devices don’t come out with every practice session.

At the end of the day, the golfer has to have a simple plan to make their process clear and its the job of the instructor to know what to do and relay that message in the best way for that player. Some players like the technical component, but the learning process must be tapered at some point to allow the pilot to fly the plane without worrying about all the engines and propellers and such.  I’m an advocate of the scientific research that has been done and that is currently being performed and I am a huge supporter of those who can take this information and make it clear for use in teaching an average player because the majority of lessons given by golf instructors are players who are trying to break 100 or 90 or 80. These players aren’t often in a position to learn about the intricate details of the swing—they just want to play better golf.

My hope is that the average player isn’t scared by the confusing and seemingly contradictory statements made by the Golf Channel analysts. I don’t want to stop believing technology can help them improve because the improvement comes with the way the instructor communicates, not with what numbers show up from a box on the ground.  Too often these days the analysts act like they are swing experts and arguing about it simply leads to better ratings as opposed to improving the flow of information to the viewer. The major OEMs such as Nike, Taylor Made, Callaway and Ping have all heavily invested in technology to help players get better and when the loudest golf analyst on TV is discrediting their efforts. In fact, he is discrediting the entire golf industry based on his expert opinion.

[Hammer 4]

I agree with what some of the things Nick says. With regards to B.C..trying to "boost" ratings, I would suggest that maybe it's not Brandel, but the higher ups at the GC. That seems to be the theme at the GC, it sounds more like a tabloid show, more often than not. Take Ryan Burr, he belongs on a tabloid show.

As for the folks at the GC discrediting, I would agree, but it's imho, not only the guys/gals that report the stuff. Also, imho, when NBC bought into the GC, it started going down hill and went from being a great golf channel to a lets see how much money we can make as fast as we can. Lately, it's been hard for me to find much entertainment on the GC, if it weren't for motorcycle  racing on DTV, I'd cancel our subscription in a heartbeat.

I'll give Chris Como some time with Tiger..I have a sneaky suspension there's more going on that what we know.

[nevets88]

I agree with you @mvmac , but I also think to an extent Chamblee makes tempests in teapots to get ratings. If he went the opposite way, endorsed technology fully and talked to the public about facets of radar, biomechanics, 3D, etc..., ratings would probably dip, but I'd like to be wrong. Get people riled up, they tune in.

Here's the Tweet referenced in the article:

https://twitter.com/chambleebrandel/status/562094334548246528

[mvmac]

More Twitter stuff

[Golfingdad]

I do have to disagree a little with Nick when he says that Brandel is an advocate against technology. I can certainly see how he can get that perspective but from conversations I've had with other instructors that I trust, they say Brandel actually likes Trackman, understands it and a good bit about the golf swing. Brandel even found a putting thread from Erik on this site and called it "beautiful science". I do think Brandel needs to do a better job of communicating his thoughts on technology.

I think what Brandel interprets is happening is that players get too consumed with getting optimal numbers or trying to zero everything out. I'm sure that might be the case with some players but if your instructor wants you to zero out your numbers, it's time to find a new instructor.

I have the exact same opinion on Brandel as you do, Mike.  I think that he sounds like he's critisizing the technology, but what he's really doing is being critical of the players that get obsessed with the technology.  He thinks that some players (perhaps Tiger, who knows?) are getting in their own way with the whole "paralysis by analysis" nonsense.  Basically, he's saying - albeit with different words - that technology, when used improperly, is causing some players to stop being the stupid monkeys that got them to where they are today.  Like Erik says in the first post in that thread, tour pros are at their best when they don't try to overthink things.

Now I don't have any insight on the players so I have no idea if he's right about that, but it's certainly plausible.

[Slowcelica]

Wasn't most of Tigers struggles because of his chipping and short game? Couldn't that be because he has been making full swing changes, spending more time on the full swing and hardly any time on the short game? Also didn't Kaymer completely redo his swing a few years back and it took him 3 years to win another major? I don't care if your Tiger or Rory, you aren't going to make wholesale swing changes and be top 25 player in the world in 3 months, coming off major back surgery. I think everyone expects him to instantly play better right away because well its Tiger.

[iacas]

Wasn't most of Tigers struggles because of his chipping and short game?

He could have had a lot fewer struggles if he'd hit more greens. His full swing wasn't doing much to help him out either…

[Slowcelica]

He could have had a lot fewer struggles if he'd hit more greens. His full swing wasn't doing much to help him out either…

Is that a LSW plug? :)

[mvmac]

Is that a LSW plug? :)

No, just reality

[GangGreen]

I'm very interested in hearing how the instructors on the forum use technology with their students. Do you generally use the data to "see" tendancies in your clients swings or to determine how the things you've been working on with them are affecting the swing (or both). I took a good number of lessons last year with a great instructor. I've got my first lesson of the new year scheduled with him this Saturday (CAN'T WAIT!!!) and it will be indoors and with a flightscope. This will be a first for me so I'm just interested in knowing what to expect and/or what I should reallly be looking to get out of the session/data.

[iacas]

I'm very interested in hearing how the instructors on the forum use technology with their students. Do you generally use the data to "see" tendancies in your clients swings or to determine how the things you've been working on with them are affecting the swing (or both).

Both. It's a tool. Sometimes students don't need a tool in a given lesson. Sometimes they need two or three. Sometimes when doing driver optimization, the tool is almost essential simply for the increased accuracy it can give.

I took a good number of lessons last year with a great instructor. I've got my first lesson of the new year scheduled with him this Saturday (CAN'T WAIT!!!) and it will be indoors and with a flightscope. This will be a first for me so I'm just interested in knowing what to expect and/or what I should reallly be looking to get out of the session/data.

That's a bit surprising. If I were teaching a 20+ handicapper, I'd hope the FlightScope will mostly be used to show improvement. You likely will spend most of your lesson working on quality of contact (with some ball flight), and a FlightScope can be helpful but is largely not for contact issues.

But, if it makes you feel good because he can show you good results - how much you've improved - great. Resist the temptation to care too much about all of the numbers DURING the lesson, please. It's tough. Do yourself that favor, though. Just listen to what the guy is saying.

BTW, who is it?