Ernest Jones video

[Jack Watson]

Really,  I find this video to be one of the best I have seen on you tube IF you are like me and enjoy the game but maybe just don't want to get into the technical aspects much anymore.  Swing changes and evolution in the mechanics and style are great and I really enjoyed my time spent studying that but to just enjoy the game as a recreational golfer imo if you can simply learn the swinging motion and focus on producing it then you can have fun even if you don't shoot 75 every time out.

Its not like it's not a challenge to simplify the approach.  As golfers we are plagued with hit impulse and guiding and steering of the shot even down to three foot putts.  I am curious to see if anyone else likes a less technical approach to the game.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Jack Watson

[iacas]

Yeah, you just swing the clubhead from here to there.

Thing is… your body is what determines what the clubhead does. If someone who isn't "swinging the clubhead" properly

It's not like eating food using a fork and a knife, and the fork and knife are VERY simple motions in comparison to hitting a golf ball. But please, show me how you can cut something with a fork and knife with the precision we expect from a 40" long club (+/- 1° in both path and alignment) while swinging the fork and knife at 70 to 100 MPH.

If someone is "swinging the clubhead" wrong, what do you say? "No, not that way, swing it better."

I'm glad you enjoy golf. Many others, however, enjoy improving at golf, and understanding the golf swing a little bit, or at least their little pieces of it.

P.S. Really not liking her transition. Holy steep/across-the-line going into a shallowing move.

P.P.S. I voted "yes" in the poll, but only because I understand the English words she's saying, and the sentences. Beyond that, I don't think the video says much of anything. Like I said, eating is not playing golf.

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, Jack Watson said:

Swing changes and evolution in the mechanics and style are great and I really enjoyed my time spent studying that but to just enjoy the game as a recreational golfer imo if you can simply learn the swinging motion and focus on producing it then you can have fun even if you don't shoot 75 every time out.

OK...I can buy that maybe this is a method that can work for the 50-year-old 10-handicap with a funky swing who doesn't want to get any better, and just wants to "have fun".  But for someone shooting 115 and being miserable, stuff like this isn't going to help them get any better.

[Vinsk]

43 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

OK...I can buy that maybe this is a method that can work for the 50-year-old 10-handicap with a funky swing who doesn't want to get any better, and just wants to "have fun".  But for someone shooting 115 and being miserable, stuff like this isn't going to help them get any better.

Exactly. Golf is just so much more intricate than that represents. Sure it's fun to kid yourself and pretend that shooting high scores doesn't matter..but come on, it isn't fun or enjoying.

There's nothing simple or natural about the golf swing to most people. I was a good football player, an excellent soccer player and a good fighter and to this day I work like a dog to break 80. If I just 'swing the club from here to there' I hit a perfect shank with superior accuracy. 

[Hardspoon]

Fun fact: I thought this woman was Ernest Jones, until I Googled it out of curiosity.  Ha.

[Patch]

I like Earnest Jones, and his style of instruction. That said, I have not revisited his instruction in probably 30 years. Couldn't tell you much about it these days. I do know his, and a couple of others' teachings help get down to a 6 hc back in the day. 

These days I am that over 65, 10 hc guy who just plays for fun, regardless what I shoot. 

There's nothing wrong with today's more modern golf swing  instruction. Newer annything is usually better. 

[Jack Watson]

The thing about it is we are humans,  what we focus on as an intention makes a big difference to the results we see.

A certain degree of internal focus is maybe necessary at times as we develop as golfers but it's easy to make that our primary operating mode.  That is not an optimal condition for performance.

Ernest Jones is not saying that swinging the clubhead naturally even if it means wiping the ball is correct.

Its just a difference in terms of focus from the body to the club.  Path and face are the most important.  

Also,  as humans we all have tendencies in what we do when we move a club for whatever reason.  Wide stance/narrow stance/more wrist/less wrist flying elbow/elbow tucked etc.  

To me any good lesson on full swing should begin with the instructor asking the student to explain what they are trying to do to execute a golf shot.  That communication is so important.  Honesty from the student is so important here.

Conversely,  we could just skip that and go straight into analytics and start correcting body movements.  It's as she said,  you can have pretty good body movements but if the club is not doing the right thing then it means little.

The clubhead needs to be the determinant not the body.  It's a different perspective,  but one that landed Jones in the hall of fame so it surely has proven its merit.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Jack Watson

[iacas]

52 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Its just a difference in terms of focus from the body to the club.  Path and face are the most important.

Path and face are results. Humans are not really capable of manipulating them manually, or just by thinking about them, with real precision.

52 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

To me any good lesson on full swing should begin with the instructor asking the student to explain what they are trying to do to execute a golf shot.  That communication is so important.  Honesty from the student is so important here.

You've taught how many lessons?

I agree that communication is important. Asking players what they're trying to do when they're hitting every other ball fat is not something I'd rank as terribly important. Most of them, being honest, will say "I'm trying to not hit the ball fat every other time." They don't know HOW to do that, which is why they're there to see you.

Along the way you sometimes discover misconceptions, but at the same time, sometimes feels are almost directly opposite the mechanics that feel produces, so… what a student feels like they're trying to do isn't always relevant (or good) information.

52 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Conversely,  we could just skip that and go straight into analytics and start correcting body movements.  It's as she said,  you can have pretty good body movements but if the club is not doing the right thing then it means little.

I don't agree. If you have good body movements, the club will be doing the right thing. Otherwise, it's not a good body movement. The body, after all, is the only thing controlling the club.

52 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

The clubhead needs to be the determinant not the body.  It's a different perspective,  but one that landed Jones in the hall of fame so it surely has proven its merit.

The clubhead isn't the determinant. It is an inert object. It doesn't do anything.

Look, again, I'm glad you like it, but there are people out there who are not happy with their game right now, and who want to improve.

You ignored a few of my points, namely the stupid "fork" analogy the woman put forth. That's fine. I don't imagine you have much you can say to it.

[Jack Watson]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Path and face are results. Humans are not really capable of manipulating them manually, or just by thinking about them, with real precision.

I know you and I both can easily swing with different path and face relationships anytime.  If humans are not capable of creating a given path face relationship why would anyone ever even play?

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

I agree that communication is important. Asking players what they're trying to do when they're hitting every other ball fat is not something I'd rank as terribly important. Most of them, being honest, will say "I'm trying to not hit the ball fat every other time." They don't know HOW to do that, which is why they're there to see you.

That answer from the player is not honest or at least sufficient.  A follow up question is required.  More info needed.  The question was not what is the player trying NOT to do.  How could anyone help someone without understanding them at least enough?

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

The clubhead isn't the determinant. It is an inert object. It doesn't do anything.

It's position during the swing is what moves us which brings me to the fork and knife analogy...That is absolutely the relationship we need to foster with the tool.  It's also called knowing what you're doing.  It means the club is the tool and the golfer understands its operation (swinging).  As we swing we don't need to know what our right knee is doing.  We don't need to know if our hips are tilted optimally.  We need to know what the tool is doing.

Case in point Eason Darcy.

 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I know you and I both can easily swing with different path and face relationships anytime.  If humans are not capable of creating a given path face relationship why would anyone ever even play?

Please read what's written.

If we were able to manipulate the swing path with precision just by thinking about the path, and then do the same with the clubface… I could tell everyone "just point the clubface 1° right and swing 2° to the right."

It doesn't work that way.

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

That answer from the player is not honest or at least sufficient.

Sorry, again, how many lessons have you taught?

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

That answer from the player is not honest or at least sufficient. A follow up question is required. More info needed. The question was not what is the player trying NOT to do. How could anyone help someone without understanding them at least enough?

Because there are stupid questions that waste time, and assumptions can be made that save time.

I could interview everyone about all their thoughts and wishes and feels before the lesson begins, and then by the time I'm done… well, the hour has passed and they haven't hit a golf ball or gotten any better.

Instead, I prefer to ask relevant questions as needed while using my experience to understand some things that just don't need to be asked.

If you think the answer I gave was a "what not to do" answer, then here: "I'm trying to hit the ball solidly." Great. That's insightful. No shit, Sherlock…

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

It's position during the swing is what moves us which brings me to the fork and knife analogy...

The fork and knife analogy was garbage.

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

That is absolutely the relationship we need to foster with the tool.

See above regarding the fork and knife analogy.

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

It means the club is the tool and the golfer understands its operation (swinging).

Golfers don't understand the operation.

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

As we swing we don't need to know what our right knee is doing.

When playing golf, we don't. But when working on our golf game, improving our golf game, sometimes we do.

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

We need to know what the tool is doing.

The tool is responding to whatever the body tells it to do. The tool is inert. It doesn't "do" anything.

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Case in point Eason Darcy.

That's not a case in point. He has a funky looking swing, but if you don't think he ever worked on what his body was doing or something, you're crazy.

And it's Eamonn Darcy.

---

Ultimately, yes, a good golfer controls the clubhead. And many times in a lesson I'll talk about something outside the body.

But as with just about anything in life, there are no absolutes, but "swing the clubhead" being lousy advice for most people is closer to being absolutely true than the opposite. People don't know how to swing the clubhead, and that's why they suck at golf.

[Jack Watson]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

If we were able to manipulate the swing path with precision just by thinking about the path, and then do the same with the clubface… I could tell everyone "just point the clubface 1° right and swing 2° to the right."

It doesn't work that way.

Yep.  Thinking is not swinging with a focus on the clubhead.

Agree.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

orry, again, how many lessons have you taught?

Not many.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

I could interview everyone about all their thoughts and wishes and feels before the lesson begins, and then by the time I'm done… well, the hour has passed and they haven't hit a golf ball or gotten any better.

Yeah,  those things are not what I said before so agreed.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

When playing golf, we don't. But when working on our golf game, improving our golf game, sometimes we do.

Yes but that's not the majority of the time or else we condition ourselves into too much internal focus.  We are creatures of habit.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

The tool is responding to whatever the body tells it to do. The tool is inert. It doesn't "do" anything.

But,  in motion it has a lot of momentum.  We give it momentum and then that momentum acts on us as we act on it too.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

But as with just about anything in life, there are no absolutes, but "swing the clubhead" being lousy advice for most people is closer to being absolutely true than the opposite. People don't know how to swing the clubhead, and that's why they suck at golf.

"People don't know how to swing the clubhead and that's why they suck"

Exactly.

Poor golfers do not know what a swinging motion is,  even if they refer to their motion with the club as a swing.

They use the golf club more like a crowbar than the way it is designed to be used.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Jack Watson

[Jack Watson]

To me Jones came up with a way to synergistically work on keys 1,3,4,  and 5.

[overfade]

Hey gents and ladies,

Just joined to respond to this thread as I have used the Ernest Jones method which is essentially the same as the Manuel De La Torre method the last couple years.  My experience showed me that I needed decent mechanics first and then this type of method did work for me.

I had a severely cupped left wrist at the top and my grip was bad so that when I started using "swing the clubhead from here to there" the club face came through wide open and I was slicing badly,  although my slices did seem to be hit a little harder.

Once i got my mechanics in order, or just better anyway, (much flatter left wrist at the top and better grip) this method really helped me to lower my scores.  You really have to let go though and allow your intention of swinging the clubhead to pull your body through.  It feels like my arms pull my body through, but on video you can see the hips starting first, weird.  If I let go and not try to control the swing so much, on video it looks so much better and I hit a lot of correct positions now.   

After going through this over the last few years my opinion is just that I had to have the "basics" down first(mechanics) and then the intention of swinging the clubhead freely seemed to bring it all together and make it flow smoothly.  I went from shooting high 90's to low 80's going through this and am working on the short game to see if I can break 80(I think this is good for a guy that started playing at 45 years old..lol.)  

Kind of a copout, but for me, everybody is right in this thread.  I had to find what worked best for me and as usual it was a combination of things that helped the most.  

 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Poor golfers do not know what a swinging motion is,  even if they refer to their motion with the club as a swing.

They use the golf club more like a crowbar than the way it is designed to be used.

Whole lotta generalizing here.

4 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

To me Jones came up with a way to synergistically work on keys 1,3,4,  and 5.

Nah. Sounds like just another "golf mystic."

At the core, I disagree strongly that "just swing the clubhead" is at all a path to success for even a small majority of golfers. There are golfers who can't even hit a chip shot without throwing their right wrist at it. Sometimes you can find an external focus for those golfers, sometimes internal works best.

Limiting yourself to only thinking about the clubhead means you're limiting the kinds of students you can reach and teach to a very small percentage.

People learn differently, and I'll use several methods to attempt to correct the same thing in a given lesson.

[Jeremie Boop]

5 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Poor golfers do not know what a swinging motion is,  even if they refer to their motion with the club as a swing.

They use the golf club more like a crowbar than the way it is designed to be used.

 

That's not accurate at all. There are "good" swings and "bad" swings, but they are all swings.

Even good golfers don't really know a bad swing from a good swing at full speed. I've had many good golfers comment on how I have "a really nice swing" but I know for a fact that there are several flaws in it. Regardless of how poorly I golf, what I'm doing is still swinging the club.

[Jack Watson]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

 

11 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Poor golfers do not know what a swinging motion is,  even if they refer to their motion with the club as a swing.

They use the golf club more like a crowbar than the way it is designed to be used.

Whole lotta generalizing here.

 

I am not sure that's necessarily the case.  A swing requires a relatively fixed center point which is part of one of the five keys right?  IMO most people when using a club who are poor at golf tend to apply leverage rather than a swinging motion.  

6 hours ago, iacas said:

izing here.

11 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

To me Jones came up with a way to synergistically work on keys 1,3,4,  and 5.

Nah. Sounds like just another "golf mystic."

At the core, I disagree strongly that "just swing the clubhead" is at all a path to success for even a small majority of golfers. There are golfers who can't even hit a chip shot without throwing their right wrist at it. Sometimes you can find an external focus for those golfers, sometimes internal works best.

Limiting yourself to only thinking about the clubhead means you're limiting the kinds of students you can reach and teach to a very small percentage.

People learn differently, and I'll use several methods to attempt to correct the same thing in a given lesson.

I am not at all a proponent of a mystical force or Shivas irons zen type deal.  

Saying just nah as a response seems unlike your typical well supported answer though.  

Obviously you are correct that just swing the clubhead will not help anyone.  What about where to swing it?

There must be a fundamental understanding of ball flight laws applied to any ball flight troubleshooting that is to happen.  Launch monitors are used to great effect in modern instruction and I am a huge proponent.

6 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

11 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

 

That's not accurate at all. There are "good" swings and "bad" swings, but they are all swings.

That thinking is why you struggle.  Ernest Jones used a handkerchief and pocketknife to demonstrate what swinging really is.  He had to come up with simple ways to express his truth.  Just trying to wack a ball with a club may or may not be a swinging motion.

For me,  I came to golf as a secondary sport largely trying to improve from age 37 or so onward.  That's when I became a bit more serious about scoring.  I always played a bit but never seriously,  however in tennis I trained for half my life and got to the point where I taught for my pro a lot and played collegiately.

I never got to NCAA div 1 or Stanford or anything but I was able to maximize my potential by working often 6-8 hours to day at my peak while still getting in a surf for a couple hours each day.  I worked hard on my nutrition and training to be the very best I could get.  I was lucky to be afforded such a luxury in life,  but I also had to work a regular job from sophomore in high school through college to fund these activities.  No one ever bought me my first car.

What I found in tennis was that conditioning wise I was at min as good but probably better than most I faced.  That's fact.  I found though that some players were simply so far better in let's call it talent or hand eye that I could never reach their level no matter how hard I worked.  My strengths as a person are more intellectual than physical and I have always been this way.  However I was able to achieve the zone at times in my career and play at a level that was far beyond my ability.

In college I walked on and the coach had me play their number one senior in a challenge match shortly after I kept up no problem on an Indian run training session.  I was able to win the first set as an inexperienced freshman.  My parents were not rich and I did not have a ton of tournament experience but I played percentages as taught and angles and it was my golden set.  The thing is I lost in three in a close match.

I could not sustain my level for enough time to prevail.

So,  what's this crap got to do with golf?

I have put an awful lot of effort in understanding the mental mode we need to get into in sport of any type.  It is absolutely a different mode of consciousness from normal.

Ultimately I found I could not harness and control this 'zone'  you know it it's when you exceed your expectations and it is not all that difficult feeling.  I found ultimately and conclude from my experience that 'letting go'  is a huge component of this state.

George Knudsen said give up control to get control and that's what Ernest Jones is teaching.  Simple external cues that can lead to proper performance.  In golf we have to understand WHERE the swing should be in a sense relative to ourselves and the start line.  There's some basic understanding that has to happen but beyond that it's practice and hard work and ability.

Where I think Ernst Jones's genius shows itself is by simplicity.  

Simple intentions that subconsciously encompass everything you need to make a good swing.

Focusing on the body is bollocks.  That's the ultimate rabbit hole to go down because focusing on different body parts during the swing changes the feel but not necessarily the mechanics.  The club is either here or there so why not cut the crap and focus on it?

A good golf swing is a result but maybe not a result that's achieved similar to building a castle of blocks piece by piece.

A swing is a dynamic whole,  it's momentum management.  IMO whatever you do at some point you are going to have to let go and swing the clubhead so why not eliminate wasted time and swing it from the get go?' That's how one discovers their tendencies and then work from there.  

Rehearsing positions has nothing to do with the game of golf.  The game of golf is a swinging game,  thus dynamic and not broken into 'pieces'

 

 

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I am not sure that's necessarily the case. A swing requires a relatively fixed center point which is part of one of the five keys right? IMO most people when using a club who are poor at golf tend to apply leverage rather than a swinging motion.

Whatever you say, man. There's both leverage and swinging in the golf swing. I stand by "whole lotta generalizing going on here."

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I am not at all a proponent of a mystical force or Shivas irons zen type deal.

"Swing the clubhead" is, IMO, a mystical method of instruction.

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Saying just nah as a response seems unlike your typical well supported answer though.

Dude, you quoted several more sentences in four more paragraphs AFTER "Nah". I didn't "say just nah".

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Obviously you are correct that just swing the clubhead will not help anyone.  What about where to swing it?

Nah.

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

There must be a fundamental understanding of ball flight laws applied to any ball flight troubleshooting that is to happen. Launch monitors are used to great effect in modern instruction and I am a huge proponent.

What's that got to do with anything? I understand the ball flight laws and use them all the time. My students know 'em, too.

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Focusing on the body is bollocks.

I disagree.

The body controls what the club does. The body has the muscles, and the brain. The club is an inert object. The body primarily acts on the club. Without the body, the club doesn't do jack squat.

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

That's the ultimate rabbit hole to go down because focusing on different body parts during the swing changes the feel but not necessarily the mechanics. The club is either here or there so why not cut the crap and focus on it?

The proper feels change the mechanics.

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

A good golf swing is a result but maybe not a result that's achieved similar to building a castle of blocks piece by piece.

Stuff like this doesn't say anything.

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Rehearsing positions has nothing to do with the game of golf.  The game of golf is a swinging game,  thus dynamic and not broken into 'pieces'

You're doing a lot of mischaracterizing.

This is your thread now. Enjoy it.

I'm out.

[saevel25]

42 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Focusing on the body is bollocks.  That's the ultimate rabbit hole to go down because focusing on different body parts during the swing changes the feel but not necessarily the mechanics.  The club is either here or there so why not cut the crap and focus on it?

I totally disagree. 

I would bet the majority of high handicap golfers are focused on the club head more than the body. They want to hit the ball with the golf club. They don't think, "If I make this feel then this will happen." So, really they should be better golfers than they are.