Back to target

[Bigwill]

Hope this doesn't turn into an argument of semantics. Whatever you want to call it, a golfer has to translate the results of all these scientific findings into feels/intent/sensations/movements/whatever that produce the proper movements. To ignore that is to ignore the fact that there are human beings making swings, not machines that can be programmed with a series of commands in order to create the desired movements.

Some players, in order to produce a powerful, athletic, properly sequenced swing that produces a desirable ball flight, have to feel like they're doing something that is the opposite of what is athletically accurate, even if it isn't what is actually going on.

 

[Tony D'Antonio]

SteveT, as a tele-marketer once asked me (in a lovely Indian accent) after I 'played around' with him for 10 minutes or so, "Are you having fun with me, sir?". Are you having fun with us, Steve? As far as I can tell you've offered no practical way to actually play golf. I am self taught (ie. I have thought about feels of feels for years) and can break 80 on all sorts of courses. Every day I go practice I end up having a different thought, a different feeling that allows me to hit the ball better. I'm really ready to take this to the next level and see how my feelings translate to TrackMan numbers. But the bottomline is that when I play golf all I have are my habits and my feelings. What do you have when you play golf? I can't tell. Until they let us setup a TrackMan on the course while we play I think you better start figuring out what habits and feelings allow you to play better golf. Then I'll bet you break 80 too.
BTW, love all the stuff about back to the target on the downswing and especially the starting the hands down and out on the downswing. That last one has really allowed me to hit longer, higher iron shots. Don't yet have it engrained enough to do it on the course but it's getting there.

 

[ZAP]

@ pokerlife & Eyeoffish ...... 'Feel' is unscientific in the world of Newtonian physics. Physiologically, 'feel' is a delayed feedback' but you need a feedforward guess to execute a proper golfswing.

So how do you do it? Do you take your best guess and and wait for the feedback feel and hope the results are okay?

How do you build a new golfswing action after a good lesson with Brian or whoever?

Well I usually video my lessons with Brian and anyone else for that matter. This give me an opportunity to remember what we were trying to accomplish in terms of changing my swing to change my ball flight. In the last two years I have gone from playing a pretty big hook to hitting a fairly straight ball most of the time. Those were huge changes in the "feel" of my swing to me. I basically only had to make changes to my intent until the changes showed up as correct numbers or flight or both.

For example during my first lesson with Brian he asked me to hit a fade. What I thought was my fade swing was actually stilt 4 degrees inside out and nearly eight degrees down. I held the clubface open and basically hit a push which I called my fade.(sort of embarrassing to me now thinking about it) As a lefty I had to swing so far right to put up any cut numbers that it "felt" like I was going to hit myself in the right leg on the way through. For others the "feel" will be totally different which is why Brian and members of his team are sooooooo good at what they do.

Without arguing semantics I think that the way you swing "feels" and what your intentions are sometimes are not the same thing. Which is why we need good teachers and devices like Trackman to help us realize what we really are doing. Back to the target feel might not be good for some and I would imagine it can be overdone. For me now though (as I am training this no tug "feel") it is a positive.

 

[SteveT]

Very interesting 6 responses to my "feel" versus reality comments. They are all very good insights into the minds of golfers struggling to develop their homemade swings. I respect your feelings about your golfswings, and I was hoping that "art" would reappear and enlighten us on human perception and motor control.

And, yes, our Brian is confronting "feel" with "science" and trying to create a teaching system that will satisfy both. It's still a "work in progress" because the shakeout will happen when all of Brian's efforts are fully tested out in real life. I really wish him and his associates success.... and I will enjoy watching, watching, watching .....

 

[OLIVER1]

Very interesting 6 responses to my "feel" versus reality comments.

They are mutually exclusive?
If someone walked up behind you and prodded you in the back with a sharp stick as opposed to someone walking up behind you and tickling you in the same spot with a feather, I'm guessing you wouldn't need reams of scientific calculations to figure out which is which...

 

[SteveT]

But O1, "reality" is instantaneously real and can be backed up with scientific certainty... whereas "feel" is an assumed delayed sensation that has no other proof than an individual's suspicions. Didn't this happen to Hogan in his 5 Lessons where he was advocating one thing and doing another? If it could happen to him .. just think ....

Of course there is the winning argument where one hits a great shot after assuming one is making physical changes to one's swing ... and then one tries to find the "feel" that gave them the great result. Do you see the flaw in that homemade anecdotal reasoning?

I was hoping that "art" would reappear and enlighten us on human perception and motor control, as he seemed to intimate that he could do. Now wouldn't it be great if "art" and "mandrin" could get together and present us with a complete golfswing scientific theory... the club, the arms, the body and the mind?

 

[OLIVER1]

But O1, "reality" is instantaneously real and can be backed up with scientific certainty... whereas "feel" is an assumed delayed sensation that has no other proof than an individual's suspicions. Didn't this happen to Hogan in his 5 Lessons where he was advocating one thing and doing another? If it could happen to him .. just think ....

Of course there is the winning argument where one hits a great shot after assuming one is making physical changes to one's swing ... and then one tries to find the "feel" that gave them the great result. Do you see the flaw in that homemade anecdotal reasoning?

I was hoping that "art" would reappear and enlighten us on human perception and motor control, as he seemed to intimate that he could do. Now wouldn't it be great if "art" and "mandrin" could get together and present us with a complete golfswing scientific theory... the club, the arms, the body and the mind?

I feel we're going round and round in circles here Steve. Never mind. A pleasure, as always...

 

[SteveT]

I feel we're going round and round in circles here Steve. Never mind. A pleasure, as always...

More like a downward vortex...

 

[Lindsey Newman]

Very interesting 6 responses to my "feel" versus reality comments. They are all very good insights into the minds of golfers struggling to develop their homemade swings

Every golfswing is "homemade" just like a cookie. You follow a recipe and come up with something that either tastes good or does not.

 

[ZAP]

Struggling? Homemade swing? According to your report of your scores I would hope you are typing with a mirror in front of you.
Or just maybe it is you who is stuck in your beliefs and refusing to change. As for myself all I can say is I am a better player now than I was two years ago. Call it whatever you wish.

 

[Tony D'Antonio]

How did any pro play great golf prior to TrackMan or high speed video or FlightScope? So what if Hogan felt one thing and was doing another? If he could reproduce the feeling and the result he was golden, and he was. I still don't understand what you are getting at SteveT? It's great to know 'scientifically' what is going on in a great golf swing but I still need to translate that into what it feels like to me when I swing at a ball on a golf course.

 

[SteveT]

Every golfswing is "homemade" just like a cookie. You follow a recipe and come up with something that either tastes good or does not.

The only problem is that you are the only one who can 'taste' that 'cookie'.... whereas recipes tend to be scientific, and we really don't know if you properly followed the recipe instructions. We can only take your word for it ....

 

[ReefBoy]

But O1, "reality" is instantaneously real and can be backed up with scientific certainty... whereas "feel" is an assumed delayed sensation that has no other proof than an individual's suspicions. Didn't this happen to Hogan in his 5 Lessons where he was advocating one thing and doing another? If it could happen to him .. just think ....

Of course there is the winning argument where one hits a great shot after assuming one is making physical changes to one's swing ... and then one tries to find the "feel" that gave them the great result. Do you see the flaw in that homemade anecdotal reasoning?

SteveT, your problem is your lack of understanding of the physiology of the human body. While you try to intellectualize the golf swing with scientific research and fact you move further from the reality of the problem. The only way to integrate these ideas into a persons golf swing is using proprioception. And what is proprioception you ask........? It is a feeling.

If you want to be argumentative may I suggest you crack open a university level anatomy and physiology book and read the chapters on the nervous system first. Then you may have a real understanding for discussion of the topic, based on motion analysis and human perception. This is after all what skill teaching is all about.

Christopher

 

[Brian Manzella]

Chris,

Great Post.

When you teach, ALL YOU HAVE IS SUGGESTIONS. THAT'S IT.



Now hopefully, they aren't bullshit suggestions, but sometimes, they work too.

 

[birly-shirly]

The only problem is that you are the only one who can 'taste' that 'cookie'.... whereas recipes tend to be scientific, and we really don't know if you properly followed the recipe instructions. We can only take your word for it ....

Steve - (based on the part of your post that I bolded) you don't really know how to cook either, do you?

 

[SteveT]

SteveT, your problem is your lack of understanding of the physiology of the human body. While you try to intellectualize the golf swing with scientific research and fact you move further from the reality of the problem. The only way to integrate these ideas into a persons golf swing is using proprioception. And what is proprioception you ask........? It is a feeling.

If you want to be argumentative may I suggest you crack open a university level anatomy and physiology book and read the chapters on the nervous system first. Then you may have a real understanding for discussion of the topic, based on motion analysis and human perception. This is after all what skill teaching is all about.

Christopher

Well, Chris... can you prove I have "a lack of understanding of the human body".. or are you just trying to justify what you are saying next with your bullshit preamble? As for your suggestion that I "crack open a university level anatomy and phsiology book", perhaps you could first apprise us with your own qualifications before you attack me with your specious comments.

All I have said is that high speed and low speed human motion uses different neuro-muscular pathways, and on that basis, I question the "drill". Can you contradict that statement based on your supposed knowledge of human perception and motor control?

BTW... "proprioception" is much more than "feel" which is only a feedback sensation. Perhaps you can inform us how "proprioception" is "integrated" into the golfswing. I have my doubts about you ....

 

[SteveT]

Steve - (based on the part of your post that I bolded) you don't really know how to cook either, do you?

Simple... Ask not what your ball does, ask what you can do to your ball... that is if you can ask the right questions/cookies.

 

[ekennedy]

SteveT-remember, this is a golf site. You are not a teacher or a player. You can neither outplay or out-teach anyone on this forum.

The next time you hit "Post Quick Reply", keep that in mind.

 

[mgranato]

Why must there always be one?

 

[SteveT]

SteveT-remember, this is a golf site. You are not a teacher or a player. You can neither outplay or out-teach anyone on this forum.

The next time you hit "Post Quick Reply", keep that in mind.

This is a scientific golf site now. Get with the program and stop sinking into your 'feel' mosh pit. As for my ability to outplay anyone on this forum, you can't be certain of that, and your chest beating bravado is your feeelings talking.