Ernest Jones video

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

Good question.  I avoid the term biomechanics like the plague.

Then how are you qualified at all to discuss the golf swing? Because it seems to me that you avoid more than just the term itself… you avoid the biomechanics as well.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

As a feel it really makes no sense to say swing in a direction other than through the ball.

You can't say that at all.

Feels aren't real, and some players feel like they're driving their hands to a point well in front of the ball, some players feel like they're pulling up on the handle through impact, some players feel like they're throwing their trail wrist… all kinds of feelings are evident, often in motions that look virtually identical.

Heck, the clubhead is still descending but the handle is actually ascending, the hands are slowing down, the clubhead is still accelerating… and all that's happening just before impact, but what it feels like may be different. But you probably wouldn't tell too many people to feel their hands swinging UP through impact with an iron, even though that's exactly what they're doing (if they're a good golfer).

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

IMO though I would say the forces applied to the handle from the top would not be directly at the ball.  That would not create the beginning of the ds arc correctly.

The feeling of pulling the hands straight down to the ball can and do (for many) help to create a good golf swing. The bulk of the forces aren't actually going that way at that point in time, but that feeling can easily work and often does.

I don't understand this. Of course there's a need. There are all sorts of torques in the golf swing, and very few of them are "in-plane." Many are out of plane.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

TO the second point,  I don't think there's any need to discuss the creation of torque in the shaft resulting from 'off plane' forces at the handle and if it can assist with squaring the face to path at impact.  Swings like Hogans that are very shallow very early in the ds with a steepening component mid ds create certain effects,  but discussing that's a bit beyond my pay grade.  It's opposite works too,  like the steep outside in swing just doesn't 'like' to square up to the path by impact.  I am aware that there's many shapes of swings and I am not intimately knowledgeable about most of them.  So usually I refrain from comments on that.   When I talk mechanics I refer mostly to a major fault and trying to move the swings shape closer to neutral.

You may not feel a need, but those of us who understand the mechanics of the golf swing do, because they're central to understanding and helpful in coming up with feels for students, drills for students, as well as understanding why someone is doing something to begin with…

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

The essence of it is this.  That judgement call of what advice to give is important.  Yep.  Heck maybe it's even just a feel like the straight line thing...if it gets the result it's a good thing.   Also it needs to be understandable to a person who may know very little about mechanics and just wants to improve their swing.

Thing is, you're positioning this "swing the clubhead" as the fix, when in my experience simply focusing on some external cue or having a student think about the clubhead is often not the best way to achieve something, and will often not work very well. Many times it fails completely. People who aren't very proprioceptive in particular are often even LESS aware of what the clubhead is doing.

You're limiting yourself if you reject all of the other tools available and just try to "swing the clubhead."

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

You mentioned perhaps my view is limited to one way of viewing the swing.  It's not really that way.  I have studied a wide variety and experimented with many ideas.  I rarely comment on a lot of it though because it's not my job.

I don't care what your experience is… I'm saying that if you just do this "swing the clubhead" stuff, you're very limited in how you can help people, how you can solve problems, etc.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

Maybe I do dumb things down.  For a high cap it really is surprising when you hear some of the ideas they use. A dumb down idea is better than something that's totally wrong.

And a dumb idea is worse than the best or even a better idea.

You're limited in what you can offer to people, how you can solve problems, etc.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

One feel that really clicked with a friend of mine is just throw the clubhead with the right hand.

Sounds like a mechanical thought to me. What does that have to do with "swinging the clubhead"?

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

I am definitely ok with not having something to offer every golfer.  I am not a pro.  For some people though my way of explaining things has a positive effect.  For others it's useless.  Such is life I guess.  It's a good thing I don't have to make my living doing this or I might be in a trailer down by the river lol

We're not discussing whether you can help people here. The topic is about "swinging the clubhead" and the Ernest Jones video.

I say you're limited in what you can see, what you can do, etc. And so was Ernest Jones, if he was only able to talk about swinging the clubhead, solely externally focused, etc.

[Jack Watson]

Yes,  I am human and I am very limited in what I can do.  I will come back another day.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Yes,  I am human and I am very limited in what I can do.  I will come back another day.

Not at all what I said.

Rather than use a bunch of tools, you're self selecting into using just one tool.

[Jack Watson]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

Then how are you qualified at all to discuss the golf swing? Because it seems to me that you avoid more than just the term itself… you avoid the biomechanics as well.

I avoid biomechanics as much as possible because I agree with what Ernest Jones said in his great book swinging into golf.

At one point he discusses why it is important not to try to copy the biomechanics (he doesn't use the term but I am paraphrasing) of another golfer.  The gist of it is that in his view the skill of playing good golf comes from the players focus on the club as it's making its motion and that motion being a functional one and that each of us will look somewhat different biomechanically as that happens.    He is adamant that the skill is not derived from the specific body positions of your swing matching those of your favorite golfer.  He says it's derived from the club motion being repetitive and functional.

21 hours ago, iacas said:

Feels aren't real, and some players feel like they're driving their hands to a point well in front of the ball, some players feel like they're pulling up on the handle through impact, some players feel like they're throwing their trail wrist… all kinds of feelings are evident, often in motions that look virtually identical.

Heck, the clubhead is still descending but the handle is actually ascending, the hands are slowing down, the clubhead is still accelerating… and all that's happening just before impact, but what it feels like may be different. But you probably wouldn't tell too many people to feel their hands swinging UP through impact with an iron, even though that's exactly what they're doing (if they're a good golfer).

The feel thing is interesting.  It could be viewed as a players lifeblood sometimes.  I remember when Mcilroy was playing his best and got interviewed and basically said he just had this feel.  

The same exact club motion can feel opposite to two different players-true.  Feel can disappear from one moment to the next,  sometimes inexplicably.  

Some feels work great one day and the next result in shanks.

My one friends feel of his right hand throwing the clubhead has worked since midway last season FOR HIM.

Feels can work for a while and then become exaggerated resulting in swing faults.  Feels are feels-they are personal.  In my case I spent a season working on shallowing feels,  when I was done I was hopelessly underplane.

What the club does as a result is measurable.

21 hours ago, iacas said:

You may not feel a need, but those of us who understand the mechanics of the golf swing do, because they're central to understanding and helpful in coming up with feels for students, drills for students, as well as understanding why someone is doing something to begin with…

Sure,  you are professional.  The study of in particular the physics of the swing has pushed knowledge far beyond Jones's time.  We can more accurately measure things related to the swing.  We use anatomical terms and everything technically down to instrumentation used is far more complex than ever.

Sasho made that computer simulation of the swing and made it possible to show that the clubhead getting under the force vector early downswing creates a moment arm effect and could cause the face to square at impact in a model in which the robogolfer had no ability to twist the shaft.

Makes for great discussion...

21 hours ago, iacas said:

21 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

e  

Thing is, you're positioning this "swing the clubhead" as the fix, when in my experience simply focusing on some external cue or having a student think about the clubhead is often not the best way to achieve something, and will often not work very well. Many times it fails completely. People who aren't very proprioceptive in particular are often even LESS aware of what the clubhead is doing.

You're limiting yourself if you reject all of the other tools available and just try to "swing the clubhead."

That's the thing.  I am not involved in the process of developing competitive level like scratch and below swings like you.

I think I mentioned in another post about building a house and how I'd be more like a rough framer than doing interior finish.  Or,  like if I were a mechanic and a person had a car that wouldn't run...In most cases I'd say I could get the car running well enough to be reliable transportation.  Where a true professional could mod the suspension for better handling and swap in a hotter motor and better tranny for more hp.  Maybe the car could be raced on track.

Even without all the technical stuff we have today and without the benefits of modern equipment Ernest Jones was able to accomplish the goal of improving golfers.  His tool?  A handkerchief with a pocketknife on the end.

In my mind that commands respect and is proof of his teaching genius.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Jack Watson

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I avoid biomechanics as much as possible because I agree with what Ernest Jones said in his great book swinging into golf.

At one point he discusses why it is important not to try to copy the biomechanics (he doesn't use the term but I am paraphrasing) of another golfer.

Those are two totally different things. Understanding the biomechanics that affect us ALL is not the same thing as "copying the [specific] biomechanics of another golfer".

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

The gist of it is that in his view the skill of playing good golf comes from the players focus on the club as it's making its motion and that motion being a functional one and that each of us will look somewhat different biomechanically as that happens.

We are biomechanically different, but if the clubhead is tipping out, there's a biomechanical reason for it. You often can't just tell people - people who sometimes lack proprioceptions for their own bodies let alone for something outside their own bodies - to change the way the clubhead is moving.

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

He is adamant that the skill is not derived from the specific body positions of your swing matching those of your favorite golfer. He says it's derived from the club motion being repetitive and functional.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. You can practice mechanics to achieve a repetitive and functional golf swing.

The more you talk about Ernest Jones the more it sounds like overly simplified mumbo jumbo "secret" hooey.

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

What the club does as a result is measurable.

So is what the body does.

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Sure,  you are professional.  The study of in particular the physics of the swing has pushed knowledge far beyond Jones's time.  We can more accurately measure things related to the swing.  We use anatomical terms and everything technically down to instrumentation used is far more complex than ever.

Don't confuse the way I talk "in theory" when discussing "the golf swing" with how I teach a golfer about their golf swing. I think you could interview every student I've ever taught about any lesson I've ever taught and the only way they would use the word "complex" would be in the form "he took what was a complex thing I was doing and made it simple."

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Sasho made that computer simulation of the swing and made it possible to show that the clubhead getting under the force vector early downswing creates a moment arm effect and could cause the face to square at impact in a model in which the robogolfer had no ability to twist the shaft.

He also had no need to twist the shaft. But what's your point in talking about that video? It explains why "no, swing the clubhead here" works. Understanding that can help a golf instructor by providing another tool in the arsenal.

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

That's the thing.  I am not involved in the process of developing competitive level like scratch and below swings like you.

No, but you're engaging in a discussion here that's at a high level, and being critical of "instructors," and praising a method of instruction.

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I think I mentioned in another post about building a house and how I'd be more like a rough framer than doing interior finish.  Or,  like if I were a mechanic and a person had a car that wouldn't run...In most cases I'd say I could get the car running well enough to be reliable transportation.  Where a true professional could mod the suspension for better handling and swap in a hotter motor and better tranny for more hp.  Maybe the car could be raced on track.

I don't even think you're that capable. I think the whole "no, just swing the clubhead this way" can create more problems for people where a "biomechanical" lesson can help them more, faster.

You're a rough framer, but you've only got a wrench. Sure, you can hammer some nails with it, but it's just one tool, and you're lacking several other tools (a hammer, a level, a saw, a tape measure) to do the job properly/best.

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Even without all the technical stuff we have today and without the benefits of modern equipment Ernest Jones was able to accomplish the goal of improving golfers.  His tool?  A handkerchief with a pocketknife on the end.

In my mind that commands respect and is proof of his teaching genius.

I think you're doing a poor job of illustrating the "teaching genius" of Ernest Jones. Were he alive I'm sure he could present his case much more clearly. It's not your fault or your failing in any way, either - you're not him. Hank Haney "improved" Mark O'Meara and tiger Woods, yet I think he's one of the worst famous instructors out there.

I'm not learning much of anything here, unfortunately. The Ernest Jones method seems, to me, to be limited to one tool, and a difficult tool for many golfers to understand. They have enough trouble feeling what their bodies are doing, let alone what an inert, sense-less piece of metal is doing.

[Jack Watson]

Well,  Happy Father's Day.  

I guess I am spent on this topic.  Nothing left to say.

[Phil McGleno]

So-Let me get this straight.

Ernest Jones thought that you could teach everyone by just talking about controlling the clubhead?

Does that boil it down-or is there more?

@Jack Watson?

Quote

The “swing the club head method,” a simplified strategy for teaching the golf swing, originated with Ernest Jones of Great Britain in the early 20th century. Jones’s philosophy was based on his belief that a golf swing involves one motion -- a unified whole rather than a series of parts. He said the golfer must feel the swinging motion through the hands; hence his mantra: “swing the club head.”

I am with @iacas -I do not think you can teach all or even a majority that way.

Oh-http://golftips.golfweek.com/swing-clubhead-method-20602.html

Quote

 

But reading the book was a bit of a disappointment. Its a very quick read and it seems full of Jones' explaining why swinging the clubhead is so important. But outside of the familary drawings of him swinging the penknife there isn't much instruction on how to swing the clubhead. Or how to get this feeling of swinging.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Ernest-Jones-Swing-Clubhead-method/product-reviews/0976017407/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1

Quote

I have read a lot of golf books. Usually, I can pick up a tip or two. This did not really offer too much. If you are a hack like me, then I would buy "Break 100 Now: From Hacker to Golfer in Just 90 Days" by Mike Adams way before this book.

Quote

To me the book seems to have only one concept, which may be a valuable concept, which is repeated over and over again. Not really much content. I thought the whole thing could be written in a few pages.

 

[JonMA1]

I don't know that I completely understand either side of the discussion but I will add my two cents.

"Feeling the club head" (not sure that is the same thing) is useful to me when I'm having trouble with my fairway woods. I don't know why it helps... what fault it steers me away from, but that feel along with one or two others can often turn things around when I'm struggling.

That said, it certainly isn't a cure-all or I wouldn't be stuck playing the type of crappy golf I play.

Some of us have trouble learning and developing proper mechanics. I don't think it's due completely to poor instruction or terrible practice habits. It may because of how we're wired.

As contrary to reality as feels can be, they are not totally useless (and I know nobody is suggesting they are). Feeling the shaft and club head may help me with a more proper shoulder turn and wrist hinge. Conversely, others may find that keeping their lead arm straight and hinging their wrists a certain way helps to produce a proper shoulder turn and keep the shaft on plane. 

One person's feels or methods are not always easily understood or put in place by another.

As far as mechanics, I believe there is a single best way for me to swing a golf club. It may be quite different than that of a 25 year old tour pro, but it's a swing that will suit my body and mind the best, is easiest to repeat, and will reduce injuries better than any other swing. Mastering this swing would lead to the best possible golf I can play and be one I'll use into my older years.

As much as I'll struggle to develop anything close to it on my own, watching videos of tour players or reading others swing thoughts won't help that much either.

[Jack Watson]

2 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

As much as I'll struggle to develop anything close to it on my own, watching videos of tour players or reading others swing thoughts won't help that much either.

I am going forward with my posts on a bit of a new tack.  I am only going to post when I can find some of Jones writing that is relevant to the topic and respond by paraphrasing.  After doing some cursory reading I can say Jones would agree with that sentiment 100 percent. 

9 hours ago, Phil McGleno said:

Ernest Jones thought that you could teach everyone by just talking about controlling the clubhead?

If you are curious you should do some reading.  He referred to swing as art and skill development was a result of intelligent practice.

10 hours ago, iacas said:

e Ernest Jones method seems, to me, to be limited to one tool, and a difficult tool for many golfers to understand. They have enough trouble feeling what their bodies are doing, let alone what an inert, sense-less piece of metal is doing.

To paraphrase Jones he wrote that being able to sense the feel of the swinging motion of the clubhead through the hands is absolutely fundamental to moving forward in the game.  He likened the swinging motion multiple times to swinging a weight on a string in a circle.  He also mentions that more speed tends to stabilize the clubheads path and is good for consistency.  

He heavily emphasized that the golfers attention should be on the hands and club head.  He never says this is a trick or anything he emphasizes concurrently that the point of that focus is to acquire the sense of the proper action.

I totally compromised his position before when I said okay I will not keep using the swing term like Jones and just refer to any attempt to use a club to strike a ball as a swing.

Jones would never have any of that he makes that very clear.

He says the first phase for a golfer to develop is that he must understand he will never make permanent headway without accepting that the golf stroke is a swinging action of the clubhead sensed through the hands.

Later he strongly emphasizes that after learning the art of swinging the golfer develops what skill he is capable of attaining only through intelligent practice.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Jack Watson
Spelling

[JonMA1]

5 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

After doing some cursory reading I can say Jones would agree with that sentiment 100 percent.

Yet, he wrote an entire book about a feel, did he not?

Edited June 19, 2017 by JonMA1

[Jack Watson]

2 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

Yet, he wrote an entire book about a feel, did he not?

Two,  that I am aware of.  He emphasizes the importance of being able to recognize and always focus on his idea of proper motion by feel heavily.  He also emphasized if one is working with a pro that means they need to take on hard work on what the pro says and patience with it.  He said his idea on the face of it is simple,  but he said his experience teaching proved to him that it requires an awful lot of intelligent practice and patience to bring the results.

 

[Hacker James]

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Two,  that I am aware of.  He emphasizes the importance of being able to recognize and always focus on his idea of proper motion by feel heavily.  He also emphasized if one is working with a pro that means they need to take on hard work on what the pro says and patience with it.  He said his idea on the face of it is simple,  but he said his experience teaching proved to him that it requires an awful lot of intelligent practice and patience to bring the results.

 

naw, people wants instant cures.  

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

naw, people wants instant cures.  

Yeah… to that… members here don't expect that. We have an esteemed award for people who can practice one small thing with dedication, one small step at a time on the road to a better golf swing.

Ernest Jones was a one-tool teacher in a day and age when there are tens or more tools available. Everything you've written, @Jack Watson, cements that idea further.

Not playing good golf? Oh, you need to learn to swing your hands and the clubhead differently.

[coachjimsc]

Lets try an example...

How do I swing the club head differently or change my hand position to get my hips and shoulders more open @Jack Watson?

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, coachjimsc said:

Lets try an example...

How do I swing the club head differently or change my hand position to get my hips and shoulders more open @Jack Watson?

While I'll be slightly curious to see the answer, by the same token, Jack's never claimed to be an instructor, and the answer he might give would likely be different than the answer Ernest Jones himself might give, so I don't think it's entirely fair to base our opinion on this whole thing on his answer.

But at the same time, that's kind of the point, too… some players seem to "swing the clubhead" along a good path and with fine hand-work or hand action. But something the rest of their body is doing is holding them back.

[Jack Watson]

1 hour ago, coachjimsc said:

Lets try an example...

How do I swing the club head differently or change my hand position to get my hips and shoulders more open @Jack Watson?

I don't know how Jones would respond to that question. 

I do think he did not advocate in writing trying to achieve a position because others who are good do it.  He wrote that doing that likely wouldn't work.  So if that were the reason for the question...

 

 

 

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I do think he did not advocate in writing trying to achieve a position because others who are good do it.  He wrote that doing that likely wouldn't work.  So if that were the reason for the question...

Jim doesn't need to get into a position "because others who are good do it." He would improve if he got into that position because it would help him stop swinging out with a high(er) rate of closure/overtaking rate.

[Jack Watson]

^^good stuff.

Jones did mention in writing that a perfect swing doesn't exist.  He said something to the effect that there's never a guarantee your next swing will be good.