Jump to content

iacas

Administrator
  • Content Count

    71,499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    973

Blog Comments posted by iacas


  1. 5 minutes ago, badams69 said:

    Any putting "stat" is void of objectivity.

    I don't think you understand how statistics work.

    5 minutes ago, badams69 said:

    I appreciate your attempt but I'll stick with two guys who won not because they hit the ball the best, but rather because they made the most putts among guys who were putting for something important.

    Nicklaus and Tiger won because they hit the ball much better than their competition.

    Get with the times, man. We understand how people score well in golf better than we ever have. Don't be a "Drive for show, putt for dough" dinosaur.


    But anyway, this isn't really on topic. There are other better topics where you can peddle your outdated idea of how important putting is, or how good Tiger Woods was at putting, or whatever…

    Here's a good one:


    BTW, welcome to TST. We happily encourage discussion, but you've gotta have a thick enough skin, and you can't come with "but i think that…" or "in my experience…" for most things. We like facts. We like evidence. We like things you can prove. If you don't like "strokes gained putting," tell us why… after proving that you even understand it." We know a thing or two here… and love to discuss and learn. We hope you do, too.


  2. 9 minutes ago, badams69 said:

    Smart to counter with stats ..... with that said I just don't put much value in that .

    I've watched and played a ton of golf.  Putting stats are wholly irrelevant in my opinion when it comes to measuring who is and isn't a good putter.  Golf is competition and not a fantasy game for those playing.

    I coach golf and couldn't despise anything more than kids always talking about their number of putts.

    Not all putts are created equal. 

    Dude, I cited "putts gained." This isn't a "number of putts" type of statistic. It's a pretty good measure of how good you are at putting.

    Your counter to "putts gained" is, what, your memory of how well you think Tiger Woods putted? Tiger and Jack won with their ballstriking. Their putting helped, but there were years Tiger Woods had enough strokes gained with his approach shots alone that he'd have been a top-5 player that year if he was average with the rest of his game.

    I'm not sure you understand what "strokes gained putting" measures. It's not a putt count.

    11 minutes ago, badams69 said:

    I doubt if you had your net worth on the line (obviously far-fetched) that whoever is ahead of Woods on that list is someone you'd pick ahead of him to drain a putt for you to keep your money.

    I'd pick myself, actually.


  3. 11 hours ago, badams69 said:

    Second ...... when it comes to which hand dominates the stroke more, I'd go to one person ....Tiger Woods .... as good a putter as golf has ever seen.

    I don't know that Tiger is in the top ten PGA Tour putters of all time.

    Tiger averaged 14.4th in the Putts Gained stat for nine years.

    Yeah, nine… that's without counting the year he averaged 91st. Average that in and it's 22.1st.

    So he's not even averaging in the top ten on the PGA Tour for the ten-year period, let alone top ten ever on the PGA Tour.


  4. 42 minutes ago, parman said:

    I am sure Dustin Johnson has talked about his practice more than once. I'm so sorry I was not aware you know everything and could never be wrong. Typical golf forum trash talk from the clueless. 

    Typical comment from you.

    Nobody said it was the only article in which Dustin commented on his putting. I asked you where you saw this, and rather than find it, and actually back up something you've said for once, you come back with a crap attitude.

    Furthermore, I'm not clueless. I've watched Dustin Johnson practice, and I've talked with Dustin Johnson about his practice.

    The things you allege are actually true of you: you drop in, make a brief comment without any fact to back it up, then get pissy when your information is questioned.


  5. 2 hours ago, parman said:

    I cannot see anything wrong with putting your right finger down the shaft IF you realize you are putting your wrist back into the stroke. (I do not do this) I think putting is very individual and don't feel there is too many right or wrong things you can do if you are sinking putts. If someone is putting way better than you are you going to tell them are doing it all wrong?

    I didn’t.


  6. 1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

    I'd like to keep track of my dad's strokes gained putting sometime. He's been using that style of grip for as long as I've seen him play golf. I always thought putting was a better part of his game. I never really saw him have what you'd call horrible distance control. 

    As you know a few exceptions doesn't prove or disprove anything. They're just… exceptions.


  7. On 5/31/2018 at 9:56 AM, Headcoach said:

    I was a club fitter at Dicks Sporting Goods for a little over a year before returning to coaching.  This is one of the ways I used to fit customers for lie angle. Ball flight is the second best.  I used a wider chisel tip sharpie.  Sometimes I would also use a line drawing aide that you put the ball into to ensure that the line was straight.  Lie boards are unreliable for the simple fact that the club head will skip or skid and straighten out at impact.  On grass is definitely better.  You also have to remember that golf clubs are longer now than they were 20 years ago, primarily to "prevent" slicing ( I believe the theory was that since most people slice, if a club is slightly longer, thus more upright, the heel contacts first and "closes" the club face). 

    A longer club plays flatter, and thus the face points slightly to the left, just like it does when the ball is above your feet a little bit.

    The heel shouldn't be hitting the ground until after the ball is struck.


  8. 5 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    This is what I appreciate. I may not agree with much else, but this right here is what I want to hear. I’d prefer you show me some data to back it up, but at the end of the day, if I’m hitting it better- I’ll buy what you’re selling. I’m an analytical guy so I like the ins and outs of it.

    If you're that type of person, I probably have both.

    5 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    One question and I’ll kindly bow out. What was funny about #4? Wouldn’t you be willing to give the student some sort of way to remember what you worked on? Like you said, feels and things can change. Also I’m busy, so  I would like a reference point to go back and look at or listen to. I may not remember everything we did or how it felt. That could be why I fluctuate from a freaking 7.5-10 all the time. 

    The hilarious part of #4 was "at full speed."


  9. 55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    I don’t think you’re understanding a thing I’m saying or you’re choosing not to. Maybe you’re one of the dinosaurs you speak of.

    Really? That's your tactic?

    The dinosaurs are the ones with bad information. Not "without tech."

    55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    But you’re missing the vital point to my argument: tech validates teaching.

    It can. It doesn't always. Particularly during a lesson, when the player may not be swinging at speed. Furthermore, time spent futzing with tech can take away from time spent learning or diving deeper into the topic, and it can distract, too, as @nevets88 hinted at.

    You know what "validates" my teaching? That my students get better. That they see the changes they seek. That they are happy with their lesson. That they understand how to practice what we've worked on.

    55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    I want tech for my own sake as a student so I can see for myself what numbers I’m producing. This tells me that what I’m working on is actually helping me and you’re not just spouting off crap. I have seen too many range pros with their students telling all kinds of BS to their students with nothing to validate what they’re saying.

    You don't seem to be capable of detaching "tech" from "BS."

    You can have a ton of tech and still be full of BS. I watched a guy teach a lesson trying to get a guy to stop swinging out so much… had a Trackman going the whole time. Not only did he royally screw up the cause of the pattern, but he misinterpreted some of the Trackman numbers during the lesson.

    What I say during a lesson makes sense, and my students see results. They trust that I'm not "spouting off crap" and that I know what I'm talking about because I'm a smart dude.

    55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    If you’re not using some tech I think you’re missing out.

    I've never said that I don't use tech. I own a ton of tech. I use it often to research things, or to test things. I don't use it the majority of the time during a lesson.

    Tech is a tool. As with any tool, it's up to the instructor to best utilize the tools at his disposal. Which tools he uses depends on the person, the situation, etc.

    A carpenter has a ton of tools. Just because he's got a nail gun, though, doesn't mean he's got to use it on every job.

    55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    You mention little drills and partial shots, that comes after you’ve measured their baseline to see where they are.

    So a guy comes to me. He sways back, doesn't turn well, leaves his weight back, and flips, resulting in chunks and thins.

    You're suggesting that I should hook the guy up to a K-Vest or GEARS, a BodiTrak or SwingCatalyst, and a FlightScope or Trackman, in addition to getting video?

    Awesome! And by the time I've gotten him hooked up and looked at all of his data from two or three swings… his time's up and the lesson is over. And… here's the kicker… that was all unnecessary.

    The student can see validated results when he starts hitting it better later that lesson while doing some drills or changing his mechanics via the feels we try out with him. And a week later when he shoots his best score ever. And as he continues to improve, by the increasing quality of his shots.

    And he can take that stuff with him. He doesn't have his own GEARS/Trackman/SwingCatalyst.

    55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    I get that. Tech is really useful in seeing the change. I envision a lesson kinda like 

    1. Arrival, hit with tech to see what’s going on and discuss the issues the student is having. Explain the game plan and how to fix the issue  similar to how a surgeon explains a complex surgery to patients in simple terms

    2 work on the problems with tech and try a feel. Measure it. 

    3. If needed, prescribe drills, slowmotion swings, etc. periodically check the new thing in full speed to see if the student can achieve it. 

    4. See the final progress at full speed. Go over the key points and what the student needs to work on. Create a voice memo at the end of the lesson or let the student record the entire lesson from the start to take home.

    Step 4 is funny. 🤪 And no, I odn't agree with that.

    55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    No I’m not. He spoke of good and bad teaching.

    No, and maybe this is where you go wrong. I spoke of those who fail to teach well because they're stuck in the past, with old understandings and outdated information.

    I didn't say they had to use tech in every lesson. Hell, the only tech I mentioned in the post was that if you can't even validate your theory by looking at what pros are doing on YouTube swing videos, you may be a dinosaur (or a new theory).

    55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    I think great teachers are happy with using tech to validate their work is all.

    You don't (always) need tech to "validate" your work. Rarely, in fact.

    55 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    They don’t have to go into all the details if they think the students head will blow off, but some students like the details and it helps to ensure they’re working on the correct things. I don’t think you really understand anything I’ve said. I’m just pushing for accountability on the teachers part. Use tech and give me my proof of purchase. 

    Some do. Most don't want the details, and sometimes those who want them are better off not knowing them. Sometimes, as an instructor, you've gotta tell a student "let's just focus on this one thing here…". For their benefit.

    Tech is't your "proof of purchase." Improvement is. If I can improve a student the most using chewing gum and three broken tees, using the correct, valid information that I've accumulated by various means, I've done my job. Not only that, but I've done my job well.

    45 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    I guess I’m different. I’m the guy who wants to know what he mechanic does to my car, what the dentist is doing, what the doctor is doing, etc. I’m paying you for a job so I have the right to ask questions and pester you for giving me a service. I’m not telliff you how to do your job, but I want to know what you’re doing.

    Yes, you are.

    45 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    If you can’t handle that, I’ll find someone else that can do a good job and give a rationale for it.

    Tech isn't always (or even often) needed for either of the bolded words!

    45 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    All good professionals use tech to explain/give rationale and use simple terms for their clients.

    False.


    All I'm saying:

    • You've grossly misread the OP. Dinosaurs are not "instructors who don't use tech in nearly every lesson." A dinosaur is an instructor who refuses to grow, advance, gain new insights and understanding, and question his method of teaching in search of constant refinement and improvement of his craft. Tech can help with that, but ultimately…
    • … tech are tools. Good instructors know what tools to use and when.
    • Students vary. Sometimes the same lesson will work best without tech for one student and with a piece of tech for another student.
    • Tech has downsides, too, which you're failing to acknowledge. It takes time. It can distract. It can clutter/confuse.

    Again, the OP isn't about tech at all. So, I ask you kindly, please stop. Cool, you won't be coming to me for a lesson. I can live with that, because I'm pretty damn comfortable with the lessons I give, my use of tech, my ownership of tech, etc.

    Today I gave two putting lessons. One used a SAM PuttLab. The other used a string and a felt board. Both were great lessons. The SAM PuttLab lesson was not "better" because it used technology.


  10. 16 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    You’re cherry picking. The assumption would be a “standard” lesson and you know it. Cmon man lol. 

    No, in the majority of my lessons, I don't use "all the tech I have to offer" (paraphrased). In a lot of short game lessons I don't even use my camera. Sometimes I just use a training aid.

    16 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    Fair points on everything else. For the record, I never advocated every single lesson. If you have a longstanding relationship with your coach and both of you know your flaws, you may spend time on video, training aids, developing feels, and the like.

    You keep adding these qualifications.

    I don't bust out all of the tech on the first lesson. Again, one of the bigger reasons is when that the student leaves, he ain't taking that tech with him.

    16 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    I’m simply saying those things should be a part of a lesson if nothing else to show the student concrete results by way of the numbers and shots they can see on the tech and the ballflight.

    That's often not at all possible. Again, they may be hitting shots at 30% speed, or doing a drill, or exaggerating. So the tech isn't going to show them anything that they're accurately doing, yet that's still the way they should improve.

    Plus, again, the shaft going from \ to / is "concrete results."

    16 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    That’s not stupid, that’s smart and keeps the student engaged.

    I said your statement was stupid. It is, IMO. The student is coming to me because of my expertise, not because of my tech. If I choose not to use tech in a lesson, that's an expression of my expertise.

    And… you don't know how well my students are engaged.

    16 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    I’m saying you have to dispense all the knowledge to the player if you feel they can’t handle it. Some guys like all the details and some just want to hit better golf shots.

    I don't know what this means. Ultimately everyone coming to me for lessons wants to hit better shots, and it's up to me to determine how best to help them do that. More often than not that means less tech, not more.

    Tech is valuable, but it's a tool, and you have to know how and when to use it.

    16 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    Is only a 2d representation of a 3d motion. Not the best evidence.

    Plenty great.

    16 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

    Can be useful for looking at shaft lean, steady head, and few things. I’m not arguing against it. I’m just voting for a holistic approach to instruction. 

    No, you're arguing for "bust out all your toys all the time."

    Here's another thing: you can use the toys and use them to the detriment of a student, too.


  11. 7 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    Instructors should use launch monitors, pressure plates, cameras, and all the tech we have to learn more themselves. Too many coaches use old-worn out feelings and phrases that may/may not work for their students. Using tech that can measure what the student is doing builds validity and trust between the coach and their students.

    I don't disagree with anything there, but…

    5 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    I don't think you're getting a "real" lesson if tech isn't used.

    That's completely invalid. Not for nothing, but it completely rules out, for example, a playing lesson, where you talk about strategy. It rules out mind work, or work on your pre-shot routine, or planning, or a session dealing with how to practice. Tournament prep. Etc.

    5 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    Just watching 2D video and looking at positions isn't ideal for golf.

    I was one of the first to own a SwingCatalyst. We have the latest FlightScopes for years. Etc. We love our toys.

    But you absolutely do not need - and often it can be counterproductive - to attempt to use too many tools for any given lesson.

    Video is great.

    5 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    The golf swing is a motion.

    Yes, hence… video. Not polaroids.

    5 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    The old guys who just look at video aren't getting the whole picture. I think a real lesson is one where it utilizes all the technologies we have available.

    I don't agree.

    5 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    Only then can you accurately measure what's going on in the motion and have reliable data to show your student.

    You don't need the umpteenth level of accuracy the vast majority of the time.

    If the video shows a student flipping and not getting his weight forward, it'll also show improvements in that area. Also, the student doesn't often get to take "all the technologies available" home with them, so how are they to practice effectively on their own, if they're relying on a machine to tell them whether they've improved or not?

    Most students have a high-speed camera, and if they know what they're looking for, can practice on their own quite smoothly.

    3 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    To convey it, sure.  But to measure it- no.  Feel and real are different most of the time.  You're guessing in my opinion.  Maybe you have video evidence for some of it, but it's hard to quantify that to a student without evidence.

    You said it right there - the video is the evidence.

    In one video the shaft at impact looks like \, and in the next it looks like /. There you go - you got better.

    3 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    If I'm paying you for lessons, I want every penny worth of it and I want measurable proof of what I'm working on and why.

    I might give you the best lesson you've ever gotten with a rubber band being the most advanced tech I break out that day. You're making far too sweeping a generalization without much of an understanding, IMO.

    Furthermore, if you're working on something, you're often - at first especially - doing it at slower speeds, because that's how you learn. So what "proof" do you really get? It's not like you're making full-speed swings immediately and comparing the results to those from before.

    3 hours ago, ncates00 said:

    I disagree.  In today's world and tech, you should have it.  If nothing else it's a receipt for your student- that is, your rationale for why the student should use their hard earned money on your expertise.

    That's stupid.

    I have the tech. I don't use it in most of the lessons. Most of them involve the camera.

    And trust me, I like my tech. Hell, I'm a software developer with degrees in computer science and chemistry (and French). I know and like my tech. I'm a geek.

    You're actually doing a disservice to students to "bust out all the tech" all the time.


  12. 2 minutes ago, billchao said:

    The problem is with instructors who refuse to accept new information. Even though we know how ballflight works, they still teach it the old (wrong) way. Those are the dinosaurs. As the world changes around them, they refuse to change with it. I absolutely blame them for that.

    Right.

    I know plenty of older instructors who continue to adapt and grow.

    Those guys are not the dinosaurs.


  13. 17 minutes ago, Patch said:

    There may not be that big of change in golf instruction from the dinosaurs' perspective. The real dinosours did die off completely. Today's golf dinosours are being replaced with younger dinosours' teachings.

    I disagree.

    There's a limit to how much we can know. To how finite information is while still being "helpful." We have the science to measure just about everything we could want to measure right now. We've reached a saturation point, basically.

    The older dinosaurs didn't know a lot of what they were talking about. They thought weight transferred back in the backswing, or that the path primarily influenced the start direction, or other types of things we now know to be false to a rather detailed level.


  14. 1 hour ago, TallSouthern said:

    Not to threadjack (my favorite cheese) but is the difference between sweeping and picking the weight shift?  Nicklaus said he played every shot off his left instep and had a vertical swing.  This works well off mats and low grass, but when you hit off a good bit of grass especially with a fairway wood shouldn't you play the ball back and hit more level? I feel like hitting off of mats and crappy golf course semihardpan ruins the release.

    The longer the club, the more forward it's usually played in the stance.

    You seem to have a good number of questions… Post some of them in this forum: https://thesandtrap.com/forums/forum/12-instruction-and-playing-tips/.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...