Learning Feel from Mechanics

[holeout]

For those unfamiliar, this concept is one that is commonly espoused by followers of TGM. However it seems like Brian, and everyone else on this site, has abandoned it. And with good reason.

To me, this concept is just an excuse for a teacher to be overly-technical with a student and not really "teach" them to hit better shots. It's also an excuse to fill the student's head with information they may not (and probably don't) need, all for the sake of their "understanding" of how to properly hit a golf shot.

What gets overlooked by this concept is that 95% of students want to learn to hit better shots and not how to hit better shots. Sadly, many instructors don't understand the difference.

This is an old TGM concept that never has, and still doesn't, make any sense to me. I call baloney. Do you?

 

[Zztop]

For those unfamiliar, this concept is one that is commonly espoused by followers of TGM. However it seems like Brian, and everyone else on this site, has abandoned it. And with good reason.

To me, this concept is just an excuse for a teacher to be overly-technical with a student and not really "teach" them how to hit better shots. It's also an excuse to fill the student's head with information they may not (and probably don't) need, all for the sake of their "understanding" of how to properly hit a golf shot.

What gets overlooked by this concept is that 95% of students want to learn to hit better shots and not how to hit better shots. Sadly, many instructors don't understand the difference.

This is an old TGM concept that never has, and still doesn't, make any sense to me. I call baloney. Do you?

I know you didn't mean to contradict yourself ,but i think you did, if you read your post again you will see in the first sentence you say it's an excuse to be overly technical and not really teach them how to hit better shots. The second paragraph says 95% don't want to know how, just to hit better shots, how is that possible?

I agree with what i think your trying to say.

 

[holeout]

I know you didn't mean to contradict yourself ,but i think you did, if you read your post again you will see in the first sentence you say it's an excuse to be overly technical and not really teach them how to hit better shots. The second paragraph says 95% don't want to know how, just to hit better shots, how is that possible?

I agree with what i think your trying to say.

Noted and corrected!

My point, really, is that students want to be taught to play golf, not simply how it is done.

 

[JonWil]

I do not see a contradiction in the claim: Subscribing to the philosophy that ‘feel is learned from mechanics’ excuses TGM based teachers to be overly technical with students – A process orientation – And 95% of students desire a more individualized approach – A results orientation.

 

[mgranato]

I don't know the history of TGM or what the 'followers of TGM' have to say, but based on the premise of your post, I would disagree. Based on the two sports I know best, basketball and golf, the best players I've played with/against (NBA to PGA) have been excellent technicians. I'm not sure where that ends and where 'overly technical' begins, but it's been my experience that the better I can master a technique the better I can play with feel. The first example that comes to mind is Faldo. Incredibly meticulous about his technique, but has always considered himself a feel player.

 

[Zztop]

I do not see a contradiction in the claim: Subscribing to the philosophy that ‘feel is learned from mechanics’ excuses TGM based teachers to be overly technical with students – A process orientation – And 95% of students desire a more individualized approach – A results orientation.

Holeout knows what i meant. and i said i agree with him!

 

[ej20]

Here is one example.

Getting a student to trace a straight plane line with a laser so he can "feel" what it's like to have proper imperative mechanics. LOL

I think some (not all) TGM instructors use TGM as a crutch for their teaching because they were hopeless to begin with.It gives them a system they otherwise lack that is supposedly "science" based for added credibilty.

 

[ej20]

I don't know the history of TGM or what the 'followers of TGM' have to say, but based on the premise of your post, I would disagree. Based on the two sports I know best, basketball and golf, the best players I've played with/against (NBA to PGA) have been excellent technicians. I'm not sure where that ends and where 'overly technical' begins, but it's been my experience that the better I can master a technique the better I can play with feel. The first example that comes to mind is Faldo. Incredibly meticulous about his technique, but has always considered himself a feel player.

"Technique and mechanics" mean different things to different people.It's a meaning less concept.

Faldo worked on the premise that halfway into his backswing the clubshaft pointed well inside the plane line.To him that was proper mechanics and technique.To TGMers that is offplane and he should be a hacker.

 

[holeout]

I don't know the history of TGM or what the 'followers of TGM' have to say, but based on the premise of your post, I would disagree. Based on the two sports I know best, basketball and golf, the best players I've played with/against (NBA to PGA) have been excellent technicians. I'm not sure where that ends and where 'overly technical' begins, but it's been my experience that the better I can master a technique the better I can play with feel. The first example that comes to mind is Faldo. Incredibly meticulous about his technique, but has always considered himself a feel player.

The best players in the world are very very in tune with what THEY do to play well. They understand their own swings very well and most can articulate what they do when they play well, and when they don't.

This doesn't mean that they understand mechanics on the level that, say, Brian or Mathew do.

Problem is that some instructors think that not only should these players understand the mechanics, but that they must.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I could not disagree with you more. Furthermore, I don't think Brian has completely abandoned the concept either. Not saying he uses it often, but I wouldn't say he abandoned it. I think he uses it when he deems it is necessary depending on the student. I feel that Brian's critiques of TGM are mostly based on the physics side of the book.

When I finally grasped learning feel from mechanics, my game took off, my scores noticeably lowered , I was far more consistent, and when I ran into some problems I could solve them rather quickly using the 'feel from mechanics' concept. The problem is that it's a difficult concept to grasp and it's a difficult concept to explain. I was lucky enough to grasp it by accident. In fact, I never understood it until about this April and that was being one of the best jr./high school players in the state of NY and playing golf on a scholarship for a D-I school. I also worked with a TGM GSED back about 10 years ago and still had no idea what this 'learning feel from mechanics' concept was all about.

In my experience, most TGM AI's are not technical with students and teach in very basic, simple terms unless the student asks for more technical teaching. And what most people do not understand is that there's nothing wrong with that. Just as there's no one way to swing a club, there's also no one way to learn. Being simple may work for some and may not work for others. I've seen it happen quite a bit. Now, agreeing with TGM guys on the physics of the book may be a different story. But I don't recall Brian accuse them of being too technical, just technically flawed or technically incorrect.

Most TGM AI's I've seen usually explain the problem (as they see it) in simple terms and then give the student a drill or two to help with it. I actually think that does not teach 'learning feel from mechanics' as well as it should. And that's why I think it's a bit problematic...I think many (not all) TGM AI's really don't understand the concept that well either.





3JACK

 

[alexlimco]

I could not disagree with you more. Furthermore, I don't think Brian has completely abandoned the concept either. Not saying he uses it often, but I wouldn't say he abandoned it. I think he uses it when he deems it is necessary depending on the student. I feel that Brian's critiques of TGM are mostly based on the physics side of the book.

When I finally grasped learning feel from mechanics, my game took off, my scores noticeably lowered , I was far more consistent, and when I ran into some problems I could solve them rather quickly using the 'feel from mechanics' concept. The problem is that it's a difficult concept to grasp and it's a difficult concept to explain. I was lucky enough to grasp it by accident. In fact, I never understood it until about this April and that was being one of the best jr./high school players in the state of NY and playing golf on a scholarship for a D-I school. I also worked with a TGM GSED back about 10 years ago and still had no idea what this 'learning feel from mechanics' concept was all about.

In my experience, most TGM AI's are not technical with students and teach in very basic, simple terms unless the student asks for more technical teaching. And what most people do not understand is that there's nothing wrong with that. Just as there's no one way to swing a club, there's also no one way to learn. Being simple may work for some and may not work for others. I've seen it happen quite a bit. Now, agreeing with TGM guys on the physics of the book may be a different story. But I don't recall Brian accuse them of being too technical, just technically flawed or technically incorrect.

Most TGM AI's I've seen usually explain the problem (as they see it) in simple terms and then give the student a drill or two to help with it. I actually think that does not teach 'learning feel from mechanics' as well as it should. And that's why I think it's a bit problematic...I think many (not all) TGM AI's really don't understand the concept that well either.

3JACK

Please bear with my input. I have struggled with a lot of teachers who have told me 'WHAT TO DO' to achieve results but mostly I struggle without the knowledge of 'HOW TO DO IT', therefore not getting results that is intended.

Most of the time when my game blows up on the golf course, I know 'WHAT TO DO' but not 'HOW TO DO' to cure my problems. It is in cases like this that 'HOW TO DO' might help. Mostly it is with golfers like me who have played for quite a while that will appreciate information like this but not necessarily in scientific terms.

Hope you get my drift.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Here is one example.

Getting a student to trace a straight plane line with a laser so he can "feel" what it's like to have proper imperative mechanics. LOL

'tracing a straight plane line' is not an imperative in TGM. Straight Plane lines are, but how you go about executing them is up to the student according to TGM.

Of course, one way to get them is with the 'tracing the plane line technique.' Again, from a technical standpoint that's something that leads to a lot of debate. But, we've been using 'the feel isn't real' mantra for years. If it gets the golfer to consistently execute good swings, then that's what any teacher is looking for.

My current swing feel is 'bring pressure after impact.' All I am feeling is that I have a maximum amount of pressure at post-impact. This helps prevent me from one issue I have, a fast startdown. If I can 'delay' that max pressure until post-impact the too fast startdown usually goes away. There's no thoughts of tracing (which is fine if it works) or straight line delivery paths or random sweep releases, etc. Just 'bring pressure after impact.'

The thing is that feels are often subjective and customizable so basically TGM is more along the lines of 'here's the mechanics, how does that feel to you?' instead of the popular golf instruction which will tell you to 'feel like you're doing this and you will have the right mechanics' when they have no idea whether or not that will work for each individual golfer.




3JACK

 

[Richie3Jack]

Please bear with my input. I have struggled with a lot of teachers who have told me 'WHAT TO DO' to achieve results but mostly I struggle without the knowledge of 'HOW TO DO IT', therefore not getting results that is intended.

Most of the time when my game blows up on the golf course, I know 'WHAT TO DO' but not 'HOW TO DO' to cure my problems. It is in cases like this that 'HOW TO DO' might help. Mostly it is with golfers like me who have played for quite a while that will appreciate information like this but not necessarily in scientific terms.

Hope you get my drift.

Absolutely! I've been there myself. I know what it's like.

Here's how I grasped feel from mechanics by accident.

Back in April I had to take a week off from the game after having a small medical procedure. I came back and was hitting the ball terrible. Almost as bad as you could hit it. Went like this on the range for 3 days straight. I knew I was coming over the top, but I just couldn't stop it.

Finally, I had about enough and said to myself 'if you can't stop coming above the plane, let's try and get well under the plane.' I thought about some swings that did this and I came up with Tiger's when he is trying to hit a roundhouse hook around some trees. So I decided to hit a roundhouse hook with a 9-iron. I had a square to the target stance, but I would take the club way inside and then have as much of an in-to-out downswing as I could make. Instantly I started hitting good, crisp shots.

I tried to go back to my old backswing, but with a roundhouse hook downswing and I had ZERO success. Still the same crappy OTT move. I tried it off an on again and couldn't get it. So then I asked myself 'what feels different between the roundhouse hook backswing and the regular backswing? (besides taking it way inside)?' I then noticed that the right elbow felt different and in different positions. From there on I knew that I had to flatten out my backswing and keep that right elbow nearby the body on the backswing.

Here's a pic of my old backswing.

I won't say it was perfect, but it looks pretty decent to me. However, I could not hit a thing with that steep of a backswing. So I monitored the right elbow and instantly the shots made a 180* improvement.

I think what is key for me and most golfers is to figure out what things 'get you in trouble.' For me, the backswing was mechanically fine, but that right elbow getting too far away from my body 'gets me into trouble.' My ballstriking performances lately have soured a tad, still decent but not where they were about 2 weeks ago, and sure enough that right elbow was getting too far away from the body.

Now, for Fred Couples or Jack Nicklaus that's not a problem. But for somebody like Hogan or George Knudson or myself that is something to not stray from. I think if you can find out 'what gets you into trouble' and then develop a feel to 'keep you out of trouble' you will become so much more consistent and better it won't even be funny.




3JACK

 

[alexlimco]

Absolutely! I've been there myself. I know what it's like.

Here's how I grasped feel from mechanics by accident.

Back in April I had to take a week off from the game after having a small medical procedure. I came back and was hitting the ball terrible. Almost as bad as you could hit it. Went like this on the range for 3 days straight. I knew I was coming over the top, but I just couldn't stop it.

Finally, I had about enough and said to myself 'if you can't stop coming above the plane, let's try and get well under the plane.' I thought about some swings that did this and I came up with Tiger's when he is trying to hit a roundhouse hook around some trees. So I decided to hit a roundhouse hook with a 9-iron. I had a square to the target stance, but I would take the club way inside and then have as much of an in-to-out downswing as I could make. Instantly I started hitting good, crisp shots.

I tried to go back to my old backswing, but with a roundhouse hook downswing and I had ZERO success. Still the same crappy OTT move. I tried it off an on again and couldn't get it. So then I asked myself 'what feels different between the roundhouse hook backswing and the regular backswing? (besides taking it way inside)?' I then noticed that the right elbow felt different and in different positions. From there on I knew that I had to flatten out my backswing and keep that right elbow nearby the body on the backswing.

Here's a pic of my old backswing.

I won't say it was perfect, but it looks pretty decent to me. However, I could not hit a thing with that steep of a backswing. So I monitored the right elbow and instantly the shots made a 180* improvement.

I think what is key for me and most golfers is to figure out what things 'get you in trouble.' For me, the backswing was mechanically fine, but that right elbow getting too far away from my body 'gets me into trouble.' My ballstriking performances lately have soured a tad, still decent but not where they were about 2 weeks ago, and sure enough that right elbow was getting too far away from the body.

Now, for Fred Couples or Jack Nicklaus that's not a problem. But for somebody like Hogan or George Knudson or myself that is something to not stray from. I think if you can find out 'what gets you into trouble' and then develop a feel to 'keep you out of trouble' you will become so much more consistent and better it won't even be funny.

3JACK

You are the man. Words taken right out of my coconut. I have spent too many years finding the 'correct' swing instead of what is causing me problems. Last week, I blew a 57 on the first nine with bad tee shots, inconsistent hits etc.

Then while waiting on the 1st tee of the next nine, I just reflected and something came into my mind. My mind told me that I was still swinging to steep in my backswing (remembered an article that I read on another forum) and I adjusted to a more laid back backswing.

Voila, immediately I was able to tee off to hit 6 of 7 fairways and if my short game was better I would play better than the 48 that I got for the nine.

Anyway, was happy to break 50 (at least that's a start) again. I am really starting to enjoy this forum.

Cheers.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

learning a feel from mechanics isn't a bad thing it just depends on how you are teaching the mechanics and if you are telling the student a good "feel." I can't speak for brian but i always try to get all my students to learn at least a little bit of what they are doing wrong and why so that when things start to go wrong they can try and keep the bad shots to a minimum.

 

[ej20]

'tracing a straight plane line' is not an imperative in TGM. Straight Plane lines are, but how you go about executing them is up to the student according to TGM.

Of course, one way to get them is with the 'tracing the plane line technique.' Again, from a technical standpoint that's something that leads to a lot of debate. But, we've been using 'the feel isn't real' mantra for years. If it gets the golfer to consistently execute good swings, then that's what any teacher is looking for.

My current swing feel is 'bring pressure after impact.' All I am feeling is that I have a maximum amount of pressure at post-impact. This helps prevent me from one issue I have, a fast startdown. If I can 'delay' that max pressure until post-impact the too fast startdown usually goes away. There's no thoughts of tracing (which is fine if it works) or straight line delivery paths or random sweep releases, etc. Just 'bring pressure after impact.'

The thing is that feels are often subjective and customizable so basically TGM is more along the lines of 'here's the mechanics, how does that feel to you?' instead of the popular golf instruction which will tell you to 'feel like you're doing this and you will have the right mechanics' when they have no idea whether or not that will work for each individual golfer.




3JACK

I thought there were 3 imperatives according to TGM.A "straight plane line" whatever the heck that means is one of them.Can you explain how to achieve a straight plane line without tracing a straight plane line??Lasers and dowels appear to be very popular items in the tool box of a TGM instructor.

You say it took you 10 years to discover the meaning of the concept.I don't think the average student is going to be that patient.

If the concept works then it should work faster.

Perhaps it took you 10 years to discover the feel that produced your proper mechanics.

 

[vjsinger]

learning a feel from mechanics isn't a bad thing it just depends on how you are teaching the mechanics and if you are telling the student a good "feel." I can't speak for brian but i always try to get all my students to learn at least a little bit of what they are doing wrong and why so that when things start to go wrong they can try and keep the bad shots to a minimum.

This thread is hilarious I think you shouldn't get a student to know a little bit about what they are doing wrong..they better know ALOT, and why its going wrong, the principles of how and why it goes right when it does and so, on....The real art in teaching is explaining it to all types of people so they can understand. No matter how they think about different things, Whether they are a "feel player", or a "technical player". To me, the ultimate goal of being a teacher of anything,is to be able to have students( the interested ones) that understand their craft so deeply that ultimately and eventually the student becomes the teacher. Basically I agree with you Jim, but I think students need a pretty deep understanding of their craft, if they're interested, so they don't have to keep calling you everytime they hit a bad shot, or they play a bad round. Once again you and 3Jack are spot on.

 

[ej20]

Heres the problem with the concept.Who determines what is the correct mechanics.

TGM?

Faldo?

Harmon?

Haney?

 

[Zztop]

This thread is hilarious I think you shouldn't get a student to know a little bit about what they are doing wrong..they better know ALOT, and why its going wrong, the principles of how and why it goes right when it does and so, on....The real art in teaching is explaining it to all types of people so they can understand. No matter how they think about different things, Whether they are a "feel player", or a "technical player". To me, the ultimate goal of being a teacher of anything,is to be able to have students( the interested ones) that understand their craft so deeply that ultimately and eventually the student becomes the teacher. Basically I agree with you Jim, but I think students need a pretty deep understanding of their craft, if they're interested, so they don't have to keep calling you everytime they hit a bad shot, or they play a bad round. Once again you and 3Jack are spot on.

Well, there's telling people how to do something, there's showing people how to do something, there's even getting people to understand how your supposed to do it, but in the end even if your the best teacher some students succeed, some fail, and some are average.

Not every student can become a teacher, but every teacher should be a student. Not everyone can be great, but everyone can aspire to be great.

 

[rprevost]

I cannot understand the alternative to learning a feel from mechanics. A feel is a habit that is ingrained from repetitive acts, that is, mechanics. As Jim noted, the issue is what mechanics are you using and what feels are you producing. I also don't understand TGM philosophy to say that if you don't have the three imperatives in your swing that you will necessarily be a hacker; what it does say, as I understand it, is that the further away from the three imperatives a particular golfer gets, the more compensations that golfer must introduce into her swing and the more difficult it will be to produce a repeatable, consistent golf swing. According to TGM principles, a flipper can play good golf; it is just more difficult to do consistently.