Golfers Are Consistent - A Golfer's Good and Bad Swings Look the Same and Are Repeatable

[iacas]

We hear from a lot of people that golfers are really just looking for "consistency."

What many fail to realize is that they're already consistent golfers. They make the same swings, time after time, and because golf has such precise requirements, they get wholly different results. A quarter inch here or a few degrees there are all that's necessary to turn a blistered flag-seeking 7-iron into one that results in a drop and a penalty stroke.

As @david_wedzik and I wrote in Lowest Score Wins (if you haven't bought a copy, do so now!):

Quote:

As instructors, our students will often tell us about their recent play. Sometimes, if we’re really lucky, we’ll hear a full hole-by-hole, shot-by-shot analysis of their entire five-hour round. It is very common for poorer players to lament the large number of bad shots they hit during the round, but they’re also sure to mention that one really awesome shot.

They’ll say “I don’t understand it. I hit bad shot after bad shot and then on 14 I hit the most perfect tee shot with a baby draw. It’s so frustrating because I know I can do it . I know I’m a good ball striker. If I could just repeat that swing every time I could really be pretty good!” When we hear this, we know that this golfer is looking at his situation 180° from the wrong side. Though he sees himself as the golfer who hit the one amazing shot and believes that he should be able to do that 99% of the time, his view is backward. Unfortunately, he is exactly the golfer who hits almost exclusively bad shots. The one great shot is the anomaly .

Improving at golf is about increasing the quality of the shots you hit more often — the bad shots — until the odds flip and you begin hitting more good shots than bad. Pure randomness — the same randomness that results in the occasional stinker by a PGA Tour player — allows the 16-handicapper to hit the occasional great shot. Bad logic allows him to believe it’s simply a lack of consistency that masks his “great ball striking.”

It’s not simply a matter of repeatability either. Many golfers will say to us “If I could just have a repeatable swing...” Believe it or not, anyone who has played golf for more than a few months already has a swing that repeats. As we said above, the fact that their swing repeats is why they’re not shooting the lower scores they think they can shoot. They’re repeating a bad swing time and time again. This also explains why change can be so difficult. Golfers will have made 100,000+ swings one way, and overcoming that history to make lasting change is difficult, even for the best practicers.

If you were to look at ten random swings from your last range session, we would wager that you would not be able to tell the difference between the good shots and the bad shots. The key to improvement lies in prioritizing and knowing how to change your swing until it produces more and more solid strikes.

That must be why I thought I'd written this thread already. I wrote it in a book, and it remains true.

To add to that, though, let's take a look at this little example. Below you're going to find two different golf swings. I've cropped out the golf ball in each, because it gives it away.

One of these two swings produced a great shot - one this player would be quite pleased to hit on the golf course. The other resulted in a horrible shot - a low, toed near-top that came up about 35 yards short of the other and well to the right.

So…

Which swing was the good one? Which was the bad one?

---

If you see your buddy three fairways over, you know it's him because his swing looks exactly the same. It doesn't matter if he's hitting an 8-iron or a 4-iron, or he's +4 that day or +24… his swing looks the same. Because it is the same.

---

Here's another example that I hope drives the point home.

Consider how many times you've seen a pro absolutely stiff a shot. Bang, dead-on. Now consider whether you've ever seen that very same pro - whether it's Tiger, Phil, Bubba, Dustin Johnson, etc. - hit a bad shot. A shank, a thin one, a big push, whatever.

If you watch enough golf on TV, you've seen both.

And yet, again, their swings are basically the same. I don't care if they shank one and hole the other… they're going to look almost identical until the last possible moment when it becomes obvious that the shank has the sweetspot a half an inch too far to the right (or whatever).

Golf simply has such a small margin - it requires such absolute precision - that players already are making consistent, repeatable swings.

Your goal should not be to have a "repeatable, consistent" swing. You already have that!

Your goal is to make your swing better!

https://twitter.com/lowscorewins/status/568159039491874817

P.S. The answer? Which shot was the "good" one and which was the "bad" one? Maybe later. For now, I'm content to make my point.

[Abu3baid]

From A6 I think the good shot is the left one.

[saevel25]

P.S. The answer? Which shot was the "good" one and which was the "bad" one? Maybe later. For now, I'm content to make my point.

I am guessing the one on the left was the better shot.

Another great post.

I really do think that the video camera has become the best teaching aid for the golf swing. Just because of the seeing is believing mentality people have. People see that huge variance on the course or between shots, and they must think that the same huge variance must be there in their swings.

In truth it takes much very small variance at impact to produce big variance in the final result. That small variance produces that very repeatable swing that produces inconsistent results.

It also makes it sorta amazing that people can actually play this crazy game at a high level.

[iacas]

From A6 I think the good shot is the left one.

A6 is identical. The one on the right looks a little different only because they're not the same point in time. When you're capturing 240 FPS, you might miss by a little early or late the exact moment when the shaft is horizontal.

The right image is a teeny bit after A6.

Not really the point of the thread to guess at which one is which…

[Big C]

Good post - No argument here. There was a time not too long ago when my entire round was pretty much predicated on how well I was timing my manipulations that day. I have pretty good hand eye coordination, so I was capable of shooting in the 70's if my compensations were precise enough. The problem is that my swing was flawed, so I could follow up a round of 78 with a 92 the following day. And god forbid if I got into a pressure situation, I was capable of pulling off some of the most horrific snap hooks you have ever seen.

My swing is still flawed, but as it improves, the wild fluctuations have smoothed out and the "how the F did I hit that shot" moments are fewer and fewer.

For the record, my first instinct was that the shot on the right was the "good" one.

[westcyderydin]

I pick the right one as the good one.

It is funny how unrealistic people can be about their games.  I have two friends, one of them being quite a bit better than the other one.  The worse one says to the other one that he is just as good, but the better player is just lucky and makes better contact more often.  Um....

Another time heard this decent player tell somebody that he was equal with this better player, but the better player was more consistent.

Both cases of people who sometimes can hit shots as good as a better player, but not understanding that the better player hits those good shots much more often because they are better...their swings are better.

[mvmac]

If you see your buddy three fairways over, you know it's him because his swing looks exactly the same. It doesn't matter if he's hitting an 8-iron or a 4-iron, or he's +4 that day or +24… his swing looks the same. Because it is the same.

Yep, good post Erik.

[JonMA1]

I really do think that the video camera has become the best teaching aid for the golf swing. Just because of the seeing is believing mentality people have. People see that huge variance on the course or between shots, and they must think that the same huge variance must be there in their swings.

This topic of this thread came up a year or two ago in another thread. While I may have had enough sense at the time not to argue the point much, I didn't buy into it. After recording my swing week after week for the last several months, I now realize how true it is (and of course how wrong I was).

I'll add that even after we see the fault(s), it can still be hard to change bad habits.

I don't know which swing resulted in a poor shot. If this was easy enough for me to tell, it probably wouldn't have been posted.

[billchao]

That must be why I thought I'd written this thread already. I wrote it in a book, and it remains true.

Good post, Erik. I'm surprised this didn't have a dedicated thread, too. I think this idea has been floating around here for a while so I just assumed a thread already existed.

[iacas]

I don't know which swing resulted in a poor shot. If this was easy enough for me to tell, it probably wouldn't have been posted.

I think the point is that if I didn't know which swing produced the "bad" shot, I would be in the same boat as you: I wouldn't be able to tell from the pictures posted.

They're too much alike. They're almost basically identical.

[chris3putt]

I agree totally with the OP of this thread, and it raises a question.

What does it take to learn a better swing?

If almost totally similar swings can produce different results, then how do you know if you are actually improving your swing?

I get that as you make changes, the results will fluctuate, but obviously you can't use results as your yardstick.

Thinking through this a bit more, I'm guessing the short answer is if you are demonstrating increased use of the 5 keys, then the swing is improving.

Which is where Evolvr and a "my swing" thread come in.

Right?

[iacas]

If almost totally similar swings can produce different results, then how do you know if you are actually improving your swing? I get that as you make changes, the results will fluctuate, but obviously you can't use results as your yardstick. Thinking through this a bit more, I'm guessing the short answer is if you are demonstrating increased use of the 5 keys, then the swing is improving.

The 5SK are both measurable and achievable (and verifiable). If you are improving at one of the keys, you are getting better. That's one of the things that make the system so great.

[chris3putt]

Quote:

The 5SK are both measurable and achievable (and verifiable). If you are improving at one of the keys, you are getting better. That's one of the things that make the system so great.

Yeah, I need to remember that when I'm trying to implement a change to one of the 5SK, and I'm spraying the ball all over. Which is often.

[natureboy]

Good post. The almost freakish consistency at a high level of performance of pros is what's awe-inspiring to me. Also underscores how small incremental technique improvements as well as bad habits can really affect a swing.

Though not the point of the thread I'll take a stab and say that the left pic with the slightly higher and retracted from the target line head position was more likely to produce a toey top. But to underscore the point of the thread - if correct - it was only apparent in comparison to the other swing. On it's own would have been hard to distinguish any fault.

[Gboroman]

Erik,

You've made your point.  This is interesting and really could change the way I look at things as far as my swing.  I don't know how many times I've said things like, "Why can't I do that every time," or "I know I can do it," based on one good shot.  My takeaways are to work on developing a sound swing and, also, to know my miss and plan for it because it is inevitable.

[colin007]

The answer is, they're both bad swings. One got lucky. BTW, I suck.

[golf-noob-bruce]

The 5SK are both measurable and achievable (and verifiable). If you are improving at one of the keys, you are getting better. That's one of the things that make the system so great.

Sorry, I still don't get it. So if the differences between good and bad swings are immeasurable, what do you measure to verify that you're making a better swing?

[Big C]

Sorry, I still don't get it. So if the differences between good and bad swings are immeasurable, what do you measure to verify that you're making a better swing?

I think the point you are missing, is that you are confusing good vs. bad swings with good vs. bad results.

It's the results that can be immeasurable, but the quality of the swing is easily identifiable (at least to a good instructor). A bad swing can still produce good results on a occasion, but a good swing is going to do it more often and more consistently.